Secular Astronomy Fails, II: Deep Space
From planets to stars to galaxies, objects don’t fit the expectations of materialists who work as astronomers.
Secular astronomers will have to rewrite textbooks again, because what they’ve been teaching is wrong. This entry picks up from the 6 Nov 2019 article about solar system failures.
Primordial gas cloud has thoroughly modern make-up (Nature). You’re not supposed to look mature when you are born. Stars close to the alleged big bang have more heavy elements than expected, leading astronomers to conclude that they are not second-generation stars, but third-generation or older. There should not have been enough time for that. Big bangers say that the first stars had to be made of hydrogen, with a little helium and lithium, but no heavier elements. They call these “Population III” stars. Presumably, that first generation of stars had to go supernova to seed the early galaxies with heavy elements.
Artwork of imagined first stars. Not actually observed.
One of the oldest clouds of intergalactic gas found so far has a surprisingly contemporary composition, suggesting that the first stars to form after the Big Bang lived and died more quickly than thought.
Early in the history of the Universe, gas clouds birthed the first galaxies and stars. But the details of this process remain mysterious….
But the ratios of these elements do not match the ratios that would be expected if the cloud contained remnants of the first generation of stars. Instead, the authors’ observations suggest that at least a second generation of stars had already come and gone, even at this early stage of cosmic growth.
The situation is analogous to the Cambrian explosion. Evolutionists accustomed to slow-and-gradual processes have to cry, “Hurry up and evolve!” in order to keep their belief system from being falsified.
What caused the Big Bang? (Science Daily). Someone at the University of Central Florida didn’t get the message that the big bang is completely different from a supernova. The authors of a new study about supernovas thinks that their model of ignition promises insight into how the universe began.
“We explore these supersonic reactions for propulsion, and as a result of that, we came across this mechanism that looked very interesting,” he said. “When we started to dig deeper, we realized that this is relatable to something as profound as the origin of the universe.”
The key is applying the right amount of turbulence and mixing to an unconfined flame until it become self-perpetuating, at which point the flame begins to burn the ingested energy leading to a Mach 5 hypersonic supernova explosion.
This is hogwash. Supernovas explode from pre-existing matter. The alleged big bang started with nothing: no matter, no energy, no time, and no brains. The Air Force that funded this study wanted to learn about hypersonic jet propulsion, not materialistic cosmology. They should ask for their money back.
Thousands of new globular clusters have formed over the last billion years (University of the Basque Country). The astronomy prof in this rural agricultural region “found unexpected answers to the origin of some globular clusters located around the giant galaxies at the centre of galaxy clusters.” He found a manifestation of the Stuff Happens Law in astronomy: globular clusters forming out of cold gas and raining down on galaxies. Beats feeding the chickens day after day. Of course, Thomas Broadhurst didn’t actually watch this stuff happen. He found globular clusters that look too young (1/13th the assumed age of the universe), so he invented a story to match. It wasn’t long ago that astronomers were teaching that globular clusters contained the oldest stars in the universe. This astronomer believes that the magnificent clusters of up to a million stars just pop into existence out of the cold. Isn’t that what gases do?
Constraints on bosonic dark matter from ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance (Science). Another detection experiment has failed to find dark matter. “No dark matter signal was detected above background, establishing new experimental bounds for dark matter bosons with masses ranging from 1.8 × 10−16 to 7.8 × 10−14 eV.” It’s becoming a tradition to look closer and closer, and find nothing. Can the authors of this wasted effort send the taxpayer money back to the DOE and NSF to use on more productive experiments?
Putting the ‘bang’ in the Big Bang (Science Daily). The subtitle chants, “Physicists simulate critical ‘reheating’ period that kickstarted the Big Bang in the universe’s first fractions of a second.” The geniuses at MIT and Kenyon College are retreating into storytelling mode. Whatever they suggest, it can’t be right, because it relies on inflation – a philosophical trick concocted by Alan Guth that resulted in the Guth Goof (i.e., the solution being worse than the problem; see 25 Sept 2014, 26 Oct 2018). For entertainment, readers can learn about the Goop in the Guth Goof.
Just before the Big Bang launched the universe onto its ever-expanding course, physicists believe, there was another, more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter — a cold, homogeneous goop — inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe.
Is there any point in reading further? It’s already wrong, but look at them inflate their egos:
“This enables us to tell an unbroken story, from inflation to the postinflation period, to the Big Bang and beyond,” Kaiser says. “We can trace a continuous set of processes, all with known physics, to say this is one plausible way in which the universe came to look the way we see it today.”
Since there are no Laws of Plausibility in science, a story can always seem plausible to the storyteller. It’s like what the origin-of-life scientists do: making “suggestions” about such-and-such a “scenario” that might be “one plausible way” to get a miracle (a Poof Spoof) out of mindlessness.
Is a New Particle Changing the Fate of the Universe? (Space.com). Astronomer Paul Sutter shows just how wrong cosmologists can be. Are you ready? Get in, sit down, hold on, and shut up:
If we want to use the exotic quantum energy of the vacuum of space-time to explain dark energy, we immediately run into problems. When we perform some very simple, very naive calculations of how much energy there is in the vacuum due to all the quantum fields, we end up with a number that is about 120 orders of magnitude stronger than what we observe dark energy to be. Whoops.
On the other hand, when we try some more sophisticated calculations, we end up with a number that is zero. Which also disagrees with the measured amount of dark energy. Whoops again.
Let’s put this in perspective. Say you work for a bank president, and you have to report an error you made. You walk in, and announce that the error is off by a factor of trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion decimal places. What would he say to you if your excuse is, “Whoops”?
Materialists are so wrong so often, they should get out of science and do something useful with their lives, like take up delivering packages for Amazon Prime. At least their customers will get tangible goods for their money.
Recommended Reading: Book review by John Hartnett of Jason Lisle’s new book, The Physics of Einstein: Black Holes, Time Travel, Distant Starlight, E=mc2. Review is in CMI’s Journal of Creation 33(2) 2019, pp. 22-28. An apparently similar version of this review can be found on the Bible Science Forum.