Flat, finite cosmology

First of all, let be start by saying that I did not come up with this theory, a PhD scientist did.

There are two overall ways of classifying the nature of the universe: shape(flat, spherical, or hyperbolic aka saddle-shaped), and size(infinite or finite). It is also possible to classify it on whether it is bounded or unbounded. This is not quite the same as finite/infinite, because a spherical symmetry would be finite, but unbounded. In the flat and hyperbolic cases, however, finite=>bounded and vice versa.

Assume, now, the the universe is flat and of a finite size. This would imply that there is a boundary somewhere. You may ask, so what? Consider a point near the boundary. Most of the universe would be on one side of the point, and very little of it would be on the other. There would be a net gravitational force towards (drumroll...) a center of mass. If the universe has a center of mass (which it doesn't if it is infinite or unbounded), this means it is essentially a gravity well, with a center and edges. This also means that galaxys would tend towards this center, and be more densely distributed there.

However, the universe looks relatively uniform from our perspective (the Copernican Principle), not all bunched up in the center. The only way this could be true is if we were near the center (unless the universe were so large when compared to the maximum observed distance that the change in galaxy-distribution density were very small, indeed).

So if we are near the center of a flat, finite (bounded) cosmos, then what? Well, that means we are in a gravity well, and hence we experience time dialation, in accordance with Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The edges of the universe "tick" more quickly than we do, near the center. This dialation is, undoubtedly, very small at the moment, but don't forget, the universe is expanding. That means that in the past, the time dialation was greater. Maybe alot greater...

By now, you're wondering what this madman is up to, right? Well, if the universe were small enough, and we were close enough to the center, it is possible that billions of years could have passed near the "edges" of the universe while merely a week -- or even a day -- passed on earth. Hence, the Earth might have been created six-thousand years ago by God in one week (Earth-time) and there would have still been plenty of time for the light from distant stars and galaxies to reach us, a la Einstein's relativity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Caleb

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I notice no one's responed yet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh well.

~Caleb

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what about dark matter. How does it fit in? does it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stick to science and put religious ideas in the religious forums.

 

I don't think that Dark matter (or actually, negative energy) would make that big a difference. It would cause the universe to accelerate in its expansion, just like everyone seems to agree.

Except for that one last paragraph, that was science. Relativity is a fairly well-known theory, and most scientists believe the universe might be flat. If I were to put up a post theorizing that the speed of light had decayed over time, you might say the same thing. But now there is a group of secular (ie non-creationist) cosmologists saying that <i>c</i> might have been billions of times greater in the past.

~Caleb

 

In the past 6 months somewhere I read that it is now thought that the universe is saddle shaped. Meaning unbounded and will never have a big crunch.

For the distrbution of matter in the universe refer to page two of this forum to a thread called The Stickman.

 

Yup. The prevailing theory is that what we can observe will continually expand, black holes will eventually, without any fuel, dissipate, and a cold void will result. Expected duration is around 10^100 years.

 

10^100 years? That's a little beyond my bedtime. Wake me for it, please?

 

To my knowledge, the universe doesn't have to be saddle-shaped in order to continue expanding. At least not according to a recent Scientific American article on the subject.

 

Caleb,

Getting back to your idea about time dilation and the age of earth etc....

I don't think it makes any difference...here's why: It's ALL relative to your point of reference. All evidence suggests that it took much longer then 6000 years for earth to be as it is today....now weather that looked like 6 years or 6 billion years to someone in a different frame of reference makes no difference to the local time on earth...it takes 2 minutes to boil an egg on earth, it would still take 2 minutes to boil an egg at the edge of the universe as long as the observation was made localy.

 

Rambler

Two minutes to boil an egg only at normal atmospheric pressure. Climb up a few thousand feet and forget about it unless you use a pressure cooker.

 

Chagur

At least the water would boil...but my point was that if it took 2 minutes on earth then (assuming all other things remain the same i.e. pressure etc) it will still take 2 minutes at the edge of the universe....following Caleb's logic it should take several million years.

 

No. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.The universe "evolves" (for lack of a better word) at normal speed, however, we are not a local observer, so (at least in the past, when the unioverse was orders of magnitude smaller and the time dialation was greater) things appear to move faster. We were in a time frame that was significantly slower than the rest of the universe. (I say 'were' because by now, the universe doesn't have an appreciable difference in time dialation between the center and the edges, but it did in the past) For the outer edges of the universe, perhaps millions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:hesitantly:: or possibly billions) of years have passed, with its physical processes all operating at normal speed when viewed from locally. However, the earth is not local to them. We are (or were) in a gravity well, which caused time dialation, putting us (and our local space-time region) in a slower frame of reference than the rest of the universe. When observed locally, our time is ticking along normally, just like it is at the outer edges of the universe. But since our time frame was slower, the rest of the universe, when viewed non-locally (ie from our slow perspective) seemed to move along at an accelerated rate. Similarly, from the outer regions of space looking in, the earth would have appeared to move slowly.

These are all proven methods of time dialation.

~Caleb

 

Caleb,

Ok fine........I'm not disagreeing with you about time dilation....I just don't see how you come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old??????????

 

I don't come to that conclusion explicitly, but it was not my intention that I would. What it does show is that the entire universe does not have to be X-billion years old just because we see light from galaxies that are supposedly X-billion lightyears away. Instead, it is possible that this time dialation would have slowed time in the vicinity of earth, allowing only Y-thousand of years to occur while the starlight traveled at <i>c</i> to our present location.

~Caleb

 

Caleb,

I think this has been answered elsewhere, but this seems a good place to raise the issue again. How do you square your conclusion with radio carbon dating that has dated many artifacts on the planet to dates far in excess of 6000 years?

Cris

 

Also, how do you explain trees that have shown rings indicating 10,000+ years?

Were 'years' at one time shorter than they are now perhaps?

Cris

 

I've already dealt with the tree ring issue on the Christianity page. I haven't dealt with Carbon-dating and radiometric dating in detail very much, I'd like to do so, but this board is for cosmology, not geology, so I will see if I can get something posted about it on the Christianity page. But not today...

~Caleb

 

Caleb,

OK, but religion isn't science, and many sciences can provide supporting evidence for one another. It is valid to use, say, inorganic chemsitry and physics to give support or to refute hypotheses from other disciplines.

For your hypothesis to be true it must be true everywhere. It will only take one contrary proof from any discipline to kill the whole hypothesis.

I understand that your real objective here is not scientific but religious, in which case your case here is out of place anyway. But if you really want to make a scientific case for a 6000 year old earth then you need to stay within the sciences.

So rather than take this to another forum, use other sciences to support your cosmology argument, here. So can a case be made to show that radio carbon dating supports a cosmology argument for a young Earth?

Cris

 

Forget the universe for a second. Isn't the earth four and a half billion years old for all kinds of other reasons and by many other proofs.

Calab your post was actually quite interesting until the last paragraph.