William M. Curtis III
A scientist’s response to recent reports on the universe.
Why the evolutionary theory of an ancient expanding universe is wrong.
Dr. Curtis has been active in the creationist movement for the past 19 years. He holds degrees in mechanical engineering (B.S., University of Utah), aeronautical engineering with a minor in nuclear physics (M.S., Southern Methodist University), and theology (Th.M., Capital Bible Seminary; Th.D., Trinity Seminary). Dr. Curtis worked for 20 years in the aerospace industry and spent another 20 years as a college professor and pastor. He is founder of the Institute for Scientific and Biblical Research, Lancaster PA, where he presently serves as President and Executive Director.
Introduction
“Crisis in the Cosmos,” and “When Did the Universe Begin?” read the headlines of the cover articles of two widely-read national magazines (Discover: The World of Science, March, 1995, and Time, March 6, 1995). These articles featured the dual crises contradicting evolutionary theories on the age and direction of the expanding universe. Recent data obtained from the Hubble Space Telescope contradicts the previously-held age of the universe. Astronomers Lauer and Postman concluded after five years of research that, “a large chunk of the universe is headed in the wrong direction” (Flamsteed 1995). Tod Lauer, who is stationed at the National Optical Astronomy Observatories in Tucson AZ, states, “We know this was a shocking result. That’s why we spent over a year trying to debunk it ourselves before we went public. If anyone can present a good argument why it’s wrong, we’ll listen” (Lemonick and Nash 1995).
Well, listen up! Not only are there good scientific arguments why it’s wrong, but there is a tenable solution to the crisis. All of these problems stem from the concept promoted by astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929. He concluded that the redshifted light spectrum from stellar objects is directly related to recessional speed and distance. Let us first review the so-called “Hubble Law” based on this relationship, and then consider a way out of the quandry.
The Hubble “Law”
During the first decade of the 20th
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 78
century, at the Lowell Observatory near Flagstaff AZ, Vesto Slipher measured galaxies’ velocities toward or away from our galaxy, the Milky Way (Goldsmith 1991: 83). It was assumed that the Doppler effect, well understood for sound waves, worked just as well for light waves. Astronomers believe that the frequency of all light waves from any galaxy will increase or decrease by an amount that depends only on the relative velocity of approach or recession from the observer. For more than a century, they have used instruments called spectroscopes to divide light into its component frequencies/colors.
The Doppler effect is said to change the colors of light from receding or approaching sources. This effect apparently changes all the frequencies of light from a particular star or galaxy by the same fractional amount. The Doppler effect therefore shifts the patterns in a spectrum — the distribution of bright and dark bands — without changing the pattern itself.
If, for example, a galaxy is receding from us at 5 percent of the speed of light, all the wavelengths will increase by 5 percent. This is the so-called “redshift” to longer wave lengths and lower frequencies. It supposedly shows that the galaxy has a relative motion of recession equal to 5 percent of the speed of light. It should be noted that orbital, i.e. tangential, velocity will also give this redshift. In addition, strong fields of gravity alter these shifts, as will be explained below.
In the 1920s, Hubble made the first good estimates of distances to nearby galaxies. These distances were obtained by relating relative luminosity, i.e. brightness, to the square of the distance. These estimates were called “good” despite the fact that subsequent astronomers revised all of Hubble’s estimates upward by a factor of two or more (Goldsmith 1991:82). In 1929 Hubble put his distance estimates together with the velocities calculated by Slipher and others. An interesting relationship appeared to spring from the data. Except for the closest galaxies, all galaxies seemed to be receding from us. The speed of recession appeared to increase in proportion to their distance from us. Hubble’s first published diagram showed a wide spread between the relative distance and redshift. Nevertheless, he managed to draw a line through the middle of all these data and declare the universe expanding on a linear relationship between red-shift and distance (Goldsmith 1991:83).
This observation has been called the most significant astronomical discovery of the 20th century. It is the basis for the expanding universe theory. We ourselves are not expanding, nor is the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, or even our local galaxies. It was theorized, however, that on the largest distance scales, and based on the apparent recession velocities as indicated by the redshift, the galaxies are all receding from one another. Therefore, the entire universe is expanding (Goldsmith 1991:84).
The assumed mathematical relationship
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 79
for the recession is the formula v=Hr, where v is the recessional velocity determined by the redshift and r is the distance of the galaxy from the observer. H is the rate change of the values and is referred to as the Hubble constant. The units of velocity (v) are expressed in km/sec. The unit of distance (r) is given in degrees of arc of the relation of a star viewed from earth. A triangulation of sightings is taken over three half-year positions, so that the base of the triangle becomes the diameter of the earth’s orbit around the sun. This direct measurement results in the definition of the distance known as the parsec. One parsec is defined as the distance required to shift the apparent position of a stellar object one second of arc when the base of the triangle is one astronomical unit, the radius of the earth’s orbit about the sun. This results in 1 parsec being equal to 3.26 light years.
Our ability to measure such small angles is limited (one second of arc is one 3600th of a degree). We are thus restricted to direct distance measurements within our own galaxy.
It was Hubble’s discovery of an apparent relation of redshift to distance that led to the formulation of an evolutionary cosmology that is today referred to as “The Big Bang.” It was hypothesized that if the universe is expanding, everything in it must have been closer together in the past. Run the expansion backwards and you reach a time, approximately 18 to 20 billion years ago (based on the Hubble constant accepted until recently), when all matter occupied a single point.
This leads to the present crisis. The recent data show a Hubble constant of 80 km/sec per megaparsec (Cowen 1995), which relates to a start time for the universe of approximately 10 billion years ago. With the previously accepted value for H yielding an age of the universe between 18 and 20 billion years, this represents an order of magnitude question regarding the Hubble Law’s validity.
Problems With Hubble’s Law
Let us now examine Hubble’s Law and the correctness of using the redshift to define recessional velocity, and consequently distance. There are several astronomers and astrophysicists who have questioned Hubble’s Law. They have been met with untoward opposition. The central dogma of evolutionary cosmology today is an expanding universe. Halton Arp is probably the most outspoken critic. He has impeccable training (Harvard and Cal Tech) and experience (staff astronomer at Wilson and Palomar Observatories).
Dr. Arp is the foremost expert in the world in the study of “Quasars” (Quasi Stellar Radio Sources). These Quasar stars appear to violate Hubble’s Law. They have tremendous luminosities. In addition, Quasars emit large radio signals with redshifts as much as ten times the local galaxies they seem to be associated with. Arp has found that many galaxies are in close proximity to various Quasars.
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 80
Thus, the probability that they are at a different distance is extremely remote (less than .02, and in most cases less than that, down to ~0) (Arp 1987:13). But the differences in the redshift of the Quasars is many orders of magnitude different than the galaxies which are in close proximity to them. The evidence for this is strong and well presented in Arp’s 1987 book.
Another argument from physics indicates that Arp is right about the location of these Quasars. This argument stems from the fact that if the Quasars are as far away as Hubble’s Law would indicate, their luminosity has to be so great that no known physical phenomena can account for it (West 1994). The most distant Quasar according to the Hubble relationship is in excess of 15 billion light years away. The calculated energy to produce the measured luminosity of this Quasar would have to be three orders of magnitude greater than our sun, if the distance is as great as the Hubble relationship indicates.
Additional data presented by Arp clearly show that stellar objects in the same galactic formation have large redshift differences. This calls into question the validity of any direct relationship between distance from the earth and the redshift value. Take for example galaxy NGC 1232. Its main galaxy has a redshift of 1,776 km/sec. At the same distance, its disk galaxy B has a redshift of almost 28,000 km/sec. This represents an excess redshift of 26,210 km/sec (Arp 1987: 86). It should be noted that all of these stellar objects as well as Quasars are continuous in physical properties and redshifts do not vary with time.
Conventional theory that galaxy redshifts can only be due to Doppler velocity has been violated not just once, but in numerous independant instances. Over 38 examples of discordant redshift comparisons are documented by Arp (1987: 88). In most realms of science this would be more than adequate to falsify the theory. He lists a litany of nine separate proofs on non-velocity redshifts (1987: 174). It is not without reason that Arp refers to Hubble’s Law as an “article of faith” which is held by the expanding universe people despite the many examples of contradictory evidence (1987:178).
The figure on the next page shows the relationship between Hubble’s Law and the data discussed, including the new data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).
The shaded areas on the figure show the regions of data obtained. On the basis of these data it does not appear that recessional velocity (i.e. redshift) is related to distance. Even such a renowned astronomical authority as Dr. Donald Goldsmith stated, “Most astronomers would agree that if Arp is correct, then our basic reliance on redshift as a distance indicator must be wrong” (1991: 248). It is obvious from the data presented that Hubble’s so-called “Law” is no law at all.
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 81
Available data relating distance and redshift (recessional velocity) in the universe.
There must be a better explanation for the redshift and the origin of the universe.
A Polytropic Universe
Dr. J.K. West in a recent paper has shown mathematically that the redshift we observe here on earth is caused by orbital motion and not recessional velocity (1994). Furthermore, the orbital motion is shown to solve the problem of certain Quasars indicating a velocity several times greater than the speed of light (Courvoisier 1991).
Our solar system is not expanding from some singular point in the dim dark past. Rather, the solar system works rather nicely within Newtonian/Keplerian laws of physics and mathematics. Likewise Dr. West has shown that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is in a Newtonian orbit about the center of a polytropic (having several forms or variations) universe (1994:80). The redshifts observed can all be shown to be a transverse Doppler effect, falling within the range of values observed without any violation of the speed of light. Therefore, with such a polytropic model of the universe almost all regions would show a redshift from the transverse Doppler effect.
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 82
Furthermore, the polytropic model does not depend upon mass to stabilize the structure. Calculations show that the estimated visible mass of the universe yields a value of zero for the cosmological constant. This indicats that the system is stable and there is no missing matter (West 1994: 85). In addition, we can accept a uniform background radiation in this model just as the COBE data show. Akridge, Barnes and Slusher propose that absorption and re-radiation can account for the background radiation (1981).
The literature clearly shows that the universe is not isotropic (same physical properties everywhere) (Silk, Szalay, and Zel’dovich 1983; Dressler 1987; Geller and Huchra 1989). Nor is it expanding in either the near or far systems. It can be described as “lumpy” and not uniformly distributed throughout space. A polytropic model with all matter created at once would allow large structures of galaxies to remain for extended periods. Arp proposes a model, “instead of having just one point in the universe which exploded 20 billion years ago, that we have many points within the fabric of space that are expanding” (1987: 183). This sounds like multiple point creation to me!
In conclusion, the clustering of galaxies and voids, as well as a structure like our solar system, could be expected in a created orbiting polytropic universe. God did not create Adam as a babe and allow him to mature. I see no reason why God could not have created the universe fully formed and physically stable.
Bibliography
Akridge, R.; Barnes, T.; and
Slusher, H.S.
1981 A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3K Background Black Body Radiation. Creation Research Society Quarterly 18:159–162.
Arp, H.
1987 Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies. Berkeley: Interstellar Media.
Courvoisier, T.J., and Robson, E.I.
1991 The Quasar 3C273. Scientific American 257/3:50–57.
Cowen, R.
1995 Hubble Constant: Controversy Continues. Science News 147/13: 198.
Dressler, A.
1987 Large Scale Streaming of Galaxies. Scientific American 257/3: 46–54.
Flamsteed, S.
1995 Crisis in the Cosmos. Discover: The World of Science 16/1: 66–77.
Geller, M. J., and Huchra, J.P.
1989 Mapping the Universe. Science 246: 897–903.
Goldsmith, D.
1991 The Astronomers. New York: St. Martin’s.
Lemonick, M.D., and Nash, J.M.
1995 When Did the Universe Begin? Time, March 6: 77–84.
Silk, J.; Szalay, A.S.; and Zel’dovich, Y.B.
1983 The Large Scale Structure of the Universe. Scientific American 249/4: 72–80.
West, J.K.
1994 Polytropic Model of the Universe. Creation Research Society Quarterly 31: 78–88.