More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!

by Dr Russell Humphreys

This is a continuation of ‘New Evidence for a Rotating Cosmos’

I can tell you that there are some more clues that the establishment cosmologists themselves are indeed worried, even if they aren’t spelling it out to their minions. Last Friday’s issue of Science had a news article which was trying to pooh-pooh the observations. I haven’t seen so many panicky mistakes of fact and slanted wording for quite a while — not since the times they wrote about creationism! Below is a copy of a letter to the editor I e-mailed to Science about the news article. It should be interesting to see if they publish it.

Why should Ross be worried? Because this data cuts so deeply into the roots of the ‘big bang’, the foundation of his ministry. He hasn’t left himself much wiggling room in case the theory collapses. Of course, it won’t collapse in the eyes of the public, because its true-believing followers will continue teaching it despite the facts, just as they do for biological evolution.

Why ‘cuts so deeply’? Let me see if I can find a good way to explain:

(1) Imagine a spherical cluster of galaxies, 20 or 40 billion light-years in diameter, in an otherwise empty space. The cluster is slowly rotating (with repect to space itself) around a (conceptual) axis going through the center of the cluster. Basically that is how I imagine our cosmos. That is also how the layman and average scientist MIS-conceive of the big bang theory.

(2) Now try to imagine — as if anybody could — ALL space filled with galaxies (about one galaxy per cubic mega-light-year). That is how the expert big-bangers visualize their theory. If you want to, imagine the version of the Big Bang that is infinitely large in every direction. With all of space filled, every point is just like every other point. There are no special places, such as places along an axis, or at a center, or at an edge. There are no edges, there is no center — where is the center of an infinitely large thing? There can be no particular axis of rotation.

There are no special directions. All of this is built into the theory by arbitrary assumption, right at the beginning, at its foundation.

The new observations contradict all of point two. If the fundamental assumption of a theory is contradicted by data, the theory is in deep trouble!

The main question I have now is how tightly the big-bangers will close ranks. Without someone among them who is fairly honest (the astrophysical equivalent of biologists Michael Denton and Michael Behe) speaking out to the public and admitting the problem, it could be fairly hard for us outsiders to convince the public that there is a problem. In that case, perhaps they will manage to discredit it and sweep it out of sight.

‘How does this affect the light traveling from distant stars?’ Not appreciably. The transit times are still billions of years as measured by clocks ‘way out there, and thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth — just as I said in my book. The only implication is that this new data adds credibility to the general picture my theory gives, as in point one.

P.S. added on 5/2/97: Science News [April 26, 1997, p. 252] has a good article on the cosmic direction stuff.

Copy of Humphreys’ 5/1/97 letter to editor of Science

Cosmic axis threatens Big Bang

James Glanz’s article, ‘Doubts Greet Claim of Cosmic Axis’ (Apr. 25 Research News, p. 530) is a good example of how to disparage results you don’t like. The article reports criticisms of the analysis by Borge Nodland and John Ralston showing anisotropy in observed polarizations of radio waves from distant galaxies (1). The criticisms are ‘off-the-wall’ at best. Here are just a few examples:

‘[Nodland and Ralston] relied on old and incomplete data...’ While the data set they used predated 1980, it was actually more complete than later data, which was why they chose the older set. Anyhow, since when does being ‘old’ destroy the validity of data?

‘[They rely on assuming] that each galaxy emits radio signals at a single, predictable polarization ...’ Not really. They noted differences in received polarizations and orientations of optical images, differences which appear to change systematically with direction and distance. Such trends in the observations would exist independently of any theorizing about source polarizations.

‘[It would violate the] cherished assumption that physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe ...’ No, it wouldn’t, especially not if anisotropy pervades the whole cosmos.

‘[Anisotropy would] overturn Einstein’s theory of relativity ...’

No, it would not destroy relativity, not even all cosmologies built on relativity. It would merely overturn one particular subset of such cosmologies, the Big Bang theories. This is bad news only to those who have staked their careers and worldviews so fully on the Big Bang theories that they cannot consider any alternatives.

D. Russell Humphreys

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0328

Reference

1. B. Nodland and J. P. Ralston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3043 (21 Apr. 1997).

Polarization — What Does That Mean?

Tie one end of a 100-foot rope (or better yet, a heavy cable) to a tree. Take the other end of the rope and pull it somewhat taut. Shake the rope briskly up and down, vertically, one time. You should see a wave travel down the rope toward the tree, then bounce off the tree and come back to you. Loosen up or tighten up the rope until you can see the wave moving slowly enough to watch it clearly.

Notice that the wave moves up and down vertically, not horizontally side-to-side. That kind of wave is ‘vertically polarized.’ Imagine a vertical geometric plane along the rope; the wave moves in that plane, which we call the ‘plane of polarization.’

Now shake the rope quickly side-to-side, horizontally, one time. The wave you see now moves side-to-side. That kind is ‘horizontally polarized.’ It has a horizontal plane of polarization.

Radio waves can be polarized exactly the same way. A horizontal wire is the best antenna for receiving horizontally polarized radio waves; a vertical rod is best for vertically polarized waves.

What the two physicists took note of was the polarization planes of the radio waves from distant galaxies relative to the optical (light wave) images of the galaxies.

Draw a picture of a thin disc-like galaxy which is somewhat edge-on to us.

What you should see on the paper is an ellipse, an oval. Now draw a line through the long axis of the oval, that is, through the two points on the oval which are farthest apart. The radio waves leaving the galaxy should be mostly polarized in a plane along that long axis.

Imagine a rope — a really long one — from the galaxy to you, and let’s say that particular galaxy has its long axis horizontal. Then the waves leaving the galaxy would be mostly side-to-side, horizontal. Imagine sombody at that end shaking the rope side-to-side. But now let’s say something happens to the waves along the way, and by the time they reach you they are moving nearly up and down, vertically. Something has twisted the plane of polarization of the waves as they traveled toward you. The optical image of the galaxy has not twisted, but the polarization plane of the radio waves has.

What the physicists noticed was that the amount of polarization twisting is greatest in one particular pair of directions (180° apart), which I call ‘cosmic north’ and ‘cosmic south.’ The amount of twisting goes to zero halfway (90°) between those two directions. The physicists also noticed that the amount of twisting increases with distance of the galaxy from us, so it can’t be some merely local effect.

According to the most fundamental assumption of the big bang, there should not be any special directions, like ‘cosmic north’. Hence the growing hysteria (which I detected in last Friday’s issue of Science) among the big-bangers!

I think the twisting may be a general-relativistic result of cosmic rotation. Such an effect can’t happen in a big-bang sort of cosmos, but it can happen in the kind of cosmos I pictured in my book. Hence Hugh Ross should be worried!

Cordially in Christ,

(Dr) D. Russell Humphreys