tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post4320893383197691914..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Cosmology at Creationism Conference john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-54280243679047829222020-04-27T13:47:14.540-07:002020-04-27T13:47:14.540-07:00Hi Phil
Thanks for your further clarifications. I...Hi Phil<br /><br />Thanks for your further clarifications. It seems to me, then, that you are saying that light from a galaxy, say apparently 13 billion light years away, actually came from that galaxy (not created "en route") and travelled to us in less than, say, 10,000 years. During its travel the light speed was c (contra Lisle), and time dilation was not a major factor. But, since the non-Euclidean (hyperbolic) geometry of space make objects appear to be more distant than they actually are, the actual distance travelled was less than 10,000 light years.<br /><br />This is an interesting idea that I discussed briefly in an article "On Small Curved-Space Models of the Universe" (CRSQ 25: 138-140) back in 1985. The problem is that, if the radius of curvature R is constant, it must be huge, so that this can probably be ruled out observationally. You could modify R to suitably vary with distance, but this makes the model rather ad hoc. Also, distant galaxies, cluster of galaxies, etc. become very flattened in the line of sight direction.<br /><br />To make your model more applicable-- and more plausible-- I suggest doing some calculations of actual travel times within your non-Euclidean model.<br /><br />By the way, thanks for your email address, but I can't get past your anti-spam link, which gives me an error message.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-49542249253766057882020-04-27T12:20:00.998-07:002020-04-27T12:20:00.998-07:00john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-27692156113570444172020-04-26T17:24:54.080-07:002020-04-26T17:24:54.080-07:00Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you...Hi John,<br />Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you are a presentist!<br /><br />(1) I disagree with Hartnett's assessment. While there is a degree of similarity it is only so in a formal mathematical sense. The similarity arises from the fact that my hypersurface is asymptotically null (when interpreted in terms of the fictitious FLRW manifold in which it is embedded). The other departure is that my hypersurface is smooth at the origin; and geometry in every "present" is locally Euclidean while ASC has what is known as (pathological) conical singularity at the origin. That conical shape is present through out the universe in Lisle's model. His model is non-Euclidean everywhere. Circumferences of circles, surface area and volume of spheres are not the Euclidean formulas. Validity of high school geometry would be an enigma. In my model, the departure from Euclidean geometry increases smoothly as one recedes from the vicinity of the earth neighborhood. Euclidean formulas hold at the earth and for a sizeable neighborhood. The upshot of all this is that the distant objects are not as distant -- due to the non-Euclidean distance. In my model light does not arrive instantaneosly but actually travels through each instant of the evolving non-Euclidean space. (BTW, I am currently researching radically inhomogeneous models that will allow light to arrive earlier by traversing voids (in which no matter is present to drag the light away in the Hubble flow. That would be a modification to the last model in the ICC paper -- it would incorporate the features of the barbell cosmologies I outlined in early part of the paper). <br /><br />Returning to Lisle, I note that Lisle has allowed his "synchrony" surface to be non-null cones. He is sensitive to using a null-surface. So his light travel time is huge but not instantaneous. But since Lisle stays with conical spaces they all exhibit the conical pathology. I hope this explains why my model, though it looks similar (asymptotically only) differs in major details that remove the defects in Lisle's "conventionalist" approach., such as local non-Euclidean geometry. Note, I am analyzing Lisle's model in light of a presentist, non-convetionalist philosophy. The eternalist conventionalist interpretation would be a "non-starter" from a Christian position.<br /><br />One final remark regarding Hartnett. His claim that my paper depends on a synchrony convention is mistaken. But I won't expand on that here.<br /><br />(2) Regarding the rapidly advanced cosmic time: For better or worse, I added that as an after thought while looking at the embedding diagrams. It is not a necessary consequence of the model. For example just stay with the 3+1 formulation. We then have the initial value problem for a 3D space with a time dependence hij(t,x,y,z) (i,j = 1,2,3) and t as the cosmic time (or age of the creation). Besides which, rapidly advancing the time at remote locations only advances it in an unobservable portion of the universe (those events would be spacelike w.r.t. the earth).<br /><br />(3) My statement about a mature creation was not clear. I meant mature state on the spatial initial Cauchy surface and other spatial volumes during the creation week. An example we use would be Adam created in a mature state. My model rejects "pseudo phos" (false light). All light would be emitted from an object at the moment of the object's creation in a mature state and would progress through the subsequent 3d spaces to arrive at the earth. There is no light created "in transit" as if it had been eminated from a non-existent object.<br /><br />I hope the above adequately answers your comments and questions.<br /><br />Soli Deo Gloria<br /><br />PhilPhillip W. Dennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-84839552175322529312020-04-14T11:58:20.618-07:002020-04-14T11:58:20.618-07:00Hi Phil
Thanks for your clarifications and commen...Hi Phil<br /><br />Thanks for your clarifications and comments regarding your paper. <br /><br />I found your paper very interesting. I totally agree with your position for presentism rather than eternalism. I also share your concerns regarding Jason Lisle’s ASC model.<br /><br />Yet, according to John Hartnett (https://biblescienceforum.com/2018/11/13/new-cosmologies-converge-on-the-asc-model) your model is similar to the ASC model, in that incoming and outgoing (earth-wise) light rays have different speeds, so that “incoming light rays from distant stars can reach the earth instantaneously.” Do you agree with that, and is that how you solve the distant starlight problem?<br /><br />On the other hand, in your paper, you appeal to a “miraculous advancement of cosmic time at remote locations”, which sounds more like a rapidly matured creation.<br /><br />Now, in your above comment, you remark that you have no issue with a universe created in mature state, which presumably entails that light rays from distant stars didn’t actually come from those stars, and exhibit a fictitious past.<br /><br />Which of these solutions to the distant starlight problem does your model best support?<br /><br />Thanks<br />john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-14912049068173282642020-04-08T10:09:05.136-07:002020-04-08T10:09:05.136-07:00In a rereading of my post above, I see I was a lit...In a rereading of my post above, I see I was a little loose. <br /><br />The phrase " he affirms the ontological status of his proposed creation surface, i.e. it would be absolute cosmic time = 0, but in a flat empty cosmos" should be modified.<br /><br />The qualifier "flat" should be deleted, as follows: " he affirms the ontological status of his proposed creation surface, i.e. it would be absolute cosmic time = 0, but in an empty cosmos." The reason is that the spatial hypersurface in the model would be the non-flat pseudo-sphere.Phillip W. Dennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-6001385111540920692020-04-07T13:00:17.484-07:002020-04-07T13:00:17.484-07:00Hello John,
A few comments concerning my model pu...Hello John,<br /><br />A few comments concerning my model published in the ICC 2018.<br /><br />First, I agree that the paper is intended for those well versed in GR. There has been some discussion about writing a lay version of the paper but so far I have not found the time to do so.<br /><br />As to the the "miraculous advancement of cosmic time at remote locations:" I proposed that as an after thought, late in the writing. It is actually unnecessary as the advancement that results in a "now" that can't be observed is empirically inaccessible anyway. Part of that urge was that some have taken my diagrams to indicate that the FLRW spacetime, from which my model was excised, has ontological privilege. That is not the case. That interpretation came from a very good question that was raised in private communication. The interlocutor suggested that my initial creation surface potentially extended to an infinite (or extremely large) past of the FLRW. Two points: The FLRW manifold and its cosmic time has no claim to being the correct cosmic time. This was one of the points I discussed in the paper. GR cannot specify which spacelike surface is a putative now. We are free to choose my creation surface as the ontological moment of creation, cosmic time = 0. Further, everything of FLRW manifold below that surface just never existed. It is just a mathematical extrapolation into a fictitious past.<br /><br />I should add that Tenev's solution is a special case of mine... a similar creation hypersurface but in an empty cosmos. A defect of Tenev's approach was he didn't firmly give the surface ontological status -- it was just a choice of coordinates within an otherwise eternalist Minkwoski space. In that regard it shared the conceptual features of ASC which is inherently eternalist. However, Tenev , in private communication, now agrees that presentism is the correct view of time and he affirms the ontological status of his proposed creation surface, i.e. it would be absolute cosmic time = 0, but in a flat empty cosmos. At this point my model and Tenev's share no conceptual similarity to ASC (which is geometrically flawed at any rate).<br /><br />My model gives a view of the geometry of spacetime at the moment of creation and, by way of 3+1 formalism, its time evolution thereafter. It is thoroughly a presentist theory -- which is compatible with GR.<br /><br />As for the creation of the structure within the universe, I see no issue with it being created in a mature state. A state that would be consistent with the full blown state of the stress-energy distribution along the spacelike slice of my creation hypersurface. On the other hand, I should add that my model places no restrictions on possibilities of other non-gravitational accelerated processes in the early universe -- my model is purely a gravitational spacetime model within the confines of GR. Those processes are out of scope for my paper which is concerned with the large scale cosmos in which gravity is the dominate process. I defer to other creationists to flesh out particulars of other material processes.<br /><br />Hope these remarks are useful.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />PhilPhillip W. Dennisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-8669765881150864312019-04-30T12:49:02.518-07:002019-04-30T12:49:02.518-07:00Hi Thomas
Thanks for your comment. Your raise som...Hi Thomas<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. Your raise some interesting points. <br /><br />One difficulty with origins is that, from a Biblical perspective, it must involve some miraculous divine activity. Hence no creationist theory will ever truly satisfy “the demands of a rigorous scientific model”, to the extent that miracles can't be rigorously modeled. <br /><br />On the other hand, any valid scientific model must account for all the relevant data. Thus any scientific model of cosmic history must be consistent with historical data, including that recorded in the Bible. Hence, to the extent that mainstream historical science contradicts the Bible, it fails to satisfy the demands of a rigorous scientific model.<br /><br />My point is that one is severely limited in trying to reconstruct the past via scientific models, particularly if these are based only on current observational data plus naturalistic assumptions and extrapolations.<br /><br />The wealth of recent astronomical observations may well uncover hidden mysteries. These certainly serve to show the shortcomings of naturalist scientific explanations. Whether they will lead to a solid scientific proof of a young cosmos is more doubtful. <br /><br />We await for full proof of the Biblical worldview with the imminent return of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-66584852098711241392019-04-26T05:50:07.461-07:002019-04-26T05:50:07.461-07:00I think our differing philosophies of science (ins...I think our differing philosophies of science (instrumentalist on your part, realist on mine) impacts our view here, but it seems to me that even if mature creation or other ultimately untestable explanations are true, there is no point in making an argument for them- the creationist scientist should continue to search for an alternative explanation. If none exists, he will never find one which truly satisfies the demands of a rigorous scientific model. But if your view turns out to be wrong, its widespread adoption could inhibit the discovery of that fact. I suppose I'm offering something of a lower stakes Pascal's Wager here. <br /><br />I take it as a given from the outset that God has hidden Himself in the creation in such a way that thorough investigation will unveil these mysteries. We are to trust His Word always. That's our basis, starting point, and absolute standard. It blocks us from false paths- like the one science has been traversing the past two centuries, wasting time all the while. But it seems to me that the scripture indicates that the profound difficulty of working out these mysteries (Prov. 25:2) is part of their joy.<br /><br />The rapidly matured creation model may be consistent with this- but I would expect it to leave some traces distinguishing it from a genuinely old cosmos.Thomas Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03996399571986376714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-10651399011191962182018-09-09T07:07:41.628-07:002018-09-09T07:07:41.628-07:00Mr./Ms. RubeRad,
Oh, what joy it would be to know ...Mr./Ms. RubeRad,<br />Oh, what joy it would be to know who you really are! Like those of us who honestly put forth our names and stand behind our positions, it would be wonderful if you would deem it honorable to disclose yourself. <br /><br />After years of reading Dr. Byl's posts, and bringing forth your comments to this forum, are you still an old universe-old earth guy or gal? Still a follower of Hugh Ross, right?<br /><br />"...since we have no skill to outsmart God's perfectly smooth and transparent manipulation of time".<br /><br />This sounds like someone setting himself/herself up to take God's place, putting God in the dock, with himself/herself as Judge. As if himself/herself knows what's possible and not possible, and brings the judgment down on the Almighty. Be careful Mr./Ms. RubeRad. You will one day have to stand before the Almighty Creator of all that is and give account.<br /><br />Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-24269117877042697182018-09-04T08:21:41.353-07:002018-09-04T08:21:41.353-07:00"No. The correct answer, according to the Rap..."No. The correct answer, according to the Rapidly Matured Creation model is that Centaurus A is two days older than Adam, although it may seem to be millions of years old when analyzed via naturalist presuppositions."<br /><br />And yet that "seem" is all we have access to, since we have no skill to outsmart God's perfectly smooth and transparent manipulation of time. What if every cosmological or astronomical paper began with "Assuming the laws of nature have remained constant since the singular origin of the universe, what we can deduce from observations is..." All science implicitly relies on the uniformity of nature, I don't think many scientists would deny this, no matter how secular.RubeRadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06542479147492378996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-63623725647212392762018-08-31T20:03:13.199-07:002018-08-31T20:03:13.199-07:00RR, Comment. This is not my model so I cannot spea...RR, Comment. This is not my model so I cannot speak to what is in another's mind. What I know is that your last paragraph seems to be spot-on. It follows that there would be an enormous amount of history out there. <br /><br />And you actually make a point that I meant to make two days ago but forgot to. Yes, the light pouring in on us from the light/radiation columns is traveling at conventional c, as you say 'regular' speed.<br /><br />I defer.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-40403237990217623552018-08-31T17:38:19.133-07:002018-08-31T17:38:19.133-07:00"Many creationists reject this solution since..."Many creationists reject this solution since this entails that the light we view from distant galaxies never actually came from those galaxies."<br /><br />Further, the light rays carry 'video' of a history that never actually happened.<br /><br />Although I guess what you're saying is that that history would have happened at an accelerated pace during day 4, and we now observe it at 'regular' speed. We've watched the first 6000 years of video, and there's presumably billions more years of video queued up and streaming our way.RubeRadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06542479147492378996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-85519841925110187192018-08-30T16:55:32.148-07:002018-08-30T16:55:32.148-07:00One more post and I will cease for a season. Just ...One more post and I will cease for a season. Just wanted to say that this model regards the earth as the preferred frame of reference, just as the Bible Creation story does. So the purist may find this model deeply satisfying in that God is seen to deeply age the system over the span of a single earth day with no communication lost between an observer like Adam and a vast, beautiful universe. The technician too can find satisfaction in the fact that to adopt a cosmic frame of reference in the model yields a time-dilated cosmology. <br /><br />This one has really stretched me. I did not know this possibility even existed. I would have insisted against it, as you see me several posts previous actually doing! Well, I am a changed man. There is a beauty and simplicity, an elegance, in this model that I have not seen in any other creationist cosmology. I end up a very benefited man, indeed!!!Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-22664793278426647912018-08-30T16:41:18.437-07:002018-08-30T16:41:18.437-07:00MIRACULOUS DAY ..............SOLAR DAY
nascent......MIRACULOUS DAY ..............SOLAR DAY<br /><br />nascent..............................>(Earth<br /><br />intermediate.....................>>(Earth<br /><br />post intermediate...........>>>(Earth<br /><br />fully mature>>>>>>>>>>>>(Earth<br /><br />Correcting a correction: this picture I posted is incorrect. Arrows should not be farthest right, but rather farthest left and "pushing" right as the light columns grow over time. So my initial correction was incorrect, meaning I am now correcting my correction! Ugh. That means this statement was correct after all: "The first arrow contains the earliest information about the source’s history and moves to the right as the second arrow with a little more history comes behind." Sorry for the confusion.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-66931107853558180382018-08-30T16:29:07.139-07:002018-08-30T16:29:07.139-07:00Hello Steve, the equation you describe will be &qu...Hello Steve, the equation you describe will be "an equation of the line" or in this case, a curved line. It will be nothing like futile or frustrating, but informative and satisfying. We will first find the relationship of our independent variable, time - a 24 hour day and our dependent variable speed of light and come up with an equation of the line. Then we will begin taking the derivative of that line to find the ever-changing slope. This will give us predictive power as well as the ability to show how someone like Dr. Byl might be correct in his belief that the nearer we are to the Creation moment, the greater the accelerated physical processes occurring - a steeper slope. Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-79813479953875015642018-08-30T11:57:58.433-07:002018-08-30T11:57:58.433-07:00Randy S said,
"The math involved deals with l...Randy S said,<br />"The math involved deals with light/radiation leaving cosmic sources at ever-declining speeds and filling the light columns from bottom to top, "bottom" being nearest earth."<br /><br />Randy, can you write an equation for this? What are your variables? Are these variables known constants or unknown? Are you trying to explain through math and known laws of physics a miraculous event? Will this not lead to futility and frustration?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-17492855620137400982018-08-29T17:16:38.180-07:002018-08-29T17:16:38.180-07:00I will probably have to yield on the aging light q...I will probably have to yield on the aging light question. Faulkner has to be correct because light only ages as it travels through space. There should be no difference in this model. And since the oldest light yields the youngest views of the cosmos, radiation traveling the farthest is collected at the bottom of the light columns and offers us the youngest views of Creation.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-36173476031030709122018-08-29T17:02:29.104-07:002018-08-29T17:02:29.104-07:00I said this: "The first arrow contains the ea...I said this: "The first arrow contains the earliest information about source’s history and moves to the right as the second arrow with a little more history comes behind." But that needs a correction. <br /><br />The very first emission of light from the newly created object yields its earliest history but it does not "move to the right" as I said above as the second comes behind. That first emission of light/radiation goes clean to the bottom of the light column and immediately touches earth. The next arrow - light pulse - will also come superluminally fast (albeit slower than the first by an almost infinitesimal amount) and stack right on top of the first. <br /><br />This scenario will play out for 1 day (each cosmic object is 1 miraculous day away from earth no matter its distance) until the column is filled with light/radiation.<br /><br />You know this already, but the columns are not represented by anything physical.<br /><br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-85496704886377206902018-08-29T16:47:06.760-07:002018-08-29T16:47:06.760-07:00MIRACULOUS DAY ..............SOLAR DAY
nascent......MIRACULOUS DAY ..............SOLAR DAY<br /><br />nascent..............................>(Earth<br /><br />intermediate.....................>>(Earth<br /><br />post intermediate...........>>>(Earth<br /><br />fully mature>>>>>>>>>>>>(Earth<br /><br />All the Earths should be in a straight line but I think you got that anyway. This one may not work out either.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-67123738779766944392018-08-29T16:41:19.471-07:002018-08-29T16:41:19.471-07:00The math involved deals with light/radiation leavi...The math involved deals with light/radiation leaving cosmic sources at ever-declining speeds and filling the light columns from bottom to top, "bottom" being nearest earth. Will this constitute aging light? I am not yet convinced. Faulkner thinks it does. And radial distance of sources from earth will very much affect accelerated light speeds and "aging" if it is really occurring. But it should not matter anyway. The model works. Details aplenty still need to worked out in the physical to help explain things. Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-8106000514263509932018-08-29T16:31:39.860-07:002018-08-29T16:31:39.860-07:00MIRACULOUS DAY ...........SOLAR DAY
nascent.........MIRACULOUS DAY ...........SOLAR DAY<br /><br />nascent...........................>(Earth<br /><br />intermediate...................>>(Earth<br /><br />post intermediate..........>>>(Earth<br /><br />fully mature>>>>>>>>>>>>(Earth<br /><br />As a single solar day – Day 4 – passes on Earth, a miraculous day passes in the heavens. Moving from top to bottom, the cosmic object on the left can be seen to rapidly mature over the course of that single miraculous day. Some objects/structures grow in size until full maturity is reached. Others have very different histories and may actually shrink in size – e.g., burned-out stars, black holes, by full maturity.<br /> <br />But here is what is missing in all the literature and discussion. The cosmic object itself is only half of the ensuing miracle. The other vitally important half is the light/radiation column that is shot to earth, at superluminal speeds, from each cosmic source as the source matures. The light column above is represented by the growing line of arrows headed towards Earth. Each arrow represents a single light pulse emitted from the source. The first arrow contains the earliest information about source’s history and moves to the right as the second arrow with a little more history comes behind. By the close of the miraculous day, not only is the cosmic source fully mature, its ensuing light column is completely stacked with a deep and authentic history of its source, and touching Earth. <br /> <br />By the close of Creation day 4, multiplied trillions of light/radiation columns are streaming to Earth from just as many cosmic sources bringing Earth and sky into full causal communication for as long as both are in existence. Never will the sky go dark, not from day 4 forward. As light pours from the bottom of each light column, we are recipients of each pulse of emitted history straight from the source, and so are free via spectral analysis and other means to study an authentic and rich history of the cosmos.<br /> <br />The entrance of light/radiation columns into the discussion changes everything. <br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-29735265404770252802018-08-29T05:40:05.249-07:002018-08-29T05:40:05.249-07:00Randy, thanks for the reply. Let me ask you a ques...Randy, thanks for the reply. Let me ask you a question if I may, as it pertains to your comment above about checking out the math. How can you apply math to a miraculous event?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06281645028946507619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-45664648567987719142018-08-28T18:42:26.872-07:002018-08-28T18:42:26.872-07:00Randy, I was merely ending our last exchange, whic...Randy, I was merely ending our last exchange, which was becoming repetitious, in line with my comment rules. You are welcome to bring up new points.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-42071904315563602732018-08-28T14:57:05.088-07:002018-08-28T14:57:05.088-07:00Dr. Byl, I do respect your request to end the conv...Dr. Byl, I do respect your request to end the conversation with me. I know I benefited in unexpected ways. Here I add my well-wishes to your endeavors.Randy Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-41023442753290308032018-08-27T17:17:13.121-07:002018-08-27T17:17:13.121-07:00Steve, I can appreciate you sticking up for Dr. By...Steve, I can appreciate you sticking up for Dr. Byl. You all have had a good thing going for a long time at this blogsite. I think that is special and great. I am simply a visitor, true. But let me assure you, a very honest one indeed. I absolutely am not seeking my own in this encounter. To the contrary, it has been my aim from the start to give Dr. Byl's cosmology every benefit.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I did take a step back for awhile today, took off my cosmology hat, and just sat by the stream to ponder some things. I was not expecting to get an answer so soon, and certainly not a positive one. I still needs to be checked out first with a little math. The results look positive for now.<br /><br />I have taken the liberty to email Dr. Faulkner first about the possible solution because it also pertains to his cosmology as much as it does to Dr. Byl. Fair is fair. Right now it looks like his model is helped. I believe the same will happen for Dr. Byl's.<br /><br />See, what is really lacking in both of these models are full physical write-ups. Had that been done at the outset, I think today's solution - or, at least, possible solution - would not have even been necessary. Full write-ups are so vital in these kinds of scientific endeavors, yes even if they involve miracles.<br /><br />I hope to be in touch shortly.<br /><br /><br /><br />Randy Snoreply@blogger.com