Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

“Ripples” of galaxies—another blow to the big bang
AiG-USA ^ | 02/16/05 | Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D., astrophysics)

Posted on 02/16/2005 9:11:58 AM PST by DannyTN

“Ripples” of galaxies—another blow to the big bang by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D., astrophysics), AiG–USA

February 16, 2005

Astronomers have recently claimed to detect a “ripple” pattern in the clustering of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).1 They claim this pattern is a result of sound waves produced during the big bang. However, as with all things, it is important to distinguish between the data and the interpretation. The new discovery does not support the big bang, and is in fact perfectly consistent with biblical creation.

Background All the stars you see in the nighttime sky are part of the Milky Way galaxy—a large spiral collection of over one-hundred billion stars. The universe contains many such galaxies: some smaller than ours, others much bigger.

Galaxies are organized into clusters, which are organized on an even larger scale forming a large nonuniform structure of filaments and voids. You can think of this like a gigantic, irregular spiderweb; the galaxies exist primarily along the strands of the web, with fewer in between.

New discovery Until recently, the galaxy clustering did not show any well-defined pattern or size scale; filaments of galaxies connect in seemingly random ways and come in many different sizes. But, investigators have apparently discovered a weak “pattern” in the arrangement of galaxies.

Galaxies have a very slight preference to be separated by 500 million light-years (3 billion-million-million miles) than other distances, according to SDSS researchers. This pattern is extremely weak; you would not be able to see it by eye. The SDSS researchers have used some mathematical techniques to extract this ethereal pattern.

Data vs. interpretation This subtle organization of galaxies is the data. The interpretation that many astronomers have offered is that sound waves from the big bang produced this pattern. Let’s examine this interpretation:

In the big bang story of origins, the universe starts out very small and very dense. Some regions are slightly denser than others. This imbalance creates pressure waves (sound2) which propagate through the early universe. Much like a rock thrown in a pond causes ripples to expand, imagine many rocks being thrown in at the same time. The interaction of all the waves would cause a complicated, irregular pattern of ripples. In the big bang model, the sound propagating in the early universe creates regions of greater density.3 Eventually, gravity causes these denser regions to collapse to form stars and galaxies as the universe expands. So, in essence, the sound waves act as “seeds” for galaxies to form.

Secular astronomers believe that the weak pattern detected in galaxy locations (the data) is a result of the sound waves from the big bang (the interpretation). Notice that this interpretation simply assumes that the big bang is true. The biases of the researchers have affected their interpretation of the data. The evidence has been interpreted to match their beliefs.

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible. See Refuting Compromise for an excellent refutation of the big bang and “progressive creationism” (billions of years).

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.

Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds.

Consistent with creation From a biblical creation view, there is no reason to think that the clusters of galaxies were formed by sound waves at all. We know from Scripture that God made the stars (and thus the galaxies which are comprised of stars) on Day 4 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:16). It may be that the galaxies were organized in a nonrandom way by the Creator’s hand for His pleasure. The subtle pattern of galaxy locations (if confirmed) would be perfectly consistent with the order and creativity we have come to expect from the God of Scripture.

References and notes xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0501/0501171.pdf. Return to text. Sound cannot travel through empty space because sound waves are compressions of a material medium. However, the early universe (according to the big bang cosmology) would have been very dense. It would not have been “empty” and this would have allowed sound to travel. Return to text. The regions of higher density in the Cosmic Microwave Background are also supposedly produced in a similar fashion. However, the weakness of the ripples is highly problematic for big bang cosmology. See Light travel-time: a problem for the big bang. Return to text.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigbang; creation; galaxies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
I find it interesting that the "sound wave" theory has advanced in the secular scientific world, and yet Scripture says God spoke things into existence.
1 posted on 02/16/2005 9:12:03 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I wonder if this dude calls Hugh Ross a heretic.


2 posted on 02/16/2005 9:13:09 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The Big Bang was just God snapping his fingers.


3 posted on 02/16/2005 9:14:50 AM PST by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: DannyTN
Secular astronomers believe that the weak pattern detected in galaxy locations (the data) is a result of the sound waves from the big bang (the interpretation). Notice that this interpretation simply assumes that the big bang is true. The biases of the researchers have affected their interpretation of the data. The evidence has been interpreted to match their beliefs.

I thought the author went to grad school?

The "ripples" when extrapolated back, appear to point to an initial explosive event. It's not necessary to assume the big bang occurred to get this result.

Looks like Colorado U. has problems in other departments beyond just Ward Churchill.

5 posted on 02/16/2005 9:18:06 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

"The regions of higher density in the Cosmic Microwave Background are also supposedly produced in a similar fashion."

They arise from quantum fluctuations in the early universe, when the uncertainty principle caused fluctuations in density of early matter which later coalesced into galaxies and cluster of galaxies.

Bones


6 posted on 02/16/2005 9:18:10 AM PST by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

This article is extremely silly. If you follow the author's reasoning, you realize that by the end he hasn't said anything at all.


7 posted on 02/16/2005 9:18:38 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Need a solid debunking over here.


8 posted on 02/16/2005 9:19:35 AM PST by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

quantum jitters at the bing bang. Known for a long time.


9 posted on 02/16/2005 9:20:03 AM PST by G32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.

Hmmmm… maybe if we tweak Genesis a bit and run the numbers again.

10 posted on 02/16/2005 9:22:59 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

I don't know about this dude specifically. But if you do a search at the AnswersinGenesis.com website for Hugh Ross, there seems to be a lot of articles critical about Ross's views.


11 posted on 02/16/2005 9:23:15 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Remember folks - the Biblical creation isn't the only alternative theory to the Big Bang.

There are still folks who support variants of the Steady State theory.

Me, I support the Great Green Arklesiezure.


12 posted on 02/16/2005 9:23:23 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

It is not "secular" scientists who believe in the Big Bang versus Bible-believing scientists who don't. Virtually all real physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists believe in the Big Bang theory, whether they are religious or secular. I know many research scientists in these fields who are devout Protestants (evangelical and otherwise), Catholics, and Jews, who accept the Bible as God's word, and who are convinced that the Big Bang theory is correct. I have never, ever met a researcher in these fields who rejects the Big Bang theory.
Are you a researcher in these areas? If so, where?


13 posted on 02/16/2005 9:23:32 AM PST by smpb (smbarr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Extremely weak.


14 posted on 02/16/2005 9:25:34 AM PST by Sloth (I don't post a lot of the threads you read; I make a lot of the threads you read better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

urgent ping?


15 posted on 02/16/2005 9:26:40 AM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
It is time for another Reformation.


BUMP

16 posted on 02/16/2005 9:29:34 AM PST by tm22721
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smpb
"Virtually all real physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists believe in the Big Bang theory, whether they are religious or secular. "

That's not true. However Big Bang studies are the only ones that can get funding. The following letter is from 33 researchers who have signed a statement indicating there are serious problems with the Big Bang and other theories need to be explored.

Big Bang Opponents

The article was written by a PHD in Astrophysics.

17 posted on 02/16/2005 9:32:38 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I was waiting for the author to say that 7 waves were detected.
18 posted on 02/16/2005 9:40:33 AM PST by SMARTY ("Stay together, pay the soldiers and forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus to his sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: SedVictaCatoni; Sloth
"If you follow the author's reasoning, you realize that by the end he hasn't said anything at all."

What the author did not do, was to advance an alternative theory to the Big Bang, other than "God did it". Creationism has at times been rightly criticized for such an approach.

Creationism should advance ideas for research to understand God's creation better, the nature of His design, to understand how things are made and how God created.

The author's main point is that these findings are inconsistent with the Big Bang and that we should look elsewhere. But his failure to suggest useful lines of research, does leave the article weak.

20 posted on 02/16/2005 9:44:00 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Trying to figure out what it is about Biblical Creation that threatens to many of my Freep peeps. Can it be that it points decisively towards the existence of God Almighty? I find it terribly sad that I haven't time to debate and debunk everyone that thinks they can prove evolution is factual. It's still just a silly little theory.

The genetic code doesn't back it up, the complexity of life doesn't back it up (guess what? FreeRepublic just happened when a bomb went off inside Jim Robinson's garage), and the fossil record is NOT THERE. (Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record was a big problem for them)

I'm amused to find the long-defrauded information such as "Lucy" (Australopithicus aferenses) and embryonic recapitulation still appearing in my biology book. I'm looking forward to the discussion about evolution. >:-D

Read up on the subject. Find out if an Answers in Genesis conference is in your area (usually free) and attend. Listen to them speak, and sure, hit them up with your hardest questions afterwards. But stop acting so positively confident that you know evolution is true. Not even scientsits "know" evolution is true.


21 posted on 02/16/2005 9:44:31 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting WIB-A-WULS! Heheheheheh...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I think plasma cosmology is a rather intriguing theory myself, although it has its definite problems (which is why it's not the 'standard' theory). Then again, the big bang theory has its own dilemmas I would say. What astrophysics need is another Einstein to come along and make the serendipitous discovery that makes everyone go: a ha!


22 posted on 02/16/2005 9:45:39 AM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: DarkSavant
Need a solid debunking over here.

IMHO, it doesn't need any debunking at all. The article's only substantive argument against this observation supporting Big Bang cosmology is to note that the Big Bang disagrees with the Genesis timeline, which indeed it does.

24 posted on 02/16/2005 9:53:05 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

When the universe sprang into being, G-d was created.


25 posted on 02/16/2005 9:54:09 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proudly Posting Without Reading the Article Since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Was God God before He was the Creator?


26 posted on 02/16/2005 10:02:40 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The problem with new earth creationists is they say every field of science is wrong. Astrophysics--wrong. Archeology--wrong. Biology--wrong. Genetics--wrong. Geology--wrong. Dendrochronology--wrong. Chemistry--wrong. Climatology--wrong. Maybe, just maybe, how they interpret the Bible (a human interpretation subject to fallibility) is wrong. I am not the least bit threatened by new earth creationists--I believe in God and Jesus Christ--but if their philosophy prevails science grinds to halt. It was called the dark ages.
27 posted on 02/16/2005 10:03:26 AM PST by lp boonie (Been there, done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The author's main point is that these findings are inconsistent with the Big Bang and that we should look elsewhere.

Actually, it isn't. Read the article carefully. He says "scientists describe how these ripples are the result of the Big Bang, but they can't be correct because there was no Big Bang".

28 posted on 02/16/2005 10:05:39 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Was God God before He was the Creator?

More to the point: Before G-d created the universe, was He homeless?

29 posted on 02/16/2005 10:06:24 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proudly Posting Without Reading the Article Since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Me, I support the Great Green Arklesiezure.

I'm waiting for the coming of the Great White Hankerchief.

30 posted on 02/16/2005 10:11:05 AM PST by DrDavid (Support Global Warming: Surf the Hebrides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Er... the article posted isn't about evolution.


31 posted on 02/16/2005 10:13:34 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

"For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis."

True, that.

(I'm typing this on a computer built by illiterate shepherds. Check it out - the Sheepomatic 3000. Only cost me 50 shekels and a goat.)


32 posted on 02/16/2005 10:23:22 AM PST by planetesimal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You can hear the sound of the Big Bang on a .wav file here: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html
...


33 posted on 02/16/2005 10:23:37 AM PST by mugs99 (Restore the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Was God God before He was the Creator?
God created time, so "before" is not a relevent concept.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label.

34 posted on 02/16/2005 10:24:01 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni

He says the ripples don't support the Big Bang in the firs paragraph, but he never elaborates why.

When he talks about Scientists interpreting the ripples in the context of the Big Bang, I think he is implying that the Big Bang didn't predict the ripples. Then when confronted with new data that is not what they expected, rather than consider other alternatives, scientists just automatically attempt to fit any new data, such as the ripples into the context of the Big Bang.

It's a foregone conclusion. No matter what the evidence shows, it must somehow be the result of the Big Bang.

It's the same mentality that we see in Evolution. No matter how big the gaps are in the fossil record, no matter how unlikely the development of a life form is, it must be the result of evolution.


35 posted on 02/16/2005 10:24:29 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni; ZellsBells
Apparently we need to go over what a true scientific theory is.

Try "observable, testable, repeatable." Evolution took place millions (billions?) of years ago, or so we're told, so it's none of the above.

The problem with new earth creationists is they say every field of science is wrong. Astrophysics--wrong. Archeology--wrong. Biology--wrong. Genetics--wrong. Geology--wrong. Dendrochronology--wrong. Chemistry--wrong. Climatology--wrong.

No, they just disagree (legitimately) about a lot of assumptions that are presumed in all those fields. They do not reject all major sciences; most of their staff are scientists in these fields!

Er... the article posted isn't about evolution.

The Big Bang relates to evolution. Answers in Genesis offers credible science to contrast what we're told about evolution. Yes, it's related to evolution.

Who here wants to offer me credible fossil evidence for evolution? Please, someone, raise your hand. Shouldn't we be finding tons more "transitional" fossils than complete human or ape fossils, if we evolved over millions of years? Yet the best we see from the scientific community is sketchy at best, and outright lies at worst. No missing link yet.
36 posted on 02/16/2005 10:26:55 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting WIB-A-WULS! Heheheheheh...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni

But you have raised another good point. The article is weak, because 1) it didn't point us to any alternatives or even lines of research and 2) it didn't discuss why the ripples don't support the Big Bang.

It simply trashes the current scientific community for having an auto-think/group-think mentality. Which I agree with him on, but Creationists must present stronger cases than this level of criticism, if we expect to be taken seriously.


37 posted on 02/16/2005 10:29:40 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The Bible says "In the beginning, God created the heaven..."

It doesn't say how.

These kooks are just trying to get people to send them money and buy their loopy books and what not. It disgusts me to think of the damage they do to honest peoples' faith.



38 posted on 02/16/2005 10:34:22 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
When he talks about Scientists interpreting the ripples in the context of the Big Bang, I think he is implying that the Big Bang didn't predict the ripples.

Well, he describes in the seventh paragraph how the Big Bang predicts the ripples. This renders his premise that ripples somehow damage the Big Bang theory a little odd.

39 posted on 02/16/2005 10:38:51 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

There are more physicists here at the University of Tennessee who disagree with that. :P


40 posted on 02/16/2005 10:39:19 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Try "observable, testable, repeatable." Evolution took place millions (billions?) of years ago, or so we're told, so it's none of the above.

Is Creationism observable, testable, or repeatable?

41 posted on 02/16/2005 10:40:09 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; 2ndreconmarine; PatrickHenry; snarks_when_bored
Let's see what Ned Wright has to say about this:

Cosmic Ripples Seen by Galaxy Surveys

11 Jan 2005 - Both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2 Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey reported the discovery of features in the distribution of nearby galaxies that correspond to the oscillations seen in the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background for several years. The overall statistical significance of this result is good but not great: 3.5 standard deviations. But observations of these ripples provide two valuable new constraints on cosmological models, and verify the current Lambda-CDM model of the Universe. The detection of these ripples is shown at right in a version of Figure 3 from a technical paper describing these results. It gives a matter density in gm/cc that agrees with the value found by WMAP. Both WMAP and the SDSS measure this density to a precison of 8% and their values agree to within 5%. Combining the CMB and SDSS data gives an improved limit on the total density of the Universe: Omegatot = 1.01 +/- 0.009. If Omegatot = 1, the Universe is flat; if Omegatot > 1 the Universe is closed; while if Omegatot < 1 the Universe is open.

Sounds to me like the Sloan Survey has found the galaxy distribution corresponds with the already observed anisotropies in the CMBR, meaning that it supports the hypothesis that the anisotropies represent density fluctuations which precipitate the clusters and voids of galaxies we observe today. IOW, there is nothing in the findings that in any way conflict with BB Cosmology.

If the author offered a scientific argument as to how these results conflict with BB Cosmolgy, I must have missed it....

;-)

42 posted on 02/16/2005 10:42:48 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

And GOD woke up, and there was NOTHING!


43 posted on 02/16/2005 10:43:00 AM PST by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; Physicist

I am glad you both posted to this thread. :-) I was just going to leave it alone. LOL!


44 posted on 02/16/2005 10:44:22 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Me, I support the Great Green Arklesiezure.

I, too, live in fear of the coming of the Great White Hankerchief.

45 posted on 02/16/2005 10:45:52 AM PST by zeugma (Come to the Dark Side...... We have cookies! (Made from the finest girlscouts!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I am glad you both posted to this thread. :-) I was just going to leave it alone. LOL!

Come on in; the water's fine!

46 posted on 02/16/2005 10:48:45 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
"The Bible says "In the beginning, God created the heaven..." It doesn't say how.

True, but scripture does says that God created the stars on day 4 of the creation week. So you have a scriptural account of the stars being formed after the earth. Which is in contrast to current scientific theory.

I think taking the Word of God as not literal and compromising everytime science appears to be at odds with scripture does more damage to people's faith.

I think these people do a legitimate service of independently criticizing scientific theories.

47 posted on 02/16/2005 10:49:05 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dead
Hmmmm… maybe if we tweak Genesis a bit and run the numbers again.

Hmmm... Increase the time scale a wee bit first off. And you would need to reorder some of the stuff, add a bit more in some places, subtract here and there, etc.

Agreed. Just a few tweaks should do it.

48 posted on 02/16/2005 10:49:32 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Creationists = Chimps looking at the heavens "thinking"..

Evolutionists = Chimps looking at the ground and then at the heavens and back to the ground.. "thinking"..

ME = Looking at the other chimps "thinking"...

My God = Looking at all three laughing with a {snort} at the end.. Does God "snort".?.. mine does.. Is God cool or what.?.

49 posted on 02/16/2005 10:51:26 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Answers in Genesis offers credible science to contrast what we're told about evolution.

And I got a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

50 posted on 02/16/2005 10:53:47 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson