Posts Tagged ‘big bang’

Science, Politics and Global Warming

Church of Darwin, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 28 2009

by Wal Thornhill, Holoscience
December 23, 2009

The Global Warming circus in Copenhagen was politics driven by a consensus that, by definition, has nothing to do with science. The apocalyptic nonsense that opened the meeting highlighted that fact. How many who attended or demonstrated at the meeting actually understand the (disputed) scientific grounds for the hysteria?

Meanwhile, leading science journals allow skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be labelled “deniers” and refuse them the right of reply. It is doctrinaire denouncement, not science. It is the journal editors who are denying the scientific method by censoring debate. It is they who are peddling ideology.

Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.

“Science has become religion! ..although religion may have borrowed some of the jargon of science, science, more importantly, has adopted the methods of religion. This is the worst of both worlds.” —Halton Arp

There have been several warm climatic periods documented in history that had nothing to do with human activity. There seems to be evidence that the Earth has actually been cooling since 2001, in line with reduced solar activity. So it would be more realistic to consider climate change as a normal phenomenon and to plan accordingly because despite all of the hoopla in the media, modern science is founded on surprising ignorance. An iconoclastic view suggests the following:

— cosmologists have been misled by theoretical physicists who don’t understand gravity, which forms the basis of the big bang theory. Imaginary ‘dark matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and black holes have been added to make models of galaxies and star birth appear to work. When all else fails, mysterious magnetic fields are invoked. The bottom line is that cosmologists presently have no real understanding of the universe;

— astrophysicists don’t understand stars because they steadfastly ignore plasma discharge phenomena;

— particle physicists don’t understand matter or its resonant electrical interactions. They prefer to invent imaginary particles;

— geologists have been misled by astronomers about Earth’s history;

— biologists have had no practical help from theoretical physicists so they don’t understand what might constitute the ‘mind-body connection’ or ‘the spark of life;’

— and climate scientists have been misled by astronomers and astrophysicists so they have no real concept of recent Earth history in the solar system and they don’t understand the real source of lightning and the electrical input to weather systems. For example, the major city in northern Australia, Darwin, was utterly destroyed in tropical cyclone ‘Tracy’ in 1974.

The catastrophe was described in part, “At 3am, the eye of the cyclone passed over Darwin, bringing an eerie stillness. There was a strange light, a diffuse lightning, like St. Elmo’s fire.” There was no solar energy being supplied to the 150km per hour winds at 3 in the morning. “A diffuse lightning” is an apt description of the slow electrical discharge (distinct from impulsive lightning) that drives all rotary storms and influences weather patterns. That is why the electrically hyperactive gas giant planets have overwhelmingly violent storms while receiving very little solar energy.

Yet with these unacknowledged shortcomings we have bookshelves filled with textbooks, science journals and PhD theses, mostly unread, that would stretch to the Moon, fostering the impression that we understand most things. And the public is assailed with documentaries that breathlessly deliver and repeat fashionable science fiction as fact. How can this be?

Science has left its classical and philosophical roots, rather like surrealist art departed from realism. The analogy is fitting. It is demonstrated by the fondness for expressing theoretical models in artists impressions, computer animations and aesthetic terms. The artist/philosopher Miles Mathis is of the opinion that “ Science has become just like Modern Art. The contemporary artist and the contemporary physicist look at the world in much the same way. The past means nothing. They gravitate to novelty as the ultimate distinction, in and of itself. They do this because novelty is the surest guarantee of recognition.”

So why does the media not have science critics alongside art critics? Has science become sacrosanct? Bluntly, the answer is yes. No science reporter wants to have the portcullises lowered at the academic bastions.

Happily, the Internet allows the curious to circumvent such censorship.

Click Here to Read the Remainder of this Article by Wal Thorn at Holoscience

Cosmic Chess: The Copernican Gambit?

Church of Darwin, Religious,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 06 2009

Psalm 96:5
For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

Prior to the Copernican Revolution which did not begin until 200 years after the publication of his book; On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543, science and the world generally adhered to the Ptolemaic model of the universe, which had the earth at its center, with the sun revolving around it.

This view of the universe appealed to Christians and to science and for the most part, they were one in the same. The appeal came from Genesis; if God created the heavens and the earth and man was His principal creation in that universe, then it would make sense for the world to revolve around him metaphorically and for the rest of the universe to be centered around the earth in actuality.

Of course, the Bible itself never claimed the earth as the universe’s center or that the sun revolved around it, a fact that seems to be lost on modern day Atheistic book authors. It was in fact science that promoted the Ptolemaic model remembering that in those days most scientists played on “God’s team”-or thought they were.

Many point to the acceptance and realization that Copernicus was correct as the beginning of the scientific revolution. The Ptolemaic view of the universe had tended to keep the Atheists in check in the game of cosmic chess. This was because it appeared to tie Genesis to a specific view of the universe that seemed to in return support the Genesis account of creation.

Copernicus got them out of check. Before that, all the Atheists could do was move their pawns back and forth.

Intellectuals who wanted to disbelieve in God were seeking a rational method of understanding the universe and its creation that excluded God. The scientific revolution that began with the understanding that not only did the sun not revolve around the earth, but that we might be located at some insignificant address in the universe rather than on Main street created the climate that allowed Darwinism to be acceptable.

Darwin finally provided Atheists and Materialists with a “rational” model for believing in a self causing universe. Dawkins famously said that it allowed him to be intellectually fulfilled. After the acceptance of Darwin’s theory by science, the big bang theory gave Cosmologists a companion “material causes theory” for the creation of the universe.

Unfortunately for Materialists, the promise of science has not materialized (pun intended). It turns out that the more we know, the less palatable are the big bang standard model and the more design in the universe and in living cells becomes apparent (intelligent design).

“……driving the superstring craze (infinite parallel universes) is the desire to escape intelligent design. The fine-tuning of the laws of physics for our existence has been studied now for well over 60 years. There’s no escaping the anthropic principle.

If the laws and constants of physics were not what they are, we could not be here to study them. Theists have a ready answer for this. The God who spoke the universe and its laws into existence formed it to be inhabited. That cosmologists would escape into multiple universes to avoid the obvious is a measure of extreme desperation.

Where did this desperation come from? Think back to the late 19th century, when Darwinism was on the rise. Various social, political, economic and philosophical trends were moving away from natural theology and toward philosophical materialism. The Myth of Progress was the “in” thing. Materialists such as Tyndall and Huxley inculcated a third-order theory change: a change in what constitutes science itself. There were two sides to this theory change: an exclusion, and an inclusion. Moreland explains that Darwinism was an attempt to exclude theology from science. As a consequence, this led to the inclusion of storytelling. “

The Copernican Gambit

In this cosmic game of chess, which has been going on at least from the time of the scientific revolution, there have been moves and countermoves on the part of Theists and Materialists with respect to the origin of the universe.

We live in a universe fine tuned for life. This knowledge grudgingly comes from science, not from believers, even though it is what we would expect. Science is stuck on its side of the chessboard throwing out weird defenses like dark matter and dark energy which is needed to make big bang work. This dark matter and energy which accounts for 95% of matter and energy can’t be seen, tested or measured. This kind of thing, along with superstring theory, which also can’t be falsified or tested, is making it difficult for the well read Materialist to be intellectually fulfilled.

But now, scientists “Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance.”

At the last moment, a new strategy; the Copernican Gambit; a possible way to fix the big bang theory and to free materialists from the pressure of defending a theory that only accounts for 4% to 5% of observations. Can materialistic creation be saved?

‘The new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is likely to be equally controversial as the work it purports to challenge especially as it relies on our galaxy being at the centre of the Universe”….

The Copernican principle is the presumption that there is nothing special about our place in space and time; neither us humans nor our planet.

“Just when we thought we were out, (of the center) they pulled us back in”!

It probably should be called the “Reverse Copernican Gambit”.


Dark energy may not actually exist, scientists claim
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Telegraph.Co.UK 18 Aug 2009

Dark energy – the mysterious substance thought to make up three-quarters of the universe – may not actually exist, claims new research.

The concept of dark energy was created by cosmologists to fit Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity into reality after modern space telescopes discovered that the Universe was not behaving as it should.

According to Einstein’s work, the speed at which the Universe is expanding following the Big Bang should be slower than it actually is and this unexplained anomaly threatened to turn the whole theory upside down. In order to reconcile this problem the concept of dark energy was invented.

Are we being overloaded? But now Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance.

The research could change the way astronomers view the composition of our Universe.

The Standard Model of Cosmology, which describes the evolution of the Universe, begins with the Big Bang. Astronomers have recently observed that the galaxies are accelerating as they move away from each other, and cosmologists have sought to explain this unexpected acceleration by introducing the concept of dark energy, which permeates space, propels matter, and accounts for nearly 75 percent of the mass-energy in our Universe.

The new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is likely to be equally controversial as the work it purports to challenge especially as it relies on our galaxy being at the centre of the Universe – a concept that has been generally disregarded in modern science.

Dr Malcom Fairbairn, particle cosmologist at King’s College London, said: “Ever since the concept of dark energy was first mentioned people have been trying to explain it or explain it away. It is a mystery and an inconvenience.

“This is one attempt at it. Whether it is right only time will tell.”

Astrophysicists Puzzle Over Planet That’s Too Close To Its Sun–If the Universe is Old, It Should Have Burned Up!

Church of Darwin, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 31 2009

Photo: Altered from graphic by C. Carreau / ESA

Item: The moon moves away from the earth about 1.5 inches a year. In 6,000 years, the moon would have moved only 750 feet. In a billion years, those 1.5 inches a year would move the moon out 23,674.24 miles. A moon moving away at that distance would have a tremendous impact here on earth. Science says that the universe is 4.5 billion years old–meaning that the moon would have moved 106,534.09 miles away from earth (half its current distance) if the rate were constant.

Item: Small planets with weak gravity retain some atmosphere in contravention to accepted theories. In an old universe, those planets should be atmosphere free by this time. This is an indication that these planets are still very young.

Here a planet very close to its sun should have burned up completely in 4.5 billion years. The fact that it hasn’t could be explained by a young universe–but this alternative apparently does not occur to the scientists scratching their heads.

Item Forwarded by Big D (David .E.)

Completing an orbit in less than an Earth day, planet Wasp-18b should have burned up, according to accepted theory

By John Johnson Jr.
LA Times
August 27, 2009

Scientists have discovered a planet that shouldn’t exist. The finding, they say, could alter our understanding of orbital dynamics, a field considered pretty well settled since the time of astronomer Johannes Kepler 400 years ago.

The planet is known as a “hot Jupiter,” a gas giant orbiting the star Wasp-18, about 330 light-years from Earth. The planet, Wasp-18b, is so close to the star that it completes a full orbit (its “year”) in less than an Earth day, according to the research, which was published in the journal Nature.

Of the more than 370 exoplanets — planets orbiting stars other than our sun — discovered so far, this is just the second with such a close orbit.

The problem is that a planet that close should be consumed by its parent star in less than a million years, say the authors at Keele University in Britain. The star Wasp-18 is believed to be about a billion years old, and because stars and the planets around them are thought to form at the same time, Wasp-18b should have been reduced to cinders ages ago.

“This planet should spiral inwards on such a short time scale that the likelihood of seeing it is very low,” said Coel Hellier, an astrophysicist at Keele.

“That’s a paradox,” said Douglas P. Hamilton, an astronomer at the University of Maryland who wrote a commentary accompanying the report. He said there were a variety of possible explanations, none of them very satisfactory.

“It’s like going to the scene of the crime and not finding the weapon,” he said. “Something’s happened, but a key piece of evidence is missing.”

One possibility is that Wasp-18, a sunlike, medium-sized star, is a thousand times less energetic than would be expected. That would mean it produces much less friction on the planet than normal.

This orbital drag, which scientists call the “tidal dissipation factor,” slows a planet each time it circles its star. Eventually, the planet no longer has enough energy to maintain its position, so it falls into the star and is engulfed.

But if the star’s energy is a thousand times less than expected, that would be a big surprise, Hamilton said. It would imply that science doesn’t understand the composition and characteristics of sunlike stars as well as it thought it did.

A second possibility is that the planet hasn’t been in its current position very long, Hellier said. Wasp-18b could have spiraled inward to its current position over millions of years. It may have been bumped out of its original orbit by another planet, for example.

“However, that does not solve the problem,” Hellier said, because the planet’s lifetime should still be very short and it would be very unlikely for his team to find it where it did.

The final possibility is that “we’re just missing something — there is some property of stars or tides that we just don’t understand,” Hamilton said.

In our solar system, the closest example of a similar mystery is Mars’ moon, Phobos. It orbits Mars at a distance of only about 5,600 miles. (Our moon orbits Earth at 40 times that distance.) Phobos’ orbit should cause it to crash into Mars in just 30 million years, a fraction of the 4.5-billion-year age of the solar system.

“Perhaps we really are missing some key bit of physics,” Hamilton wrote in his commentary.

An answer could be coming in just a few years. According to Hellier, if the orbit of Wasp-18b really is decaying at the expected rate, the effects should be measurable within the next decade.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

The Faith of Science: Not Seeing What’s Not Believed

Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 26 2009

Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen..Hebrews 11

According to Wikipedia, Halton Christian Arp is an American astronomer, “known for his 1966 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which (it was later realized) catalogues many examples of interacting and merging galaxies. Arp is also known as a critic of the Big Bang theory and for advocating a non-standard cosmology incorporating intrinsic redshift.”

Although Arp is/was a respected and published scientist, he has had a long term problem communicating the scientific problems with the big banl theory to cosmologists and fellow “scientists”.

The following is a from a Blog posting at Thunderbolts, May 25, 2009, who posit alternate theories to explain phenomena in the universe: From: Not Seeing What’s Not Believed

“The papers reporting and discussing these findings were rejected, delayed, or published in minor journals. Each observation was treated as a separate anomaly—set aside, dismissed with a makeshift excuse, or simply ignored. The systematic correlations and repetitions of the observations were disregarded. Certainly, one or two anomalies are not enough to cast doubt on a theory, but when anomalies preponderate and ad hocisms proliferate, the theory is apt to be wrong.

“It seems the toughest thing for scientists to grasp—that a cherished paradigm like the big bang can be wrong.”

Arp wrote, “In view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars, and 3C273 in particular, belonged to the Virgo Cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” [Emphasis in original.]

The image of the fearless scientist dispassionately following the objective truths of careful observation into new regions of discovery turns out to be a pretense for timorous formalists whose observations and thoughts are fashioned to conform to peer opinion.

Click Here to Read the Post- Not Seeing What’s Not Believed

The Incredible Creation Inch and Other ‘True” Stories, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Apr 20 2009

by Chris Parker
CopyRight 2009

Actually, the incredible creation inch is an inch and a half. Still incredibly small he was, but given enough time and patience, he might have achieved a great deal. Clearly though, the incredible creation inch didn’t have as much time as some insisted that he did, so that in the end, his achievements are/were modest.

Before we complete the incredible inch’s tale though, let me tell you another.

Once upon a time a beautiful island was discovered in the middle of one of the great oceans. In the course of time, 9 very large, unique boulders were discovered to be distributed around the Island. The boulders were unique in part due to their great size, but also because they were of a type found no where else on the Island.

The indigenous people knew nothing of the great stones. The prevailing theory (the volcanic dispersion theory) became that the stones ended up where they were due to a titanic volcanic explosion in the distant past, which had been powerful enough to place the stones exactly where they rested.

Some scientists noted that the stones were not of a volcanic type, but the theory persisted.

Many years after the prevailing theory became set in stone, a scientist working alone discovered something startling about the great stones. He found that there was an underlying formula which predicted the placement of each of the stones exactly, most of them to four decimal places.

Given the distance of any one of the stones from a central point, the correct distance to any other stone could be derived by the formula and; given the distance between any two of the stones, the correct distance for the entire series of stones could be derived; exactly.

This of course meant that the placement of the stones was not random as one would expect if their final location on the island was really the result of an explosion. This meant that the volcanic explosion theory was invalid; incorrect. The scientist’s conclusions with respect to the placement of the great stones were eventually verified and found to be correct, although the actual intent of the various analyses had been to prove his findings to be wrong.

There was no theory explaining how rocks placed in an explosion could fall in such a way as to appear to have been placed.

It was a mystery; a genuine enigma, but the volcanic dispersion theory continued to hold. It continued to be taught in school and written about in textbooks. Research grants were applied for and received. The volcanic placement theory was the object of a number of doctoral theories which confirmed some aspect of or expanded the scope of the theory.

Accepting that the stones were placed in their positions would have invalidated work done with money from government grants. It would have impacted people in science who in one way or another had made their reputation on work done advancing the theory.

It would have meant reexamining the notion that the indigenous people were the first inhabitants of the Island-or it would have forced them to conclude that the indigenous people had higher technology in the distant past than they did currently. All of these potential outcomes were, for various reasons, unacceptable, so for years after “science” knew that the stones had to have been placed, the volcanic dispersion theory remained the accepted and “official” explanation. It still is today.

If you haven’t already guessed, the ocean is the universe; the island is our solar system and the “great stones“ are the planets orbiting our sun. The “volcanic dispersion theory” is the “big bang” theory. I don’t know who the indigenous people are in our story but the scientists are scientists.

Unlike the stones in our story, the planets move in an elliptical motion around the sun. When we speak of distance here we are speaking about their orbits. That the placement of the planets in out solar system is non-random has been known for more than 300 years.

The Titius-Bode Law:“Johann Titius, a German astronomer, discovered a numerical relationship describing the relative distances of the then-known planets from the sun. Another German astronomer, Johann Bode, popularized the relationship and, as is often the way of science, became associated with it. It is often called Bode’s law; occasionally, Titius-Bode law.

The semi major axes of the orbits of the planets follow the relationship: a = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n where a is the semi major axis is astronomical units (AU) and the exponent, n, takes values minus infinity, 1,2,3, …

This was strictly a numerological relationship and, to this day, has resisted a compelling physical rationale. The value for n=3, 2.8 AU, corresponds to the location of the asteroid belt, and gives mild support for the hypothesis that the asteroids come from a failed or exploded planet.

The first test of the law occurred a few years later (1781) when William Herschel discovered Uranus — at the distance predicted by the relationship. Neptune, the next planet to be discovered, is much closer to the Sun than predicted by the law. Pluto occupies the n=8 position instead. Another oddity is that the first term in the relationship is minus infinity rather than, say, zero.

This suggests that the underlying physical law is somewhat different than the current form.
Recently, the first planets outside our Solar System have been discovered orbiting pulsars (the central stars of which are neutron stars). It appears that these planets also obey the Titius-Bode law. Some other solar systems don’t seem to follow this “law”, but only some of the planets in these systems have been discovered. It is interesting that this simple relationship has been known for over 300 years but still defies physical proof (or dis-proof).”

A number of people have refined this anomalous relationship between the planets of our solar system. G.E. Curtis is one who has been working on this enigma for some time. He concludes;

1) The major orbits of the Solar System are contained within, and interrelated by, the main equation.
2) The ratio b/a and of course B/A is equal to the orbit of Venus but is also determined by the orbit of Venus. This is not simply an approximation; it is accurate to five decimal places, and unique.
This ratio pervades the whole Solar System.
3) The equations are bi-directional, an inner orbit could be calculated from an outer orbit.
4) The orbits can be calculated from Pythagoras.
5) The orbits can be calculated with the use of trigonometry.
6) The implied triangles are all similar, and similar to a triangle constructed from Venus/Earth mean orbits.
7) Orbits can be calculated by adding and subtracting constants.
8) Equations allow orbital distances to be interchanged with orbital periods.
9) Any orbit can be calculated from any other, and all the orbits can be calculated from any two.

Table demonstrating how closely the real orbits conform to the mathematical pattern described in text.

10) The orbits can be calculated by a number of different routes from any datum orbits. Deviations from Norton’s data will vary very slightly depending on the route taken.

Taking all the above facts into consideration, it is difficult to maintain the notion that the Solar System originated solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles.
The percentage variation column indicates that the prediction of the planets orbits versus the actual orbits are virtually identical.

This should not be the case if the big bang theory is correct and there is no physical law or gravity related theory which would explain this non-random planetary alignment.

The Incredible Creation Inch.

According to Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer” and other sources, the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches per year. Among the various impacts of this occurrence, is that the earth’s rotation is imperceptibly slowing and days are becoming milliseconds longer.

The average distance between the earth and the moon is 238,855 miles. This means that the size of the incredible creation inch (1.5 inches 0)) is unimportant and too small to notice. In 6,000 years, an annual movement away from earth would only amount to 9,000 inches, or 750 feet. That kind of insignificant movement would no doubt have very little impact on the tides, for example.

But let’s see, there are those who say that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. In 1 million years, at the current rate of departure, the moon would move away approximately, 1.5 million inches, which is 125,000 feet or 23.67424 miles.

23.67 miles would seem to be, not trivial, but still nothing really to worry about moving the average distance from the earth to the moon out to 238,878.6742 miles.

In a billion years, those 1.5 inches a year would move the moon out 23,674.24 miles which is beginning to sound serious. The impact of a moon out 23,674 miles further from earth than where it had initially “settled” or been placed would be enormous.

But how old does science say that the earth is? Approximately 4.5 billion years old. That’s old!

The incredible creation inch says that in that time, the moon would have moved away from the earth 106,534.09 mile!. The incredible creation inch says that the moon earth system is way younger than 4.5 billion years. Perhaps something on the order of 10,000 years or less is called for, even if you think 1.5 inches a year is too high.

The Origin of Life: the Chirality Problem

Church of Darwin,, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 17 2009


Nothing beats the creative imagination and storytelling capabilities of the darwinists. However, some other branches of science are quickly catching up. Theorectical science has it seems become largely a right brain function where storytelling and creative thinking have had to come to the fore in an attempt to explain the unacceptable.

For instance; problems with the big bang theory? Science creatively invents dark matter and now dark energy; both invisible and undetectable to support a theory that otherwise wouldn’t fit observation and measurement. Note that “dark matter” isn’t supposed to merely exist at the margins, up to 95% of the universe is said to be made up of this invisible stuff.

String theory is a story created by cosmologists-and others to account for the maddening (for science) realization that we live in an anthropic universe–one it appears–that is specifically tailored for life. Creatively, science is hanging its hat on the idea that this problem is explainable because there are actually an infinite number of universes occupying the same space and that we just happen to live in the one universe that can support life. Naturally, those other universes are undetectable.

How did a complex language get into the cells of everything living? Pretend that it makes perfect sense that languages which can be read and understood by both a sender and a reciever can, arise by chance without intelligence or a designer.

Another vexing problem for materialists is the chirality problem. Basically, amino acids occur in nature as either “right handed” or “left handed” on a 50%/50% basis. If life randomly assembled itself under these conditions, how to account for the fact that living organisms are made up of only the “left handed” versions? There is no biochemical reason why this should be so. The answer; maybe the life in this universe was seeded by asteroids and meteorites from outer space-which were entirely left-handed!

Notice how many times “maybe” and “could of” and the like appear in a “hard science” article. For more information on this “problem”, see Origin of Life and the Chirality Problem, by Jonathan Sarfati …

The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Did lefty molecules seed life?
Posted by Elie Dolgin
16th March 2009

The molecular orientation of compounds brought to Earth by meteorites could have determined the world’s chemistry long before life began, according to a new study published online today (Mar. 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms, which, like a pair of human hands, are mirror images that cannot be superimposed onto each other. Yet living organisms use only the left-handed version, which presents a conundrum: There’s no biochemical reason why one mirror image should be better than the other, so scientists have long debated whether life’s left-handed leaning arose because of random processes or whether rocks from outer space seeded a southpaw solar system.

The current study argues for the latter possibility by showing that some extraterrestrial meteorites contain an abundance of left-handed molecules. “The implications are that all life in our solar system could be the same handedness as life on Earth,” Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., who was not involved in the research, told The Scientist.

Daniel Glavin and Jason Dworkin, astrobiologists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, compared the ratio of left- and right-handed 5-carbon amino acids found in six primitive, carbon-rich meteorites that have an elemental composition similar to that presumably found in the early solar system. Three of these rocks were heavily left-skewed, while the remaining three showed equal handedness, or chirality, the researchers found. Of the lefty rocks, the meteorite that fell on Murchison, Australia, in 1969 — arguably the most widely studied carbonaceous meteorite in the world — contained the largest imbalance ever observed: a 18.5% excess of the left-handed form of the amino acid isovaline.

“There really is a large, 15 to 20% excess for this particular amino acid, and it has important implications for homochirality [single-handedness] and the origins of life,” Glavin told The Scientist.

Maybe life was biased toward left-handedness in our solar system” said Dworkin. The possibility that left-handed amino acids are so prevalent in our solar system is “bad news in looking for independent origins of life,” he noted, because it decreases the chances of researchers stumbling upon an organism that uses only right-handed amino acids — a clear trademark of alien life. “But it’s also good news” for the possibility of a second origin, because single-handedness is essential for biotic chemistry as we know it. Thus, a meteorite-driven imbalance could have helped “jumpstart” early life, he said.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe who was not involved in the study, was not convinced by this argument. “Even if there’s this slight excess at the outset there has to be some sort of mechanism that’s going to amplify that to make it 100%,” he said.

The mechanism that Glavin and Dworkin propose to explain the observed left-handed excess is that polarized light — which is twisted and can rotate molecules — probably set the imbalance in motion. Then, once the balance was slightly askew, water within the meteorites further drove an enrichment of left-handed amino acids in the liquid phase and relegated right-handed molecules to the solid phase. “The whole amplification is due to this process of aqueous alteration,” said Dworkin.

But the link between water-bearing rocks and a left-handed skew is just a correlation, said ASU biochemist Sandra Pizzarello, who was also not involved with the work. “It’s just a supposition,” she said. “I would have liked them to back it up with physico-chemical possibilities.”

Glavin pointed to the work of Columbia University’s Ronald Breslow and Imperial College’s Donna Blackmond, which has demonstrated that this so-called “enantiomeric enrichment” can occur in a liquid phase, such as the one found during the melting of ice inside the meteorites’ parent asteroid.

Still, even if aqueous alteration can explain the build-up of left-handed molecules, it doesn’t explain the disappearance of their mirror images, noted Robert Hazen, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, DC. “Where did the right-handed amino acids go? They had to go somewhere else… There has to be a destruction process.”

Bada also noted that the left-skewed, 5-carbon amino acids described by the authors are not the same molecules that are used by life on Earth. The 20-odd protein building blocks that living beings rely on showed no such bias in the meteorites, the NASA researchers found, so to get homochirality in life there would need to be some mechanism of transferring the single-handedness between different types of amino acids.

The origins of life remain “one of those bewildering things,” Bada said. “If there was a straight-forward answer for the homochirality of amino acids, I think we would have found it.”

Scientists See Nothing – Call It ‘Parallel Universe’

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 02 2008

The Genesis Account of Creation is not a scientific description or explanation of how the universe was created. If God simply willed the universe into existence we’re not sure that any “scientific” process will accurately describe it. In fact, though, the Big Bang theory was initially offered by a Christian because he thought an explosively created universe matched the creation event described in Genesis.

It would seem to be increasingly evident that modern cosmology has nearly everything wrong, including the Big Bang theory which has become unassailable dogma. Michael Goodspeed is one of the scientific critics of Big Bang theory and some of its attendant gospels…

By Michael Goodspeed

Why is cosmology in a state of crisis? Some might doubt the tenability of this loaded question, but to many critics of standard cosmology, the question must be asked. New observations continually shock and disturb astronomers and astrophysicists. But rather than see the underlying pattern in these “surprises” and “mysteries,” which would alert them that something is terribly wrong with their view of the Universe, they resort to exotic interpretations with little or no evidentiary — or even logical — support. From black holes, to dark matter, to dark energy, to “warps in the spacetime fabric,” the esoterica in astronomical literature has grown so weird and fantastical as to rival the most implausible plot twists on Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.

Carl Sagan warned of this problem more than 25 years ago in his iconic book, Cosmos. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a “fact”; questions were still permitted. On the question of whether the Doppler interpretation of galactic redshift is a reliable indicator of an “expanding universe,” Sagan wrote: “There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts….”

Sagan continues, “If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars — supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like — would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space.”

Sagan’s acknowledgment here revealed both a candor and humility no longer found in popular scientific media (and the electrical theorists can’t help but note the irony of this). It’s also remarkable that 25 years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp had already posed the challenge to the expanding universe, and the Big Bang. And yet today, one would think the issues have all been settled.

For background on the discoveries that have challenged the Doppler interpretation of redshift, including the extraordinary research of Halton Arp, see here.

To see just how far BB theory has taken cosmologists into a fantasy land, consider the recent Internet item, “Evidence for a parallel universe?”. The story discusses recent data acquired by NASA’s WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite that supposedly reveals a “huge void” in the universe: “Since our universe is relatively heterogeneous, empty spaces are not rare, but in this case the enormous magnitude of the hole is way outside the expected range. The hole found in the constellation of Eridanus is about a billion light years across, which is roughly 10,000 times as large as our galaxy or 400 times the distance to Andromeda, the closest ‘large’ galaxy.”

The story continues, “The dimension of the hole is so big that at first glance, it results [sic] impossible to explain under the current cosmological theories….”

So how are some scientists reacting to this data that may be “impossible to explain under the current cosmological theories”? The same way they react to other “impossible” observations and discoveries — by inventing esoterica that have no analogs in experiment or nature.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physics Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton says that this “void” is “…the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own”. The article goes on to refer to the observation of the “void” as possible “experimental evidence” for a parallel universe.

But what are scientists actually seeing that would lead anyone to speculate about “parallel universes”? Answer: “NOTHING.” And the testable prediction offered by this interpretation is that MORE “nothing” will be found — “Her model predicts the existence of two voids rather than one, one in each hemisphere of our universe.”

Of course, no one predicted the appearance of a “void,” and then went looking for it. WMAP was mapping the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) when the “void” came looking for them. Ergo, this was not an “experiment,” but rather an astonishing, even “impossible” discovery that has thrown astronomers onto their back feet.

The observation of clumps and “voids” has always been a problem for Big Bang cosmology, but the discovery of this “impossibly” huge “void” only highlights BB theory’s inherent implausibility. From its first formulation onward, the Big Bang hypothesis was hampered by the problem of “inhomegeneity.” Critics argued that raw subatomic — or preatomic — material exploding outward at nearly the speed of light would produce an evenly distributed cloud with no force present to generate cosmic structure. But in fact, we observe cosmic structure everywhere we look, and the distribution of matter is profoundly uneven. Both the concentrations of matter, and the “voids” between these concentrations, falsify the inherent, logical “predictions” of the original theory.

The force of gravity is weak and takes time to move things around. The elapsed time since the conjectured Big Bang sets a limit on how big any structure can be. Structures exceeding that limit are, by the cosmologists’ own admission, impossible. And just as the “huge void” constitutes a problem, BB theorists must wrestle at the other end of the spectrum, with massive galactic structure which, by their own measuring stick (redshift = distance interpretation), must have formed in the first phases of cosmic evolution. Now they can only respond to undeniable observations by making things up — in this case, a PARALLEL UNIVERSE, no less.

Decades ago, the father of “plasma cosmology,” Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, had already admonished cosmologists that the problem of inhomogeneity would lead them to a dead end, so long as they refused to deal with electricity in space. More recently, physicist Eric J. Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, wrote that the scale of observed voids in galaxy distribution, “combined with observed low streaming of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang….” According to Lerner, while this unevenness refutes the BB hypothesis, “…the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a ‘radio fog’ of dense plasma filaments.” (These observations of Lerner were offered years before the recent observation of the “impossible” void — IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003.)

It needs to be pointed out that scientists are handicapped both in trying to assess the actual “size” of the “void,” and why they are seeing it. WMAP observed an area of space where the “temperature” of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is interpreted as 20 to 45 percent lower than that of the surrounding region (they interpret “hot” spots and “cold” spots by the peak intensity frequency — interpreted as “black body” (thermal) radiation (the Planck curve) — that varies slightly from one direction to another). This suggested to astronomers the appearance of a “void.” They then looked at the SDSS galaxy-redshift survey, and saw that the “void” (the space where no galaxies could be observed) was 900 million light-years across. This lack of galaxies (actually galaxy clusters) was confirmed by a survey of radio-galaxies by the Very Large Array (VLA).

But in a plasma universe, the appearance of a vast and remote “void” may be entirely illusory. It is now evident that astronomers imagine they are seeing things at the far edges of the visible Universe that are actually occurring in our own cosmic neighborhood, the Milky Way galaxy. The research of radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has demonstrated that the “cosmic microwave background” shown by WMAP is local microwave fog, as Lerner proposed in the article noted above. So the “vision” of observers using WMAP is clouded by the local activity of electric current filaments.

See Big Bang or Big Goof?

Underlying this issue, of course, is the controversial method of measuring an object’s distance from the observer by its redshift. We are told that the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be, and the faster it is moving away from us. But since the late 1960′s, Halton Arp has been accumulating discordant redshift evidence, as noted by Sagan above. Indeed, some have said that the Big Bang has already been falsified due to the refutation of the underlying redshift = distance assumption.

One of the most dramatic refutations can be found in the galaxy NGC 7319. This galaxy is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. In front of its opaque gas clouds, or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust, is a quasar with a redshift of 2.114. What does this tell us? By the Big Bang principles, the quasar must be BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS farther from us than the galaxy, because its redshift is so much larger. And yet the galaxy is opaque, so the quasar must be near the surface of the dust clouds or even IN FRONT of them.

See Quasar in Front of Galaxy

It is clear that no legitimate reason exists for anyone to be concocting science fiction fantasies about “parallel universes,” based on phenomena that are perfectly explicable by plasma science. Imagine a meteorologist going on television and explaining an unusual weather front as an effect of “mini black holes,” or “invisible dark matter,” or a “parallel universe.” When asked to verify his fantasies, he could pull out his chalkboard and begin sketching some very elegant mathematical equations. Whom would he succeed in convincing? We must remember that the laws of physics that we observe on the earth are not suspended in the vast reaches of space! The irony is that the most outspoken critics of the Electric Universe have repeatedly asserted that it “violates” or “rewrites” the known laws of physics. Somehow, discredited theoretical guesses have become “laws of physics” in their minds. In fact, the electric hypothesis observes the laws of nature much more faithfully than the unmitigated esoterica that dominates astronomy and theoretical physics. And this is precisely why mainstream cosmology is now in a state of crisis bordering on meltdown.