Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

DR W. GITT ON THE "BIG BANG" ?? It is just one BIG QUESTION??

Expand Messages
  • kurtstreutker
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp What about the big bang? Even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 11, 2005
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp

      What about the big bang? Even the idea that the universe is expanding
      is under attack by some astronomers.
      by Dr. Werner Gitt

      In his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British
      physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind
      everything. `Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we
      came from.'1

      In the last chapter of his book he says:

      `We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of
      what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe?
      What is our place in it and where did it 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 answered by means of equations and theories.

      `Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
      of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
      equations and makes a universe for them to describe?'3

      Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the
      equations, instead of looking for their 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 the discussion of the question of why it
      is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it
      would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know
      the mind of God.'4

      Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to
      explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac
      Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a
      predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University,
      firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.

      The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began
      with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe
      the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them
      accept the so-called big bang theory.

      According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand
      million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume
      of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding
      ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of
      an expanding universe is the `red shift' of light from distant stars.

      This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming
      from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets
      `redder') as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the
      Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are `stretched out' when
      galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of
      the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang
      theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot
      and dense `cosmic egg,' and as the universe aged, it expanded.

      Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and
      against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years
      with improved instruments and improved observational methods have
      repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts
      in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to
      unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of
      astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

      If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly
      distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven
      distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into
      zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers,
      Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find
      evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps,
      they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed
      throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

      The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space,
      the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic
      continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model
      was strongly shaken by this discovery.

      It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough
      mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures.
      But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a
      mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (`dark matter') was
      postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this `dark
      matter' is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

      A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and
      biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers
      to the:

      `… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von
      Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the
      origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion,
      reveals more about the society itself than about the universe.
      Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or
      so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact
      and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.'6

      Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to
      the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to
      the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons
      for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, `Der
      kontinuierlicher Kosmos' (The continuous cosmos).

      `Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending
      on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big
      bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean
      time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the
      red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by
      recessive motions, is increasing.'7

      In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under
      attack by some astronomers.

      Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to
      be rejected by the scientific community.

      `In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call
      for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang
      theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.'8

      Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn
      University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in
      his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

      `The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a
      cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and
      it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds
      convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream "natural
      philosophers." But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is
      acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field
      of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more
      convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly
      many alternatives.'9

      Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia,
      accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency
      exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe
      exists.

      `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.' He
      later continues: `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 the frustration 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 God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the
      big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical
      record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of
      years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture
      find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a
      `primitive earth' gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions
      of years before the Fall, and so on.

      My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the
      universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical
      affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a
      succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will
      remotely resemble the truth.11

      This article was adapted from Dr Gitt's book Stars and their Purpose:
      Signposts in Space.

      Stars could not have come from the `big bang'
      Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of
      gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of
      degrees required for nuclear fusion.

      But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent
      collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down.
      One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding
      and radiating enough of the heat away.

      But according to theory, the `big bang' made mainly hydrogen, with a
      little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars.
      Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be
      formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed
      by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust
      grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic
      hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot
      to collapse.

      Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics says: `The truth is
      that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.'1

      GROUP: lets be honest, like these guys and stop assuming we know as
      much as Hugh say he knows....
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Who is a complete crackpot. ... Yes, and we use observation and logic to try to understand it. ... Exactly, so don t demand that it BE answered that way
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 12, 2005
        On 11 Dec 2005 at 20:32, kurtstreutker wrote:

        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp
        >
        > What about the big bang? Even the idea that the universe is
        > expanding is under attack by some astronomers. by Dr. Werner Gitt

        Who is a complete crackpot.

        > In his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British
        > physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate
        > question behind everything. `Today we still yearn to know why
        > we are here and where we came from.'1

        Yes, and we use observation and logic to try to understand it.

        > In the last chapter of his book he says:
        >
        > `We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make
        > sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature
        > of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it 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 answered by means of equations and
        > theories.

        Exactly, so don't demand that it BE answered that way and stop
        trying to deal with the questions that CAN be answerd by means of
        equations and theories by imposing twaddle.

        > `Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just
        > a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire
        > into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?'3
        >
        > Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the
        > equations, instead of looking for their Author.

        Because, despite claims of encounters with the Author over the
        years, there is far less consistency to such claims than there is
        to the equations.

        > `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 the
        > discussion of the question of why it is that we and the
        > universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
        > ultimate triumph of human reason�for then we would know the
        > mind of God.'4
        >
        > Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to
        > explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But
        > Isaac Newton (1642�1727), possibly the greatest physicist of
        > all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at
        > Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system
        > was created by God.

        Yet there is no evidence that this creation was the work of an
        instant.

        > The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter
        > began with Immanuel Kant (1724�1804). Many present-day
        > cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary
        > development and most of them accept the so-called big bang
        > theory.

        > According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20
        > thousand million [10�20 billion�Ed.] years ago as an
        > inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast
        > energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important
        > observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is
        > the `red shift' of light from distant stars.

        > This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light
        > coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths
        > (i.e. gets `redder') as the distance increases. This is
        > attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths
        > of light are `stretched out' when galaxies move away from one
        > another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between
        > the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests
        > that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense
        > `cosmic egg,' and as the universe aged, it expanded.

        Yes, and one of the predictions of this is that we should be able
        to detect a certain background radiation which has, indeed been
        discovered.

        > Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for
        > and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in
        > recent years with improved instruments and improved
        > observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5
        > Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently
        > held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable
        > inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers
        > who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

        The shaking is more wishful thinking on the part of crackpots
        than it is real.

        > If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be
        > evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely
        > uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is

        This is false to fact. Especially if the initial event was not
        symmetric and was followed by a number of events whose timing was
        not predetermined due to quantum uncertainty.

        > concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty
        > regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a
        > measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big
        > bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to
        > demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the
        > cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

        > The more progress they made with their cartographic overview
        > of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are
        > clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of
        > space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this
        > discovery.

        This doesn't shake the model as much as it requires it to be
        amended. It is certainly NOT evidence of a 6000-year-ago instant
        creation. THAT "theory" can be easily disproved by a kid with a
        decent small telescope.

        > It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain
        > enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these
        > structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead,
        > the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of
        > matter (`dark matter') was postulated. Without any direct
        > evidence for its existence, this `dark matter' is supposed to
        > be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

        Actually, it turns out it may not be necessary at all. Certainly
        not in such vast amounts. Dark energy is another story.

        As I previously pointed out, treating galaxy formation with full
        general relativity (a mathematical nightmare but necessary, as it
        turns out) equations reveals that the winding up is quite normal.

        > A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a
        > physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its
        > popularity. He refers to the:

        > `� warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich
        > von Weizs�cker � namely that a society which accepts the idea
        > that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an
        > explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the
        > universe.

        Interesting, since the Big Bang isn't ANY kind of explosion.
        Explosions are expansions of gas moving into an existing empty
        space. The "Big Bang" (so named by its last halfway intelligent
        detractor) is not such an expansion. Rather it is an expansion
        of the space itself.

        > Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25
        > years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply
        > ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of
        > them has to yield.'6

        No, they are NOT ignored. They are sometimes shelved in no
        reasonable explanation is found for them.

        > Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was
        > attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near
        > Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in
        > California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang
        > model in a notable article, `Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos' (The
        > continuous cosmos).

        Arp cites a certain clustering of red shifts. He's not really
        very convincing.

        > `Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely,
        > depending on assumptions about factual observations. The
        > current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for
        > about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of
        > observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of
        > the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive
        > motions, is increasing.'7

        Not a lot and some of those are disappearing as fast as they
        arrived.

        > In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is
        > under attack by some astronomers.

        However NOBODY except total crackpots are attacking the idea that
        it is very large and very old. And steady state universes became
        mathematical impossibilities with Newton. That has not changed.

        > Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls
        > for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

        That's nice. And if he really manages to produce an acceptable
        alternative that explains all the data that we have, he'll
        probably win a Nobel. But as long as he just complains, citing
        statistical oddities, he'll garner little in the way of real
        respect.

        > `In my opinion the observations speak a different language;
        > they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that
        > the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer
        > a valid theory.'8

        Yet he offers nothing to replace it WITH.

        > Professor Hans J�rg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at
        > Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang
        > theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of
        > the Big Bang).

        > `The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in
        > a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever
        > since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time �
        > This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day
        > mainstream "natural philosophers." But it should be obvious
        > that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily
        > close to the truth.

        Of course a stead state universe (which some of these people are
        proposing) needs no creator at all. It is simply everlasting.

        > In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory
        > is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there
        > are surprisingly many alternatives.'9

        Yet surprisingly few are ever mentioned. Why is that?

        > Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University,
        > Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a
        > state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of
        > explaining why the universe exists.

        There are certainly some puzzles. The largest one right now,
        though is not about whether the universe is expanding but why is
        it expanding faster and faster all the time?

        > `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.' He later continues: `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 the
        > frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.'10

        I still think (and Hawking will agree with me) that the real
        answer to all of this will be a serious quantum theory of
        gravity. The gravity of small, dense objects, if you like.

        > It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to
        > `re-interpret' the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible,

        The "infallible Word of God" is Jesus Christ, His only begotten
        son. No book has that attribute. And Jesus did not say much
        about science at all, NOTHING since His ascension.

        > man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately
        > devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly
        > against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge
        > trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only
        > natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a
        > `primitive earth' gradually cooling down, death, and struggle
        > millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

        This is what the physical evidence shows. If the physical
        evidence and your exegesis are in conflict, maybe you should
        consider that your exegesis is incorrect.

        > My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the
        > universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical
        > affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a
        > succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will
        > remotely resemble the truth.11

        History shows that you are wrong. Whenever biblical scholars
        have been allowed to determine astronomical truths, they have
        invariably gotten it wrong.

        > This article was adapted from Dr Gitt's book Stars and their
        > Purpose: Signposts in Space.

        That's nice. Gitt lets his heretical view of scripture and its
        infallibility detract from his ability to do science.


        > Stars could not have come from the `big bang' Evolutionists
        > generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas
        > clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions
        > of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

        Evolutionists are not cosmologists. Astronomers generally
        believe that stars are formed by the collapse of gas clouds under
        gravity. And such collapse WILL generate the hundreds of
        millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

        > But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would
        > prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud
        > to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in
        > the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

        A large cloud will quickly radiate heat (having a large surface
        area). That will cool it unless something is actually heating
        it. It will then contract, which will slow the cooling. ANY
        sound wave that disturbs the homogeneity of the cloud will cause
        parts of it to roll up into disks with a spherical core.

        There is nothing mysterious about this. It's simply physics.

        > But according to theory, the `big bang' made mainly hydrogen,
        > with a little helium�the other elements supposedly formed
        > inside stars.

        > Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that

        This is not quite true. But as a star runs out of hydrogen, it
        reaches a point where it undergoes a change and begins to burn
        helium.

        > could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is
        > easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust
        > grains to form�and dust grains require heavier elements. So the
        > only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas
        > clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

        There is no such thing as a gas cloud remaining too hot to
        collapse in an expanding universe.

        > Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics says: `The
        > truth is that we don't understand star formation at a
        > fundamental level.'1

        That doesn't mean that YOU understand it at all.

        > GROUP: lets be honest, like these guys and stop assuming we
        > know as much as Hugh say he knows....

        While there is a lot we DON'T know, none of that evidence that
        you're yammering about actually supports the claim of some YEC
        proponents that the universe was created just 6000 years ago.

        NONE of it. In fact THAT theory has been thoroughly disproven.


        --

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ



        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.