THE ORIGIN OF MATTER - 2
In their desperate search for some kind of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, evolutionists try to make background radiation fit the pattern of acceptable evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Origin of Matter: 2
Background Radiation and the Big Bang: 7 reasons why this does not support the Big Bang
Redshift and the Big Bang: 3 reasons why the speed theory is incorrect
Quasars and the Big Bang: 2 reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift
Summary: Summing it up
Page numbers without book references refer to our book, ORIGIN OF MATTER, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
BACKGROUND RADIATION AND THE BIG BANG
7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.
"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:
1 It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it were from the Big Bang.—pp. 31-32.
2 It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.—p. 32.
3 It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.—p. 32.
4 Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].—p. 32.
5 It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it were, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.—pp. 32-33.
6 A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.—p. 32.
7 What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.—pp. 33-34.
REDSHIFT AND THE BIG BANG
3 reasons why the speed theory of redshift is incorrect. The speed theory of redshift is said to be the other primary evidence that a Big Bang occurred. But scientific facts clearly disprove this theory also.
According to how far away they are, light from the stars is pushed toward the red end of the color spectrum. The amount of skewing is proportional to the distance to the star which sent the light ray to us. What is the cause of this shift toward the red? Evolutionists rely on a disproved theory (the speed theory) of the redshift in an effort to show there was a Big Bang. Accepting the speed theory makes it appear that the universe is expanding (the expanding universe theory). The evolutionists need an expanding universe, because their theory teaches that everything flowed outward from the Big Bang—which is proven by the fact that the universe is still moving outward. But the speed theory is incorrect, so the universe is not expanding.
Claims of a lumpy background radiation and the foolish "speed theory of the redshift" are the two primary evidences used to prove that there once was a Big Bang. But, like claims for background radiation, the speed theory is false evidence, based on a misinterpretation of the data. There are other theories which explain the redshift much better.—p. 34.
The speed redshift. Also called the "Doppler theory of redshift" this speed theory supports the evolutionary position, and therefore is tenaciously clung to by the evolutionists. According to it, the farther that stars are from our planet, the faster they are moving away from us.—pp. 34-35.
1 The other explanations of the redshift better agree with the facts. Now all agree that the distance of our planet to the star has something to do with the redshift. Aside from the speed theory, there are three other possible explanations. The speed theory has several flaws; but each of the following three possibilities are based on solid, known scientific facts. Singly or together, they provide a much better explanation of the redshift:
[1] Gravitational redshifts. Light rays from the stars must travel vast distances to reach us. It has been proven that the pull of gravity, from the stars the light rays pass, could indeed cause a loss in light-wave energy—thus moving that light toward the red on the spectrum. Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would affect starlight, and this was shown to be true in the 1960s.—p. 35.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict that gravity would be able to affect the transmission of light. This fact could easily explain the redshifts which have been found.—p. 42.
[2] Second-order Doppler shift. It is known that a light source moving at right angles to an observer will be redshifted. Compare this fact with the known fact that all stars are definitely circling galaxies. In addition, many scientists suspect that, just as all planets and stars are kept in position by orbiting, so, for purposes of stability, the entire universe is probably circling a common center!—pp. 35-36.
[3] Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This is called "tired light." The energy-loss shift is probably the primary cause of the redshift.—p. 36.
2 The Arp Discoveries. *Halton C. Arp, of the Mount Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories, made several discoveries which threaten to overturn stellar evolutionary theories, especially those concerning the speed theory of the redshift. Here are several of them:
[1] Bridged galaxies disprove the speed redshift theory. Arp has found connected galaxies which have different redshifts.—p. 36.
[2] Quasers disprove the speed redshift theory. Quasers with one redshift have been found alongside galaxies with a different redshift.—p. 37.
[3] Summarizing the Arp discoveries. Arp has found differential redshifts associated with over 260 galaxies, and has published a catalog of hundreds of discordant redshifts. But his work has been ignored. Arp says that energy loss ("tired light") is the cause of the redshifts.—pp. 37-38.
Getting rid of the opposition. Halton Arp was eventually fired for presenting evidence contrary to the Big Bang theory.—pp. 43-44.
3 There are several other evidences that the speed theory is incorrect:
[1] Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the bluest stars are the youngest, and, therefore, the most distant stars should be the bluest. But they are just like the nearest ones.—pp. 38-39.
[2] Redshift distance multiples. An oddity has been discovered that does not agree with the speed theory, but could fit into the energy-loss theory: Stars tend to be most often located at certain distances from us! This totally defies the speed theory. But it may be that starlight loses energy as it travels, and this weakening especially reveals itself at multiples of 72 kps [42 mps].—p. 39.
[3] Galactic shape factor. When elliptical galaxies are in the same cluster with spiral galaxies (and therefore the same distance from us), the spirals will have a higher redshift. The second-order Doppler shift would explain this, but not the speed theory.—p. 39.
[4] Photons slow down. Arp and his associates have shown that photons (unit pieces of starlight) actually do slow down as they travel toward us. Evolutionists refuse to accept this fact, because it would destroy their "expanding universe" theory.—pp. 39-40.
Only one stellar distance measurement is reliable. Keep in mind that only one method of ascertaining stellar distances is accurate. It is the parallax method, which can only be used on a few of the closest stars. So, other than relying on the discredited speed theory, there is no other way to tell whether distant stars are moving away from us or not.—p. 40.
QUASARS AND THE BIG BANG
2 Reasons why quasars disprove the speed theory of redshift. Quasars are a great headache to evolutionists, for they clearly disprove the speed theory. And without the speed theory there can be no expanding universe.
Quasars may hold the key to an understanding of the redshift. According to the speed theory of redshift, quasars must be the most distant objects in the universe. Yet light from them is quite bright, and some can be seen through optical telescopes; therefore, they cannot possibly be very distant.
Here are several facts about quasars which help disprove the speed theory:
1 If the speed theory is correct, quasars are far too bright. The fact that quasars can be seen through optical telescopes, yet are supposed to so far away, violates the inverse-square law. They just could not possibly be so far away, and yet so bright.—p. 40.
2 If the speed theory is true, quasars travel too fast, and some go faster than the speed of light!
[1] 16 percent. In 1962, a quasar was found which, according to the speed theory, is moving away from us at the amazing velocity of 16 percent of the speed of light! This just cannot be true, and thus disproves the speed theory of redshift.—pp. 40-41.
[2] 200-300 percent. Since then, quasars have been found with speed theory redshifts of 200 and 300 percent of the speed of light! If the speed theory were correct, this would be recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light!—p. 41.
[3] 350-400 percent. In 1973, a quasar was found which had a speed redshift of 350 percent. In 1986, one had more than 400 percent! If the speed theory were true, these quasars would be fantastic distances of 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds. Since then more "4 redshifts" have been found.—pp. 41-42.
[4] Eight times faster than the speed of light. Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of redshift, would be moving eight times faster than the speed of light! As of 1990, over thirty faster-than-light quasars have been found.—pp. 42-43.
[5] Light, matter, and gravity. It is a known fact that gravity from the sun actually bends light rays from stars.—p. 43.
Summary
Evolutionists cling to the speed theory of redshift, in an effort to support their idea that outward pushing gas made an expanding universe of outward rushing stars. But new discoveries have produced the ridiculous situation that, if the theory is correct, the most distant stars are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light! Energy loss from gravity pull, distance traveled, and sideways movement of stars provide a far better explanation of the redshift.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (Origin of Matter: Part 3 of 3)