Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11975RE: [CreationTalk] "Reflecting" on Distant Starlight

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    Aug 16, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      >> <Chuck>Having a finite but still large amount
      >> of water above
      the heavens leading edge of the
      >> expansion of the universe actually eliminates
      >> any need for an
      accelerating expansion and dark
      >> energy.According to General Relativity with the
      >> Earth near the center
      we would be sufficiently
      >> time
      dilated to produce a small blue-shift in
      >> galaxies that explains Type Ia supernovae data
      >> though it is
      interpreted as an accelerating
      >>
      expansion. 
      >
      > What do you make of the question of the orbital
      > periods of stars far from
      their host galaxy's rotational
      >
      center? I understood John Hartnett to say that
      > General Relativity by itself couldn't account for the
      > excessive speed.
      There has been much made of the
      >
      notion of "Dark Matter" which, it seems, most of
      > secular science is now saying is "known" to exist,
      > and is needed to make the
      observations fit into the
      >
      predictions of General Relativity.
       
      What I said above works with and without Dark Matter so its existence or lack there of has no real effect on this other than the exact mass of water above the heavens. I Know that Humphreys is working on a possible non dark matter solution galaxy rotational rates. I am currently playing around with a non dark matter possibility as well. Both of our approaches would work under General Relativity, Its too early to give any details other than the fact that it is related to the expansion of space.
       
      > In Carmelli's accelerating expansion model (and 
      >again I haven't
      class=994252400-17082014> read his book, I'm trusting what John
      > Hartnett said about it)
      plugging his formula into the
      > mix
      yields a picture in which stellar orbital speed is
      > derived accurately without the need for "Dark Matter."
       
      I have read both Carmelli's book as well as Hartnett's book and related papers. It one problem is that it requires a theory of physics that is not generally accepted. Finding a non dark matter solution that works under General Relativity would make for a better solution.
       
      > By, the way, I think that any time dilation model has to have Earth at
      > or near
      the center of this finite universe.
       
       As far as I know it is irrelevant to Dr, Robert Herrmann's rapid formation model.
       
       
      >I'm missing something with regard to "a small blue-shift in galaxies".
      > I
      thought for the most part everything at galactic distances was
      > red-shifted with the exception of some galaxies associated with large
      >
      clusters. Still, isn't the center of the cluster moving away from us?
       
      Correct except for a few near by Galaxies it is true that everything at galactic distances is red-shifted, the small blue-shift I referred to is a gravitational blue-shift  that only party counteracts the usual red-shift. This  gravitational blue-shift would be a small fraction of the usual red-shift/
       
      > Sorry if I haven't read everything under the sun on this. I'm here to learn
      >
      as much as to speculate.
       
      No need to be sorry, particularly if you're young. Also the small gravitational blue-shift caused by the water above the heavens is my own work and currently under review for publication so you would not have read anything about it yet. 
       
       


      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:38 PM
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [CreationTalk] "Reflecting" on Distant Starlight

       

      Gentlemen,I appreciate the responses. I am just now starting to collect some of Dr. Herrmann's resources. Been poking around in some of Chuck's links as well. I wanted to let everyone know... My first instinct is to check everything in light of God's word (specifically KJB). Some time ago, I was out on the AIG website and found a Power Point presentation in which a Hebrew scholar (I'll have to go back and get his name), said that it is clear even in the ancient manuscripts that the Genesis account of creation is intended to convey to its readers that these things occurred in the six literal days. The KJB and most english versions that I am aware of, do the same. I think there may be some insignificant "wiggle" room on how long the day is. Not nearly enough for the day-agers, though. I'm stubbornly going to reject any cosmology models that don't fit into what God's word plainly says. That being said, I'm not suggesting that anything you gentlemen have posted (that I have seen) concerns me in this regard. I would like to pose some thoughts/questions regarding your recent posts.<Chuck>Having a finite but still large amount of water above the heavens leading edge of the expansion of the universe actually eliminates any need for an accelerating expansion and dark energy.According to General Relativity with the Earth near the center we would be sufficiently time dilated to produce a small blue-shift in galaxies that explains Type Ia supernovae data though it is interpreted as an accelerating expansion. What do you make of the question of the orbital periods of stars far from their host galaxy's rotational center? I understood John Hartnett to say that General Relativity by itself couldn't account for the excessive speed. There has been much made of the notion of "Dark Matter" which, it seems, most of secular science is now saying is "known" to exist, and is needed to make the observations fit into the predictions of General Relativity. In Carmelli's accelerating expansion model (and again I haven't read his book, I'm trusting what John Hartnett said about it) plugging his formula into the mix yields a picture in which stellar orbital speed is derived accurately without the need for "Dark Matter." By, the way, I think that any time dilation model has to have Earth at or near the center of this finite universe.I'm missing something with regard to "a small blue-shift in galaxies". I thought for the most part everything at galactic distances was red-shifted with the exception of some galaxies associated with large clusters. Still, isn't the center of the cluster moving away from us? Sorry if I haven't read everything under the sun on this. I'm here to learn as much as to speculate.<Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.>You also need to consider the Rapid-Formation Model.  This is an application of  the General Grand Unification Model processes and it produces ANY physical universe that may be the correct cosmology. Although these processes are mathematicallypredicted, they are not “physical.” It does this in such a manner that during the sequential development of such a universe until say its condition is about that of 6000-7500 years ago, there is no change whatsoever in the condition of the original Earth and its local environment. That is, during the development until this time the original Earth and its local environment are in a suspended animation form. This yields the Eden cosmology and solves a starlight and time problem as well.  It allows for one to accept the Big Bang cosmology or any of the other secular ones purposed and yet it retains a strict Genesis 1 interpretation. I've downloaded some of your PDF's and ordered your book. My initial observation is that it is hard work, reading your papers. I hope you'll be patient with me as I go through it. I found your Glossary and find myself having to refer to it a lot, but I may have some questions if I can't make sense of something.=   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   =   I have enjoyed using Walt Brown's "In The Beginning" work as a reference tool. He mentions the notion of the speed of light being much faster in the past. I also like Russell Humphreys' gravitational well model. These all seem to be different ways of saying the same thing. That being that during Creation Week, the universe was compressed into a much smaller space and was rapidly expanded (may I say "stretched"?) in such a manner that by Day 6, it would look much like it does today. The blind men were all correct in their own perception of the elephant. Their description was a matter of perspective. I think it's somewhat the same with Hartnett, Humphreys and Brown (and many others that I can't begin to mention).KptnfmrsJob 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. 




      This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


    • Show all 2 messages in this topic