New evidence for a rotating cosmos
by Dr D. Russell Humphreys
In an email addressed to CRSnet, et. al, Dr Humphreys wrote the following on April
29, 1997:
[Reprinted here with his permission]
Dear CRSnet people and other recipients:
New evidence suggests that the universe is rotating! This weighs against Big-bang
cosmologies, but it strongly supports creationist cosmologies. There is also evidence
that the evolutionist establishment doesn't want you to know about the new evidence
--- see last paragraph.
Since I'm not currently receiving mail from CRSnet, I don't know if you're already
aware of this news. It is so significant that you are bound to hear echoes of it
sooner or later, so here is a preliminary alert about it.
The April 21, 1997 issue of *Physical Review Letters* (on the web, search for "American
Institute of Physics") has an article (pp. 3043-3046) by physicists Borge Nodland
and John Ralston titled, "Indication of anisotropy in electromagnetic propagation
over cosmological distances." It is a well-done article reporting a systematic
angle difference, beta, between the polarization of radio waves from distant galaxies
and the long axis of the elliptical optical images from those galaxies.
The observed angle beta appears to depend on the distance r of each galaxy from
us (as determined by redshift factor z), a distance scale factor lambda, and on
the direction angle gamma of each galaxy:
beta = 1/2 (r/lambda) cos(gamma)
The direction for which beta is greatest (ie., where gamma is zero) is toward the
constellation Sextans. The authors compute beta *after* they subtract out the twisting
due to cosmic magnetic fields in intergalactic plasma (the Faraday effect), which
they can identify by looking at different wavelengths of the radio waves. Thus the
effect they are seeing probably has nothing to do with large-scale magnetic fields
in the cosmos.
The scale factor lambda is such that the maximum value of beta is about 10 degrees
for each billion light-years of distance from us. The effect shows up most clearly
for z's greater than 0.3 (l71 galaxies). The observed betas become negative when
gamma gets larger than 90 degrees, just as the equation above suggests. The trends
are pronounced enough to quench any reasonable dispute about statistics.
This new paper confirms an earlier report by P. Birch [*Nature* Vol. 298, 29 July
1982, pp. 451], whose data was not quite as clear, since Birch did not try to separate
out the effect of distance and some other variables. Birch's suggestion that the
whole universe is rotating caused a minor splash in the newspapers at that time.
Later authors [Panov and Sbytov, Sov. Phys. JETP, Vol. 74, No. 3, March 1992, pp.
411-415] claimed that rotation (or "vorticity") in an unbounded Big-bang
style universe (Goedel universe) would not cause an effect having a cos(gamma) dependence.
However, they did acknowledge the validity of Birch's data set itself, saying, "to
this day the [Birch] effect has not been convincingly refuted."
The authors of the new report, Nodland and Ralston, do not suggest rotation as a
possible explanation, offering instead the possibility of a new effect whereby the
vacuum itself would twist the polarization of radio waves to a degree depending
on their direction of travel. They probably avoided rotation as an explanation because
of reports like that of Panov and Sbytov.
However, I've been doing back-of-envelope calculations on this effect all week.
(Envelope backs are the traditional media whereon all the best physics is done!)
It is beginning to look to me as if the simplest explanation is a real rotation
of all the mass in a bounded-mass cosmos around a common axis. Panov and Sbytov
could not consider such a cosmos, because it violates the Copernican Principle (see
my book, *Starlight and Time*, pp. 18-19, 86-89). But with reasonably slow rotation
rates, and a mass and size of the order of what I assumed in my book (S&T, p.
105), my reckonings say that we would get the same r cosine dependence and same
value for lamda as the observations suggest. In coming months I will check this
out carefully to make sure I haven't slipped a decimal somewhere.
Big-bang theorists resist rotation around a common axis because it implies a center
of mass, and thus a boundary on the mass of the cosmos. While this is not foreign
to the popular MISconception of the Big-bang theory, it is anathema to the experts,
who know the Big bang assumes there is no center or boundary for the mass in the
cosmos. See my book if that information is new to you.
On the other hand, rotation is an expected feature of the cosmos I proposed (S&T,
pp. 32-34, 36, 75-76, 123-124. That is why on pages 127-128 of my book I cited Birch's
observations and "vestiges of rotation in the cosmos" as among the possible
evidence to be expected for my theory. Also, the theory of orbiting galaxies proposed
by Robert Gentry and later elaborated by J. K. West [*Creation Research Society
Quarterly* Vol. 31, No. 2, Sept. 1994, pp. 78-88] might be modified to give a cosmos
with net angular momentum; thus it could have a similar effect as my theory. So
the recent evidence seems to support creationist theories and to hurt evolutionist
ones.
Interestingly, it looks like someone high up in the evolutionist establishment may
have reached the same conclusion. In contrast to what happened with Birch, the news
about Nodland and Ralston's discovery did not trickle down to the newspaper level,
not here at least. However, this morning the Associated Press quickly promulgated
an unpublished criticism (one that, from the sketchy report, seems ill-founded)
of the Nodland-Ralston paper. This difference in the speed of newspaper propagation
for the two reports suggests to me that evolutionists are now quite sensitive to
the negative implications of cosmic rotation for their cosmology. They want to suppress
evidence for rotation and to hype evidence against it. That is what prompted me
to get the word out to you.
In Christ our Creator,
Russ Humphreys
Related articles
| It has been said that “Information is power”. When it comes to creation information we’d have to agree. Keep the ‘powerful’ evidence for God being Creator coming.  | | |
|
