Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: abiele7000@xxxxxxx
- Date: 10 May 2007 21:39:30 -0700
On May 10, 3:27 pm, hbarwood <hbarw...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 10, 2:05 pm, Pahu <pah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Big Bang?
"And no element abundance prediction of the big bang was successful
without some ad hoc parameterization to 'adjust' predictions that
otherwise would have been judged as failures." Van Flandern, p. 33.
"It is commonly supposed that the so-called primordial abundances of
D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang
cosmology. But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs
to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances." H. C. Arp et
al., "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, Vol.
346, 30 August 1990, p. 811.
"The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB [big bang] universe have been
repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of
that ratio as observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is
dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that
has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently
established helium to hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been
predictions, but merely adjustments of theory ('retrodictions') to
accommodate current data." Mitchell, p. 7.
Steidl, pp. 207-208.
D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (London: Cambridge University Press,
1971), pp. 149-155.
"Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers
have detected a far greater abundance of beryllium atoms than the
standard Big Bang model predicts." Ron Cowen, "Starlight Casts Doubt
on Big Bang Details," Science News, Vol. 140, 7 September 1991, p.
151.
Gerard Gilmore et al., "First Detection of Beryllium in a Very Metal
Poor Star: A Test of the Standard Big Bang Model," The Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 378, 1 September 1991, pp. 17-21.
Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Chemistry: Closing the Gap in the Origin of the
Elements," Science News, Vol. 150, 2 November 1996, pp. 286-287.
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988), p. 3.
Geoffrey R. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, Vol. 233,
3 September 1971, pp. 36-40.
Ben Patrusky, "Why Is the Cosmos 'Lumpy'?" Science 81, June 1981, p.
96.
Stephen A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, "Superclusters and Voids in
the Distribution of Galaxies," Scientific American, Vol. 246, March
1982, pp. 106-114.
"Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries
of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to
explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary
motions?" William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of
Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project,
1987), p. 177.
Alan Dressler, "The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies," Scientific
American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46-54.
http://www.creationscience.com/
So your most up-to-date-reference is some 15 years old? Since
Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years,
you appear to have a poor grasp of the subject matter.
Perhaps I can offer an update.
The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with
very little or no basis in reality, except that the universe is
expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. The math
was invented by materialists in an effort to explain the observation
of our expanding universe and the known helium and deuterium
abundances found in the universe. The math is constantly being tweaked
in an effort to explain the big bang as well as the formation of
galaxies, stars, planets etc. As with biogeny, cosmogony has become
permeated with evolutionary assumptions and conclusions, yet, despite
this, the Big Bang points to an extremely fined tuned low entropic
beginning of our universe that suggest an uncaused cause, that must
exist, that caused the universe to come into existence, and many have
concluded the uncaused cause to be an intelligent being, the I AM, God
Himself.
Whenever problems arise, a big banger will just add some more
mathematics to the equation, thus we have this mysterious mathematical
'inflation' to help bring the Big Bang theory into agreement with
theoretical observations. If there was ‘inflation’ at all, then we do
not know what started the inflation and what caused the inflation to
suddenly stop.
Mathematical changes also resulted from the "Big Bangers" failure to
find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. Using their preconceived
materialistic worldview as a constraint, and their intelligence, big
bangers simply devised more mathematics to explain away their failure
to observe the predictions of the Big bang, and now the "Big Bangers"
have new mathematical reasons why we do not observe the predicted
gravitons, monopoles, etc. If they had found the predicted gravitons
and monopoles in the first place, they would not have bothered to add
the new math that makes them invisible.
Other problems with the Big Bang:
The BB Model has had only one successful prediction to support it, the
existence of a Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). This background
radiation turned out to be approximately a flat 2.75K (from COBE
“Cosmic Background Explorer”).
The one successful prediction (CBR) of the Big bang Theory may prove
to be its falsification. The CBR is too uniform. To get stars and
galaxies, there must have been a slight unevenness in the temperatures
of the early universe, causing gravity to vary throughout space and
thus causing clumping, etc. The Big Bang scientists involved were able
to calculate exactly what these variations in the CBR ought to be.
They sent the COBE satellite into space to search for these
variations. It would have been another strong confirmation for the Big
Bang Theory (at least for the surviving versions of it) had it not
been for the fact that COBE did not find any variation. Of course,
when you have fifty years of scientific effort, life-long careers, and
personal scientific achievement at stake, scientists do not take “NO”
for an answer, especially from some machine named COBE. With complex
statistical analysis of COBE’s measurements, variations were allegedly
found. Then two additional published studies confirmed this analysis.
As one scientist put it, “Even if the temperature fluctuations turn
out to be real, it has generally been missed that these fluctuations
are an order of magnitude too low for the standard cosmology.” Indeed
they were so low that COBE couldn’t see them and even after the
statistical fudging of COBE’s readings, no one was able to point to
any place in space where these alleged variations exist.
Of such is the miracle of materialist scientists finding what they are
looking for in order to demonstrate they had not wasted a large part
of their life believing and arguing for a materialistic view of
cosmogony that proves to be false.
In his article: 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric J. Lerner, he
states: “The earth and the entire solar system was, five billion years
ago, formed from the debris not of the Big Bang but of a
supernova. ... just as Lemaitre's Big Bang failed when cosmic rays
were shown to be produced in the present-day universe rather than the
distant past, so Gamow's failed when the chemical elements were shown
to be produced by present-day stars.”
Lerner also states: “Other conflicts with observation have emerged as
well. Dark matter, a hypothetical and unobserved form of matter, is an
essential component of current Big Bang theory- an invisible glue that
holds it all together. Yet Finnish and American astronomers, analyzing
recent observations, have shown that the mysterious dark matter isn't
invisible- it doesn't exist. Using sensitive new instruments, other
astronomers around the world have discovered extremely old galaxies
that apparently formed long before the Big Bang universe could have
cooled sufficiently. In fact, by the end of the eighties, new
contradictions were popping up every few months.”
”In all of this, cosmologists have remained entirely unshaken in their
acceptance of the theory. ... cosmologists, with few exceptions, have
either dismissed the observations as faulty, or have insisted that
minor modifications of Big Bang theory will reconcile "apparent"
contradictions. A few cosmic strings or dark particles are needed-
nothing more.”
”This response is not surprising: most cosmologists have spent all of
their careers, or at least the past twenty-five years, elaborating
various aspects of the Big Bang. It would be very difficult for them,
as for any scientist, to abandon their life's work. Yet the observers
who bring forward these contradictions are also not at all ready to
give up the Big Bang. Observing astronomers have generally left the
interpretation of data to the far more numerous theoreticians. And
until recently there seemed to be no viable alternative to the Big
Bang - nowhere to go if you jumped ship.”
Another problem with the Big Bang that Lerner brings up is:
“A major problem, known as the age paradox, (16) plagues Big Bang
Theory: The postulated age of the Big Bang universe may be
incompatible with observations.
Despite the insistence of some Big Bang advocates on a lower value,
recent observations of distant galaxies have confirmed the Hubble
constant to be approximately 80 km/sec/Megaparsec (about 24.5 km/sec/
million light years). (13,17) Hubble time, the age 12 billion years.
The age of a flat or near flat Big Bang universe, as postulated by Big
Bang theorists in recent years, would be two thirds of that, or about
8 billion years; somewhat more than that for an open Big Bang
universe, and somewhat less than that for a closed Big Bang universe.
That age is only about one half of the known age of some stars and
galaxies, (18,19) presenting an obviously impossible situation.”
”Conversely, a flat Big Bang universe having an age of 15 billion
years, would require a Hubble time of 22.5 billion years and a Hubble
constant of about 42.2 km/sec/Mpc; little more than one half of the
observed value.”
Lerner also has this to say about the peer reviewed process that
evolutionists seem to admire so much:
“In 1889 Samuel Pierpont Langley, a famed astronomer, president of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and soon to be
the one of the pioneers of aviation, described the scientific
community as "a pack of hounds ... where the louder-voiced bring many
to follow them nearly as often in a wrong path as in a right one,
where the entire pack even has been known to move off bodily on a
false scent."
“The current system of specialized peer review originated in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as science became more
closely tied to, and supported by, large-scale capitalist enterprise.
While inventor-entrepreneurs like Thomas Edison chose for themselves
what to research, the later financier-industrialists wanted the
"quality of work" guaranteed in advance. So they, together with
leading academics, encouraged the idea of peer review- the inspection
of scientific work by the "best authorities" in a given field.”
”At the same time, the growing industrialization of scientific
research led to an increasing level of specialization. The older
generation of scientists had picked their research topics according to
their own interests and often hopped across an entire field (as the
best twentieth-century scientists continue to do). But as scientific
research became organized in large-scale industrial labs, and as
university work fell under the sway of industrial concerns, research
came to focus on specific topics of commercial need, and scientists
were encouraged to devote their entire career to single specialties.”
“The combination of growing specialization and the peer-review system
have fractured science into isolated domains, each with a built-in
tendency toward theoretical orthodoxy and a hostility to other
disciplines.”
“When scientists are specialized," Alfven comments, "it's easy for
orthodoxy to develop. The same individuals who formulate orthodox
theory enforce it by reviewing papers submitted to journals, and grant
proposals as well. From this standpoint, I think the Catholic Church
was too much blamed in the case of Galileo- he was just a victim of
peer review.”
“The ability of a scientific theory to be refuted is the key criterion
that distinguishes science. If a theory cannot be refuted, if there is
no observation that will disprove it, then nothing can prove it - it
cannot predict anything, it is a worthless myth.”
The picture becomes even bleaker for the Big Bangers.
No Discernable Gravitational Lensing of the Cosmic Back Ground.
Gravitational lensing is an optical effect whereby a background object
like a distant quasar is magnified, distorted and brightened by a
foreground galaxy. It is a consequence of general relativity and is so
well understood that it now appears in standard optics text books.
Objects that are too far to be seen are ‘focused’ by an intervening
concentration of matter and bought into view to the earth based
astronomer. The largest foreground concentrations of matter are
galactic clusters and the furthest known background is the cosmic
background radiation or the CBR. The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe) recently imaged the CBR of the full sky to high
resolution. One would expect to see gravitational lensing distortions
in the CBR ‘acoustic’ pattern. Lieu and Mitaz in their recent
Astrophysical Journal article (ApJ 628:583, 2005) have shown
mathematically that the expected distortions in the CBR are absent!
This is a major blow to the Big Bang theory where the CBR is the main
evidence for its occurrence. This may mean that the CBR is not
‘cosmological’ at all, but rather a ‘local’ effect, possibly like that
envisioned by Hoyle & Wickramasinghe (Ap&SS 147:245, 1988). They
showed that a homogeneous cloud mixture of carbon/silicate dust and
iron or carbon whiskers could produce such a background radiation.
Thus the CBR may not be the whimper of the Big bang, but just a dirty
expulsion of nearby supernovae.
In Lerner’s words:
In 1957, Hoyle and other scientists on his team (nuclear physicists),
showed that the most common elements - helium, carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, and all the other elements lighter than iron - are built up
by fusion processes in stars. The more massive the star, the farther
the fusion process can proceed, until it develops iron; at that point
no more energy can be derived from fusion, since the iron nucleus is
the most stable of all. Thus, when a star exhausts its fuel, it
collapses, and the unburned outer layers of the star suddenly mix as
they fall into the intensely high temperatures of the core. The star
explodes as a supernova, a "little bang", that outshines an entire
galaxy for a year. In this explosion, the heavier nuclei absorb still
more neutrons, thereby building up the heaviest elements, including
radioactive ones like uranium. This explosion scatters the new
elements into space, where they later condense into new stars and
planets. The earth and the entire solar system was, five billion years
ago, formed from the debris not of the Big Bang but of a supernova.
Hoyle accounted for the production of heavy elements by a process that
continues into the present-day universe, and thus can - unlike the Big
Bang - be verified. Moreover, he calculated that this process would
produce the elements in roughly the observed proportions. Had the Big
Bang occurred, the two processes together would have produced more
heavy elements than are actually observed.
The Cosmological Principle states that neither earth, nor our sun, nor
our galaxy holds as special or privileged position in the universe.
Though this view was not that of Nicolaus Copernicus, in 1961 Hermann
Bondi personalized the cosmological principle by renaming it the
Copernican Principle, thereby making it more palatable to a larger
audience. In 1973, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis threw their weight
behind this term to popularize it. This principal has guided all
materialistic views and interpretations on cosmogony.
However, observing the universe from earth’s vantage point, it
appeared that the universe was spherically symmetrical all around us.
Stephen Hawkin and George Ellis, in 1973, admitted that this normally
mean that earth is located near a very special point in the universe,
but such a thought is anathema to all materialists, including the Big
Banger’s. So they added an ad hoc solution to discredit this
observation that we are special. They use the Copernican Principle to
reject this observation by assuming the “… universe is isotropic about
every point in space time; so we shall interpret the Copernican
principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically
symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically
symmetric around us).” Thus they argued for a super ad hoc solution
that saves the materialists worldview and their prevailing view of
cosmogony from destruction.
The advent of scientists’ ability to measure the redshift of galaxies
combined with the advent of the understanding that the redshifts of
distant and very distant galaxies were not caused by their relative
velocity to earth, but by the expansion of space itself as predicted
by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Thus a redshift is
partially due to Doppler shifts, but is mostly primarily to the
spatial expansion of the universe, and more so the further away the
galaxy. This enabled scientists to measure the distance between the
earth and each galaxy. As time went by, they were able to remove the
Doppler effect of relative motion from the measurement of the
redshifts of other galaxies in order to determine accurate distances
between earth and other galaxies.
As the distances were plotted, a materialistic inexplicable
observation was made. Our earth is surrounded by near spherical walls
of galaxies that occur approximately every 1 million light years.
Computers were used to recalculate the observation from the center of
our Milky Way and the spherical walls appeared to be near perfect
indicating that the center of our Galaxy was the center of the
universe. To confirm this, other locations in the universe were chosen
to test for the spherical walls from their location. At 1 million
light years from the Milky Ways center the spherical walls started
becoming blurred. At 2 million light years the spaces between the
spherical walls filled in. It became clear that if our galaxy were
greatly displaced from the centre, the distance groupings seen from
our vantage point would overlap one another and become
indistinguishable. The evidence is strong that our galaxy is special,
that we may truly be the center of the universe. To the consternation
of the materialists, our universe has a center and our Milky Way is
it.
In addition, Earth holds a special place in our Milky Way galaxy. I
quote Physicist D. Russell Humphreys:
Spiritual implications of a centre:
To Christians, the thought of being located at the centre of the
cosmos seems intuitively satisfying. But to secularists, it is deeply
disturbing. For centuries they have tried to push the Copernican
revolution54 yet further to get away from centrality. Carl Sagan
devoted an entire book in this style to belittle our location and us:
‘The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena … Our
posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have
some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point
of pale light [an image of Earth taken by Voyager I]. Our planet is a
lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in
all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere
to save us from ourselves.’55
Let’s consider more closely why the central position of mankind in the
cosmos is so important an idea that the enemies of God try to escape
it.
First, the Bible declares the uniqueness and centrality of our home
planet. It mentions the Earth first in Genesis 1:1, on Day 1—long
before it mentions the Sun, Moon and stars over a dozen verses later,
on the fourth day. Genesis 1:6-10 locates the Earth ‘in the midst’ of
all the matter of the cosmos, as I explained in Starlight and Time.56
In Genesis 1:14-15, God says the host of the heavens exists for the
benefit of those on the Earth. So it is not man who imagines himself
‘at a commanding position at the centre of the universe’,57 but God
who says we are there. It is heartening to see the evidence once again
supporting what Scripture says.
‘Okay,’ you might say, ‘but then why didn’t God put us right at the
centre of our galaxy, where the centrality would have been more
evident?’ Well, it looks like He had something better in mind. First,
there are good design features about our Sun’s position in the Milky
way, making it an ideal environment.58,59 The inner galaxy is very
active, with many supernovæ, and probably a massive black hole, that
produce intense radiation.60 Instead, the Sun has a fairly circular
orbit keeping the Earth at a fair distance from the dangerous central
portion. In fact, the Sun is at an optimal distance from the galactic
centre, called the co-rotation radius. Only here does a star’s orbital
speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise, the Sun would cross the
arms too often and be exposed to other supernovæ. Another design
feature is that the Sun orbits almost parallel to the galactic plane—
otherwise, crossing this plane could be disruptive.
Second, there are aesthetic and spiritual reasons. If God had placed
the Sun closer to the Milky Way centre, the thick clouds of stars,
dust, and gas (quite aside from the supernovæ!) near our galaxy’s
centre would have prevented us from seeing more than a few light years
into the cosmos. Instead, God put us in an optimal position, not at
the outmost rim where the Milky Way would be dim, but far enough out
to see clearly into the heights of the heavens. That helps us to
appreciate the greatness of God’s ways and thoughts, as Isaiah 55:9
points out.
Most important, it is very encouraging to see evidence for the
centrality of humans to the plan of God. It was a sin on this planet
that subjected the entire universe to groaning and travailing (Romans
8:22). Ours is the planet where the Second Person of the Trinity took
on the (human) nature of one of His creatures to redeem not only us,
but also the entire cosmos (Romans 8:21). This knowledge that God gave
minuscule mankind prime real estate in a vast cosmos astounds and awes
us, as Psalm 8:3-4 says:
‘When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and
the stars, which you have ordained; What is man, that you are mindful
of him? and the son of man, that you visit him?’
Sources:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp#f49
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm#big.bang.mitchell
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/inflation.html
The Current State of Creation Astronomy: Danny R. Faulkner, Ph. D.
1998
Part 2
The Big Bangers were supposed to release a WMAP update in February
2004 from data collected in 2003 (There were also anomalies with the
2002 data) But the update was long postponed due to anomalies in the
data, and these anomalies were kept secret, so I can’t comment on
them. However, here are some of the results from WMAP that did not fit
the Big Bang Theory despite the propaganda in the media.
WMAP confirmed the COBE results, the magnitude of the fluctuations
were still a magnitude too low to account for the formation of stars
and galaxies. However WMAP was more sensitive than COBE and was able
to show the location of these low level temperature fluctuations that
COBE failed to show.
WMAP did not show the lensing effect described in my initial post.
This indicates that the background radiation is local from our own
Galaxy as predicted by many other scientists. This scientific fact
alone is devastating to the Big Bang Theory.
In 1970, Soviet astrophysicists, R. A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zel'dovich,
pointed out that as the background radiation passes through large
clouds of intergalactic gas, some of the radiation would collide with
electrons in the gas, scattering it out of our line of sight and
giving it a different wavelength ("Compton scattering").The resulting
change of intensity in the background radiation reaching us would be
interpreted by WMAP as a change in the radiation's temperature.
Sunyaev and Zel'dovich estimated the resulting bumps could be as large
as one part in a thousand. Astrophysics and Space Science 7 (1970)
3-19, cf. p. 16.
The bearing the 'Sunyaev and Zel'dovich effect' has on the WMAP is
brought out by this science article:
Echoes of the big bang … or noise? by John Hartnett
The report
A 2 February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society
(RAS) was headlined as ‘Corrupted echos from the big bang?’ on their
own website1 and ‘Are galaxy clusters corrupting Big Bang echoes?’ on
the Spaceflight Now2 website. All the excitement was in response to a
new analysis of data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP). A team at the University of Durham, led by Professor Tom
Shanks, has reported that the variability in cosmic microwave
background radiation (CMB) data is significantly distorted by clouds
of gas through which it has travelled.
These headlines are amazing, as the WMAP data had been previously
heralded as being the most precise measure of the early echoes of the
big bang. They were called echoes because it was believed they were
the result of the acoustic waves generated at the stage, after the big
bang, where radiation separated from matter. The small-density
fluctuations in the matter/radiation density at that time, which
resulted in the echoes, is claimed to be the seed for the formation of
galaxies and clusters later in the development of the universe.
This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the
proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many
parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the
origin of the universe may be all wrong. The RAS press release goes on
to say:
‘But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a
“New Era of Precision Cosmology” may prove to be premature! “Our
results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is
dominated by an elusive cold dark matter particle and the even more
enigmatic dark energy”, said Professor Shanks’ [emphasis added].
It could even lead to the rejection of cold dark matter and dark
energy, which incidentally are locally unknown physical concepts but
are necessary to make the BB model work.
The evidence
What have they actually discovered? The press release is quite clear:
‘The team has found that nearby galaxy clusters appear to lie in
regions of sky where the microwave temperature is lower than average.
This behaviour could be accounted for if the hot gas in the galaxy
clusters has interacted with the Big Bang photons as they passed by
and corrupted the information contained in this echo of the primordial
fireball. Russian physicists R.A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeldovich
predicted such an effect in the early 1970s, shortly after the
discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.’
This Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect3 has previously been seen in the cases
of detailed observations of the microwave background, in the vicinity
of a few rich galaxy clusters, and the WMAP team themselves have
reported seeing the effect in their own data, close to cluster
centres.
Now the Durham team has found evidence that hot gas in the clusters
may influence the microwave background maps out to a radius of nearly
one degree from the galaxy cluster centres, a much larger area than
previously detected. This suggests that the positions of ‘clusters of
clusters’ or ‘superclusters’ may also coincide with cooler spots in
the pattern of microwave background fluctuations.
‘The photons in the microwave background radiation are scattered by
electrons in nearby clusters’, said Professor Shanks. ‘This causes
important changes to the radiation by the time it reaches us.’
The explanation
So it seems the Sunyaev–Zeldovich (SZ) effect is far more of a problem
than first expected. The effect is an inverse Compton-scattering of
the microwave photons from free electrons in the hot gas. The team
went on to say:
‘The WMAP team has already reported that their measurements of the Big
Bang’s microwave echo may have been compromised by the process of
galaxy formation at an intermediate stage in the Universe’s history.
They presented evidence that gas heated by first-born stars, galaxies
and quasars may have also corrupted the microwave signal when the
Universe was 10 or 20 times smaller than at the present day. Thus both
the WMAP and Durham results suggest that the microwave echo of the Big
Bang may have had to come through many more obstacles on its journey
to the Earth than had previously been thought, with consequent
possible distortion of the primordial signal’ [emphasis added].
The Durham team has submitted a paper on their findings to the Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), in which they
report that they have found temperature decrements (in the CMB
temperature) that are associated with galaxy clusters and groups. The
paper reports:
‘We interpret this as evidence for the thermal Sunyaev–Zeldovich (SZ)
effect from the clusters. Most interestingly, the signal may extend to
≈1 deg … around both groups and clusters and we suggest that this may
be due to hot “supercluster” gas.’4
Theorists had previously overlooked the SZ effect, on the scale of
clusters and superclusters. Model-dependent predictions for
contamination of the CMB data due to the SZ effect suggested that the
contamination would be small. The new WMAP data was the first real
opportunity to make empirical checks of the level of contamination by
direct cross-correlation of the high resolution 94GHz CMB radiation
with galaxy cluster data.
The Durham team specifically investigated whether low redshift
clusters could have filtered the WMAP temperature spectrum by
searching for SZ inverse Compton-scattering of microwave background
photons by hot gas in clusters.
Figure 1. The upper panel shows part of the WMAP temperature map with
diamonds representing the position of nearby galaxy clusters. The
galaxy clusters and superclusters tend to lie in cooler temperature
regions (see the colour image in reference 10). The lower panel shows
the same area without the cluster positions for reference. Reproduced
from ref. 10.
The effect is clearly seen in the maps published with the RAS press
release (fig. 1). The top image shows the location of galaxies and
clusters (diamonds), overlaid on the CMB temperature map. The galaxy
clusters tend to be concentrated in the cooler regions. For
comparison, the bottom image is the same temperature profile map
without the galaxy locations.
These results were obtained for low redshift (z < 0.2) clusters. If it
is also found that the effect applies to more distant clusters and
groups, then the contamination may be significantly greater, as
discussed below.
Other supporting data
Another recent result5 from WMAP data is the detection of polarization
at large scales, which, it is suggested, could only have been derived
from an epoch of re-ionization, at a redshift of 10 < z < 20.
According to the theory, during the first few hundred thousand years
after the big bang, the cosmic gas in the expanding universe consisted
of bare protons (ionized hydrogen), electrons and helium atoms. There
was a lot of radiation being generated, but it couldn’t travel far,
because the universe was essentially opaque. About 380,000 years after
the big bang, due to the cooling of the universe to about 3,700 K,
neutral hydrogen atoms could form, and radiation left over from the
initial ionized state could then travel freely through space. This
left-over radiation would have a redshift of z ~ 1,000 and thus
appears in the microwave spectrum today (this is the source of the
CMB). Some time later the first stars began to form and the radiation
from these stars began to slowly re-ionize most of the hydrogen atoms
in the intergalactic medium. Eventually all the hydrogen atoms in the
intergalactic medium became re-ionized. Light from this ‘re-ionization
epoch’ should have redshifts between z = 20 and z = 10.6 Looking out
into space, we are effectively looking back in time, thus the re-
ionization region would be in the foreground to the CMB. (I.e.
according to the theory, we are looking back in time at radiation—now
redshifted to the microwave spectrum—that was generated only 380,000
years after the big bang and which subsequently was polarized during
the period of the first stars.)
The re-ionization effect introduces a significant (30%) reduction of
the acoustic peak heights in the CMB power spectrum, due to Thomson
scattering. These results confirm that low redshift galaxies will
seriously affect the CMB anisotropies, because the intracluster medium
is highly ionized. It also follows that the temperature spectrum must
be affected by cosmic foregrounds such as the re-ionized intergalactic
medium at 10 < z < 20. The resulting contamination of the CMB data may
be as much as 10 times that reported above.
This is very damaging evidence for the big-bangers. In recent years
the claims have been made that we are near the end of solving all the
outstanding issues with the big bang model, especially since the
precise measurement of the 70 mK ripples in the 2.73 K microwave
background. If this report proves to be true, the big bang is in big
trouble. Many modern large-scale experiments are being built based on
the validity of the CMB data, including the one-billion-US-dollar
square kilometre array (SKA), which intends to further improve the
observation of the radio and microwave radiation that is believed to
emanate from the earliest time in universal history.
Moreover, it is very interesting because Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar7
(HBN), in their quasi-Steady State model, expected fluctuations of the
order of 30 mK in the spatial anisotropy of the CMB. Their theory says
the bulk of optical radiation in the universe is being thermalized
through the agency of carbon whiskers that absorb and re-emit at
microwave frequencies. They are not uniformly distributed but lumpy on
the scale of clusters of galaxies. According to HBN, this is
consistent with the COBE satellite (and now WMAP) data, which examined
the sky on a spatial angular scale, such that one beam width8 contains
a rich galaxy cluster and the other doesn’t. This is a line-of-sight
effect. Wherever you look in the sky and see a cluster or
supercluster, the CMB will show temperature variations on that angular
scale. HBN predicted the spatial scale size would be found to be the
same as the size of clusters of galaxies and superclusters. So it is a
prediction of the quasi-Steady State model.
Whatever the cause of the blotches in the temperature CMB maps, it
seems that the big-bangers will not be able to continue claiming the
precision that they have recently, after WMAP. There have been rumours
that cosmologists now all agree9 that our origin was in a hot big bang
inflationary scenario. But from this new data, it seems that the big
bang paradigm is in trouble again. The blotches in the temperature CMB
maps may not even relate to deep space; at a minimum, the maps may be
severely compromised by noise.
References
1. <http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=650&Itemid=2>, 5 March 2004.
2. <www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/02bigbang/>, 5 March 2004.
3. Sunyaev, R.A. and Zeldovich, Y.B., Small-scale fluctuations of
relic radiation, Astrophysics and Space Science 7:3–19, 1970.
4. Myers, A.D. et al., Evidence for an Extended SZ Effect in WMAP
Data, <http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306180>, 5 March 2004.
5. Kogut, A. et al., Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) First
Year Observations: TE Polarization, Astrophys. J. Supp. 148:161, 2003;
<xxx.soton.ac.uk/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302213.pdf>, 5 March
2004.
6.<cosmos.colorado.edu/cw2/courses/astr1020/text/chapter12/l12S8.htm>,
29 April 2004.
7. Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G. and Narlikar, J.V., A Different Approach to
Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Bang Towards
Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.
8. One beam width is the angular size of the area on the sky being
measured.
9. Hartnett, J.G., Cosmologists can’t agree and still are in doubt, TJ
16(3):21–26, 2002.
10. <star-www.dur.ac.uk/~ts/wmap/wmappic.html>, 5 March 2004.
Another problem is that the WMAP results are flawed due to incorrect
beam profile thereby making it possible that the angular power
spectrum (Fig.3), allegedly proving certain features of the Big-Bang
Theory, is in fact an artifact of the data analysis but has nothing to
do with the CMB at all. (http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/wmap.htm)
Also a very serious problem for the inflation portion of the of the BB
Theory, From: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/02background/
Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the
best theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has
come under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned
about inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical
observations, or by concepts that have been used to "fix" the theory
so it agrees with those observations.
These fixes include theories which say the nascent universe expanded
at speeds faster than the speed of light for an unknown period of time
after the big bang; dark matter, which was used to explain how
galaxies and clusters of galaxies keep from flying apart even though
there seems to be too little matter to provide the gravity needed to
hold them together; and dark energy, an unseen, unmeasured and
unexplained force that is apparently causing the universe not only to
expand, but to accelerate as it goes.
In research published April 10, 2005 in the "Astrophysical Journal,
Letters," Lieu and Mittaz found that evidence provided by WMAP point
to a slightly "super critical" universe, where there is more matter
(and gravity) than what the standard interpretation of the WMAP data
says. This posed serious problems to the inflationary paradigm.
Recent observations by NASA's new Spitzer space telescope found "old"
stars and galaxies so far away that the light we are seeing now left
those stars when (according to big bang theory) the universe was
between 600 million and one billion years old -- much too young to
have galaxies with red giant stars that have burned off all of their
hydrogen.
Other observations found clusters and super clusters of galaxies at
those great distances, when the universe was supposed to have been so
young that there had not been enough time for those monstrous
intergalactic structures to form. (End of article).
The scientific facts derived from WMAP not only fail to support the
Big Bang Theory, they also lend great credibity to the BB Theory's
falsification.
In addition, WMAP did not observe nor detect any Dark Matter or any
Dark Energy. There is not one iota of evidence that Dark Matter or
Dark energy exist. These concepts were invented just to keep the
materialistic Big Bang Theory from being falsified. As one who loves
science, I find it disdainful that some scientists, popular science
magazines, and/or articles pass this off as fact to the public. The
reason it is called dark is because it has not been observed with any
instruments nor any of our five senses.
Finally-
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not
predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is
observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that
are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same
temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.
These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic
phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements,
the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background
radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with
distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were
subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do
not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely
surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a
complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives
cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of
ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard
Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology
today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn
to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the
standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying
so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter,
judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big
bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances,
and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.
This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit
of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few
sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are
dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of
the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective
of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework
undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the
constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction
makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we
urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a
significant fraction of their funding for investigations into
alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang.
To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds
could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field
of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.
If you want to sign this statement , please click here
Signed:
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
[Signed by several hundred scientistsand engineers]]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: Bob Casanova
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: wf3h
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: jcon
- Re: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: John Vreeland
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- References:
- Science Disproves Evolution
- From: Pahu
- Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: hbarwood
- Science Disproves Evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: God's Numbers
- Next by Date: Re: God Rules
- Previous by thread: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
