ESA Return to ESA

Creation's Tiny Mystery
Appendix: Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective

< Prev  T of C  ...  12  13  14  15  Epi.  Cat.  App.  Ref.  Cred.  Next >

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #13  #14  #15  #16  #17  #18  #19  #20  #21  ...

Part:  ...  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L

Estimates of the Distance from the Milky Way to the Center

Earlier it was implied that the Milky Way could be one of the innermost galaxies in the RSS model. This view is based on the assumption that the Milky Way's cosmic galactic velocity of 550 km/s through the CMR (46) is just the tangential velocity of the Milky Way (MW) around C. Galactic peculiar motions may also be of the same nature. On this basis we can compute the angular velocity ω of the MW around C from v2 = ω2R2 = GM/R, which leads to the result that ω = 2(πρG/3)½.

For a constant ρ = 10−29g/cm3, then ω = 5 × 10−11 rad/y, and the distance from C to our galaxy would be about 3.7 × 107 light-years. (C of course would be located somewhere in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the motion of the MW through the CMR.) If ρ = 10−27g/cm3 then ω = 5 × 10−10 rad/y (or 5 × 10−5 arc-s/y), which means that differential angular motions of the more distant galaxies (as observed at the MW) would still be below the present detection limit of light telescopes (10−3 arc-s/y). In the latter case the distance from the MW to C is about 3.7 × lO6 light-years and is considered the preferred value so as reduce potential blueshift effects. This distance places C outside our galaxy but still in the plane which is perpendicular to the MW's cosmic velocity vector. No observational data as yet seems to locate the direction of C in that plane. On the other hand Orion is in that plane, and is prominently mentioned in Scripture (Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8). As a working hypothesis I suggest that C may lie a few million light years beyond Orion. One density used in the preceding calculations is higher than current estimates but, as previously noted, Ellis (52) has suggested there may be a large amount of undetected mass/energy which may raise the value to more than 10−24 g/cm3. On this basis the higher density estimate is not unreasonable. In the RSS model the value of the density cannot much exceed 10−26 g/cm3 or else the angular velocity will increase to the point where differential motions of distant galaxies would be observed.

The RSS Model and Olber's Paradox

We briefly digress to note that Olber's Paradox is resolved if the universe is structured according to the RSS model because the finite number of galaxies within a sphere of radius R' will only produce a finite light flux at the Milky Way. Even if there is luminous matter beyond R', the density is assumed to diminish so rapidly that the light flux received at the Milky Way from beyond R' will also be finite.

The RSS Model and Varshni's Analysis of Quasar Redshifts

In the context of the present proposal for the structure of the universe it is most appropriate to refer to Varshni's (53) investigation of the redshift distribution of 384 quasars. From a probability analysis of those 384 quasars he [p. 291] found an astounding 57 sets of redshift coincidences within small redshift intervals. Varshni calculates the probability of chance coincidence of these groups to be about 10−85. He concludes that if quasar redshifts are real (he thinks they are not) and are of cosmological origin (i.e., distance related), then the only logical deduction from the data is, in his own words, as follows:

The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

These deductions are amazingly similar to the deductions of the RSS model except that, first, the earth, or MW, is only astronomically close to rather than being exactly at the Center, and, second, the absolute reference frame is defined by the CMR and not the position of the earth. And from earlier discussions in this article, it should now be clear that the special and the general theory of relativity are not credible theories in the RSS model. In fact, as shown below, if anything it now appears that the results of one of the most celebrated experiments in the history of physics contradict the basic premises of both special and general relativity so directly that, to me at least, it seems these theories are no longer tenable. As noted earlier, however, just because special and general relativity are shown to be untenable does not invalidate all the mathematical results obtained by these theories. It suggests rather that there must exist an absolute space-time framework which would encompass all the results of relativity which do accord with experiment, but different results where relativity theory makes incorrect predictions. Several investigations pertaining to this alternative framework have already been cited (42-44). In addition we should also mention Clube's (54) work and his exchanges with others (55) on neo-Lorentzian relativity.

The RSS Model, the CMR, and the Theory of Relativity

Clube's (54) explanation for the CMR is undergirded by the assumption of a non-relativistic Lorentz invariant material vacuum. It is intriguing to consider that the CMR may be the result of emissions from a cold material vacuum. On a related matter, Clube cites other work (56) as evidence that observations are not at all inconsistent with an essentially Euclidean infinite cosmos. Certainly these ideas appear easily reconcilable with the RSS model since they assume the existence of an absolute reference frame. However, the details of Clube's theory have yet to be worked out so it is premature to make any claims until further work is done. Of course there is also the possibility that the CMR may be a part of the 'light' that was created in Gen. 1:3. Interestingly, Weisskopf (45) alludes to that very possibility in the closing paragraph of his recent article:

Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition describes the beginning of the world in a way that is surprisingly similar to the scientific model. Previously, it seemed scientifically unsound to have light created before the sun. The present scientific view does indeed assume the early universe to be filled with various kinds of radiation long before [p. 292] the sun was created. The Bible says about the beginning: "And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good."

Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe, a very necessary condition in the RSS model, but an inconsistent condition for the relativistic foundations of the Big Bang model. To explicitly show exactly how this inconsistency arises, it is most helpful to include another quote from Weisskopf's recent article:

It is remarkable that we now are justified in talking about an absolute motion, and that we can measure it. The great dream of Michelson and Morley is realized. They wanted to measure the absolute motion of the earth by measuring the velocity of light in different directions. According to Einstein, however, this velocity is always the same. But the 3K radiation represents a fixed system of coordinates. It makes sense to say that an observer is at rest in an absolute sense when the 3K radiation appears to have the same frequencies in all directions. Nature has provided an absolute frame of reference. The deeper significance of this concept is not yet clear.

With all due respect to my eminent colleague I suggest the meaning of this fact is not obscure at all. I suggest the evidence (the CMR) which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is in reality its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity. The logic is quite straightforward. Referring to the last quotation by Weisskopf, we note he mentions the famed Michelson-Morley experiment, which achieved only a null result.

Lorentz's efforts to explain this null result on the basis of an absolute reference frame were supposedly untenable. The real explanation, according to almost every physics textbook written in the past 60 years, was given by the theory of relativity, namely that: Given the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the fundamental principles of relativity are true, then there is no absolute reference frame. But the CMR is an absolute reference frame, so the original relativistic deductions about the Michelson-Morley experiment are in error. More precisely, since logic requires the contrapositive of a statement to be equivalent to the statement itself, the preceding "if relativity is true, then no absolute reference frame" statement must be equivalent to "if an absolute reference frame exists, then the fundamental principles of relativity are untrue." In simpler terms the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by an unambiguous experimental result. Without relativity theory there is no Big Bang, no Hubble relation for the redshift, and no explanation for the CMR in an evolutionary cosmological model.

Book Cover Photo

Get the entire printed version of our book for $18 + S/H.

To order our book and/or videos,

Call Us at (800) 467-6380, or use our order form.

Part:  ...  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #13  #14  #15  #16  #17  #18  #19  #20  #21  ...

< Prev  T of C  ...  12  13  14  15  Epi.  Cat.  App.  Ref.  Cred.  Next >

The above page was found at on January 21, 2018.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates