'scientific' nonsense

The above illustration of a "rising loaf of raisin bread" is used as a model to represent the way in which the universe is supposedly expanding in every direction.  That illustration appears on a website developed by Carl R. Nave, Ph.D., professor emeritus, department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University (source here).  Fifteen years ago (2002), that website was being viewed an average of two million times per day.  As of the year 2012, it was among the most often referenced websites on the Internet.

And here is a video produced by Dr. Brian Schmidt, a Harvard-trained astrophysicist and Nobel laureate, in which he explains the theory of the expanding universe (here).

The idea that the universe is rapidly and continuously expanding in every direction, is a tenet of contemporary astrophysical science; it is an idea that is widely accepted by practically all scientists engaged in the study of the physical universe.  There is only one problem with that idea, namely: it is complete nonsense.  And I believe I can prove that claim ~ though it won't take a 1200-page book crammed with hyperbolic geometry and algebraic topology, much less shall it require an advanced degree in astrophysics, to do so.  Toward the end of this essay, I'll talk about why it matters.

First, let's consider the loaf of bread in the above illustration.  Why does the distance between each and every raisin in that loaf continue to increase (as long as the loaf undergoes the process of fermentation)?  Bread dough is "leavened" by mixing a small amount of yeast in the dough.  The individual spores of yeast (a fungus) then feed upon the dough, which generates carbon dioxide (gas) as a byproduct of that process ~ in the space surrounding each (microscopically small) yeast spore.  Those gas-filled pockets, as they grow and expand, divide the bread dough into myriad small strands, which strands are thereby stretched and pushed ~ outward from the center of the loaf.  Thus, the loaf expands radially in every direction, that is to say, from the center outward; and, so, the distance between individual raisins within the loaf does, in fact, increase.

Importantly, the original form of the dough (ball) determines the final shape of the fermented loaf.  For example, a spherical dough ball, as it ferments, becomes a spherical loaf.  Whereas, an elongated (cigar-shaped) dough ball, as it ferments, becomes a much larger cigar-shaped loaf.  In every case, the resultant form is due to the fact that expansion necessarily occurs outward from the center of the original mass of leavened dough.

The notion of an expanding universe, regardless of its original "shape," may at first seem to imply that the universe must have a center ~ but only if one actually attempts to correlate the "raisin bread" model to the real universe.  But it is not known whether there are limits or bounds to the real universe; and, furthermore, scientists have never discovered any region of the universe that manifests properties consistent with what might be expected at the "center" of the universe (if such properties may even be knowable).  Therefore, the "raisin bread" model of the (expanding) universe is useless to explain reality; though it is not useless to deceive.

Importantly, in his video (linked above), Dr. Schmidt suggests that omnidirectional expansion is observable regardless of whatever point in the universe one may select as the reference, or vantage, point (see, video time-mark 8:10 thru 9:10).  "We [earth] aren't a special place in the universe," said Schmidt.  It is vitally important to consider that no human being (besides Jesus Christ) has ever been able to observe the universe ~ from anywhere other than from within the very near environ of earth.  Besides, such an idea as Dr. Schmidt suggests (omnidirectional expansion) is logically impossible ~ as the following illustration demonstrates:

The three 'X's in the above image represent three different vantage points.  According to Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Nave, an observer standing at any of those three points would perceive that everything was moving away from the observer, in every direction.  But an object represented by the green X cannot be moving away from both the blue X and the orange X at the same time.  It is logically and physically impossible for expansion of space to be occurring everywhere at once ~ unless ~ "new" space is continuously being created everywhere and at every moment.  Only in that case were it then possible that each and every object in the universe could actually be moving away from every other object in the universe.  But, in that case, another impossibility arises in our thoughts.

For, if space were continuously being created everywhere at every moment (what is "new" space arising from?), then what about the space within objects themselves?  Atoms contain practically infinitely more "space" ~ the same "space" that occupies the void of the universe ~ than they contain actual "particles" of matter.  Therefore, if "space" were continuously expanding ~ as Schmidt and Nave claim, then every object in the universe should be expanding in every direction in precisely the same manner and at the same rate as everything else.  Importantly, the "rate" of that expansion ~ according to Drs. Schmidt and Nave (et al), is faster than the speed of light!  Wow!  Think about what that means for your waistline!

How does that work?  How is it that "new" space can be created in 'outer' space, but not in 'inner' space?  Scientists have no answer for that.  But they do have an answer for why it is that our waistline is not already as big as the Milky Way: that is to say, it is because of Gravity.  That's astrophysicists' answer to everything, or so it seems.  Here is an image representing the classic model of how gravity supposedly "bends" something called the "fabric of space-time:"

The above model is supposed to explain how gravity works.  The cone of depression "below" the large blue sphere is supposedly due to the effect that its mass exerts upon the surrounding "fabric of space-time."  But do you see anything wrong with that model?  It depicts the "fabric of space-time" as being flat like a bed sheet!  The model is not merely deceptive, in fact, it is downright stupid.  For, it suggests that the blue sphere's mass affects space in one direction, and with respect to one plane, only.  If the theory of gravity ~ as modeled in the above image ~ were correct, then the blue sphere should be distorting "space" equally in every direction surrounding the sphere.  Importantly, the faint grid lines in the image do not indicate lines of force (of gravity), but those lines indicate how it (supposedly) is that space and time is distorted by the mass of the blue sphere.  According to the above model, the smaller red sphere then rolls down into the cone beneath the blue sphere and gets stuck in orbit around that blue sphere ~ similarly as a penny, when it is rolled just right on its edge, runs in a circuit around a cone-shaped funnel.  But as I have very, very briefly tried to explain, that schema which attempts to explain gravity might be O.K. ~ if space were a one-dimensional rubber sheet.

Let's briefly return to examine Dr. Schmidt's and Dr. Nave's claim that objects appear to be moving away from each other at a speed faster than the speed of light.  I will ask but one, simple question, and I will leave it at that.  If object 'X' were moving away from an observer at a speed faster even than light travels, then how would it be possible for the observer ever to see such an object?

Here is a wonderfully entertaining and insightful video, in which Stephen J. Crothers debunks some of Einstein's most influential ideas, in the process as Crothers also demolishes MANY other claims of modern Science (link here).  What is most entertaining about that video, to me, is that Crothers mostly employs good 'ole common sense to refute a number of the most high-flying ideas in the realm of physics.

Don't get me wrong.  I love science.  That is to say, I love true science, real science.  Unfortunately, a very great deal of what is passed off as scientific, today, is nothing other than agenda-driven propaganda.  It is an important part of a strategy that is being used very effectively in every branch of the sciences, in order to advance an ungodly agenda involving a wide spectrum of anti-scientific, not to mention anti-Scriptural, ideas and goals.

And that's why it matters whether or not we are tempted to believe an idea just because it may happen to be endorsed by any number of persons who pride themselves in the few initials appended to their names, i.e., Ph.D.  Sin makes people stupid ~ regardless of whether they have a Ph.D. or not.