Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

As opposed to a single singular starting point?A Dark Energy start from say 1 million points?Creationists often make an issue out of this singularity point.I not so sure there is much mileage to get when once considers that the CMB can be observed.CMB imaging should have buried this issue once and for all.This was the only half-decent challenge to come from creationists IMO.

I put "multiple creation points halton arp" into the engine.Hit 2 was a creationist site.It appears that Arp's work has more to do with matter being created and not space.

quote:

---

Arp mentions in particular two major clusters, Virgo and Fornax, one in the northern sky and the other in the southern. See the large spiral structure in the Fornax supercluster shown in Figure 3. He says of these:

​

‘I am tempted to say that if there is a creator (and if so I would not presume to attribute anthropomorphic properties to it [shows his bias]) we might expect to hear: Look you dummies, I showed you the Virgo Cluster and you did not believe it so I will show you another one just like it and if you still don’t believe itwell let’s just forget the whole thing’.

​

....

​

The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community. Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang. It also calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts. In the section ‘Alternatives to the big bang’ on page 393 of his book,12 Joseph Silk criticises the (Quasi) Steady State model of Sir Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar (HBN) with some particular observations but admits,

​

‘Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided’ [my emphasis added].

​

Silk means that if quasar redshifts do mean that they are reliable as distance indicators then the origin of all matter was in the big bang. Arp disputes this, and, in fact, it is the main thrust of Arp’s observations! They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models.

​

Stephen Hawking has written a book13 that apparently alleges to be the ‘The theory of everything’. On page 22 he says:

​

‘The only reasonable explanation [is] that the galaxies were moving away from us, and the frequency of the light waves from them was being reduced, or red-shifted, by the Doppler effect’.

​

The use of ‘reasonable’ implies that anyone who has good reason to believe otherwise must be one of those crackpots. Also Hawking knows that it isn’t really Doppler shift in the big bang model, but space expanding causing light waves to stretch. On page 23 of this book, he speaks of Hubble’s discovery writing,

​

‘ the galaxies all appeared red-shifted. Every single one was moving away from us’. [emphasis added]

​

Was it too much for him to tell the truth? He must know that the galaxy M31 in Andromeda and a few others in the Virgo cluster have blueshifts and are interpreted as moving towards us. Cosmologically speaking, these are in our backyard, so Hubble would have seen them in 1929. So how can you trust anything else Hawking says?14 Such is typical of the blind adherent defending his cherished belief.

​

Arp’s position is to call into question all so-called ‘velocity related’ redshifts, except for very small intrinsic motions of galaxies and up to about 0.1c velocities for ejected quasars. He instead assigns a large intrinsic redshift not only to quasars but also to galaxies. HBN are more conservative and though they accept Arp’s interpretation on the redshift of quasars they also accept that the galaxies have a cosmological expansion component. Arp’s interpretation of quasar redshifts, in any case, reduces the distance scale of the most ‘distant’ quasars by a factor of about 100 and their luminosities by a factor of 10,000. A lower luminosity for quasars then resolves the paradox regarding their unbelievable large luminosities.

​

Question?

​

But are we really seeing the creation of new galaxies? In my opinion, yes! But it all happened on Day 4 during creation Week. We are looking back into the past, millions or billions of years of astronomical time, but only thousands of years of earth time, to Creation Week and soon after (see ‘A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem’). We are seeing the creation of the cosmos under the agency of God.

​

‘The heaven declare the glory of God and the firmament [night sky] shows His handiwork’. (Psalm 19:1)

​

Depending on the exact extent of the time dilation factor (a measure of different rates of flow of time in the universe compared to earth time), we may be seeing creation as it is happening.

​

The process of quasars being ejected from the centre of active galactic nuclei is a creation ex nihilo event, well beyond our physics to describe, though HBN and Arp have attempted to do so

​

The heavens declare a different story! – Bible Science Forum

---

Not a space issue, or an issue of Dark Energy having many starting points (as opposed to a Big Bang singularity)