Science Disproves Evolution
Pah...@gmail.com
Billions of Years Old? 10
A Critical Test: If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold,
we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. Here
is why:
Imagine a time in the distant past when the speed of light was a
million times faster than it is today. On a hypothetical planet,
billions of light-years from Earth, a light started flashing toward
Earth every second. Each flash then began a very long trip to Earth.
Because the speed of light was a million times greater than it is
today, those initial flashes were spaced a million times farther apart
than they would have been at today’s slower speed of light.
Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the universe,
the speed of light has slowed to today’s speed. The first of those
light flashes—strung out like beads sliding down a long string—are
approaching Earth. The large distances separating adjacent flashes
have remained constant during those thousands of years, so the moving
flashes slowed in unison. Because the first flashes to strike Earth
are spaced so far apart, they will strike Earth every million seconds.
In other words, we are seeing past events on that planet (the flashing
of a light) in slow motion. If the speed of light has been decreasing
since the creation, then the farther out in space we look, the more
extreme this slow motion becomes.
About half the stars in our galaxy are binary. That is, they and a
companion star are in a tight orbit around their common center of
mass. If there is a “slow-motion effect,” the apparent orbital periods
of binary stars should tend to increase with increasing distance from
Earth. If the speed of light has been decreasing, the Hubble Space
Telescope may eventually find that binary stars at great distances
have very long orbital periods, showing that they are in slow motion.
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to
imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a
small universe, a brief period when laws of physics did not operate,
and space expanding. The big bang theory says that space expanded for
a brief fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of
billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching
theory says that a much smaller universe than we have today was
rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space.
Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of
expansion, we can see which explanation fits all the observable
evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving
five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens.” Another
verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are
telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work
of His hands.”
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
Here is more information on this subject:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1885198
Ken
same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
them
Pah...@gmail.com
The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and
differences with the big bang theory (1). Both the big bang and
stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the
universe, beginning soon after time began, when not all laws of
physics applied. As one big bang authority states:
“In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe
was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a
state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of
course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these
quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current
laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid
expansion]. ... ONE MAY WONDER, WHAT CAME BEFORE? IF SPACE-TIME DID
NOT EXIST THEN, HOW COULD EVERYTHING APPEAR FROM NOTHING? WHAT AROSE
FIRST: THE UNIVERSE OR THE LAWS DETERMINING ITS EVOLUTION? EXPLAINING
THIS INITIAL SINGULARITY—WHERE AND WHEN IT ALL BEGAN—STILL REMAINS THE
MOST INTRACTABLE PROBLEM OF MODERN COSMOLOGY (2).” [emphasis added]
The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang
theory, does not begin at a singularity, an infinitesimal point (3).
Nor does energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from
within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of
a ten-billionth of a second (10^34 second) or less, as with the big
bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as the stretching
progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and
black holes began forming after hundreds of millions of years.
According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or
began) near the beginning of time—during the creation week. Because
matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can
decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.
1. The analogy of “stretching out heaven like a tent curtain” (Ps
104:2 and Is 40:22) suggests that the heavens existed in a smaller,
denser, finite form before the stretching began. The evidence cited in
this section titled “Stellar Velocities,” “Speeding Galaxies,” “Dwarf
Galaxies,” “Strings of Galaxies,” “Star Streams,” “Colliding
Galaxies,” and “Helium-2 Nebulas” implies a finite universe before
stretching began.
2. Andrei Linde, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe,”
Scientific American, Vol. 271, November 1994, p. 48.
3. “According to inflationary cosmology, the universe [began] growing
from a patch as small as 10-26 m, one hundred billion times smaller
than a proton, ...” Alan H. Guth and David I. Kaiser, “Inflationary
Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest
Scales,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 885.
Ken
Observer
>Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn’t the Universe
>Billions of Years Old? 10
>
>A Critical Test: If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold,
>we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. Here
>is why:
"IF"... Does not make a credible argument.
Creation and Science should NOT appear in the same sentence unless
there is a negative qualifier. Ergo a site called "creationscience"
cannot be trusted by ANYONE with a rational mind.
__
"I don't know any straight-talking Republicans, do you?
I can't get a straight answer out of any Republicans.
I Don't know what they're talking about" - Bill O'Reilly
Pah...@gmail.com
Comparison of Two Explanations for Expansion of the Universe
The universe was once much smaller. It began soon after time began and
before the laws of physics came into operation (2). Energy and matter
appeared out of nothing.
[Big Bang Yes]
[Stretching Yes]
Expansion began at almost a mathematical point.
[Big Bang Yes (3)]
[Stretching No]
Expansion energy came from within the universe.
[Big Bang Yes]
[Stretching No]
The initial temperature and density of matter was:
[Big Bang nearly infinite]
[Stretching finite]
The expansion:
[Big Bang continues today]
[Stretching was a brief event]
All expansion energy was expended:
[Big Bang within a tiny fraction (10^34) of a second]
[Stretching as the expansion proceeded]
Stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming:
[Big Bang after hundreds of millions of years, in an expanded
universe]
[Stretching before the expansion]
Pah...@gmail.com
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
The Evidence
Accelerating Expansion. The redshift of distant starlight suggests an
expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating
expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. Stretching,
completed during the creation week, could have produced the
accelerated expansion seen by the light finally reaching Earth today
from the edge of the visible universe.
Star Formation. Astronomers recognize that the densest concentrations
of gas seen in the universe could not form stars by any known means,
including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was thousands of
times more compact than today. Apparently, stars were formed as, or
before, the heavens were stretched out.
Black Holes. A supermassive black hole is in the center of at least
every nearby galaxy. Black holes are so massive (millions of times
greater than our Sun) that nothing can escape their gravity—even
light. Astronomers admit that black holes must have existed very soon
after the universe began (5), but the big bang theory says that all
matter was spread out uniformly after 300,000 years, before stars
formed. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies
and black holes even over the supposed age of the universe (6).
However, stars and supermassive black holes could easily have formed
or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, when
the universe was much smaller and the heavens had not yet been
stretched out. Had this stretching not occurred, all the matter in the
universe would have collapsed into a supermassive black hole. Life
would not exist.
5. “The masses of these early black holes are inferred from their
[quasar] luminosities to be >109 solar masses, which is a difficult
theoretical challenge [for the big bang theory] to explain.” Rennan
Barkana and Abraham Loeb, “Spectral Signature of Cosmological Infall
of Gas Around the First Quasars,” Nature, Vol. 421, 23 January 2003,
p. 341.
“The daunting problem for theories of structure formation in the
Universe is to understand how such huge black holes [3 billion solar
masses] and the vast reservoirs of gaseous fuel were assembled so soon
after the Big Bang ...” Edwin L. Turner, “Through a Lens Brightly,”
Nature, 27 June 2002, p. 905.
“... such black holes indeed formed early in the history of the
universe and were already devouring matter voraciously a mere billion
years after the Big Bang.” Ron Cowen, “Mature Before Their Time,”
Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139.
6. “But the standard model [the big bang theory] still can’t easily
account for a large number of mature or massive galaxies in the early
universe.” Ibid.
“But this uniformity [in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
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.
“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.
“Yet how could the universe have gone from homogeneous plasma to
pancakes to galaxies so quickly? Gravity alone was simply not strong
enough to do it.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of
the Universe,” Science, Vol. 219, 4 March 1983, p. 1051.
Robert Irion, “Early Galaxies Baffle Observers, but Theorists Shrug,”
Science, Vol. 303, 23 January 2004, p. 460.
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
Central Stars. About forty stars are orbiting within a few dozen light-
hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those
stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has
the mass of 4,000,000 suns. The black hole’s gravity would have
prevented gas from collapsing to become a star (7). However, those
stars could have formed in a much denser environment (8), before space
was stretched out during the creation week.
7. “The black hole’s inactivity [today] suggests that the central few
light years doesn’t contain enough raw material to make stars. And the
enormous gravitational tidal forces around the black hole would seem
to prohibit stars from forming even if the material were there: it’s
hard for a cloud of gas to contract into a star under its own gravity
when something that weighs as much as four million stars is sitting
next door.” Jeff Kanipe, “A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Not So Far
Away,” Nature, Vol. 446, 5 April 2007, p. 601.
8. “In principle, this could have occurred if the density of the gases
in the centre of the Galaxy was much higher in the past. Higher
density would allow clumps in the clouds to collapse to form stars,
even in the presence of a strong gravitational field [of a black
hole].” Ibid., p. 602.
Ken
Pah...@gmail.com
Spiral Galaxies. If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, the
arms of spiral galaxies should be wrapped more tightly around their
respective galaxies than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show
considerably more “wrap” than more distant spiral galaxies. However,
if space was stretched out recently, spiral galaxies could appear as
they do.
Heavy Elements in Stars. According to the big bang theory, there are
three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy
elements. The first generation would have contained only hydrogen and
helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars
would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation
stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should
still be visible, not one has ever been found. According to the
stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical
elements. Telescopes that can see the farthest back in time see stars,
galaxies, and quasars containing these heavier chemical elements.
Stellar Velocities. Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies
travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However,
if only thousands of years ago those stars were nearer the centers of
their galaxies before the heavens were stretched out, they could have
had the higher speeds we see. Those speeds would remain even after the
heavens were stretched out. (So-called dark matter, which has not been
directly measured or detected, would not need to be imagined to
explain these velocities.)