Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part IV

SPECIAL NOTE. PLEASE READ.

Two small points. If a star is directly behind a wormhole exit we will not see it. However, if a star is to the side of a wormhole exit its light will be bent into earth so we will see it. This bending will be very different from standard gravitational lensing that is produced by normal massive objects and has been observed countless times.

When I stated it's bad to be at the center of the universe, I meant the center of the shell of white holes. But since they connect every point in space to our solar system, in a sense we then occupy a special location in the universe. Which will be crushed by the way.

Also, I should have stated "Top 10 List Why White Holes are NOT a valid Solution to the Starlight Problem".

This idea is NOT supported by AIG or any other main strem YEC website. It was proposed by an individual during a discussion. I only include it in this series to point out it is NOT a valid solution to the starlight problem. This should also not be confused with Russell Humphreys' "White Hole Cosmology" idea. That is an altogether separate idea that also has a ton of flaws. I think I will treat that in a future video.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?0jtyk0ylm3m

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ygzhizza5iy

Think about it.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• White
• Worm
• Black
• Hole
• YEC
• Universe
• Age
• Creation
• Intelligent
• Design
• Evolution
• Top
• 10
• Ten
• List
• Wrong
• Astronomy
• Cosmology

[bicnarok]

things have been measrued to go faster than light, galaxies moving away faster, quasers spinning faster. Light speed barrier just is a local effect.

[IndependenceHD]

As a Christian who believes in an old-earth, I APPROVE of this video. :)

[fdasherv]

@geeleegoat It's extraordinary that you're in a position to correct Einstein. Plus you're a plasma physicist as well. Bravo. Now explain to all of us what it all means and how it drags god into existence. Yes, I can see the headlines now: Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and geeleegoat!

[geeleegoat]

@fdasherv

Unfortunately, the Standard Model fails on so many levels, yet is continually modified in an attempt to fit observations. Fortunately, there is an alternative electric model of the universe which explains observations, based on plasma physics. It's premises can be experimentally and cheaply tested in the lab (unlike the Standard Model's whose will ever remain impossible to verify and costly) and it's adherents are actively and successfully predicting new phenomenon observed in space.

[geeleegoat]

@fdasherv

Yes. Can you answer me this;Why do Einstein's field equations completely ignore the EM force (which is 10E39 x stronger than whatever we call gravity)? If the speed of light is the universal limit, how can any mass in the universe 'know' where all other gravitating bodies are, instantaneously, in order to avoid orbital shear forces ensuing from a speed limit to gravity, whether you believe gravity is transmitted by particles or by deformations in some imaginary 'fabric of space-time'?

[howardsway782]

Google Solarchords com. here is a detailed study of the affect of Gravity upon the tracks of the Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune, about the Barycentre of the Solar System, discovering that the Sun’s orbit precisely matches the production of Sunspots via Acceleration changes & Climate Variation via Earth/Sun distance changes, in a closely linked & highly repetitive sequence, showing that Sunspots do not cause Climate Change but explaining why there is a close pattern match.

[johnsergei]

Oh please! Evidence is not theory, but all the creationist have is a theory

( without a single shred of evidence).

Noahs Ark is enough to instanty discount any religion with this story.

So as I only keep my bible to refer murderous verses in it to the faithful ( You know, the bit's they'd never read in church or show in childrens books), I therefore require other evidence of GOD, ANY GOD.

But onto a much more interesting topic ( like making good science vids)

This clip certainly is...

[fdasherv]

@elinikk But your theories are all bathwater and no baby. This "worldview" argument is the mantra of so many psychopaths it's laughable. Who but an obstinate creationist could have a more dogmatic "worldview" that demands assurance even in the form of lies? Willful lies. Real science is a pack of eager wolves ravenous for acclaim, to be sure. But that's what keeps them all in check. Once anything's presented in a journal, a dozen scientists will try to tear it down. The "method" crackpots lack.

[elinikk]

@fdasherv I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Much science is good. I have studied science at the university level and I say there is much insight. The problem is that scientist are not unbiased. They are people with presuppositions. They work in their labs desiring to prove their own personal idea of the universe. They are not necessarily in persuit of truth, though I think many want to know what is real, rather they are in persuit of success in their own idea of the universe.