Big Bang Hubble Contradiction | The Institute for Creation Research

Big Bang Hubble Contradiction

Big Bang scientists are wrestling with “serious” contradictory estimates for the size of the Hubble constant—one of the most important numbers in cosmology.1,2 The Hubble constant, indicated by the symbol H0, is important because it’s thought to give the current expansion rate of the universe. It indicates the speed at which galaxies are apparently receding from one another. This apparent speed increases with increasing distance and is expressed in units of speed per distance (kilometers per second, per megaparsec, or km/sec per Mpc).

At a recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate Adam Reiss discussed how estimates of the Hubble constant, derived from brightness measurements of a special class of supernova, contradicted estimates obtained from a Big Bang interpretation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model. Tweet: This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model.

Big Bang Hubble Contradiction: http://www.icr.org/article/10450/

@icrscience

Estimates of H0 obtained from supernova data tend to be around 73 km/sec per Mpc, but estimates obtained by analyzing patterns in the CMBR yield estimates of around 67 km/sec per Mpc.1 This discrepancy is not new; ICR reported on it almost two years ago.3 Big Bang scientists had hoped that improved measurements would remove this discrepancy, but that has not been the case. Now the discrepancy seems even more likely to be real.

Of the two methods used to estimate H0, the one employing the CMBR is most problematic; secular scientists assume that the CMBR is an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, and then they find the values for a series of parameters that give the overall best fit to this interpretation of the data. Obviously, if the Big Bang is wrong, then the parameters were forced to fit an erroneous model, and the estimate for H0 is meaningless.

The supernova method is more direct, but even it includes subtle assumptions which may or may not be correct.4 For instance, respected cosmologist George Ellis pointed out that the apparent acceleration of the universe’s expansion rate could actually be the result of non-uniform distributions of matter and energy.5 It is of interest to note that Adam Reiss received his Nobel Prize for “discovering” an accelerating universe, which, according to Ellis, could be the result of a misinterpretation of the data!

This is just the latest of many serious problems with the Big Bang model.6-9 Yet Big Bang proponents never seem to be fazed by them. Instead, they optimistically propose ad hoc laws of physics to explain the discrepancies—even though there is no observational evidence for these laws. Physics students can only imagine how much easier their assigned problems would be if they were free to invoke, as do secular cosmologists, new laws of physics whenever it suits them!

The Big Bang model cannot be correct, because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes. Tweet: The Big Bang model cannot be correct, because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes.

http://www.icr.org/article/10450/

@icrscience

The fact that the scientific case for the Big Bang is in tatters should not be surprising. The Big Bang model cannot be correct, because it contradicts at multiple points the eyewitness account of the universe’s creation given to us by the Creator Himself, who never lies, and who never makes mistakes. 


References

  1. Rincon, P. ‘Serious gap’ in cosmic expansion rate hints at new physics. BBC News. Posted on bbc.com January 11, 2018, accessed January 17, 2018.
  2. Siegfried, T. Speed of universe's expansion remains elusive. Science News. Posted on sciencenews.org January 16, 2018, accessed January 17, 2018.
  3. Hebert, J. 2015. Big Bang Continues to Self-Destruct. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org April 25, 2016, accessed January 17, 2018.
  4. Some creation physicists are now questioning whether an expanding universe is even a correct interpretation of the data. See Hartnett, J. 2011. Does observational evidence indicate the universe is expanding?—part 2: the case against expansion. Journal of Creation. 25 (3): 115-120.
  5. Ellis, G. R. R. 2011. Inhomogeneity effects in Cosmology. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 28 (16).
  6. Thomas, B. 2014. Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 22, 2014, accessed January 17, 2018.
  7. Thomas, B. 2015. Top 2015 News: Science Confronts Big Bang. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org December 14, 2015, accessed January 17, 2018.
  8. Hebert, J. 2017 and B. Thomas. 2014. Does Science Support the Big Bang? Acts & Facts. 43 (7): 21.
  9. Hebert, J. 2017. Big Bang Scientists: Universe Shouldn’t Exist. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org November 9, 2017, accessed January 17, 2018.

*Dr. Jake Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.

The Latest
NEWS
Ireland’s First Dinosaur Bones Found in Flood Rocks
Ireland finally has some dinosaur fossils of its own.1 The ground-breaking discovery came as a bit of a surprise, however, as the bones were...

NEWS
Control Loops in Humans and Nature
Ever had a blood test? Along with a value measured, there are also the normal max/min limits for that value. This implies that the body normally controls...

NEWS
Creation and Climate Science with Dr. Jake Hebert
ICR physicist Dr. Jake Hebert* recently made a guest appearance on Good Heavens! A Podcast About the Universe with Wayne and Dan. Dr. Hebert presented...

NEWS
Inside May 2021 Acts & Facts
How should Christians respond when authorities are in conflict with God’s Word? Can we trust scientific measurements and reports about fossil...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Volcanoes
Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with...

ACTS & FACTS
Tributes of Honor and Remembrance
At the end of a long day, a boss I had early in my career would often tell me, “No more today, Henry. My brain is full.” I found his comments...

APOLOGETICS
Guided by Lynx to Appreciate Christ
Not all tour guides in Alaska are human. Amazing animals of Alaska can guide us into learning creation truth. In fact, such animals should direct us—like...

ACTS & FACTS
Zion National Park: Evidence of Deep Water Sand Waves
Brian Thomas, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D.* It was like driving into another world when we emerged from Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel right at dawn....

ACTS & FACTS
Is the Bible Evidence for Creation?
Have you ever had a skeptic tell you to keep the Bible out of it when discussing origins? Skeptics claim we Christians argue in a circle, that we are...

ACTS & FACTS
Vertebrate Origins on the Ropes…Again
In 1859, the Western world was turned upside down by the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or...