Select to expand quotedecrepit said...Mark _australia said...
Who says space is curved?
Well space is definitely curved by mass in it, that's how gravitational lensing works.
No, light is curved by gravity. All that proves is light has a wave nature, and a particle nature (photons), the same as electrons do.
It does not prove space is curved or can be curved.
Any time anyone says space is curved or can be bent it is theoretical
How can a finite field have no centre? (it has to!)
Think about panda's balloon skin example, that's a finite 2D surface with no centre. If the universe is similarly curved in an extra dimension, it too will have no centre.
Ordinary logic is useless up against the strangeness of the place we live in.
I think it all started when somebody discovered, that no matter how fast you're going in any direction, light all ways arrives at the same speed from any direction. This is just crazy, that's why all the theories that came after, have to have some element of craziness in them to accommodate this fact.
If you stand on a balloon skin that is deflated it is a 2D surface and it has a defined centre.
As soon as you blow up the balloon the skin itself has no centre as it is now a 3d object (sphere).
However the 3D object itself obviously has a centre.
If the universe were similarly curved then what is in the middle of the expanding balloon skin? Nothing? Isn't it just easier to say it is as it appears.... a big 3d space with objects in it. 
Select to expand quoteNotWal said...Mark _australia said...
Main issue I have with all this is the BB thoery was conceived to explain away creation, so then suddenly it has to be expanding after the bang (not necessarily, read up about the measureable slowing down of the speed of light in the last century, which can explain differences in measurements by astronomers), then they postulate gravity waves which have never been seen but it is an accepted fact they must exist and so on.
It is just as easy to believe in creation, which requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more convoluted leaps of faith.
At any rate if there was a ball of infinitely dense matter which exploded ....... where did that area of matter come from?
The BB theory wasn't conceived to explain away creation. It was conceived to explain observed phenomena. The idea of a singularity is a difficulty not a convenience. It is a difficulty because there is an implication that it is beyond explanation. That leaves creation in the realm of mysticism where it always has been and beyond science.
Interesting.
All that is observed can be explained by creation too.
Both camps have theories that are easy to understand and make sense, and likewise both have some theories that are very convoluted.
I still contend that creation requires ONE leap of faith not a whole series of more and more difficult leaps of faith as does modern physics 
Trouble is when "something comes up" that goes against current theories it is usually rubbished or ignored.
EG: how many people who believe in the big bang have been taught the mass was spinning when it exploded, thus leading to the plain observable fact that celestial bodies spin? That has been in the science books for years.
However, "conservation of angular momentum" requires that they would all spin the same way... and they dont.
Some planets have a few moons spinning one way and other moons spnning the other.
That is conveniently ignored.
Hey and also, what "ignited" the bang? The concentrated mass would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from exploding expanding outward unless there was a sudden input of energy to overcome the gravity. Where did that suddenly come from?
The theory I subscribe to, (no scientific basis of course, just feels right to me) is that it's a continuous cycle of bang and crunch. It's not looking so good at the moment, but things change.
We could also just quote Wikipedia: 
The Geometry of Space-Time:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Now if time is curved too... I think the Hindus have this idea that everything just repeats itself, the entire history of the universe, over and over again. All of these theories come from observation, and if you think about it we ourselves are made up of, well, Higgs-Boson particles. Can we not just observe ourselves?
I suppose the difference is that Einstein, Hubble, Newton et al can prove it, mathematically.
Panda the quotes are getting too long so I won't quote
There has been numerous experiments relating to the speed of light in the last 20 yrs or so and have shown it is slowing. Google it, I can't be bothered cutting n pasting links but main research in Oz was by Prof Paul Davies at Maquarie.
I would not blindly follow Einstein here when he said light is constant ........ since then a lot of work has been done.
Here's a good basic summary type article http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733
i could never understand why creationism even stacked up in the first place.
genisis only refers to "earth" and makes i pretty clear they are talking about our earth and neglects to mention the rest of the solar system.
what will once and for all rule out creationism is when life on other planets is discovered.
^Holy mackeral - that means the earth really was created on October 23 4004 BC
That explains why my lights take longer to turn on now than 10years ago and why every year gets quicker and my clothes that fitted me last year don't this year.
speaking of which,
when jesus fished
did he catch holly mackeral
or was it a monk fish?
oh yeah no lockouts needed BTW........ religion is not being discussed here, scientific concepts are.
So phhllgggghhhh to moderators
GreenPat thanks for the mental picture of you taking out an oral piercing just for me 
