What came first?

[juvenissun]

I wasn't commenting on your latest bizarre idea but your condemning a fellow creationist for having his own view on Genesis.

I don't know what you referred to. But I am sure I have never done that.

 

[juvenissun]

Catch me up a little bit here Juve, are you talking about String Theory?

String theory is an overkill. I am only talking about the 5th dimension in which time warps (not one straight line).

In 5th dimension, it is easy to have multiple time scales. Just like you can tilt a plane by different angle and get different length on its projection to another plane.

 

[juvenissun]

What is obvious to me from Genesis 1 is that our understanding is not the same as God's understanding and his measurements are not necessarily the same as ours all the time.

In verse 5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Then in verse 14, 3 'days' later

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years ...

Excellent. Thank you for this reminder.

 

[Assyrian]

I wasn't commenting on your latest bizarre idea but your condemning a fellow creationist for having his own view on Genesis.

I don't know what you referred to. But I am sure I have never done that.

I was talking about this one:

I do not have the energy or inclination to teach you about the Gap Theory. From your comments, I do not believe you are teachable on this subject ... but that's just my opinion.

If you do not deal with the problems (of the Gap theory), you are cheating yourself. This will certainly have consequence to your reward in the Heaven.

 

[juvenissun]

I was talking about this one:

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Originally Posted by Faith.Man
I do not have the energy or inclination to teach you about the Gap Theory. From your comments, I do not believe you are teachable on this subject ... but that's just my opinion.

If you do not deal with the problems (of the Gap theory), you are cheating yourself. This will certainly have consequence to your reward in the Heaven.

It happens that I need some information about the Gap Theory shortly. And Faith.Man said he is a Gap theory advocator. So, I thought may be he can teach me something about it. But he replied that I really don't want to learn.

My interpretation is that he does not know much about the Gap theory. And I replied that if he is for the theory, but is afraid of facing questions about the theory, then he is simply hiding behind the comfortable cocoon. I was not criticizing anything about his stand on creationism.

One thing he said, and I am very curious about is that he thought the formless and void status of the "earth" was not caused by Satan. I simply don't understand it. If not, then why was the earth like that?

Can you say something about it? (I do understand the time, and the fossils stuff of the theory).

 

[Assyrian]

It happens that I need some information about the Gap Theory shortly. And Faith.Man said he is a Gap theory advocator. So, I thought may be he can teach me something about it. But he replied that I really don't want to learn.

My interpretation is that he does not know much about the Gap theory. And I replied that if he is for the theory, but is afraid of facing questions about the theory, then he is simply hiding behind the comfortable cocoon. I was not criticizing anything about his stand on creationism.

One thing he said, and I am very curious about is that he thought the formless and void status of the "earth" was not caused by Satan. I simply don't understand it. If not, then why was the earth like that?

Can you say something about it? (I do understand the time, and the fossils stuff of the theory).

So you didn't mean that threat about "consequence to your reward in the Heaven"?

 

[papakapp]

If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?


If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?

I am a creationist. I was not always a creationist though. the thing that convinced me was this: (well, not actually this. I heard it verbally, and I only grabbed the video that I found just today as I was looking for a source for the same information that I have believed for a while)
Density wave theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
watch the 3 movies. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that movie 1 is reality. A YEC will believe movie 2 and anybody that believes in an old earth must believe in movie 3. The problem is that movie 3 is pure speculation and only exists because it must exist if the universe is old. Logically, movie 2 would be the observation that best fits the data, but you just can't believe that if the universe is old.

Granted, I was probably on the tipping point before I actually "converted" to YEC, but that concept from the 3 movies (not the movie itself) was the thing that demonstrated to me that if you combine science and an old earth paradigm, you have to make some intellectual concessions.

 

[solarwave]

Density wave theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
watch the 3 movies. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that movie 1 is reality. A YEC will believe movie 2 and anybody that believes in an old earth must believe in movie 3. The problem is that movie 3 is pure speculation and only exists because it must exist if the universe is old. Logically, movie 2 would be the observation that best fits the data, but you just can't believe that if the universe is old.

So your saying that because we don't fully understand one thing which is millions of miles away we should throw out all the data that points to an old earth which is much easier to test?

Maybe 2 or 3 make sense, but 3 makes sense with the everything else we know.

 

[papakapp]

So your saying that because we don't fully understand one thing which is millions of miles away we should throw out all the data that points to an old earth which is much easier to test?

Maybe 2 or 3 make sense, but 3 makes sense with the everything else we know.

naw, I'm saying that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. That was the final straw because an old earth individual has no way to test for these density waves. We live in one Milky Way Galaxy Poster "You Are Here" for crying out loud and we still can't find them. (that is, if they existed)

I addition to that, the creationist model would predict that if you were to hypothetically take a bar galaxy and set all the planets and stars in motion at such a rate that they all maintain orbit, you get a spiral galaxy in a [relatively] short period of time. We have bar galaxies and spiral galaxies and we have bar-spiral galaxies. This stuff literally falls out of the creationist model. But the old earth individual simply must postulate that this thing that we cannot observe (density wave) takes different shapes for reasons we cannot understand. That is not science yet. It's not observable yet.

**edit**
and we are not talking about "one thing millions of miles away". We are talking about 100,000,000,000 of the same thing millions of miles away in all directions plus the one that we live inside of.

 

[Assyrian]

So why are there still barred galaxies? They have been around the same length of time as the ones that wound themselves into spiral galaxies.

 

[shernren]

So why are there still barred galaxies? They have been around the same length of time as the ones that wound themselves into spiral galaxies.

to make the music of the spheres, of course!

 

[Assyrian]

to make the music of the spheres, of course!

These are not the Galactic Bar
Musicians you are looking for...

 

[papakapp]

So why are there still barred galaxies? They have been around the same length of time as the ones that wound themselves into spiral galaxies.

personally, I think the planets are not in orbit. I think they are gravitating toward the center and they always have been. So I guess if that is true then we will loose them in 15 million years or so. Also, I am not positive there are any 'pure' barred galaxies. the only pictures I have seen have a little spiral on the perimeter.

It is also interesting to note, When people analyze the pictures from the Hubble telescope, they say they can identify smallish spiral galaxies that have been distorted by the gravity of a larger neighbor. Seems to me that they don't buy the density wave theory because if they did, they could not infer that gravity of neighboring galaxies could cause any disruption.

Also, we would have to redo the maps of the local arm of our galaxy since they display the stars as being unevenly distributed. We would also need a theory as to why we cannot see these very close [comparatively] planetary bodies and stars in our own backyard.

 

[shernren]

personally, I think the planets are not in orbit. I think they are gravitating toward the center and they always have been. So I guess if that is true then we will loose them in 15 million years or so. Also, I am not positive there are any 'pure' barred galaxies. the only pictures I have seen have a little spiral on the perimeter.

It is also interesting to note, When people analyze the pictures from the Hubble telescope, they say they can identify smallish spiral galaxies that have been distorted by the gravity of a larger neighbor. Seems to me that they don't buy the density wave theory because if they did, they could not infer that gravity of neighboring galaxies could cause any disruption.

No, the density waves in a galaxy are caused by gravity. Hence, the gravitational effects of neighbouring galaxies can disrupt the density waves of a nearby galaxy.

It's like when a street magician is performing on the sidewalk. A crowd of, say, fifty people start to gather to watch him. Does that mean that for the length of the performance those fifty people don't move a muscle? No. (Unless the magician is really good.) During the performance some people lose interest and walk away. But other people, who initially weren't watching, are attracted by the crowd and join in. So there are always people entering and leaving the crowd, but the crowd itself stays where it is.

Density waves in galaxies are a similar idea. Because there are more stars inside the density wave than outside, stars outside the density wave will tend to be attracted to the density wave; however, the stars are also orbiting the galactic center, and thus possess an angular motion that tends to sweep them out of the density wave. But ultimately that "density wave" is just a gravitational collection of stars, and it can be easily disrupted by any other anomalous gravitational forces.

Also, we would have to redo the maps of the local arm of our galaxy since they display the stars as being unevenly distributed. We would also need a theory as to why we cannot see these very close [comparatively] planetary bodies and stars in our own backyard.

Please elaborate; I'm not sure what you mean. When you say "maps of the local arm" what are the furthest stars you are referring to? You may be not be understanding the length scales correctly.

 

[papakapp]

No, the density waves in a galaxy are caused by gravity. Hence, the gravitational effects of neighbouring galaxies can disrupt the density waves of a nearby galaxy.

It's like when a street magician is performing on the sidewalk. A crowd of, say, fifty people start to gather to watch him. Does that mean that for the length of the performance those fifty people don't move a muscle? No. (Unless the magician is really good.) During the performance some people lose interest and walk away. But other people, who initially weren't watching, are attracted by the crowd and join in. So there are always people entering and leaving the crowd, but the crowd itself stays where it is.

Density waves in galaxies are a similar idea. Because there are more stars inside the density wave than outside, stars outside the density wave will tend to be attracted to the density wave; however, the stars are also orbiting the galactic center, and thus possess an angular motion that tends to sweep them out of the density wave. But ultimately that "density wave" is just a gravitational collection of stars, and it can be easily disrupted by any other anomalous gravitational forces.

Thank you for explaining that. I was under a completely different impression of what density waves were. I thought the theory said that all matter in any given galaxy is evenly distributed. However, there are undetectable "density waves" that intensify the visibility of the objects in the density wave. This, of course would reduce the credibility of the density wave theory down to the level of credibility of other theories such as aether, phlogiston, and God. That is to say if a person makes an observation that they cannot explain then they simply attribute the cause to something they cannot detect. That is not science as it is not observable or testable. However, I think you have given me a much clearer understanding of what the density wave theory actually says. Now it is observable and detectable (theoretically)

Please elaborate; I'm not sure what you mean. When you say "maps of the local arm" what are the furthest stars you are referring to? You may be not be understanding the length scales correctly.

yeah... about that, just disregard that part. It was based on misinformation.

However, now I have a new batch of questions
1) Does the density wave theory predict that objects slow down as they cross the center of the wave? If so, what force prevents them from falling out of orbit?
2) Does the density wave theory predict that objects speed up as they exit the wave? If so what force accelerates them?
3) it appears to me that the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other. If the gravity that orbiting bodies exert on each other is negligible (the gravity of the moon slowing down the spin of the earth by 1.7 milliseconds per century due to tidal friction, for example) then we would have a rather elegant answer for the cause of the spiral shape. That is, everything is traveling at the speed it is in order to maintain orbit relative 99.999% of the time to the thing it is orbiting. If the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other more than .001% to create a density wave, what prevents them from pulling each other out of orbit? especially if they are capable of pulling the planets of neighboring solar systems out of orbit.

Your street magicians example was a very good one for explaining the position to me. but in my opinion the pedestrians have an ability that the planets do not. That is, they are self propelled.

**edit** wait a minute, if most orbits are elliptical and the spiral shape simply denotes the apogee for all given radii, that might explain it, I will have to think about that though since if that is the case then I can't picture why gravity would have anything to do with it.

 

[shernren]

Thank you for explaining that. I was under a completely different impression of what density waves were. I thought the theory said that all matter in any given galaxy is evenly distributed. However, there are undetectable "density waves" that intensify the visibility of the objects in the density wave. This, of course would reduce the credibility of the density wave theory down to the level of credibility of other theories such as aether, phlogiston, and God. That is to say if a person makes an observation that they cannot explain then they simply attribute the cause to something they cannot detect. That is not science as it is not observable or testable. However, I think you have given me a much clearer understanding of what the density wave theory actually says. Now it is observable and detectable (theoretically)

Well, if that was what density wave theory actually says, I'd reject it too!

Your street magicians example was a very good one for explaining the position to me. but in my opinion the pedestrians have an ability that the planets do not. That is, they are self propelled.

True, but the analogy still holds since pedestrians are attracted to each other just as stars are attracted to each other - it is merely the source of motive power / kinetic energy that differs.

The real point of difference between my analogy and the density wave theory is that the street magician is an external influence. If my analogy truly reflected the density wave theory, then we would have a spontaneous congregation of fifty people, who then attracted more new crowd members while current crowd members got bored ... but I think as a pedagogical device my example works well enough.

However, now I have a new batch of questions
1) Does the density wave theory predict that objects slow down as they cross the center of the wave? If so, what force prevents them from falling out of orbit?
2) Does the density wave theory predict that objects speed up as they exit the wave? If so what force accelerates them?
3) it appears to me that the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other. If the gravity that orbiting bodies exert on each other is negligible (the gravity of the moon slowing down the spin of the earth by 1.7 milliseconds per century due to tidal friction, for example) then we would have a rather elegant answer for the cause of the spiral shape. That is, everything is traveling at the speed it is in order to maintain orbit relative 99.999% of the time to the thing it is orbiting. If the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other more than .001% to create a density wave, what prevents them from pulling each other out of orbit? especially if they are capable of pulling the planets of neighboring solar systems out of orbit.

In regards to Q3, it is in fact Newton's Law of Gravitation / GR itself that predicts that orbiting objects attract each other gravitationally. What the density wave theory predicts is that these interactions work coherently to produce the arms of spiral galaxies.

I can't exactly answer your other questions, since I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can give you a rough idea of the orders of magnitude involved by considering our Sun.

Our Sun orbits the Galactic Center at a distance of about 8 kiloparsecs (kpc); the Galactic Center harbors a supermassive black hole, Sag A*, which is thought to have a mass of about 2 million solar masses (Ms). By comparison, the closest stars to the Sun are the Alpha Centauri system, which has a mass of about 2 Ms at a distance of 1.3 parsecs (pc).

Now Newton's gravitational law (which should suffice - no need for GR) says that the gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the attractor over the distance squared. (The mass of the sun is the same in each case, so it can be eliminated from the equations.) Now 2 million / (8000)^2 is about the same order of magnitude as 2 / 1.3^2 : the gravitational influence of Sag A* at the Galactic Center is comparable to that of Alpha Centauri, our neighbor in our current density wave.

Of course this is a very crude argument: there is more mass towards the Galactic Center than just Sag A*, and there is more mass in our local arm than just Alpha Centauri. But I hope it gives you an accurate picture of the masses involved, and helps you answer your questions.

(As a comparison, the moon's mass is 0.0123 Earths at about 0.0025 AU, while the Sun's mass is 333,000 Earths at 1 AU. Thus the Moon's influence is (in units of Earths/AU^2) 0.0123 / (.0025)^2, which is about 2,000, which is less than 0.1% of the Sun's gravitational influence of 333,000.)

**edit** wait a minute, if most orbits are elliptical and the spiral shape simply denotes the apogee for all given radii, that might explain it, I will have to think about that though since if that is the case then I can't picture why gravity would have anything to do with it.

Well, gravity keeps them in elliptical orbits, and gravity causes the individual elliptical orbits to correlate with each other.

 

[Faith.Man]

It happens that I need some information about the Gap Theory shortly. And Faith.Man said he is a Gap theory advocator. So, I thought may be he can teach me something about it. But he replied that I really don't want to learn.

My interpretation is that he does not know much about the Gap theory. And I replied that if he is for the theory, but is afraid of facing questions about the theory, then he is simply hiding behind the comfortable cocoon. I was not criticizing anything about his stand on creationism.

One thing he said, and I am very curious about is that he thought the formless and void status of the "earth" was not caused by Satan. I simply don't understand it. If not, then why was the earth like that?

Can you say something about it? (I do understand the time, and the fossils stuff of the theory).

Let me clarify something. I have recently been diagnosed with epileptic seizures that I am currently taking medication for. The seizures began a couple of months ago, the medication was started in the last few weeks. The seizures do not affect my cognitive abilities, thank God. My neurologist has just doubled my medicine dosage. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not doubled again. One of the side effects of the medication is that it makes you tired, maybe a little bit sleepy. I take my medication at night so it will minimize the affect on my engineering career. In the thread where I asked for prayer, I stated that my posts may become fewer and shorter. For that reason, I did not want to get involved in another long debate (yours would not be the first) on the Gap Theory.

There is very little useful information on the Internet regarding the Gap Theory (aka Ruin-Reconstruction Theory). Most YEC are threatened by it because they mistakenly relate it with the Theory of Evolution. The two theories are completely unrelated, each standing or falling on their own merits. If you truly want to learn about the Gap Theory (I do not care if you accept it or not), I can start a thread by that name under the Origins Theology section. However, I do not want to waste my time just for your amusement.

 

[papakapp]

Well, gravity keeps them in elliptical orbits, and gravity causes the individual elliptical orbits to correlate with each other.

ok, this is starting to make sense. so the planets on the outer perimeter are moving slower than the planets near the center both because they must move slower as the gravitational attraction to the center of the galaxy is not as strong out there and also they have farther to travel by a factor of pi. However, if all the orbits are elliptical, then they all slow down at their apsides. Therefore even though they have farther to travel, that does not change the configuration of the spiral.

The analogy I am thinking right now is a car race. When you watch 40 cars in a clump, and they get to a sharp turn, the clump gets a little tighter at the turn because everyone has to start slowing down at the same point on the track, but it spreads out again right away because they also can all accelerate at the same point on the track as well.