Gravitational Lensing Falsifies Evolutionary Cosmology

A recent press release from JPL displays a bombshell for evolutionary cosmology.  Anthony Gonzalez from the University of Florida couldn’t believe his eyes, he had to take second and third looks at a newly acquired observation from Hubble that consisted of a giant arc where it shouldn’t be according to evolutionary cosmology.

You see, arcs are the light of distant galaxies distorted by intervening matter.  This giant arch discovered is being distorted by powerful gravity created by an enormous  cluster galaxy! So why would this be a falsification of evolutionary cosmology?

The press release explains this…

“When I first saw it, I kept staring at it, thinking it would go away,” said study leader Anthony Gonzalez of the University of Florida in Gainesville, whose team includes researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “According to a statistical analysis, arcs should be extremely rare at that distance. At that early epoch, the expectation is that there are not enough galaxies behind the cluster bright enough to be seen, even if they were ‘lensed,’ or distorted by the cluster.”

“The other problem is that galaxy clusters become less massive the further back in time you go. So it’s more difficult to find a cluster with enough mass to be a good lens for gravitationally bending the light from a distant galaxy.”

In other words, this mature galaxy which is supposed to be much younger in its formation has been discovered in an extremely distant part of the universe where its estimated mass is said to be 10 trillion suns and very close to what evolutionary cosmologists believe to be pretty close to the “Big Bang.”  While JPL promotes this to be a unique discovery, it does put evolutionary cosmology in jeopardy. The most massive galaxies should not exist so close to the alleged big bang and it cannot be tweaked in order to have it fit into a progressive structure of formations predicted by the big bang.

In the future, more likely than not, there are discoveries like these waiting to happen.  Scientists are just scratching the surface with these observations.  And lastly, scientists need to think outside the box rather than constrain themselves with failed theories!

About these ads

8 thoughts on “Gravitational Lensing Falsifies Evolutionary Cosmology

  1. It would behoove Michael to look up the difference between “impossible” and “rare.”

    >> “The chance of finding such a gigantic cluster so early in the universe was less than one percent in the small area we surveyed,” said team member Mark Brodwin. (That is, rare).

    >> Quoth Michael: The most massive galaxies should not exist so close to the big bang and it can’t be tweaked in order to have it fit into a progressive structure of formations predicted by the big bang” (That is, impossible)

    Rare is not impossible; rare is merely uncommon.

    The second mistake Michael makes is to read an account written for the public, with attendant hyperbole, as being scientifically cautious and accurate. A press release ain’t a journal paper. (Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait for the paper.)

    Then, there is one more question for Michael. Several times previously, we have chortled about how he unquestioningly believes certain things that scientists say,but unquestioningly dismisses others. Here, he disbelieves that the cluster is 10 billion years old, but he believes in gravitational lenses. This is a stretch for creationism, since the physics of lensing makes it impossible that both the imaged galaxy cluster and the object that forms the lens could be within 10,000 light-years of the earth. Basic optical theory would not permit the light to bend that much in that short a distance..

    So Michael believes unquestioningly in lenses, but not in the ages necessary to produce them in the sky. Another example of selective belief.

    Sorry, Michael. This is not an evolutionary bombshell. It’s only creationist flatulence..

  2. There exists no ‘evolutionary cosmology’. There is cosmology, of course.

    Gravitational lensing has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

    Oh, and other than that: Michael completely misunderstood this particular study. I actually have done this sort of work (statistics of gravitational arcs) professionally.

    Just to quote MIchael: “The most massive galaxies should not exist so close to the alleged big bang.”
    No Michael, it does not say that at all. You completely misunderstood (or misrepresent) this work.

  3. Here’s the paper on this study: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1205.3788

    I do not see any bombs under big bang cosmology there. What I do see is lots of issues that can affect the result: concentration of the clusters, substructure, more mass along the line-of-sight, uncertain counts of background galaxies, etc. etc.

    So this paper sets interesting constraints on models for galaxy formation and evolution (which is NOT biological evolution) and the formation of clusters of galaxies. It does not present anything that is wildly off, though.

  4. Eelco, I think you are fighting a losing battle on trying to restrict “evolution” to the field of biology. In a broad sense, “evolution” an refer to any change over time. In that sense, the universe does evolve, and we can study its evolutionary aspects.

    And, as I argued for geology, we could say that there are two kinds of cosmologists. One kind is creationist cosmologists, whose purpose is only in apologetics, with no practical applications, and no theories or predictions. “Evolutionary cosmologists”is too narrow a name for the other kind, because they study much more than the evolution of the universe; let’s call them “scientific cosmologists.”

    The guiding principle of creationist cosmologists is “Things are the way they are because they are the way they are.” Scientific cosmologists operate under the rubric “Things are the way they are, because they got that way.” Then we can compare the relative value of these two principles in promoting understanding of the way the universe works.

  5. Olorin,

    You say, “Rare is not impossible; rare is merely uncommon.”Did they observe the whole universe when they added that side note? Did they observe massive galaxies with a quick formation rate or a very slow formation rate (making it much older in evolutionary terms) that would appear relatively close to earth? How did they come up with the various formation rates? Do they know how something that could form that quickly or slowly in the universe? No, it’s an expectation based on mere assumptions and newly obtained data. We are talking about a cluster galaxy that is as big as 10 trillion suns very close to what you would consider to be the big bang! The only reason why that insertion (rare) was put in there was because Hubble started…

    “searching for evolving galaxies in December 1995, focused for 10 continuous days on a tiny patch of sky, so small when viewed from Earth that a grain of sand held at arm’s length would cover that area. This picture of that tiny patch of sky is called Hubble Deep Field North. Most objects in it are not isolated stars, but galaxies, each containing billions of stars. Of the 3,000 galaxies photographed that emitted enough light to measure their redshifts, which presumably measure distance, all seemed surprisingly mature. As stated in Scientific American, “the formation of ‘ordinary’ spiral and elliptical galaxies is apparently still out of reach of most redshift surveys.”

    And more were shown from 1998-2004 from Hubble…Not so rare at all! So yes, they would add “rare” for future discoveries with mature galaxies in very distant space to the prediction where it previously wasn’t before these discoveries took place. The data is predicting the theory rather than the other way around. The better we can see what is out there based on better technology, the more of those expectations are falsified.

    If my expectation holds true, that is, most likely this observation of the massive galaxy is not rare at all but more common and I also believe it is more common what would be deem much older like a planetary system measured at 13 million years old but is pretty close to the earth, only about 375 light years away as mentioned in another post!

    This newly discovered planetary system was not predicted as “rare” but labeled as “rare” afterwords out of necessity for their theory and most likely inserted for future predictions. Then when I confirm this expectation more and more as technology advances, watch them revise the “rare” to an expectation of more common…lol Like in evolutionary biology where soft tissue was debated in 2005 with T-Rex as they thought soft tissue was impossible because of their assumed length of time as the result of the decay rate of soft tissue which is correct but in a more realistic time frame that confirms the Bible, there was no doubting soft tissue could be found in fossils, it is certainly possible especially since the creationist model has the earth being much younger!

    Now discovering soft tissue is part of the evolutionary theory but “rare” they say…lol So it was revised from impossible to possible inserting a prediction of it…lol In other words, taking falsifications and using it as future confirmation…lol When you insert more complexity into a theory in order to keep it applicable for future use, this my friend is not science but a telling a story!

    In this article…

    “Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: (a) by looking for the oldest stars; and (b) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.”

    So I have a question for you, how do you know how old the universe is billions of years old based on certain preferred measurements mentioned above when you have observations like a planetary system measured at 13 million years old that is only 375 light years away from earth which is dated at 4.5 billion years along with other estimates of the universe being 13.7 billion years old, while a massive cluster galaxy (10 trillion suns) is very close to your supposed big bang, or when you have 3,000 mature galaxies discovered in very distant space?

    The more discoveries concerning mixed measurements in ages with objects in space that are found in various parts of the universe adds more complexity which doesn’t help the cause of believing the universe is billions of years old! I use “billions” loosely because the universe might be even bigger than what is being observed today then we will see revised estimates by evolutionary scientists which will make objects even older!

    And if the universe is bigger than what is observed today, this added complexity will put another dagger into evolutionary cosmology which causes more storytelling! Certainly not with the creationist model as it continues to do well with real-time observations!

  6. Eelco,

    Think about this. There is not enough time in the age of the universe (even as how you imagine it, times a billion) for gravity to pull together all the particles comprising clusters of galaxies!

    Here is another thing to consider, there have been about 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published along with 16 different techniques used through the course of 300 years. M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, in 1927, was the first to propose a reduction in the speed of light. Years later, Montgomery and Dolphin did an experiment of their own which challenged the idea that the speed of light change(“Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?” Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, September–October 1993, pp. 93–97. [This paper is also found at http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html.

    They also discovered decreases in the speed of light.

    “If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained … There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it.”

    So various mathematical curves fit these three centuries of data. When some of those mathematical curves are projected back in time, the speed of light becomes so fast that light from distant galaxies conceivably could have reached Earth in thousands of years!

    Measuring the speed of light is amazing! :)

    No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant in your case but it would have to be an assumption! Although, it would help the big bang with some of its problems if light was faster but certainly not for the age of the universe where it is claim to be about 13.7-15 billion years old. But I say, red shifts of distant starlight are the result of the slowing speed of light which is another confirmation of a young universe!

  7. Michael, I’m sharing Eelco’s frustration. You’re like a 6-year old trying to explain a text on brain surgery to a physician. Factual errors and bizarre interpretations—but most of all a complete lack any sense of what is logical or reasonable. Your comment is not just wrong; it makes no sense.

    Your example of a 13 million year-old solar system only 375 LY from earth is instructive. First, of course, is the factual error of 13 million (v. 13 billion), which you consistently repeat.. Then comes the repeated insistence of an utterly unreasonable claim that it is impossible—despite several presentations of an analogy showing how it can happen quite normally. (It may be unusual to find an elderly couple living in a neighborhood full of young families—but it violates no laws.) Actually, the amazing part is that no one had previously noticed this star.

    The JPL release said nothing at all about formation rates; and one wonders what difference formation rate would make in any event. How would anyone even measure its formation rate in this situation?

    Then there is the word salad about the area of observation. Of course the area is tiny. Compare this to a zoom lens on a camera. At wide angles, you can see a broad area, but you can’t see small, distant objects, especially if they are not very bright from your position. At the telephoto end, you can see such objects—but you can see fewer of them. Got it now?

    If my expectation holds true, that is, most likely this observation of the massive galaxy is not rare at all but more common and I also believe it is more common what would be deem [sic] much older

    We already know that massive galaxies are not rare. Remember that expectations and predictions must occur before they have been tested, not afterward. In any event, what difference would this make as to the age of the universe? Non sequitur.

    The part of this sentence after “and” makes no sense. What are you referring to?

    This newly discovered planetary system was not predicted as “rare” but labeled as “rare” afterwords out of necessity for their theory and most likely inserted for future predictions. Then when I confirm this expectation more and more as technology advances, watch them revise the “rare” to an expectation of more common…

    So, what’s the point? There are many stars in the Milky Way that are 13 billion years old. Theory predicts this, and it has been confirmed. No one needs to modify any theories or predictions.

    Like in evolutionary biology where soft tissue was debated in 2005 with T-Rex as they thought soft tissue was impossible because of their assumed length of time as the result of the decay rate of soft tissue

    Once again Michael trots out the same selective belief. Unlike religion, science follows the evidence. The previous opinion was soft tissue could not survive over millions of years. In most cases, this is still true. But recent advances have shown exceptions. Michael would dismiss these as assumptions, so let’s list a few: The serendipitous cutting of several large fossils in the field showed that organic material near the fossils was not from modern contamination. Synchrotron Rapid Scanning X-Ray Fluorescence allows non-destructive testing of tiny samples, even in the presence of degraded tissue. Advances in chemistry have shown that ternary complexation between keratin-derived organic molecules, divalent trace metals and silicate surfaces can extend the survival of certain compounds. Pyrolytic gas chromatography and mass spectrometry have vastly improved in the past few years, allowing the separation of previously indistinguishable compounds and reactants. These new tests have shown that some organic materials can endure for millions of years in certain taphonomic situations But Michael refuses to follow the evidence, instead clingng to a belief that radiometric dating,, mineral deposition and migration and all other methods of measuring age are false. Michael, this is like suspecting leprechauns of taking your car keys when you can’t find them.

    And if the universe is bigger than what is observed today, this added complexity will put another dagger into evolutionary cosmology which causes more storytelling!

    First of all, age has nothing to do with complexity. Age does not increase complexity. This is a complete non-sequitur.

    Second, a larger universe would mean that it was older than 14 billion years, not younger. So you’ve shot yourself in the foot again. This frequently happens when one goes off half-cocked.

    <blockquote
    But I say, red shifts of distant starlight are the result of the slowing speed of light which is another confirmation of a young universe!

    You can say that, but it’s still a load of dingo kidneys. Constancy of light speed is necessary for the laws of electromagnetism to work. And they do work. Constancy is necessary for Einstein’s relativity to work. And it does work. So what evidence is there that light speed is changing? None whatever. What reason is there to think that light should be slowing? None whatever. This is really desperate, Michael, basing a “confirmation” upon a pure fantasy.

    .

    There’s a lot more problems with your comment, but I don’t have time to shovel all of it. Need more practice for some upcoming outdoor pops concerts. This summer we’re doing Andrew Lloyd Webber, Irving Berlin, and some pieces from Les Miserables.

  8. In this article…

    “Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: (a) by looking for the oldest stars; and (b) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang.”

    So I have a question for you, how do you know how old the universe is billions of years old based on certain preferred measurements mentioned above

    The quote is misleading and out of date.

    First, when you look at the oldest stars, how do you know that they are the oldest stars? Some circular reasoning here. So that’s obviously wrong. In fact, much of the recent research was inspired by the fact that some globular clusters seemed to be older than the universe itself as measured in other ways.

    Second, extrapolation with the Hubble constant assumes that it is in fact a constant, and recent results show that it is not constant. This is what all the hoopla about an accelerating universe is about. Discovery of the physics of Type Ia supernovas drove this finding.

    So we’re no longer judging the universe based on those “preferred measurements.” To oversimplify somewhat, the age of the universe is measured by measuring its mass, density, and composition, then applying the theory of nuclear reactions. WMAP has measured the necessary parameters quite accurately within the past couple of years, leading to a much smaller error bound on the 13.7By measurement. Also, the nuclear physics of Type Ia supernovas provides a “standard candle” for determining their distance.

    This is what we mean, Michael, by saying that you have no sense of science. Presuming to pontificate upon matters where you are way behind the curve is one symptom of that. Selecting confirmatory data without any inquiry into its relevance or reasonableness is another.

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