Has our model of the universe been falsified?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 16, 2023

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

That’s what we hear at IAI News:

New data from the Dark Energy Survey and South Pole Telescope suggest that the universe is less ‘clumpy’ than the standard cosmological model predicts. This has triggered speculation about new forces and insights into the nature of dark matter and dark energy. But this entire project is deeply misguided. We already have robust observations contradicting the standard cosmological model, showing that the universe is in fact more, not less, ‘clumpy’ than we thought. It’s about time the cosmology community faced these results, argue Pavel Kroupa and Moritz Haslbauer.

A recent publication in the journal Physical Review D with about 156 co-authors suggests the distribution of matter to be smoother than expected, based on the predictions of the standard model of cosmology [1]. This new data release by the Dark Energy Survey, was based on the findings of a telescope in Chile that measured the tiny distortions of the images of relatively nearby galaxy images, caused by their light being diverted due to the gravitational pull of foreground matter. The team also employed observations from the South Pole Telescope to measure distortions of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), again due to the uneven distribution of foreground matter. The CMB suggests that matter was nearly evenly distributed in the universe, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. As time progressed and the universe aged and expanded, matter began to clump together under the influence of gravity. But the clumping observed by the South Pole Telescope also did not accord with the predictions of the standard cosmological model.

– Pavel Kroupa | Pavel Kroupa is professor of astrophysics at University of Bonn, in Germany, where he heads the Stellar Populations and Dynamics research group, and professor at the Atronomical Institute of Charles University in Prague and Moritz Haslbauer | PhD candidate in Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Bonn, Germany. February 14, 2023

Well, anything that can’t be falsified by science methods can’t be verified that way either. Take your pick.

Comments

It seems to me that there are enough uncertainties in our understanding of cosmology to account for any likely variations in clumpiness, even if the variations reported are actually true. Sorting out what happened billions of lightyears (and years) away, based on gravitational lensing of uncertain amounts of matter in between here and there seems fraught with uncertainties of various sorts. Given that (supposedly) 75% (or more) of the "matter" in the universe is "dark matter" of uncertain nature and distribution, any calculation of gravitational lensing must surely be highly uncertain. And given that we know almost nothing about "dark energy" other than estimates of how it might have evolved over the life of the cosmos, pretending to know precisely how it worked billions of years ago is surely open to some uncertainty. One can take a lot of data and apply statistics, but if there are fundamental uncertainties in the assumptions used in your analysis (i.e. model), then one should expect a larger uncertainty in the analytical results. Whether these are enough to account for the supposed anomalies, I cannot say. Fasteddious

Severesky: You make fun of Christianity. Why? Where did modern science arise? Did it arise in Africa, or in China, or Japan, or in South America? No, it arose in the Christian West! Your attempt at humor comes from the opinion. You apparently hold that there is some great divide between religion and science, and that when it comes to these to science is the superior and religion in the inferior. What modern science is teaching us in the age, we are now living in is is that religion is to be preferred to science. Why? Because religion lead you into the truth, whereas science lead you anywhere you want to go. Modern physics is stuck because it’s run by those who have lost the faith, either Judaism or Christianity. If you want to reform science and restore it to its luster , then, the only way to do that is for scientist to begin having faith in God. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Science can’t even begin to spell the word wisdom. PaV

Bornagain77 @9, Your reference also reminds me of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/1684510775/ -Q Querius

In fact, Robin Collins has found that the light coming from the CMBR just so happens to be maximized for 'intelligent' observers like us to discover:
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Prediction: The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
So the ID advocate already has several lines of evidence suggesting that humans are 'privileged' observers in the universe, and 'privileged' observers of the CMBR in particular. So again, that the CMMR would now be found to 'talk back' to us and indicate the earth has a 'privileged' position in the universe should not be all that surprising for the ID advocate to find out.
The Cosmic Microwave Background proves intelligent design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2AwSIbtv38
The main stumbling block for people accepting that the earth is not nearly as insignificant as is currently held is the 'unquestioned' assumption of the Copernican Principle and/or the Cosmological principle. Yet the Copernican principle, contrary to what is popularly believed, was never experimentally established as being unquestionably true.
The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016 Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,, It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
In fact, as Stephen Hawking himself honestly admitted, the main reason that the Copernican principle was accepted as being true was not because of any compelling empirical evidence, but was simply because "the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest."
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” - Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010
As Stephen Hawking alluded to in the preceding quote, in General Relativity it simply does not matter if the sun, or if the earth, is considered to be at rest, (i.e. to be central), in the universe.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” – Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” – Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then obviously, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality//
So the Copernican principle, and/or the cosmological principle, contrary to what is popularly believed, is certainly not set in 'experimental' stone. But it merely is an 'easy' philosophical assumption that was accepted, apparently, because it was much easier to calculate by simply assuming to sun to be central in the solar system. And in fact, directly contrary to that 'simple' philosophical assumption, we now have several lines of scientific evidence that have now come forth and overturned the Copernican principle, and/or the cosmological principle, as being true.
Moreover, the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: (as well as by several other lines of scientific evidence) March 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/neil-thomas-on-evolutionary-theory-as-magical-thinking/#comment-748883
So thus in conclusion, at post 2 Seversky asked, "What does the Bible tell us about the Universe’s “clumpiness”?” But as I pointed out to him in post 3, (and as the article in the OP alluded to), it is the false assumption of the cosmological principle (and/or the Copernican principle), i.e. the assumption that there is nothing really special about the earth, solar system and humanity, that is wrecking havoc with the standard model of cosmology. Yet the Bible holds the earth and humanity to be ‘special’ in the grand scheme of things. Not to be insignificant and worthless as Seversky's atheistic worldview holds. In short, it is Seversky's atheistic worldview, not the Bible, that is in contradiction with the scientific evidence that we now have in hand.
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77

Thanks Querius and Whistler. If I might add, for ID advocates, these recent findings challenging the assumption of the Cosmological principle, and/or the Copernican Principle, which lies behind the standard cosmological model, should not be all that surprising to find out. For instance, as Hugh Ross and others have already pointed out, we already knew that the earth is exceeding rare in its ability support life in this universe.
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';?Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain bacteria for 90 days or less: Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10-614 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22 Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10^-333 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^311 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Requirements to sustain unicellar life for three billion year: Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-859 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22 Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-578 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^556 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf "If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances." - Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000) "Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe." - David Waltham, London astrobiologist - "Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional -- and What That Means for Life in the Universe" (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)
Moreover, the main thesis of one of the earliest ID videos, "The Privileged Planet", was “The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole."
“The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole." - Jay Richards – Privileged Planet - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8 “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” Guillermo Gonzalez - Our Privileged Planet (1of 5) - The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inUlX0oWHbw&list=PL67684557408B24B6
In fact, the subtitle of the book "The Privileged Planet' is "How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery"
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery - By Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards https://privilegedplanet.com/
In short, not only is the earth found to be a 'precious jewel' in its ability to support life in this universe, but the same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also plays a significant role in allowing us to be 'privileged' observers in the universe. Moreover, on top of that, we also just so happen to live at the right time in cosmic history to be able to see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to see the Cosmic Background Radiation - Hugh Ross – video (7:12 minute mark) https://youtu.be/MxOGeqVOsvc?t=431
Moreover, this 'observability correlation' for the CMBR also fits into the 'anthropic inequality' that was found by Brandon Carter,
Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head - Daniel Bakken - January 26, 2015 Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn't arisen in Earth's habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks "So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?" Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/lucky_us_turnin093011.html Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video (50:24 minute mark)?https://youtu.be/mzIVrcSyprU?t=3028 Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency. Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now. http://christiangodblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
bornagain77

https://rumble.com/v1hxeqp-the-principle-heavily-censored-2014-documentary-challenging-modern-of-cosmo.html whistler

Bornagain77 @1, Thanks for posting the video of "the axis of evil" and the apparent alignment of CMB symmetry with the earth's plane of the ecliptic. This is indeed fascinating and provocative! Quite frankly, I think it's more probable that this is a systematic error or some incorrect assumption. For example, there's the so-called "Fingers of God effect" that seems to indicate elongated (ellipsoid) galaxies all pointing to earth: https://biblescienceforum.com/2017/01/18/the-fingers-of-god-effect-not-evidence-for-a-geocentric-universe/ What current descriptions forget to mention is that astronomer, Halton Arp, was blackballed by the academic notables in his field for daring to point out this problem without their permission. He even wrote a book on the subject about 25 years ago, Seeing Red (https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905). I'm not recommending the book since his writing style is lousy and he focuses on the horrible treatment he received from academia for his discoveries. Sadly typical and another tragic example of the Semmelweiss Reflex (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ignaz-Semmelweis). -Q Querius

Seversky, I'm not sure what point you could possibly make by asking such a question. The Bible is finite in length, and so cannot contain the information to answer arbitrary questions. And if you already know the answer isn't in there, there would be even less point in posing your question. I don't see that this type of argument has any logical force, and surely won't stop any Christian here from continuing to remain so... EDTA

"... the assumption that there is nothing really special about the earth and solar system, which is being brought into question, even falsified, by these recent findings of the ‘clumpiness’ ..." The universe isn't special. The solar system isn't special. The earth isn't special. And I might add that man isn't special. The question is: Compared to what? What is the ideal standard? The "better" standard? relatd

Seversky, "This should be easy to solve for Christians. What does the Bible tell us about the Universe’s “clumpiness”?" Sev, one of the key false assumptions in the standard model is the "cosmological principle",,,, from the article,,,
The standard cosmological model also assumes the cosmological principle, according to which the universe looks the same in every direction. Using these assumptions, scientists can calculate how the initial smoothness of the cosmic microwave background evolved into an increasingly clumpy and moving distribution of matter, made of filaments, galaxy clusters and galaxies. The measurement of this process allows astronomers to test if the model is correct.,,, What we do we know about the smoothness, or the lack thereof, of the matter distribution in the universe, from more direct measurements, is that it’s much clumpier and faster-moving in parts than the standard cosmological model allows. In fact, the observations tell us that the Universe is structured on every scale, amounting to a falsification of the standard model of cosmology with extreme (more than 5 sigma) statistical confidence. A serious physicist would never again touch a theory that has been ruled out at such a significance level.
And the cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle.
Copernican principle Excerpt: The standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, assumes the Copernican principle and the more general cosmological principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Physics_without_the_principle
And the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, has been one of the main, supposedly scientific, arguments used by atheists to argue that man is insignificant in the grand scheme of things,
Copernican principle Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1] Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’s argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. – per wikipedia Carl Sagan coined the term ‘principle of mediocrity’ to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity’s situation https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false Mediocrity principle Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth’s history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3] – per wikipedia
And it is indeed the 'clumpiness' of the universe, or more specifically the structure of the universe as it is arrayed around the earth and solar system, which is "implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon".
A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies - Ashok K. Singal Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015) Abstract We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?(approx.) 2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2 Jan. 2022 – One of the most fascinating, even exciting, lines of evidence that we now have, that overturns the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, are the anomalies that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-example-of-our-earthly-uniqueness/#comment-744117
In short, it is the false assumption of the cosmological principle, i.e. the assumption that there is nothing really special about the earth and solar system, which is being brought into question, even falsified, by these recent findings of the 'clumpiness' and structure of the universe. And just to remind you Seversky, the Bible holds the earth and humanity to be 'special' in the grand scheme of things. Not to be insignificant and worthless as your atheistic worldview holds.
Isaiah 45:18-19 ?For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77

So there is a spat in the astrophysics community about how "clumpy" the Universe should be? This should be easy to solve for Christians. What does the Bible tell us about the Universe's "clumpiness"? Seversky

Here are a few juicy quotes from the article,
"In fact, the observations tell us that the Universe is structured on every scale, amounting to a falsification of the standard model of cosmology with extreme (more than 5 sigma) statistical confidence. A serious physicist would never again touch a theory that has been ruled out at such a significance level.,,, (Concluding sentence),, Thus, rather than discarding the standard cosmological model, our scientific establishment is digging itself ever deeper into the speculative fantasy realm, losing sight of and also grasp of reality in what appears to be a maelstrom of insanity. https://iai.tv/articles/our-model-of-the-universe-has-been-falsified-auid-2393?_auid=2020
"speculative fantasy realm"?, "losing sight of and also grasp of reality"?, "a maelstrom of insanity"?,,, well if I did not know better, I would have thought they were talking about Darwin's theory. :) Supplemental notes:
,,, (contrary to what is still popularly believed),, the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been decisively overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science, (as well as by several other lines of empirical evidence) August 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/privileged-address-an-excerpt-from-neil-thomass-taking-leave-of-darwin/#comment-736493 Jan. 2022 - One of the most fascinating, even exciting, lines of evidence that we now have, that overturns the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, are the anomalies that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/another-example-of-our-earthly-uniqueness/#comment-744117 As the following article, (with a illustration) explains, “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.” For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. (“Debunking Palm and MacAndrew on the CMB Evidence”, p. 8) For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms: “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” – illustration https://postlmg.cc/9Dt9z1y7 – article http://debunkingalecmacandrew.blogspot.com/2014/10/debunking-palm-and-macandrew-on-cmb_22.html Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
bornagain77

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply