Home » Intelligent Design » Sir Roger’s Revelation

Sir Roger’s Revelation

Cosmic Background RadiationIn a previous blog, I had analyzed Sir Roger Penrose‘s new cosmology (CCC) as a reworking of Sir Fred Hoyle’sSteady State Theory“. And of course, Sir Fred’s is a reworking of the Greek model of Democritus, and one of the three pillars of materialism. Also in the news is Hawking’s attempt to make the Creator unnecessary with a different kludge, invoking an infinite Monte Carlo casino of universes. Since Sir Roger is not a theist, it may be that like Sir Fred, he finds a certain attraction to recovering an infinite universe that makes a Creator unnecessary. Unfortunately, it looks as if he’s proven the opposite. But first let’s look at his theory.

Read more…

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Sir Roger’s Revelation

  1. Thanks Dr. Sheldon for the work you put into falsifying these conjectures:

    notes:

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    Prof. Henry F. Schaefer cites several interesting quotes, from leading scientists in the field of Big Bang cosmology, about the Theological implications of the Big Bang in the following video:

    The Big Bang and the God of the Bible – Henry Schaefer PhD. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5222493
    Entire video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSThtmA1J_U

    “The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.”
    Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – closing statement of part 5 of preceding video

  2. bornagain77,

    Excellent research. I heard that before the Big Bang was accepted most scientists believed the universe existed for ever. Is that true? Do you have any references for the views of scientists before the Big Bang.

  3. Peter, While I don’t have any direct quotes, from the era of pre-Big Bang cosmology, by the founders of science concerning their beliefs in a created universe or a eternal universe, I was pleasantly surprised to find, much to the consternation of atheists, that the founders of modern science were uniformly Theistic in their beliefs, with the vast majority of the founders being overtly Christian Theists:

    Christianity and The Birth of Science – Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D
    Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity – Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe’s materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin’s assumptions, you don’t have a case of “closet atheists.”
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline – Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer – video
    http://vimeo.com/16523153

    A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science
    http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov
    http://www.scigod.com/index.ph.....File/18/18

    The Origin of Science
    Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/aug.....rigin.html

    Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
    http://www.godandscience.org/a.....faith.html

    It is also very interesting to note that among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was, and is, correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    Yet,, In spite of the fact that modern science can be forcefully argued to owe its very existence to Christianity, many scientists before Hubble’s discovery had been swayed by the materialistic philosophy and had thus falsely presumed the universe itself was infinite in size as well as falsely presumed it was eternal in duration. This ‘simplistic’ conclusion of theirs seems to stem from the fact that it is self evident that something cannot come from nothing, and they simply could not envision the logical necessity of a eternal transcendent Being who created this material realm. The materialistic philosophy was slightly supported by the first law of thermo-dynamics which states energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any material means. This belief of the universe having no beginning had held the upper hand in scientific circles even though the very next law, the second law of thermo-dynamics, ‘entropy’, or the law of universal decay into equilibrium, had raised some serious doubts about the validity of believing the universe had no beginning. As well in mathematics, in overlapping congruence with entropy, the mathematical impossibility of a temporal infinite regression of causes demanded a beginning for the universe; i.e. the existence of a material reality within time called for an ‘Alpha’, an ‘Uncaused Cause’, for the material universe that transcends the material universe. In spite of the ‘science’ it is interesting that materialism prevailed.

    Peter it is also interesting to note exactly where Einstein, as great as a scientist as he was, made his ‘blunders’:

    ,,,I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning.

    Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre – The “Father” Of The Big Bang Theory – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662

    of note: This was not the last time Einstein’s base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the ‘spooky action at a distance’ postulations of the emerging field of quantum mechanics. This following video, which I listed earlier, bears worth repeating since it highlights the Bohr/Einstein debate and the decades long struggle to ‘scientifically’ resolve the disagreement between them:

    The Failure Of Local Realism – Materialism – Alain Aspect – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

  4. Cosmic Rebirth

    Now:
    —–
    Cosmic rebirth
    “Circular patterns in the universe’s pervasive background radiation suggest that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, but only the latest of its incarnations.”
    http://www.sciencenews.org/vie.....ic_rebirth

    ===========

    Way back:
    ———
    Universe’s Missing Mass ???
    ALL Universe’s Mass Is Accounted For !

    A. “Revealing the galaxy’s dark side”
    Excess of gamma rays at Milky Way’s center may indicate universe’s missing mass
    http://www.sciencenews.org/vie....._dark_side

    B. Be self-confident. Apply your plain commonsense, a good scientific approach.

    E=Total[m(1 + D)]
    Rethink Astronomy And The Universe,
    even without Quantum Unique Ergodicity, but with plain commonsense.

    Galactic clusters formed by dispersion, not by conglomeration. The proof of this is their behaviour, including acceleration, as Newtonian bodies.

    These bodies formed at the start of inflation, when all energy was still in mass format, and the inflation was the start of reconversion of cosmic mass into energy.

    Rethink
    - A Basic Physics Tenet. SpaceDistance in lieu/addition of SpaceTime.
    - The Universe In Which We Live. It is a dual-cycle array.

    1) Neutrino quick-change artist caught in the act
    A transformation from one ‘flavor’ to another confirms the elusive elementary particles have mass and suggests a need for new physics.
    http://www.sciencenews.org/vie.....in_the_act

    2) Adopt

    - Each and every particle has mass.
    - Dark energy and matter YOK.
    - Higgs field/particle YOK.
    - Do not be afraid of embarrassingly obvious answers. Adopt space-distance in lieu of space-time.

    3) And Rethink The Universe

    By the presently available data our universe is a dual-cycle array.

    One cycle, the present, started from singularity, with all cosmic energy in mass format, and it has been proceeding to reconvert all the mass resolved at the big bang back to energy, by expanding the cosmos, by accelerating away the galaxy clusters.

    The other cycle, the cycle that led to singularity, will re-start when the expanding cosmos consumes most or all mass that fuels the expansion. Gravity will then initiate reconversion of all the energy back to mass, to singularity, again.

    Dov Henis
    Comments From The 22nd Century
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c...../1655.page

    Cosmic Evolution Simplified
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#4427
    28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#4587
    “Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos”
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#4887
    Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
    http://darwiniana.com/2010/09/.....ists-fear/

  5. Dr. Sheldon you might find this tidbit interesting:

    Strengthening the Case for a Cosmic Creator, Part 1 (of 2)
    http://www.reasons.org/strengt.....r-part-1-2

    particularly this seeming anomaly:

    the team still found a preferred direction, that is an anisotropy, in the WMAP temperature map. However, they did discover that the preferred direction is aligned along the plane of the solar system. Such an alignment, they concluded, could not be coincidental. It strongly suggested that “the signal is not of cosmological origin, but most likely is a product of some unknown systematic effect.”4

Leave a Reply