ICR article image
Posted on 10/15/2014 7:16:12 AM PDT by fishtank
A Fuss Over Dust: Planck Satellite Fails to Confirm Big Bang 'Proof'
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
During a high profile news conference in March 2014, the BICEP2 radio astronomy team announced purported direct evidence for inflation— an important part of the modern Big Bang model.1
In Big Bang cosmology, inflation is a hypothesized "growth spurt" in which the universe enormously increased in size. Inflation was an ad hoc addition to the Big Bang model intended to solve some very serious theoretical difficulties, including the Big Bang's own version of the seeing-distant-starlight-in-a-young- universe problem.2 Inflation was originally thought to have occurred shortly after the Big Bang, although secular cosmologists have since begun to view inflation as the actual cause of this alleged cosmic explosion.3 Hence, finding evidence for this hypothesized inflationary process is quite important to Big Bang proponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image
References
Overbye, D. 2014. Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang’s Smoking Gun. New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com March 17, 2014, accessed March 17, 2014.
Lisle, J. 2003. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang. Creation. 25 (4): 48-49.
Guth, A. The Inflationary Universe: Alan Guth. Edge. Posted on edge.org November 19, 2002, accessed March 17, 2014.
Cho, Adrian. Doubts Shroud Big Bang Discovery. Science. Posted on sciencemag.org May 19, 2014 accessed May 21, 2014.
Steinhardt, P. 2014. Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble. Nature. 510 (7503): 9.
Hebert, J. 2013. The Planck Data and the Big Bang. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org April 3, 2013, accessed September 24, 2014.
Adam, R. et al. 2014. Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power spectrum of polarized dust emission at intermediate and high Galactic latitudes. Submitted to Astronomy and Astrophysics. Pre-print submitted to arxiv.org on September 19, 2014, accessed September 24, 2014.
Parnell, B. A. Higgs Boson Seems to Prove that the Universe Doesn’t Exist. Forbes.com. Posted on forbes.com June 24, 2014, accessed September 24, 2014.
Hebert, J. 2014. ‘Smoking Gun’ Evidence of Inflation? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 21, 2014, accessed September 24, 2014.
Image credit: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech
* Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.
Article posted on October 13, 2014.
P.S. This article is about science,
not about a perverted TV show.
.
.
I really think they are making this stuff up as they go. Long as the money keeps coming in.
Let’s trash all the scientists, then wax indignant at any suggestion that it’s “anti-science”.
LOL. "The Institute for Creation Research" isn't an institute and it doesn't do research. This is Christian apologetics, not science.
The Institute for Creation Research? I suspect you're right. Problem is that the creationist religious leaders can't seem to remember to pay taxes on all the money that rolls in from the credulous and the easily duped -- witness Kent Hovind, aka Federal Prisoner Number 06452-017
Your author can’t understand the difference between the Big Bang theory and the Cosmic Inflation theory. The cosmic inflation theory explains only the relatively uniform distribution of galaxies amd galactic-mass objects; many secular physicists have always had a problem with it.
That said, the uniform distribution is currently unexplained, and that drives scientists batty.
That some theories are proven false does not negate the fact that other theories are proven true.
The “cosmic background radiation” remains. Our interpretation of it may not perfectly line up with other age-of-the-universe theories, but it certainly does not come anywhere close to lining up with the “young Earth” theory.
It is sensible to expect: however the universe came into being, there must be a sane scientific explanation of the process. As an engineer, I assure you that my creations are the result of systematic processes adhering to basic rules, where a starting state was crafted and subsequent behavior can be directly traced to that beginning - it did not “hit the ground running” in whatever state you observe it in. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect God created the universe in some starting state, which we can understand best by tracing current states back to that point based on basic principles - and not by assuming it “hit the ground running” in an in-progress form ... to assume so makes the absurd question viable: “so what makes you think God didn’t just create the universe about 20 minutes ago?”
For lack of real research they simply ‘create’ some. They do no science - they only engage in gotcha rhetoric. I read these posts only to remind myself that in defense of my faith and my vocation I have to deal with simpletons from both directions.
You want a serious, rigorous mathematical proof that Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Hole, Dark Energy and the rest of it is the result of computer simulation and modeling at the ridiculous end of the spectrum, read the contents of this website by mathematician Stephen J. Crothers:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/
There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton’s theory nor Einstein’s theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim.
The so-called “Schwarzschild” solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild’s 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild’s original paper, in English. The so-called “Schwarzschild” solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert’s erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert’s mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild’s solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste’s solution. And while you’re at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin’s 1923 paper, in English, in which he demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin’s paper has also been ignored.
The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for the experts that does not alter the facts. The experts must also include Schwarzschild himself as a crank since his paper invalidates the black hole outright, as does Brillouin’s, and Droste’s. They must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, asserting in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in his gravitational field nullify the theory of General Relativity.
It is also commonly held by experts, for example, Hawking and Ellis, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, S. Chandrasekhar, that the Michell-Laplace dark body is a kind of black hole, and that black holes can be components of binary systems and that black holes can collide nad merge. These claims are patently false. Go here for a copy of G. C. McVittie’s conclusive arguments which invalidate these ridiculous claims. So if you are a scientific person you will read Schwarzschild’s paper, and those of Droste, Hilbert, Brillouin, and McVittie. You have no legitimate excuse not to, as they are given to you herein. This is not a question of historical priority, as the relativist is apt to claim when confronted with reality, but one of fundamental science.
It is also claimed by the very same “experts” that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false.
Also listed below are my own research papers in which I prove that black holes are not consistent with General Relativity.
Here are some important original papers that deal with the Black Hole and the Big Bang. They prove that these theories are invalid.
It’s ALL just theory!
It's not necessarily so "sensible" to believe the universe "came into being" in that the majority of atheistic scientists have reverted to Hoyle's old "steady state" theory that the universe is eternal and has always been. The are forced to take this position because any scenario where the universe "begins" would require a God. They can't get around the singularity even under a "multi-verse" construct. To argue otherwise is to discared the elementary logical laws of identity, contradiction and cause and effect. Of course if you are relying on the "steady state" model in an empirical enviorment then you are just using an infinite regression to avoid the conflict and the issue.
Created or big bang, either way you get back to a point where time did not exist we understand it.
Galaxies and Galactic-mass objects have to be uniformly distributed throughout the Universe, otherwise it would tip over.
Yes, but it may be the 'hum' of an operating Universe (ergo a constant) and may not have anything to do with the age of the Universe.
It is sensible to expect: however the universe came into being, ...
Why can't the universe be 'infinite and eternal' ?
We have no idea what the Universe even is, yet we think we know it's size, shape, and date of birth (and we are completely wrong about all three).
We claim we have the birth certificate of the Universe, but with all our technology, we can't find the birth certificate of the current President of the US.
What does the Universe weigh ?
I’m surprised that scientists have not concluded that the missing matter (dark matter) and the missing energy(dark energy) from our Universe are in ‘black holes’.
It wouldn’t be true, but it would solve their ‘mass’ problem.
Every time ICR issues another press release like this, another person decides not to be a Christian. Thanks a lot.
It isn’t Christian apologetics, either. It’s the doctrines of men taught as Gospel. It should be a scandal in the church to teach this youngearthism, but it’s not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.