Skip to comments.“Ripples” of galaxies—another blow to the big bang
Posted on 02/16/2005 9:11:58 AM PST by DannyTN
Ripples of galaxiesanother blow to the big bang by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D., astrophysics), AiGUSA
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 galaxya 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. Lets 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 Creators 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.
I wonder if this dude calls Hugh Ross a heretic.
The Big Bang was just God snapping his fingers.
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.
"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.
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.
Need a solid debunking over here.
quantum jitters at the bing bang. Known for a long time.
the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis.
maybe if we tweak Genesis a bit and run the numbers again.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The article was written by a PHD in Astrophysics.
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.