If I really, REALLY had to come up with an explanation for colliding galaxies, I would propose a model similar to Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology, but more nuanced. I’d suggest that the large-scale structure of the universe, which mainstream science recognizes as cosmic strings generated during the inflationary epoch, were generated on the fourth day on extremely small scales and had time to interact as God created the universe over the course of the entire fourth day. Galaxies, gas clouds, and even nebulae started out as immensely compact structures which were able to interact and collide and reshape each other over a period of mere hours before expanding onto a cosmic scale. Thus it appears that very large objects had collided with each other, when in reality these things all happened on a very small scale in a single day.
It would take a lot of work to make it sound good but I am sure I could have come up with something.
Thank you but that won’t be necessary. I have nothing to hide. My only request is that you not invent problems just because it appears to be a young universe model. Remember, I gave ‘tau’ a value of 6000 years on purpose. It could just as well hold a value of 13.7 billion years in which case both time zones are equivalent in age and the universe size at inception decreases several orders of magnitude. If the model works, then it works for all thermodynamic ages – from 1000s of years to billions. That fact should help remove any bias from a reviewer.
The two time zones create the single dimension of time, still upholding spacetime in 4 dimensions. Yet the construction is unconventional. What in specific about that unconventional construction undoes the model? How is it falsified?
In defense of the model – and aside from the popular argument about the age of the universe – could such an exotic construction of time help explain things like flat space? Would it help solve the horizon problem?
Well first you did go on and on about light speed in your article. then you told me you didn’t.It was about speed of light concepts which are rejected by genesis. it clearly said light is fixed.
We do not see the galaxy moved. Anything we see is just of the moment. then somebody concludes it moved at such and such timelines. its not proven. The rates are not proven.
Not sure but i suspect the whole stars/galaxy thing is based on concepts of light speed.
Not mere before/after photos. How else could it be??
In revelation it says there was a cosmic war betwwn satan/anglels and Gabriel/angels in which a third of the stars were thown towards earth. i think this is likely a post fall event and not a future one. So impacts on earth below the k-t line are shrapnel from this.
@r_speir, well I will review your paper as if it’s any other paper that I refereed before. First, you have to understand that referee reports are not about trying to falsify the manuscript or finding holes in the manuscript (although that is a part of it). Instead, the typical referee report gives recommendations for the author to improve the manuscript. The situation is cordial instead of adversarial. Usually after referee report, the manuscript comes out stronger and with greater clarity. Edit: Just to be clear, this means that I will pull out from the discussion if it gets adversarial.
Before we begin, you need to tell me your target audience. These are metadata that usually comes from which journal you submit to. Are you intending to submit this manuscript to a journal? If so, which journal? Are you intending this to be read by physicists? YEC adherers? Christians?