Discoveries In Space Are Falsifiying Expectations

In the model of an old universe, Enceladus has a problem. You see, evolutionists have been trying to account for a heat source from a tiny moon of Saturn that was expected to be frozen out many years ago with it’s assumed old age.  Estimates about the heat source were very conservative, around 1.1 to 1.4 gigawatts. Recently the challenge has increased as Cassini discovers a more accurate measurement of what Enceladus is producing. The energy output is considered to be at the “powerhouse” level which surprises many scientists.

“Data from Cassini’s composite infrared spectrometer of Enceladus’ south polar terrain, which is marked by linear fissures, indicate that the internal heat-generated power is about 15.8 gigawatts, approximately 2.6 times the power output of all the hot springs in the Yellowstone region, or comparable to 20 coal-fueled power stations. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than scientists had predicted, according to Carly Howett, the lead author of study, who is a postdoctoral researcher at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., and a composite infrared spectrometer science team member.”

“The mechanism capable of producing the much higher observed internal power remains a mystery and challenges the currently proposed models of long-term heat production,” said Howett.”

Of course speculation arises with imagination setting in then suggesting that this discovery was at a special time of being pretty active so we were pretty lucky in observing it…“A possible explanation of the high heat flow observed is that Enceladus’ orbital relationship to Saturn and Dione changes with time, allowing periods of more intensive tidal heating, separated by more quiescent periods.” Other speculation had to do with possible alien life forms evolving…

This is not the only observation that gives old age models fits, but another recent discovery, scientists have a new project to to account for in the evolution of the universe and that is, how can a young galaxy cluster that existed according to big-bang cosmology,  when the universe was in the adolescence stage of its presumed 13.7-billion-year age look so mature?

The cluster, labeled CL J1449+0856, was observed by the European Southern Observatory’ with a very large telescope (VLT), at the Paranal Observatory in Chile.

“These new results support the idea that mature clusters existed when the universe was less than one quarter of its current age,” Gobat said. “Such clusters are expected to be very rare according to current theory, and we have been very lucky to spot one.  But if further observations find many more, then this may mean that our understanding of the early universe needs to be revised.”

With the old age framework, the article fails to explain how even one mature cluster could even exist at that young age. Observations of maturity in the early part of what is assumed to be the beginning of the universe is nothing new.  In 2002, scientists were oddly suggesting that “the grand finale came first” thereby pushing the formation of stars and galaxies into the first 5-8% of the assumed age of the universe, and then claim everything was fully formed as far back as it was possible to imagine, and that there were 10 times as many stars forming in the distant early universe as there are today.

Using the Spitzer Space Telescope, a team of scientists back in 2005 discovered that the most distant stars they ever observed at that time already had well-developed stars!

“It seems that in a couple of cases these early galaxies are nearly as massive as galaxies we see around us today, which is a bit surprising when the theory is that galaxies start small and grow by colliding and merging with other galaxies,” said Dr. Mark Lacy (Spitzer Science Center).”

“The real puzzle is that these galaxies seem to be already quite old when the Universe was only about 5 per cent of its current age,” commented Professor Richard Ellis of Caltech.  “This means star formation must have started very early in the history of the Universe – earlier than previously believed.”

The pattern is clear, the farther back they look, the more mature structures they observe which is contrary to evolutionary expectations. So what are they exactly learning? When a model becomes more complex through falsifications it’s not a sign that it’s the correct model. The correct model is, the creationist one which predicts a young universe and special creation, not a step by step evolutionary process!

About these ads

8 thoughts on “Discoveries In Space Are Falsifiying Expectations

  1. 1.) the age of Enceladus is not the age of the universe

    2.) this ‘young’ cluster is 3 billion years old. It is also not very massive: more like a group. It does not pose any problem to current models (this is what I do for a living, but you do not have to take my word for it: read the paper !).

    3.) the stuff about ‘old’ galaxies at early times is your usual misunderstanding: there is no problem there for the age of the universe. The problem is one of galaxy formation theory, but not a very difficult one. I’m actually working with Mark Lacy (will meet him again next week in Paris), and he would just laugh at your post here. As I do, of course … you again have no idea what you are talking about.

    4) galaxy formation has NOTHING to do with evolutionary biology. I have no idea why you make this link …

  2. Eelco, we might as well stop being puzzled by Michael’s terminology. He uses “evolution to refer to any theory he abhors or can’t understand—which amounts to the same thing. Common biological descent, big-bang cosmology, embryonic stem-cell research—they all smack of “evolution” to Michael.

    Once again, we had a tsunami here in paradise. Spent the night upcountry parked near a golf course with hundreds of others, from 11pm to 11am the next morning. Fortunately, no damage at our building, although water came over the road, and a harbor 5km down the coast was destroyed. We in Maui were hit harder than anyone else in Hawai’i, except possibly Kona on Slab-o-Lava..

    When we returned home, we looked at the beach, which was 50 meters wider than usual, with a new spit of land. Then, 15 minutes later, the whole width of the beach had disappeared, and the spit was gone! And so it went, every 15 minutes all day, and we can still see the cycle today, although not as high. After-waves of the tsunami, each probably 200km long and 30cm high. Weird. Ominous. Over on O’ahu, they gained 500 meters of new beach with the first wave, and the entire Diamond Head reef was above water level.

    We went through the last tsunami (Chile) here last year, so it was not a new experience. Our daughter has a reputation for bringing volcano eruptions when she arrives; Perhaps we’ll be the tsunami people.

  3. Eelco,

    It is true, the hand is not a foot, nor is it a knee, but its still part of the body. A steering wheel is not a piston but it’s still part of the car. Like these bodies the universe has all kinds of parts in it. Since there is a assumption of the age of the universe, this affects how one assumes the age of Enceladus too! At first, things like the cluster, labeled CL J1449+0856, wasn’t suppose to be there, now it supposed to be “rare” and if more are found it will then be expected. So what you have here is the data explaining the theory rather the the theory explaining the data.

    “The real puzzle is that these galaxies seem to be already quite old when the Universe was only about 5 per cent of its current age,” commented Professor Richard Ellis of Caltech.”

    Puzzles like these can be explained with stories not with facts.

    You say, “galaxy formation has NOTHING to do with evolutionary biology. I have no idea why you make this link.” I suspect this about my phrase, “evolutionary expectations.” In answer to that, it is also used for non-darwinian ideas as well…Such as economics

    I wish you well with your meeting of Mark Lacy in Paris! :)

  4. Quoth Michael:

    ” In answer to that, it is also used for non-darwinian ideas as well…Such as economics…

    Once again Michael displays his ignorance This time in economics. I’m not sure what he intended with the web link, other than that “evolution” is employed in economics as well as in life.

    But not in all systems of economics. Planned economies, such as the communist Soviet Union, are not subject to evolution, but rather have a Designer which plans ahead of time the price structure of goods, workers’ wages, production quantities, and all other aspects of economic life.

    Free-market capitalism, on the other hand, is evolutionary. Variation creates new products and services, which then live or die according to selection by the peolpe who purchase them. Survival of the fittest in the marketplace. Darwinian evolution.

    .

    b>We might ask Michael which system of economics he prefers. Being a creationist who believes that design produces better results than evolution, he would of course prefer communist economics over darwinian capitalism.

  5. Michael: “Since there is a assumption of the age of the universe, this affects how one assumes the age of Enceladus too!”

    The age of the universe is not an assumption, it is a measurement.
    The age of Enceladus is completely independent of the age of the universe (well, the only thing you can say is that it cannot be older than the universe, but it can be younger by any amount).

    Michael: “At first, things like the cluster, labeled CL J1449+0856, wasn’t suppose to be there, now it supposed to be “rare” and if more are found it will then be expected.”

    Of course it was supposed to be there: as I said, it is not very massive (only about 5e13 solar masses, which is not really a cluster), and had lots of time to form (3 billion years). I do not see any problem with this object …

  6. @Michael,

    You are fighting a losing battle. .. You are arguing with a cosmologist on matters of cosmology. Eelco is qualified to talk on the subject since he has the qualifications….. You, on the other hand…..what are YOUR qualifications on the matter?

  7. Lack of qualifications wouldn’t matter so much if the reasoning made some sense, at least, and if one got the impression that Michael actually knows or understands what he is talking about …

  8. I really enjoy seeing commentary by people working activly in the field bringing cold fact to bear against the oppressive heat of a predetermined world-view.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but what I am seeing here is a person using what we know about the universe to discredit what we are discovering about the universe. If what we know always over-rides and snuffs out what we are discovering, then there would never be progress.

    I have said this before and I am sure I will say it many many more times. Finiding out that somthing doesn’t work quite the way we thought it did is NOT a defeat for science, it is a victory. Condraticition means new data, and that is the lifeblood of discovery. Science is well equipped to deal with new information, you just can’t expect that explaination on the Monday following the Saturday the new information is uncovered.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s