The Fingers Of God Point To NO Big Bang

As more scientists come around to the creation side, more and more facts are coming out that destroy the myth of Evolution. Did you know man and Dinosaur walked the earth at the same time? What was the canopy made out of that protected the earth before the deluge??
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

The Fingers Of God Point To NO Big Bang

Post#1 » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:50 am

The Fingers Of God Point To No Big Bang
By Michael Goodspeed

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
-- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

"The Big Bang is dead. It's a theory based on a theory based on an assumption...and that assumption was wrong."
--Amy Acheson, amateur astronomer

The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the transient perception of truth.

For members of the general public with no training in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."

It's amazing how simple the flaw is in the Big Bang theory. It all boils down to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the Doppler interpretation of redshift. Light frequencies from remote objects in space, when shifted toward the red, are claimed to signify the velocity of the object away from the observer -- and no other explanation is admitted.

The Doppler effect is not complicated. Everyone is familiar with the sudden drop in pitch of a train's whistle as it approaches and then moves past us. The same principle is used in a police radar gun, to measure the speed of an automobile. Once astronomers noted the varying degrees of redshift in remote space objects, most began to interpret this shift as a reliable indicator of velocity. This gave them a mathematical basis for calculating both the size and age of the universe, beginning with the Big Bang.

It is interesting to observe how a theory grows into "fact" over time, evidence be damned. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was published almost a quarter-century ago. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet become a "fact"; questions were still permitted. On the issue of redshift 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's acknowledgment here shows a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public. 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.

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."

At the time of Sagan's Cosmos, the Doppler interpretation of redshift was debatable. Since that time, discoveries in space have definitively refuted this interpretation, despite the absence of any public announcements to this effect.

The positions of remote galaxies have now been plotted, based on the common interpretation of redshift, and the result exposes the lie. When each galaxy is reduced to a dot on a "map," something "miraculous" occurs. (This "map" may be viewed at ... of-god.htm)

The "map" appears to present the "fingers of God" pointing to Earth, as if we are are the center of the universe. How could this be? No one on either side of the debate considers the earth to be the center of the universe, and everyone seems to agree that no matter where an observer is placed, the same effect will be produced. It is an ILLUSION, and the most obvious explanation is that using redshift to measure distance will artificially stretch groups of galaxies along radial lines away from the observer. In other words, large clusters of galaxies in relative proximity to each other have been artificially projected outward along radial lines spanning billions of light years. To eliminate the illusion, you only need to eliminate the Doppler interpretation.

But I've oversimplified the picture. Cosmologists DO have a partial explanation for the "fingers of God" effect. They tell us that some of the galaxies along the radiating lines are "galaxy clusters," moving around a common center of gravity. And since that involves motion both toward and away from the earth, in these cases the "illusion" should be expected. The problem is that the "fingers of God" span VASTLY larger distances, and across these distances the astronomers' own assumptions preclude dynamic interactions. Indeed, Halton Arp has pointed to hundreds of instances in which multiple objects of different redshifts are part of coherent systems; the bodies are interacting physically and energetically, and obviously do not stand billions of light years away from each other.

Under the weight of this direct evidence -- or should I say proof -- the Big Bang hypothesis as a whole collapses. Yet instead of giving up a failed theory, astronomers have turned to a "get out of jail free" card -- inventing invisible matter, with the option to place it wherever it will be mathematically useful to make their models work. This is the myth of "dark matter," which in recent years has enabled astronomers to hold on to a picture of the universe defied by observation at every turn. Since it is both invisible and undetectable, there is no limit to the usefulness of dark matter, wherever the predictions of their theories have failed. In fact, this device can be applied to all anomalous movements within the macrocosm, with no possibility of refutation. Dark matter is outside the reach of any practical scientific tests, and we are only asked to believe in it because of the failures of standard models.

We are all familiar with the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Another question might be, "If a fact is disproved, and no one admits it, is it still a fact?"

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman once said, "There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea." But most scientists are not guilty of stupidity. Rather, they are guilty of ASSUMPTIONS. Theories were accepted as "facts" before all the evidence was in, and as a result, evidence contradicting the facts was either misinterpreted or ignored. It is time for assumptions to be set aside, so the truth might finally prevail.


Regarding the Article "The Fingers Of God Point To No Big Bang" By Michael Goodspeed, the simplest and maybe the correct explanation for the perceived red shift may be found with Paul Marmet. ... tml#Author

In short, he states that the redshift can be explained by vast quantities of molecular hydrogen (H2) in interstellar space, which is not easily detecable, unlike molecular hydrogen (H). Light interacts over enormous distances with this material (H2) and is slowly redshifted, but the source of light is not receding at tremendous speed from the "Big Bang".

In response to his previous article, I wrote to Michael Goodspeed about this, but after checking his webpage tonight, I feel that Marmet's stuff might not fit with said webpage. If you should think that it is a good explanation for the Big Bang, maybe someone else could write an article to let it be known to the general public through

The longer the mistake of the "Big Bang" is left uncorrected, the harder it will be to change things.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest