Universe Creation for Purpose VS The Big Bang

[rayoob]

Astronomers look to the begin of the universe as a single point then expand and stretch to grow as it is right now, and formed galaxies, Planets, stars, asteroids and other matters.

If we accept this theory, many questions popped up:

If the Universe created from a single point, why the content of the Universe is not identical? As each object in the universe have its own dimensions and characteristics.

What is the system of the Big Bang at each stage? As each stage has its own shaping and forming, so what is the physics laws for that phenomenon?

What is the type of energy that engaged at the first point and what is the source of it? As the first point of the creation is the moment of the explosion.

What is the order in sequence of the planets creation in the solar system specially the earth? And what is the scientific conclusion that the earth is the only place for human Life?

If the dark energy is the force that causing the expansion of the Universe, So why this force is mysterious and not measurable? And why its conflict with the theory of the general relativity which describe that the gravity is not a force?

Many questions and questions needs explanations and answers which takes ages and tons of researches and explorations to provide these answers, and in most of the time might the answers will be still unknown, under study or assumptions.
We need re-evaluate the concept from logic point of the view as if we take each question from the above will end up with no sense answer.

The way of how the Universe is designed and created is much more advance than an explosion at the first point as explained in the Big Bang Theory, or the nature is behind all these events and activities in the Universe.
So what is behind this Phenomenon?
If we look closely, we will recognized that this massive space including the galaxies, planets, stars and other objects, the earth is formed a tiny object in this giant place, and we will recognize also that the earth is the only life and rich of resources in this giant place.

The Giant Sun is occupied to serve the earth and for human specifically, as the health benefits from the sunlight is unlimited such:
1. initiating the process of producing vitamin D in the body
2. supporting healthy bones
3. managing calcium levels
4. reducing inflammation
And massive other benefits of the sun, Beside the four seasons in twelve months (365 Days), these seasons and the temperature is fit for life not as in the other planets, as it is not fit for human, either too cold (Freeze level) or too hot (Burn Level).

If we look at the moon, it orbits the earth and rotate around its Axis once every Month almost 27 days. From the faces of the moon we recognize the start and the end of each month which allows counting the number of years, and this is the main purpose of the moon Creation.

The Stars and the Planets can explain to us how each one of them has its own location, Diminutions, elements and behavior we cannot get two objects identical or similar and this is the beauty of this creation which allow us to think for a moment of this amazing design and creativity, the Stars shine because they are extremely hot. The source of their energy is nuclear reactions going on deep inside the star, planets do not have nu-clear fusion, and they do not produce their own light. Instead, they shine with light reflected from a sun. When we look at the planets in the night sky, such as Venus, that called "Evening Star" we are seeing reflected sunlight.

Considering the Big Dipper (Group of Stars) and the Polaris which gives us the directions as they are always located on the north and never changed their location since the Uni-verse creation or one of the stars disappeared or died (The supernova), compared to the death of the other stars.

Many other events, behaviors and activities in the Universe, some of them observed and some still under exploration which gives us a clear picture that the universe is not just begin in a single point or explosion, its much beyond that as it required so advanced designing, planning, connecting & locating, stability, continuity, execution processing, recycling and other elements which makes the Universe sustainable.
So the Big Bang theory is simplifying the Universe creation Process and kept it to the nature and the nature is managed by itself, and this is not a proper Validations and Analysis of these input data, as this Theory is ignoring all the required elements as mentioned above for the Universe Sustainability.

Interesting Details can be found below:

The Truth behind the Solar System in the Universe

 

[rod]

The paper cited uses the geocentric solar system model. "Geocentric is the only model can match the above data and keep the balance for the day time (24 Hours), with + or − 2 to 3 Hours between the winter and summer in the average of the earth locations (Equatorial line for example). By applying the above data, the Sun will orbit the earth at the same circumference of 940 Millions/km at the same speed of 107,280 km/h which was considered for the earth [12]."

940 million km is a big difference from the present distance used, close to 150 million km for the astronomical unit. In the Tycho Brahe geocentric solar system and Claudius Ptolemy geocentric model, the Sun was about 0.05 AU using the modern standard or considered to be about 1200 earth radii distance. The paper cited shows the Sun is more than 6 AU from earth that does not move using the modern astronomical unit. Something to ponder about this geocentric model presented.

Okay if the circumference for the Sun moving around the Earth is 940 million km, the radius ~ 1.496 E+8 km or close to the modern value of 1 AU distance between the Sun and Earth. So this geocentric model has the earth immovable and the Sun about 1 AU distance, moving around the Earth.

 

[rod]

The paper cited in post #1, the abstract clearly states, "Also, it will discuss about The Geocentric model and how scientifically proofed that the Earth is not orbiting the sun as it has a fixed position in the universe with the rotation around its axis and the sun is orbiting the Earth in one solar year."

The geocentric model presented in the paper cited does not have a Galactic Year for the Sun. How long is a galactic year? https://www.livescience.com/how-long-galactic-year.html

In the geocentric model for the Sun presented in post #1, there never will be a Galactic Year and the Sun completing some 20 Galactic Years since its origin does not take place. The age of the Earth and geologic timescale for the Earth will collapse in the geocentric model for the solar system.

 

[Helio]

The paper’s argument that there is a daily timing problem that disproves the Heliocentric model but favors the geocentric model is nuts. Both the Sun and Earth move relative to one another so the timing will necessarily always be the same, if the apparent orbital paths are drawn accurately.

If Jill goes round and round a merry-go-round with one spin per, say, 10 seconds where she sees Joe, who is standing still, then Joe will necessarily see Jill every 10 seconds even if Jill is convinced that she isn’t moving and it’s a Joe going round and round.

That more distant objects must travel faster than light to orbit tiny little Earth is no small issue as well.

 

[rod]

The paper’s argument that there is a daily timing problem that disproves the Heliocentric model but favors the geocentric model is nuts. Both the Sun and Earth move relative to one another so the timing will necessarily always be the same, if the apparent orbital paths are drawn accurately.

If Jill goes round and round a merry-go-round with one spin per, say, 10 seconds where she sees Joe, who is standing still, then Joe will necessarily see Jill every 10 seconds even if Jill is convinced that she isn’t moving and it’s a Joe going round and round.

That more distant objects must travel faster than light to orbit tiny little Earth is no small issue as well.

Helio, you raise some valid points here about the geocentric model presented. When it comes to more distant objects moving around the fixed Earth faster than c velocity, that works only if their distances are correct. However, there will be no stellar parallax measurements like for stars 61 Cygni, thus no reliable distances too from the fixed Earth. Everything starts to fall apart in astronomy and geologic dating. My note here does not mean I accept the geocentric model presented, but I do recognize the serious impact it could have.

 

[Helio]

When it comes to more distant objects moving around the fixed Earth faster than c velocity, that works only if their distances are correct. However, there will be no stellar parallax measurements like for stars 61 Cygni, thus no reliable distances too from the fixed Earth.

The minimum distance for an object to circle a fixed (but rotating) Earth in 365.24 days comes to only about 0.16 lightyear, well within parallax measurements. Or is my math off?

I used 2*pi*R (circumference) / P (Period) for the orbit speed. So setting the speed to c... R = c*P/(2 pi).

 

[rod]

The minimum distance for an object to circle a fixed (but rotating) Earth in 365.24 days comes to only about 0.16 lightyear, well within parallax measurements. Or is my math off?

I used 2*pi*R (circumference) / P (Period) for the orbit speed. So setting the speed to c... R = c*P/(2 pi).

Helio, my understanding and MS Excel calculator I use shows you must have a baseline for the Earth moving around the Sun to measure stellar parallax. Because the Earth is immovable and does not move around the Sun, there is no 2 AU baseline used in measuring stellar parallax, there will be no stellar parallax observed, even 1 arcsecond angular size. A good example is 61 Cygni. Using 2 AU baseline because Earth is moving around the Sun, the stellar parallax of 0.314 arcsecond works out to be about 10.387 LY distance from Earth. However, because the Earth does not move, there is no 2 AU baseline now.

 

[Helio]

Helio, my understanding and MS Excel calculator I use shows you must have a baseline for the Earth moving around the Sun to measure stellar parallax. Because the Earth is immovable and does not move around the Sun, there is no 2 AU baseline used in measuring stellar parallax, there will be no stellar parallax observed, even 1 arcsecond angular size. A good example is 61 Cygni. Using 2 AU baseline because Earth is moving around the Sun, the stellar parallax of 0.314 arcsecond works out to be about 10.387 LY distance from Earth. However, because the Earth does not move, there is no 2 AU baseline now.

That's a good point, but the Ptolemy model was falsified by Galileo with the phases of Venus.

The only possible Geocentric model would need to be a modified (Kepler orbits) Tychonic model where the Earth is fixed and the Sun moves around the Earth, but the Sun becomes the center for the rest of the universe. This would allow observed parallax for closer objects. This "saves the appearances" and is not easily refutable with mere direct observations, though the level of fictious forces becomes extreme.

BTW, I think parallax only uses 1 AU for a baseline in defining parallax, though 2AU would be 2x better.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just read the summary:

As a result, Space is so wide and every planet, star or any other object has its own rules, physics, chemistry and other sciences, as we cannot apply what we learned and practiced on the earth to another planet, star or space unless if the humans can live there and do the same learning path as what they did on the earth and come out with different sciences than what they produced on the earth. But human’s capabilities only allow him to learn from the place they born and the events around him.

My emphasis.

Well that's the first paragraph.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Just read the summary:

My emphasis.

Well that's the first paragraph.

Yeah, there are a lot of issues in that article. But it‘s the key objective elements of the erroneous claim that is worth discussion. Some readers could be bedazzled by the claims with all that artwork.

 

[FromBelow]

[It‘s] the key objective elements of the erroneous claim that is worth discussion. Some readers could be bedazzled by the claims with all that artwork.

Sadly, I suspect that was the author's objective.

Evidence and logic doesn't work when the other side is playing under different rules. OP essentially argues that he thinks the universe is too complicated to exist without magic, and therefore geocentrism is plausible despite any evidence to the contrary.

But hey, now that I know the sun exists to maintain my vitamin D levels and reduce inflammation I'm totally on board with geocentrism.

 

[Catastrophe]

we cannot apply what we learned and practiced on the earth to another planet, star or space unless if the humans can live there

Just think how ridiculous this could get. We land on the Moon, or Mars. Nothing we have learnt on Earth is of any value. So we start to learn by Moon's or Mars' rules. What we thought we had learnt about any atmosphere here is of any value. So we begin our new learning process by taking off our helmets to get a good sample of the invigorating air.

Even before that, on landing, we have to forget everything we learnt on Earth. Forget about gravity, retro rockets and all that irrelevant stuff. Just rely on what we are landing on being welcoming. Better still, just think about the gravity here. What we calculated on Earth about the gravity here is meaningless. Gosh! It might be a zillion times more here than we thought.

Why did we ever decide to come here anyway??

Cat

 

[COLGeek]

This thread has run its course. Thank you to all who contributed.