SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MATTER: 2
Here are facts you will not read in the newspapers and magazines. Scientists know that the Big Bang did not, and could not, occur. In professional books and journals they tell why the theory is unworkable. Evolutionary theory is a myth. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution —a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter: 2
Missing Matter: The Big Bang theory does not agree with the amount of matter in the universe
Ever Outflowing: The Big Bang does not explain the universe as we know it
Stellar Rotation Too Rapid: Many stars turn too fast to have been casually formed
Antimatter Not There: The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter
Universe Too lumpy: The theory does not allow for such lumpy things as stars and galaxies
This material is excerpted from the book, ORIGIN OF MATTER. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Origin of Matter.
MISSING MATTER
There is not enough matter in the universe to fit the Big Bang requirements.
" `Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.' McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this `missing mass' is `perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.' "—*W. H. McCrae, quoted in H.R. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
"Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass of galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden source of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:
"Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements, and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy"—*P. V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.
EVER OUTFLOWING
The outward-flowing radiation from an initial Big Bang would have kept moving outward forever. The universe should not be filled with anything; it should have all gone outward!
"With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever."—*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.
"The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was then much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct."—A.W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].
STELLAR ROTATION IS TOO RAPID
Many stars rotate too rapidly to have initially collected any nearby gas, much less be formed by compressing gas. By the way, thin hydrogen clouds would not push themselves together, and even if they could— what would start the balls twirling?
"There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. Greenstein of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process. In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulation motion without collapsing into stars."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.
"Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the `known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.' "—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.
"Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Doppler-shifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades."—*D.E. Thomsen, "Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage," Science News, 125:388 (1984).
ANTIMATTER IS NOT THERE
Whenever matter comes into existence, half of it is our kind of matter and the other half is "antimatter"—which immediately flies to the matter and destroys both. The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of both, and they would have quickly destroyed one another. Yet the universe has almost no antimatter.
"Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge."—*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.
"Antimatter: It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence of antigalaxies."—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), p. 2.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," in America Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.
"What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere."—*F. Wilczek, "The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter," in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.
"The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.
"But does it exist in actuality? Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?
. . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be most noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation. Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.
"This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.
"That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An `antiplanet' [a theoretical antimatter planet], for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky. Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an `antistar.' Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays."—*Gary Steigman, "Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).
"Even more fascinating was the realization—confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950's and 1960's—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world. For each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .
"Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling.
"The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?"—Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
"Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter-antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy."—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
UNIVERSE IS TOO LUMPY
Scientists tell us that the universe has "lumps" (stars) and "clumps" (galaxies), when, according to the Big Bang theory, it should be totally smooth (only have floating gas).
"The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters."—*P. Peebles, "The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies," in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.
"Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe's structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation."—*Horgan, "Big-Bang Bashers," in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.
"[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology."—*Waldrop, "Delving the Hole in Space," in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.
"It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures."—*H. Alfven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.
"The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a blobally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. `No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing.' Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.
"How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, can accrete.
"For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatiousness conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we've come to know."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?" Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.
"Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters."—*R. Oldershaw, "The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.
"This peculiarity of the initial state of matter required by the standard [Big Bang] model is called the smoothness problem."—*Guth and *Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe," in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 119.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the NEXT PAGE to continue on with what you are now reading (Scientists Speak about the Origin of Matter: Part 3 of 4)