Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From the perspective of general relativity, space is a manifold whose curvature we call gravity. From a quantum mechanical perspective, space is filled with photons traversing it (including those carrying the cosmic background radiation); even in the absence of external radiation, the quantum mechanical vacuum contains fluctuating amounts of energy.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 3
Scientists explain why the supposed primary "evidences" for the Big Bang are erroneous theories themselves. There never was a Big Bang, and stars cannot evolve from gas. Here are scientific facts to prove it. Evolutionary theory is a myth; creation science is correct. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter - 3
Background Radiation - The facts disprove this "evidence"This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF MATTER.
Redshift - Scientific facts disprove the speed theory application also
Arp Discoveries - A careful scientist found much evidence disproving the theory
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of Matter.
BACKGROUND RADIATION
Background radiation and the redshift are said to be two primary "evidences" that a Big Bang occurred.
Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.
"Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation."—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321.
"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [But] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation."—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.
"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.
"Not anymore. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy . . A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself."—Science News, 1981.
"The Big Bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case."—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.
"The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92 (1981), p. 522.
"Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years."—*William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185.
REDSHIFT
The redshift is said to be the other "evidence" that a Big Bang occurred. But this is not true either. There are three possible explanations to the redshift seen in the spectra of more distant stars, Evolutionists declare that the speed (Doppler) redshift theory is the only cause of the spectral redshift. They say this because, if that is true, then the universe is expanding outward—which they say is caused by an earlier Big Bang.
But there are two other causes of redshifts, which have been proven by science, and these better explain the various oddities associated with red shifts: (1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances. (2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.
"The year after Sirius B was found to have its astonishing properties, Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, which was mainly concerned with new ways of looking at gravity. 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). [Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.
"This was a point in favor not only of Einstein's theory but also of the superdensity of Sirius B, for in an ordinary star such as our sun, the redshift effect would be only one thirtieth as great. Nevertheless, in the early 1960's this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.
"[Speed or Doppler redshifts] are caused by recession of one object in relation to another, and are similar to the Doppler effect of a car rapidly driving away and causing the sound heard by an observer to shift from treble to bass . . [In contrast] A gravitational redshift is the shift to longer wavelengths of light passing through a large gravitational field."—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), pp. 17-18.
"P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology to the sandar [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior."—*W. Corliss, "Tired Light Revived," Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).
"Redshift observations are, of course, crucial to our modern view of the evolution of the cosmos. Usually, it is assumed that the observed redshifts are entirely due to the Doppler effects. If this assumption is incorrect, our cosmology [matter and stellar origins theories] must be drastically revised.
"At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption: (1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance; (2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions; (3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,' showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis; (4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and (5) Observations of quantized redshift."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.
"When we observe galaxies with redshifts greater than z=1, the redshift-distance relationship tells us we are seeing stellar systems more than 10 billion light-years away. Since the universe is thought to be 16-18 billion years old, these distant galaxies must be only 6-8 billion years old, for we are looking back into time. The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.
"A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantification has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .
"In clusters of galaxies the spirals tend to have higher redshifts than the E galaxies."—*Halton Arp, "Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 230:469 (1980). [This is because the spirals are exerting more gravity on the outflowing light.]
"The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists' assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies' photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us."—Russell Akridge, "The Expanding Universe Theory Is Internally Inconsistent," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.
"A photon's energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory: [1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times. [2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.
"A free photon cannot do both at the same time.
"If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . "If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both part of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false."—Op. cit., p. 58.
THE HALTON ARP DISCOVERIES
Halton C. Arp, a careful astronomer and astrophysicist, has compiled a remarkable collection of facts which negate acceptance of the speed theory of redshift. But the establishment had him fired for doing so, because his discoveries disprove the expanding universe theory, a primary "evidence" that a Big Bang once occurred.
"The astronomer, Halton Arp, has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.
"In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress."—*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.
"There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes . . which we cannot currently understand or explain."—*Op. cit., p. 2.
"It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation . . The assumption that . . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence."—*Op. cit., p. 178.
"As with the statistical association of quasars with galaxies, the implication of physically interacting objects with different redshifts is revolutionary. The redshift distance relationship is a pillar of modern astronomy, and this pillar would be shattered if paired objects had different redshifts."—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 100.
"It cannot be stressed too strongly, however, that these discordant redshifts are not discovered in just one or two isolated cases that have no relation to each other. But in every case we can test—large clusters, groups, companions to nearby galaxies, companions to middle-distance galaxies, companions liked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: This same discordant redshifts for the same general class of younger, fainter galaxies."—*H. C. Arp, "Evidence for Discordant Redshifts," in G. Field (ed.), The Redshift Controversy, p. 54.
"This important result has largely been ignored by astonomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework."—*H. Arp, "Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculiarities," in Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p. 54.
"Twenty-two new quasars close to galaxies are reported. Most of them are so close to companion galaxies that the probability of accidental occurrence is less than 0.01."—*Halton Arp, Quasars near Companion Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal, 250:31 (1981).
"Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astromoners, `Observational evidence exists on both sides,' Burbidge argues, `Both sides are probably right. What is unfortunate . . is the great prejudice in the field. Arp's papers and others—suggesting that some quasars are nearby—are held up, interminably rejected. Heckman's polemic [calling for recantation] would not be published, were it on the other side.'
Here are comments about telescope time and fringe astronomy, from the "Controversies in Astrophysics" open Yale course I recommended. Full transcript here: http://open.yale.edu/courses/astron...in-astrophysics/transcripts/transcript18.html
Nevertheless, one spam deserves another.
Heres another thought...
Andromeda is the closest galaxy to us.
Andromeda is moving towards us.
We are therefore moving towards Andromeda at the same rate because the value of F is the same for both masses.
Therefore, if every other mass in the universe was STATIONARY, then we would be moving away from most of them, and the distance would be increasing, and we would observe a Red Shift.
This is shown in the pictures below:
As illustrated, the distances between the milky way and galaxies labelled 1 to 5 have all increased.
Hence, a red shift will be expected when veiwing these 5 objects.
With is information, one could easily conclude that the universe is expanding, given that 5 out of six bodies visible in the sky are geting further away from us.
BUT, the ONLY movements here are between galaxies A and B (A being the milky way, and B being Andromeda).
We are situated at a point in space, and are guided by our observations. Situated at A in the diagrams, we would observe pretty much exactly what we observe here on earth.
In that case, how do you know that the Universe is indeed expanding? I would say the evidence was inconclusive due to the above thought.
I'm especially interested to hear responses to this one
