* Real Science Radio's Big "List" Shows Bang On: See below for examples from Bob Enyart and Fred Williams' 2013 List of Evidence Against the Big Bang, and hear Bob debate some of this with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss at rsr.org/krauss.
RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
(We maintain our updated list of evidence against the Big Bang at rsr.org/krauss-big-bang. The following is that list in a snapshot in time.)
* Galaxy clusters missing millions of years of collisions: Major big bang predictions were falsified so strongly that Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles stated, "It's really an embarrassment." While scientists were looking for the expected evidence of hundreds of millions of years of collisions that big bang theory predicted caused the spiral galaxy bulges, University of Texas astronomy department chairman John Kormendy admitted that the pristine bulges, "were something of a shock" for they "look rather too perfect."
* Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars: Indiana University led a study of fifteen galaxies that undermined rather than fulfilled a major and fundamental big bang prediction. Krauss and other theorists do not *know* but they "believe" that, as billions of years pass during star evolution, these trillion stars were supposed to be creating vast quantities of heavy metals, but instead, these stars lack nine billion years worth of metal (i.e., in astronomy speak, that means elements heavier than hydrogen and helium).
For today's show Bob & Fred recommend
the best astronomy science DVD ever made!
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy:
Our Created Solar System!
* Galaxy superclusters: Enormous clusters like bubbles, the Great Wall, filaments, the Sloan Great Wall, which is more than a billion light years across, all lack the time for gravity to pull them together in a mere 14 billion years.
* Mission Population III stars: Theory predicts that many first generation stars, which would contain only the lightest elements hydrogen and helium (claimed to have formed in the big bang), should be plentiful, yet not even one has been found. "Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy." -Science, Jan. 4, 2002 (see also many more references)
* Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: Theory claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars, but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution throughout the Earth's crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust! That is, that 90% is not in the majority of the crust, which lies under the oceans, but it is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. Krauss admitted that the uranium is concentrated near granite, but it is the creationists who have a robust theory as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite.
* Philosophy Claims the Universe Has No Center: At RealScienceRadio.com/cosmological-principle you can hear and read about physicists and astrophysicists like Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Richard Feynman stating unequivocally that the belief (which Krauss holds) that the universe has no center, which is essential to the big bang cosmology, is a philosophical claim which the evidence is unable to confirm.
* Amassing Evidence Suggests the Universe Has a Center: UPDATED: Perhaps the evidence is misleading, but as of 2013, the most extensive observational evidence ever collected in the history of science is indicating that the universe has a center. Yet intense philosophical bias, described as "embarrassment" by Feynman, makes it difficult for belief-driven theorists like Lawrence Krauss to objectively evaluate the evidence as presented by many secular and creationist astrophysicist and cosmologists who have documented the quantized redshift of hundreds of thousands of galaxies suggesting that galaxies exist in preferred distances and concentric shells out from the center of the universe. This data comes from many sources including the constantly updated:
- Sloan Digital Sky Survey maps (see image), and
- 1990, Nature, Large-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles
- 1997, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report
- 2002, Sandia Nat'l Labs physicist Russell Humphreys, wrote in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation, "...redshift quantization is evidence (1) against the big bang theory, and (2) for a galactocentric cosmology..."
- 2004, Cornell University's arxiv.org, Large Scale Periodicity in Redshift Distribution
- 2006, Cornell's arxiv.org, Poland's Kiecle Institute of Physics On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
- 2008, Astrophysics and Space Science creationist John Hartnett, et al., Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis,
- 2010, University of Western Australia physics professor John Hartnett, Where are we in the universe? in Journal of Creation. Various secular physics and astrophysics journals have published Hartnett's work.
* Lawrence Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Famed theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss told RSR host Bob Enyart that it is an "understatement" to say, as he claims, that "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang." Krauss, as a Darwin marketing rep, cannot be trusted. Thus RSR presents here, in one of our signature LIST programs, some of the more obvious studies and massive quantities of data that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict the fundamental predictions of the big bang. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss nor evolutionists like him. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations on this webpage require secondary assumptions and rescue devices to save the big bang theory, some of which have not even been invented yet. And without them, these enormous quantities of scientific data apparently falsify the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation.
* Sun is Missing Nearly 100% of its Big-Bang-predicted Spin: The Sun, which has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, has less than 1% of the "spin" of the system. The discoverer of gravity (and the man widely described as the greatest scientist who ever lived, young-earth creationist Isaac) Newton rejected the nebula hypothesis that gravity could condense a gas cloud into our sun and its orbiting planets. Big bang proponents reject Newton's insight. So they must develop a secondary assumption to explain why the Sun does not have the enormous spin energy that it was predicted to have. Thus at least apparently, the claimed evolution of our solar system would violate the law of the conservation of angular momentum, requiring yet another "rescue device" to be devised to protect the theory.
* Additional Evidence Against the Big Bang: Throughout 2012-2013, we'll be moving the items (below) from this abbreviated list, sourcing them and expounding on them slightly, and promoting them to the above list:
* Missing echo of the big bang.
* Millions of years of missing spiral arm deformation. (Of the evidence that does not "support" the big bang, this is an example that proponents jump on first, actually claiming this as positive evidence, while it is one of the earlier observational contradictions of the theory that motivated them to insist on the existence of one of their first hypothetical entities. The more observations that contradict a theory, and the more secondary and tertiary rescue devices needed to prop it up, the more its proponents make over-the-top assertions such as: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.")
* Missing evidence to explain the order of star and galaxy formation. John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, admits on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, that scientists don't even know, "Which objects came first, stars or galaxies?" Thus evolutionists oversell the evidence for the big bang to the public, and neither for Earth nor for space can they answer the chicken-or-egg dilemma.
* Billions of years of missing differences between near and far galaxies. NASA's deep field images of the most distant galaxies yet photographed, about 12 billion light-years away, shows galaxies that are nearly identical to "nearby" galaxies, an enormous observation that fits perfectly within the expectations of the young-earth creation model but which contradicts the expectations of the big bang, because once photographed, these galaxies were supposed to show evidence of enormous evolutionary change.
* Missing uniform distribution of isotopes. The "versions" of elements on the Sun and Earth, and on the Earth and the Moon, are contrary to origins predictions.
* The water discovered on the moon runs contrary to the expectations of the theories of its formation.
* Extreme uniform temperature of universe belies lack of matter density required for gravity to form any galaxies in only 14 billion years.
* Hot Jupiters, i.e., gas giant planets orbiting close to their stars, contradicting the longstanding claims of solar system formation, which were not devised from the ground up based on the laws of physics, but rather, invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system. Now that exoplanets are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with epicycles and levels of Darwinian selection, shall we say, more complex.
* Venus has a retrograde rotation.
* Evolutionists traditionally have resisted explanations that involve catastrophism to explain our Earth's extraordinary geological features. (Remember the nautiloids.) However, in space they invoke catastrophe repeatedly, even at the magnitude of planetary collisions, in an attempt to explain materialistically inexplicable features of our solar system. For example, trying to explain the backward rotation of Venus, evolutionists resort to catastrophism. However, the big bang's nebular hypothesis is increasingly challenged with the increase of our knowledge. Challenged by the conservation of angular momentum, so far we've learned that one exoplanet actually orbits its star backwards. In our own solar system, major catastrophes are claimed per planet (as for the creation of our Moon). The rescue devices here are the extraordinarily high number of planetary collisions that result in just-so positioning and conditioning of planets to explain the particulars of our solar system and others.
* Because our solar system has planets with nearly circular orbits (especially our Earth, thankfully), evolutionists predicted that typical planetary systems would be comprised of planets with nearly circular orbits, except now much contrary data is coming in, with many exoplanets in highly eccentric orbits.
* Our Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic. So, if the standard model's formation of a solar system from a spinning nebula were true, a mechanism would have to exist to either tilt the massive sun, or shift the orbits of the planets as a group.
* Uranus should have an axis of rotation parallel to that of the Sun but some describe it as the "rolling planet" because it appears to "roll" around the sun because it has an axis nearly parallel to the ecliptic.
* The Moon's outer core is molten, which is evidence against it being billions of years old and is evidence of recent bombardment.
* Serious problems with the standard theories of star formation which, not unlike Darwin's over-reaching title, "On the Origin of Species" (since he began with the existence of at least one species), include that they begin with stars already having formed or in the process of formation.
* Serious problems with the standard nebular hypothesis of planet formation.
* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:
- the electron to proton ratio with a standard deviation of 1 in 10 to the 37th
- the electron to proton mass ratio
- the gravitational force constant
- the electromagnetic force constant, and
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force, etc.
Consider the one in 10,000 decillion odds against us having a virtually perfect one-to-one electron-to-proton ratio. They make the philosophical argument that it is not surprising that the universe has all the necessary fine tuning for life, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In this way they deflect attention onto the observer and away from the very design of the universe that they are pretending to explain. Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking admits, while faithfully adhering to the anthropic doctrine, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded [as beautiful supernovas]" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 129). And in Hawking's book, The Grand Design, he quotes a famed astronomer, "[Fred] Hoyle wrote, 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce...'" with Hawking adding, "At the time no one knew enough nuclear physics to understand the magnitude of the serendipity that resulted in these exact physical laws" (p. 159).
NewScientist recently reported about gravity and acceleration, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." Where we can distinguish between parameters required for the existence of life, as opposed to the chemical evolution of life, we list only those needed for its existence. That is, there are additional precise ratios and constants within nature which progressive creationists like Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) might mention but which RSR has not yet listed, as long as the only claimed benefit that we've documented in print is that they enable chemical evolution, for a fiction is not an actual physical benefit. But as we notice such ratios documented as generally necessary for life (i.e., rather than for chemical evolution and/or abiogenesis), then we will add those parameters to the list above. Because our experience here at RSR is in software engineering, and not physics, for now we're at the mercy of journal articles, etc., that we come across. So for now we're not listing, as the classic Anthropic Cosmological Principle states, "the ratio of the number of photons to protons" which must "lie within a very narrow range to allow carbon-based life to arise."
* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Earth include:
- Earth has a nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.02)
- the Earth-Moon relationship
- the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05)
- the just-right ozone layer
- the Earth's spin rate
- the atmospheric pressure
- the phenomenally harmonious water cycle
- the liquid water that exists because the Earth is the right distance from the Sun, etc.
- photosynthesis dependence on quantum physics as reported in the journal PNAS
- water doesn't break down because of quantum effects as New Scientist concludes, "We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."
* Scientists Doubting or Rejecting the Big Bang, include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.
Krauss contradicts himself within ten seconds, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (See also kgov.com/krauss#darwin-doubters.)
Today’s Resources: Getting a science DVD, debate, or book from us will help us meet our 2013 web telethon goal to keep our science program on the air! Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy and Vol. II, Our Created Stars and Galaxies! Have you browsed through the entire Science Department in our KGOV Store? Check out especially Bob’s interviews with a great scientist in Hydroplate Theory & Walt Brown On the Air and Dr. Brown’s fabulous book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love the superb kids radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And to order any of our BEL and 3rd-party resources, just call us at 1-800-8Enyart.
* Next Week's Real Science Radio Program: We invite you to enjoy the conclusion of today's program at our 2013 List of Evidence Against the Big Bang - Pt. 2.
* RSR's "List" Shows 2013 Schedule: we hope you enjoy our tradition of updating the great information in these lists...
January: List of Not So Old Things
March: List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
May: List of Peer-reviewed Dino Soft Tissue Papers
July: List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections
Aug: List of Scholars Doubting Darwin and the Big Bang
Sept: List of the Fine Tuning of Creation
Oct: List of Carbon 14 Where it Shouldn't Be
Nov: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit.