Sources? I feel like your theory here is very disjointed and skips critical discoveries that would lead to the next one. Not to mention it sounds like there are many assumptions in play here considering the little amount of detail you have provided. This story of this supposed discovery should be able to be described much smoother and with way more detail than you are giving.
Hawking would've given donut shape some consideration (though sphere is a bit likelier). In another application (in re light cones), he said the universe is pear-shaped. I disagree and say chocolate-chip-shaped.
I appreciate your sources. Interestingly, the last one argues against this axis, holding that it's likely a phenomenon that would appear to refer back to your own location wherever you are in the universe. Haven't heard about it before and it might or might not exist, but CMB certainly holds clues about our makeup that must be read aright.
Hugh Ross is often brilliant and occasionally erratic. The best answer is that all scientific discovery either (1) fits supernatural creation or (2) results in still-debated paradoxes that, when resolved, will also fit. The estimates of the universe being 15 billion years old by expansion data but the stars in it being 20 billion years old by star formation data is an open question, for instance. When it gets solved, possibly by questioning the foundational assumptions about time, space, and light, it will accord precisely with the rest of creation. The fact that creation is orderly and that we didn't order it ourselves suggests Someone else did. Make sure and get His identity right.
Sources? I feel like your theory here is very disjointed and skips critical discoveries that would lead to the next one. Not to mention it sounds like there are many assumptions in play here considering the little amount of detail you have provided. This story of this supposed discovery should be able to be described much smoother and with way more detail than you are giving.
Hawking would've given donut shape some consideration (though sphere is a bit likelier). In another application (in re light cones), he said the universe is pear-shaped. I disagree and say chocolate-chip-shaped.
I appreciate your sources. Interestingly, the last one argues against this axis, holding that it's likely a phenomenon that would appear to refer back to your own location wherever you are in the universe. Haven't heard about it before and it might or might not exist, but CMB certainly holds clues about our makeup that must be read aright.
Hugh Ross is often brilliant and occasionally erratic. The best answer is that all scientific discovery either (1) fits supernatural creation or (2) results in still-debated paradoxes that, when resolved, will also fit. The estimates of the universe being 15 billion years old by expansion data but the stars in it being 20 billion years old by star formation data is an open question, for instance. When it gets solved, possibly by questioning the foundational assumptions about time, space, and light, it will accord precisely with the rest of creation. The fact that creation is orderly and that we didn't order it ourselves suggests Someone else did. Make sure and get His identity right.