Image from article.
Posted on 01/22/2013 9:52:44 AM PST by fishtank
Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Astronomers recently found a distant collection of quasars. But those quasars shouldn’t exist. And while they certainly appear connected, they’re spread too far across space for standard secular models of the structure and origin of the universe to accommodate. “It is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe,” according to astrophysicist Roger Clowes from the University of Central Lancashire.1
Clowes led a team of researchers, who published their discovery in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,2 in analyzing data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They found quasars that are connected across a distance that far exceeds the predictions by an assumption tightly linked to the Big Bang, called the “Cosmological Principle.” The distances certainly exceed imagination.
Creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys wrote in 2003,
The foundational assumption of the Big Bang theory [is] the “Copernican Principle” or “Cosmological Principle,” which requires that matter uniformly fill all space at all times—even at the very beginning. Since there would never be any empty space around the matter, there could never be a boundary around the matter. Lacking such a boundary, we could never determine a unique center, such as a center of mass, inside it.3
The Cosmological Principle assumes no center or edge, with its matter evenly distributed over large scales. Accordingly, it proposes no unique places throughout the universe. Of course, this confronts Scripture, which clearly indicates that the earth is the center of God’s focus on redeeming men and women from the beginning until now. Secular cosmologists must assume that the Cosmological Principle is valid because their totally discredited Big Bang cosmology rests on it. But empirical evidence finds itself arrayed against it.
Clowes told the Royal Astronomical Society, “This is significant not just because of its size but also because it challenges the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein.”1
A competing perspective, called the Anthropic Principle, assumes that unique places can exist within the universe. Specifically, it suggests that the earth was uniquely designed for human survival and enjoyment.4 Whereas the Cosmological Principle has not found supporting evidence, the stunningly improbable collection of earth’s life-friendly parameters does support the Anthropic Principle.
If space is uniform in all directions, as held by the Cosmological Principal, then it should not contain any structures larger than about a billion light-years wide. But Clowes’ team found this strung-out cluster of quasars—very high energy centers of mass that evolutionists believe to be the predecessors of whole galaxies—that stretches 1.5 billion light years across its center. Its longest dimension measures almost four billion light years!1
Clowes’ observation shatters this Big Bang assumption multiplied by four. “This is hugely exciting—not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe.”1 It is exciting also because it runs counter to a core secular assumption about the origin of the universe. Without the Cosmological Principle, there is no Big Bang. In the process, this news adds confirmation to the Bible-friendly Anthropic Principle.
References
Astronomers discover the largest structure in the universe. Royal Astronomical Society press release, January 11, 2013.
Clowes, R. et al. A structure in the early Universe at z ∼ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology. The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Published online before print, January 11, 2013.
Humphreys, D. R. Prestigious Journal Endorses Basics of Creationist Cosmology. Institute for Creation Research. Posted on icr.org, December 1, 2003, accessed January 16, 2013.
Guillermo, G. and J. W. Richards. 2004. The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, D.C. : Regnery Publishing, Inc. Image credit: NASA
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on January 18, 2013.
Image from article.
Size matters only in a finite world. Infinity requires a whole lot of nothing and everything else that exists.
Well, so far the article writer shows that he doesn’t understand what “Cosmological Principle” means, and that he doesn’t understand what “Anthropic Principle” means... so I’ve pretty much given up reading any further.
That's the difference between faith and science: When the evidence contradicts beliefs, science changes and adapts. The cosmological principle is not necessarily "central" to the Big Bang theory. (BTW, there are no longer any Quasars and there haven't been any in a billion years. We are observing light emitted from a distant point in the universe, billions of years ago. Nowadays, that part of the universe has changed and no longer has any quasars there.)
But why the hostility towards science? Faith in God, and wonder about His Creation need not be in conflict. Who are you (or I) to tell God how he should have made the Universe, so that we can comprehend it? Why should looking at the stars shake one's faith in their Creator?
Actually, Faith in God and wonder at His Creation are intended to be in concert. (I changed the word because scientific curiosity is not the same as wonder.)
What's at issue is trying to define God by His creation rather than understanding Him through it.
It’s obvious that this Quasar cluster entered through a massive black hole.
We have a ‘lumpy’ universe....................
What this information about ‘massive quasar clusters’ tells us is that we really know very little about how the UNIVERSE was 60 billion years ago, and nothing about how it is now.
We aren’t even sure if the Universe is ‘infinite’, or not, and it is very likely we will never ‘know’. IF one were to assume that the outer extent of the finite Universe is expanding at the speed of light, then we will never , ever, be able to see ‘past’ it. Plus, it’s had a fairly large head start.
What!? A piece of data that doesn’t fit the model?!! That’s it, let’s just scrap the scientific method. o.0
Yes. The problem (well, one of the problems) with the article is that it misunderstands the cosmological principle and finds a conflict where there is none.
In fact, the cosmological principle says that the universe is the same everywhere in that the same laws of physics can be observed from any vantage point. There is no guarantee that the same distribution of matter is to be found in one place as another.
Whaddya mean “those quasars shouldn’t exist?” They exist, and so the scientists had damned well better explain them.
Reminds me of a magazine cover headline “Half the Universe is Missing”. It was referring to “dark matter.”
I’m sick of the arrogance of these scientists who think they have all the answers. No they don’t.
The right approach is to stand in awe at the immensity and wonder of the universe, and all creation, down to the smallest particle, whatever it is.
Get close and He throws you a curve—like in physics where all the atheist eggheads have to practically rupture themselves trying to ignore the “metaphysical baggage” that inconveniently validates their theories.
heh heh
Think you have it ass-backwards. Scientists know they don't have all the answers, which is why they have to look through telescopes to discover stuff. The folks who aren't looking through telescopes are the ones with the smug self satisfaction that they understand God. You say we should stand in awe at the immensity and wonder of the universe -- I agree with you -- but if it weren't for science nobody would have ever discovered these quasars or much of anything else.
Quasars are energetic galaxy cores powered by a supermassive black hole. This accounts for their extraordinary luminescence at huge distances. We’re looking back in time at the early universe and the most distant quasar is 18 billion old - and scientists estimate the age of the universe at 20 billion years. We inhabit a sun that orbits a main sequence star that has already lived 5 billion years and that much left to live before it transforms into a red giant star. We’re newcomers to the heavens.
I hate it when people are imprecise with their language. It's bad enough that English is such an imprecise language to start with.
From my perspective, the mistake scientists make is assuming their framework is all-encompassing. The Scientific Method isn't what's used when known phenomena are used to extrapolate to conditions that can't be matched with an experiment. When scientists do that and claim it's "science" it is frustrating.
OTOH: Any theist who claims to have all the answers about God isn't even looking at his/her religion. Every religion I have looked at, including my own Christianity, emphasizes the limits of our capacity to understand. We are given two tasks that are always in tension - act with boldness on our faith, and remain humble about what we can know. Any Christian who doesn't show real humility with respect to his truth claims doesn't have the right to make them, as far as I can see.
I thought all cosmological models had the universe...this universe...at about 14 billion years old. So 60 billion years ago? Must be another universe you refer to.
Once again, young-earth Creationists attacking that which they don’t understand. If you want to read a real scientist (astrophysicist) who believes in Creation, go with Dr. Hugh Ross or Dr. Jeff Zwierink at Reasons.org.
Someone else just said it was 20 billion years. (odd how we base the 'age' of the Universe on something (the movement of the planet Earth around it's star) that isn't even a constant, and didn't even exist when the Universe 'started' (if such a thing is true).
I don't believe there is more than one 'universe'. The word itself implies only ONE. However, it is just a label.
If we accept the premise that the most distant quasars were formed 16 or 20 billion years ago, what were they formed from, and how long were those 'things' there before they turned into quasars ?
We don't know how 'old' the Universe is, nor how 'big' it is. We only know how big the area is that we can detect (which grows larger as our technology develops) and even then we have a 'speculative' figure for how big it is beyond that which we can currently detect. So our current estimates of the size and age of the 'universe' are based on total SPECULATION and the fact is even if the Universe if 'finite' (which I seriously doubt), we can never will never be able to see the 'edge' of it. Based on current scientific theory (big bang hypothesis) the 'matter' on the outer edge of the 'expansion' has exceeded the speed of light.
Bottom line.... No one knows how 'old' the Universe is, or whether it truly has an 'age'. 14, 16, 20, 60 billion. Just numbers on a page.
Unpossible. The universe is only 6016 years old.....
/ sarc
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.