biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

Now that we understand what the current model of the universe is, we can move forward to discuss the role of expansion in more detail as well as the problems in some of the underlying assumptions that form the basis of this model, including acknowledged evidence that the model has to ignore in order to survive.

First, it is important to note that there is a limitation, which prevents us from knowing whether or not all space is uniformly filled with matter. The obstacle is that we cannot and will not ever be able to see beyond a certain distance into space “even in principle.” There are 2 reasons for this.

Number one, dust in the Milky Way prevents us from seeing “very far in any direction.”

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – In the 19th century, counts of the numbers of stars appearing in different directions in the sky left astronomers with the incorrect idea that the earth and sun were approximately in the center of the universe. This conclusion did not take into account the modern idea that dust in our Milky Way Galaxy prevented astronomers from seeing very far in any direction.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This limited ability to see beyond a certain point is associated with Olber’s paradox. Olber’s paradox is an articulation of the following apparent contradiction. If space is infinite and matter is distributed infinitely throughout space, then there should be an infinite number of stars. An infinite number of stars should make the night sky bright rather than dark. Yet the sky is dark. So, how can there be an infinite number of stars throughout space?

“Olbers's Paradox, I INTRODUCTION – Olbers's Paradox, in astronomy and cosmology, apparent contradiction between a dark night sky and an infinite universe. If the universe is infinitely large, every line of sight possible from the earth should end in a star. Thus the sky should be completely bright. But astronomers know from common observation that the sky is dark at night between the stars. Arriving at opposite results by using two apparently valid methods of reasoning is called a paradox. Olbers's paradox is named for German physician and astronomer Wilhelm Olbers, who wrote about the paradox in the 1820s.” – "Olbers's Paradox," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – Beginning in the 17th century, scientists wondered why the sky was dark at night if space is indeed infinite (an idea proposed in ancient Greece and still accepted by most cosmologists today) and stars are distributed throughout that infinite space. An infinite amount of starlight should make the sky very bright at night. This cosmological question came to be called Olbers's paradox after the German astronomer Heinrich Olbers, who wrote about the paradox in the 1820s. The paradox was not solved until the 20th century.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Number two, the answer to Olber’s paradox comes in terms of “a spherical surface” known as “the cosmic event horizon” at 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) light years away from the earth. (It should be noted that this is “spherical” horizon is defined simply by how much can be seen in any direction and does not relate to the shape of the universe.) We cannot see beyond this spherical horizon because 10 billion light years is the age of the universe and, therefore, that is the maximum amount of time that light has had to travel to the earth. Effectively, anything farther than 10 billion light years has not had enough time for its light to travel to the earth so that we can see it. Near the end of the first quote below, take note of Britannica’s assessment that we cannot and will not be able to see anything beyond 10 billion light years “even in principle.” This statement indicates that the problem is permanent. (For an update on the size of the cosmic event horizon described here and in the quote below, see our “Addendum: Cosmic Event Horizon Update.”)

“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas – In 1610 Kepler provided a profound reason for believing that the number of stars in the universe had to be finite. If there were an infinity of stars, he argued, then the sky would be completely filled with them and night would not be dark! This point was rediscussed by the astronomers Edmond Halley and Jean-Philippe-Loys de Chéseaux of Switzerland in the 18th century, but it was not popularized as a paradox until Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers of Germany took up the problem in the 19th century. The difficulty became potentially very real with Hubble's measurement of the enormous extent of the universe of galaxies with its large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. His discovery of the systematic recession of the galaxies provided an escape, however…The modern consensus is, however, that a finite age for the universe is a far more important effect. Even if the universe is spatially infinite, photons from very distant galaxies simply do not have the time to travel to the Earth because of the finite speed of light. There is a spherical surface, the cosmic event horizon (roughly [10 raised to the power of 10 or 10,000,000,000] light-years in radial distance from the Earth at the current epoch), beyond which nothing can be seen even in principle; and the number (roughly [10 raised to the power of 10 or 10,000,000,000]) of galaxies within this cosmic horizon, the observable universe, are too few to make the night sky bright.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Olber’s Paradox, III MODERN THEORIES – The current understanding of Olbers's paradox and its solution was framed by American astronomer Edward Harrison in the 1960s. Harrison showed that the sky is dark at night because we do not see stars infinitely far away. Harrison's solution depends on the universe having a finite age. Because light takes time to reach the earth, looking deep into space is like looking back in time. Each line of sight from the earth does not have to end on a star because the light from the farthest stars needed to create Olbers's paradox has not reached the earth. In the time that the universe has existed, stars have not emitted enough energy to make the night sky bright.” – "Olbers's Paradox," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Notice that expansion plays a role in the evolutionary solution to Olber’s paradox. Concerning Olber’s paradox, the first quote above specifically states that Hubble’s “discovery of the systematic recession of the galaxies provided an escape.” In short, since expansion is the basis for the Big Bang and the age of the universe in evolutionary cosmology, expansion provided a limited time for light from stars to reach the earth. Any star farther from the earth than light could travel in the limited time since the Big Bang would not be visible to illuminate the night sky.

What is most important from this issue is the fact that homogeneity will never be able to be proven because we will never be able to see far enough into the universe to know whether or not matter is distributed uniformly throughout space or whether the distribution of matter stops at some point even if space continues. If that were so, then even if space were infinite, there would still be an edge to the distribution of matter. Thus, there would also be a center to the distribution of matter along with an accompanying gravity well at that center. This point must be emphasized.

Because we cannot see beyond 10 billion light years (the age of the universe) “even in principle,” we simply cannot know whether or not matter is uniformly distributed throughout all of space or whether matter is distributed only partially into space and then stops. Science can never disprove either the “entirely-filled” or the “partially-filled” options because we cannot see far enough to do so. On this point, whether or not space is curved is irrelevant. Even if space itself has no edge or center because it is curved like the surface of a sphere, matter could still be only partially distributed throughout space, in which case the distribution of matter would have an edge, a center, and a central gravity well. Consequently, the model of spherical space that is only partially-filled with matter is equally valid as the model in which matter is uniformly distributed throughout all of space.

Second, it is important to understand the central role that redshift plays in demonstrating expansion and subsequently the Big Bang and the age of the universe. This is important because the known but ignored observations about expansion are specifically observations about redshift. Consequently, it is important to establish that redshift is the indispensable foundation for Big Bang cosmology so that we will in turn understand that we cannot simply throw out or disregard known facts about redshift. Redshift is not peripheral. Redshift is determinant to cosmology on a foundational level and, as such, its characteristics are of the utmost significance.

The Big Bang is a reverse extrapolation of expansion. And expansion is demonstrated by redshift.

“Universe, Changing views of the universe – The discovery of the redshift of distant galaxies led to the theory of the expanding universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Universe, Size of the Universe – Astronomers interpret the large redshifts of faraway objects as evidence that the universe is expanding-that is, every point in the universe is moving away from every other point.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Redshift refers to the phenomenon in which light from stars and other celestial objects, such as quasars, is shifted toward the red end of the visible light spectrum. The red end of the spectrum has the longest wavelengths of visible light. When seeking to explain why the light was shifted toward the longer wavelengths, the conclusion was reached that the wavelengths became lengthened as a result of passing through space as space expands. Thus, the redshift of light was a result of the expansion of space. The numerous quotes below explain this fundamental observation.

“Universe, Size of the universe – Astronomers can determine the distance to a faraway object by measuring the object's redshift. Redshift is a stretching of the wavelength of light or other radiation emitted by an object. Wavelength is the distance between successive crests of a wave. The stretching is called redshift because red light has the longest wavelength of any visible light. Objects farther away from Earth have larger redshifts.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth. The Doppler shift, and therefore the speed of the galaxy, was greater for more distant galaxies. Galaxies in different directions at equivalent distances from the earth, however, had equivalent Doppler shifts. This constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly. The uniform relationship between velocity of expansion and distance from the earth is known as Hubble's law.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Most astronomical observations made to date support big bang theories. According to these theories, the universe is still expanding. Two kinds of observations strongly support the idea of an expanding universe. These observations indicate that all galaxies are moving away from one another and that the galaxies farthest from the Milky Way are moving away most rapidly. This relationship between speed and distance is known as the Hubble law of recession (moving backward), or Hubble's law. The law was named after American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble, who reported it in 1929. Astronomers estimate the speed at which a galaxy is moving away by measuring the galaxy's redshift. The redshift is an apparent lengthening of electromagnetic waves emitted by an object moving away from the observer. A redshift can be measured when light from a galaxy is broken up and spread out into a band of colors called a spectrum. The spectrum of a galaxy contains bright and dark lines that are determined by the galaxy's temperature, density, and chemical composition. These lines are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum if the galaxy is moving away. The greater the amount of redshift, the more rapid the movement. See REDSHIFT.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Cosmology, Movement of galaxies – In the early 1900's, astronomers analyzed light from stars in distant galaxies. They passed this light through a prism, which broke it up into a rainbowlike band of colors called a spectrum (plural spectra). At one end of the spectrum of visible light is red, the color with the longest wavelength (distance between successive wave crests). At the other end is violet, which has the shortest wavelength. The spectrum of light sent out by any star has bright and dark lines that indicate the composition of the star's outer layers and atmosphere. The astronomers then compared the spectra of the light from the stars in the distant galaxies with spectra of similar stars in our home galaxy, the Milky Way. They discovered that the spectral lines of the distant stars are closer to the red end of the spectrum than are the corresponding lines in the light from our neighboring stars. The astronomers concluded that this redshift is caused by the distant galaxies moving rapidly away from the Milky Way. Calculations of the speeds of various galaxies indicate that the universe is expanding and that all galaxies began moving away from one another 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Red Shift – Red Shift, shift toward longer wavelengths observed in the lines of spectra (see Spectrum) of celestial objects. The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble, in 1929, linked the red shift observed in spectra of galaxies to the expansion of the universe. Hubble theorized that this red shift, called the cosmological red shift, is caused by the Doppler effect and hence indicates the speed of recession of the galaxies-and, by using Hubble's law, the distances of the galaxies (see Cosmology).” – "Red Shift," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Doppler effect – The following is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly, the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer wavelength) if the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to search for double stars and is an integral part of modern theories of the universe. See also red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Red shift – The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929 that the distant galaxies were receding from the Milky Way system, in which the Earth is located, and that their red shifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance. This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble's law, which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from the Earth. That is to say, the greater the red shift manifested by light emanating from such an object, the greater the distance of the object and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble's constant). This law of red shifts has been confirmed by subsequent research and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Cosmos, Clustering of galaxies, Statistics of clustering – The description of galaxy clustering given above is qualitative and therefore open to a charge of faulty subjective reasoning. To remove human biases it is possible to take a statistical approach, a path pioneered by the American statisticians Jerzy Neyman and Elizabeth L. Scott and extended by H. Totsuji and T. Kihara in Japan and by P.J.E. Peebles and his coworkers in the United States. Their line of attack begins by considering the correlation of the angular positions of galaxies in the northern sky surveyed by C.D. Shane and C.A. Wirtanen of Lick Observatory, Mount Hamilton, Calif…In addition to angular positions, it is possible to derive empirical information about the large-scale distribution of galaxies in the direction along the line of sight by examining the redshifts of galaxies under the assumption that a larger redshift implies a greater distance in accordance with Hubble's law.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Cosmology seeks to understand the structure of the universe. Modern cosmology is based on the American astronomer Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances. In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – The universe's density, expansion rate, and age are all related…If cosmologists measure the rate of expansion by examining galactic red shifts and estimate the density of the universe, they can calculate an estimate of the universe's age.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As indicated by the last quote above, the age of the universe is based upon the rate of expansion, which is determined by examining redshifts. The Hubble constant (or Hubble’s constant) is a measure of the rate of expansion and it is the number used in estimating the universe’s age.

“Hubble constant – Hubble constant is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Astronomers use this number in estimating the age of the universe.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

Since the certainty surrounding the age of the universe is critical, it should be stated that evolutionary scientists admit they face a problem when identifying the value of the Hubble constant, and consequently when determining the age of the universe since that calculation depends upon the Hubble constant. As indicated by the quote below, the problem arises in terms of the need to measure the distance to any given galaxy “in some way independent of Hubble’s law.” As the quote also affirms, this is difficult to do and different methods give different values for the Hubble constant.

“Galaxy, Calculating the age of the universe – Determining the Hubble constant involves three steps: (1) measuring the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving away from the Milky Way, (2) measuring the distance to that galaxy in some way independent of Hubble's law, and (3) dividing the first measurement by the second to find the Hubble constant. The equation for the division operation, H0 = v ¸ d, is a rearrangement of the equation given previously for Hubble's law. Astronomers measure the speed of a galaxy by determining its redshift, a shift in the wavelength of certain radiation sent out by the galaxy. For a discussion of this phenomenon, see REDSHIFT. Scientists use several different methods to measure the distance to a galaxy. For various technical reasons, these methods give somewhat different results. It is because of these differences that different values have been proposed for the Hubble constant.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

Consequently, the exact value for the Hubble constant “is an issue of controversy among astronomers” and there are currently “discrepancies” concerning what is the correct figure.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, The extragalactic distance scale and Hubble's constant – The exact value of Hubble's constant is an issue of great controversy among astronomers. Modern estimates for H 0 range from 15 to 30 km/sec per million light-years. The source of the discrepancy lies partly in the interpretation of the amount of distortion superimposed atop a pure Hubble flow by the gravitational effects of the Local Supercluster in which the Local Group and the Virgo cluster are embedded and partly in the different calibrators used or emphasized by different workers for the distances to various extragalactic objects.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As recently as the late 1990’s, scientists still did not know whether they were within 10 percent of the actual value of the Hubble constant.

“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – Several groups of astronomers conducted observational projects to determine Hubble's constant, the most important cosmological parameter, during the late 1990s. Notably, the American astronomers Wendy Freedman, Robert Kennicutt, and Barry Madore used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies, following the Leavitt-Shapley method. The Hubble Space Telescope can distinguish and follow such stars in galaxies much farther away from earth than ground-based telescopes can. The researchers hope to determine Hubble's constant to within 10 percent of its actual value. Groups using distant supernovas, which are the very bright explosions of stars, are extending tests of Hubble's law to even greater distances. Other astronomers used mainly ground-based telescopes to try to determine Hubble's constant. The American astronomer Alan Sandage and the Swiss astronomer Gustav Tammann have used a variety of methods to come up with an expansion estimate of 55 km/sec/megaparsec (about 34 mi/sec/megaparsec). A megaparsec is 1000 parsecs, and a parsec is about 3.26 light years (a light year is the distance that light could travel in a year-9.5 x 1012 km, or 5.9 x 1012 mi). So far, the cosmologists using the Hubble Space Telescope have found a value of about 70 km/sec/megaparsec (44 mi/sec/megaparsec) for the expansion rate of the universe. These expansion rates correspond to a universe between 8 billion and 13 billion years old.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Consequently, as indicated by the last line of the quote above from Microsoft Encarta, the age of the universe is often expressed as a range, such as “between 8 billion and 13 billion years,” with the high and low end of the estimate reflecting the range of values for the Hubble constant. The fact that the age of the universe is rendered as a range, on its own, does not mean that range is necessarily inaccurate. Our intention in pointing out this fact is simply to dispel the potential misperception that scientists have determined the exact age of the universe with certainty. They have not. Furthermore, this highlights the important fact that all of the kinks have not yet been worked out of the methods for determining the universe’s age. It simply is not a perfect process or a finalized result. And that is why different sources even provide different ages, such as the quote below which is also from Microsoft Encarta and which cites not 8 to 13 billion years, but 10 to 20 billion years for the age of the universe.

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – According to the theory, the big bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

And Worldbook gives this same larger age range of 10 to 20 billion years.

“Big bang – Big bang refers to the most widely held scientific theory of the origin of the universe. According to this theory, the universe began with a hot, explosive event-a ‘big bang’-about 10 billion to 20 billion years ago.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Another estimate from Microsoft Encarta places the range between 10 and 15 billion years.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – Current calculations place the age of the universe at 10 billion to 15 billion years.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Britannica simply states that the age is “at least” 10 billion years.

"Big-bang model – widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density—the so-called big bang that occurred at least 10,000,000,000 years ago. " – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And another article by Worldbook gives a much narrower range of 13-14 billion years.

“Universe – According to the theory, the universe began with an explosion-called the big bang-13 billion to 14 billion years ago.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Once again, our point here is not that these ages necessarily disagree with one another. They are all certainly within the same basic 8-20 billion year range. Our intention is simply to point out that the age of the universe has not been definitively settled because even within the evolutionary framework the values needed for that calculation have not been fully worked out. This is important because it dispels the potential misperception that the exact age of the universe has been identified with certainty and finality or that the process for making this calculation is a perfect one. These simply are not the case.

Leaving behind the side issue of the Hubble constant, we return our attention to the focal topic, the solitary, central role of redshift in determining the expansion and consequently the age of the universe. We left off by stating that light shifts toward the redder and longer wavelengths as it passes through space as space expands, in turn, causing the light wave itself to expand or stretch. However, to be clear, it is understood that only space is expanding. The matter in space is not. Consequently, the space between the major structures of matter (such as galaxies) expands, creating a greater distance between those structures as time moves forward.

“Universe, Size of the Universe – Astronomers interpret the large redshifts of faraway objects as evidence that the universe is expanding-that is, every point in the universe is moving away from every other point. This expansion does not cause the matter within a particular object to expand, however, because attraction among its atoms and molecules holds the object together. Similarly, the force of gravity prevents the stars in a galaxy from moving away from one another. But the galaxies are moving away from one another. The expansion of the universe is a basic observation that any successful theory of the universe must explain.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – The global space-time diagram for the middle half of the expansion-compression phases can be depicted as a barrel lying on its side. The space axis corresponds again to any one direction in the universe, and it wraps around the barrel. Through each spatial point runs a time axis that extends along the length of the barrel on its (space-time) surface. Because the barrel is curved in both space and time, the little squares in the grid of the curved sheet of graph paper marking the space-time surface are of nonuniform size, stretching to become bigger when the barrel broadens (universe expands) and shrinking to become smaller when the barrel narrows (universe contracts)… Imagine now that galaxies reside on equally spaced tick marks along the space axis. Each galaxy on average does not move spatially with respect to its tick mark in the spatial (ringed) direction but is carried forward horizontally by the march of time. The total number of galaxies on the spatial ring is conserved as time changes, and therefore their average spacing increases or decreases as the total circumference 2?R on the ring increases or decreases (during the expansion or contraction phases). Thus, without in a sense actually moving in the spatial direction, galaxies can be carried apart by the expansion of space itself. From this point of view, the recession of galaxies is not a “velocity” in the usual sense of the word. For example, in a closed Friedmann model, there could be galaxies that started, when R was small, very close to the Milky Way system on the opposite side of the universe. Now, [10,000,000,000] years later, they are still on the opposite side of the universe but at a distance much greater than [10,000,000,000] light-years away. They reached those distances without ever having had to move (relative to any local observer) at speeds faster than light—indeed, in a sense without having had to move at all…In other words, the wavelength has grown in direct proportion to the linear expansion factor of the universe. Since the same conclusion would have held if n wavelengths had been involved instead of one, all electromagnetic radiation from a given object will show the same cosmological redshift if the universe (or, equivalently, the average spacing between galaxies) was smaller at the epoch of transmission than at the epoch of reception. Each wavelength will have been stretched in direct proportion to the expansion of the universe in between.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

So, the basic concept is that matter is not expanding. For example, stars within galaxies are held at their distances by gravity. But the distances between galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters are expanding because the space between them is expanding. And the light passing between one galaxy and another, one cluster or supercluster and another, is stretching as it moves across expanding space.

The next 2 points are of the utmost importance. First, Redshift and Hubble’s Law are based upon observations from the earth or from the Milky Way Galaxy where the earth resides. Second, it is simply a matter of plain fact that the Big Bang model is based upon observing redshift from the earth. Both of these 2 points are stated in the following quotes.

“Red shift – The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929 that the distant galaxies were receding from the Milky Way system, in which the Earth is located, and that their red shifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance. This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble's law, which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from the Earth. That is to say, the greater the red shift manifested by light emanating from such an object, the greater the distance of the object and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble's constant). This law of red shifts has been confirmed by subsequent research and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Two kinds of observations strongly support the idea of an expanding universe. These observations indicate that all galaxies are moving away from one another and that the galaxies farthest from the Milky Way are moving away most rapidly. This relationship between speed and distance is known as the Hubble law of recession (moving backward), or Hubble's law. The law was named after American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble, who reported it in 1929…The greater the amount of redshift, the more rapid the movement. See REDSHIFT.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

“Galaxy, Calculating the age of the universe – Determining the Hubble constant involves three steps: (1) measuring the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving away from the Milky Way, (2) measuring the distance to that galaxy in some way independent of Hubble's law, and (3) dividing the first measurement by the second to find the Hubble constant.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)

“Universe, Size of the universe – Astronomers can determine the distance to a faraway object by measuring the object's redshift. Redshift is a stretching of the wavelength of light or other radiation emitted by an object. Wavelength is the distance between successive crests of a wave. The stretching is called redshift because red light has the longest wavelength of any visible light. Objects farther away from Earth have larger redshifts.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

As stated above, it is of the utmost importance that all of our information about redshift is based upon redshift as it is observed from the earth. As we can see from the quotes above, this is simply a matter of fact. The significance of this fact will become more apparent as we move forward to the next issue, the all important question of whether or not the universe has a center and ultimately the known but ignored observations about redshift.

Here we need to pull together all of the points that we’ve been building step by step throughout this segment. First, we saw that evolutionary Big Bang cosmology simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t have a working theory for the actual Big Bang explosion. And it doesn’t have a working theory for the subsequent events after the explosion that formed the major structures of the universe, including stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies.

Second, we saw that the evolutionary Big Bang cosmology is formulated and accepted on the basis of philosophical preferences, not because it is necessitated by any observations, and likewise, adherents to the evolutionary Big Bang cosmology reject alternate theories on the basis of philosophical preferences, not observations.

Third, we saw that the evolutionary Big Bang model was specifically formulated on the basis of 3 assumptions: homogeneity, isotropy, and the trait of being static in time – all of which were designed to avoid a creation event if possible and any special or central location in the universe for the earth (i.e. the Copernican principle). We even saw how the “curvature” of space introduced by Einstein was also based on the philosophical preference to remove a center to the universe.

Fourth, we saw how a creation event, a “beginning” to the universe, was unavoidable and so the third assumption that the universe was static in time was discarded while the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy remained intact.

Fifth, we saw that there is a limit to how far we can see into the universe “even in principle” and so homogeneity, the assumption that matter is distributed uniformly throughout all of space, must remain an assumption and cannot be proven. As such, it is equally possible that matter is only distributed through a portion of space, then stops, having an edge and therefore a center.

Sixth, we saw that the desire to avoid an edge and a center to the distribution of matter were related to the desire to avoid a gravity well at the center of the universe. Seventh, we saw how the earth was not the center of the universe and neither was earth’s sun. Eighth, we saw that redshift was the cornerstone basis of expansion, the Big Bang model, and the age estimates of the universe. And ninth, we saw how all observations of redshift are observations of redshift from the earth.

With all of these facts in place, the stage is finally set to address the following, paramount questions. Given that the notion that there is no edge or subsequent center to the distribution of matter in the universe is merely an assumption, which cannot be demonstrated by fact, what happens to the model of the universe if there is an edge and a center? And what evidence is there that the universe has a center?

We will address these 2 questions in reverse order, laying out several pieces of evidence that ultimately demonstrate the universe does indeed have a center and then discussing the impact this has on the modern cosmologic model and on the debate between evolutionism and creationism.

The first piece of evidence, which indicates that the universe might have a center, is isotropy itself. As we stated earlier, isotropy is the only 1 of the 3 assumptions in Einstein’s original 1917 model that had any basis in actual observation. The fact is that when we look into space from the earth, from our present location, matter seems to be uniformly distributed around us. This much is observation.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – The big bang theory describes a hot explosion of energy and matter at the time the universe came into existence. This theory explains why the universe is expanding and why the universe seems so uniform in all directions and at all places.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – In the 19th century, counts of the numbers of stars appearing in different directions in the sky left astronomers with the incorrect idea that the earth and sun were approximately in the center of the universe. This conclusion did not take into account the modern idea that dust in our Milky Way Galaxy prevented astronomers from seeing very far in any direction.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Universe, Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size. Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

However, isotropy becomes an assumption when we extrapolate that this is true, not just for the earth, but for every location in the universe. We have not looked into space from any other location besides earth and so, it is merely an assumption that matter would appear uniformly distributed or would be uniformly distributed around other locations as it is around the earth.

As we have seen, the evolutionary Big Bang model has its own explanation for why the distribution of matter seems uniform in all directions from the earth. Consequently, on its own, isotropy does not favor one theory over another. But although the Big Bang cosmology can accommodate this piece of evidence by adding additional unproven assumptions, if we want to remain minimal in the number of assumptions, on face value the fact that matter seems evenly distributed all around the earth is a remarkable indication that earth, or at least earth’s galaxy, is near the center of the universe.

The second piece of evidence, which indicates that the universe might have a center, is Olber’s paradox. The darkness of the sky at night is an important fact in the modern understanding of all cosmological models. It has even been assessed to have equal weight in cosmology to the recession and expansion.

“Cosmology – Five observations have contributed much to modern cosmology: (1) the sky is dark at night; (2) galaxies move away from one another; (3) the entire sky gives off radio waves; (4) helium is abundant in the universe; and (5) the age of the oldest stars is 10 billion to 20 billion years. The dark sky – During the 1700's and 1800's, astronomers wondered why the sky is dark at night. In the simplest universe they could imagine, stars would be distributed evenly throughout an infinite space. The entire night sky would therefore appear to be a solid mass of stars as bright as the sun. The inconsistency between this imaginary sky and the actual dark sky indicates that the universe has a complex structure. This inconsistency has been named Olbers's paradox after its author, German astronomer Heinrich Olbers.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Like isotropy, evolutionary Big Bang cosmology accommodates Olber’s paradox and, like isotropy, it does so by adding more unproven assumptions. It is possible to explain why the sky is dark by assuming that matter is either infinitely distributed throughout infinite space or at least distributed across a distance so great that there has not been enough time for light to travel from the earth. Because this is the case, on its own Olber’s paradox is not conclusive proof that the universe has a center. However, just as was the case with isotropy, if we want to keep assumptions to a minimum number, the fact that the sky is dark at night is also a remarkable indication that there is only a limited distribution of stars and matter throughout the universe, in which case there would be both an edge and a center to that distribution of matter.

Although neither isotropy nor Olber’s paradox on their own constitute conclusive proof, taken together they constitute at least mounting evidence for the notion that the universe has a center. When viewed individually, it only takes one assumption to accommodate each, but when viewed together, it becomes clear that in order to fit with the evidence, evolutionary theory requires 2 additional assumptions. And on this note, we should recall a critical point from earlier. Previously, when covering the history of Copernicus, we took note of Microsoft Encarta’s conclusion that “simpler” theories are “therefore more sound philosophically” than more complicated ones because they more “neatly” explain the observations.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies – Until the 16th century, most people (including early astronomers) considered the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe. A sun-centered universe neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky: Because Earth is closer to the sun, Earth moves faster than Mars. When Mars is ahead of or relatively far behind Earth, Mars appears to move across Earth's night sky in the usual west-to-east direction. As Earth overtakes Mars, Mars's motion seems to stop, then begin an east-to-west motion that stops and reverses when Earth moves far enough away again. Copernicus's model also explained the daily and yearly motion of the sun and stars in the earth's sky.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

On this point, it seems the theory that the earth, or rather the earth’s home galaxy, is near the center of a finite distribution of matter is a far simpler, neater and therefore philosophically more sound explanation for why we see an even distribution of matter all around the earth no matter which direction we look and why the sky is dark at night in contrast to the more complicated explanation that we see an even distribution because all of space has an even distribution, an assumption that is not verifiable at all, and we only see a limited number of stars because other stars are too far away for their light to have arrived yet, which is another assumption that is not verifiable. In these terms, it becomes quite clear that the explanation, which requires assuming the least amount of unknowns, is the theory that the universe has a center and earth’s galaxy is near to that center. Such an explanation simply explains the observations and it does not require making assumptions about the distribution of matter in parts of space that we cannot observe. As indicated by the quote above, Copernicus’ model won out, not because of new observations, but because his explanations of the existing observations were simpler, neater, and therefore, more philosophically sound. Consequently, even judging just by isotropy and Olber’s paradox, on these grounds, the same grounds that weighed in favor of Copernicus’ model, a centered-universe theory is a more sound explanation and therefore should be philosophically preferable to a center-less universe theory.

However, here we arrive at the conclusive evidence, the known but ignored evidence demonstrating that the universe not only has a center, but that the earth’s home galaxy, the Milky Way, is uniquely near that center. As stated earlier, this evidence is inherent to what we observe about redshift itself, the central pillar of evolutionary Big Bang cosmology.

To finally cut to the chase, the evidence is simply this. Redshifts occur in quantized shells or spheres occurring at regular distances around the location of the Milky Way, earth’s home galaxy, as their center. This fact is attested to repeatedly in quotes below from non-creationist, mainstream scientists and authors in science magazines and journals, including Astrophysical Journal, the Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, Scientific American, the Journal Science, and Discover. Only at the end of these mainstream quotes have we included 3 comments on this subject from creationists. As can be seen, the creationists’ descriptions of the redshift phenomenon in question are identical to what is described in the mainstream scientific literature.

“There is now very firm evidence that redshifts of galaxies are quantized…” – W.G. Tifft and W.J. Cocke, Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical Journal, 1984 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps – certain preferred values – is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence.” – Halton Arp (Staff astronomer at the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatory for 29 years), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987, p. 195 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Abstract: Radio wavelength studies of red shifts have reinforced William G. Tifft's claims that redshifts do not occur in a swift continuum. Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, had been claiming that redshifts occur in groups, with estimated intervals of between 24 to 72 kilometers per second.” – “Quantized redshifts: what's going on here?” Sky & Telescope, August 1992, v.84, n.2, p. 128<

“Abstract: Astronomer William G. Tifft claims that his statistical analyses of different galaxies have indicated that redshifts are not continuous, but fall on evenly spaced steps. This finding indicates that redshifts do not necessarily correspond to their recessional velocity.” – Tim Beardsley, “Quantum dissidents: is there unexpected order in the cosmos? (red shifts)” (Special Year-End Section: The Search for Answers), Scientific American, Dec 1992, v.267, n.6, p. 39

“Abstract: A recent study of many parts of the sky supported a controversial 1976 claim that redshift of celestial objects appear only in quantized speeds. Standard models of the universe give no reason why redshift would be restricted to multiples of one fundamental speed, which was measured at 37.2 kill/sec. Full Text: In a study of redshifts - a measure of velocity away from the Earth - for more than 200 galaxies, Bill Napier of Oxford University and Bruce Guthrie, a retired astronomer from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, claim to have the best evidence yet for a 20-year-old claim: that redshifts fall into packets, clustered around specific values.Few astronomers have taken the notion of "quantized redshifts" seriously in the past, but some galaxy specialists who have seen the new results - slated to appear in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics - are no longer dismissing them out of hand…Harvard galaxy expert John Huchra, another other longtime skeptic, goes further: ‘My curiosity is now sufficiently whetted that I'm thinking of writing an observing proposal for checking to see if [the effect] holds up with other galaxies.’ If it does, standard cosmology might be turned on its ear: ‘It would mean abandoning a great deal of present research,’ says Disney…The expansion stretches the light of distant galaxies, shifting the spectral lines it contains toward longer - and thus redder - wavelengths. And according to current models of the expansion of the universe, galaxy speed, and hence redshift, should increase steadily with distance, rather than bunching around particular values. In 1976, however, William Tifft of the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona claimed that visible-light redshift measurements suggested that galaxies in a cluster in the constellation Coma have redshifts that fall into distinct velocity packets. The velocities, he said, always came out at some multiple of about 72 kilometers per second (km/s). A year later, Tifft claimed to have found a similar "quantization" in the velocities of galaxies closer to our own. The claim met with widespread indifference, but Tifft and his colleague W. John Cocke continued to amass more evidence for the effect throughout the 1980s…[Napier and Guthrie] focused on the velocities of spiral galaxies spread right across the sky to the edge of the Local Supercluster, at a distance of about 100 million lightyears - making their study the most extensive test yet of quantized redshifts. To minimize the chances that the effect is simply an instrumental quirk, Napier and Guthrie gathered redshift measurements from eight different, widely spread radio observatories, from Effelsberg in Germany to Arecibo in Puerto Rico. In all, they studied 97 spirals, each with redshift measurements from several of the observatories…The analysis revealed a quantization consistent with a fundamental velocity of 37.5 km/s. According to the astronomers, the probability of getting so strong an effect by random chance alone is around 1 in 10,000. At the request of a referee appointed by Astronomy and Astrophysics, Napier and Guthrie went on to repeat the whole process with a further set of 117 galaxies, and the same quantization showed up, this time with a probability of 5 in 10,000 that the effect was a fluke. The fact that both these independent data sets yield the same quantization, says Napier, implies ‘an overall probability of getting so strong an effect by chance alone of around 5 in 100 million.’…Responds Napier, ‘If there's a way out of this conclusion, we haven't seen it. And it's not for lack of trying.’” – Robert Matthews, “Do galaxies fly through the universe in formation? (redshift observations suggest galaxies travel at quantized speeds),” Science, Feb 9, 1996 v.271, n. 5250, p. 759

“Abstract: William Tifft's data that suggests that redshifted light from distant galaxies is dependent on the type of galaxy and not on recession speed, a notion which could upend the Big Bang theory. He also claims that redshifts are quantized like the energy states of an atom. Full Text: If you believe William Tifft's data, there are problems with the modem cosmos. For instance, maybe--repeat, maybe-it isn't expanding…If a galaxy's light is redshifted only by the expansion of space (and its own smaller motion through space), the amount of redshift should depend on its distance and not on what type of galaxy it is. And the redshifts of all galaxies together should form a random distribution, reflecting the random distribution of distances at which galaxies are observed. Tifft's observations over the past 20 years have convinced him that neither of these conditions applies to the real universe…Observing other clusters and pairs of equidistant galaxies, Tifft made an even more startling discovery. He found that his galactic redshifts took on only certain discrete values instead of being randomly distributed. In other words, redshifts appeared to increase by quantum leaps--specifically, by a leap of 45 miles per second, if the redshift was redshifts of some types of galaxies were distributed at intervals of a third or a half of 45 miles per second. But the basic idea remained: galactic redshifts are quantized, like the energy states of an atom. That idea has never gone over very well with most of Tifft's peers. The editors of the Astrophysical Journal grudgingly published his first quantized-redshift paper in 1976, but they announced in an unusual disclaimer that they couldn't endorse the idea (although they also couldn't find anything wrong with the underlying observations). The reasons for their dislike are not hard to fathom. If the universe isn't expanding, there would be no reason to believe it was ever compressed into a single point--no reason, that is, to believe it began with a Big Bang. If redshift isn't a simple measure of velocity, then the argument that most of the universe is "dark" matter, which is based primarily on elaborate measurements of galactic velocities, would probably also fall apart. Cosmologists are generally loath to toss twentieth-century cosmology into the dustbin…That Tifft canot explain why red shifts are quantized does not, of course, prove that they aren't. There have been several attempts to refute his observations; in the most recent one, Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, working at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies--and surprised themselves by uncovering data that support the case for quantized redshifts. The redshifts they measured were spaced at intervals of about half of Tifft's original quantum of 45 miles per second.” – Dava Sobel, “Man stops universe, maybe. (William Tifft believes the universe may not be expanding)” Discover, April 1993, v. 14, n.4, p. 20

“…the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques.” – W. Napier and B. Guthrie, Quantized redshifts: a status report, Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy, 1997 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“…the quantized distribution of galactic redshifts, observed by various astronomers seems to contradict the Copernican principle and all cosmologies founded on it – including the big bang.” – Russell Humphreys, Ph. D. Physics, Starlight and Time, 1994, p. 129 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are ‘quantized,’ tending to fall into distinct groups…That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy.” – Russell Humphreys, Ph. D. Physics, Technical Journal, 2002 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

“The quanta are at 1 million light-year intervals with nothing in between…The Hubbell telescope has confirmed this out beyond a billion light years.” – “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

(For an illustration of quantized galaxy distribution around the central Milky Way Galaxy, please see Cosmology Figure 1.)

Specifically, there are 4 important items to note from these quotes.

First, notice that the secular mainstream authors describe the “observational evidence” for the quantization of redshift as “now very firm,” “reinforced” by subsequent research and observation, “overwhelming,” “amassed,” “extensive,” “unable to be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques,” and as not possible to be merely “random or a fluke.” Unlike homogeneity (the notion that matter is distributed uniformly throughout the entire universe), which is and can only ever be a mere assumption, the location of the earth’s home galaxy, the Milky Way, at the center of concentric spherical “shells” of galaxies and other objects is actual observational fact. As indicated earlier in Microsoft Encarta’s article on the Steady-State theory, “homogeneity and isotropy are not the same” because the universe could “look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.”

“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same-for example, a universe that grows denser with distance from the observer would still look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As we can see, despite initial assumptions to the contrary, the quantization of redshifts from our galaxy is now known to be observationally true. The distribution of matter looks isotropic from the earth because earth is near the center of quantized distribution, but the distribution of matter is not homogeneous, because other locations are not at the center of the quantized distribution. We will cover more on this point later as we continue to describe the implications of the quantization of redshift.

Second, throughout the mainstream quotes we also saw repeated admissions that, despite how well-attested the quantization of redshift is, secular cosmologists were reluctant to accept it. In fact, the long quote near the end from Discover explicitly states:

“That idea has never gone over very well with most of Tifft's peers. The editors of the Astrophysical Journal grudgingly published his first quantized-redshift paper in 1976, but they announced in an unusual disclaimer that they couldn't endorse the idea (although they also couldn't find anything wrong with the underlying observations). The reasons for their dislike are not hard to fathom. If the universe isn't expanding, there would be no reason to believe it was ever compressed into a single point--no reason, that is, to believe it began with a Big Bang.”

Of course the philosophical reasons for denying the quantization of redshift are not limited to the potential loss of expansion in the Big Bang, but philosophical reasons also include the desire to avoid the galactocentric implications of such a quantization. This relates to the Copernican Principle, which we also saw previously. Earlier we extensively established from common reference sources that philosophical preference has played the foundational role in formulating cosmological models and in rejecting alternate models from Aristotle to Einstein to the Steady-State theory and all the way to the present. This trend is clearly at work once again in the case of quantized redshift, an acknowledged, un-dismissible, well-attested to fact that is being ignored so that the philosophically preferred evolutionary Big Bang model and the Copernican Principle can survive.

The demise of the Copernican Principle under the weight of observed evidence showing that there is both a center to the universe and that our galaxy is near that center would have strong teleological implications. Such teleological implications have been avoided by evolutionary theorists in order to protect the philosophical preferences maintained by the Big Bang theory. The need to deny any evidence for a galactocentric universe is due to the inherent effects such evidences would have on the viability of Big Bang cosmology. We will cover these effects in more detail as we continue.

And we can see from quotes like the one below, which we looked at earlier from Microsoft Encarta that astronomers would tend to resist any empirically observed data that contradict the Big Bang model because their practice is, instead, to “interpret their data in terms of the Big Bang model.”

“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Third, notice that evolutionary cosmologists Napier and Guthrie explicitly assert that redshift quantization is centered “in the galactocentric frame of reference.”

This term “galactocentric” is meant to correspond to the terms “geocentric,” which means “earth-centered,” and “heliocentric,” which means “sun-centered.” As mentioned previously, the cosmological models of Aristotle and Ptolemy the universe was earth-centered and, subsequently titled, “geocentric.” Likewise, Aristotle and Ptolemy’s models were replaced by the theory of Copernicus in which the universe was sun-centered and thus titled, “heliocentric.”

“Geocentric system – any theory of the structure of the solar system (or the universe) in which Earth is assumed to be at the centre of all. The most highly developed geocentric system was that of Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd century AD). It was generally accepted until the 16th century, after which it was superseded by heliocentric models such as that of Nicolaus Copernicus.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Heliocentric system – a cosmological model in which the Sun is assumed to lie at or near a central point (e.g., of the solar system or of the universe) while the Earth and other bodies revolve around it.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And as we also saw earlier, not only was the geocentric model disproved but the heliocentric model was also disproved.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1917 American scientist Harlow Shapley measured the distance to several groups of stars known as globular clusters. He measured these distances by using a method developed in 1912 by American astronomer Henrietta Leavitt. Leavitt's method relates distance to variations in brightness of Cepheid variables, a class of stars that vary periodically in brightness. Shapley's distance measurements showed that the clusters were centered around a point far from the sun. The arrangement of the clusters was presumed to reflect the overall shape of the galaxy, so Shapley realized that the sun was not in the center of the galaxy. Just as Copernicus's observations revealed that the earth not at the center of the universe, Shapley's observations revealed that the sun was not at the center of the galaxy. Cosmologists now realize that the earth and sun do not occupy any special position in the universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Astronomy – The Milky Way is about 100,000 light-years across, and the sun is roughly 25,000 light-years from its center.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Assuming an evolutionary cosmology and an evolutionary view of culture, Britannica comments that “humanity has traveled a long road since self-centred societies imagined the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon as the main act, with the formation of the rest of the universe as almost an afterthought.”

“Cosmos – This article traces the development of modern conceptions of the Cosmos and summarizes the prevailing theories of its origin and evolution. Humanity has traveled a long road since self-centred societies imagined the creation of the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon as the main act, with the formation of the rest of the universe as almost an afterthought. Today it is known that the Earth is only a small ball of rock in a Cosmos of unimaginable vastness and that the birth of the solar system was probably only one event among many that occurred against the backdrop of an already mature universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

It would seem that after perhaps traveling this long road, humanity has found ourselves right back where we started, located at the center of the universe. The assertion in the Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy by Napier and Guthrie that the universe is structured in a galactocentric fashion indicates that our galaxy (and therefore, on a universal scale, the planet Earth) is very much located near the center of the universe, a position that is not shared by any other galaxy. While humanity was wrong about geocentric and heliocentric models, the reality is now observationally demonstrated to be a galactocentric universe. Mankind was right about being in the center all along. We were just wrong about exactly how we were in the center.

And as we can see, since these comments and admissions originate in the secular, mainstream science literature from evolutionary cosmologists, it is not biased interpretation when creationists borrow these same terms and cite these same facts. Creationist Thomas Kendall states that the earth’s Milky Way Galaxy is so near to the center of the universe that if the Milky Way were located just 1-2 million light years in a different direction, we would not be able to observe the quantization of redshift at all.

“If we just take our galaxy 2 million light-years off center in any direction three dimensionally, it changes the angle, not that much, but enough to make a difference where we would not physically be capable of observing the quantized effect in any direction we looked three dimensionally. It only works physically and optically if we are at or very near the center. Now, 2 million light-years sounds like a lot but the universe is so big, that’s nothing compared to the scale of the known, observed universe.” – “Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth,” Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, nwcreation.net, 9 minutes

And Thomas Kindall goes on to point out that 1-2 million light years is a very small amount compared to the estimated size of the entire universe. This fact becomes highlighted when we consider the following facts. Number one, the Milky Way Galaxy itself is only 100,000 light-years in size.

“Galaxy – The Milky Way has a diameter of about 100,000 light-years.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Number two, just the portion of the universe that we can see is large enough to contain over 100 billion galaxies.

“Galaxy – Scientists estimate that there are more than 100 billion galaxies scattered throughout the visible universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Since just the visible universe contains 100 billion galaxies, the size of the Milky Way Galaxy is nothing compared to the known size of the universe. Yet the Milky Way would only have to move a distance 10-20 times its own size in order to be out of center.

Number three, the most distant objects ever seen are 10-13 billion light years away.

“Galaxy – The most distant galaxies ever photographed are as far as 10 billion to 13 billion light-years away.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

Assuming these are not the farthest objects, the universe would be at least 10,000 of times larger than the 1-2 million light years the Milky Way would have to move in order to no longer in the visible center of the universe.

Number four, we can see just how precisely and uniquely close to the center the Milky Way must be, especially since the nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is 1-2 million light-years away.

“Andromeda Galaxy – the nearest external galaxy (except for the Magellanic Clouds, which are companions of the Milky Way Galaxy, in which the Earth is located). The Andromeda Galaxy is one of the few visible to the unaided eye, appearing as a milky blur. It is located about 2,000,000 light-years from the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Thus, since moving the Milky Way Galaxy 1-2 million light-years in any direction to would make redshift quantization undetectable and the next nearest galaxy is 2 million light-years from the Milky Way, we can see that the closest galaxy is in a location that is not as near to the center of the universe as the Milky Way and from which the quantization of redshift is not detectable or observable. Thus, the earth’s home galaxy is in a uniquely central location in the universe.

(For additional explanation and illustration of how quantization can only apply to one unique location in the universe rather than to numerous locations, please see Cosmology Figures 2a-2d.)

Fourth, notice that some of the articles above hint that quantized redshift might lead to the conclusion that the universe is not and has never expanded, and therefore, did not have a beginning at a “big bang.” However, the idea of an eternal universe, such as originally postulated by the “Steady-State” alternative to the “big bang,” while being acknowledged as “philosophically preferable” because it avoids the “theological” implications of a “creation event,” is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics describes the phenomenon of entropy. Entropy is the loss of available energy as disorder increases in a system.

"Food Web, III ENERGY FLOW - The process whereby energy loses its capacity to do work is called entropy." - "Food Web," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed (or isolated) system, entropy always increases.

"Hawking, Stephen William - For instance, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, must increase with time." - "Hawking, Stephen William," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Entropy - The idea of entropy is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, the direction of spontaneous change in isolated systems is toward maximum disorder...Taken together, all processes occurring now will result in a universe of greater disorder. Because the entropy of the universe is always increasing, a state of greater entropy must be one that occurs later in time. For this reason, entropy has been called 'time's arrow.'" - Worldbook, Contributor: Melvyn C. Usselman, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario.

"Thermodynamics, IV SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - The second law of thermodynamics gives a precise definition of a property called entropy. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; it can also be thought of as a measure of the disorder in the system. The law states that the entropy-that is, the disorder-of an isolated system can never decrease. Thus, when an isolated system achieves a configuration of maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium. Nature, then, seems to "prefer" disorder or chaos." - "Thermodynamics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

When a system reaches this state of maximum entropy, it is said to have reached equilibrium and the temperature becomes uniform. This state is called heat death. And at this time no work or change can occur.

"Heat, Heat/Learning about heat, Thermodynamics - According to the second law, all spontaneous (natural) events act to increase the entropy within a system. Until a system reaches its maximum entropy, it can do useful work. But as a system does work, its entropy increases until the system can no longer perform work." - Worldbook, Contributor: Ared Cezairliyan, Ph.D., Former Research Physicist, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

"Physics, IV NEWTON AND MECHANICS, E Thermodynamics, 3 The Second Law of Thermodynamics - From the second law, it follows that in an isolated system (one that has no interactions with the surroundings) internal portions at different temperatures will always adjust to a single uniform temperature and thus produce equilibrium...The entropy of an isolated system, and of the universe as a whole, can only increase, and when equilibrium is eventually reached, no more internal change of any form is possible. Applied to the universe as a whole, this principle suggests that eventually all temperature in space becomes uniform, resulting in the so-called heat death of the universe." - "Physics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Physics, The scope of physics, The study of heat, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics, Second law - Another formulation of the second law is that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases with time...Statistical mechanics - From a microscopic point of view the laws of thermodynamics imply that, whereas the total quantity of energy of any isolated system is constant, what might be called the quality of this energy is degraded as the system moves inexorably, through the operation of the laws of chance, to states of increasing disorder until it finally reaches the state of maximum disorder (maximum entropy), in which all parts of the system are at the same temperature, and none of the state's energy may be usefully employed. When applied to the universe as a whole, considered as an isolated system, this ultimate chaotic condition has been called the 'heat death.'" – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In modern scientific terms, the universe is a closed system. All that exists is a closed system. And consequently, given enough time, a state of maximum entropy will occur in which there is no available energy in the universe. If the universe were eternal, this state of maximum entropy, in which there was no available energy, no work being done, and no change occurring, would have been reached a long time ago. Since the universe still has available energy and work and change still take place, it cannot be eternally old but must have had a beginning in the finite past.

So, here’s what we’ve learned about the role of redshift. The observation of redshift is what indicates that space has expanded. The observation that redshift is quantized from earth indicates that the universe has uniquely expanded from a central location near the Milky Way Galaxy. Therefore, the observable evidence clearly establishes that the earth’s home galaxy is uniquely near to the center of the universe. In particular, this fact is going to drastically impact the age of the universe, as we will now describe.

First, gravity warps space, electromagnetic radiation, and, perhaps most importantly, time.

“Astronomy – Both radio astronomers and optical astronomers have studied a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. This phenomenon occurs, for example, where radiation emitted by a small, distant galaxy passes near a massive galaxy that is between the object and Earth. The gravitational force of the galaxy apparently bends the radiation much as an ordinary optical lens bends light rays that pass through it.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1915 German-American physicist Albert Einstein, who was working in Switzerland, advanced a theory of gravitation known as the general theory of relativity. His theory involves a four-dimensional space-time continuum that bends in the presence of massive objects. This bending causes light and other objects that are moving near these massive objects to follow a curved path, just as a golfer's ball curves on a warped putting green. In this way, Einstein explained gravity.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“Cosmos – Under these circumstances, Albert Einstein taught in his theory of general relativity that the gravitational field of everything in the universe so warps space and time as to require a very careful reevaluation of quantities whose seemingly elementary natures are normally taken for granted.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – The principle of equivalence in general relativity allows the locally flat space-time structure of special relativity to be warped by gravitation, so that (in the cosmological case) the propagation of the photon over thousands of millions of light-years can no longer be plotted on a globally flat sheet of paper.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Cosmos, Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – To understand why gravitation can curve space (or more generally, space-time) in such startling ways, consider the following thought experiment that was originally conceived by Einstein…There is no need to distinguish locally between acceleration and gravity—the two are in some sense equivalent. But if that is the case, then it must be true that gravity—“real” gravity—can actually bend light. And indeed it can, as many experiments have shown since Einstein's first discussion of the phenomenon. It was the genius of Einstein to go even further. Rather than speak of the force of gravitation having bent the photons into a curved path, might it not be more fruitful to think of photons as always flying in straight lines—in the sense that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points—and that what really happens is that gravitation bends space-time? In other words, perhaps gravitation is curved space-time, and photons fly along the shortest paths possible in this curved space-time, thus giving the appearance of being bent by a “force” when one insists on thinking that space-time is flat…The American physicist John Archibald Wheeler and his colleagues summarized Einstein's view of the universe in these terms: ‘Curved spacetime tells mass-energy how to move; mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Second, in simple terms, the stronger the gravity the greater the time dilation and the slower that times moves. This is true even in the evolutionary Big Bang model where the distribution of matter has no edge. The greater the role of gravity in slowing present expansion of the universe, the younger the universe, just as indicated in the quote below.

“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, The age of the universe – An indirect method of inferring whether the universe is bound or unbound involves estimates of the age of the universe. The basic idea is as follows. For a given present rate of expansion (i.e., Hubble's constant), it is clear that the deceleration produced by gravitation must act to make the expansion faster in the past and slower in the future. Thus, the age of the universe (in the absence of a cosmological constant) must always be less than the free expansion age, H 0?1, which equals 1.5 × 1010 years. The bigger the role for gravity, the smaller the true age compared to the Hubble time H 0 ?1.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Third, while greater gravity slows time even when the distribution of matter has no edge, the gravitational warping of time is much more pronounced when matter is finitely distributed and therefore has an edge or boundary to it. Newton described this fact in his discussion of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite. Here in Newton’s comments, we find the plain statement that when the distribution of matter is finite, then the collective gravity of the whole would manifest at the center of the distribution.

“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe, although not uniform, contains structure. This natural idea, which is the basis of much of the modern theoretical work on the problem, had already occurred to Newton in 1692. Newton wrote to the noted English scholar and clergyman Richard Bentley: ‘It seems to me, that if the matter of our Sun & Planets & all ye matter in the Universe was eavenly scattered throughout all the heavens, & every particle had an innate gravity towards all the rest & the whole space throughout wch [sic] this matter was scattered was but finite: the matter on ye outside of this space would by its gravity tend towards all ye matter on the inside & by consequence fall down to ye middle of the whole space & there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter was eavenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never convene into one mass but some of it convene into one mass & some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all yt infinite space. And thus might ye Sun and Fixt stars be formed supposing the matter were of a lucid nature.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, the closer that all matter is, the greater the gravitational attraction and the greater the warping of space and time. More importantly, the greater the gravity, the slower that time moves. And here is where redshift becomes supremely significant concerning the origins debate and the age of the universe. Redshift indicates both that the universe has expanded and that the earth is near the center of the universe. This means that when the expansion was just beginning and all the matter in the universe was much closer together, the time dilation near the center of the universe where the earth is located would have been enormous. The effect would even cause time on earth to be moving so slowly that while billions of years passed farther from the center and the gravity well, only days would pass on earth. The starlight would have billions of years to travel from distant stars to earth while only 6 days pass on earth, just as the Genesis account asserts. Physicist, Dr. Russell Humphreys explains.

“When matter has a center in space, it distorts space. Inside the depression, physical processes and time slow down. Today the distortion is minor compared with the size of the universe and the passage of time varies by just a few percent across the width of the depression. But the cosmos is expanding and in the past the universe was smaller…In the beginning, when the universe was smaller than it is today, all the matter in the cosmos was closer together. That caused an enormous depression in the fabric of space. On the earth, near the center of the universe and deep within the depression, time slowed down. During creation week on earth, time passed as just ordinary days. But near the edge of the observable universe during the same period, billions of years of physical processes occurred. Thus, the most distant starlight could easily traverse the vast expanse of the cosmos from the edge to the center in just a few short earth days.” – 2 “Starlight and Time,” Dr. Russell Humphreys, RealOne Player, 14 minutes, 25 seconds; 16 minutes, 45 seconds

Since the passage of time would differ throughout the universe, in order to designate a single, official age for the entire universe, a specific location would have to be selected. Once again, Dr. Russell Humphreys explains.

“The differential rate of time…is scientifically sound. Both experiments and Einstein’s theory of relativity confirm that in a cosmos only partially filled with matter, the rates of physical processes would be slower at the center of the matter than at the edge.” – 2 “Starlight and Time,” Dr. Russell Humphreys, RealOne Player, 18 minutes, 40 seconds

“In a bounded [i.e. having an edge] universe, clocks in different places can tick (or register time) at drastically different rates. So, which set of clocks is the Bible referring to in Genesis 1, or in Exodus 20:11, when it says that God made the universe in six ordinary weekdays?...Therefore, it looks as if the Bible is telling us that God made the universe in six days E.S.T.—Earth Standard Time.” – Starlight and Time, Dr. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D., (in physics), Copyright 1994 by Master Books, United States of America, p. 29

So long as earth was selected as the location for keeping time, which it is in the Genesis account, then the age at that particular location would be the official age of the whole universe, even though time passed differently in other areas. Consequently, since both expansion and the central location of the earth are observationally demonstrated by redshift, there is nothing that contradicts the Genesis account but instead the evidence actually peculiarly supports the Genesis account.

(For illustrations of how having an edge and a center to the distribution of matter in the universe creates a time dilation so that distant starlight can reach the earth even while only 6 days pass as described in Genesis 1, please see Cosmology Figures 3a-3f.)

We have now completed our focus on the critical evidence of time and age as it pertains to the methodology for dating the universe. In conclusion, we have shown that the evolutionary assumptions that the earth has no special or central location in the universe not only were mere philosophical preferences instead of being observationally driven, but now have been observationally proven false. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the observable evidence, particularly light from distant stars and redshift do not in any way disprove the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth or even the 6 day creation week reported in Genesis 1. To the contrary, as we have seen, if we use only the observations about the universe, the evidence demands that the amount of time that passed on earth has been far less than the billions of years required for the biological evolution of life and the origin of species. Furthermore, the creationist model has been judged on the evidence and consequently, it has proven to be a theory that affirmed in a testable and potentially falsifiable manner rather than by blind presupposition or mere philosophical preference.

In short, there is nothing that we know scientifically today that disproves the Genesis model concerning the age of the universe. The only thing contradicting the six-day, six-thousand year model of Genesis is philosophical preference, which is more complicated, more heavily assumption-laden, less philosophically sound, not warranted by the observations, and ultimately disproved by direct observational evidence of redshift quantization. Thus, with the evidence from observing cosmology no longer an obstacle, but rather a support, for the creationist model against the evolutionary model, the only remaining evidence concerning the age of the earth is the evidence that comes from geology. This will be the subject of our next segment.