This chapter is based on pp. 1-47 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 104 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

Look about you. There are clouds, seas, and mountains, grass carpets, the plains; and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people use their astounding minds to plan and produce intricate things. At night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.

Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?

Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.

That is what is being taught to your friends, children, and loved ones. You need to know the facts.

In this chapter we shall briefly view what evolutionary scientists teach about the origin of matter, stars, galaxies, and planets;—and we will give you basic scientific reasons why their cosmological theories are incorrect. (Cosmology is the word used for theories about the origin of matter and stellar objects.)

The originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgium, struck on the basic idea in 1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.

The theory—According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 1039 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)

Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

Let’s take it point by point—That is the theory. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is. The theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the Big Bang theory is unworkable and fallacious.

1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well:

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!

9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true.

"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343.

"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479.

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another together, and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of "gaseous dispersion." It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time. Do you agree?

If you agree, you are being scientific (for you are agreeing with scientific facts); if you disagree, you are fooling yourself.

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars" (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the "helium mass 4 gap" (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first-generation" stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second-generation" stars. These are said to have exploded into "third-generation" stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be "population III" stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made "population II" (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no "first generation" ("Population I") stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been almost no supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

"Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years."—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are "second-generation"), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.

1 - According to the theory, older stars should have more heavy elements because they are continually making them. But the so-called "older stars" have been found to have no more heavy elements than the so-called "younger stars." All stars, from "young" to "old," have the same amount of heavy elements.

2 - The theory says that gas floating in interstellar space is leftover from the Big Bang, and can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true. Extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.

3 - The theory says that the super-fast particles, hurled outward by the Big Bang, were evenly radiated. Yet, as scientists have noted, a perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would only have produced perfectly smooth, increasingly rarified (ever farther apart) particles. So the very existence of stars disproves the theorized original giant explosion.

4 - The theory requires a continual rush of particles outward—leaving nothing inside this outer parimeter of outflowing matter. Yet there are stars and galaxies all through space, not just at the outer edge. Even if clumped gas could have formed any stars, everything would continue to be hurled to the thin, outer edges of space—with an expanding center containing nothing.

5 - According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing. This means that the farthest stars and galaxies ought to be the youngest. Yet research reveals the farthest stars are just like those nearby.

6 - Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist—and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets, and moons.

7 - Inward pushing gas would not change to a rotating star. According to the theory, stars were formed by the "inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds." If so, why do the resultant stars rotate? Some stars rotate very fast. If ten people in a circle pushed marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it.

8 - Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.

9 - Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this.

10 - There are high-velocity stars that are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins.

11 - If the Big Bang theory were true, all stars would move the same direction; but stars, clusters, and galaxies are moving in various directions opposite to one another. (More about the expanding universe theory later.)

12 - Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it.

13 - Theorists are deeply bothered by, what they call, the "lumpy" problem. The universe is "lumpy"; that is, it has stars, planets, etc. in it. Yet none should exist if the Big Bang theory were true. They argue fiercely over these problems in their professional journals, while assuring the public the theory is accepted by all astrophysicists. They consider this to be a major, unsolved problem.

"As IBM’s Philip E. Seiden, put it: ‘The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind.’ No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing. Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise. How then did the lumps get there? No one can say."—*Ben Patrusky, "Why is the Cosmos ‘Lumpy’?" Science 81, June 1981, p. 96.

14 - The universe is full of stars, with relatively little gas. But it should be the other way around: full of gas and no stars. The Big Bang should have produced a "homogenous" universe of smooth gas ever flowing outward with, at best, almost no "inhomogenities," or "lumps" such as stars and island universes.

15 - The universe is full of super clusters. These are the biggest "lumps" of all. It has recently been discovered that the galaxies are grouped into galaxy clusters, and these into still larger super clusters. The "Big Bangers," as their colleagues call them, excuse the problem by saying that "gravity waves" produced the galaxies. But gravity, in any form, could not press floating hydrogen and helium into a star or planet out of gas, make a marvelously organized disk network of stars, or produce the precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.

"The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang. We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback.

There is evidence that our sun "shines," not by hydrogen explosions, but by solar collapse. Yet stellar evolution is keyed to the fact that stars are fueled by (shine because of) hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth’s surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydrogen theory of solar energy (cf. *J.H. Bahcall, Astronomical Journal, 76:283, 1971). *Corliss, the world leader in tracking down scientific anomalies, considers the "missing neutrinos" to be "one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy" (*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, 1987, p. 40). It was not until the 1930s that the nuclear theory of starlight was developed by *Hans Bethe and *Carl von Weizsacker. Yet it remains a theory. In contrast, there is strong evidence pointing to solar collapse as the true cause of solar energy.

The scientific basis for solar collapse, as the source of solar energy, was developed over a century ago by two brilliant scientists: Hermann von Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin. If each star is slowly contracting, great amounts of energy would be constantly released. But evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, because it would mean the universe (and the earth) is much younger. Nuclear fusion would mean billions of years for a star’s life; solar collapse only a few million. A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet [24.27 m] a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. This is a radius shrinkage of only .009 feet [.27 cm] per hour.

Some scientists have found evidence of solar collapse. One major study was done by *John A. Eddy and *Aram Boornazian (*New Scientist, March 3, 1983, p. 592). The basis for this is an analysis of solar transit measurements, made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846. It was calculated that the sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). They also analyzed solar eclipses for the past four centuries. A separate report by *Ronald Gilliland confirmed the *Eddy and *Boornazian report (*op. cit., p. 593).

"The sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century . . corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour [15.24 dm]."—*G.B. Lublihn, Physics Today, Vol. 32, No. 17, 1979.

The above findings would indicate that our sun’s output of radiant energy is generated by this shrinkage and not by hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) deep within it. As already mentioned, if hydrogen was the solar fuel, we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos; yet almost none are detected.

Jupiter is also apparently contracting, because it is giving off more heat than it receives from the sun. A surface contraction of just one centimeter per year would account for the measured heat flow from Jupiter. A similar situation exists for Saturn.

"Jupiter . . radiates twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun through a contraction and cooling process."—*Star Date radio broadcast, November 8, 1990.

"Saturn emits 50% more heat than it absorbs from the sun."—*Science Frontiers, No. 73, January-February 1991.

These facts are known; but, in order to defend evolutionary theory, the decision has been made to stick with solar fusion (hydrogen explosions) as the cause of solar energy and sunshine.

"Astronomers were startled, and laymen amazed, when in 1979 Jack Eddy, of the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that the sun was shrinking at such a rate that, if the decline did not reverse, our local star would disappear within a hundred million years."—*John Gribbin, "The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun," New Scientist, March 3, 1983.

"Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust [our earth’s rock strata] has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the sun is at least as old as the earth . . We must conclude that . . another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star."—*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), p. 248.

Summarizing solar collapse: The evidence that hydrogen explosions (thermonuclear fusion) is the cause of solar energy (sunshine) would be a great abundance of neutrino radiation. But that evidence is missing. The evidence that solar collapse (gradual shrinkage) is the cause has been definitely found. Evolutionists reject solar collapse as the cause, (1) since it would mean our sun and the universe could not be more than a few million years old; (2) their cosmology theories would be wrong and (3) the Big Bang theory would be gutted.

The fact—There is a faint amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It is called background radiation. Since it comes uniformly from all directions, it is believed to exist throughout the universe. It is a very small amount of "heat": in fact, only 2.73o K. above absolute zero (0oK., which is -270o C. or -454o F.).

The theory—Background radiation (also called microwave radiation), first discovered in 1965, is said to be the single, best evidence that the Big Bang occurred. It is said to be the leftover remains, the last remnant, from the Big Bang explosion.

Scientists said that background radiation would prove the theory in four ways: (1) It would come from only one direction—the Big Bang source. (2) It would have the right radiational strength to match the Big Bang mathematical theory. (3) It would emit the proper spectrum. (4) It would not be a smooth radiation.

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. The Big Bang theory requires that it come from only one direction—from where the Big Bang occurred. Since its discovery, scientists have been unable to match its directional radiation (its isotropy) with the Big Bang predictions. Its omnidirectionality tells where the background radiation is coming from: "Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space?

2 - The radiation does not fit the theory, for it is too weak. It should be far more powerful than it is. *Fred Hoyle, a leading 20th-century astrophysicist, said it should have been much stronger.

3 - Background radiation lacks the proper spectrum. It does not have the ideal "black body" (total light absorption) capacity which would agree with the *Max Planck calculation. This radiation does not fit the theoretical 2.7K black body spectrum required for the Big Bang theory.

4 - The spectrum should be far hotter than it is. The heat emitted by the radiation should have a far higher temperature. The radiation should emit a 100oK black body radiation spectrum, which is far greater than the 2.73o K spectrum it now has.

5 - Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations") in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion. In recent years, some slight variations in smoothness have been detected, but this is still not enough to fit the theory.

"It seems difficult to believe that, whereas visible matter is conspicuously clumpy and clustered on all scales, the invisible intergalactic gas is uniform and homogeneous."—*G. de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology," Science 167, p. 1203.

"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.]. A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud."—*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.

The fact—Relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, vertical bands mark the spectrum at various points. Analyzing these dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be ascertained. Spectral type is a star’s classification— based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star’s spectrum. Spectroscopy is the study of spectra.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light. Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum (astronomers call it "red").

Every star is redshifted to some extent (that is, the entire spectrum of that star is moved toward the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. This displacement is called the redshift.

The theory—The "Big Bangers" (as scientists call them) theorize that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the hypothesis that the "speed theory" of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift. This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is slightly compressed or shortened. This would cause the light to be "blueshifted" (shifted toward the ultraviolet). If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched out, which causes a redshift (shifted toward the infrared).

"This redshift, observed in the spectral lines of distant galaxies and interpreted as a Doppler [speed] effect, is the key to cosmology."—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 252.

"Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift)."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 50.

Yet, in order to bolster their Big Bang and expanding universe theories, evolutionists ignore gravitational, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss shifts.

• Second-order Doppler shift: A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red shifted. This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center. We know that every body in the universe is orbiting and, at the same time, moving in some direction with its orbital body. Much of that movement is at right angles to us.

• Energy-loss shift: Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across long distances. This would nicely explain why the farthest stars from us have the most dramatic redshifts. This is also called the tired-light redshift.

Big Bang theorists maintain that the speed redshift is the ONLY cause of the redshift,—because they can then say that the universe is expanding outward as a result of the Big Bang.

But the evidence reveals that the speed redshift theory—as the ONLY cause of the redshift—is wrong:

1 - Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. This fact agrees with the gravitational-loss, second-order Doppler, and energy-loss redshifts. But, if only the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this,—nearly all the universe is moving away from us—our planet! A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If the Big Bang really occurred, the universe would be rushing outward from where the explosion occurred,—not from our planet! Example: A bomb explodes in outer space, hurling shrapnel in every direction. Some pieces would be flying in our direction while others traveled in other directions. This differential could be measured. Some pieces would be flying toward us, others sideways, and others away from us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But, instead, we only find evidence that everything in space is redshifted; that is, everything is supposedly moving away from us. This point disproves both the Big Bang and the expanding universe theory.

2 - The closest stars and galaxies are the least redshifted, and some of the closest stars are actually moving toward us—yet still seem redshifted. The farther that starlight has to travel before reaching us, the more those two types of shifts would slow it.

3 - There is evidence that photons (light particles) do slow down. This would be nicely explained by gravitational and energy-loss redshifts.

4 - Quasars strongly disprove the speed theory of redshift. They are unknown objects which show drastically shifted spectrums toward the red. Yet, if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200 and 300 percent! This would equal distances up to 12 billion light-years and recession (moving away from us) speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light! Many astronomers renounced the speed theory when they learned this. But then came the discovery of quasars with even higher redshifts: 300-400 percent! Ultimately, they found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of light! One of these is eight times faster than the speed of light! In a desperate attempt to save their theory, the evolutionists recalculated the "Hubble constant," which is the formula for the speed of light. But they are unable to change it. Now they really have a quandary on their hands! As *Vincent A. Ettari wrote, "An increase of 100 percent in the Hubble constant would decrease the computed age of the universe by 50 percent."—And the evolutionists cannot accept that!

5 - Light has weight. Some suggest that light and gravity could not affect one another. But *Einstein was right: Light can be pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because light has weight, it can be pulled by matter and push it! Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly redshifting it.

"If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light has ‘weight.’ The pressure of light on the Earth’s surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2]."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330.

ORDER THIS BOOK!

TABLE OF CONTENTS