But what is the truth? Appendix: notes on cosmology

   When I first conceived of this book, I thought of a massive volume.  But then I realized such a work would not be widely read especially since I was rather young at that time.  So then years later I wrote a more concise volume.  The following subject I decided to leave out,  because I have way too much info on.  I ended up developing my own theory of cosmology called New Years Cosmology Hypothesis,  The amount of info is so massive that it deserves it's own book. However I realize that the reader may not get to my book and this might be their personal stumbling block.  Therefore, I decided to make a more general short presentation.





Material problems:
.Aquinas version
One of the laws in philosophy is that every cause has an effect. In fact, there is an almost identical Law in Science that states that “ every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Another popular type of phrase is “if then” if I do ____ then ___ happens. It is a very simple principle and an obvious truth we learn in life that we live in a system of cause and effect. Causes and effects are inseparably linked together. So that if you have found a cause you will find it’s effect and if you find an effect you will find it’s cause. We live in a world full of effects. We see a world in which atoms constantly move and the world is always changing. So that our entire reality is obviously the effect of something else. Every Cause that we come across has been changed by something else. Because of this, what seem to be causes are actually the effects of a greater cause. Its relation identifies something in our reality as a cause or effect. For instance, a man might be a father to some and a Son to others. But ultimately everything in our reality must have a cause.
   If this were not true then we would not have our reality. Because we just came to the realization that all our reality is the effect of something else. So there has to be an original cause to all reality. If not then why do we have the reality; which is an effect? So there has to be an ultimate cause or 1st Cause. Now the 1st cause must be unable to change, in other words immutable. After all if it is able to change then there must be a cause behind it. So there must be a 1st cause who is unable to change. If the 1st Cause is unchanging and is responsible for all reality then it must not have a Beginning. In other words the 1st cause must be eternal. These are all attributes of God.
   Now let’s look at the only alternative. That instead of a 1st Cause we have an infinite number of causes and effects, what happens is that we travel down an infinite number of minor causes. Since we find no ultimate 1st cause, then we have to question whether or not the law of cause and effect is valid since there is no cause for our effect. The result would be that the Laws of cause and effect are invalid and that there is no such thing as cause and effect. As a result our universe must therefore function in Chaos. So one must live their lives with no order to them since after all, to live in order is to admit that there is an effect to the actions they cause.
Now we are back to square one. Where we have a 1st cause who possesses at least some of the attributes of God (Creator, immutable, eternal). 
b. Kalaam
Vrs. eternity of matter and illusion
Now in the previous paragraphs I showed one aspect of this argument as displayed by the Catholic Theologian Thomas Aquinas. However there is another side to the argument. You see that Aquinas has dealt with the concept more in the form of the Law of Cause and effect theory. Now we will move to discussion more of the cosmos itself. This version is known as the “Kalaam” Cosmological argument. Originated by Aristotelian medieval Muslim scholars. I am using the structure of Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig.
Whatever begins to exist has a Cause. The key word in this sentence is "Begins". As we demonstrated in the earlier version of the argument that every effect that we see has a cause. If something exist then it is an effect. For it to begin existing there has to be a cause.
   The Universe began to exist. The universe exists and so presumably it must have began to exist. What helps this argumentation out is that the "big bang" universe is expanding and therefore moving.
The vast majority of Cosmologists adhere to this. And in most of them the whole universe begins from a single point. (though if the big bang theory falls out of favor, we have the unmoved mover argument still in play.)
  In fact it is very possible from this to assess that the universe likely ceased to exist if we go back in time far enough.
   Therefore the universe has a cause. And so we reach the conclusion that the universe, which is all that we know of reality, must have had a cause. Most likely the 1st Cause mentioned in Aquinas argument. Even the alternative (alternative dimensions) doesn’t make a great deal of sense because how would they have created a universe and how would they not need to be created themselves?
   When we start to ponder the nature of cause and effect; what cause the light of the universe?  What cause the energy?  What causes the laws?  What causes time?
   Everything that is a thing we place inside the rubric of time. But time is an effect because it comes from motion. motion is the effect of energy and mass.  Energy and mass are an effect of science.  But science can not cause things without time.  So time is the cause of time!?
Notice the circular logic?
"Then too, space, in which the atoms are and move, is an impossible.  If there must be a space for the atoms to exist in, then, if space exists, it too must exist in something- a space prime; and there comes another of these long stories.  The best method of shortening such long stories as these is never to begin.  Therefore space does not exist.
  And lastly, the concept of a pluralistic universe is self-contradictory.  If Being were many, it would have to be both infinitely small and and infinitely great.  It would have to be infinitely small because every plurality is a collection of unities; but true unity is indivisible has no magnitude; therefore a plurality of indivisible or unextended particles, when added together, would produce a world of no extension.  But if the world and it's parts are to have extension, each part must be separated from the next part; but the part that does the separating must itself be separated by another part and so on, with the result that the world is infinitely great.  In fact, since this argument can be applied to each atom, each atom is both infinitely small and infinitely great.  And what more absurd conclusion could be derived from any theory."  Gordon Clark Thales to Dewey pg. 43
   The universe can be seen as a trinity of time, space and matter.  Time, space and matter are a continuum.  All of which must exist simultaneously.  If there were matter but no space, where would you put it?  If there were matter and space but no time, when would you put it?  If there were time and space but no matter how would you measure the space and at what time?
   We have not found the 1st Cause. Thus everything is an effect that is uncaused. But the law of cause and effect dictates that there is a cause to this effect. So either the universe is caused or it is not an effect and does not exist.
If we have a first caused it must be one not submissive to the continuum and thus, infinite. This infinite must have will to volunteer the action of all aspects of space, time and matter.
Thus the cosmos points to a creator God.




Light problem:
The light problem for the young earth creationist has been a major issue for faith and even even compromising on the age of the earth is just not convincing enough to over come the issue for some people over whether to Believe.
  Yet there are evidences to deal with this....


One way speed of light.
"A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant.
For example, if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measurable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B, or just from B to A is not objectively measurable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated. 
 The reason that the one-way speed of light cannot be objectively measured is that you need a way to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance. But in order to synchronize two clocks separated by some distance, you have to already know the one-way speed of light. So it cannot be done without circular reasoning.
We need to have a way of synchronizing clocks to know the one-way speed of light. But we need to know the one-way speed of light in order to synchronize clocks. Einstein was well aware of this dilemma. He said, “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”2
Einstein’s resolution to this dilemma was to suggest that the one-way speed of light is not actually a property of nature but is instead a convention—something that we may choose! For the sake of simplicity, many physicists choose to regard the speed of light as being the same in all directions.
However, any other choice is also acceptable, so long as the round-trip speed is 186,000 miles per second. Einstein said that light’s one-way speed “is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”"  Dr. Jason Lisle    This the best answer from the mainstream Young Earth creationist camp in the fact that the light distance problem is solved.  But it in this author's opinion it is an insecure solution.  The universe has been interpreted in as naturalistic an interpretation as possible. So while this is a suitable answer there is more to discuss.

light problem... for the big bang?
"The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)¹¹ So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’."https://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bangColes, P. and Lucchin, F., Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 136, 1996
Lightman, A., Ancient Light, Harvard University Press, London, p. 58, 1991.


The size of the universe?
  "You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer. (Robert Roy Britt, Space.com, April 2, 2003 interviewing Roberto Ragazzoni concerning the article “The Lack of Observational Evidence for the Quantum Structure of Space time at Planck Scales,” The Astrophysical Journal, April 10, 2003, co-authored by Massimo Turatto and Wolfgang Gaessler).
   distant stars not blurry
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
" In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.
So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.
Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html
   This article alone demands a new cosmology.  If the universe is not expanding there was no big bang!!  Yes there is rapid movement, which NYC explains.  But a non-expanding universe changes everything.
   red shift closer galaxies
"The hypothetical Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman's terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. The ground state for an inertial observer is seen as in thermodynamic equilibrium with a non-zero temperature by the uniformly accelerated observer."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect
   If red shift is anything other than the doppler effect, then the big bang theory falls apart.The un-ruh effect which interprets the shift as an effect of temperature seems to best answer this issue.


   north star and stellar parallax
Our ways of measuring light contradict themselves
"The new study by astronomers in Canada, Ukraine and Belgium confirmed the closer distance using new high-resolution observations of the star's light spectrum."
 "Scientists studying the North Star Polaris found that it is about 323 light-years from the sun and Earth, substantially closer than a previous estimate of 434 light-years by a European satellite in the late 1990s." " One light-year is the distance light travels in a single year, about 6 trillion miles (10 trillion kilometers)."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50031629/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/north-star-much-closer-earth-previously-thought/
"Scientists working with the Hipparcos satellite measured Polaris's distance by taking its trigonometric parallax; that is, how, over a period of months or years, the star moves across our line of sight in relation to other objects in the sky. Polaris, the team calculated, was 434 light-years away."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20/north-star-distance-earth_n_2513621.html
So how can we be absolutely certain of the scale of the universe?

"How do astronomers measure the distances to galaxies?

Astronomers measure the distance to a galaxy in the same way we estimate the distance to an oncoming car by the brightness of its headlights. We know from experience how much light a car's headlights emits, so we can determine how far away the car is.
To measure the distance to a galaxy, we try to find stars in that galaxy whose absolute light output we can measure. We can then determine how far away the galaxy is by observing the brightness of the stars. Such stars can help us measure the distance to galaxies 300 million light years away.
If a galaxy is too far away for us to distinguish individual stars, astronomers can use supernovae in the same manner, because the light output of supernovae at their peak brightness is a known fact. Supernovae can be used to measure the distance to galaxies as far as 10 billion light years away."http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=45&cat=galaxies
      So how can scientist be sure of the distance of galaxies when they deny the same method for measuring stars close up?

   long distance or microscopy?
  When you use a telescope, you may try looking at closer objects.  What you will find is that they appear bigger.  When we consider the Hubble deep field we assume these objects normally unseen are at a distance.  But perhaps they are unseen because they are small instead of far away.

what's the immaterial idea?
Platonic dog.
  Plato's theory of forms is a basic philosophic argument of reality.  When we look at "things", how do we know they are specific things. Plato argues that behind the matter is the form, or idea of that matter.
   An illustration of this is that of a dog, as a living being the dog is not simply a static collection of matter.  The dog eats, it poops, it grows hair and inhales and exhales constantly. So the matter is not what identifies the dog as a dog because the identity survives a change in matter.


The DNA Idea
"

THE FANTASTIC PRODUCTION OF ATP BY A CELL'S MITOCHONDRIA

All cells need energy to carry out the work that they do. The source of ALL this energy (for muscles,l nerves etc.) is provided by ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate) generated by small revolving "mills" on the surface of every mitochondria within each cell. There can be 10^16 rotors in the human body, working at 100 revs per second.

The ATP is formed by squeezing Adenosine DiPhosphate (ADP) and Phosphoric acid together to make ATP. This squeezing action is achieved as follows. A small mill (see Figure) is turned by hydrogen ions passing from the interior of the mitochondria into the cell. Connected to this is an bent axle that rotates at 100 revs/sec = 6,000 revs/min. Around this bent axle are six "cells" (actually hollow protein subunits), alpha and beta. The beta "cells" take in ADP and phosphoric acid that fit into a special part of the "cell", they are squeezed together as the bent axle passes by, and the ATP passes out as more ADP and phosph. acid replace them. The ATP gives up its energy where it is needed and breaks down into ADP and Phos. acid - which is then recycled!

The amazing thing about this phenomenally complicated minute rotating mill is that IT IS PRESENT IN EVEN THE MOST SIMPLEST OF MULTICELLED ORGANISMS such as the trilobite found in the Cambrian strata. So it could not have taken millions of years to evolve. Indeed, how could such a complicated mechanism have evolved in stages? It had to be right first time!

When the energy demand is high, the mill rotates faster, and in 24 hours, as much as 1 ton of ATP can be recycled.

Let us give some idea just how small these mills are. Imagine that we scale up one to be about 1ft diameter and about 2ft tall, and then place it on the edge of a pinhead to the same scale. The other side of the pinhead would be 38 miles away - about the diameter of Greater London! Yet these incredible mechanisms are present in even the "earliest" and most "primitive" organisms. How could they have possibly evolved? "  Malcolm Bowden  http://mbowden.info/ATPgen.htm
   Now if there is a form or idea behind a dog how much more is the idea amplified in the trillions of molecules actively working the trillions of cells of that dog?
The intensity of design also magnifies further as we see the symbiotic relationships of various ecosystems and the infinite complexities of the brain!

The big idea: Axis of evil
Jump to search

"The "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which runs counter to expectations from the Copernican principle.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)#cite_note-5
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." Lawrence Krauss
"The Energy of Empty Space That Isn't Zero". www.edge.org. 2006-05-07. Retrieved 2018-08-05.

   The earth having a unique relationship with the universe shows a pattern or design which defines the rules governing a godless universe.  Existence is complete with forms and ideas that point to an intelligent designer. While this evidence doesn't prove that the universe is for a fact the product of the God of the Bible.  The universe that people are conceiving is not the universe of reality anyhow. What we know, we know other ways and from the other information gathered in this book declares from what we do know the truth of the scriptures.  What we have in the universe conforms whole heartedly with the biblical worldview.