answers in genesis - (pdf) - ken ham - origins 4 - is the big bang a good scientific theory

8/10/2019 Answers in Genesis - (PDF) - Ken Ham - Origins 4 - Is the Big Bang a Good Scientific Theory

1/26

Can naturalistic evolution explain the appearance of life on Earth? Are there any transitional forms? If humans descended fromonkeys (apes), why are there still monkeys (apes) around? Is the big bang a good scienti c theory?

Could life have originated in outer space?

CLOSE PDF 1PROJECT 3:15 Origins

Is the big bang a good scienti ctheory?

WHAT ABOUT THE BIG BANG?

COSMOLOGISTS CANT AGREE AND ARE STILL IN DOUBTOUR GALAXY IS THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE
http://origins1.pdf/http://origins1.pdf/http://origins2.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins5.pdf/http://quit/http://origins5.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins2.pdf/http://origins1.pdf/http://origins5.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins2.pdf/http://origins1.pdf/http://quit/


2/26




What about the big bang?by Werner Gitt

First published in:Creation 20(3):42-44

June-August 1998

In his book, A Brief History of Time , the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawkinti es the ultimate question behind everything. Today we still yearn to know why we arwhere we came from.1

In the last chapter of his book he says:

We nd ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where and we come from? Why is it the way it is?2

Hawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be ansmeans of equations and theories.

Even if there is only one possible uni ed theory, it is just a set of rules and equa-tions. What is it that breathes re into the equations and makes a universe for them describe?3

Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of lootheir Author.

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all . . . be able to take part in thcussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we nd the anto that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would knowmind of God.4

Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe wacknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642-1727), possibly the greatest physictime, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, rmly that the solar system was created by God.

The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Ka

1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary deand most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.

According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million years agoinconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding unired shift of light from distant stars.
http://origins1.pdf/http://origins1.pdf/http://origins2.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins5.pdf/http://quit/http://origins5.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins3.pdf/http://origins2.pdf/http://origins1.pdf/http://quit/


3/26


4/26




In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a differentof the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is nlonger a valid theory.8

Professor Hans Jrg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germanythe demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the BBang).

The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the e

time . . . This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream philosophers. But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, inecessarily close to the truth. In the eld of cosmology the widely supported big batheory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisinglyalternatives.9

Dr James Tre l, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big ban but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explthe universe exists.

There shouldnt be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they sho be grouped together the way they are. He later continues: The problem of explain

existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all righthey just shouldnt be there, yet there they sit. Its hard to convey the depth of the frtion that this simple fact induces among scientists.10

It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to re-interpret the infallible Word of a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to coBiblical record, which is rmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture nd it only natural to go on to other evideas, such as a primitive Earth gradually cooling down, death and struggle millions o before the Fall, and so on.

My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the C

without regard to biblical af rmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled bysion of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.11

This article was adapted from Dr Gitts bookStars and their Purpose: Signposts in Space .

References1. S.W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time -- From the Big Bang to Black Holes , Bantam Books,

New York, U.S.A., p. 13, 1998.

2. Ref. 1, p. 171.

3. Ref. 1, p. 174.

4. Ref. 1, p. 175.

5. H.J. Fahr, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall Kosmologie im Umbruch Franckh-Kosmos Verlag,Stuttgart , Germany, 327 pages, 1992.

6. E.P. Fischer (Ed.), Neue Horizonte 92/93 -- Ein Forum der Naturwissenschaften -- Piper-Verlag, Mnchen , Germany, pp. 112-173, 1993.


5/26


6/26




Cosmologists cant agree and are still in doubt!by John Hartnett

First published in:Creation 19(3):30

June-August 1997

On 23 July 2002, NYTimes.com hosted an article entitled In the Beginning... by Denn bye. This was an attempt to put down any belief that science doesnt have the answers,a defence of scientism. The article pushes the point that even though, in the past, cosmomay have been divided and lost on explanations of the origin, age and evolution of the now this is not so.

Agreement on fundamental cosmic numbers?Overbye says cosmologists are now united and in agreement on the details of the big bof the universe:

Dr Allan Sandage, the Carnegie Observatories astronomer, once called cosmologysearch for two numbersone, the Hubble constant, telling how fast the universe isexpanding, and the other [the cosmic deceleration parameter] telling how fast the exsion is slowing, and thus whether the universe will expand forever or not.

This is hardly the case. I can only think of a few numbers on which most cosmologists the deceleration parameter is not one of them. However, one may be the Hubble param0)which relates the speed that an object is receding to its distance from Earth. They curre

H0 = 80 10 km s-1

Mpc-1

, which is about a 12% error margin, but they still argue over whweighting factor one applies to the distance data that determines the parameter.

Another number is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature of T0 = 2.73 K. A thiis the average density of visible normal matter in the current universe.

Many other parameters are unknown, such as the curvature of space, or the amount of nmatter in the universe expressed as a fraction of the total amount necessary for the univcollapse back on itself, represented by the symbol (capital omega). This is actually omajor debates among cosmologists: If < 1, then the universe is open and space has ageometry; if > 1, the universe is closed and space has an elliptical geometry. For anying universe theory to work, the universe must be closed. But currently fashionable in

models predict that the universes density is just below the threshold of collapse, i.e. geometrically at universe.1

Then there are the issues of dark matter, the interpretation of peculiar redshifts, even thtation of redshifts themselves that are not agreed upon by cosmologists.

I am reminded of a plenary talk that I heard delivered by Ron Ekers of the Australia Te National Facility at the Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurement, held inhotel, Sydney in the middle of 2000. This was a conference bringing together mostly ph


7/26




involved with making very precise measurements of quantities like mass (kilograms), tonds), frequency (hertz), resistance (ohms), capacitance (farads) etc. Generally they womeasurements with errors like 0.00000001% (or 1 part in 1010) or less. In his talk, titled Metrogy and the Universe, he made the clear point of saying how he felt a little out of placconference, because as an astrophysicist, he was happy with errors of 100% (or 1 part iis to say, if he were trying to determine some cosmological parameter, A, then he would be hapwith a number somewhere between 0 and 2 times A (twice its expected value). Not exactly anexact science. It is a far cry from the precision of repeatable lab experiments. The probcosmology is the distance and time scales, which leave the data enormously open to inttion.

Models are lled with many unknown parametersCurrent cosmological big bang models are based on a solution of Einsteins eld equatcomes from his General Theory of relativity. That particular solution was discovered bymann and Lematre (FL). It suggested that the universe was expanding. Earlier, Einsself had arrived at a different solution that suggested that the universe was static. He beuniverse to be stable and used a constant of integration in his equation to achieve this ein 1929 announced that he believed the universe was expanding based on the observatiaxies all over the sky racing away from the Earth. As a result, Einstein was accused of a fudge factor (the cosmological constant) to keep the universe from collapsing. He is q

saying it was the biggest blunder of my life. But the constant he inserted was a valid cintegration, and now it has been revived to explain the apparent acceleration away fromdistant galaxies. The point that needs to be clearly understood here is that there is a hosthat are collectively described by the many key parameters they incorporate.

Overbye writes:

Cosmologists are often wrong, the Russian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Lev L put it, but never in doubt.

This is contradicted by the existence of many contrary opinions on the details of the bigwell as the continued survival of the opposing model, the Steady State theory of the lat

Hoyle, Bondi and Gold. It seemed to die with the discovery of the CMB radiation2

but revivedagain recently by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar.3,4

The claim of the big-bangers that Gamow successfully predicted the CMB temperaturewith a value of 5 K (later in the 1950s raised to 10 K), is undermined by the fact that Msuccessfully predicted a 2.3 K temperature, in 1941, from observation of absorption lin by quantum mechanical features of rotating diatomic interstellar molecules. Remembeuntil 1965 when Penzias and Wilson discovered the radiation pouring in from the cosmhad argued in 1955 that thermalization of starlight would occur but never did the calculwhich would have produced a temperature of 2.78 K.

This just demonstrates the logical fallacy of using successful prediction as proof of a

because there may be more than one theory that predicts the same data. Rather, it is logto use a failed prediction as disproof of a theory.

Then in the past few decades, there has arisen a new breed of cosmologist who acceptsthese views above. Some are creationists, like Humphreys and Gentry, whose models oare based on the book of Genesis, as a creation of God, the supernatural Creator of all tThey dont pretend to know all the details of the early history, but have offered some neinnovative ideas. Others see design in nature and dont claim to be able to extrapolate wobserve today to the distant past.


8/26




Ripples in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiationCosmologists are hardly entering a golden age in which data are outrunning speculaarticle suggests. If this is a reference to the volumes of data coming from measurementcosmic microwave background radiation from the cosmos, it is misplaced. There are msible interpretations of the blotches seen in the CMB two-dimensional temperature mapthe desired belief that they are some clumpiness due to the quantum nature of the radishortly after the big bang. The believers see them as the seeds of galaxies but are they?

They have been interpreted in a different way by Gurzadyan5 as the effect of mixing of the tra

tories of photons within a bundle as they propagate through space. That is, because a bu photons is not a point object, the individual photons follow different paths from the soureceiver. The result at the receiving end is an enlarged and smeared image.

A Standard model?The article speaks of a standard model of the universe. The so-called standard model struct in the minds of the big bang cosmologist where the big bang isassumed to be true andthen the value of the parameters needed to achieve this are explored. This approach hasmany absurd conclusions. In the analysis of the cosmic microwave background data, m parameters are inserted and then it is claimed that they are seeing the hand of God in milliseconds after the big bang. Also this approach has been applied to the supernova dmutter 6,7,8 and Schmidt9,10 which they interpret to mean the universe is accelerating. The extion is critically dependent on the choice of these parameters.

The FL big bang in ation (expanding universe) models correctly predict the CMB ratemperatures both now and at times in the past when the universe was smaller and hottdoes Gentrys model that utilises the Einstein-de Sitter static spacetime solution, whichgalaxies expanding into theexisting space (as opposed to classic big bang which has spaceitselfexpanding). No spatial stretching occurs, yet many of the observational tests of a cosmmodel are veri ed. Both classes of models are based on the same General Theory of Rity. FL big models assume an unbounded possibly in nite universe. Gentrys and Humodels assume the universe to be nite and bounded, a view consistent with Genesis. Tquence of different boundary conditions radically alters the outcome of the model, yet tmodels explain some observations that the big bangers ignore.

Dark matter and dark energyThe standard model now seems to demand that the universe is about 5% ordinary matis observed through telescopes; 22.5% is dark matter, which is not observed; and the reis a mysterious dark energy, 72.5%. The need for the dark energy has been invoked by explain the acceleration of distant galaxies. Besides the supernova data, there is no hardfor this additional long-range force. Usually the symbol M represents the fraction of both norand dark matter in the universe and represents the contribution from the cosmological coor dark energy. The data from 42 supernovae was interpreted to mean M + = 1 or the univeris at. Hence in the standard model above M = 0.28 and = 0.72. But these parameters cavary between M = 00.75 and = 10.25 and still t the data.11

Quintessence is being invoked. This is speculated to be the energy density of a slowlying scalar eld,12 which may constitute a dynamical form of the homogeneous dark energuniverse. This is viewed as different from the cosmological constant, a long-range forcing the galaxies apart. Cosmological observations or a time variation of fundamental care expected to distinguish quintessence from a cosmological constant. Even models in


9/26




variable speed of light, which would violate Einsteins General and Special Theories, athe literature.13,5

The need for dark matter comes from observations of apparently anomalous speeds of souter arms of some spiral galaxies (rotation curves). Also, the motion of some galaxiesand the aesthetic desire of cosmologists to see the universe just avoid collapsing back o(i.e. to have a at universe) dictates much more matter is needed than is observed.

But there may be other explanations. For example the case of the rotation curves can b by a modi cation to Newtons gravitational law, changing the inverse square of distanc

inverse distance at distances greater than about 3 million light-years. The model is basedifferent view of gravitation to Einsteins General Theory that involves a degree of gravshielding by massive objects. The model is not without experimental basis as a numberments have been repeated with the same peculiar results. The mass derived from the mseparation of galaxies in clusters is based on a long-range assumption, which cannot beAlso there is the inherent assumption about the billion years time scale of the age of theThe article says of the model with at space (because of critical density):

... to many theorists the simplest and most mathematically beautiful solution of all

But there is no reason to assume the universe has critical density. According to McGauBOOMERANG data, which measured variations in the CMB radiation, suggest that the univ

lled with normal matter, no exotic particles, no cold dark matter (CDM). This would lcosmologist very short of needed matter, or the FL models on which McGaugh did htions are wrong.

The lack of CDM has caused particular concern for some Princeton astrophysicists who particles as big as galaxies to explain lack of dwarf galaxy formation. The particles hav10-24 times the density of an electron and wave-functions of the order of 3000 light-yearinteract only with gravity and almost impossible to detect. The problem seems to be tha particles are needed to explain why dwarf galaxies are far rarer than big bang theory prtheory goes, CDM was introduced to get matter to form galaxies early in the universes but that created another problem in computer simulations, forming huge numbers of undwarf galaxies. Hence the proposed particles, that would form giant globs of fuzzy comatter.The missing dark matter in galaxies, clusters and the whole universe and the smoothneCMB radiation create unassailable problems in the formation of stars and galaxies in thuniverse. The big bang in ation model needed the temperature variations in the CMB than 10 times larger. Still, it was hailed a success? Prof. Stephen Hawking in his book s

This [big bang] picture of the universe ... is in agreement with all the observationadence that we have today, but admitted, Nevertheless, it leaves a number of imporquestions unanswered ... (the origin of the stars and galaxies).

The origin of stars and galaxies! Without an explanation of those there is no explanatio

structure of the universe. That was published 14 years ago, and Overbyes article here a problem is still there:

Its a huge mystery exactly how stars form, Dr. Richard Bond of the Canadian Infor Theoretical Astrophysics.

This con rms what AiG has said.14


10/26




The meaning of redshiftsThe very meaning of redshifts themselves is argued over by cosmologists. Only in Fing universe models is the interpretation that redshifts result from the stretching of spac photons of light are in ight through the cosmos. The unproven and unprovable CosmoPrinciple is then invoked to say that what we see is not special and any observer anywhuniverse would see the same. The implication of empirical evidence is that the redshiftin the starlight of galaxies in all directions in the sky imply that the Earth is near the ceuniverse. The simplest assumption would tell us that they are Doppler shifts, but becau philosophically unacceptable, an alternative was developed, that the centre is everywhe

the red-shifts are cosmological in an in nite universe that is essentially homogeneous. 1937 bookThe Observational Approach to Cosmology reveals the bias:

Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique positthe universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoidall costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory bethe theory postulates homogeneity.

Hubble himself was driven by his own bias to avoid a conclusion he could not accept. Tof positively curved space also gets the cosmologist out of the hot water of the Earth bspecial place in the universe. In that case the universe can be nite but have no centre. lem with that model is according to its adherents the supernova data indicate at space

CMB data is interpreted by de Bernardis15

to be consistent with at space but by Gurzadyan16

withnegative curvature. Why not accept the obvious?

Then there are the observations of Tiftt. His data were from galaxies from in all directisky showing that redshifts are quantised, or come in discrete amounts. The big bang Fmologists discount these observations as they dont t the standard model. One interprethis fact would be that the universe has a shell structure and galaxies are found at distanregular intervals between. This also would put the Earth somewhere near the centre of tverse, because if it were a long way from the point on which the shells are centred the equantised redshifts would be washed out. This fact is recognised in both Humphreys acosmological models.

Then there are the observations of Arp who showed peculiar physical associations betwsars and galaxies with greatly different redshifts. A survey of some 70 quasars showed were quantised and that they follow a predictable pattern. How are these facts explaine bang cosmology? Instead, they are ignored or called bad science.

Exotic theories New cosmological theories are rife, more so today than ever before. In fact they are mothan ever. Maybe exotic is the word they deliberately use to disguise the truth of how out some of their models are, yet the very word actually hints at that. There are models before the big bang, where the universe supposedly arose from a uctuation that may c

occur creating multiple universes, an in nite number that makes anything possible. Bunot a shred of experimental evidence for these theories, only fairies in the bottom of theThe article says

Many varieties of these particles [that would comprise dark matter left over from t bang] are predicted by theories of high-energy physics. But their existence has not bcon rmed or detected in particle accelerators. We theorists can invent all sorts of g bage to ll the universe, Dr. Sheldon Glashow, a Harvard physicist and Nobel laurtold a gathering on dark matter in 1981.


11/26




There are the string theories, with M-branes, P-branes etc but these theories require enegreater than the Sun can deliver to test them.

Finally I quote from a paper 17 posted to the Los Alamos pre-print archive on 1 August 200the abstract stating that some assumptions of the in ation model lead to deep paradoxe

Present cosmological evidence points to an in ationary beginning and an acceleratSitter end. Most cosmologists accept these assumptions, but there are still major unre-

solved debates concerning them. For example, there is no consensus about initial contions. Neither string theory nor quantum gravity provide a consistent starting point

a discussion of the initial singularity or why the entropy of the initial state is so lowSome unknown agent initially started the in ation high up on its potential, and the rhistory.6(Emphasis added)

What hope have we to get a resolution then? The article asks:

Moreover there are some questions that scientists still do not know how to ask, let answer, scienti cally. Was there anything before the Big Bang? Is there a role for lithe cosmos? Why is there something rather than nothing at all? Will we ever know?

These questions have been asked. They are answered in the Bible. The Creation by Gogives meaning to the universe. Creationists, who accept the Biblical account, and also a

validity of the laws of physics, are looking for the mechanisms of the origin of the univwithin the framework revealed by the One who was there at the Creation. God is the rall, only the details are not always clear. Some questions cannot be answered scienti caanswer has been given.

References1. Kamionkowski, M., 1998. The case of the curved universe: open, closed or at,Science 280 :

1397-98.

2. CMB Astrophysics Research Program.

3. Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G. and Narlikar, J.V., A Different Approach to Cosmology, CambridgeUniversity Press , Cambridge, 2000.

4. Hartnett, J.G., Different but still the same [review of Ref. 3],TJ 16(1):29-35, 2002.

5. Hartnett, J.G., Recent cosmic microwave background data supports creationist cosmTJ 15(1):8-12, 2001; citing three Gurzadyan papers including Ref. 16.

6. Perlmutter, S.,Aldering, G., Deustua, S. Fabbro, S., Goldhaber, G., Groom, D.E., KimKim, M.Y., Knop, R.A., Nugent, P., Pennypacker, C.R., Della-Valle, M., Ellis, R.S.hon, R.G., Walton, N. (IoA), Fruchter, A., Panagia, N., (STScI), Goobar, A (UStockHook, I.M., Lidman, C. (ESO), Pain, R. (CRNS-IN2P3), Ruiz-Lapuente, P. (UBarcSchaefer, B., (Yale), Cosmology From Type Ia Supernovae: Measurements, Calibraniques, and Implications, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 29 :1351, 1997.

7. High Redshift Supernova Search Home Page of the Supernova Cosmology Project, h//www-supernova.lbl.gov/.

8. Science magazine names Supernova Cosmology Project Breakthrough of the Year http://www.lbl.gov/supernova/.

9. Garnavich, P.M., Kirshner, R.P., Challis, P. (CfA), Tonry, J. (UHawaii), Gilliland, R.LSmith, R.C. (UMich), Clocchiatti, A. (CTIO), Diercks, A. (UWash), Filippenko, A.


12/26




Hamuy, M. (UAriz), Hogan, C.J. (UWash), Leibundgut, B. (ESO), Phillips, M.M. (Reiss, D. (UWash), Riess, A.G. (UCB), Schmidt, B.P., (MSSSO), Spyromilio, J. (EStubbs, C. (UWash), Suntzeff, N.B. (CTIO), and Wells, L. (UAriz), Constraints onlogical Models from Hubble Space Telescope Observations of High-z Supernovae, Bulletinof the American Astronomical Society 29, 1997.

10. Cosmology with Supernovae: The High-Z Supernova Search, http://cfa-www.harvaoir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html.

11. S. Perlmutter, Aldering, G.,, Goldhaber, G.,, Knop, R.A.,, Nugent, P., Castro, P.G., S., Fabbro, S., , Goobar, A., Groom, D.E., Hook, I.M., Kim, A.G., Kim, M.Y., Lee, Nunes, N.J., Pain, R., Pennypacker,C.R., Quimby, R., Lidman, C., Ellis, R.S., IrwinMcMahon, R.G., Ruiz-Lapuente, P., Walton, N., Schaefer, B., Boyle, B.J., FilippenMatheson,T., Fruchter, A.S., Panagia, N., Newberg, H.J.M., and Couch, W.J., Measof from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys. Journ . 517 :565-586, 1999.

12. A scalar eld maps every point in space to a non-directional quantity called a scalar . Avector eld maps every point to a directional quantity.

13. Barrow, J., Is nothing sacred? New Scientist 163 (2196):2832, 24 July 1999. Cf. C theference,Creation 22(1):9, 1999.

14. Also, more detail in Bernitt, R, Stellar evolution and the problem of the rst starsTJ 16(1)12-14, 2002.

15. deBernardis, P., A at universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwavground radiation, Nature 404 :955959, 2000.

16. Gurzadyan V.G., and S. Torres, S., Testing the effect of geodesic mixing with COBreveal the curvature of the universe, Astron. Astrophys . 321 :1923, 1997.

17. Dysona, L., Klebana, M., and Susskinda, L., Disturbing implications of a Cosmolostant, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013.pdf, 1 August 2002.


13/26




Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, quantized red-shifts show

by Russell Humphreys

First published in:TJ 16(2):95-104

2002

Over the last few decades, new evidence has surfaced that restores man to a central plauniverse. Astronomers have con rmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are qutending to fall into distinct groups. According to Hubbles law, redshifts are proportionadistances of the galaxies from us. Then it would be the distances themselves that fall inThat would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells conaround our home galaxy, the Milky Way. The shells turn out to be on the order of a millyears apart. The groups of redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewition is less than a million light years from the centre. The odds for the Earth having suc position in the cosmos by accident are less than one in a trillion. Since big bang theoris pose the cosmos has naturalistic origins and cannot have a unique centre, they have souexplanations, without notable success so far. Thus, redshift quantization is evidence (1)the big bang theory, and (2) for a galactocentric cosmology, such as one by Robert Genone in my book,Starlight and Time .

1. IntroductionVesto Slipher didnt know he was starting a counter-Copernican revolution. At Lowell o

vatory nearly a century ago, he began examining the wavelengths of light from faint ov patches in the night sky called white nebulae (Latin for clouds). Now we call them (after the Greek word for milky). The largest and brightest nebula he could observe wcalled M31, located in the constellation Andromeda. Figure 1 [see online version at hwww.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf] showgalaxy. Like other astronomers before him,1 Slipher found that the wavelength spectrum of Mis similar to the spectra of stars, containing a characteristic pattern of lines produced by(Figure 2 [see online version]), calcium, and other elements.

Slipher had found a way to take clearer photographs of the spectra than was previouslyThe new method enabled him to measure the wavelengths of the spectral lines more prfound that the wavelengths for M31 were all decreased by 0.1% from their normal valu2 Thatis, the pattern of lines was slightly shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. Astronoabout measuring the wavelength shifts of other nebulae, and by 1925, they had measurthem.3 The results ranged from 0.1% to + 0.6%, with the average being + 0.2%. The pvalues represent wavelength increases, that is, shifts toward the red side of the spectrum2 shows. These are the redshifts I mentioned above, a major part of this papers topic.


14/26




2. Hubbles lawBy 1924, most astronomers had decided that the white nebulae were outside our own galaxy.

At Mount Wilson observatory, Edwin Hubble began using the 100-inch re ector telescculate distances to such extra-galactic nebulae with a more accurate new technique. Ahe began to con rm the general impression that the more distant nebulae have larger re1929, he published his results,4 which Figure 3 summarizes. The trend line in the gure relwavelength of a spectral line, and its shift, to the distancer of each nebula from the Earth

/ = H/c r(1)

Herec is the speed of light, approximately 300,000 km/s, and H is a number we now call theHubble constant. This is the famous Hubble law , which says that some cosmic phenomenoncauses redshifts to tend to increase in proportion to distance.

Hubbles distance calculations revolutionized our ideas of the universe. The white nebturned out to be objects like our own Milky Way, clusters of hundreds of billions of starcluster roughly a hundred thousand light years in diameter. Astronomers began to call t galax-ies . On the average, each galaxy is a dozen million light years from its nearest neighborappropriately named Hubble Space Telescope can now photograph galaxies as far as 15light years away. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies within that distance.

3. Expansion redshifts, not Doppler shiftsHubble, following the lead of Slipher and others, interpreted thewavelength shifts as Dopplershifts, produced entirely by the velocity v of the light source with respect to thethat case, forv much less thanc, the wavelength shift would be approximately

/ v / c (2)

Then, according to equation (1), the trend line in Figure 3 would correspond to galaxieaway from us with velocityv proportional to their distancer :

v H r (3)

But other things can cause redshifts. For example, Einsteins theory of general relativitin an expanding space, the lengths of light waves should be stretched out right along wstretching-out of the medium they are moving through. Light coming from distant objehave experienced more such stretching than light from nearby objects, so such redshiftincrease with distance.

Today, most cosmologists think that the trend line in Figures 3 and 4 [see online versiosents such anexpansion redshift, not a Doppler shift.5,6 However, astronomers still nd it connient to describe redshifts with equivalent velocities, as if they were caused by a DopUnfortunately, that practice has confused the public, the media, and even undergraduatomy students into thinking of the redshifts as being caused mainly by velocities.

Figure 4 shows more recent data on the redshift-distance relation out to much greater d7 Deviations from the trend line would be caused not by expansion, but by other phenomas the Doppler effect. For example, galaxy M31 in Andromeda appears to be moving togalaxy with a local velocity of about 100 km/s,8 producing a Doppler blue shift larger than small expansion redshift we would expect from such a nearby object, only about 2 mill


15/26




years away.

Through the years, theorists have offered other explanations for the cosmological redsh9 14 For several decades, I explored such theories, trying without success to nd one thatme. But I lost interest in alternative redshift models after I noticed verses in the Bible thto support the idea that space has been expanded. Isaiah 40:22 is one example:

It is he that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent todwell in.

There are seventeen such verses in the Old Testament,15

and they use four different Hebrew vto convey the idea of stretching out or spreading out. As I clarify inStarlight and Time ,16 inScripture the heavens appear to refer to space itself , not necessarily to the bodies occupyingspace, namely the Sun, Moon and stars. So if we take these verses straightforwardly, thsaying that He has stretched out or spread out the fabric of space itself. That correspoclosely to the general relativistic idea of expanding space. With a few small steps of log books show that such an expansion produces redshifts.17 That is why I think expansion is the cause.

Regardless of the cause, however, all that matters for this paper is that galaxy redshifts approximately proportional to distance, as the Hubble law asserts in equation (1).

4. Tifft observes quantized redshiftsAstronomers often express the amount of redshift, the fractional change of wavelengthdimensionless number, z:

z / (4)

The raw data for the z s of galaxies do not have any obviously favored values. However, iearly 1970s William Tifft at the Steward Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, began transfothe data into power spectra that show how often various spacings in the data occur. Thdard statistical technique showsotherwise dif cult-to-see regularities as peaks rising the random noise in a plot. In this case, one source of such noise would be the peculiar motions of the galaxies.18 Tifft noticed a surprisingly strong peak correspoto an interval between zs of about 0.00024, or 0.024%. That means the values ocluster around preferred values with equal spacings between them, such as:

0.00000, 0.00024, 0.00048, 0.00072, 0.00096,

Expressed in terms of a Doppler shift, as it usually is, the interval z between groups coto an equivalent velocity interval v of about 72 km/s.19 Later, Tifft noticed another pclustering with a smaller interval of about 36 km/s. Further observations and publicatioued to support this phenomenon. In 1984, Tifft and his co-worker W. J. Cocke examineFisher-Tully survey of redshifts in the radio wave (not visible light) part of the spectrum

survey listed redshifts in the prominent 21cm wavelength line from hydrogen in the galand Cocke found sharp periodicities20 at exact submultiples (1/3 and 1/2) of 72.45 km/s, s

There is now very rm evidence that the redshifts of galaxies are quantized with amary interval near 72 km s 1. 21

However, some skepticism about their conclusion remained for a decade after that,22 despiteTiffts steady stream of peer-reviewed publications closing up the loopholes in his case23 Then in1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts by William Napier and Bruce Guth


16/26




rmed Tiffts basic observations, saying,

the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactoctric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or awed reduction techniquesgalactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s 1 in the Virgo cluster,and ~ 37.5 km s 1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 millionlight years]. The formal con dence levels associated with these results are extremehigh.24

By galactocentric frame of reference, they mean a frame at rest with respect to the centown galaxy, compensating for the Earths motion around the Sun and the Suns motion galaxys centre. That shows the quantizations more clearly. In section 7, I will extend thof galactocentric beyond reference frames.

Napier and Guthries results show quantization occurs at least out to medium distancesorder of 100 million light years. Other evidence, from the Hubble Space Telescope, shoclustering of redshifts out to distances of billions of light years.25

In 1996, Tifft showed that it is important to compensate the galactocentric redshifts yet by accounting for our galaxys motion with respect to the cosmic microwave backgrouradiation.26,27 Doppler shifts of the microwaves show that our galaxy is moving about 56

in a direction south of the constellation Hydra.28

Accounting for that motion converts the galcentric redshifts to a frame of reference which is at rest with respect to the CMB, and tsumably at rest with respect to the universe as a whole. In that frame, it turns out that thgroups are much more distinct from one another. Then some less intense periodicities, 2.6, 9.15, and 18.3 km/s, become evident.

Perhaps because of this clarity, or because of the con rming studies by other astronomseem to have stopped questioning the validity of the data. It appears that redshift quantthe phenomenon itself, not the theories trying to explain ithas survived a quarter-cenreview.

5. A simple explanation for quantizationIn this section and the next, I intend to show that (a) the redshift groupings correspond ings of distances, (b) the distance groupings mean that the galaxies are located in concearound us, and (c) such an arrangement could not occur by accident. If you want to skipmathematical details, just look at Figures 5 through 8 [see online version] and read my sion of the results, after equation (14). According to Hubbles law, the cosmological parredshift, z, of each galaxy corresponds to a particular distance, r. Solving equation (1) fdistance gives

r = c / H z (5)

The simplest explanation for the grouping of redshifts appears to be that the correspondtances are grouped, as Figure 5 illustrates. Taking the derivative of equation (5) then gidistance interval r corresponding to the interval z between groups of redshifts:

r = c / H z (6)

In terms of the equivalent velocity interval v between redshift groups, the distance inwould be:


17/26




r = v / H (7)

Hubbles rst estimate of H was about 500 km/s per Megaparsec (1 parsec = 3.2616 light y but that number rapidly diminished as astronomers recalibrated their distance scales. Adecades ago, the value of H was bouncing between 50 and 100 km/s per Mpc. The pastaccurate space-based distance measurements seems to have tightened up the estimates about 70 and 80 km/s per Mpc.29 Lets take the following value as a working estimate:

H = 75 5 km/s / Mpc (8)

Converting from Megaparsecs to a more familiar distance unit, H would be about 23 per million light years, so equation (7) becomes

r = ( 43,700 2,900 light years / km/s ) v (9)

Then the two redshift intervals reported by Napier and Guthrie, 37.5 and 71.5 km/s, worespond to two distance intervals, 1.6 and 3.1 million light years.

6. Implications of distance groupingExcept for directions obscured by the Milky Way, astronomers observe about equal numgalaxies in all directions from us. If a particular group of redshifts represents a group odistances clustered around an average distance r 1 from us, then we would expect those galaxito be roughly equally distributed all around us on a (conceptual) spherical shell of radiu1 . Asecond group of distances might have an average of r 2 = r 1 + r, so those galaxies would tend on a second spherical shell a distance r outside the rst. Figure 6 shows such an arrangalaxies.30

Now I want to show that we could see such a grouping of distances only if we are less 1 million light years away from the centre of such a pattern. Imagine that our galaxy is a distance a from the centre, as Figure 7 shows. According to the law of cosines, the difrom our galaxy to another galaxy would be:

r = r 2 + a2 - 2 a r cos (10)

where r is the distance of the other galaxy from the centre, and is its colatitude, the angdisplacement axis as seen from the centre. The distance r is independent of the azimutsured around the displacement axis, between 0 and 2 radians) of the faraway galaxy. Sthe absence of the third coordinate, this analysis is valid in three dimensions. When a isthan r, equation (10) reduces to a simple approximation:

r r - a cos (11)

Since the colatitude for a galaxy can vary randomly from 0 to radians, the value of forany given shell of radius r should vary between r a and r + a. If a were too largwould smear out the redshift groups, blurring the distinction between them. A sistatistical analysis31 shows that the standard deviation of the angle-dependent part othe distribution of r is:

= (1 / 2)a (12)

The value of the radius r of a galaxy in any given shell also has a statistical distributionstandard deviation r , indicating the thickness of each shell. Then, according to statistics,32 thetotal standard deviation of the distribution of r is:


18/26




= (r 2 + 2) = (r 2 + a2) (13)

The redshift groups would overlap and become indistinguishable if were signi cantlythan the spacing between shells, r. Even if r were zero, the groups would be indistinguish were greater than r.

Figure 8 illustrates this smearing. It shows a computer simulation of distance groups, from the exact centre, and then from a viewpoint 2 million light years away from the cechose r to be rather small so the peaks would be easily visible. Notice that the displacemcentre lls in the valleys and levels the peaks, making it dif cult to distinguish the grou

statistical uctuations.This means that to observe distinct groups of redshifts, we must be near the centre of thcal-shell pattern of galaxies. According to equation (13) and the reasoning after it, our dment a from the centre would have to be signi cantly smaller than the smallest observe

a < r (14)

Thus our home galaxy must be closer to the centre than the interval r that section 5 cimillion light years. Using the smallest observed interval33 would put us even closer to the cenwithin about 100,000 light years, the diameter of our galaxy.

The probability P that we would be located in such a unique position in the cosmosby chancewould be the ratio of the volumes involved,

P = 4/3 a 3 / 4/3 R3 < (r / R )3 (15)where R is the minimum radius of the cosmos estimated by observation, say about 20 biyears. Using r = 1.6 million light years gives a value for P less than 5.12 10 13. That is, the probability of our galaxy being so close to the centre of the cosmos by accident isless than oneout of a trillion .

In summary, the observed redshift quantizations strongly imply that the universe has a that our galaxy is uncannily close to it!

7. The cosmos is galactocentricTo name this idea, lets elevate the word galactocentric above its humble use in sectiowas merely to describe a frame of reference. Lets use the word to describe the universThat is, we live in a galactocentric cosmos a universe that has a unique geometric centre vnear our own home galaxy, the Milky Way.

As I mentioned at the end of section 4, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) datathat our galaxy is moving with respect to the centre of the universe.34 Our galaxy is essentially the centre of the cosmos, but not at rest with respect to it. This differs from geocentrismwould have the Earth be at the exact centre and motionless with respect to it.35,36 Several creation

ists have proposed galactocentric cosmologies.37 The technical literature of astronomy almost completely ignores a galactocentric cosmosible explanation for redshift quantization.38 Instead, secular astronomers appear to prefer soas-yet-unexplained microscopic phenomenon affecting the light itself, either in its emisatoms or its transmission through space. Tifft himself actively promotes such an explanInvoking a new concept, three-dimensional time, Tifft says,


19/26




The redshift has imprinted on it a pattern that appears to have its origin in microscquantum physics, yet it carries this imprint across cosmological boundaries.39

Thus secular astronomers have avoided the simple explanation, most not even mentiona possibility. Instead, they have grasped at a straw they would normally disdain, by invmysterious unknown physics. I suggest that they are avoiding the obvious because galaity brings into question their deepest worldviews. This issue cuts right to the heart of ththeoryits naturalistic evolutionist presuppositions.

8. The big bang cant tolerate a centreFew people realize how different the big bang cosmology is from their conceptions of imisleading popular name of the theory causes most people to picture a small three-dim ballhaving a centre and an outer edgeexploding outward into an empty three-dimespace. After millions of years, the matter would coalesce into stars and galaxies. The wof billions of galaxies would constitute an island (or archipelago) in a sea of otherwspace. Like the publics three-dimensional initial ball, such an island would have a uniqmetric centre. By centre I mean nothing esoteric, but simply the dictionary de nition

Center 1. A point equidistant or at the average distance from all points on the sidouter boundaries of something.40

Most people, including most scientists and even many astronomers, picture the big banway. But expert cosmologists picture the big bang theory entirely differently! They rejethree-dimensional initial ball and an island universe. In the closed big bang (the mosversion), they imaginepurely by analogythe three-dimensional space we can see asmerely the surface of a four-dimensional balloon expanding out into a hyperspace of ftial dimensions (none is time).41 See Figure 9 [available online].

They picture the galaxies like grains of dust all over the surface of the balloon. (No galwould be inside the balloon.) As the expansion proceeds, the rubber (representing the space itself) stretches outward. This spreads the dust apart. From the viewpoint of eachothers move away from it, but no grain can claim to be the unique centre of the expans

the surface of the balloon, there is no centre. The true centre of the expansion would beinside the balloon, which represents hyperspace, beyond the perception of creatures cthe 3-D surface.

If you are having trouble understanding this analogy, try viewing the video version ofStarlightand Time .42 Its computer-generated animated graphics have helped many people understanalogy, walking them through it step by step.

Heres another way to look at the expert cosmologists concept. If you could travel inin any particular direction available to us, they claim you would never encounter any laof space unpopulated with galaxies. You would not be able to de ne an edge or boundthe galaxies, and so you could not de ne a geometric centre. One cosmologist says this

popular island universe misconception:

This is wrong [The big bang cosmos] has no centre and edge.43

So the big bang has no centre . No unique centre would exist anywhere within the three spadimensions we can see. This explains why its supporters reject any interpretation of redquantization requiring a centre. Below I show that their demand for acentricity44 stems from anarbitrary presupposition not justi ed by observations.


20/26




9. The big bang presuppositionIn their in uential but highly technical book,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time , StephenHawking and George Ellis introduce their section on the big bang cosmology with the followinggeneral remarks:

However we are not able to make cosmological models without someadmixture of ide-ology . In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demotedmedium sized planet going round a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly

age galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are nodemocratic thatwe would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguishedin any way . We shall, following Bondi (1960), call thisassumption theCopernican prin-ciple [emphasis added].45

This notion used to be called the Cosmological principle.46,47 Note carefully that Hawking anEllis call it an assumption and an admixture of ideologya presupposed idea not reobservations. Their phrase we would not claim is actually a dogmatic claim: the Ein a special position in the cosmos. They go on to say:

A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as ing that, when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homog-

enous [emphasis added].48

Spatially homogeneous means uniformly spread throughout all available space. HawEllis are claiming that at any time space is completely lled with matter-energy. There any large empty volumes of space, and there never will be, they say.

They make this leap of faith because observations show that the universe isisotropic or spheri-cally symmetric around us, meaning that from our vantage point it looks much the same idirections. Ordinarily, Hawking and Ellis point out, this would mean, we are located nspecial point 49 such as the centre. That con icts with their desire that the Earth not be cial location, so they seek a less troubling cosmology,

in which the universe is isotropic aboutevery point in space time; so we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately sphericalsymmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric aroun49

As they then show, cranking this rather bizarre assumption into the mathematics of gentivity results in the various forms of the big bang theory.

10. The heart of the big bang is atheismLets delve into the motive for the presupposition. Why should big bang theorists go to trouble to contrive a cosmology in which the Earth is not in a special place? Astrophysiard Gott, in the introduction to an article speci cally devoted to the Copernican principthe reason:

The Copernican revolution taught us that it was a mistake to assume, without sufcient reason, that we occupy a privileged position in the Universe. Darwin showed that,in terms of origin, we are not privileged above other species. Our position around aordinary star in an ordinary galaxy in an ordinary supercluster [the local group of gaies] continues to look less and less special. The idea that we are not located in a spe


21/26




spatial location has been crucial in cosmology, leading directly to the [big bang theoIn astronomy the Copernican principle works because, of all the places for intelligeobservers to be, there are by de nition only a few special places and many nonspec places, so you arelikely to be in a nonspecial place [emphasis mine].50

The word likely above reveals a lot. Richard Gott evidently believes we are where webyaccident ! It apparently doesnt enter his head that an intelligent Designer, God, might haus in a special position in the cosmos on purpose. Thus the ultimate motive behind the principle is atheistic naturalism. Since that is the driving philosophy behind naturalistictionism, Gotts reference to Darwin is appropriate. The big bang and Darwinism are tw

physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth.Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingtheir God and compromising with a godless worldview.

11. Scienti c implications of a centreIf God used processes as part of His making the stars and galaxies on the fourth day of then redshift quantizations are evidence that some of the processes were spherically symaround our galaxy. For example, we could imagine spherical shock waves bouncing baforth between the centre and edge of an expanding ball of gas or plasma, such as in thecosmogony I outline inStarlight and Time .51

The reverberating waves would interfere with each other at some radii and enhance eacother radii, setting up a pattern of standing waves, concentric shells of denser gas. Gothen gather the gas into stars and galaxies. The resulting concentric patterns of galaxies be complex, having many spacings corresponding to the many different modes of reverPerhaps signi cantly, the principal shell spacing we observe, r = 3.1 million light yeasame order as the average distance between galaxies, 12 million light years.52

Standing waves imply the matter had an outer edge for the shock waves to rebound frowould make the geometric centre be a centre of mass also. If we put those boundary co(an edge and centre) into Einsteins equations of general relativity, we get the cosmologsented inStarlight and Time . The centre of mass is a centre for gravitational forces, low insity but cosmic in extent. Then gravity causes large time dilation effects at the centre du particular stage of the expansion.

Thus quantized redshifts areobservational evidence for my cosmology, bearing out my prelimnary claim in 1994:

In particular, the quantized distribution of galactic red shifts,[3],[22] observed by variousastronomers seems to contradict the Copernican principle and all cosmologies founitincluding the big bang. But the effect seems to have a ready explanation in termmy new non-Copernican white hole cosmology.53

12. Spiritual implications of a centreTo Christians, the thought of being located at the centre of the cosmos seems intuitivelying. But to secularists, it is deeply disturbing. For centuries they have tried to push the revolution54 yet further to get away from centrality. Carl Sagan devoted an entire book into belittle our location and us:

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena Our posturings, our imag


22/26




self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universechallenged by this point of pale light [an image of Earth taken by Voyager I]. Our pis a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vathere is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.55

Lets consider more closely why the central position of mankind in the cosmos is so imidea that the enemies of God try to escape it.

First, the Bible declares the uniqueness and centrality of our home planet. It mentions t rst in Genesis 1:1, on Day 1long before it mentions the Sun, Moon and stars over a

verses later, on the fourth day. Genesis 1:610 locates the Earthin the midst of all the matter othe cosmos, as I explained inStarlight and Time .56 In Genesis 1:1415, God says the host of heavens exists for the bene t of those on the Earth. So it is not man who imagines himcommanding position at the centre of the universe,57 but God who says we are there. It is heaing to see the evidence once again supporting what Scripture says.

Okay, you might say, but then why didnt God put us right at the centre of our galaxy,centrality would have been more evident? Well, it looks like He had something better iFirst, there are good design features about our Suns position in the Milky way, makingenvironment.58,59 The inner galaxy is very active, with many supernov, and probably a m black hole, that produce intense radiation.60 Instead, the Sun has a fairly circular orbit keepinEarth at a fair distance from the dangerous central portion. In fact, the Sun is at an opti

tance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius. Only here does a stars orbmatch that of the spiral armsotherwise, the Sun would cross the arms too often and bto other supernov. Another design feature is that the Sun orbits almost parallel to the planeotherwise, crossing this plane could be disruptive.

Second, there are aesthetic and spiritual reasons. If God had placed the Sun closer to thWay centre, the thick clouds of stars, dust, and gas (quite aside from the supernov!) ngalaxys centre would have prevented us from seeing more than a few light years into tInstead, God put us in an optimal position, not at the outmost rim where the Milky Waydim, but far enough out to see clearly into the heights of the heavens. That helps us to athe greatness of Gods ways and thoughts, as Isaiah 55:9 points out.

Most important, it is very encouraging to see evidence for the centrality of humans to tof God. It was a sin onthis planet that subjected the entire universe to groaning and travai(Romans 8:22). Ours is the planet where the Second Person of the Trinity took on the (nature of one of His creatures to redeem not only us, but also the entire cosmos (RomaThis knowledge that god gave minuscule mankind prime real estate in a vast cosmos asawes us, as Psalm 8:34 says:

When I consider your heavens, the work of your ngers, the moon and the stars, wyou have ordained; What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, you visit him?

AcknowledgementsHere I want to acknowledge the valuable comments of many creationists, including thocreationist friends in New Mexico with whom I meet regularly.

References1. Scheiner, J., On the spectrum of the great nebula in Andromeda, Astrophysical J. 9:149150


23/26




1899.

2. Slipher, V., The radial velocity of the Andromeda nebula, Lowell Observatory Bulletin No.58, 1914.

3. Stromberg, G., Analysis of radial velocities of globular clusters and non-galactic n Astrophysical J. 61(5):353362, 1925.

4. Hubble, E., A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic n Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 15 :168173, 1929.

5. Rindler, W., Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological , Revised 2nd editionSpringer-Verlag, New York, p. 213, 1977.

6. Harrison, E.R.,Cosmology: the Science of the Universe , Cambridge University Press, Cam bridge, UK, p. 245, 1981.

7. Mould, J.R.et al. , The velocity eld of clusters of galaxies within 100 Megaparsecs.Southern clusters, Astrophysical J. 383 :467486, 1991. See their Fig. 8 on p. 480. For odata supporting the Hubble law, see Ref. 8, pp. 8293.

8. Peebles, P.J.E., Principles of Physical Cosmology , Princeton University Press, Princeton,25, 1993.

9. Zwicky, F., On the red shift of spectral lines through interstellar space, Proc. Nat. Acad.Sci. USA 15 :773779, 1929. This was the rst tired light theory, suggesting a way pcould lose energy (and therefore increase in wavelength) in their long journey throu Neither this theory nor its many successors ever became suf ciently persuasive to p

10. Norman, T. and Setter eld, B.,The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time , SRI InternationalInvited Research Report, Menlo Park, CA, 1986. This monograph proposed that a dspeed of light could cause the redshifts.

11. Humphreys, D.R., C decay and galactic red-shifts, CEN Tech. J. 6(1):7479, 1992. I poinout that if we apply Setter elds theory (Ref. 10) consistently, the atoms would emia blue shift that would exactly cancel the redshift the light would suffer in transit. Aknow, Setter eld never disagreed.

12. Arp, H., Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and AcademicScience , Apeiron Press, Montre1998. Arp shows examples of high redshift objects, often quasars, which appear to bcally connected (therefore near) to medium redshift objects, often galaxies. He suggadditional causes of redshift besides expansion give the quasars more total redshift galaxy neighbors. Thus, Arps observations are not evidence against the general redtance trend due to expansion; see review inTJ 14(3):3945, 4650, 2000.

13. Gentry, R.V.,Creations Tiny Mystery , 3rd edition, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville287290, 1992. Gentry proposed that distant galaxies are in orbit around a centre negalaxy. The orbital velocities would produce a transverse Doppler shift, a redshift relativistic velocity time dilation. One problem was the gravitational blue shift the lsuffer in falling toward us. He later introduced new physics to try to solve that prob

Gentry, R.V., A new redshift interpretation, Modern Physics Letters A 12(37):29192925,1997. Neither version explains how light from the galaxies could reach us within 6,However, it might be possible to modify the rst version so that the gravitational timtion that is already in it (causing the blue shifts) would become great enough to get Earth in a hurry, as measured by clocks here. That would make it more interesting tists. Secularist astronomers reject Gentrys theories because, like mine, they are galtric.

14. West, J.K., Polytropic model of the universe,CRSQ 31(2):7888, 1994. West offers seve


24/26




speci c examples of the rst version of Gentrys theory (Ref. 13) in which the orbitshifts would overcome the gravitational blue shifts.

15. Humphreys, D.R.,Starlight and Time , Master Books, Green Forest, p. 66, 1994. The Biverses are: 2 Sam. 22:10, Job 9:8, Job 26:7, 37:18, Psalm 18:9, 104:2, 144:5, Isaiah5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jer. 10:12, 51:15, Ezek. 1:22 and Zech. 12:1.

16. Humphreys, Ref. 15, p. 67.

17. Rindler, Ref. 5, pp. 212214.

18. Such motions do not appear to have obliterated the shell structure I describe in sect6. A galaxy moving 300 km/s (a typical local velocity) would have to move in a stfor a billion years to move 1 million light-years from its original location. The shellimplies that the galaxies we see had not been moving more than a billion years, or thad not moved in straight lines.

19. Tifft, W.G., Discrete states of redshift and galaxy dynamics. I. Internal motions in galaxies, Astrophysical J. 206 :3856, 1976. This paper does not discuss the redshift qution of groups of galaxies very clearly, referring that to an earlier paper of his in: ShJ.R. (Ed.), IAU Symposium 58, The Formation and Dynamics of Galaxies, Reidel, p. 243, 1974. In the following decade, Tifft began describing the phenomenon itselfclearly, though his theories about it remained dif cult to understand.

20. Some of the peaks in the power spectra Tifft shows have widths smaller than just a21. Tifft, W.G. and Cocke, W.J., Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical J. 287 :492502,

1984.

22. Newman, W.I., Haynes, M.P. and Terzian, Y., Redshift data and statistical inference Astro- physical J. 431 (1/pt.1):147155, 1994.

23. Cocke, W.J. and Tifft, W.G., Statistical procedure and the signi cance of periodicidouble-galaxy redshifts, Astrophysical J. 368 (2):383389, 1991.

24. Napier, W.M. and Guthrie, B.N.G., Quantized redshifts: a status report, J. Astrophysics and Astronomy 18(4):455463, 1997.

25. Cohenet al. , Redshift clustering in the Hubble deep eld, Astrophysical J. 471 :L5L9,1996.

26. Tifft, W.G., Evidence for quantized and variable redshifts in the cosmic backgrounframe, Astrophysics and Space Science 244 (12):2956, 1996.

27. Tifft, W.G., Redshift quantization in the cosmic background rest frame, J. Astrophysics and Astronomy 18(4):415433, 1997.

28. Scottet al. ; in: Cox, A.N. (Ed.), Allens Astrophysical Quantities , 4th edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 658, 661, 2000. The Sun is moving 370.6 0.4 km/s with resthe cosmic microwave background (CMB), toward galactic longitude and latitude (0.17, 48.05 0.10), or a right ascension and declination of about (11h, 9S). Thais a little below the constellation Leo, in the lesser-known constellation Sextans. Froin the reference I calculate the following: (a) The Suns velocity with respect to ourcentre is 240 km/s toward galactic coordinates (88, 2), and (b) the velocity of the our galaxy with respect to the CMB is 556 km/s toward galactic coordinates (266,latter corresponds to right ascension and declination (10h 30m , 24S), below the coHydra. The above speeds are much larger than the Earths average orbital velocity aSun, 29.79 km/s.

29. Bahcall, N.A., Ostriker, J.P., Permutter, S. and Steinhardt, P.J., The cosmic triangle


25/26




the state of the universe,Science 284 :14811488, 1999.

30. The shell structure would be on a much smaller scale than the large-scale foam arof galaxies observed in redshift surveys. That is, the shells (with million light-year swould occur in the thick (scores of million light-years) walls of galaxies between empty bubbles containing no galaxies.

31. Taking to have a at probability distribution, and regarding a cos in equation (11) avariable x varying from a to + a, substitution in the integral giving the probabilitygiven shows that the probability distribution of x is (a2 x2 ) 0.5. Integrating that distributioin the usual expression for the variance [Ref. 32, p. 57, bottom of page], and then tasquare root of the variance, gives the standard deviation given by my equation (13)

32. Bulmer, M.G., Principles of Statistics , Dover Publications, New York, p. 72, 1979.

33. The smallest v reported by Tifft (though the data for it are less pronounced than fospacings) is 2.6 km/s. Then r shrinks to 0.12 million light-years, and P in equation below 2.24 10-16 less than one out of a quadrillion.

34. See Ref. 28 for various velocities in various reference frames.

35. Bouw, G.D.,Geocentricity , Association for Biblical Astronomy, Cleveland, 1992. Bouadvocating geocentrism, cites Psalm 93:1 as his foundational text. Notice in that veHebrew word translated world, tevel, can mean continent(s), according to one le

Holladay, W.L., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament , Eerdmans,Grand Rapids, p. 386, 1971. Thus the verse could mean that, by the time the psalm ten (after the Flood), the continents would not move signi cantly with respect to thtions of the Earth beneath them.

36. Faulkner, D.R., Geocentrism and Creation,TJ 15(2):110121, 2001. This is a detailed ctique of modern geocentrism.

37. Gentry, Ref. 13, and Humphreys, Ref. 15.

38. Varshni, Y.P., The red shift hypothesis for quasars: is the Earth the centre of the uni Astrophysics and Space Science 43 :38, 1976. Varshni shows that redshifts from 384 qu(not galaxies) appear to be quantized into 57 groups, and that if the distance interpr

of redshifts is correct, then the quasars are arranged on 57 spherical shells with Eacentre. He then uses this unaesthetic possibility to question the correctness of thedistance interpretation for quasars. A brief article trying to rebut him complained thEarth would have to be in a strongly privileged position in the Universe: StephensoComment on Varshnis recent paper on quasar red shifts, Astrophysics and Space Science 51 :117119, 1977. Varshni made a convincing rejoinder in: Varshni, Y.P., The red shhypothesis for quasars: is the Earth the centre of the universe? II, Astrophysics and Space Sci-ence 51 :121124, 1977.

39. Even some creationists have favored non-galactocentric explanations. They do not have understood why secularists resist galactocentricity, why it would be of advantaChristians, or that it is strongly implied in Genesis 1:6. See Humphreys, Ref. 15, pp

40. Soukhanov, A.H. (Ed.),Websters II New Riverside University Dictionary , Riverside Publishing Company, Boston, p. 242, 1984.

41. Rindler, Ref. 5, pp. 212213.

42. DeSpain, M.,Starlight and Time , Forever Productions, Albuquerque, 2001. Videotape (minutes) available through Answers in Genesis , the Creation Research Society, or the Insfor Creation Research.


26/26

answers in genesis - (pdf) - ken ham - origins 4 - is the big bang a good scientific theory

Documents