Several past articles in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society as well
as both books, With Every Wind of Doctrine and Geocentricity have mentioned
Varshni's conclusion that if the quasars (quasi-stellar objects, hot,
blue, star-like objects whose light spectral lines appear strongly redshifted)
are at cosmic distances, that they appear to be geocentrically distributed.
Varshni still holds to that conclusion, insisting that the quasars
are situated about nearby galaxies, not near the edge of the universe.
In a 1978 paper1 Green and Schmidt conclude the complement,
namely, that if the quasars are local that then they are geocentric. They
looked at the results from the Palomar Bright Quasar Survey and concluded
in their abstract that there is “compelling evidence for strong cosmological
evolution of optically selected quasars, if their redshifts are
cosmological. The results are incompatible with the local hypothesis of
quasars (i.e., noncosmological redshifts) unless the space density increases
strongly with distance.”
In their study, Green and Schmidt expected 74 quasars to fall within
their study range. Instead, they found only four. They effectively conclude
that the local quasars have evolved out of view, and they claim
compatibility of this with radio quasars. The four quasars are incompatible
with the local hypothesis because it implies a nonuniform space
distribution. The local hypothesis assumes a uniform distribution or else
that quasars are associated with local galaxies which do exhibit an approximately
uniform local distribution through space. “We conclude,”
the authors state, “that any hypothesis of quasars, local or cosmological,
has to be rejected unless it incorporates a space density increasing with
distance.” In other words, the quasars are unavoidably geocentrically distributed.
The peculiar number of comets
I came across an interesting letter from Fran Tabor which was published
in Science News in 1978.2 The letter was in response to an earlier
article which suggested that every now and then the sun passes through
interstellar clouds which darken the sun's light and thus instigate ice
ages. Tabor references chapter 1 of Fred Hoyle's 1955 edition of Frontiers
of Astronomy where Hoyle, in talking about how comets could disrupt
the greenhouse effect, states that: “the break-up of many comets is
taking place at such a rate that they will be entirely disrupted within a
million years.” In other words, if evolutionary ages are true, then there
should be no comets unless a hidden source of comets (Oort cloud) has
been triggered to spew forth a collection of comets to favor us (for example,
we've recently passed through a thick cloud or cluster of stars).
Fusion and solar power
As I've been filtering through old files, I came upon a Science News3
note which could have some implications for theories about solar energy.
Experimenters at the University of Rochester, Argonne National
Laboratory, and the University of Maryland, reported that accelerated
heavy ions, (xenon 136,) when hitting dense material such as bismuth
209, form nuclei which cling together but do not actually fuse. Eventually
they break apart in pieces which “remember” their initial states.
Nuclear fusion theory constructs the elements from fusion between
smaller nuclei, such as hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, etc. The
experiments imply that the fusion may not be as smooth as theory predicts.
The dearth of solar neutrinos also points to problems with nuclear
fusion theory as an energy source to keep stars going for billions of years.
Furthermore, this may also account for the difficulty encountered in constructing
a working fusion reactor, something which has never been done
after almost forty years in the making.
Is the Great Attractor a figment of evolution?
Ron Cowan reports in the April 23 issue of Science News that the
great attractor may be a myth, after all.4 At a joint meeting of the Royal
Astronomical Society and the European Astronomical Society it was
reported that the assumption of evolution may have played a trick on the
discoverers of the great attractor.
The great attractor was supposed to be a region in space, more dense
than its surroundings, which was gravitationally pulling the Milky Way,
indeed, this region of the universe, towards it. A key assumption in
reaching that conclusion is that Elliptical galaxies in clusters of galaxies
consist entirely of old, evolved stars. In assuming that these galaxies
consist only of old stars, the researchers consistently underestimated the
true distances to the galaxy clusters and thus overestimated their
velocities. When the presenter, Rafael Guzman of the University of
Durham, England, applied an evolution-independent measurement of distance
to these clusters, the Great Attractor disappeared. In other words,
no evolution, no Great Attractor.
Evidence for geocentricity from gamma rays
A report published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 16 January,
1994, claims that the mysterious gamma-ray (rays more energetic than
x-rays) bursts last longer if they are weak than if they are strong. Jay
Norris, reporting at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Arlington,
Virginia, claims that time dilation is the culprit, that the fainter
bursts are at tremendous distances from the earth and so appear to last
longer than their closer counterparts. In other words, the effect is
geocentric.
Convection flows and magnetic fields
In order to account for the tape-recorder model for the magnetic fields
trapped in rocks on the ocean bottom, geologists have speculated that the
earth's magnetic field periodically reverses itself. Unfortunately for
them, they have not been able to come up with a satisfactory model to account
for such reversals. The problem is not that there is no theory, just
that experiment doesn't conform to theory. A 1993 article in Science5 drives another nail in the theoretical coffin. Sun, Schubert, and
Glatzmaier report that the experimentally observed rotating columns can
account for the banded appearance of the great planets such as Jupiter and
Saturn. Hence, experiment meets observation and counters theory, and a
theoretical base for the alleged magnetic reversals of the earth becomes
even more distant.
More evidence for a large universe
In the recent past we've considered the question of the size of the
universe; is it really billions of “light years” across or is it only a couple
of light months across? One of the strong arguments for a large universe
rests on supernova explosions. A report from the January 1991 meeting
of the American Astronomical Society claims a large universe. A free Proxima Centauri?
The red dwarf star, Proxima Centauri, is the closest star to the sun.
For years it was assumed that Proxima was part of the Alpha Centauri
star system, making a triple star. It seems that the widely published
velocity for Proxima is too large to keep it with Alpha Centauri A and B,
the other two stars in the system. Proxima's distance is some 330 times
the distance from the Sun to Pluto, and it lies 4.22 light years from earth. The Sagnac effect observed in crystals
In an article entitled “Neutron Interferometry,” Helmut Rauch7 reports
that the Sagnac effect has been observed in neutron interferometry. “The
coupling of the neutron to the gravitational field has also attracted interest
as it offers a way of testing some of the connections between gravity and
quantum fields. The effect of the Earth's gravitational field manifests itself
when the interferometer crystal is rotated around a horizontal axis in
such a way that one beam path experiences a higher gravitational potential
[energy] that the other. The induced phase shift therefore contains
terms of both gravitational and quantum mechanical origin. Neutron interferometry
also permitted the observation of the Sagnac effect, which is
the phase shift between two paths oriented in opposite directions about
the Earths rotation axis.” The Sagnac effect cannot be explained by the
theory of relativity and it also cannot distinguish whether the earth is
rotating inside the universe or the universe rotates in the opposite direction
about the earth. When contrasted with the Michelson-Morley experiment
which failed to find the motion of the earth about the sun, the Sagnac
effect becomes a potent experiment in favor of the geocentric
hypothesis. Now its been observed using neutrons, too.
Hubble trouble
As every thinking, educated person “knows,” evolution is a proven
fact and the universe was formed in a big bang some 15 billion years ago.
So what if the oldest stars in the Milky Way are supposed to be 12 billion
years old, we have plenty of time to fill in those minor gaps in the theory.
Or do we?
The Hubble space telescope now confirms evidence that the “oldest
stars” are “older” than the universe. A team of researchers have looked at
the galaxy, Messier 100 in the Virgo cluster of galaxies with the Hubble
scope, in particular, looking at Cepheid variables. The properties of
Cepheid variables (the most famous is Polaris, the pole star) are well
defined and thus they are used as a cosmic distance ruler. The Hubble
telescope has thus been used to refine the “Hubble constant,” the unit
held as a measure of the expansion rate of the universe.
For several decades now, pressure has been on to lower the value of
the Hubble constant and to keep it well below 50 km/sec/megaparsec (1
megaparsec = 3.26 million light years). The Hubble scope places the
value at 80 (between 63 and 97). This gives an “age” in the range of 8 to
12 billion years. Globular clusters have ages estimated at 16 billion
years.
Be careful in claiming this a death-knell for the big bang, however.
Other lines of evidence point to values of 25 to 55 indicating an age in
the range of 18 to 20 billion years. (Earlier this year8 we looked at the
Hubble constant from a young-age universe perspective.) Besides, the
Hubble constant is not necessarily an expansion rate for the universe as a
whole. It may be local value which is far different from a universal one.
Still, it's one more piece of evidence. Actually, the Hubble constant is itself
a piece of evidence for geocentricity since it is the same in all directions
centered on the earth.
Old stars may not be so old after all
Above we noted that the assumption that stars in elliptical galaxies
are old may have led to the erroneous conclusion that our region of the
universe is being drawn into the Great Attractor. It is the standard
astronomical assumption that any region of stars which contains little or
no dust is a region containing old stars. Thus it has been assumed that the
stars in the bulge of the Milky Way must also be old. A study by Jon A.
Holtzman of Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Arizona, using the Hubble
Space telescope, has now shown that the stars in the Milky Way's bulge
may only be “middle age” instead of “old,” if, that is, the assumption that
massive stars age more quickly and die off sooner than less massive stars
is true (and from all evidence it seems to be true regardless of the actual
age of the universe). The same seems to be true for the bulge stars of
other neighboring galaxies such as the Andromeda Galaxy, one of its
satellites, and M33. The problem is that such stars should be old if the
collapsing cloud model of galactic origin is correct. Evolutionists
propose that collisions between galaxies have triggered star formation in
the halos at a later date than the formation of the galaxy itself. The
problem is, how many collisions can there be if all four of these galaxies
have undergone collisions at about the same time. Still, one can always
add more and more hypothesis to save any theory.
Speaking of Sagnac effect
Hitachi has developed an optical fiber gyro for automotive (yes, that's
right, automotive) navigational systems. The gyroscope, which works by
circulating light beams in opposite directions around a spool, detects rotation
of the car and thus provides an azimuth (angle from north) reading.
It's already been installed as an azimuth sensor in certain Toyota
vehicles.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Quasars and geocentricity
Experimentally observed convective motion of a fluid
In 1987 the massive star exploded
in the Large Magellanic
Cloud, a satellite galaxy to the
Milky Way. The light from the
supernova went out from it and illuminated
a ring surrounding the
supernova. Nino Panagia used
observations from two satellites,
the Hubble Space Telescope and
the International Ultraviolet Explorer
to analyze the light from
the ring. The ring is 1.66
arcseconds in diameter and the
light from the supernova reached
the point of the ring closest to the
earth 80 days after the explosion.
Emissions from the farthest edge did not arrive until 340 days later. Thus
the diameter of the ring (inclined 47 degrees to the plane of the sky) is
computed to be 1.37 light years. It is straight-forward geometry to derive
that the distance of the ring from earth is 169,000 light years. Previous
distance estimates for the Large Magellanic Clouds range from 143,000
to 179,000 light years.
Now there's more at stake here than whether or not Proxima belongs
in the Alpha Centauri system or not. You see, Proxima is a flare star, a
star which unpredictably flares in brightness. If Proxima is a member of
Alpha's system, then they would presumably be the same evolutionary
age, namely, about 5 billion years. The problem is, red dwarfs should
cease flare activity before the 5 billion years is up. Freeing Proxima from
Alpha's influence would free it up to be younger than Alpha Centauri.
On the other hand, here's another problem for evolution.6 Fortunately for
evolutionists, its is next to impossible at this time to obtain an accurate
measurement of Proxima's radial velocity.