Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1
Chapter 3
CHAPTER THREE - THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEMSupplementary Material
Appendices Contents
1 - History of cosmological theories
2 - A final look at matter/stellar evolution theories
3 - Age of the universe
- 1 - HISTORY OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIESA cosmology is a theory of the origin and nature of the universe. A cosmogony is essentially the same thing. Here is a brief history of matter, stellar, and planetary evolution, based primarily on an excellent 1967 historical review by George Mulfinger in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. See for yourself that these theories are foolishness:
THE CARTESIAN HYPOTHESIS (1644)—*Reno Descartes, in his Principles of Philosophy, speculated that God set adrift a number of "vortices" of swirling gas, and these eventually made the stars, which later changed themselves into comets, which in turn still later formed themselves into planets.
Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time, was shocked at such a foolish notion. In a letter to Stephen Bentley, along with several mathematical proofs, he wrote: "The Cartesian hypothesis . . can have no place in my system and is plainly erroneous."
Newton also said this: "It is plain that there is no natural cause which could determine all the planets, both primary and secondary, to move the same way and in the same plane . . ;this must have been the effect of counsel [intelligent plan]. Nor is there any natural cause which could give the planets those just degrees of velocity, in proportion to their distance from the sun and other central bodies, which were requisite to make them move in such concentric orbs about those bodies."—
And he added this: "I know of no reason [for the motion of the planets] but because the Author of the system though it convenient."—Isaac Newton, Four Letters to Richard Bentley, in Milton K. Munitz (ed.), Theories of the Universe (1957), p. 212.
SWEDENBORG'S NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (1734) — *Emmanuel Swedenborg, the founder of a small church (the Church of the New Jerusalem) theorized in his book, Principia, that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets.
*Swedenborg claimed that he obtained the information from heavenly visitants in a seance, but many think he got his theory from devils. It is highly significant that the germinal idea for the nebular hypothesis producing stars and planets out of gravitating gas came from a séance! His theory, obtained through spiritualism, was to become the basis for a majority of the stellar and planetary origin theories which followed, and the basic theory promoted today.
KANT'S NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (1766)—The German philosopher, *Immanuel Kant, considered himself smart enough not only to figure out the meaning of life and logic, but also the universe as well. His theory was influenced by *Swedenborg and became one of the leading pioneer cosmological theories. Swirling clouds of gas were thought b have formed themselves into our sun and planets.
*Kant knew little of anything outside of Konigsberg, Prussia, where he stayed all his life. But egotistically he once said, "Give me matter and I will construct a world out of it." (*Kant, quoted in *George Gamow, Creation of the Universe [1952], p. 1.)
Both Kant and Swedenborg began with gas already in existence and already swirling. Kant did not know that gravitational forces could not initially produce such gaseous rotation. But, leaping beyond that, he also envisioned imaginary "repulsive forces," in addition to the normal attractive one (gravitation), to work out the kinks in his theory. He also did not realize that the diffuse matter—the gas—in the cloud could in no way condense into solid particles. Gas cannot pack itself into a solid. The complicated and delicate orbital and physical patterns and structures in the universe are totally beyond the possibilities of his swirling clouds.
BUFFON'S COLLISION HYPOTHESIS (1779)— *Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon, the well-known French naturalist, wrote in his Epochs of Nature that a passing comet tore some material out of the sun, and this cooled and formed the earth.
We today know that comets lack sufficient mass to accomplish such a task. They are simply too small. It has been estimated that there are some 20 billion comets in the solar system, with a total mass of only one tenth that of the earth's mass.
Buffon's theory cannot explain orbits, the other planets, our moon, or the stars. And it does not explain the origin of comets and the sun.
LAPLACE'S NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (1796)—*Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace developed a theory that became more widespread and long-lived than that of any other evolutionary hypothesis in modern history. Even in our own century, after scientists generally turned away in disgust from the later planetesimal hypothesis, they tended to return to Laplace's earlier theory.
He also begins with a swirling cloud of gas. As it cools, it condenses and rotates more rapidly and gradually forms itself into a high-speed disk of gas. Materials out on the edge fly off in "rings" and become planets and moons. The material left in the center became our sun. From Laplace's time down to our own, all who wanted an atheistic origin for the solar system, could find in this theory something they could appreciate.
But they accepted it in spite of inherently unworkable flaws in the theory:
Any gas rings that might have flown off from the rotating disk would have continued on out into space. They would not have stopped, nor would they have formed themselves into planets and moons. There is no way they could condense into solids.
Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.
Nearly one third of the moons rotate in a direction opposite to that of the others. *Laplace's theory cannot explain this. (Which would not have disturbed Laplace in the least; he knew little or nothing about astronomy.)
Using carefully worked-out mathematical equations, James Clerk-Maxwell, a British scientist, later wrote a devastating attack on *Laplace's theory.
Twentieth-century attempts to prove Laplacian rings as a effect of solar electric and magnetic fields have shipwrecked on the rocks of condensation. There is no way that the gaseous rings could condense into planets and moons.
DARWIN'S TIDAL HYPOTHESIS (1890)—*George Darwin, son of *Charles Darwin, wanted to come up with something original so he could be considered a wise man like his father. Lunar recession (the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth) was already known in his time, so George came up with the idea that four million years ago, the moon was pressed nearly against the earth and was revolving about it every 5 hours. Then one day, a heavy tide occurred in the oceans—which lifted it out, much as a ship is pushed out by winds from a bay, and floated out toward where it is now.
Now that is imaginative thinking! Never mind the enormous pressure of gravity that would have to be overcome; instead just wishfully think that it was washed on out by some big waves. NASA would surely like to use ocean waves to push its rockets—so much lighter in weight than the moon—out into space! Later proponents of George Darwin's theory decided that the Pacific basin is the hole the moon left behind, when some large ocean waves pushed it out into space.
In 1931, *Harold Jeffreys proved that sheer viscosity would keep the two bodies from separating. Later still it was realized that, if this separation had occurred, the initial angular momentum would have had to be some 3.7 times that of the present earth-moon binary system. No one can explain how all that required excess energy later got lost.
Since George Darwin's theory called for a 5-hour day, the energy needed to slow it down to a 24-hour day would be so great as to raise earth's temperature to 2500°C [4532°F] and melt it! George was not thinking about that problem, but then he was not an astronomer either.
CHAMBERLAIN AND MOULTON'S PLANETESIMAL HYPOTHESIS (1900)—*Chamberlain and *Moulton were teachers at the University of Chicago, and they recognized that all the previous theories amounted to foolishness. So they added to the confusion with a new scheme of events.
They began with large numbers of small meteor-like particles, or planetesimals, which were swarming through the sky. Gradually these pieces glued themselves together into planets. (Interested scientists are still wondering where the glue came from.)
Instead of beginning with gas clouds, these two men began with small solids in the hope that such things could, more logically than gas, be expected to adhere together by gravitation.
When asked where the planetesimals came from, the two experts replied that that was no problem: the galactic nebulas were the same thing! Chamberlain and Moulton said that island universes were merely small pebbles trying to form themselves into solar systems! We now know that each island universe is composed, not of pebbles, but of approximately 100 million to a billion stars, each as large or larger than our own.
But where did their "galactic pebbles" come from? The two experts decided that our sun had a close encounter with another star,—and produced gas clouds which then formed into the pebbles. So that brings us back to the original problem: trying to turn gas into solids. The situation got worse the more the two Chicago experts worked at it.
Subsequent mathematical analysis demonstrated that the angular momentum in our solar system could not possibly result from such a theorized near-collision between two stars. This baffled the two men for a time, and then they came up with an answer: THREE stars happened to near-collide at the same instant! Those stars did it with just the right balance of velocity, proximity, and individual mass—to account for the present angular momentum in our solar system, or so it was hoped.
Isn't it wonderful what you can do with an inventive mind, a soft armchair, and a padful of scribbled numbers?
The death blow came in 1939, when *Lyman Spitzer of Yale decided to look at the figures of the two experts from Chicago. He showed that the material ripped out of the sun by the theorized near-collision, would have a temperature of 10,000°F [5,537.7°C], would then expand rapidly, keep expanding, and never contract into pebbles or anything else.
It is true that, once put together, a star is held together by its immense gravity. But there is no way to put it together to start with. That is one of the basic problems of all cosmological theories. There is no way to produce stars out of gas, pebbles, or anything else.
JEANS-JEFFREYS TIDAL HYPOTHESIS (1917)—*Sir James Jeans and *Harold Jeffreys worked out an alternate "tidal theory" while World War I was in progress. A passing star is supposed to have pulled out a long strand of gaseous material from the sun, and it soon looked like beads on a string. These then formed themselves into our nine planets.
*Spitzer's 1939 tidal theory refutation brought down the Jeans-Jeffreys' hypothesis also. As World War II boiled into action, every major cosmological theory had been disproved. It was time for something new.
VON WEISACKER'S NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (1944)—The demise of the planetesimal and tidal theories brought a return to nebular hypotheses and Lemaitre's initial explosion idea. First came the nebular theory.
*Carl F. von Weizsacker, an atomic scientist, returned to Kant and Laplace's theories, but brought to them nuclear insights. He began, as they had done, with a large cloud of gas and dust already in circular motion. Gradually it contracted and then flattened out. But instead of spinning out planetary rings, as Laplace had done, von Weizsacker had the central portion collapse into our sun. This caused turbulence in the outer gas, which then eddied about. His special concern was to devise a way to transfer rotational momentum (angular momentum) from the sun to the outer gas. He decided that energy waves, shaped like roller bearings, shot out from the sun and supposedly accomplished this task.
Gas in outer space always expands and hot gas expands even more rapidly, but as with all the other "cosmological gas," von Weizsacker's gas acted contrary to the laws of physics and contracted into "vortices, " which then became planets and moons.
Heavy revisions were later made to von Weizsacker's theory in the hope of saving it. * D. Ter Haar of Purdue University changed the vortices to "condensation nuclei." *Gerald Kuiper reworked it so dramatically as to come up with something very different (see below). Fred Hoyle gave up one theory after another, and finally jumped on the von Weizsacker bandwagon. In the process, he changed the roller bearings into "magnetic clock springs, "using an idea dreamed up by the Swedish physicist *Hannes Alfven. Clock springs, not roller bearings, transferred the angular momentum from the sun to the planets! the outlook was becoming more incredible all the time. Did you know that clock-springs made the stars?
WHIPPLE'S DUST CLOUD HYPOTHESIS (1948)—*Fred Whipple of Harvard began with clouds of dust. Imaginatively, he suggested that, perhaps, "light rays from stars" pushed the dust into an immense cloud. "Local turbulences" in the cloud then produced sun, planets, and their complicated orbits.
Did you feel under pressure when you looked at the stars last night? The concussion of starlight striking your body should have knocked you to the ground. According to Whipple, starlight is a powerful force hurling gas into thick clouds, and fomenting immense storms within them, which then rams that gas into solids.
So stars are supposed to be formed from starlight from other stars. And those stars from still other stars. And where did those first stars come from? As with the others, all Whipple did was to push the problem back farther into the past.
KUIPER'S PROTOPLANET HYPOTHESIS (1961) —*Gerald P. Kuiper totally revamped von Weizsacker's theory into a new one. Kuiper's gas cloud initially formed in darkness, but then the sun began lighting up in the center, heating up the entire cloud. In order to answer the ever-present question of how gas can contract into a solid, Kuiper said "a chance eddy" of swirling gas managed to do it. But this "chance eddy" would have to be repeated billions upon billions of times for all the stars and planets in the universe.
Keep in mind that all the gas in these marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! That thin amount of gas is supposed to have pushed itself "by gravitation" into planets and stars!
Other problems are just as totally excluded by the explanations provided by all these theories: (1) The precisioned planetary, stellar, and galactic orbits. (2) The planetary, comet, and asteroid obits in our own solar system which are "inclined to the ecliptic" (that is, remaining in close to a flat plane of orbit around the sun). (3) The one-third of the moons in our solar system which revolve the wrong way. (4) The planets (Uranus and Venus) which rotate the wrong way.
Up to this point, all of the hypotheses have focused primarily on our solar system. But now we shall consider universe-wide theories that are supposed to include the origin of matter, as well as stars and planets.
LEMAITRE'S PRIMEVAL ATOM HYPOTHESIS (1927)—Between the two wars, *G. Lemaitre, a Belgium Jesuit, came up with an innovative idea which was to form the basis for the later influential Big Bang theory, although at the time few scientists gave it much attention.
A "super-atom" the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun was said to have mysteriously come into existence. All about it was nothing. Then this giant "atom" experienced "radioactive disintegration; " by which Lemaitre meant that it exploded. After this, it quickly expanded, slowed, and then continued expanding. As it expanded, planets and stars formed from the expanding gases.
Scientists laughed Lemaitre to shame. How can expanding gas form itself into solids? But when, by 1939, all the other theories had exhausted themselves, the cosmologists decided that they had better stop laughing.
BIG BANG HYPOTHESIS (1947)—Although G. Lemaitre really laid the basis for the Big Bang theory, it was *George Gamow that brought it into prominence since the 1940s. Writing, writing, always writing, and always pushing the Big Bang, Gamow has brought it to the point where the great majority of scientists today accept it as the great truth of primeval origins.
In 1948-1949, *George Garnow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the initial model of the primordial fireball, or "big bang." This theory was supposed to explain how matter came into existence,—or was matter already in existence? In some mysterious way, the universe was supposed to have been contracting for long ages. Was there any matter in it? Well, scientists say, no; but apparently yes, for when it reached its limiting contraction of 10 to the 14th g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water, it then exploded. Gamow called this thick pre-explosion pre-soup "ylem" (pronounced "I-lem"). So if matter did not exist, then what was the ylem? If it did exist, then matter already existed. If matter did not exist, there could be no "ylem".
Gamow said a "big squeeze" contracted the ylem into an extremely small, tight ball. Then the ylem exploded. According to Gamow's version, the ylem was said to already contain neutrons BEFORE the explosion. Where did they come from? Other versions have no matter of any kind prior to the explosion. Then how could nothing become something? Gamow's neutrons immediately afterward made themselves into full-scale atoms. They were highly-educated neutrons.
At first *Gamow, *Alpher, and *Herman assumed that all chemical elements were created in the Big Bang. But later they admitted the impossibility of this occurring, so they decided that only a smaller number of elements were initially made. (Some say only hydrogen and helium; others hydrogen which then made helium; still others think that hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium were made in the initial explosion.)
Gamow eventually decided that "various differentiation processes" later produced stars, galaxies, and planets out of the superheated, outwardly-expanding gas from that initial explosion. According to the model, galaxies formed in the first 109 years of the universe. The galactic matter condensed and produced stars. The heavier elements are said to have been produced within the stars and, later, when they exploded as supernova.
But, as we have already discussed, the Big Bang theory is totally impossible. (1) It could not begin as it did. (2) It could not possibly produce stars, galaxies, and planets. (3) There is no real evidence that it ever occurred.
HOYLE'S STEADY STATE UNIVERSE (1948)—In 1925, *Sir Oliver Lodge and in 1928 *Sir James Jeans had suggested a continuous creation of matter, but it was *Fred Hoyle, *Hermann Bondi, and *Thomas Gold in 1948 who brought it widely to the attention of astronomers.
This is the teaching of spontaneous generation of matter! According to this theory, hydrogen is self-creating.
Throughout the universe hydrogen (or neutrons which then make themselves into hydrogen) is said to be continually coming into existence out of nothing. This is supposed to be occurring all the time. This self-creating matter then sets itself to the task of making itself into stars, planets, and ultimately,—into plants, animals, and people.
This is evolutionary theory taken to its climax.
With regard to the pivotal question of just where the newly arrived matter came from, Hoyle replies that this query is "meaningless and unprofitable." (*Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy (1955), p. 342.) But to add a touch of science fiction realism to the show, a "creation field" has been introduced. This imaginary force field is said to exist throughout the universe wherever matter is present, and is a "four-dimensional space-time continuum." In certain locations, the "C-field," as he calls it, is said to build up to greater intensity—and then "matter happens," that is, comes into existence, based on something of a "genetic code" housed within the C-field.
That is a description to tempt any science fiction-loving mind to acceptance. But it is all foolishness. Since matter is but a variant form of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics forbids the formation of matter out of nothing.
In a lecture delivered on September 6, 1965 at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Hoyle listed reasons why his steady-state universe theory was in error. At that meeting he officially abandoned it (Nature, October 9, 1965, p.113). Yet within a year he came out with a new theory which he described as his "Radical Departure Hypothesis." This view remains keyed to self-creating matter, but in a universe which "bounces along" like a ball from self-creating stages through non-creating stages, and back into self-creating stages.
ALFVEN'S AMBIPLASMA HYPOTHESIS (1966)—In 1950 *O. Klein, a Stockholm physics teacher, came up with a new idea in an attempt to solve all the problems of the earlier theories. *Hannes Alfven of Sweden revised it in 1965. The theory begins with a mixture of "koinomatter" (common or regular matter) and antimatter. This mixture Alfven calls "ambiplasma." Gradually, over a period of trillions of years, this matter is said to shrink. As it does so, the matter and antimatter makes contact and then annihilates one another. This leaves electrons and positrons, and lots of radiation. After trillions more years, the radiation reverses the contraction to an expansion. This brings us to the point of an expanding universe without an initial explosion.
Localized regions of perhaps a billion light years across begin forming galaxies. So we are back to gas clumping together to form stars, galaxies, and their complicated orbits. Alfven admits that there are "serious difficulties" concerning the mechanism of stellar and galactic formation. Add to this the problem of matter and antimatter coming in contact as the stars form. At this point they would blast themselves out of existence. To solve this problem, Alfven came up with the idea that koinomatter and antimatter somehow segregated themselves into different regions of space, with buffer zones of ambiplasma between them! This would be equivalent to lukewarm water in a tub automatically separating itself into hot water and cold water. Alfven admits that problems remain.
OSCILLATING UNIVERSE HYPOTHESIS—George Gamow, after giving the Big Bang theory both its name and his most urgent support for years, later began campaigning for the oscillating universe theory. This is nothing more than a recurring Big Bang every 80 billion years. Each explosion begins a new cycle that ends with another explosion.
GUTH'S INFLATIONARY HYPOTHESIS (1980) —*A.H. Guth invented an accessory theory, the inflationary universe, in an attempt to salvage the Big Bang from some (some) of its many theoretical problems.
This inflation model is based on a family of very speculative theories in elementary particle physics, called "Grand Unified Theories" (GUTS). But there is, in fact, little reason for believing in GUTS. It is based on over 20 theoretical requirements that cannot be established. Should GUTS be correct, there may still be no inflation; should it be wrong in the slightest way, there can be no basis for inflation.
The inflation hypothesis may make the Big Bang sound more believable to a scientist, but neither theory can surmount the major hurdles mentioned elsewhere in this set of books.
MISNER'S MIXMASTER HYPOTHESIS (1980)—In the same year, *C.W. Misner came out with a "mixmaster model" of origins. His theory proposes an expanding universe that irregularly oscillates between a cigar shape and a pancake shape! Did you know that the universe regularly changes shape in this way? Well, Dr. Misner has decided that that is the way things exist in outer space.
THE NICE SYMPOSIUM—By the early 1970s, so much scientific data had poured in repudiating every basic aspect of any cosmology, that something had to be done. In the past, the elusive hope had always offered itself that even though all the past theories of matter and stellar origins might be in shambles, there was always the possibility that some brilliant mind might yet come up with a solution.
But it was becoming clear that the necessary basics of all cosmologies—past, present, or future,—were hurdles that probably would never be cleared.
In April 1972, the top minds in stellar physics, chemistry, and astronomy gathered at the Nice Symposium. A declaratory statement of purpose included this comment:
"The Symposium has also served in delineating the areas of our ignorance, in particular in relation with the hydrodynamics of the nebula [motions of gas clouds], and with the physicochemistry of the 'sticking process' [getting gas together into stars and planets]."—Symposium statement, quoted in R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation, p. 141.
A later review of the problems discussed at the Nice Symposium provides us with further insight into the matter:
"[1 ] Yet to be discussed adequately is the detailed fragmentation of the massive cloud in which protostars are born. [2] Also in question are the hydrodynamics and stability considerations of the protosun nebula. [3] Most important, there remain to be specified the crucial experimental tests that can distinguish between the available viable theories. [4] It is particularly disappointing that we have almost no useful information on the specific solid state processes at work in the accretion phase."—Review of Nice Symposium, quoted in Op. cit., p. 143.
Stating the above points in simpler language: (1) How did the first cloud break apart and change into stars? (2) How did the gas clouds whirl themselves toward production of stellar objects, in such a way as to solve the angular momentum problem? (3) Boys, we ought to be able to experimentally prove at least one of these theories! (4) How did the gas push itself into solids?
*H. Reeves, the editor of the final Symposium report, listed seven fundamental problems. The above reviewer quotes these for us:
"Do the sun and planets originate in the same interstellar cloud? If so, how was the planetary matter separated from the solar gas? How massive was the nebula? How did the collapsing cloud cross the thermal, magnetic, and angular momentum barriers? What were the physical conditions in the nebula? What was the mechanism of condensation and accretion [of gas into stars, planets, etc.]? How did the planets, with their present properties and solar distances, form?"—Ibid.
If you open a typical science book on astronomy, you will be bombarded with paintings of gas clouds and protostars and "facts" stated with great certainty. If you attend a closed-door conference, such as the Nice Symposium, you will find worried men, desperate theories, scientific facts which condemn those theories, a lack of alternate explanations, an atmosphere of hopeless despair in the face of unproven and unprovable ideas, and no solutions or scientific experiments that can alleviate the situation.
CONCLUSION—What is the age of the universe, as calculated by some of the most prominent theories being considered in our time? Here they are:
*Gamow: 3-5 billion years. *Peebles and *Wilkinson: 7 billion years. *Ashford: 10-15 billion years. `Shklovski: 70 billion years. *Alfven: trillions of years. *Hoyle: infinite time.
It is clear from this brief study that all the theories either begin with (1) self-creating matter, and/or, a step farther down the road, (2) hydrogen gas. In each case, the gas then—slowly or rather quickly—forms itself into solids: stars, planets, etc. And that is it. Strip the theories of their high-sounding words, scientific phrases, and complicated logic, and you come to the bare essentials: spontaneous generation of matter, to be followed by gas pushing itself into solids. The history of cosmology is the story of little men (as little as the rest of us) spending their spare time dreaming up ideas which violate natural law, in the hope that by so doing they will somehow be regarded as having great minds.
- 2 -A FINAL LOOK AT MATTER AND STELLAR EVOLUTION
1 - WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NEW MOON ARRIVES
One of the variant evolutionary theories teaches that moons fly into our solar system every so often, and, upon nearing one of our planets, ever-so-nicely swing around and enter a carefully balanced orbit! We now know of sixty moons in our solar system, so it has been suggested that that is where they came from.
However, when it appears that the real thing might come to visit us, then the cosmologists run for cover and the astrophysicists are filled with fear. They give no thought to "new moons establishing orbits;" instead they anticipate annihilation of millions of people!
Here is the story of the new moon that drew:
"Early in April 1989, astronomer Henry Holt of Northern Arizona University was examining a pair of photographs that he had taken a few nights before through an eighteen-inch telescope on Palomar Mountain. Holt was suddenly brought up short when he noticed that one of the 'stars' in the images had moved across the frame in the fifty-minute interval between one photograph and the next. After estimating the object's presumed orbit and working backward from the night the images were taken—March 31—he and other astronomers quickly realized that the star was actually an unknown asteroid that had passed within half a million miles of Earth just eight days before, on March 23.
"In cosmic terms it had been an extremely close call. Asteroid 1989 FC, as it was named, was a ball of rock perhaps half a mile wide and weighing several million tons that hurtled along at 44,000 miles per hour. It had crossed Earth's orbit at a point that the planet itself had occupied just six hours before. Had the two collided, the impact would have been equivalent to the explosion of 20,000 one-megaton hydrogen bombs. The resulting crater would have been five to ten miles across and about a mile deep. Depending on where the asteroid hit Earth, the blast wave could have killed many tens of millions of people—and perhaps hundreds of millions. And it would have struck without any warning whatsoever."— *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1891), p. 24.
Half a mile wide? Pretty small new moon. What if it had been 30 miles across? Still rather tiny (our moon is 2,160 miles across! It is also remarkably close to us; there is only 216,420 miles between the surface of the moon and the surface of the earth).
"In an effort to understand just what the effects of such a collision would be, meteorologists Ronald Prinn and Bruce Fegley of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have done extensive computer modeling of a worst-case scenario: a comet about thirty miles in diameter coming in from the [imaginary] Oort cloud and hitting Earth at 100,000 miles per hour.
"In 1987, they concluded that the behemoth's tremendous momentum would carry it several miles into Earth's crust, an impact that would release as heat the huge store of energy the comet accumulated during the thousands of years of falling toward the Sun. The blast would carve out a crater hundreds of miles across, throwing pulverized rock and other debris into the atmosphere at five times the speed of sound, and heating the air over an area as large as Africa to 3,100 degrees Fahrenheit.
"Atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen would literally burn, producing a dense red smog of nitrogen oxides. When a few hours, the debris plume would arc out into space and then begin to fall back, enveloping the planet in enough dust to create an inch-thick layer over the atmosphere. For three months, until the dust settled, the world would be shrouded in darkness. Meanwhile, beneath this blanket, the nitrogen-oxide smog would have begun to spread around the globe; even after a year, the smog would block any weak sunlight that managed to penetrate the thinning pall above. Slowly combining with water vapor, the smog would convert to nitric acid, and the skies would drip rain as corrosive as the acid in a car battery."—*Op. kit., p. 28.
2 - THREE MEN WHO GAVE US OUR MODERN STELLAR THEORIES
Three men stand out as highly Influential In giving scientists their speculative theories of how matter and stars originated.
The first one was *Emmanuel Swedenborg, who, by his own admission, in the year 1734 was told in a spiritistic seance that gas in outer space twirled around and pushed itself into our sun and planets. He urged the theory upon others, thus becoming the primary source for the nebular hypothesis theory.
The second man was *George Gamow, who in 1949, began heavily publicizing the Big Bang theory, whereby nothing got together and exploded itself into hydrogen, which then formed itself into all our stars, planets, etc. His little cartoons and intriguing terms (such as ylem) fascinated evolutionary-minded scientists. Then George, deciding to get paid for his science fiction stories, went full-time into writing it for the public. Several years later, he presented astronomers with a sequel to the Big Bang. This was the 80-billion-year cycle called the oscillating universe theory, whereby an outward expansion of the universe is followed by an inward collapse to a single dot less than an inch across—which then explodes outward again.
The third man was *Fred Hoyle, who, In 1948, led out in publicizing the steady state universe theory, the teaching of spontaneous generation of matter (hydrogen) in outer space. A decade later, he also turned to full-time science fiction writing for a number of years, and later repudiated the theory as worthless.
That is where such theories come from; not from research workers armed with scientific facts, but from a spiritist and two top-flight fiction writers, who placed their dreams on paper and then urged them upon others.
1 - When nothing makes itself into something. Experiment One1 - When nothing makes itself into something. Experiment One: Go into an empty room and clean it out well. Remove all the furniture and even the dust. Seal up the windows and lock the doors and leave. Come back periodically and check to see what happens. The air inside the room should change itself into different types of matter, such as birds, chemicals, grass, etc. Or take a vacuum bottle and extract as much air and gaseous material as possible. Seal it. The contents should change into something else. Conclusion: Nothing ever makes itself into anything.
2 -When gas begins twirling. Experiment Two: With all the doors and windows shut, and everything inside and outside the house evenly cold, the air in the house should begin rotating, and then push itself into a solid. Conclusion: Gas left alone in a cold place will not do anything.
3 – When gas gravitates into a solid. Experiment Three: Gas is supposed to push itself into solids. We will help it along, by starting with the high-pressure propane tank in your back yard. Fill it as full as possible, thus helping to push the gas together. Wait and check it periodically. The contents should change themselves into a solid. Then open the valve to see how the situation is proceeding: all the contents will rush out. Conclusion: "Nature may abhors a vacuum," but gas abhors being pushed together!
4 - When hydrogen changes itself into the heavier atoms. Experiment Four: As a rule, hydrogen in stars only changes into helium. But when a large-enough star explodes, sizable amounts of the hydrogen are said to change into heavier elements (elements above helium). Admittedly, we cannot equal this experiment on earth, since the explosion of a large star is required. But, as discussed in chapter 1, the A.D. 1054 explosion of a star produced the Crab nebula. Analysis of the gas from that nebula revealed very few heavier elements. Conclusion: Our present amounts of heavier elements could not have been produced by super-nova explosions, which, admittedly, are very infrequent anyway.
5 - When stars get together. Experiment Five: There are hundreds of millions of multiple star systems, in which several stars are close to one another and mutually orbiting each other. Simulate this by taking three or four circular magnets (you will find one on the back of every TV set in the junk yard). Place them close together and, by hand, have them orbit one another. They are never to come together, but only to circle one another. Scientists know that the gravitational ("magnetic-like") attraction of an average star is about 5 light years. They also know that multiple stars are far closer to each other than 5 light years! So, like magnets, they ought to rush together if not properly kept apart by exacting orbits. Conclusion: You cannot put magnets close together without them coming together, no matter how carefully you try to keep them from doing so. It is impossible for stars to randomly arrange themselves into short or long-term orbits with anything.
8 - When randomness organizes itself. Experiment Six. Go to your local junkyard and ask that it be locked up and closed off for a year. Return from time to time and watch how it cleans itself up. Conclusion: Randomness never organizes itself. incoherent matter in outer space could never arrange itself into orbiting stars, galaxies, and planetary systems.
4 - HOW UNSCIENTIFIC CAN WE BECOME?
Evolutionary theory is based on several necessary, basic assumptions, which are not "scientific, " in that they are totally opposed to the evidence. Here are several of these basic requirements for matter and stellar evolution:
1 – THE ORIGIN OF MATTER
1 - Matter can make itself out of nothing.
2 - Non-matter (a lack of matter = "nothing") can pack together, explode, and change into matter.
3 - Things can explode with no energy source to explode them.
4 - Concerning the expanding hydrogen gas in the vacuum of outer space: (1) It can slow and stop. (2) It can begin rotating. (3) It can push itself together into planets and stars.
5 - Random expansion and explosions can produce precisely-balanced orbits of moons, planets, stars, binaries, and galaxies.
6 - Super-nova explosions occur incessantly and in mammoth numbers.
7 - Interstellar gas only has hydrogen and helium in it.
8 - There must be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe.
9 - The universe should be filled with large numbers of Population I, II, and III stars.
10 - The temperature, roughness, monodirectionality, and spectrum of background radiation proves it is the final remnant of the Big Bang.
11 - The speed theory is the only explanation of the red shift, and the evidence corroborates it. Alternate theories ought not to be considered.
12 - We know that the universe is expanding because of factual, not theoretical evidence.
13 - In accordance with the laws of nature and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there will always be lots o f hydrogen; in fact, it self-creates itself.
(2) THE ORIGIN OF THE STARS
1 - Hydrogen gas makes itself out of nothing, and then pushes itself into stars. Vacuum can and does compress free-floating, expanding gas into planets, moons, and stars.
2 - Stars are being made all the time.
3 - Because stars produce energy by hydrogen explosions, immense numbers of neutrinos from our sun strike the earth constantly.
4 - Because red giants are "older" than blue stars, only red giants could be found in older galaxies, and only blue stars in "younger" ones.
5 - "Older" galaxies have different chemical compositions than do "younger" ones.
6 - Fortunately, these evolutionary theories agree with the laws of nature.
7 - Black holes really exist.
(3) THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
1 - Our entire Solar System is just a series of accidents that happened by chance.
2 - Hydrogen gas, which slowly expands in the vacuum of outer space, decided to contract and form stars, planets, and moons.
3 - Hydrogen gas began twirling, and this formed our sun, which rotated so fast it threw off slower rotating planets, which threw off still slower rotating moons.
4 - If our moons did not come from the sun, they flew into our solar system randomly and began carefully began circling planets.
5 - All the planets and moons in our solar system have the same chemical composition. That composition is also identical with that of the sun.
6 - All the planets and moons rotate in the same direction.
7 - Discoveries about and on our moon agree with our theories.
Each of the above reasons is unscientific, and contradicted by the facts.
You have just completed
APPENDIX 3 PART 1
NEXT— Go toAPPENDIX 3 PART 2
