Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cocktail! The Fingers of God are pointing at you

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In further commemoration of Halton Christian “Chip” Arp, Chip pointed out many star clusters are aligned in such a way that they point toward us. So severe has been the unease over this that some have called the phenomenon “The Fingers of God”. 😯 Quoting Chip’s website:

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!

These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed “Fingers of God”. The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican.

HaltonArp.com

The Fingers of God puts cosmologists in a difficult position. If we accept the Big Bang as true, then why does it look like we are in a privileged position, that we are special in God’s sight. 😉 If we accept a naturalistic explanation for the Fingers of God, the naturalistic explanation could well over-turn the Big Bang (much to the delight of YECs and some ID-haters, strange bedfellows indeed!). I don’t think anyone knows, we only have guesses.

As a card-carrying YEC, I’m inclined to give strong weight to a naturalistic explanation. Why? See this explanation at the Thunderbolts website. It explains the diagram below, which if true would also overturn the Big Bang:

Fingers of God

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp’s research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp’s observed universe to the big bang’s theoretical universe.

These three diagrams are called “pie charts” because of their resemblance to slices of pie. Our position (the Earth) is at the bottom point in all cases. Distance (away from the Earth) is measured along the straight edges. In the top left image, we show what a galaxy cluster in Arp’s universe would look like without the big bang perspective. It is a family of galaxies and quasars and gaseous clouds of mixed redshifts (in the top diagrams, the large dots are low- redshift, the medium-sized dots are medium-redshift, and the small dots are high redshift). At the center, there is a dominant galaxy — it’s usually the largest galaxy, and the galaxy with the lowest redshift of the cluster. This galaxy is surrounded by low-to-medium redshift galaxies, and toward the edges of the cluster we find the highest redshift galaxies, HII regions, BL Lac objects and quasars.

The image to the right shows what happens if we try to force the same galaxy cluster into a redshift-equals-distance relationship. The cluster becomes distorted. What was once a sphere becomes an elongated bubble. The central dominant galaxy drops to the front of this bubble, followed by a spike of low-to-medium redshift galaxies stretching away from the earth and “bubble and void” of high redshift objects.

Every cluster in the sky does this, like fingers of god pointed at the earth from every direction. The third image is a 90 degree slice of the sky showing all galaxies arranged according to their redshift- determined distances. The Fingers of God distortions show clearly, each representing a single galaxy cluster. (The bubbles and voids are not as clear, because this chart cuts off before it gets to high redshift.) Everything points at the Earth.

Without the redshift-equals-distance distortion, a new picture of galaxy clusters and the universe itself is revealed. The age of the universe is no longer known, because we no longer have a constant expansion to backtrack to a bang. The size is also unknown. Most quasars and some galaxies that we see are closer than we thought they were, because they have been distorted by the Fingers of God. But we have no idea how far the universe stretches beyond our telescopes’ limits. We have moved from what has been called “the end of science”, where everything has basically been discovered, to “the beginning of a new universe” where almost everything is unexplored territory. What an exciting prospect for science in the 21st century.

NOTES
1. The “cocktail” designation indicates speculative ideas, but sufficiently well-supported to merit consideration. Cocktails are appropriate for New Year’s celebrations. I offer a toast to all those part of the UD family.

2. photo credits: Thunderbolts,
hgtv

3. HT Querius

Comments
JLAFan2001
Can someone clarify somethings for me please? If the big bang didn’t happen wouldn’t that make the universe eternal as materialists have said before? Wouldn’t the Kalam argument be defeated and theists would lose another argument?
No. BTW: Your question implies you understand that the theist still have the winning argument.
On the other hand, it seems that some think that an eternal universe is absurd based on some science and philosophy. Which is it? Did it have a beginning or not? If not, how can one measure it’s age if it is eternal? what would be the alternative model to the big bang if one does hold to a beginning?
Seems pretty absurd to me. If time in the past is infinite, then how did the universe arrive to today? Another model is that the universe had a beginning. One example where we find such a model is... specially created. Whattayaknow! :) Reminds me of the Jastrow quote...but can't recall the exact wording. The moral of the story, theologians have been waiting for "science" to catch up. :PJGuy
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Dang, Mapou. I was hoping a materialist wabbit would step into the entropy trap! Be vewy vewy quiet . . . ;-) -QQuerius
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Can someone clarify somethings for me please? If the big bang didn’t happen wouldn’t that make the universe eternal as materialists have said before? Wouldn’t the Kalam argument be defeated and theists would lose another argument?
This is exactly the kind of conclusion a materialist would draw but it's false before it's even born. Entropy would have turned the universe into a chaotic nothing ages ago. Of course, you have the infinite regress of eternity to deal with and that's always fun too. So "ages ago" should be translated as "an infinite number of years in the past". But you can always count on materialists to tie their shoelaces together and fall on their faces by their own stupidity.Mapou
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Can someone clarify somethings for me please? If the big bang didn't happen wouldn't that make the universe eternal as materialists have said before? Wouldn't the Kalam argument be defeated and theists would lose another argument? On the other hand, it seems that some think that an eternal universe is absurd based on some science and philosophy. Which is it? Did it have a beginning or not? If not, how can one measure it's age if it is eternal? what would be the alternative model to the big bang if one does hold to a beginning?JLAfan2001
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Heh, love it! And here's where Arp went wrong. He should have gone the OTHER way around and announced that he had actually discovered the "Fingers of God," that they are pointing at us, and thus WE must be very special indeed! Arp would have caused a stampede of astronomers screaming and running away from Hubble's Law! ;-) For estimating distances, we still have the Cepheid variables (used to about 60-100 million light years) and maybe type Ia supernovae. A reasonable summary of how this actually works is available here: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/MilkyWay/cepheid.html Perhaps Hubble's Constant isn't, but I wonder whether poking it with a stick might still get some kind of correlation between red shift and distance that doesn't result in sausages. -QQuerius
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
This might be of some interest on this thread: Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? 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.
HT: lifepsy Happy new year everyone.Chance Ratcliff
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
rprado @3, deceptiveuniverse.com was very interesting. If some stars are actually mirages of other stars, wouldn't we be able to detect that? Namely by studying their spectra? Even if some frequencies of light were attenuated by something in one of the paths the light took, the different "images" of a single star should match up and/or vary enough in concert over time for us to detect their single true identity, wouldn't they?EDTA
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Thacker makes a potentially devastating point. First Thacker's claim:
There are hundreds of known quasars with redshifts greater than z = 3, presumably moving away from us at over 90% of the speed of light. The energy needed to accelerate such objects to nearly light such speeds staggers the imagination. After 30 years of study, quasars are still as much a mystery as when they were first discovered. Quasar Proper Motions Even more telling is that a number of quasars have been found with proper motion. That is, they are seen to move slowly across the sky over the span of a few years. If they were truly at the distances computed from Hubble’s Law, they could not possibly be seen to move in our lifetime! And yet numerous studies by highly respected astronomers have confirmed proper motion in quasars. Cosmological distances and proper motion are totally incompatible. The validity of using the Hubble Law to determine the distance, and therefore the energy, of quasars is very much suspect.
The paper Thacker was referring to was: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309826 Look at Figure 2 in MacMillan's paper. :shock: :-) :wink:scordova
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
While I personally "like" the big bang theory, and I realize that Halton Arp's observations challenge it, the reason that I brought up his book was as Mapou noted. - You make an observation that should be obvious to almost anyone. - The observation challenges the current theories (red shift as a measure of distance, the big bang). - The observer is not honored, but instead is professionally crucified. As noted previously, the result is that your papers are rejected, your access to people and equipment is denied, you might lose your job, your reputation is smeared, and so on. This puts a bad light on the *institution* of Science, although likely no worse than any other human institution. Still, one would like to expect honor and integrity from scientists, not to mention judges, politicians, government officials, religious leaders, business executives, the news media, and so on. What we clearly see is that the lack of personal integrity slows and even blocks Scientific progress. We've seen the tactics of apologists for Darwinism right here. And in case professor Matzke is reading this, yes, integrity cuts both ways! -QQuerius
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Also, johnnyb makes this observation regarding how blessed we are to live in this time in he universe given a recent paper by physicist Lawrence Krauss:
In the paper The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology, [Hat Tip: IDTF] the authors argue that in the (very, very far) future, we will no longer be able to detect the evidences that lead us to the conclusion of the big bang. And, in fact, our observational data would lead us to view the universe as static. IDTF thinks that this is evidence that we live in a privileged place and time in the universe. That may or may not be true, but the theoretical questions that this paper brings are far more interesting. Assuming that the paper is correct (and I certainly don't know enough about cosmology to say anything there), then that means that we know that it is possible for the evidence to indicate a false understanding of the universe. Think about that -- we have a paper that demonstrates that physical evidence can lead to a false understanding of cosmology even if the data is measured 100% accurate. http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2007/04/questions-that-should-be-asked.html
If only to suggest, it is by grace than any of us know anything...scordova
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Regarding Thacker, here are astronomy photos that turned my stomach. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/quadruple-vodka-examples-of-the-universe-being-deceptive/scordova
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
To better understand why there was no Big Bang, please go to Jerrold Thacker's page: http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/ and, if possible, buy his book: Reinventing the Universe (only $2.99): http://amzn.to/KkAh1q He mentions Halton "Chip" Arp and other astronomers who have been discriminated and, in some cases, fired (like ID scientists) for their new theories about the red shift, that make the Big Bang look like the Darwin's evolution theory: Absurd and obsolete.rprado
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
One way this can start to have resolution is if we have space probes that can give us very accurate parallax distance measurements out to millions of light years. Right now we can see maybe 350 light years out. What this means is we'll have to put probes out there that are far enough apart that they can triangulate distances based on geometry. If for example we find strongly red shifted quasars that are a few thousand light years out, that will settle the issue pretty decisively. The Gaia probe is over the next five years is supposed to extend our parallax view out to 30,000 or so light years. As of now we're just walking around like blind men perhaps seeing mirages so to speak. As I said, we're rich on speculation, poor on actual data.scordova
December 31, 2013
December
12
Dec
31
31
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
This is a very interesting topic because it teaches us a lesson about how science is conducted. Science is much more about preserving the ideology of the good old boy network than it is about reaching conclusions from the evidence. In this case, the evidence clearly falsifies the Big Bang hypothesis and the accelerated expansion of the universe. Happy New Year to all. I predict that 2014 will be a year of major disruptions.Mapou
December 31, 2013
December
12
Dec
31
31
2013
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply