FifthEdge
|
 |     |  Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
The following text comes from www.evolution-facts.org, I have broken
it up into 3 seperate posts and await replies.
1) Big bang beginings (Issues with the start of the big bang)
2) Stelar evolution (Issues with stars/elements)
3) Background radiation & *WE ARE HERE*
[1] BACKGROUND RADIATION NOT EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG
The fact—There
is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It is called background
radiation. Since
it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed to exist throughout
the universe. It is a very small amount of "heat": in fact, only 2.73o
K above absolute zero (-270o C
or -454o F).
The theory—Background radiation
(also called microwave radiation), first discovered in 1965,
is said to be the single, best evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is
said to be the leftover remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.
Scientists said that background radiation
would prove the theory in four ways: (1) It would
come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It would have the right
radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would
emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation.
But we find that, if this is the best evidence
that the theorists can produce for their speculation, it surely is weak.
1 - It is omnidirectional. Background
radiation comes from every direction instead of one.
The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where
the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match
its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions.
Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from:
"Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given
off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to
emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?
2 - The radiation does not fit the theory,
for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is.
*Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been
much stronger.
3 - Background radiation lacks the proper
spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black
body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max
Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body
spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
[/b][b]4
- The spectrum should be far hotter than it is.
The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The
radiation should emit a 100 º
K black body radiationoK black body radiation
spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73° K spectrum it now has.
5 - Background radiation is
too smooth. The theory requires
that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations")
in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion.
In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but
this is still not enough to fit the theory.
"It seems difficult to believe
that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all
scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G.
de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science
167, p. 1203.
"The problem was to reconcile
the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background
radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.].
A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly
rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels,
Galaxies (1988), p. 117.
|
|
6 - All of the above points
(omnidirectionality, very slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative
fluctuations in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from
the multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe. It
would be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform,
omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted
by the stars should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does
not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into
space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe
the sun keeps you warm.
[2] THE REDSHIFT NOT EVIDENCE OF
THE BIG BANG OR AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE
The fact—Relatively
white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the
colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight.
Dark, vertical bands mark the spectrum at various points. Analyzing these
dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be ascertained. Spectral
type is a star’s classification— based on its spectrum, surface temperature,
and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy
is the study of spectra.
Ultraviolet
is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength
than visible blue light. Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum
(astronomers call it "red").
Every star is redshifted to
some extent (that is, the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red
end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted.
This displacement is called the redshift.
The theory—The
"Big Bangers" (as scientists call them) theorize that this redshift
shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang
explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory"
of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. This means that if
light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is slightly compressed or shortened.
This would cause the light to be blueshifted. If it is moving away from
us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a redshift.
"This redshift, observed in
the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed]
effect, is the key to cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.
|
|
What causes the redshift?
It is quite obvious that the distance of the star from us has something to do
with the redshift. Here are FOUR scientific explanations for the redshift,
each of which are accepted by various scientists:, each of which are accepted
by various scientists:
• The Speed redshift
(also called the Doppler theory of redshift):
This would occur if the star were moving away from us. Evolutionists
say all the stars are moving away from us, and there is no other cause for the
recorded redshifts. But there are three other possibilities:
• Gravitational redshifts: The
pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of
moving light. In 1915, *Albert Einstein
predicted that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift.
This was later proved to be true. As light travels toward us from distant stars,
it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to
shift toward the red.
"Einstein’s views of gravity
led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong
gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift)."—*Isaac
Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.
|
|
Yet, in order to bolster their Big
Bang and expanding universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational and
second-order Doppler shifts.
• Second-order Doppler shift:
A light source moving at right
angles to an observer will always be redshifted. This would occur if
the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center. We
know that every body in the universe is orbiting and, at the same time, moving
in some direction with its orbital body. Much of that movement is at right angles
to us.
• Energy-loss shift:
Light waves could themselves directly lose
energy as they travel across long distances. This would nicely explain
why the farthest stars from us have the most dramatic redshifts. This is also
called the tired-light redshift.
Big Bang theorists maintain that
the speed redshift is the ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then
say that the universe is expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.
But the evidence reveals that
the speed redshift theory—as the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:
1 - Nearly all the stars and
galaxies are redshifted. This
fact agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss
redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this,—nearly
all the universe is moving away from us—our planet! A true expanding
universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common
center somewhere else, not from our planet. If the Big Bang really occurred,
the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred,—not
from our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space, hurling shrapnel
in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our direction while others
traveled in other directions. This differential could be measured. Some pieces
would be flying toward us; others sideways, and others away from us. If there
was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But, instead,
we only find evidence that everything in space is redshifted; that is, everything
is supposedly moving away from us. This point disproves both the Big
Bang and the expanding universe theory.
2 - The closest stars and
galaxies are the least redshifted, and
some of the closest stars actually seem to be moving toward us. The farther
that starlight has to travel before reaching us, the more those two types of
shifts would slow it.
3 - There is evidence that photons
(light particles) do slow down.
This would be nicely explained by gravitational and energy-loss redshifts.
4 - Quasars strongly disprove
the speed theory of redshift. They
are unknown objects which show drastically shifted spectrums toward the red.
Yet, if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would
be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200 and
300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light-years and recession
(moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! Many
astronomers renounced the speed theory when they learned this. Then came the
discovery of quasars with redshifts of 300-400 percent. Ultimately, they
found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster
than the speed of light! One of these is eight times faster than the speed of
light! In a desperate attempt to save their theory, the evolutionists recalculated
the "Hubble constant," which is the formula for the speed of light.
But they are unable to change it. Now they really have a quandary on their hands!
As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An increase of 100 percent in the Hubble
constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent."—And
the evolutionists cannot accept that!
5
- Light has weight. Some suggest that light and gravity could not affect
one another. But *Einstein was right: Light can be pulled by gravity because
it has weight. Because light has weight, it can be pulled by matter and
push it! Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly
redshifting it.
"If
a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light
is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light
has ‘weight.’ The pressure of light on the Earth’s surface is calculated as
two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s
Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.
|
|
6 - No one has ever seen a
blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. This nicely
agrees with the alternate redshift theories (gravitational, second-order Doppler,
and energy-loss) of redshift. Even nearby stars, which we think are moving
toward us, are very slightly redshifted. But, if the speed
theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually
moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding
universe?
On pages 67-68 of his book, Asimov’s New
Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov, a confirmed evolutionist, lists 10 reasons
why quasars do not agree with the speed theory of light. We quote that lengthy
section on our website www.evolution-facts.org
|
| |
Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:52 PM on July 20, 2003 | IP
|
|
Guest
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
So much falsehood, so little time.
6 - No one has ever seen a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. This nicely agrees with the alternate redshift theories (gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss) of redshift. Even nearby stars, which we think are moving toward us, are very slightly redshifted. But, if the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding
universe?
|
|
How can anyone trust these sources when they are so obviously and glaringly incorrect?
Here is a catalog search that turns up over 2000 objects with blueshift (negative redshift).
NED results for your specified parameters:
|
| |
Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:00 AM on February 12, 2004 | IP
|
|
Astronomer
|
| | Report Post
|
Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
But we find that, if this is the best evidence
that the theorists can produce for their speculation, it surely is weak.
1 - It is omnidirectional. Background
radiation comes from every direction instead of one.
The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where
the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match
its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. |
|
This is a pretty serious error again related to the problem of the author's misconception that the Big Bang is somehow related to an "explosion" in space. It is not. Rather the Big Bang is a uniform expansion in all directions. This is an isotropic expansion, not an omnidirectional one. Therefore, the background radiation of the Big Bang was predicted by Jim Peebles back in the 1960s to be coming from EVERY direction!
This is exactly what we see, which is why it is a confirmation of the Big Bang.
Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from:
"Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given
off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to
emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?
|
|
This was the common retort that "steady state" theorists used to use to try to explain away the background radiation. Unfortunately, there is no way to produce a uniform spectrum for the background radiation in this fashion. This is because stars are point sources and they don't radiate all at the same temperature. While it is true that the volume averaged temperature of all the starlight in the universe is about the same amount, there is just no way to get a background as uniform as we see using this model.
2 - The radiation does not fit the theory,
for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is.
*Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been
much stronger.
|
|
Hoyle, frankly, was wrong. He was also working from a few false supposition which have been subsequently corrected. It turns out that the radiation is intensity is "just right". We can actually calculate how bright it has to be using some basic physics and knowledge of the Big Bang's properties. When we do this calculation we get about 43 photons per square cm, which is exactly what is present for the background radiation.
3 - Background radiation lacks the proper
spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black
body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max
Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body
spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.
|
|
This is a baldfaced lie. The radiation has the right spectrum to an AMAZINGLY good fit. It is so good that you can't even see the error bars when you plot the spectrum. It's considered one of the best fits to theory in all of science.
[/b][b]4
- The spectrum should be far hotter than it is.
The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The
radiation should emit a 100 º
K black body radiationoK black body radiation
spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73° K spectrum it now has.
|
|
Well, this argument would be true if the universe were made mostly of the stuff you and I are made of and was a bit younger. We know, however, that this is not the case and the 2.73 K measurement coincides perfectly with the predicted temperature from theory.
5 - Background radiation is
too smooth. The theory requires
that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations")
in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion.
In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but
this is still not enough to fit the theory. |
|
So how can the background be smooth and not fit a perfect blackbody? The answer to this question is, of course, it can't.
Indeed, the "smoothness" problem bothered scientists for years. It is resolved by realizing that Cold Dark Matter is what causes structure in the universe: not the background radiation or the stuff interacting with it. The anisotropies (deviations) measured in the spectrum actually confirm this to be the case and they are of the right size for what theory predicts as well.
The background radiation is truly one of the seminal pieces of observational evidence that shows the Big Bang is what went on (and is still going on).
"It seems difficult to believe
that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all
scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G.
de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science
167, p. 1203.
"The problem was to reconcile
the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background
radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.].
A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly
rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels,
Galaxies (1988), p. 117.
|
|
|
|
Both of these quotes are well addressed by the Cold Dark Matter, and indeed the first quote is from a paper about Hierarchical Theory which is EXACTLY what resolves the problem of the smoothness of the background radiation!
6 - All of the above points
(omnidirectionality, very slight amount of heat, general smoothness, with radiative
fluctuations in strength) is what we would expect from radiational heat from
the multiplied billions of stars throughout the universe. It
would be understandable for all those stars to emit a slight amount of uniform,
omnidirectional radiative heat. And we would expect the radiational heat emitted
by the stars should, at great distances, show very slight fluctuations. Does
not each one send forth both heat and occasional gigantic solar flares into
space? If you do not believe stars emit heat into space, then you do not believe
the sun keeps you warm.
|
|
This is the idea I touched on above of "integrated starlight" causing the background. The problem is that integrated starlight absolutely cannot be as smooth as the background is observed to be. The impossibility of integrated starlight causing the background is what led to the abandonment of the so-called "steady state" theory cosomology.
Every star is redshifted to
some extent (that is, the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red
end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted.
This displacement is called the redshift.
[/b]
|
|
It's actually galaxies that are substantially far away that are redshifted. Stars can be redshifted or blueshifted depending on whether they are traveling toward or away from us. Some galaxies (Andromeda, for example) are traveling toward us and are therefore blueshifted as well. It is only when you go out to great distances do you start seeing the redshift-distance relationship.
The theory—The
"Big Bangers" (as scientists call them) theorize that this redshift
shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang
explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory"
of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. |
|
Well, again, the Big Bang is not an explosion that happened in one place, but rather it is a uniform expansion.
Evolutionists
say all the stars are moving away from us, and there is no other cause for the
recorded redshifts. But there are three other possibilities:
[b] • Gravitational redshifts: The
pull of gravity on light rays would cause a loss of energy in the beam of
moving light. In 1915, *Albert Einstein
predicted that gravity could bend light—and that it would cause a redshift.
This was later proved to be true. As light travels toward us from distant stars,
it passes other stars, which slightly slows the beam, causing its spectrum to
shift toward the red.
"Einstein’s views of gravity
led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong
gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift)."—*Isaac
Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.
|
|
|
|
Actually, you can calculate how much galaxy light should be redshifted by means of this mechanism. Since we know how much mass there is in the universe it turns out that the gravitational redshift component is absolutely miniscule when compared with the observed redshift. There just isn't enough mass to create the gravity needed for the light to lose that energy. It has to be due to something else.
Yet, in order to bolster their Big
Bang and expanding universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational and
second-order Doppler shifts.
|
|
Nah. Astronomers do deal with these two effects. I outlined gravitational redshift's problem and second-order Doppler shifts similarly are too small to account for the cosmological redshift. Both of these types of redshifts are observed in other cases, though. They aren't nearly as big effects as the redshift we see in distant galaxies and quasars.
This would occur if
the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center. We
know that every body in the universe is orbiting and, at the same time, moving
in some direction with its orbital body. Much of that movement is at right angles
to us.
|
|
It turns out that there are observational consequences to this idea: namely the universe would have to be rotating. There are ways other than looking at the redshift of galaxies to tell whether this rotation is actually happening. It turns out that if the universe is rotating, it is rotating far to slowly to cause the cosmological redshifts. In fact, the measurement of the universe's rotation gives an answer consistent with no rotation at all which would give a zero-second order doppler shift.
• Energy-loss shift:
Light waves could themselves directly lose
energy as they travel across long distances. This would nicely explain
why the farthest stars from us have the most dramatic redshifts. This is also
called the tired-light redshift.
|
|
The tired light theory doesn't propose any mechanism for how the photons lose energy. This is important because if you don't have a mechanism you can't make a prediction for how this would work.
There are other effects that can be seen due to the recessional velocity (Doppler) interpretation of cosmological redshifts. One deals with "time dilation" which is an effect that is caused by a uniformly expanding universe. There is no such proviso in tired light theory. It also cannot explain the way you would get a uniform microwave background. Say you dismissed the entire theory of the Big Bang and said that the background was due to stars: well then the tired light theory would not allow you to see a uniform background at all because stars that were farther away would have their photons lose energy and thus you couldn't recreate the proper spectrum. If you think that some "event" created the background, we can calculate that such an event in a tired-light cosmology had to be very close by (about the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy). Since we can see beyond that distance, there's no way to get a uniform background that is opaque at that temperature which is what the background is.
Big Bang theorists maintain that
the speed redshift is the ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then
say that the universe is expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.
|
|
It's the other way around. The Doppler shift explanation for cosmological redshifts was offered well before anyone knew the universe was expanding. This is because we couldn't measure how far away galaxies were until the 1920s or so.
But the evidence reveals that
the speed redshift theory—as the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:
|
|
As stated above, the evidence clearly shows that other attempted explanations do not reproduce the redshift effect that is observed.
1 - Nearly all the stars and
galaxies are redshifted. This
fact agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss
redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this,—nearly
all the universe is moving away from us—our planet! A true expanding
universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common
center somewhere else, not from our planet.
If the Big Bang really occurred,
the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred,—not
from our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space, hurling shrapnel
in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our direction while others
traveled in other directions. This differential could be measured. Some pieces
would be flying toward us; others sideways, and others away from us. If there
was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But, instead,
we only find evidence that everything in space is redshifted; that is, everything
is supposedly moving away from us. This point disproves both the Big
Bang and the expanding universe theory. |
|
This point is very much a misconception about the way the Big Bang works. Don't worry, it's a common one. The thing is that every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point in the universe! This is, perhaps a bit hard to get your head around, but it is exactly what you get if the entire universe is expanding.
It is true that you can create a universe that looks like ours if all the galaxies were simply rushing away from our central planet. However, this is not what is going on in our universe (we can tell because we can see structure very far away that wouldn't be coherent if this were the case). Actually, what's going on is that the entire universe is expanding everywhere. No matter where you look, every point is travelling away from every other point.
One way to think about this is to picture a balloon with polkadots. When the balloon isn't inflated all the polkadots are close together. Now when the balloon starts to expand, no matter which polkadot you chose every other polkadot is headed away from it. If you went to a different polkadot it would appear that all the other polkadots including the first one were heading away from it.
It is very important that you don't confuse an "explosion" with an expansion. The Big Bang is not an "explosion". The Big Bang is an expansion that happens everywhere at the same time!
2 - The closest stars and
galaxies are the least redshifted, and
some of the closest stars actually seem to be moving toward us. The farther
that starlight has to travel before reaching us, the more those two types of
shifts would slow it.
|
|
As I explained above, some galaxies are actually moving toward us! However, this is just do to the fact that we are basically bound by gravity. It's like we're the same polkadot and are bound to each other by stronger forces. Even the expansion of the universe cannot rip us apart.
3 - There is evidence that photons
(light particles) do slow down.
This would be nicely explained by gravitational and energy-loss redshifts.
|
|
This evidence (for a changing speed of light) is for a very miniscule change. You would need to change a whole lot more in order for the energy-loss to be the actual explanation.
It's not even sure that there is a change in the speed of light: the evidence appears to be consistent with the speed of light being constant across all time!
4 - Quasars strongly disprove
the speed theory of redshift. They
are unknown objects which show drastically shifted spectrums toward the red. |
|
We now know that quasars are actually the cores of galaxies.
Yet, if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would
be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200 and
300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light-years and recession
(moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! |
|
The numbers are a bit off for how far away such a quasar would be, but the point is well taken: quasars are far away and they are moving fast!
It's actually okay to have recessional speed in excess of the speed of light because it's not the quasar itself which is moving away from us but the space expanding between us and the quasar. Light can still reach us because back when it was emitted, the space between us and that quasar wasn't as big as it is "today". In effect, if these quasars are emitting any light "today" we will never be able to see it because that light has too much space between the quasar and us. Back in the past this was a different story.
| Many astronomers renounced the speed theory when they learned this. |
|
I cannot think of any who did. Can you?
Then came the
discovery of quasars with redshifts of 300-400 percent. Ultimately, they
found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster
than the speed of light! One of these is eight times faster than the speed of
light! |
|
The top record holder quasar is nearly at redshift of 700 percent, in fact! As I explained above, this isn't a problem at all.
In a desperate attempt to save their theory, the evolutionists recalculated
the "Hubble constant," which is the formula for the speed of light. |
|
No, the Hubble Constant isn't the formula for the speed of light. The Hubble Constant is a parameter that allows us to know how fast the universe is expanding. The problem is, this is a very difficult thing to measure because coupled with the fact that the universe is expanding, galaxies are orbitting and interacting with each other. This means they basically have some scatter along the regular expansion due to their peculiar velocities. Also, it's not the easiest thing to calculate distances to far away objects. Part of what the job of the Hubble Space Telescope is is to gather information on distances. Since you need to know both the distances and the part of the velocity that is due only to the expansion for your plot of galaxies, this measurement is prone to error. However, we have narrowed in on a pretty consistent value for the expansion of the universe that is consistent with measurements of the background radiation.
But they are unable to change it. Now they really have a quandary on their hands! |
|
There really doesn't seem to be many people who are in this quandary that I know of in astronomy. I wouldn't mind if you could tell me of a few.
As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An increase of 100 percent in the Hubble
constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent."—And
the evolutionists cannot accept that!
|
|
Well, Ettari wrote something that is true, but is entirely beside the point of your critique. The Hubble Constant is something that is measured and really cannot be increased or decreased at our own will. Ettari was just referring to what our universe would look like if we had a different Hubble Constant (which we don't).
5
- Light has weight. Some suggest that light and gravity could not affect
one another. But *Einstein was right: Light can be pulled by gravity because
it has weight. Because light has weight, it can be pulled by matter and
push it! Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly
redshifting it. |
|
This is exactly the gravitational redshift effect outlined above. As far as I know none of these people who suggest that light and gravity cannot effect each other are practicing astronomers or physicists.
"If
a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light
is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light
has ‘weight.’ The pressure of light on the Earth’s surface is calculated as
two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s
Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.
|
|
|
|
This is true, and I do agree with it 100%.
6 - No one has ever seen a
blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. This nicely
agrees with the alternate redshift theories (gravitational, second-order Doppler,
and energy-loss) of redshift. Even nearby stars, which we think are moving
toward us, are very slightly redshifted. |
|
Well, this isn't true at all. Andromeda Galaxy, for example, is blushifted. The Virgo Cluster is also blueshifted.
But, if the speed
theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is actually
moving away from us! Why should we be the center of this expanding
universe? |
|
I hope I explained this adequately above.
On pages 67-68 of his book, Asimov’s New
Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov, a confirmed evolutionist, lists 10 reasons
why quasars do not agree with the speed theory of light. We quote that lengthy
section on our website www.evolution-facts.org
|
|
Isaac Asimov was writing during a time when we understood far less about quasars. I would happily critique the reasons that you thought the interpretations of these points leads you to believe the Big Bang is incorrect.
Please feel free to e-mail me if you have any other questions.
Best regards!
|
| |
Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:22 PM on May 21, 2004 | IP
|
|
|
[ Single page for this topic ]
|
|
|
Creationism vs Evolution Debates
