In considering the developments in cosmology, the construction of the big bang theory, and the existing evidence that suggests an expanding universe, other known astronomical oddities add to the collection of strange features of reality that materialism cannot defend. To include these in an examination of hypothesis testing may shed further light on the inconsistent theories that scientists formulate in order to justify a purely materialistic conception of what can be seen. Like Hubble’s rejection of the scientific fact for the Earth’s central location in the universe, which favored an atheistic Universe, most astronomers have done much the same thing. Materialistic fantasy must prevail regardless of impossible probabilities and this, only to exclude metaphysical positions that may prove more than relevant and even evidential by the findings.
OUR STRANGE SUN
Consider our Sun. It cannot be explained by stellar evolution (which is guess-work based on supposed atomic fusion, supernova, dark energy and dark matter, as well as the mass of the stellar object and time). This is because we are considered a second generation star… the after effects of some supernova or stellar collision-event that spun out the debris and which formed the planets. By this thinking, we don’t fit a main sequence of stars in the normal evolutionary sense (if there is any credibility in that) even though we are always found in the textbooks as such. From materialistic hypotheses, we must have had a collision or just as popular, we are the remnants of a supernova since this is required to produce the needed energy to create elements larger than iron. Lead, gold, cobalt, nickel, zinc and the other ~40 elements require enormous energies for fusion of atomic nuclei into such large atomic elements. Such energies are not found in stars otherwise.
OUR STRANGE SOLAR SYSTEM
The debris field from that supernova was supposed to coalesce into the 8 planets plus Pluto yet it follows a solar equatorial plane. All the planets rotate about the sun within terribly tight orbits. All in the same plane and in the same direction. Supernova explosions should not allow such rotations to continue to exist. This solar system rotation is an unexplained phenomenon of high precision in astronomical terms. More interesting and mysterious are the facts concerning the sun and the planets. The sun, having 98% of the mass left over from its supposed reanimation from the supernova, has only 2% of the solar system’s mysterious angular momentum. This means that the 2% of the mass that created the planets possesses 98% of the angular momentum of the solar system. The planets rotate around the sun at fantastically unlikely speeds, but that is what we know. No material explanation exists for this phenomenon.
Strange worlds that do not fit solar evolution.
Even stranger are the facts that surround the existence of the other planets. While all planets orbit in the same plane around the sun, Uranus does so on its side, a rolling motion at a tilt of 98 degrees. It would be like the Earth rotating with the North Pole tilted towards the sun half the time and the South Pole tilted towards the sun the other half of the time. The rotation of Uranus is not only on its side but it has retrograde motion. This is rotation in the opposite direction of the rotation of the other planets. All of its nine moons rotate in retrograde fashion too. This is not predicted by evolutionary expectations. Nothing materialistic can account for such strange astronomical behavior. Theories that don’t hold up to testing or logic are typically not accepted. Solar evolution should be debunked. Remember the black swan effect. It only takes one black swan to prove that not all swans are white, no matter how many white swans you count.
Retrograde motion (reverse rotation of that expected) is found in some of Saturn’s moons and many of Jupiter’s moons as well. But not all of their moons. Venus, the planet most like our own in size, also rotates in retrograde. One day on this planet takes 100 days on Earth. It holds a temperature of some 800 degrees centigrade. Hot enough to melt lead and certainly hot enough to melt mountains to plains. Yet mountains are quite abundant on this supposedly ancient planet.
OUR UNIQUE PLANET
Earth is found in a zone commonly called the “habitable zone”. Habitable zones are orbital distances of planets around their star where temperatures allow water to remain liquid. The planet is the right distance from the star and retains an atmosphere heavy enough to hold that moisture on the planet. The sun’s radiation gives life, at least to those forms of life that can photosynthesize and this fact trickles up the food chain, allowing all life a renewable form of food. The moon contributes to our habitable nature, stabilizing the plane’s axial rotation, cleansing the oceans with lunar tides, collecting solar debris from hitting the planet and enabling certain extremely rare solar events to be visible during rare solar eclipses.
OUR REALLY STRANGE MOON
The moon does not contribute greatly to our understanding of the enigma of a materialistic explanation for the solar system. First, because the moon is receding from the earth with each rotation, it has been assumed that it began as a part of the earth and has ever since been moving away from the earth over millions if not billions of years. (Gravity should have coalesced the two bodies into one.) We are told that one day we may lose the moon altogether. Why would the gravitation of two bodies touching, allow one to drift away from the other? Another strange feature that materialists use to suggest the moon was once a part of the earth is the fact that the moon never rotates any faster than once every 28 days around the Earth. We only ever see one face of the moon; never the backside, which to us remains the dark side. The axial rotation of the moon is exactly 28 days; in exact synchrony with its rotation around the earth every 28 days. We might accept that the moon is gravitationally locked with the earth but this creates even more questions than answers. This is the very antithesis of our materialistic explanation of the random events that supposedly created the moon/earth relationship, or for material and gases to undergo condensation to form into stars, planets, and moons!
To see the dark side of the moon requires a spaceship. In essence, the moon shares our axial orbit but only imprecisely. The moon’s orbit has a 5% wobble in its rotation around the Earth. However, the moon having the same or similar elemental composition as the earth, it does not have the same concentration of these Earth-based elements. There are many theories as to how the moon came to be but none reasonably answers the collective anomalies that make our moon unique.
FANTASTIC SOLAR ECLIPSE
It is most surprising, if the solar system is 5 billion years old, that we live at a time and have the technology to access the information revealed about the sun and its composition and structure but only when a solar eclipse occurs. You see, if the moon has been receding for billions of years, it just so happens that it is currently at a distance that not only manages the life-giving oceanic tides of our world, and stabilizes our axial wobble of the planet but it is at the exact distance from the earth such that the disk of the moon exactly blocks the disk of the sun during a total solar eclipse.
This is statistically unlikely from any materialistic explanation. But remarkable as it is, due to this perfection of alignment, when the shadow of the moon’s placement between the earth and the sun falls on the earth the solar corona is revealed. This is the only time the sun’s composition, certain movements, and volatility, as well as atmospheric activity, can be captured. This information has provided invaluable empirical understanding as to the nature of our star and the processes that fuel it. How convenient that we are alive and have the technology at the right time in the past 4.5 billion years to capture such science about our solar system! Or has it been 4.5 billion years? Is this just a fortunate coincidence? Convenience or design? As we move away from the
solar system and look at other objects in the night sky it has become increasingly clear that the big bang model does not help to explain the structure of the Cosmos. In the first place, explosions create linear velocities but do not maintain rotational velocities of the ejected material. Yet, everything in the Universe is rotating. Linear velocities will be maintained in the vacuum of space but not rotational velocities. Yet, virtually every chunk of matter in the universe is rotating. Stars, planets, moons, galaxies, even galaxies near other galaxies rotate around each other to create clusters of galaxies; all rotating by a force or forces unseen.
There are no natural forces that would either allow gases to collapse into stars nor are there forces that could impart or maintain rotational velocities. It is the nature of explosions. To save the materialistic philosophy of cosmology both dark matter and dark energies were created in the minds of cosmologists to explain how such rotation and collective stabilization of galactic superstructures can exist. How is this evidence of the big bang?
Furthermore, Hubble’s claim to an isotropic, homogeneous and unbounded universe (see post number 2 in this series) was only synthesized for the express purpose of denying the one scientific fact he actually provided that made sense; that we are in a unique position in the universe! Isotropism and homogeneity should not allow for galaxies or clusters of galaxies. In the past decade, the continuation of his work on redshifts has shown that matter is discontinuous, concentrated in some places and completely void in other places. The universe is not isotropic or homogeneous. In fact, recent studies the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey team has demonstrated, for the third time, that the universe is structured in concentric spheres inter-spaced by voids of 100 million light years. This has created galactic walls at the interface of each imaginary ring or sphere. The assumption of homogeneity has been destroyed but such studies.
Furthermore, using the redshift data, the most distant objects in the visible universe have been detected, the 1A supernovas (see artists conception of the featured image for this article). These apparent explosions are so distant and so massive that their redshifts are enormous. In fact, the velocities of these objects appear to be more than a stagnant change in distance per unit time but rather accelerations; distance per time squared. These objects appear to be accelerating at the edges of the Universe. Once again, Hubble’s interpretations, limited by materialism (leaving God out of the equation of possibilities), have been marred by these additional finds. Make a note here, these finds don’t necessarily require God in the hypothesis but by limiting his insights within the margins of personal prejudice, Hubble held back science by leaps and bounds. In my opinion, Hubble embarrassed himself and cosmological science by his personal opinion, skewing the reality of his discovery. This is not good science. Objectivity was suppressed and the discovery by scientific inquiry continues to lead others to ignore facts and replaced with fiction in order to save face with the atheistic paradigm.
ROTATING TOO FAST FOR COMFORT
As mentioned only in passing in previous postings, studies of red and the blue shifts of galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters have demonstrated hundreds of thousands of galaxies with the movement of these massive objects rotating around a central core or a common center, as in the case of clusters. This does not follow the classic Hubble expectations or even Einstein’s expectations, had he lived long enough to see the data collected. While the interior of spiral galaxies rotates within the margins of Newtonian physics, the spiral arms and gases distant from the galactic core rotate at rates unexplained by materialism Spiral arms should not be stable at the rate at which the galaxy is rotating. What this means to Hubble science is that galaxies should not exist. Their rotation should be flinging matter out into space on the basis of centripetal forces alone, thus destroying the spiral arms. The galaxies, measured by redshift as spiral arms rotate away from us and by blueshifts of the opposing arms rotating towards us are spinning at such rates that 80 percent of the matter to create the gravity needed to hold the outer stars and gases in place is missing.
This is the origin of the dark matter hypothesis. Matter that cannot be seen (it does not release light), touched, tasted or detected by any other means other than it is needed to explain reality. Dark matter is like ordinary matter except you can’t see it. Dark energy was created as the reverse of gravitational attraction. It is a repulsive force or so we are told that along with dark matter is what allowed gas in a vacuum to form stars, galaxies, clusters and so on. The acceleration at the edge of the universe is also attributed to dark energy, a force repelling matter outwards. As repulsive (get it?) as these fantasies are, they are the best explanation of the forces needed to hold the structure of the universe together. However, as will be shown in the next post, a New Physics has been developed that explains the Universe in terms that are rational, empirical and predictable.
To summarize our findings: in the beginning, there was no space or time. The universe was compressed into a singularity – the cosmic egg from with nothing can escape due to the massive gravitational collapse of that pinpoint of matter and energy which was found in no space or time. Time, space and matter and energy were formed when the singularity exploded (in the wrong direction). The explosion encountered just the right laws of physics and chemistry to permit the formation of the hydrogen atoms. Fortunately, the inflation of the explosion was perfectly smooth except for the parts that were not perfect (?). These minor fluctuations in perfection then permitted the formation of stars, galaxies, clusters, planets, and people. Since then we have discovered ways to patch the big bang using things that we cannot detect like dark matter and dark energy. Have they fixed all the problems that the big bang could not? In a word, NO!
DENIAL OF KNOWN LAWS
The first law of conservation of energy says that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe violated this law as it was created from nothing. The second law of entropy says all systems tend towards chaos and disorder yet an explosion is responsible for the complexity of the structure of the universe (and us). Hubble discovered an expanding universe but then described it as isotropic, homogeneous and unbounded and yet it is expanding. Since that notion was based on a personal bias, it is only by further scientific discovery that we abandon the Hubble interpretation and accept dark matter and dark energy as our current working hypothesis. Still, no one accepts the fact that we are the center of the universe as this is only an illusion regardless of the fact that all matter in the universe is apparently moving away from us at a speed proportional to its distance from us… except for our Local Group… the galaxies making up our own cluster of galaxies which show no movement.
The law of cause and effect states that every effect (the universe) must have a cause and no effect is never superior to the cause. Who pulled the trigger for the big bang? Robert Jastrow the founder of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA has said this:, “The Universe and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a cause? That is not the world of science, it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish.” At the end of the day, the universe is composed of 66% dark energy, 30 % dark matter and 4 % ordinary matter (baryonic matter). So 96% of the universe goes unexplained while we deny the fact that every study to date has proven we are at the center of the entire universe.
WHAT OTHER ASTRONOMERS SAY
Roy Martin, Jr., wrote in Astronomy on Trial (1999), “…cosmology, is in trouble. It is for the most part, besides itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore the fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo.”
James Trefil in the Dark Side of the Universe had these things to say, “ There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are. (p.3) “ … The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.” (p. 55).
Fred Hoyle, cosmologist and discoverer of nucleosynthesis had this to say in regards to the state of the universal affairs and the existence of life on our planet, “…a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”
Paul Davies, a notable Australian cosmologist and prolific writer has made it clear that “It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.”
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency or rather Agency must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the Cosmos for our benefit?” George Greenstein (astronomer).
I am not the expert on cosmology or astronomy. But as one interested in good and credible science I have been witness to the failures of ‘experts’ in every field of science since Darwin was first recognized as a scientist and not just a philosopher of natural religion. Since biological evolution became an accepted thesis, every science has felt justified in committing to materialism in a religious and almost cultic commitment on the general grounds that Darwin “proved there is no God”. Historical sciences have become filled with fraudulent, repugnant and ignorant hypothetical exaggerations in a deliberate attempt to avoid God, or human uniqueness in the world, even when such assertions are neither warranted nor required for preservation of some atheistic position.
THE NEW (CARMELIAN) PHYSICS
In part four of this series, the New Physics will be considered and explained. It may not be the correct answer to all things cosmological but its simplicity (the law of parsimony), its reasonableness (accepting facts as they are found to exist) and its empirical demonstration in practical cosmological terms (it works to explain what we see) not only excites the imagination but, like it or not, falls in harmony with revealed, Divinely inspired truths. In this latter regard, I am not speaking of religions cloaked in robes, incense, holy water, cathedrals or clerical hierarchy (all of which are rejected by the revelations of the New Testament doctrines). But I speak of the historical revelation of the creation of the Universe found in the splendidly scribed testimony of the writer of the Genesis account.
When superbly supported theological doctrine meets superbly intelligently understood science and agree, what soul would not find great satisfaction if not great joy that they are arriving at the truth of life’s mystery?