* Conventional Theory of Planet Formation Decimated: In addition to all the above evidence disproving claims of confirmed big bang predictions, consider also the topic covered on today's Real Science Radio program, the failed prediction of what kinds of planets could not exist based on the big bang's nebular hypothesis for solar system formation. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the Answers magazine article on Exoplanets:
- The California Institute of Technology manager of NASA's exoplanet database, Caltech's astronomer Mike Brown, stated: “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong."
- According to planetary evolution theory, a gas giant couldn't form close to its star but now such stars, called Hot Jupiters, are being readily found.
- Merely because our solar system has planets that have nearly circular orbits evolutionists conveniently imagined that planetary systems would form from condensing, rotating gas clouds to produce planets with nearly circular orbits, except that now they know that many of the exoplanets have highly eccentric orbits.
- While our own Venus has a retrograde (backward) rotation, for which evolutionists have to resort to catastrophism to explain (as with so many of the features of the solar system), one exoplanet discovered so far is believed to be orbiting backwards. The law of the conservation of angular momentum indicates that, apart from extreme secondary assumptions (which are increasingly prevalent in planetary formation theory), if a spinning nebula condensed (which itself would go against the known laws of physics), the entire mass would continue spinning in the same direction such that any planets produced (again, against the known laws of physics), would be both rotating and orbiting in the same direction as the initial gas cloud.
Related, RSR's...
- List of Solar System Formation Problems
- List of Star Formation Problems
- Origin of Trans-Neptunian Objects
- Definition of planet at rsr.org/definitions
- Bob, Fred, and Isaac Newton all reject the claim that our solar system formed naturally. As the man most-often described as the greatest scientist who ever lived (no, not Fred, Isaac), who first described universal gravitation, explained color, invented calculus, and defended the historical accuracy of Scripture, Isaac Newton's scientific insight led him to conclude that no natural method could account for our planetary system. He explicitly rejected that gravity could form our planets from a spinning gas cloud. The nebula theory leads scientists to make extremely obvious predictions, which so often turn out to be dramatically wrong. (UPDATE: In 2011 NASA reported that the Sun is not made of the same version (isotopes) of Oxygen and Nitrogen as is the Earth!) Bob and Fred add to Isaac's own insights from a discovery made by astrophysicists long ago. The Sun has 98% of the mass of the solar system, and a prediction based on the natural formation assumption is that therefore it would have 98% of the angular momentum (spin) of the solar system. But it does not. All atheists following the data were shocked. Unexpectedly (to them), the Sun did not have 98% but it only has about 2% of the solar system's spin. So naturalistic scientists are forced to make wild secondary assumptions that would mince Ockham with his own razor to account for such "anomalies." But when their "anomalies" turn out to be among the most massive scientific observations possible in our solar system, they should no longer be considered anomalies. These kinds of discoveries depict the norm.
* Cosmological Principle: Big Bang cosmologists, not by evidence but by faith, claim that there is no center to the universe and no edges to the universe. In contrast to that dogmatic belief, however, scientists have discovered a quantized redshift to galaxies that indicates a regular pattern centered on our arm of the Milky Way in the distribution of mass throughout the universe, with galaxies located in concentric spheres out from the center, with the Earth being almost at the center but just far enough off center to falsify the claim that the observational data is some kind of isotropic mirage. [Update: To understand better that the cosmological principle is a philosophical claim and to get an update on the nested shells clustering of the galaxies, check out the 2012 show and notes at RealScienceRadio.com/cosmological-principle.]
* Anthropic Principle: Big Bang cosmologists claim that there is no problem with the many exquisitely and extraordinarily fine-tuned physical parameters of the universe because if they weren't perfectly tuned, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. [Update: Lawrence Krauss said this to RSR in 2012.] The universe really is fine tuned. In just a single example, the standard deviation of the essential electron to proton mass ratio is 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (i.e., one out of ten followed by 36 zeros , or one in 10,000 decillion). So, having enough universes so that by chance one of them would have this single physical parameter just right to permit life as we know it would require millions, upon billions, upon trillions, of universes, and that's just to get the electron to proton ratio right. And chance would then have to give you trillions of those exceedingly unlikely universes with that specific parameter value so that you could then begin, by chance, to get a universe that has the next parameter fine tuned. And so on. As Walter ReMine explains (The Biotic Message, 1993, pp. 59-66), the Anthropic Principle presents the illusion of being scientific, but it is typically presented by evolutionists in one of two forms, either as a tautology or as a metaphysical claim. As a tautology, the AP is not scientific because it is not explanatory and not testable: we observe the universe as perfectly tuned because we observe it as perfectly tuned, which is like a doctor saying, "Your father is deaf because he cannot hear." And as a non-scientific metaphysical claim, atheists claim that our universe is perfectly tuned because there are googols of other universes that are not perfectly tuned, and we just happen to be in the one that is. And typically, to then provide the illusion of proof, the evolutionist switches from the metaphysical to the tautological form, and appends to that the tautology that "after all, if it wasn't fine tuned so that we could be here, then we wouldn't be here.")
The finely tuned parameters of the universe include such astounding "coincidences" (see rsr.org/fine-tuning) that increasingly materialists are putting blind faith in the existence of countless trillions of universes in an against-all-odds hope that by random chance one of them would have the absurdly improbable combinations of fortuitous circumstances that enable our existence.
* Hundreds of Scientists Reject Claims of Confirmed Big Bang Predictions: Hundreds of scientists, including many at world-class institutions, have publicly signed the Cosmology Statement as published in New Scientist to show the growing dissent in scientific circles regarding the increasingly awkward and superficially propped-up theory of the big bang. They state in part:
...the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
* Alleged Confirmed Predictions of the Big Bang Contradicted by Physicists: (This written show summary for today's broadcast became the basis for RSR's List of Big Bang Predictions, which didn't come into its own until 2014. That list begins as follows...
Our RSR List of Big Bang Predictions disproves the widely-repeated claim that the big bang has been validated by confirmed predictions. To repudiate that claim, we present direct testimony from:
- leading journals like Nature, Physics Letters Review, and The Astrophysical Journal
- a Nobel scientist who won the prize for the discovery of the CMB
- distinguished professors of physics from prestigious institutions like Princeton
- America's premier particle physics lab, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
- Cambridge University's Modern Cosmology, Science News and New Scientist
- Alan Guth, the father of inflation theory himself, from creationist physicists, and from
- hundreds of relevantly degreed scientists, including many from leading institutions.
* The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict include: The repudiations of the predictive ability of the big bang documented in our RSR List are regarding:
- the failed prediction of an entire universe worth of antimatter
- the failure to predict an entire universe worth of dark matter
- the 2.7K CMB background radiation and the missing shadow of the CMB
- 2014's claimed discovery of gravity waves, i.e., inflation's smoking gun
- questioning even inflation's predictive value (and noting the BB's failure to predict inflation)
- the claimed initial abundances of the elements hydrogen, helium and lithium
- magnetic monopoles, and both lithium problems, and
- the transparency problem, and dozens of other major failed predictions of the big bang.
If the following contrary-to-interest expert testimony from leading big bang advocates is accurate, then Lawrence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing, p. 18, and on RSR, etc.) is wrong when he, along with ten thousand others, claims that confirmed predictions validate the big bang.
* Failed Antimatter Prediction and Failed Dark Matter Search: Scientists have identified two entire universes worth of failure in the predictions of big bang theory, regarding both its erroneous antimatter prediction and its failure to either predict (or detect) dark matter. If the big bang has actually occurred, transforming vast energy into all of the matter of the universe, then that would have created as much antimatter as matter. Extensive compelling scientific investigation including repeatable experiments suggests that there is an entire cosmos worth of antimatter that should have been created by the big bang within our universe that, thankfully, simply does not exist. When supercolliders form matter from energy, as expected from the laws of physics, equal parts of matter and antimatter form; and if they come into contact, they annihilate one another. Big Bang theorists have spent decades looking for antimatter regions of the universe with leading astronomers culminating a significant project by writing, "we conclude that a matter-antimatter symmetric universe is empirically excluded" with the journal Science reporting a physicist's assessment: "The work is extremely compelling and gives me fresh pessimism" that is, on the difficulty of explaining why the universe even exists. And if the big bang can't even explain why the universe exists, not surprisingly, neither can it explain how the universe works.
Further, regarding the hypothetical entities dark matter and dark energy, which are believed in to save the big bang theory from millions of actual astronomical observations which otherwise contradict it, although they are claimed to make up 95% of the entire universe, the big bang also failed to predict these. (That's like an economist in 2008 predicting the outcome of Barack Obama's economic policies and later being credited for accuracy even though he never foresaw any deficit spending. How accurate is a prognosticator who admits to missing 95% of the picture?) And intense searches for dark matter, like in the closest 13,000 light-year swath of the galaxy, turn up empty. Thus, in addition to its many other failed predictions (as we shall see), the big bang's failure to predict nearly 100% of the alleged matter of the universe is in addition to its failed prediction of 100% of the universe-worth of antimatter.
Now consider the standard model's track record regarding the CMB, with one of the very scientists who won the Nobel prize for its discovery being the first person to dial back the credit given to the big bang for that discovery.
For the rest, see rsr.org/big-bang-predictions...
Today's Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio or video debates we offer through our Real Science Radio broadcasts! So have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy!
Post-Show Update: The Creationist Isaac Newton: Atheist Aron Ra denied that Newton could be counted among the creationist scientists, so about much of the following, Bob Enyart reminded Ra on air and in their debate, that:
- Newton held that God specially created the two first humans, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden
- Einstein wrote, "The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain".
- Newton wrote extensively to show the correctness of the biblical chronology starting with the Creation (including his 370-page The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms)
- Newton believed specifically that the one true God, by His divine will, specially created the earth
- Newton rejected the possibility of a naturalistic origin of the solar system
- Newton held that God specially created the solar system in full operation, along with the entire cosmos
- Newton learned Hebrew to better study the Old Testament
- Newton remarked that bad weather would prevent Noah from observing the Moon during the flood year
- Newton admired Bishop Ussher and defended the literal date of creation of the entire cosmos as occurring about 4,000 B.C.
While Newton did acknowledge theoretically that gravity could pull together gas to form a sun, in one of many examples of his worldview, on February 11, 1692 (or 1693), regarding the big picture of his scientific opinion regarding the origin of the solar system, Isaac Newton wrote to Richard Bentley:
The Hypothesis of deriving the frame of the world by mechanical principles from matter eavenly spread through the heavens being inconsistent with my systeme, I had considered it very little before your letters put me upon it, & therefore trouble you with a line or two more about it if this come not too late for your use. In my former I {represented} that the diurnal rotations of the Planets could not be derived from gravity but required a divin{e} power to impress them. And tho gravity might give the Planets a motion of descent towards the Sun either directly or with some little obliquity, yet the transverse motions by which they revolve in their several orbs required the divine Arm to impress them according to the tangents of their orbs I would now add that the Hypothesis of matters being at first eavenly spread through the heavens is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the Hypothesis of innate gravity without a supernatural power to reconcile them, & therefore it infers a Deity. For if there be innate gravity its impossible now for the matter of the earth & all the Planets & stars to fly up from them & become eavenly spread throughout all the heavens without a supernatural power. & certainly that which can never be hereafter without a supernatural power could never be heretofore without the same power. – Isaac Newton