Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Four:
Cosmological Model 2
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Focus
on Critical Evidence:
Understanding the Cosmological Model (Cont'd.)
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.
“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
“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.
“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.
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.”
“…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)
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.