Science Disproves Evolution
Pah...@gmail.com
Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn't the Universe
Billions of Years Old? 6
Light, launched from a fast-moving train, will travel at the same
speed in all directions. This strange property of light led to the
more extensive theory of relativity (15).
The Hubble Space Telescope, searching for evolving galaxies in
December 1995, focused for 10 continuous days on a tiny patch of sky,
so small when viewed from Earth that a grain of sand held at arm's
length would cover that area. That tiny patch of sky is called Hubble
Deep Field North. Most objects in it are not isolated stars, but
galaxies, each containing billions of stars. Of the 3,000 galaxies
photographed that emitted enough light to measure their redshifts,
which presumably measure distance, all seemed surprisingly mature.
In the universe, time could flow according to either atomic time or
orbital time. Under which standard would E=mc2 be a true statement?
Mass-energy would be conserved under both; in other words, the energy
or mass of an isolated system would not depend on how fast time
passed. Obviously, E=mc2 would be absolutely true in atomic time where
c is constant, but not in orbital time where c appears to decrease.
Today, E=mc2 will be approximately correct even in orbital time.
Nuclear reactions convert mass to energy. Unfortunately, the
extremely small mass lost and large energy produced cannot be measured
precisely enough to test whether E=mc2 is absolutely true in orbital
time. Even if mass and energy were precisely measured, this formula
has embedded in it an experimentally-derived, unit-conversion factor
that requires a time measurement by some clock. Which type of clock
should be used: an orbital clock or an atomic clock? Again, we can see
that E=mc2 is "clock dependent."
If c has decreased (using the orbital time standard), neither
length, electrical charge, nor temperature standards would change.
Therefore, chemical and nuclear reactions would not change. However,
the speed of chemical and nuclear reactions would change, because the
vibrational frequencies of atoms and nuclei would change. Also,
radioactive decay rates, which depend on the vibrational frequency of
the nucleus, would decrease if c decreased.
15. Another question concerns Einstein's well-known formula, E=mc2,
which supposedly gives the energy (E) released when a nuclear reaction
annihilates a mass (m). If the speed of light (c) decreases, then one
might think that either E must decrease or m must increase. Not
necessarily.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
Ken
Note: The only time creation and science
should EVER be used in the same sentence is when the words "is not"
has been
inserted between them.
Pah...@gmail.com
As stated in Scientific American, “the formation of ‘ordinary’ spiral
and elliptical galaxies is apparently still out of reach of most
redshift surveys (16).” Moreover, fully formed clusters of galaxies,
not just galaxies, are seen at the greatest distances visible to the
Hubble Space Telescope (17). In 1998 and 2004, similar pictures—with
similar results—were taken.
Think about this. There is not enough time in the age of the universe
(even as evolutionists imagine it, times a billion) for gravity to
pull together all the particles comprising clusters of galaxies (18).
Because the most current studies show fully-formed galaxies even
farther away than those shown above (19), creation becomes the logical
and obvious alternative. We may be seeing galaxies as they looked
months after they were created. Vast amounts of time are no longer
needed.
16. F. Duccio Macchetto and Mark Dickerson, “Galaxies in the Young
Universe,” Scientific American, Vol. 276, May 1997, p. 95.
17. Govert Schilling, “Early Start for Lumpy Universe,” Science, Vol.
281, 11 September 1998, p. 1593. [See also E. J. Ostrander et al.,
“The Hubble Space Telescope Medium Deep Survey Cluster Sample:
Methodology and Data,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 116, December
1998, pp. 2644–2658.]
18. This problem for conventional astronomy has been quietly
recognized for several decades. Having a photograph of so many
galaxies so far away simply makes the public more aware of it.
“Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these
irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].” Margaret
Geller, as quoted by John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern
Sky,” Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.
“The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in
the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the
2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very
homogeneous in the beginning.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale
Structure of the Universe Gets Larger—Maybe,” Science, Vol. 238, 13
November 1987, p. 894.
“But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background radiation]
is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into
galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending
across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’.”
Ivars Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 137, 24
March 1990, p. 184.
19. J. A. Stevens et al., “The Formation of Cluster Elliptical
Galaxies as Revealed by Extensive Star Formation,” Nature, Vol. 425,
18 September 2003, pp. 264–267.
“The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much greater distances
than expected—and hence at earlier times in the history of the Universe
—is a challenge to our understanding of how galaxies form.” Gregory D.
Wirth, “Old before Their Time,” Nature, Vol. 430, 8 July 2004, p. 149.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
Some people give another explanation for why we see distant stars in a
young universe. They believe God created a beam of light between Earth
and each star. Of course, a creation would immediately produce
completed things. Instantly, they would look much older than they
really were. This is called “creation with the appearance of age.” The
concept is sound. However, for starlight, this presents two
difficulties:
1. Bright, exploding stars are called “supernovas.” If starlight,
seemingly from a supernova, had been created en route to Earth and did
not originate at the surface of an exploding star, then what exploded?
Only a relatively short beam would have been created near Earth. If
the image of an explosion was created on that short beam of light,
then the star never existed and the explosion never happened. One
finds this hard to accept.
2. Every hot gas radiates a unique set of precise colors, called its
emission spectrum. The gaseous envelope around each star also emits
specific colors that identify the chemical composition of the gas.
Because all starlight has emission spectra, this strongly suggests
that a star’s light originated at the star—not in cold, empty space.
Each beam of starlight also carries other information, such as the
star’s spin rate, magnetic field, surface temperature, and the
chemical composition of the cold gases between the star and Earth. Of
course, God could have created this beam of light with all this
information in it. However, the real question is not, “Could God have
done it?” but, “Did He?”
Therefore, starlight seems to have originated at stellar surfaces, not
in empty space.
Surprising Observations. Starlight from distant stars and galaxies is
redshifted—meaning that their light is redder than one might expect.
Although other interpretations are possible, most astronomers have
interpreted redshifted light to be a wave effect, similar to that of
the lower pitch of a train’s whistle when the train is going away from
an observer. As the wave emitter (train or star) moves away from an
observer, the waves are stretched, making them lower in pitch (for the
train) or redder in color (for the star or galaxy). The greater a
star’s or galaxy’s redshift, the faster it is supposedly moving away
from us.
Since 1976, William Tifft, a University of Arizona astronomer, has
found that the redshifts of distant stars and galaxies typically
differ from each other by only a few fixed amounts (20). This is very
strange if stars are actually moving away from us. It would be as if
galaxies could travel only at specific speeds, jumping abruptly from
one speed to another, without passing through intermediate speeds. If
stars are not moving away from us at high speeds, the big bang theory
is wrong, along with many other related beliefs in the field of
cosmology. Other astronomers, not initially believing Tifft’s results,
did similar work and reached the same conclusion.
20. William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift. III. Temporal
Variation,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp.
396–415.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
For the light from all galaxies to arrive at Earth tonight, the more
distant galaxies, which had to release their light long before the
closer galaxies, did not have as much time to rotate and twist their
arms. Therefore, farther galaxies should have less twist. Of course,
if light traveled millions of times faster in the past, the farthest
galaxies did not have to send their light long before the nearest
galaxies. Spiral galaxies should have similar twists. This turns out
to be the case (21). The galaxies are: A) M33, or NGC 598; B) M101, or
NGC 5457; C) M51, or NGC 5194; D) NGC 4559; E) M88, or NGC 4501; and
F) NGC 772. All distances are taken from R. Brent Tully, Nearby
Galaxies Catalog (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
All atoms give off tiny bundles of energy (called quanta) of fixed
amounts—and nothing in between. So Setterfield believes that the
“quantization of redshifts,” as many describe it, is an atomic effect,
not a strange recessional-velocity effect. If space slowly absorbs
energy from all emitted light, it would do so in fixed increments.
This would redshift starlight, with the farthest star’s light being
redshifted the most. Setterfield is working on a theory to tie this
and the decay in the speed of light together. If he is correct, we
should soon see the redshifts of a few distant galaxies suddenly
decrease. This may explain why two distinct redshifts are seen in each
of several well-studied galaxies (22). Those seemingly typical
galaxies are not flying apart!
Another surprising observation is that most distant galaxies look
remarkably similar to nearer galaxies. For example, galaxies are fully
developed and show no signs of evolving. This puzzles astronomers.
(23). If the speed of light has decreased drastically, these distant,
yet mature, galaxies no longer need explaining.
Also, the light from a distant galaxy would have reached Earth not too
long after the light from nearby galaxies. This may be why spiral
galaxies, both near and far, have similar twists.
21. “The biggest challenge to the standard model of galaxy formation,
Labbé says, could be the number of large galaxies showing the spiral
structure that he and his colleagues found in the early universe.”
Ivo Labbé, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mature before Their Time,” Science
News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139.
22. William G. Tifft and W. John Cocke, “Quantized Galaxy Redshifts,”
Sky & Telescope, January 1987, p. 19.
23. “Most Distant Galaxies: Surprisingly Mature,” Science News, Vol.
119, 7 March 1981, p. 148.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
Ken
XaurreauX
Posting your crap over here, too, Pahu?