blitz77
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 29 of 94 (14780)
08-03-2002 8:12 AM
|
|
|
Whatever happened to CP violation? As I recall, physicists suppose that an excess of matter was produced over anti-matter. So when they all annihilated, matter was left behind. Otherwise, you would have to explain why we don't see much anti-matter in the universe-if there was, there'd be evidence of light produced by the anti-matter matter collision. [using information from Page not found – Evolution-Facts] Problems with background radiation and the redshift- About background radiation- 1. It should come from only one direction-however, it is omnidirectional. There is no directional unity to it, and without it the radiation proves nothing. 2. It is too weak-Theoretically, it should be, as Fred Hoyle says, "The big bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case." *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181. 3. Its spectrum doesn't quite exactly match that predicted by the big bang model. Theoretically it should have the 2.7K black body spectrum predicted by the Max Planck calculation, but it doesn't. 4. The spectrum should also be far hotter-
quote:
"Is there a way to decide whether a 3K blackbody radiation spectrum has come from an expanded high temperature radiation or from the heating of a substance from zero to 3? Yes . . "It is a known fact that there is dust absorbing a fraction of the galaxy's light. Therefore, this dust must be heating up. If the galaxy really is billions of years old, our galaxy's dust would be pretty hot by now, approximately 100K. It would emit a 100K blackbody radiation spectrum many orders of magnitude more intense than a 3K blackbody spectrum. The 100 degree spectrum certainly would be there. If the 3K radiation is a leftover from the big bang, say, 10 billion years ago, then the galaxy would contain two superimposed blackbody spectra. The spectrum from the big bang would be centered at 3K, and the spectrum from galactic dust heating would be centered at 100K. "Since there is only one measured blackbody spectrum as far as we know, and since galactic gas and dust heating does occur, the one spectrum must be due to galactic dust and gasthe spectrum consistent with a recent creation." Russel Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3K Background Black Body Radiation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 182.
The result of this is that theoretically that the temperature of the big bang radiation should be 5K, but it is only 2.7K. 5. It is too smooth-
quote:
"Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small-even in 15 billion years." *William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185."
quote:
COBE's job is to explore the microwave background in a detailed way. The spacecraft has already revealed some surprises. As 1990 began it was announced that preliminary sweeps of the sky by COBE showed that the early universe must have been extremely smooth. "That's surprising, because we know we see vast structures in our universe; huge clusters of galaxies and expanding voids between them. "Many cosmologists [astronomical theorists] expected COBE to reveal small disturbances in an otherwise uniform flow outward from the Big Bang. These disturbances might have provided the seeds for the large structures we see today [stars and galaxies]. So far, the disturbances are missing, and the evolution from a smooth early universe to today's colossal structures remains puzzling." *Ibid.
6. This background radiation was already predicted without the big bang model-Arthur Eddington in 1926 predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles. 7. The source of the radiation could have many other explanations such as
quote:
"The interstellar dust and gas in our galaxy has absorbed enough of our galaxy's own light to raise its temperature from zero to 3K . . It is the 3K dust and gas that radiates the 3K radiation." Russell Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3 K Background Black Body Radiation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 159
Redshift- There are other explanations for the redshift- quote:
The distance from our planet to the star has something to do with it. This is quite obvious, and agreed upon by nearly everyone. To say it another way, the redshift is the apparent lengthening of a star's light on a spectrum in relation to how far away that star is from us. This redshift of starlight is actually a decrease in the energy of light. It has traveled a great distance to reach us from a star, and by the time it arrives the light is not as strong as it once was. This decrease in energy results in a lengthening of the wavelength of that light, when measured with a spectrometer, Since the redshift indicates a decrease in starlight energy, this loss of energy could be caused by a motion of the stars away from us (the speed theory).
quote:
Gravitational Red-shifts. The pull of gravity on light rays could cause a loss of energy. This would include not only the star it first left, but other stars it passes by. From a study of eclipses, we already know that gravity actually bends light rays slightly. Gravity can and does affect starlight. It could also gradually slow those light rays as they speed through space. The result would be that the farther away a star is from us, the more it would reveal a redshift. None other than *Albert Einstein predicted that it would be discovered that gravity could bend lightand that it would cause a redshift. His prediction was first shown to be correct when the companion of Sirius, a small dwarf star, was found to bend starlight from Sirius.
quote:
Second-order Doppler shift. A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted (the second-order Doppler Effect). This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center. Moons revolve around planets, planets about suns, and suns about galaxies. Each of these planets, suns, and galaxiesrotates about itself (our galaxy rotates at 500,000 miles an hour). It is very possibleeven likelythat all the galaxies out in space travel in a gigantic circle around a central point in the universe. We know that such circular movement is necessary for balance and stability in moons, planets, and galaxies; why not for the universe as a whole? Such a universal rotation would add stability to all the island universes in relation to each other. Yet that gigantic orbit would also cause a redshift in the spectra of star light.
quote:
Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This would not be unusual. Other things lose energy, light rays could also. Keep in mind that the redshift is ever so slight. It indicates the loss of only a very small amount of energy. This is also called the "tired light theory. " Any of the above three reasons alone, or together, could easily explain the redshift. It would explain why the stars and galaxies nearest us always have the least redshift, while those farthest away have the most. Thus we find that the spectral redshift can easily be explained without inventing an exploding universe with the outermost objects rushing outward at 95 percent of the speed of tight. (Keep in mind that the speed of light is very great; approximately 186,000 miles a second. On this basis, a light-year is a vast distance of almost 6 trillion miles.)
The Arp discoveries-some convincing evidence that there is no relationship between redshift and distance of starlight from us-
quote:
Arp has spent over 30 years researching into these matters at some of the world's largest observatories. At the time of this writing, he is on the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in West Germany. * Kauffmann, another leading astrophysicist, in 1981 declared Arp to be "the most-feared astronomer on earth" (*W. Kaufmann III, "Most Feared Astronomer on Earth" in Science Digest 89(6):76-81, 1981, p. 117.) Arp's research is so pivotal, that it threatens to overturn several foundational bases of modern theoretical astronomy. Here are three statements from Arp's latest book: "In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress." *Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5. "There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes.. which we cannot currently understand or explain." *Op. Cit, p. 2. "It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation. . The assumption that. . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence. "*Op. Cit., p. 178.
His discoveries include-
quote:
Bridged galaxies disprove the redshift theory. Galaxies are island universes, each with 100 million or more stars. Some of these galaxies have bridgework connections linking them together. The bridges prove that the pair of galaxies are close to each other. Arp has discovered a number of these connected galaxieseach of which have markedly different redshifts than the other! But if the Doppler effect theory of the redshift were correct, Arp would not have made such discoveries, since each pair of galaxies would share the same approximate distance from us!
quote:
Quasars disprove the redshift theory. Quasars will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. These are unknown objects which show drastically-shifted spectrums toward the red. Arp has also made discoveries about quasars which provide additional evidence against the current redshift theory. "The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in ap parent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances." *Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.
Other phenomena-
quote:
Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the "younger" stars visually appear more blue than the "older" ones, which are redder. The stars with the highest redshifts are supposed to be the most distant from us, and therefore the youngest stars [most visually blue in color] of any stars in the skies. They should therefore be very blue but, instead, have the same general blue color as nearby blue stars! This fact totally violates the theory!
And then there's one of TB's favorite topics-
quote:
Redshift data indicate that stars tend to clump at certain distances from us! These distances are multiples of 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]! Such a situation totally defies the speed theory of redshift! Is there a possible answer? One possibility would be that starlight loses energy as it travels ("tired light" theory), and this weakening is especially shown at multiples of 72 kps. *Corliss discusses the problem, and notes that, although *Tifft's research is well documented, other astronomers are fearful to consider or verify it. To do so would weaken the speed theory of redshift. Corliss, himself a careful scientific researcher, concludes that, if true, this fact renders impossible both an expanding universe and the formation of stars by the gravitational lumping of gas. "The clumping of galactic redshift differences at multiples and submultiples of about 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]. This phenomenon was initially found in galactic clusters, but it appears to extend to other groupings of celestial objects. "A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantization has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . . "Redshift quantization is an anomaly of the highest order. The implications are profound: the expanding universe is contradicted and the formation of galaxies by gravitational attraction is denied." *Op. cit., p. 195.
Galactic Shape Factor- quote:
How can the shape of a galaxy affect its redshift? But this is so. That discovery indicates there is far more to redshifts than we had thought, and velocity has little or nothing to do with the shifts. Spiral galaxies are disk-type, with outward rotating arms; elliptical galaxies have a distinctly different shape (a slightly squashed rounded shape). Galaxies are frequently found in clusters. Oddly enough, when ellipticals are in the same cluster with spirals (thus indicating that their distances from us are similar), the spirals will have a higher redshift, which should mean they are farther from us than the ellipticals! This, of course, cannot be true for both are together, and that fact itself strongly undermines the validity of the speed theory of redshift. In the following statements, "S galaxies" are spiral galaxies and E galaxies" are ellipticals.
PHOTONS SLOW DOWN
quote:
*Arp and his associates have found evidence that photons slow down in transit from stars to us. A photon is a single "piece" of moving starlight. The evolutionary theory assumes photons never slow down and are never shifted in their spectra toward the red by gravity. Arp has shown this assumption to be untrue. These evolutionary theories are like a bunch of blocks stacked precariously on top of one another. The expanding universe theory is based on the speed redshift theory, which, in turn can only survive by ignoring evidence. Perched on top is the Big Bang theory, which desperately needs an expanding universe as evidence that the initial explosion occurred. Down below are little men running around feverishly, trying to find more blocks to pile on, hoping that it will help stabilize the tottering heap. But there is evidence (by *Arp and others) that photons do slow down. Akridge, a careful scientist, looks at the photon: "The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists' assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies' photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us." *Russell Akridge, "The Expanding Universe Theory is Internally Inconsistent," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56. Then Akridge explains a related problem: "A photon's energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory: In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times. "A free photon cannot do both at the same time. "If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is not expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . "If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both parts of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false." Op. cit., p. 58. Among astronomers it is well-known that (1) there is considerable guesswork in determining actual distances by means of the redshift, and (2) there are other possible explanations for it. Actually, if the speed theory were correct, it would mean the universe is enormously large, with galaxies as much as 15 billion light years away from us!
ONLY ONE STELLAR DISTANCE MEASUREMENT IS RELIABLE
quote:
Distances to faraway stars, galaxies, and quasars are important in analyzing aspects of the Big Bang and other stellar theories. Yet, of the several techniques used by astronomers to measure star distances, there is only one reliable method; all of the other methods are either approximations or theoretical guesses. This is the parallax method, which can only be used on those stars which are nearest to us. It is accurate to within 10 percent. (Admittedly, even a 10 percent margin of error is a lot.) The parallax method was first established in 1838 by Bessel. Since then, the distances to approximately 6,000 of the closest stars have been determined. The closest of these is Alpha Centauri which is only 4.3 light years away. Interestingly enough, the bright summer star, Vega, is only 27 light years distant. There is no other accurate method of determining stellar distances, although several methods are employed for this purpose.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]
|
™ Version 4.2