Glo die Bybel

Johannes 17:17 ...U Woord is die waarheid.

Sindikasie

Glo die Bybel Glo die Bybel
Aanhalings - Kosmologie PDF Afdruk E-pos
Geskryf deur Daniel Louw   
Saterdag, 28 Augustus 2010 10:36

Vir nog aanhalings oor kosmologie, kyk Ons sonnestelsel is geskape. Kyk ook Aanhalings in die Indeks vir nog ander aanhalings.

Vir meer agtergrond op sommige van die aanhalings hieronder, kyk die artikel Ons is in die middel! wat vertel dat William G Tifft gevind het dat baie sterrestelsels in konsentriese sirkels om die aarde is. Dit dui baie sterk daarop dat die aarde 'n spesiale posisie in die heelal beklee. Die volgende aanhalings wys duidelik dat daar baie aannames in die kosmologie is wat gebaseer is op 'n ideologie, naamlik die Koperniese beginsel, en hoedat sekulêre kosmoloë alles in hulle vermoë doen om weg te beweeg van die idee dat die aarde 'n spesiale posisie in die heelal beklee. Hulle erken egter dat dit 'n aanname is gebaseer op die Koperniese beginsel.

Die rede hoekom kosmoloë oor die algemeen wil wegbeweeg van die idee dat die aarde 'n spesiale posisie beklee in die heelal is om weg te kom van die idee dat God geskep het. Dit is interessant dat mense soos Hubble dit eintlik blatant erken deur te sê dat dit 'n baie onwelkome resultaat is. Hy praat nogal hiervan as "ondraaglik" en 'n "verskrikking" (kyk hier onder).

*****************

James Gunn

“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”

Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science317:1848–1850, 2007.

Kosmologie mag soos wetenskap lyk, maar dit is nie wetenskap nie. 'n Basiese beginsel van die wetenskap is dat jy herhaalbare eksperimente kan doen, en jy kan dit nie in kosmologie doen nie.

[Uit Cosmology is not a science. Kyk ook Operasionele vs Historiese wetenskap en Cosmology is not science!.]

*****************

Edwin Hubble
(Die Hubble teleskoop is na hom vernoem. Hy is as 'n Christen grootgemaak, maar het later agnosties geword.)

"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…. The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative … But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs ... Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable ... Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."

So 'n toestand [dat ander sterrestelsels in konsentriese sirkels om die aarde is - kyk Ons is in die middel!] sou impliseer dat ons 'n unieke posisie in die heelal beklee, in ooreenstemming, in 'n sekere sin, met die ou opvatting van 'n sentrale Aarde... [voor Kopernikus met die teorie gekom het dat die aarde om die son draai (heliosentries) en nie anders om nie (geosentries)] Die hipotese kan nie weerlê word nie, maar dit is onwelkom en sal slegs aanvaar word as 'n laaste uitkoms ten einde die verskynsels te red. Daarom ignoreer ons hierdie moontlikheid en oorweeg die alternatief ... Maar die onwelkome veronderstelling van 'n gunsteling plek moet ten alle koste vermy word... So 'n gunsteling posisie, natuurlik, is ondraaglik ... Daarom, ten einde homogeniteit te herstel, en die verskrikking van 'n unieke posisie om te ontsnap, die afwykings van eenvormigheid, wat deur die resessie faktore bekendgestel word, moet voor gekompenseer word deur die tweede voorwaarde wat effekte voorstel van ruimtelike kromming. Dit blyk dat daar geen ander ontsnapping is nie.

[Dit is dan ook waar die ballon-teorie vandaan kom - kyk Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show.]

[Uit String theory “philosophy”challenged. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]

Nog 'n aanhaling deur Hubble:

“Relativity contributes the basic proposition that [the] geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent, in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of location, will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the [galaxies] all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the [galaxies] all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike.”

Relatiwiteit dra die basiese stelling dat die geometrie van die ruimte bepaal word deur die inhoud van die ruimte. Aan hierdie beginsel is bygevoeg 'n ander proposisie, op verskillende maniere geformuleer en verskeie name genoem, maar ekwivalent, in 'n sekere sin, aan die stelling dat alle waarnemers, ongeag van hulle posisie, sal dieselfde algemene prentjie van die heelal sien. Die tweede beginsel is 'n blote aanname. Dit lyk aanneemlik en dit doen 'n sterk beroep na ons sin van eweredigheid. Tog, lei dit tot 'n merkwaardige gevolg, want dit vereis dat, as ons sien die sterrestelsels sien wegbeweeg van ons posisie in die ruimte, dan is elke ander waarnemer, maak nie saak waar hy geleë mag wees, sal die sterrestelsels sien wegbeweeg van sy posisie. Hierdie aanname is egter gekies. Daar moet nie 'n gunsteling plek in die heelal wees nie, geen sentrum, geen grens; almal moet die heelal gelyk sien.

[Uit die boek Starlight, Time and the New Physics, September 2007, John Hartnett, p 75-76. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]

Dit is duidelik dat dit ‘n aanname is dat aarde nie op ‘n spesiale plek is nie, maar hulle pas nie hul aannames aan nie.

*****************

George Francis Rayner Ellis
(Suid-Afrikaanse kosmoloog. Hy was saam met Stephen Hawking mede-outeur van die boek The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.)

“However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle”

Maar ons is nie in staat om kosmologiese modelle te maak sonder 'n mengsel van ideologie nie. In die vroegste kosmologieë het die mens homself in 'n heersende posisie in die middelpunt van die heelal geplaas. Sedert die tyd van Kopernikus is ons geleidelik gedemoveer na 'n medium grootte planeet wat rondom 'n mediumgrootte ster op die buitenste rand van 'n redelik gemiddelde sterrestelsel, wat self net een van 'n plaaslike groep van sterrestelsels is. Ons is inderdaad nou so demokratiese dat ons nie sou beweer dat ons posisie in die ruimte op enige manier spesiaal onderskei word nie. Ons sal, na aanleiding van Bondi (1960), hierdie veronderstelling die Koperniese beginsel noem.

[Uit Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]
[Uit die boek The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking & Ellis]

Nog 'n aanhaling deur George Francis Rayner Ellis:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria [beliefs] in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

Mense moet bewus wees dat daar 'n verskeidenheid van modelle is wat die waarnemings kan verduidelik. ... Byvoorbeeld, ek kan vir jou sferiese, simmetriese heelal met die aarde in die middel konstrueer, en jy kan dit nie weerlê op grond van waarnemings nie. ... Jy kan dit net uitsluit op filosofiese gronde. Na my mening is daar absoluut niks verkeerd daarmee nie. Wat ek in die ope wil bring, is die feit dat ons filosofiese kriteria [geloof] gebruik in die keuse van ons modelle. 'n Klomp kosmologie probeer om dit weg te steek.

[Uit String Theory Philosophy Challanged. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]

*****************

Richard Gott

“The Copernican revolution taught us that it was a mistake to assume, without sufficient reason, that we occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Darwin showed that, in terms of origin, we are not privileged above other species. Our position around an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy in an ordinary supercluster [the local group of galaxies] continues to look less and less special. The idea that we are not located in a special spatial location has been crucial in cosmology, leading directly to the [big bang theory]. In astronomy the Copernican principle works because, of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are by definition only a few special places and many nonspecial places, so you are likely to be in a nonspecial place”

Die Koperniese rewolusie het ons geleer dat dit 'n fout was om te dink, sonder voldoende rede, dat ons 'n bevoorregte posisie in die heelal beklee. Darwin het getoon dat, in terme van oorsprong, is ons nie bevoorreg bo ander spesies nie. Ons posisie om 'n gewone ster in 'n gewone sterrestelsel in 'n gewone superkompleks [die plaaslike groep van sterrestelsels] gaan voort om minder en minder spesiaal te lyk. Die idee dat ons nie geleë is in 'n spesiale ruimtelike plek nie, is van kardinale belang in kosmologie, wat direk lei tot die Oerknal teorie. Die Koperniese beginsel werk in die sterrekunde, want van al die plekke vir intelligente waarnemers om te wees, is daar per definisie slegs 'n paar spesiale plekke en baie nie-spesiale plekke, so jy is waarskynlik in 'n nie-spesiale plek.

[Uit Secular scientists blast the big bang. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]

Dit is baie duidelik dat Gott die Koperniese beginsel aanvaar vir die aarde se posisie in die heelal sonder enige wetenskaplike bewys daarvoor. Hy doen dit vanuit 'n naturalistiese motivering. Dit is presies dieselfde benadering as wat Darwin gevolg het met evolusie: kom ons kyk hoe ons alles kan verklaar sonder ’n God. (Kyk Charles Darwin Questions and Answers en The Darwin Anniversary)

*****************

Richard Feynman
(Hy was nie 'n gelowige nie. Kyk, Conservapedia/Richard_Feynman, Richard Feynman on God op Youtube.)

“...I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas... It would be embarrasing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary... To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.”

... Ek vermoed dat die aanname van eenvormigheid van die heelal 'n vooroordeel weerspieël gebore uit 'n reeks van oordrewe verwerping van geosentriese idees ... Dit sou 'n verleentheid wees om te vind, na die verklaring dat ons in 'n gewone planeet om 'n gewone ster in 'n gewone sterrestelsel leef, dat ons plek in die heelal buitengewoon is ... Om die verleentheid te vermy klou ons vas aan die hipotese van eenvormigheid.

[Uit die boek Starlight, Time and the New Physics, September 2007, John Hartnett, p 76-77. Kyk ook Ons is in die middel!]

Dit is baie belangrik wat Feynman hier sê: Kopernikus het die geosentriese beskouing vervang 'n heliosentriese beskouing. LW dat Kopernikus homself slegs uitgespreek het oor die aarde se posisie in ons sonnestelsel. Dus, die feit dat die aarde om die son draai en nie anders om nie, bewys niks oor die posisie van die aarde in die heelal nie. Kosmoloë vandag neem dus die Koperniese beginsel en pas dit toe op die aarde se posisie in die heelal, wat glad nie noodwendig waar is nie.

*****************

Carl Wieland
(Skeppingsleerder, direkteur van Creation Ministries International. Kyk ook Wikipedia/Carl_Wieland.)

Christians worried about the ‘starlight travel-time’ issue have seen a number of theories put forward to try to solve it, including CDK. For instance, the relativistic white-hole cosmology (see video, right) and even the two different conventions of calculated v. observed time.11 Which of these is right? Maybe none. I often say to enquirers, after outlining the encouraging advances made by some of these ideas, something like the following:

‘I don’t know for sure how God did it, but I know that I for one would hate to stand in front of the Creator of the Universe at a future point and say: ”Lord, I couldn’t believe your plain words about origins, just because I couldn’t figure out, with my pea-sized intelligence, how you managed to pull off the trick of making a universe that was both very young and very large.”’

[Uit Speed of light slowing down after all?]

*****************

Keith Wanser
(Skeppingsleerder. Kyk God and the electron.)

‘The sad thing is that the public is so overawed by these things [big bang and long-age cosmologies], just because there is complex maths involved. They don’t realize how much philosophical speculation and imagination is injected along with the maths—these are really stories that are made up.’

Dit is hartseer dat die publiek so in verwondering is deur hierdie dinge [Oerknal en lang-jarige ouderdom kosmologieë], net omdat daar komplekse wiskunde betrokke is. Hulle besef nie hoeveel filosofiese bespiegelinge en verbeelding ingespuit word saam met die wiskunde - hierdie is regtig stories wat opgemaak word.

[Uit Speed of light slowing down after all?]

*****************

Die volgende is aanhalings uit "Open Letter to the Scientific Community" deur 33 vooraanstaande wetenskaplikes (nie skeppingsleerders nie) wat op die internet gepubliseer is (www.cosmologystatement.org):

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory”

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

[Uit Secular scientists blast the big bang.]

*****************

Die volgende is 'n aanhaling uit 'n pro-evolusie tydskrif (R.N., Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy28(4):30, 2000.):

‘Pssst … astronomers who model the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret: Uranus and Neptune don’t exist. Or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the sun. Bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the sun’s protoplanetary disk that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with 14.5 and 17.1 times the mass of Earth.’

[Uit Neptune: monument to creation en http://creationwiki.org/Uranus]

*****************

Dr Brian Greene
Professor van wiskunde en fisika by die Universiteit van Columbië

"But there's always been a couple of problems with the big bang theory. First, when you squeese the entire universe into an infinitesimally small, but stupendously dense package, at a certain point, our laws of physics simply break down. They just don't make sense anymore."

Maar daar was nog altyd 'n paar probleme met die oerknalteorie. Eerstens, wanneer jy die hele heelal in 'n oneindig klein, maar wonderbaarlik digte pakkie druk, breek ons wette van fisika op 'n sekere punt eenvoudig af. Hulle maak net nie meer sin nie.

"And on top of this, there's the bang itself. What exactly is that?"

En bo-op dit, is daar die knal self. Wat presies is dit?

"Refinements to the big bang theory suggest explanations for the bang, but none on them turn the clock back completely to the moment when everything started."

Verbeteringe aan die big bang teorie stel verklarings vir die knal voor, maar nie een van hulle draai die horlosie heeltemal terug tot die oomblik toe alles begin het nie.

"Everyone admits there are problems."

Almal erken dat daar probleme is.

[Uit Cort, J en J McMaster (vervaardigers en regiseurs) (2003). The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th dimension (Episode 3), gewys op PBS. [Nova DVD reeks.] (Beskikbaar van WGBH Boston Video call 888 225-9231, faks 802 864-9846 en aanlyn www.shop.wgbh.org.)]

*****************

Dr David Gross
Ontvanger van die Nobel prys in fisika in 2004. Hy was die voorsitter van die teoretiese fisika by die Universiteit van Californië, Santa Barbara

"The [physics] formulas we use [in the big bang theory] start giving answers that are nonsensical. We find total disaster. Everything breaks down, and we're stuck."

Die [fisika] formules wat ons gebruik [in die oerknalteorie] begin antwoorde gee wat nie sin maak nie. Ons vind 'n totale ramp. Alles breek af, en ons is vas.

[Uit Cort, J en J McMaster (vervaardigers en regiseurs) (2003). The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th dimension (Episode 3), gewys op PBS. [Nova DVD reeks.] (Beskikbaar van WGBH Boston Video call 888 225-9231, faks 802 864-9846 en aanlyn www.shop.wgbh.org.)]

*****************

Alan Guth
Massachusetts Instituut van Tegnologie

"That's actually a problem. The classical form of the big bang theory really says nothing about what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang."

Dit is eintlik 'n probleem. Die klassieke vorm van die oerknalteorie sê werklik niks oor wat ontplof het, wat gebeur het voordat dit ontplof het, of wat die ontploffing veroorsaak het, nie.

[Uit Cort, J en J McMaster (vervaardigers en regiseurs) (2003). The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th dimension (Episode 3), gewys op PBS. [Nova DVD reeks.] (Beskikbaar van WGBH Boston Video call 888 225-9231, faks 802 864-9846 en aanlyn www.shop.wgbh.org.)]

*****************

Paul Steinhardt
Princeton Universiteit

"Most people come at this with the naïve notion that there was a beginning - that somehow space and time emerged from nothingness into somethingness."

Die meeste mense kom met die naïewe idee dat daar 'n begin was - dat tyd en ruimte op een of ander manier uit niks na vore gekom en iets gevorm het.

[Uit Cort, J en J McMaster (vervaardigers en regiseurs) (2003). The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th dimension (Episode 3), gewys op PBS. [Nova DVD reeks.] (Beskikbaar van WGBH Boston Video call 888 225-9231, faks 802 864-9846 en aanlyn www.shop.wgbh.org.)]

*****************

Burt Ovrut
Universiteit van Pennsylvania

"Well, I don't know about you, but I don't like nothing. Do I really believe that the universe was a big bang out of nothing? And I'm not a philosopher, so I won't say. But I could imagine to a philosopher; that is a problem. But to a physicist, I think, it's also a problem."

Wel, ek weet nie van julle nie, maar ek hou nie van niks nie. Glo ek regtig dat die heelal 'n groot knal uit niks was nie? Ek is nie 'n filosoof nie, so ek sal nie kan sê nie. Maar ek kan dink dat dit vir 'n filosoof 'n probleem is. Maar ek dink vir 'n fisikus is dit ook 'n probleem.

[Uit Cort, J en J McMaster (vervaardigers en regiseurs) (2003). The Elegant Universe: Welcome to the 11th dimension (Episode 3), gewys op PBS. [Nova DVD reeks.] (Beskikbaar van WGBH Boston Video call 888 225-9231, faks 802 864-9846 en aanlynwww.shop.wgbh.org.)]

*****************

Dr James Trefil
Fisika professor by George Mason Universiteit, Virginia. Hy aanvaar die oerknal, maar erken die volgende:

”There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” He also said the following: “The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.”

[Uit What about the big bang?. Kyk ook Skepping & Evolusie - Onversoenbaar! - Hennie Mouton, bl 222.]

*****************

Dr Danny Faulkner
Skeppingsleerder (erken dus nie die oerknal nie).

”Stars supposedly condensed of the vast clouds of gas and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.”

[Uit Refuting Evolution, hfst 7, Astronomy.]

*****************

Sagan and Druyan

Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.

Baie wetenskaplike artikels word jaarliks geskryf oor die Oortwork, sy eienskappe, sy oorsprong en sy evolusie. Tog is daar nog nie 'n stukkie van direkte waarnemings-bewyse vir sy bestaan nie.

[Uit Comets and the age of the solar system.]

*****************