‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows

If the big bang were true, the light from the fireball should cast shadows in the foreground of all galaxy clusters.

First published in Creation magazine 37(1):50-51, 2015.

One of the alleged ‘proofs’ of the big bang model of origins is said to be the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson for which they won the Nobel prize in physics. Soon after their discovery, it was claimed that this radiation is the ‘afterglow’ of the original ‘explosion’ or fireball of the big bang. Since the time at which the radiation, which started as heat, was emitted from the fireball, the universe has allegedly expanded by a factor of 1,100. Thus, that ‘afterglow’ radiation has ‘cooled down’ to much longer wavelengths (‘stretched’ from the infrared to the microwave portion of the spectrum).These are detected by microwave telescopes today.

Figure 1: Temperature fluctuations of the all-sky projection of the CMB radiation, after a constant background equal to 2.725 K was subtracted. Darker spots represent cooler regions and brighter spots represent warmer regions. The central red region is radiation from the Galaxy, which needs to be removed before the supposed background radiation can be seen without foreground contamination.

Figure 1: Temperature fluctuations of the all-sky projection of the CMB radiation, after a constant background equal to 2.725 K was subtracted. Darker spots represent cooler regions and brighter spots represent warmer regions. The central red region is radiation from the Galaxy, which needs to be removed before the supposed background radiation can be seen without foreground contamination.

According to theory, the big bang fireball should be the most distant light source of all. Thus all galaxy clusters would be in the foreground of this source. Therefore all CMB radiation must pass the intervening galaxy clusters between the source and the observer, here on earth. This radiation passes through the inter-galactic medium, between the galaxies in the clusters, and is scattered by electrons, through inverse Compton scattering,now known as the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect (SZE).3  When this happens, the path of the CMB radiation is interrupted and distorted.

In 2006 it was reported and published in the Astrophysical Journal4 that indeed there is strong evidence, out to at least one degree from the cluster  centre,  of an anomalous cooling effect. The anomaly was that the expected shadowing effect was not found when compared with what was expected from the SZE.5  The study looked for a shadow in the CMB radiation cast in the foreground of galaxy clusters, which must be closer to us than the alleged source of the background radiation. The study involved 31 galaxy clusters with a net result indicating that on average no systematic shadows were detected. In fact, the question was asked, Why are the clusters so relatively hot? Is there an additional source of emission that cancels out the expected shadow?

Figure 2: CMB radiation should cast a shadow in the foreground of galaxy clusters, but it does not.

Figure 2: CMB radiation should cast a shadow in the foreground of galaxy clusters, but it does not.

The results were reported in ScienceDaily.com under the headline “Big Bang’s Afterglow Fails Intergalactic ‘Shadow’ Test”.6 A team of University of Alabama Huntsville scientists, led by Dr Richard Lieu, used data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows. Previous groups have made these sorts of studies but this was the first with WMAP data. Remember WMAP was designed specifically to detect the signature or echoes of the big bang. But …

“Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on,”

said Lieu.

More woes for a big bang history of the universe. Another problem for those who hang their Christian apologetics on the beliefs of ‘modern science’.7,8 Some of those who erroneously believe in big bang ‘creation’ tried to refute this claim but failed to even understand the basic physics involved.9

The interpretation of the observational evidence presented by Lieu et al. seems to be still unrefuted. This means that the source of the CMB must be local and not from the big bang. However, the worldview which incorporates belief in the big bang is dominant, and the SZE effect is now used to detect the presence of galaxy clusters. They are looked for in the CMB data from the latest Planck satellite operated by ESA. But if the SZE only yields a cooling effect in 25% of clusters, as was found in the Lieu et al. (2006) study, wouldn’t that mean they are going to miss detecting 75% of the clusters, all because of an erroneous worldview?

Lieu’s words resonate here:

“There is something else going on!”

Reference and notes

  1. In standard big bang cosmology, the big bang produced lots of protons and electrons, forming a plasma where the charged particles would be opaque to electromagnetic radiation. After about 380,000 years, or a redshift (z) of 1,100, this plasma cooled enough to condense into hydrogen atoms, at around 3000 K (~2700°C, 5000°F). This would be transparent to electromagnetic radiation, which would be mostly infrared at that temperature (peaking at 966 nm). The current CMB is supposed to be the strongly redshifted afterglow, as the universe has cooled by a factor of 1,100.
  2. Compton scattering means that a photon collides with an electron, imparting some energy to the electron which recoils, while another photon carrying the remaining energy (so a lower frequency) is emitted at an angle from the original so momentum is conserved. Inverse Compton scattering means that a very energetic electron loses energy, so the scattered photon has a higher energy and thus higher frequency.
  3. Sunyaev [Сюня́ев], R.A. and Zel’dovich [Зельдо́вич], Y.B., Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation, Astrophysics and Space Science 7:3–19, 1970.
  4. Lieu, R., Mittaz, J.P.D. and Shuang-Nan Zhang, The Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the x-ray predicted and WMAP observed Cosmic Microwave Background temperature decrement, Astrophysical J. 648:176–199, 1 September 2006.
  5. However the expected cooling due to the shadowing effect of the galaxy cluster was found to be deficient by 100 μK. For example it might have been expected that the foreground cluster would cast a 150 μK shadow (i.e. would be cooler by this amount) but only 50 μK was observed.
  6. Big Bang’s Afterglow Fails Intergalactic ‘Shadow’ Test, sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm, 12 September 2006.
  7. Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448 20, 22 May 2004.
  8. Wieland, C., Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics? Creation 27(2):23–25, 2005; creation.com/big-bang-blast.
  9. Hartnett, J.G., The big bang is not a Reason to Believe!, creation.com/big-bang-not-a-reason, 20 May 2014.

 

Subscribe to Creation mag click here

Creation mag

 

Soft tissue from Triceratops horn

Mark Armitage is the guy who lost his job over publishing in  2012 scientific findings of soft tissue in a triceratops horn found at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.

According to press release the find is extremely significant…

 “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

According to Armitage, just two weeks after publishing his soft-tissue findings in the peer-reviewed journal “Acta Histochemica,” he was told that there weren’t funds to continue his position.

Related Reading

The revolt against Darwinism

Do you remember the revolt of the scientists against the big bang theory for the origin of the universe? In 2004 a group of 33 leading scientists took out a paid advertisement in New Scientist.  They titled it ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community,’ basically stating that the big bang theory was fundamentally flawed.

An article copying that appeared on http://www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004). See screenshot on left.Rense

The list of names of scientists who agreed with the Statement—that is, disagreed with the theory of a big bang origin of the universe—is available here and many more added their names to that list.

These scientists only agreed on one thing. They were all united in their conviction that the big bang was a bust.

A renewed revolt against Darwinism

scientific-dissent

Home page from dissentfromdarwin.org.

Now we may be seeing something similar in biological evolution.  A website titled ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’  (www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) has a list of about 900 names of scientists who question whether the small changes that we do observe  from  mutations and natural selection operating on the existing genetic information in living organisms, can be extrapolated to explain all the complexity of life. In other words, how can it explain molecules-to-man evolution?

That website says,

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

In the universities, certainly those that I know and have worked in, neo-Darwinism is accepted as fact. Who are these scientists to question that supposed fact? 

I don’t know what scientific or worldview position these scientists hold, or what their faith or belief systems are, but quite clearly not all are biblical creationists. And just as clearly, there is a groundswell against the idea of the ‘pond-scum to man, all by itself’ type of evolution, against the notion often labelled as the General Theory of Evolution, and particularly the mechanism of neo-Darwinism.

(Darwinism is the speculation promoted by Charles Darwin that all life arose from a single-celled ancestor—which he later proposed may have come  naturally from some ‘warm pond’—via naturally occurring variations filtered by natural selection. Since then, the mechanism has been refined, hence neo- = ‘new’ Darwinism. It is now taught that random mutations (DNA copying mistakes, of which Darwin was unaware) are the primary source of the variation from which natural selection then chooses. Mutations are thus ultimately the only explanation for all of the new, functional information which has to have arisen for microbes to become people).

Darwinian evolution also requires lots of deep time. That is a belief many of these dissidents likely hold to. We know that one of them does; Dr James Tour, a professing Christian and prominent chemist, who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world.2  He does not believe in the 6-day Creation account, the narrative history of the book of Genesis. He believes in long ages, an old earth and accepts the dating methods. He says it is because (my paraphrase) he cannot understand how God could have meant 6 ordinary days if He did not create the sun until Day 4, because there would be no sun to measure off the first 3 days.3  Thus in this area, he has rejected the authority of Scripture, which Jesus Himself believed and quoted from. Like so many, Tour has allowed human opinion to re-interpret Scripture for him. In this case, it is particularly sad, since it is actually quite simple to have evening and morning before the sun; and in fact it is even a further testimony to the veracity of the text, see How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?

But what is interesting is that he does confirm that most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life nor its complexity (emphases added).2

“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’

The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

If evolution cannot account for life’s existence, then how did life originate? Tour is right when he says the most reasonable answer is simple.

“I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle.

References

  1. Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20.
  2. Christian News, Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life, October 13, 2014.
  3. Veritas Forum, Nanotech and Jesus Christ – James Tour at Georgia Tech, watch from 49:00.

 Additional Reading

Lift up the Word with gentleness and respect

Someone writes a book, or develops a theory (or even just presents some speculation), and then a believer in a church uses that information and says something like,

 “The YEC position is true and here’s the proof! You are crazy if you can’t believe it because we have this evidence.”

Sadly, sometimes I hear this sort of thing.  Folks it just should not happen. And a person who hears it might react, complaining with,

“A (creation ministry) speaker filled their heads with stuff, which isn’t true about the YEC interpretation of the Bible.”

Well that’s how the recipient may have understood the attack on his belief system, which was obviously not a biblical creationist one. Maybe he believes in theistic evolution or big bang or both. (I am not supporting those inconsistent interpretations, but I am talking about our approach.) This sort of thing has led to a division in the fellowship. Some even claim that the whole subject of biblical creation is divisive. That is not what I am talking about, but rather how some well-meaning people use speculations and theories like clubs trying to win an argument, when they should be categorized only as man’s attempts at a solution to a biblical creationist problem.

Now to balance this remember, Jesus said:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

He was speaking of the form of His death on the cross, but we can draw a lesson from this verse regardless. It is the character of Jesus we trust and hence should emulate. Follow him in love and compassion. Peter writes:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. 1 Peter 3:15

Meekness and fear is kindness and respect. That is how we need to defend the Scriptures to those within our ranks who don’t believe as we do. For those without,

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:4

Let me explain what really concerns me. If someone rejects the truth of the gospel once given to them, or even the correct interpretation of Genesis history, that is their responsibility. My concern is that someone in a church would use a book (especially one that is so speculative, i.e. on the subject of cosmology) like some sort of a club, instead of saying to their brother in Christ,

“Just consider this idea. It’s not gospel but it might make some sense!”

That would be so much better a position to take with a sister/brother in Christ.

STNPCover 2nd edIn regards to my own published ideas on solving the creationist starlight-travel time problem as outlined in my book “Starlight Time and the New Physics” (STNP). Years ago I thought differently, but over the past few years (since 2012) I have come to believe that it is all so very speculative.

Some people think what I have presented in STNP is the solution to the starlight travel time problem. In hindsight, I think my fault in this was not outlining how science works, and what might be speculated on today, then a theory tomorrow, is discarded next year. I am sure I was more eager at the time, when I wrote the STNP book, to portray it as an answer. That is not the way I feel now. I was searching and experimenting with ideas involving time-dilation, which I hoped would shed light on the problem of starlight in a creationist cosmology.

So for someone to use my book like a club in such an argument is like they are using it to say far more than I would say myself.

Carmeli developed a big bang theory that worked on what we observe without dark matter or dark energy. I took some of his ideas and tried to develop a creationist model from that, without the big bang, but with different starting conditions etc. Some people have commented that my creationist development lacks detail. It is true. That is because I don’t have a 5D cosmological model.

I mention Carmeli’s 5D theory in the STNP book but really no general theory for the universe exists. Carmeli never found one. Carmeli’s papers only show that in the weak Newtonian limit you can get standard Einstein general relativity. Carmeli’s theory is at best an incomplete theory, or one of two theories 4D spacevelocity (Carmeli) and 4D spacetime (Einstein) for which there is no 5D unifying cosmological theory. One is an analogue of the other but there are many inconsistencies and unsolved problems. Even up to a year ago I held hopes of finding some answers, but more problems arose.

Carmeli never solved his 5D problem for the universe, and I certainly never did either. So my creationist extraction from his theory was really speculation.  I hoped I would solve some of the other problems in the meantime, but actually found more existed as time went on. I even found his formulation for the galaxy rotation curves was not necessarily correct, and I could not justify his approach. That was the only 5D model he developed, but I found that suspect. In editing his last book by World Scientific, after he died, I found blatant problems that could not be corrected because he had died and so I had to delete whole sections because they were wrong. Over the years, since then, I have found a few more minor sections that missed my editorial cutting unfortunately.

So all that to give you some insight into the science. It is a changing landscape and solutions are sought for that do not always come.

The real intention for my book was to offer hope from a simple lesson. In the field of astrophysics dark matter was invoked when all that was needed was new physics. Einstein’s general theory solved a vexing problem at the turn of the 20th century, in the way the orbit of Mercury was perturbed by the sun and the other planets, when he showed that correct physics was what was needed. His new physics improved on and added to Newton’s physics. In a similar way Carmeli’s general 4D spacevelocity theory solved analogous problems in cosmology without dark matter or dark energy. However, he introduced the concept of a velocity dimension, which in itself could be considered a fudge factor unless you can give it some real physical meaning. I think that that is the real problem. That science is far from settled, though it has been shown that it can explain what we observe in the large-scale structure of the universe without the additional fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter. That is to its credit.

My biblical creationist additions were far more speculative, and I only briefly give a sort of a map, from which I expect a solution could come. That was from time-dilation resulting from the Creator rapidly expanding the fabric of space. Nowadays, I am much more inclined to believe that the universe is not expanding at all. That the Creator created it as we see it, and that it could be static, or temporarily static. So my ideas are changing.

But what is not changing is my trust in the Word of God. That is true as God as written.  You can trust in His Word as authoritative. But a man’s words carry very little weight except where they agree with what God has already said.

6323167_org

 

Operational and historical science: What are they?

Two types of science: Operational or experimental and historical or forensic.  Historical science deals with origins, the unseen past, unobserved past events. Operational science deals with the present, not the past. Most people confuse or conflate these two types of science. They are not the same. The former is repeatable and the latter is not.

Science1Science2

Most scientists themselves do not understand the distinction. They often are too close to the subject to realise.

When a forensic scientist enters a crime scene he collects evidence. These are, for example, bodily fluids, tissue samples, fingerprints, paint scrapings, etc. He goes to his lab and uses sophisticated machines to determine the DNA of the victim or perpetrator, or scan for a fingerprint match in a data base, etc. That is repeatable science, hence operational science. Continue reading

Solutions to biblical creationist starlight-travel-time problem

If the universe is only 6000 years old according to Moses (Genesis chapters 5 and 11) then biblical creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem.  The universe is tens of billions of light-years across. There are good scientific grounds to believe that is the case. So shouldn’t it take at least billions of years for light to reach us from the distant galaxies?  How do you reconcile the size of the Universe with only the 6000 years or so available since the Creation, according to Genesis chapter 1 in the Bible? I once listed five possible areas that we might find a solution.1

I believe that within the following options or categories explanations may be found that are consistent with the text of Genesis and so maintain the interpretation of 6 × 24-hour literal earth-rotation days of creation, about 6000 years ago. They are briefly discussed here in no particular order.

1. A timing convention

690958main_p1237a1One possibility is that the language of Genesis is phenomenological language (describing appearance). In this case, stars were made billions of years before Day 4,but in such a manner that the light from all stars (and galaxies), no matter how far away, all arrived at the earth on Day 4 and so their light could have been seen first at that moment. This is reference frame ‘time-stamping’ events from the moment they are seen on Earth.

Lisle’s timing or clock synchrony convention3,4 describes this idea. He presented two possible interpretations: One is phenomenological language and the second has to do with the physical nature of  the created universe. Continue reading

Faulkner’s miraculous translation of light model would leave evidence

Critique of Faulkner’s proposal for a solution to the biblical creationist light-travel-time problem. Article first published by Answers Research Journal 7 (2014):459–460. PDF available here. Dr Faulkner’s response and PDF available here.


In 2013 D.R. Faulkner proposed what he says is a new solutionto the biblical creationist starlight-travel-time problem. That can be simply put this way: If the universe is so large, for which little doubt amongst biblical creationists, and we know the universe is only about 6000 years old, then how do we see distant light sources more than 6000 light-years away? Even more so, how did Adam on Day 6 see astronomical objects more than 2 light-days away, which includes all stars except for the sun?

Faulkner’s proposal, for which the author himself admittedly provides little substantive description, from what I can gather, has two key features:

  1. God miraculous accelerated (the author writes “shoot”) light across the cosmos so that we are seeing real events from the distant sources in real time;  “…, light from the astronomical bodies was miraculously made to “shoot” its way to the earth at an abnormally accelerated rate ….”;2  and
  2. the mechanism for the latter has something to do with God stretching out the heavens (like has been referred to in biblical verses including Isaiah 40:22); “In my view the intervening space was stretched to bring the light rapidly to earth. Soon after this event, probably still on Day Four, space assumed the properties that it appears to have today.”3

Continue reading