Astronomy / The Universe

[maroonlegions]

Even more mind blowing possibilities or at least appears so in the realm of the "early days" scenario.

 

A study has revealed the possibility of the holographic universe thesis.

 

Pure barking mad but still this study comes from credible scientific sources.

 

Is this universe, possibly one of others, more stranger than ever as more data reveals it to be??

 

A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram.

"Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

 

The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published findings in the journal Physical Review Letters".

A holographic universe, an idea first suggested in the 1990s, is one where all the information that makes up our 3-D 'reality' (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html#jCp

 

The scientists now hope their study will open the door to further our understanding of the early universe and explain how space and time emerged.

 Explore further: Cosmologists a step closer to understanding quantum gravity

More information: Niayesh Afshordi et al. From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.041301 

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters  

Provided by: University of Southampton 

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html#jCp

 

And there is more; Quantum mechanics is throwing  up all kinds of new data and challenges.

 

2018

AdLightning Gadget

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no...

 

 

 

 

 

 

A sketch of the timeline of the holographic Universe above.

 

 Time runs from left to right. The far left denotes the holographic phase and the image is blurry because space and time are not yet well defined. At the end of this phase (denoted by the black fluctuating ellipse) the Universe enters a geometric phase, which can now be described by Einstein's equations.

 

The cosmic microwave background was emitted about 375,000 years later. Patterns imprinted in it carry information about the very early Universe and seed the development of structures of stars and galaxies in the late time Universe (far right). Credit: Paul McFadden

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html#jCp

Edited January 30, 2018 by maroonlegions

[ri Alban]

17 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

The mere fact that a "constant" can vary leaves me asking 

 

BTW, there's a small book out by Neil DeGrasse Tyson called "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry".  He attempts to explain what we've been talking about.  Well, I'm not in a hurry, which maybe explains why most of it is 'way over my head.

There's a couple of good podcasts with Neil on the Joe Rogan show. He convinces Joe about the moon landings etc... Joe was a non believer before it.

[ri Alban]

21 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but you have to accept that not everything in science has to be proven in a laboratory before it becomes true.

 

For example, Albert Einstein rarely set foot in a laboratory.  He did his most famous work, his theory of General Relativity, with nothing more than a pencil and paper.  That wasn't pish then, and it isn't pish now.  What he proposed consisted purely of mathematics, but countless observations since then have confirmed the accuracy of what he calculated.

 

Similarly, when Copernicus proposed the heliocentric solar system, it was all mathematics.  You don't have to "actually go" somewhere to make him right. 

I'm not a sceptical person. I actually love all this cosmos stuff. But come on , some of it is complete fantasy land. Just like God, but hey heaven could be in one of these multiverse thingies.

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

There's a couple of good podcasts with Neil on the Joe Rogan show. He convinces Joe about the moon landings etc... Joe was a non believer before it.

 

NGT is the new Carl Sagan, when it comes to communicating cosmology stuff to the public.

 

Apparently he met Sagan when he was a kid, and resolved to follow in his footsteps. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

NGT is the new Carl Sagan, when it comes to communicating cosmology stuff to the public.

 

Apparently he met Sagan when he was a kid, and resolved to follow in his footsteps. 

Who's the Chinese American professor, I could listen to him all day.

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'm not a sceptical person. I actually love all this cosmos stuff. But come on , some of it is complete fantasy land. Just like God, but hey heaven could be in one of these multiverse thingies.

 

Some of the things you read about in astronomy are fantasy, but not much.  The multiverse notion is one of those.  It's currently more science fiction than science.

 

But astronomy is continually making new discoveries, which generates a lot of debate and numerous hypotheses.  We still have a lot to learn in this area, but we need to follow the scientific method when analysing the data.  Getting side-tracked into wild speculation doesn't achieve anything, except maybe generate sensationalist headlines.

[Maple Leaf]

5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Who's the Chinese American professor, I could listen to him all day.

 

This guy?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

[ri Alban]

Just now, Maple Leaf said:

 

Some of the things you read about in astronomy are fantasy, but not much.  The multiverse notion is one of those.  It's currently more science fiction than science.

 

But astronomy is continually making new discoveries, which generates a lot of debate and numerous hypotheses.  We still have a lot to learn in this area, but we need to follow the scientific method when analysing the data.  Getting side-tracked into wild speculation doesn't achieve anything, except maybe generate sensationalist headlines.

The boring stuff doesn't bring in the funding like sensationalism.

 

 

Why doesn't NASA explore the oceans?

[ri Alban]

Just now, Maple Leaf said:

 

This guy?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

That's the very man. Fantastic orator.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

The boring stuff doesn't bring in the funding like sensationalism.

 

 

Why doesn't NASA explore the oceans?

Because then they'd be NAOA

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

You'll have the wits for this no problem, and I think it is the perfect complement to your and @Maple Leaf's discussion.

 

The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov

Thanks Justin, I do appreciate it but just reading the rest of the posts on this thread started noising me up - I'll need to see how I feel about the link!

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Because then they'd be NAOA

Seas.

 

No, it's just that they could invent great things to conquer the seas.

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

If the universe is expanding then WTF is it expanding into? Are new planets and stars magically invented when this new part of space appears?

Think of a balloon when you blow it up.

[Unknown user]

44 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Think of a balloon when you blow it up.

What's outside the balloon?

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

What's outside the balloon?

As the balloon expands all the points move further away from each other.

If the entire universe where being stretched out, the galaxies would move away, and that’s exactly what they appear to be doing. (Hubble Law).

It’s interesting to note that the Bible recorded the idea that of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science thought of the idea.

[Unknown user]

24 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

As the balloon expands all the points move further away from each other.

If the entire universe where being stretched out, the galaxies would move away, and that’s exactly what they appear to be doing. (Hubble Law).

It’s interesting to note that the Bible recorded the idea that of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science thought of the idea.

I get that, but what's that grey stuff outside the balloon?

 

It's all on such a ridiculous scale that our trying to comprehend it is akin to ants trying to suss out Chinese algebra I reckon. None of our explanations make sense to me, it all seems hideously flawed to me. In fact I favour the whole solar-system-is-an-atom-in-a-giant-sideboard theory, at least I can get my head round that!

 

I think I should duck out of this thread, just because the subject makes me feel stupid and I have no patience for it, I shouldn't ruin it for everyone.

 

**** space, but thanks for trying everyone!

[Unknown user]

By the way, recent observations suggest that the universe is not expanding in the way you describe, look up dark flow theory - it's a lot of bollocks too!

 

I wish scientists would say "honestly, we don't know, here's a guess "

[Sidelight]

59 minutes ago, Smithee said:

By the way, recent observations suggest that the universe is not expanding in the way you describe, look up dark flow theory - it's a lot of bollocks too!

 

I wish scientists would say "honestly, we don't know, here's a guess "

If we live in a infinite universe then the answer has to be nothing. Adding stuff to infinity doesn't make more infinity. (Grey stuff reply).

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by alfajambo

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

If we live in a infinite universe then the answer has to be nothing. Adding stuff to infinity doesn't make more infinity. (Grey stuff reply).

 

If we live in an infinite universe  (Do we? Who says? Prove it!) then isn't the answer More of the same, forever, there is no outside the balloon? So how is there other universes if ours is everything??? It's all such conflicting bollocks, you can't add stuff to infinity because infinity already incudes that stuff, and you! 

 

But sorry, I said I'd stay away, I just find it hard to walk away from something I don't understand.

 

Been with the Mrs 11 years now. 

[Sidelight]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

If we live in an infinite universe  (Do we? Who says? Prove it!) then isn't the answer More of the same, forever, there is no outside the balloon? So how is there other universes if ours is everything??? It's all such conflicting bollocks, you can't add stuff to infinity because infinity already incudes that stuff, and you! 

 

But sorry, I said I'd stay away, I just find it hard to walk away from something I don't understand.

 

Been with the Mrs 11 years now. 

The real answer to your question can be anything, because nobody knows the answer to the question.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

The real answer to your question can be anything, because nobody knows the answer to the question.

Exactly!

[AlimOzturk]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Exactly!

 

Its the best and worst thing about humanity. Our curiosity. 

 

Whilst it has given us all this knowledge it will, most likely kill us one of these days. 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

Exactly!

 

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

Exactly!

I'm the same, but I like good story telling. As for the balloon thingy, It usually ends in 2 ways. Gradually deflating or boom!

[The Future's Maroon]

What a cracking read this thread is. 

 

Just add my wee tuppenceworth in, I seen this clip a while back (you may well have seen it before)....it still really puzzle f**** with my wee brain.

 

 

 

The universe/multiverse is simply mind boggling.

[John Findlay]

13 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Its the best and worst thing about humanity. Our curiosity. 

 

Whilst it has given us all this knowledge it will, most likely kill us one of these days. 

As in. What's this button for................Boom. The end.

[Ray Gin]

17 hours ago, alfajambo said:

It’s interesting to note that the Bible recorded the idea that of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science thought of the idea.

 

The same bible that reckons the earth is older than the sun, and that the sun moves around the earth?

Aye, I'm sure it did.

 

 

[ri Alban]

27 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The same bible that reckons the earth is older than the sun, and that the sun moves around the earth?

Aye, I'm sure it did.

 

 

That wasn't just the Bible to be fair.

 

Anyway, a big blood new full moon tonight. Once a century.

[deesidejambo]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The same bible that reckons the earth is older than the sun, and that the sun moves around the earth?

Aye, I'm sure it did.

 

 

 

I’m a pedant but the Sun actually does move round the earth.    The two are locked in a gravitational dance with both actually orbiting each other.   Because the sun is far more massive it is assumed that in relative terms it is stationary in space while the earth moves around it.   In reality they both move relative to each other but we assume a stationary Sun for ease of reference.   You could just as easily assume a stationary earth with the sun orbiting it.

 

im available for parties.

[Ray Gin]

10 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

I’m a pedant but the Sun actually does move round the earth.    The two are locked in a gravitational dance with both actually orbiting each other.   Because the sun is far more massive it is assumed that in relative terms it is stationary in space while the earth moves around it.   In reality they both move relative to each other but we assume a stationary Sun for ease of reference.   You could just as easily assume a stationary earth with the sun orbiting it.

 

im available for parties.

 

They are of course both spinning but the sun is very almost bang in the centre mass of the solar system, around which the sun and all the planets are rotating, however the sun is so close that it is barely wobbling while all the planets revolve around it.

[Maple Leaf]

18 hours ago, Smithee said:

By the way, recent observations suggest that the universe is not expanding in the way you describe, look up dark flow theory - it's a lot of bollocks too!

 

I wish scientists would say "honestly, we don't know, here's a guess "

 

Any astronomer worth his salt should be saying that everyday! 

 

We as individuals, and we as a species, shouldn't be too hard on ourselves over our lack of understanding in this field.  Homo sapiens has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, but we've been seriously studying the cosmos for only about four centuries.  To say that we have a lot to learn is an understatement.  All we can do is keep enquiring.  Particle accelerators like CERN will help us learn more about the extremely small, and bigger more sophisticated telescopes will help us learn more about the very large.

 

But there is a possibility that we'll never figure it all out.  It could be that our brains are wired in such a way that we'll never understand  the cosmos.  Our bodies and brains evolved to help us survive in the plains of Africa.  Maybe expecting humans to understand the universe is like expecting a West Highland Terrier to understand Euclidean geometry.

 

 

[ri Alban]

25 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

I’m a pedant but the Sun actually does move round the earth.    The two are locked in a gravitational dance with both actually orbiting each other.   Because the sun is far more massive it is assumed that in relative terms it is stationary in space while the earth moves around it.   In reality they both move relative to each other but we assume a stationary Sun for ease of reference.   You could just as easily assume a stationary earth with the sun orbiting it.

 

im available for parties.

Yes the solar system moves about the galaxy, but to say the sun orbits the earth, come on. The moon orbits the earth.

[Bordeaux 03]

Until recently I had no idea that the planets don't orbit the Sun but they orbit the barycenter of the Solar System. This is the point in which the mass of objects balance out, but because most of the planets are so small compared to the Sun, this point is actually inside the Sun. Although, this isn't the case for Jupiter, as it is so massive the barycenter sits outside the Sun and technically means it doesn't orbit the Sun.

[deesidejambo]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Yes the solar system moves about the galaxy, but to say the sun orbits the earth, come on. The moon orbits the earth.

Nope.

 

Any two masses in a gravitational lock actually orbit each other.    If both had the same mass they would orbit each other perfectly and you would not be able to say which orbits which.  For example there are many identified suns in the galaxy which are locked in orbit with each other "twin stars".    From the perspective here on earth you cannot say which one is stationary and which "orbits". 

 

If  the mass of one body exceeds the other the orbital centre moves but the principle remains - they both orbit round an orbital "centre".   As the suns mass is extremely large compared to earth it looks like the earth is orbiting the sun, but the original gravitational principle remains.

 

Have a Gin and it will become clear.

[Justin Z]

True but to say they "orbit each other" doesn't work. They create a gravitational system orbiting around a centre of mass, the barycentre. In the case of the Sun and all the planets save Jupiter, the barycentre is inside the sun. So to say the Sun "orbits" the Earth or Jupiter really isn't accurate. At best, the Sun wobbles, or orbits a point just outside itself on the absolute edge case.

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Justin Z said:

True but to say they "orbit each other" doesn't work. They create a gravitational system orbiting around a centre of mass, the barycentre. In the case of the Sun and all the planets save Jupiter, the barycentre is inside the sun. So to say the Sun "orbits" the Earth or Jupiter really isn't accurate. At best, the Sun wobbles, or orbits a point just outside itself on the absolute edge case.

 

Sort of.

 

They are of course both orbitting a centre as all planetary bodies do.     But as I posted earlier, its about where you choose your reference point.   If you choose your reference point to be on earth then the sun is actually orbiting you every year.      The "wobble" in the sun you quote isn't a wobble, it is an orbital locus - small, but still an orbital path.

 

Same story with the earth and moon.   The notion that the earth somehow doesn't move and the moon simply orbits around it is equally wrong.  

 

 

[Justin Z]

Just now, deesidejambo said:

 

Sort of.

 

They are of course both orbitting a centre as all planetary bodies do.     But as I posted earlier, its about where you choose your reference point.   If you choose your reference point to be on earth then the sun is actually orbiting you every year.      The "wobble" in the sun you quote isn't a wobble, it is an orbital locus - small, but still an orbital path.

 

Same story with the earth and moon.   The notion that the earth somehow doesn't move and the moon simply orbits around it is equally wrong. 

 

One's perspective does indeed add an extra layer of complexity to the whole thing. I mean, you can do the math however you want, it's just about 48 trillion times harder to do it with everything in the universe orbiting Earth.

[deesidejambo]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

One's perspective does indeed add an extra layer of complexity to the whole thing. I mean, you can do the math however you want, it's just about 48 trillion times harder to do it with everything in the universe orbiting Earth.

 

No it makes it easier.    As the spud Einstein said - "its all relative" - and he is right.  Whole galaxies orbit each other - which one is "stationary" and which orbits is irrelevant.       

 

and possibly also interesting - its a super blue moon tonight.   Nothing special imo - the moon may look a bit bigger as its at its closest point for a while,

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

No it makes it easier.    As the spud Einstein said - "its all relative" - and he is right.  Whole galaxies orbit each other - which one is "stationary" and which orbits is irrelevant.       

 

and possibly also interesting - its a super blue moon tonight.   Nothing special imo - the moon may look a bit bigger as its at its closest point for a while,

 

Well, it makes it easier if we're keeping our perspective here--that's true.

 

But you can also describe the entire universe from any point as if everything is going around Earth. That's a bit trickier.

[deesidejambo]

And for geeks heres a quiz question related to orbital mechanics -

 

During the six Apollo missions (CTs gtf) there were many photos and films taken on the surface but only very few showed the earth in the lunar sky.

 

CTs claim this is because there weren't there, but there is a perfectly logical reason for it that can be explained by orbital theory.

 

Any ideas?

[Justin Z]

The same reason you only rarely see the moon in the sky during the daytime here--that there are very few angles where the sun would be hitting both a spot on the Earth and the moon at the same time to where they can both see each other without glare completely washing it out?

[deesidejambo]

52 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

The same reason you only rarely see the moon in the sky during the daytime here--that there are very few angles where the sun would be hitting both a spot on the Earth and the moon at the same time to where they can both see each other without glare completely washing it out?

 

Nope but thanks for trying.

 

The answer is a bit complicated so bear with me.

 

The moon is tidally-locked to earth, in other words you always see the same side of the moon viewed from earth no matter when - it doesn't spin on its axis relative to earth, or to be more exact it spins at exactly the same rate as it orbits the earth - 28 days to be exact-ish.     No humans except the Apollo astronauts have ever seen the far side of the moon. 

 

Anyway, this worked in the Apollo missions favour, as the six landing sites had to be chosen on the earth-side in order to maintain permanent radio contact with Houston.  

 

Now given this tidal locking, the earth, as viewed from the moon, is in the same place in the sky, every day - it never moves.  It doesn't rise or set - it is there all the time in the same place, and as the landing sites were all chosen on the earth-facing side, the earth was always almost directly above the Astros heads, so never appears in photos.

 

In fact I think there are a couple of photos - one of Aldrin I think but taken with the camera on the ground looking upwards to get the Astro and the Earth in the same shot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by deesidejambo

[Sidelight]

9 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The same bible that reckons the earth is older than the sun, and that the sun moves around the earth?

Aye, I'm sure it did.

 

 

It helps to keep the language used and context in view when gaining an understanding of the text. Biblical passages that cite sunrise and sunset do not teach that the sun orbits the earth every 24hrs. By this reasoning, nearly all astronomers and astronomical periodicals are geocentric, because ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ is the language that is used to describe the interaction.

As well as the bible bringing forward the idea of an expanding universe, one that has been stretched out.  It also tells us that the earth floats in space, unsupported by any object. In fact there are a number of passages that touch upon the topic of astronomy etc.

I am always pleased to reply to your posts.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by alfajambo

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Nope but thanks for trying.

 

The answer is a bit complicated so bear with me.

 

The moon is tidally-locked to earth, in other words you always see the same side of the moon viewed from earth no matter when - it doesn't spin on its axis relative to earth, or to be more exact it spins at exactly the same rate as it orbits the earth - 28 days to be exact-ish.     No humans except the Apollo astronauts have ever seen the far side of the moon. 

 

Anyway, this worked in the Apollo missions favour, as the six landing sites had to be chosen on the earth-side in order to maintain permanent radio contact with Houston.  

 

Now given this tidal locking, the earth, as viewed from the moon, is in the same place in the sky, every day - it never moves.  It doesn't rise or set - it is there all the time in the same place, and as the landing sites were all chosen on the earth-facing side, the earth was always almost directly above the Astros heads, so never appears in photos.

 

In fact I think there are a couple of photos - one of Aldrin I think but taken with the camera on the ground looking upwards to get the Astro and the Earth in the same shot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good post.  It's something I had never considered before, but that makes perfect sense. 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

And for geeks heres a quiz question related to orbital mechanics -

 

During the six Apollo missions (CTs gtf) there were many photos and films taken on the surface but only very few showed the earth in the lunar sky.

 

CTs claim this is because there weren't there, but there is a perfectly logical reason for it that can be explained by orbital theory.

 

Any ideas?

Sunlight , was the sun at the the far side?

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Nope.

 

Any two masses in a gravitational lock actually orbit each other.    If both had the same mass they would orbit each other perfectly and you would not be able to say which orbits which.  For example there are many identified suns in the galaxy which are locked in orbit with each other "twin stars".    From the perspective here on earth you cannot say which one is stationary and which "orbits". 

 

If  the mass of one body exceeds the other the orbital centre moves but the principle remains - they both orbit round an orbital "centre".   As the suns mass is extremely large compared to earth it looks like the earth is orbiting the sun, but the original gravitational principle remains.

 

Have a Gin and it will become clear.

I know all this, but to glass the sun as orbiting the earth is too far.

And a lunar orbit is 29.5 days.

[deesidejambo]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Sunlight , was the sun at the the far side?

Of course not.   All missions landed in lunar daytime which is about 14 earth days long.    So the sun was in the lunar sky also but moves very slowly across the lunar sky and takes 14 earth days to rise and set so plenty time to do all landings in full sunlight 

[ri Alban]

23 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Of course not.   All missions landed in lunar daytime which is about 14 earth days long.    So the sun was in the lunar sky also but moves very slowly across the lunar sky and takes 14 earth days to rise and set so plenty time to do all landings in full sunlight 

I was thinking the glare from behind maybe at times cast her darkness. I believe that this is uncommon tho.

 

cheers for your info, BTW.

[Ray Gin]

8 hours ago, alfajambo said:

It helps to keep the language used and context in view when gaining an understanding of the text. Biblical passages that cite sunrise and sunset do not teach that the sun orbits the earth every 24hrs. By this reasoning, nearly all astronomers and astronomical periodicals are geocentric, because ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ is the language that is used to describe the interaction.

As well as the bible bringing forward the idea of an expanding universe, one that has been stretched out.  It also tells us that the earth floats in space, unsupported by any object. In fact there are a number of passages that touch upon the topic of astronomy etc.

I am always pleased to reply to your posts.

 

 

You are flying affy fast and loose with your interpretations there, buddy.

 

Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe? https://creation.com/bible-cosmological-expansion

 

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

You are flying affy fast and loose with your interpretations there, buddy.

 

Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe? https://creation.com/bible-cosmological-expansion

 

 

 

 

If there's one subject in the world guaranteed to noise me up more than space...

 

 

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

You are flying affy fast and loose with your interpretations there, buddy.

 

Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe? https://creation.com/bible-cosmological-expansion

 

 

I wasn't going to say anything, but since someone else brought it up--I haven't looked at this link, but you have to absolutely murder ancient Hebrew grammar to come to the conclusion that the passage he probably has in mind from Isaiah says anything about the heavens "expanding" in the sense we understand in English. It's more like the way you might spread out a blanket or curtains. They obviously aren't getting physically bigger when you do that.

 

Nice display of probably the most glaring symptom of fundamentalism on show for all of us. Not sure it's worth getting noised up over, Smithee.