Why stellar evolution theory is false

[Martyrs44]

Carrying further what I said in post # 47, below we have a picture of our nearest galaxy neighbor, Andromeda:

Which is supposed to be only 2.5 million light years from earth.

But compare it's spiral contour with galaxies as seen at the outer edges of our universe as seen by the Hubble deep space images:

The Hubble folks tell us: "These galaxies are so far away that light has taken billions of years to get here, so we see them as they were billions of years ago, near the beginning of the universe. Astronomers get more idea of what the early universe was like by studying such photographs."

It also raises obvious questions, like 'if these galaxies are among the youngest then why do they appear mature and in the same condition as those that are closest?'

Perhaps those distant galaxies are not really billions of light years away after all. Perhaps Adam and Eve saw those galaxies up close before God stretched the universe in every direction.

If we are seeing what happened in the early stages of the universe then all the stars and galaxies should be seen much more compact and chaotic with galaxies and stars smashing into each other. In other words they did not come out of that giant fax machine (i.e. the so-called 'singularity') orderly and in spirals. What am saying is that the theory doesn't fit the facts.

 

[samaus12345]

Perhaps those distant galaxies are not really billions of light years away after all. Perhaps Adam and Eve saw those galaxies up close before God enlarged ('stretched' נָטָה )the universe in every direction.

wow that is wow.

so you reckon space? or space/time continuum? was 'shrunk' in creation week (or not fully stretched out)? and so light from the sources was closer....then things got stretched (when did they get stretched?) and took the light sources further away...but they were still emitting light...so are some things x million light years away? but if they are x million/billion light years away....light was stretched with the fabric of spacetime so as light not to have start travelling from x billion light years away because as things were being stretched light was still being emitted...how do you get a steady stream of light from this?


"Without due cause, modern cosmology a priori rejected the Creator’s
claim of exercising supranatural power in calling the visible universe — with
all its mature and exotic diversities — into existence on literal Day 4 of the
Genesis creation week. (Ellis)"

i understand why they didnt let gentry publish that paper

 

[Martyrs44]

Perhaps those distant galaxies are not really billions of light years away after all. Perhaps Adam and Eve saw those galaxies up close before God enlarged ('stretched' נָטָה )the universe in every direction.

wow that is wow.

so you reckon space? or space/time continuum? was 'shrunk' in creation week (or not fully stretched out)? and so light from the sources was closer....then things got stretched (when did they get stretched?) and took the light sources further away...but they were still emitting light...so are some things x million light years away? but if they are x million/billion light years away....light was stretched with the fabric of spacetime so as light not to have start travelling from x billion light years away because as things were being stretched light was still being emitted...how do you get a steady stream of light from this?

Perhaps. But actually, I am not certain just how He did it.There are different theores about that even among creationists.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

Some posts have been removed or edited for personally attacking other members.
Please stick to discussing the OP folks, and refrain from personal comments.
Thanks
Mod Hat Off​

 

[metherion]

<edit>

About Halton Arp's ideas, they have been soundly debunked previously. Here is a link to the abstract of just one paper found with just one internet search:
Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxi

Furthermore, Arp's idea counts as a steady-state hypothesis, with the universe having neither beginning nor end. That sounds even FURTHER from 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth', because it says there was no beginning.

Now, of course, I know I'm on ignore, but several things beg to have questions asked about them:

'if these galaxies are among the youngest then why do they appear mature and in the same condition as those that are closest?'

So, what would an immature galaxy look like? What is the lifespan of a galaxy, and what difference should happen as they age? What do you mean by 'the same condition'? Why should a younger fully formed galaxy look different, and what differences should appear?

"Without due cause, modern cosmology a priori rejected the Creator&#8217;s
claim of exercising supranatural power in calling the visible universe &#8212; with
all its mature and exotic diversities &#8212; into existence on literal Day 4 of the
Genesis creation week. (Ellis)"

Actually, the fact is, supernatural causes fall completely outside the realm of science. We can no more test for 'God created the universe' than we can test for "Thor fought Jormungandr."

That is a perfectly legitimate reason. Furthermore, if the Bible is included, what else gets included? If the Bible is included, what about the Bhagavad Ghita? The Koran? The Vedas? And so on.

Also, there is no a priori rejection. There is evidence that the universe is more than 6000 years old and that stars are of differing ages... meaning they were not all created at the same time. It is only a priori if something is dismissed WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BEING CONSIDERED.

I've also been to both pages you linked, and the way they mangle science is ATROCIOUS.

I mean, I've probably been ignored by both the main posters here... but if they continue going unchallenged in what they say, even if they have blocked me out, it's still not right for things to go unchallenged.

Metherion

 

[samaus12345]

Martyrs44 i presume you read that paper by Gentry? What you think? It made a MOCKERY of the big bang.

 

[Martyrs44]

Martyrs44 i presume you read that paper by Gentry? What you think? It made a MOCKERY of the big bang.

Which one? I have read a lot of Gentry's stuff, especially noting his work on polonium radio haloes.

 

[samaus12345]

Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

 

[Martyrs44]

Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

Thanks Jinx.

 

[samaus12345]

I have much more

Yes please what other anomalies can i lol at?

 

[Martyrs44]

Halton Arp shook up the astronomy community by exposing the weakness in red shift determinations.

Example:

You see, quasars are supposed to be among the most distant stellar objects in the universe (& therefore the youngest). Arp noted that NGC4319 (galaxy) is connected to quasar Markarian 205 as is seen in the infrared photo above. What is strange is that they give far different red shift measurements.

Quote:"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]z [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often." [/FONT]

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

Then there is this: a quasar actually in front of (that is, between our vantage point on earth) and NGC7319

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Evidence Says Arp is Right - [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]between[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.(taken from the article mentioned above).[/FONT]

Arp is hated by the status quo astrophysicists and was even barred from his usual access to the big Palomar telescope because he would not back down from what he discovered. But he has quite a bit of support for his position on the matter from those who don't care if they have approval from the status quo people.

The Astrophysical Journal published Arps findings years ago and did not publicly refute him...at least not at the time. Nonetheless, I have always admired men who are brave enough to follow the facts where they lead instead of conforming to the establishment...which in almost every generation is proven to be wrong in time.

 

[gluadys]

The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225).

But redshift is not correlated with distance and I don't know any astronomer who would claim that. It is correlated with speed of motion away from the earth (or more precisely from the point of observation).

A nearby galaxy travelling swiftly away from the earth will have a deep redshift. A far-distant galaxy travelling toward the earth will have a blue shift.

What Hubble noted is that no far distant galaxy has a blue shift i.e. none are travelling toward the earth. (A few closer galaxies are and they have blue shifts.)

Also, on average, the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift i.e. the greater the speed at which it is travelling away from the earth.

But because this is an average, we can expect that there are anomalies in the observational data as even at a great distance and even with all bodies travelling away from the earth, not all will be travelling at the same speed.

 

[Martyrs44]

But redshift is not correlated with distance and I don't know any astronomer who would claim that. It is correlated with speed of motion away from the earth (or more precisely from the point of observation).

A nearby galaxy travelling swiftly away from the earth will have a deep redshift. A far-distant galaxy travelling toward the earth will have a blue shift.

What Hubble noted is that no far distant galaxy has a blue shift i.e. none are travelling toward the earth. (A few closer galaxies are and they have blue shifts.)

Also, on average, the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift i.e. the greater the speed at which it is travelling away from the earth.

But because this is an average, we can expect that there are anomalies in the observational data as even at a great distance and even with all bodies travelling away from the earth, not all will be travelling at the same speed.

Do any of you other readers see what she has done here? First she tells us red-shift has nothing to do with distance...........then..............she uses the very same red shift to establish that it DOES help determine distance.

But to pin-point her problem: "But redshift is not correlated with distance ..."

Then: "...the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift."

This is pure, Orwellian thinking. In Newspeak it is called black/white: the moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. So black is white, up is down, left is right, etc. depending on what one is arguing at the moment. I couldn't provide the readers a better example than what she wrote above but she does this frequently.


But watch..she will accuse me of taking her out-of-context.

You be the judge, dear readers.

P.S. Hubble confirmed my position on this issue: "Hubble measured distances to galaxies and in 1929 published the velocity-distance relation which, taken as evidence of an expanding Universe, is the basis of Big Bang cosmology"http://www.holoscience.com/wp/astronomy-has-little-to-celebrate-in-2009/

 

[Assyrian]

It is interesting how arguments for creationism rely on an oversimplification of the actual science.

 

[samaus12345]

Interesting yes thank you. What cosmology textbook can you recommend?

 

[Assyrian]

If you want to get textbooks to understand mainstream science, I suggest you get ones written by mainstream scientists.

 

[gluadys]

Do any of you other readers see what she has done here? First she tells us red-shift has nothing to do with distance...........then..............she uses the very same red shift to establish that it DOES help determine distance.

But to pin-point her problem: "But redshift is not correlated with distance ..."

Then: "...the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift."

It is not my problem if you cannot tell the difference between the cause of redshift (speed of travel away from the point of observation) and an analysis of where such speeds are most commonly observed. (distant galaxies).

Hubble did not confirm your position. He confirmed mine. That is why he wrote about the velocity-distance relationship. If there were no velocity-distance relationship there would be no redshift-distance relationship either. Because redshift relates directly to velocity, not distance.

 

[Martyrs44]

It is not my problem if you cannot tell the difference between the cause of redshift (speed of travel away from the point of observation) and an analysis of where such speeds are most commonly observed. (distant galaxies).

There it is again: pure Orwellian dialectic. She is giving us double-talk.

For those keeping up with this matter: She said plainly, "But redshift is not correlated with distance ..."

Then: "...the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift."

Definition: correlated: "to connect in a systematic way : establish the mutual relations of" (Mirriam Webster). So if the red shift does not establish the distance nor has any mutual relation then it should have nothing to do with the determination of distance at all.

Yet, her very next statement I quoted above 'farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift'

'distant' def: 1 : separate in space : AWAY 2 : FAR-OFF.

Completely contradicts what she said earlier.

Hubble did not confirm your position. He confirmed mine. That is why he wrote about the velocity-distance relationship. If there were no velocity-distance relationship there would be no redshift-distance relationship either. Because redshift relates directly to velocity, not distance.

What? Velocity is used to measure distance by the red shift to begin with! Who is she trying to fool?

Proof: "The building up of methods for measuring distance to stars and galaxies led Hubble to the fact that the red shift (recession speed) is proportional to distance."

"The building up of methods formeasuring distance to stars and galaxies led Hubble to the fact that the red shift (recession speed) is proportional to distance. If this proportionality (called Hubble's Law) holds true, it can be used as a distance measuring tool itself.

Doppler Redshift

 

[Assyrian]

There it is again: pure Orwellian dialectic. She is giving us double-talk.

For those keeping up with this matter: She said plainly, "But redshift is not correlated with distance ..."

Then: "...the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift."

I though she said "on average, the farther distant the galaxy the deeper the redshift". If it is only on average then the red shift of individual galaxies does not correlate to distance, in fact two different sides of an edge on galaxy will have different redshifts because one side is rotating away from us the other towards us. In a galactic cluster the galaxies orbiting around their common centre of mass will have different red shifts some moving away from us faster than other because of their motion in the cluster. It is the average speed that matters when you are using redshift to measure distance.

 

[gluadys]

What? Velocity is used to measure distance by the red shift to begin with! Who is she trying to fool?

Nope. Red shift is used to measure the velocity.
Distance is an independent measurement.

It is only because these are two independent measurements that the observed correlation between them is significant.

In a steady-state Newtonian universe, the distance of galaxies should not be related to their direction or speed in relation to the earth. In whatever range of distance galaxies occur there should be, on average, as many moving toward the earth (indicated by blue shifts) as away, and as many moving slowly (indicated by minor red or blue shifts) as rapidly.

This is what Hubble initially expected to see.

Instead he found an unexpected correlation of velocity with position. Beyond a certain distance, blue shifts entirely disappeared and only red shifts were found. Why are all distant galaxies moving away from the earth (and from each other)? And why, on average, are the more distant galaxies moving more rapidly? These are measured observations, but they need an explanation.

Eventually that led to the understanding that the universe is expanding from a long ago singularity, a hypothesis that predicted further observations which have since been verified.

A few cherry-picked anomalies that are probably quite consistent with the averaged observations, are hardly enough to unsettle the theory.

And deliberately misrepresenting what I say hardly adds to the credibility of your argument. Once could be misunderstanding, but repeating it after a clarification is not.