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.
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!
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.
When the universe sprang into being, G-d was created.
Was God God before He was the Creator?
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".
More to the point: Before G-d created the universe, was He homeless?
I'm waiting for the coming of the Great White Hankerchief.
Er... the article posted isn't about evolution.
"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.)
You can hear the sound of the Big Bang on a .wav file here: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are more physicists here at the University of Tennessee who disagree with that. :P
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.