In 1929 Edwin Hubble published his observations of the redshift and distances of nearby galaxies. Hubble observed in the light from most of those galaxies that the spectral lines were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum as compared to a local laboratory source of the same atomic gas species. From this he interpreted that it was a Doppler effect (ie. due to the motion of the source), where the galaxies were receding from us, the observer. Thus the idea of the expanding universe was founded.
Expanding universe with us at the centre. The galaxies are moving away from us at the same rate in every direction.
But one other important idea came from those same observations. He observed roughly the same redshift in light from the galaxies as a function of distance in every direction he looked. This became known as the Hubble law, which is the basis for the standard cosmology today–the big bang model. But the fact that this was in every direction and that the proportionality between the redshift and distance was the same in every direction meant that it looked to him like we, that is, our galaxy, was at the centre of the Universe. This is because the galaxies were moving away in a spherically symmetric way, putting us at the centre. This view of the Universe then would look something like the image in the figure on the right. Continue reading
On the website “Genesis Science Research” (www.Setterfield.org) an article is written by Mr Randy Speir that is apparently a challenge to my cosmology. Normally I don’t respond to frivolous claims as I think this is but it does remain out there, unchallenged, and so here is my response, with my comments interspersed between the author’s original comments. The original is in black text and mine in red.
Challenge to the Hartnett Model
printed here by permission of Randy Speir, author
21 June 2012
Letter to the Editor, Journal of Creation
Pierre Jerlstrom, Editor
Since John Hartnett published his young universe model in 2007 in Starlight, Time and the New Physics, he has met with little challenge, at least publically. Yet, upon investigation, the construction of his model demonstrates striking weaknesses, one of which may be dire. About four difficulties are discussed below. While his math may seem robust, it is only as good as the structure it builds. Surprisingly, it is something so elementary in nature which may undermine his efforts and ultimately bring the model down. Since, in the discussion of his ideas, he was deliberately silent about the beginning, his response to this challenge should evoke a full disclosure of the mechanics of the model from the very outset of creation. On that explanation will hang the fate of his ideas.
JH: It is very difficult to understand what he is talking about here. I certainly do not understand what the weaknesses are, especially the one that is “dire.” I am not deliberately silent about the beginning (of Creation, I assume he means). It is outlined in my book to which he refers. If he refers to Days 1-3, it is true there is not a lot of detail in the book, but the book really only deals with one proposition: How do we see starlight from sources billions of light-years away in a 6000 year old universe? My mechanism solves this problem by rapid expansion of the fabric of space on Day 4 of Creation week and as such the details are all focussed on that one day.
In the 1920s came the development of both the theory (from Einstein’s general relativity theory) and the observations that (apparently) meant that the Universe is expanding. Edwin Hubble made observations of nearby galaxies and he interpreted those observations to mean that they were rapidly receding from our point in space. That discovery seemed to settle two big questions of that time: Is our Galaxy all there is? And, Is the Universe static or expanding?
Later in another blog I will discuss more on Hubble’s observations and his interpretation. Previously, I discussed the issue of static or expanding in regards to the Universe.
Sir David Attenborough
In an article1 discussing the irony of Sir David Attenborough’s crediting contemplation of nature for solace he has felt after his wife’s death, the author rightly criticizes Attenborough’s double standard. Attenborough has for many decades, in his atheism, used his television programs to present a godless view of nature as a mere product of evolution and blind chance. The process, which he believes that evolution takes, is the very antithesis of something that induces peace, calm and reassurance.
The author, correctly, speaks of the great damage that Attenborough has done to our civilization both individually and collectively through the promotion of the atheistic godless Darwinian evolutionary philosophy. He cites one young man who fell away from the faith after reading Darwin’s book The Origin of Species.
What is the big bang really all about? Pick up any science magazine or astronomy book and you would think it is all proven. But you would be really wrong.
They say 13.8 billion years ago there was a big bang. Nothing exploded and that filled the Universe with hot gas.
The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.
(April 2002 Discover Magazine)
This is a video segment, with added text subtitling, taken from the documentary film “The Heavens Declare” Part 2 where in I describe the new physics of how light from the most distant galaxies could have reached Earth in just 24 hours during the Creation by God 6000 years ago. My model is based on Carmeli’s cosmology and where the Universe was rapidly stretched out by the Creator on Day 4 of Creation week when He made the stars and galaxies. This provides a solution to the creationist light-travel-time problem.
Modern astronomy describes a universe that is billions of light-years in extent. If we reasonably assume that a light-year is the distance that light travels in one year at one light-year per year and that the speed of light has been a constant over all time since the creation of the Universe then creationists have a problem, don’t they? Since the Universe was created only a mere 6 thousand years ago how can light travel billions of light-years? This is called a light-travel-time problem.
Despite increasingly compelling arguments from biblical creationists that offer solutions to this problem, still many doubt the Bible’s clear timescale. This is because, they think, it is impossible for light to have reached Earth in only a few thousand years from galaxies that are billions of light-years away. This misconception is often the ultimate stumbling block to a straightforward acceptance of the Bible—even the gospel itself.
This book, Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, provides one such solution and it is summarized below. But before proceeding know this, the most accepted model describing the origin of the universe in the hot big bang also has a light-travel-time problem. This is called the horizon problem. See my blog, Big bang has a light-travel-time problem.