Delivered By Grace – Christian Blog and Articles
Tim Challies provides a review of Stephen Hawking’s controversial book, “The Grand Design,” by: Edgar Andrews. Click here for the review
29 Responses to “The Grand Design – Stephen Hawking – Review”
John Piper in Transition - Tennessee Style
John Piper has stepped away from his church in Minneapolis in order to allow Jason Meyer some space as he begins his journey as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church. John Piper reflects on his transition and the next 10 years. Click here for the full article.
My Take on the “Baptist Battle of Calvinism” - Tim Brister
Tim Brister writes, “I believe we are at a unique moment in contemporary history of the SBC. I guess you could say this is a “kairos” moment that we should all seek to steward well.” Read his full article here.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
- Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design”
“As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
– Stephen Hawking in the same book.
Here three questions can be asked:
1) Which one came first, universe, or laws of gravity and quantum theory?
2) If the universe came first, then how was there spontaneous creation without the laws of gravity and quantum theory?
3) If the laws of gravity and quantum theory came first, then Hawking has merely substituted God with quantum theory and laws of gravity. These two together can be called Hawking’s “Unconscious God”. Therefore we can legitimately ask the question: Who, or what, created Hawking’s unconscious God?
Not only this, but there are other problems also. If the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes spontaneously appearing from nothing, then initially there was nothing. Then wherefrom appear those laws of gravity and quantum theory to allow universes appearing spontaneously from nothing? In which container were those two laws of nature?
Scientist Stephen Hawking quoted:
“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
The derivation of the theory of spontaneous creation is merely from the discovery of the creation of particles through vacuum by means of quantum theory from scientists in the past. However, the experiment in the past had shown that the particles could only exist for awhile after its creation and its life could not prolong for more than half an hour and began to vanish. It is erroneous to use this experiment to support spontaneous creation could create something out of nothing in which the created things could last forever. Unless the experiment had shown in the past that the created substance could prolong its life more than a year, it is then rational to use it to support there could be spontaneous creation prior to the creation of universe that could cause substances, such as, planets, living things and etc., to continue to exist until nowadays. As the existence of particles through spontaneous creation through the experiment in the vacuum in the past had shown that the created particles could not even prolong their life more than a year, how could spontaneous creation be occurred prior to the creation of this universe that could create living things that could last even up to this modern days?
Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory for spontaneous creation that could create something out of nothing could not be acceptable especially particles that had been created through experiment could only appear a couple of minutes and then vanished.
Stephen hawking also mentions that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. As we know, as the earth revolves around the sun, the gravity is also accompanied with the earth to revolve around the sun. Even if the earth would cease its movement, gravity would cease its movement simultaneously. Thus, the gravity and the earth cannot be separated. As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to assume that gravity could exist at the collapse of stars or prior to the formation of this universe as supported by Stephen Hawking. As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to support Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist prior to the creation of universe despite there was no object to be found at that time.
Isaac Newton was the founder of the theory of gravity and Stephen Hawking develops the theory through gravity. Isaac Newton supported that gravity attaches big objects, such as, the earth. To stay away from big objects, would cause lesser or no gravity. Yet Stephen hawking’s theory contradicts Isaac Newton’s principle that gravity would remain at the absence of object. The worse is that Stephen Hawking supports that gravity could exist even at the absence of the creation of objects prior to the formation of this universe. Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory has been found to have contradiction with Isaac Newton’s principle.
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The phrase, God created the heaven and the earth, in Genesis 1:1 provides the absolute truth that God is the creator of this heaven and earth and yet Stephen Hawking mentions that gravity is the source that created the universe through quantum theory.
Revelation 1:8, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” As the phrase, I am…the beginning.., is mentioned in Revelation 1:8, it gives an implication that God is the only ONe has existed since the formation of the universe and yet Stephen Hawking mentions that gravity created something out of nothing as if that God is not the beginning but gravity as well as quantum physics at work.
Stephen Hawking simply abuses science, i.e. gravity, quantum theory and etc. to suit his theory for the creation of this universe out of his pure imagination.
Despite Stephen Hawking does not rule out the existence of God, he supports that God is not necessary in the creation of this universe. Stephen Hawking was not even born prior to the formation of the universe. How could he know whether quantum physics did exist prior to the formation of the universe? What if the quantum physics did not exist prior to the formation of the universe, God is merely the creator of this universe and this has to rule out his theory that God is not necessary in the creation of this universe. When he mentioned that he has tested his theory before his comment is rather a little exaggerated since he has meant that he would have gone back prior to the formation of the universe to see that quantum physics was the one that created the universe instead of God.
As we know, the earth revolves itself in a full turn in about 24 hours and it needs to take about 365 days to make a full trip to follow its usual track to go around the sun. In every single movement, gravity always follows suit the earth to move. There is no such thing as gravity could remain stagnant and to allow the earth to continue its movement so much so that the earth could be without gravity in its movement. Even if the gravity would cease its movement, the gravity would not detach from the earth to continue its movement. Gravity no doubts differs from the earth. From the movement of the gravity and the earth, it could derive with the conclusion that the earth and gravity cannot be separated or else people could find way to pull out the gravity from the earth to cause it to be without gravity. As gravity could not be separated from the earth, it is erroneous to assume that the gravity could exist without the earth prior to the formation of the earth to create the universe.
As Stephen Hawking was not born prior to the formation of the universe and did not observe how it has been formed, his theory that gravity was the creator of the universe is simply his own imagination without any evidence.
Stephen Hawking formed his own theory through imagination instead of seeing that had been happened in the past. The same was for Charles Darwin in which he did not see it with his own eyes that human beings were evolved from apes. Unless Charles Darwin was born prior to or on the creation of human beings and did see human beings being transformed into apes, his theory is simply as Stephen Hawking that comes out from his wild imagination.
Stephen Hawking supported that this universe was created spontaneously. Charles Darwin supported that human beings were evolved from apes. However, science could not explain why human beings could speak various types of languages. Not only that, you could never find apes speak in human languages. As apes could never speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes? Even if Stephen Hawking supported spontaneous creation, how could it by luck that all human beings were created to speak in various languages? This can never be by chance or by luck. Even if Stephen Hawking would use quantum theory or gravity to support the creation of the universe, there could not be such a co-incidence that human beings were created with diversified languages, such as, Germany and Arab languages are entirely different.
The Bible has the explanation on how the languages to be diversified. The following is the extract:
Genesis 11:9, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Without the Bible and without God, there is no way for human beings to speak various kind of languages.
Refer to the website address below for the evidence of dark energy: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080811-dark-energy.html
The following is the extract from the above websites under the fourth paragraph:
The new image reveals the spectral fingerprints created by dark energy as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures that are roughly half a billion light-years across.
Dark energy is being defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy as a hypothical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Despite there was an image to reveal the existence of something, or the so-called, dark energy, that it could stretch huge supervoids and superclusters even up to half a billion light-years across, it might not provide the truth that the universe could be expanding due to the following possibilities:
a)The universe itself could be created initially in infinity and there might be no space limit or boundary. If that could be our universe to be since nobody in this earth did ever see any boundary of this universe, the thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures to move would not lead to the conclusion that this universe could be expanding. Instead, it simply gives information that something has been causing the huge supervoids and superclusters to move forward.
b)There could be also the possibility that this universe could be so huge that it could take a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel from one end to another in order to have their return facing us in a few trillion light years later.
There are a few likeliness that would not give the conclusion that the universe could be expanding by seeing that thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters across and there are:
1)The so-called, dark energy, might simply perform its routine function to cause the huge supervoids and superclusters to be stretched across and yet it is either within the huge boundary of the universe in which it would take a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end to another until its final return in advancing to us in a few trillion years later or in the universe that could have been created to be lasted until infinity.
Let’s refer to another website pertaining to the velocities of the galaxies in advancement: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7109-evidence-of-dark-energy-missed-30-years-ago.html
The following is the extract for the analysis:
In 1972, Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, US, reasoned that in the nearby universe – where the expansion is at its slowest – the gravitational attraction between groups and clusters of galaxies should produce significant deviations in their velocities from the otherwise largely smooth speed of expansion. These deviations are called “peculiar velocities”, but Sandage pointed out that galaxies in our vicinity – those lying just beyond our “Local Group” of the Milky Way and its immediate neighbours – showed abnormally low peculiar velocities.
Let’s assume that you would blow a balloon. The air would go from one end and to move in one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, consideration has to be taken in is the moving speed for all particles in the balloon should be the same regardless whether those particles that are nearby each other or big or small to the ultimate reach of the boundary of the balloon so as to cause it to expand further. There should not be any reason for all particles within the balloon to travel with various speeds despite the particles could be big or small.
As discovered by Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, in 1972 that there is a significant deviations in their velocities among galaxies, it does not provide a good source to prove the galaxies might be expanding. If there could be a constant force that could cause the universe to be expanded, the moving speed for all the galaxies should be the same in advancing further away from us instead of with irregular velocities that some are advancing faster than another.
The deviation of velocities of galaxies in advancement is mentioned the same in the website as follows: http://www.universetoday.com/16170/astronomers-find-new-evidence-for-dark-energy/
The following is the extract:
When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.
As the velocities of all the galaxies have been deviated from each other, it is irrational to be quick to jump into the conclusion that our universe could be expanding so as to use it to support Big Bang theory.
Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.
Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly put quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.
Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.
Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.
Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.
The following are the reasons why Big Bang theory is not reliable:
a) Let’s consider the formation of universe through Big Bang theory is correct and that the creation of universe through Big Bang theory was come about at the absence of space. Or in other words, we presume that there could be no space prior to the creation of universe through Big Bang theory. Now questions have to be raised. As there could be no space prior to the formation of universe, how could there be any possibility to have substance or anything that would be available to trigger off the creation of universe through Big Bang theory? As there could be no space prior to the formation of universe, could there be any substance to have been blocked in which it could have been existed in infinity before the formation of universe through Big Bang theory? Was there anything that would create the substance that would have been used to block the space so much so that there would have no space prior to the creation of universe?
b) Let’s assume that there would be space prior to the creation of the universe through Big Bang theory. Was the space prior to the creation of universe would have lasted until infinity before the world’s formation? Who has caused the space to be created? As there would be space before the formation of the world through Big Bang theory, would there be any boundary of the space in the world? As the space prior to the formation of the world through was silence in the very beginning, what was the factor that would trigger off the creation of universe through Big Bang theory?
As the space prior to the creation of the world would have existed in infinity, there would be a possibility that something would have alive and have existed long before the creation of this universe. Religious people, i.e. Muslims, Christianity and Judaism, name it as God.
Let’s assume that this universe should be formed through Big Bang theory. Questions have to be raised. Why is it that Big Bang theory could create perfect galaxies that a planet would revolve around another instead of the danger that anyone of the planets would crash with another easily and that would cause the earth not to be in secure position? For instance, the moon always revolves around the earth and it would not crash it and the distance between them remains constant. The same is for the earth to the sun. How could Big Bang theory be able to create these perfect galaxies unless there is one behind that controls all the planets that causes perfect galaxies to be formed. For religious people, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Muslims, call it as God.
For instance, if this world would be formed in random order through the Big bang theory, the following events would appear: The earth might be formed too near the sun and to cause many inhabitants to be hurt; or the earth might be flying everywhere in the universe without guidance due to these be formed in random order through Big Bang theory; or the sun might well be formed stagnant in one place and leaving the earth to fly everywhere among the galaxies so much so that all the inhabitants might not be able to enable sunlight; or the earth might fly everywhere or even worse, the danger to hit against the sun; or etc. What if the earth would be formed too far from the sun, all the inhabitants would be in the darkness for 24 hours. Currently, all the galaxies in this world seem to revolve around the sun instead of the other way round. It seems to be that there must be some kind of supernatural being controls it. Religious people call it, God.
If the universe would be created from Big Bang theory, the above is the likeliness of the world since nothing is controlling it and everything is formed in random or messy order. The whole universe would be disorganized and one could find hard to determine which planet was rotating against which.
From the above, it would come to the conclusion that Big Bang theory is unrealistic.
There are many galaxies in this world and yet there is orderliness among each group of galaxies in which each orbit its own centre of mass. For instance, if the universe would be generated by itself through Big Bang Theory or Steady Stage Theory, the likeliness of disorderliness would occur that each galaxy would not orbit its own centre of mass. Instead, all the planets of the galaxies would fly around everywhere aimlessly in this universe and that would cause all the inhabitants on the earth to be in danger due to the likeliness that the earth to be crashed by other galaxies. Some galaxies might be even worse, to the extent, hitting each other. This is due to nothing would force the new galaxy to be formed to move in such a way that it would orbit its own centre of mass. It seems to be that each time when a new galaxy is formed, the same pattern, i.e. each would orbit its own centre of mass, would appear. The orderliness of all the galaxies in their movements around their own centre of mass gives the impression that there should be one that is in control of the entire universe. Religious people call it, God.
The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue.
To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.
Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding on the condition if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If our entire universe has already been extended up to infinity in the beginning of the creation of this universe or somewhere later, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer nowadays could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it would not imply the further expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been extended in the infinity without any end initially and needed not to been extended further currently.
Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding. As the assumption that the space might not be extended fully and it assumes that the extension of space would progress accordingly with the age of universe as well as the speed of light, the computation of the size of the universe has been done by using the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world would have already been extended to infinity initially, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself would have already been developed into infinity without boundary in the very beginning.
From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning.
Refer to the website here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 There are about 100 known galaxies that are in blue shifts. As there are so many blue shifts, it is irrational to use many red shifts that have been discovered through Hubble telescope to conclude that this universe would be expanding. The following are the reasons why it is irrational to conclude that the universe would be expanding to support Big Bang Theory:
a) This universe might have been extended up to infinity in the past and there would have no place currently for further expansion since the space would be in infinity without boundary currently. If that would be so, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this entire universe would be expanding.
b) Even if this entire universe might have a boundary, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this universe would be expanding due to these blue shifts might reflect there could be some galaxies that would have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of universe for their return. As some of these 100 over galaxies could have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of the universe for their return and yet many still struggling behind in advancing and would have not reached the corner of the universe yet due to the expanse of universe and it would take many and many years for galaxies to reach its corner of the universe for their return, these would have turned up to be more red shifts than blue.
As the universe might not be expanding as a result of the exceptional cases of above, it is irrational to use many red shifts than blue to conclude this universe would be expanding so as to support Big Bang Theory.
The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.
Some evolutionists might insist the existence of only one living thing, i.e. DNA or genetic material or etc., to survive in the very beginning as a result of natural selection and competition among multiple living things. Discuss.
Let’s assume that evolution is true and to proceed with the discussion below so as to determine whether it is justifiable to support this theory:
When the environmental condition and factors that would appear and deem fit for the generation of living thing in the beginning, it is irrational to support that there could be only one living thing, i.e. DNA or genetic material or etc., to be formed. This is due to the entire environment around the earth would have provided a condition to suit and even to ease the generation of living thing.
As there would be many living things that would be formed as a result of the environmental condition and factors would deem fit for the generation of lively thing in the beginning, there should be multiple generation of living things everywhere in the earth whether it would be in the North or West or South or East. As the environmental condition and factors would deem fit for the generation of living things in the beginning, there would turn up to be more than billions of living things, i.e. lively molecules or DNAs or genetic materials or etc., to be formed at that time.
It is irrational to suggest that all the living things (that would be generated at the same time whether in the North or South or West or East) would turn up to be only one left with the excuse of general selection or competition among them especially they might be very far distance apart and would have lost contact without any influence or relationship. Let’s give you an example. A specific kind of tigers, that would have turned up to be extinct in America due to its natural selection and competition among the living things, would not have any influence upon the tiger in Africa. This is by virtue of the place, in which the tiger in America is located, is so far distance apart from the same kind of tiger in Africa. As a result of the far distance between them, the tiger in America would not have any influence or connection with that is in Africa. It would turn up to be that the natural selection or competition, that would have affected the tiger in America, would not cause any influence for that would be in Africa. This has ended up that the tiger in America would have gone extinct and not so in Africa due to they are far distance apart. Let’s apply this to the generation of billions of living things in the beginning when environmental condition and factors that would deem fit for the generation of lively things. How could the living thing that would be generated in the very North of the earth would knock out the living thing that would be generated in the very South especially they are so far distance apart and their inability to contact with each other due to the far distance?
The above have placed evolution into query about its reliability and its existence.
Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.
Let’s furnish another mathematical formula below for the computation of age of fossils and the earth that could be located at the website address http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit4/U4L31A.html :
t = 1/delta In (1+D/P)
where t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen, D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today, P is the number of atoms of the parent product today, ln is the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and delta is the appropriate decay constant.
In order that the formula could apply for the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth, the substance or objects or whatever must have established the relationship that one object must be the daughter of another. If the relationship between them could not establish to be one as parent and another as daughter, the above mathematical formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth.
Let’s use Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 as examples for elaboration since scientists have linked up these two objects as parent-daughter relationship that would lead to the decay rate of 106 billion years. The following are the reasons why the computation by means of the above mathematic formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth:
a)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning and Neodymium-143 would not be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, the relationship between them to be parent and daughter could not be established. As the relationship could not be established in case if they would have been created simultaneously in the very beginning, the above mathematical formula could not apply. This is by virtue of the above formula could only be applicable when two objects have established with the parent-daughter relationship.
b)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would be as hard as a diamond that there could be no way for them to decay, the formula could not be applicable to this condition since Both of these items could not be established to be parent-daughter relationship as one could not be the transformation from another.
c)Even if Samarium-147 could decay, how could scientists be so firmly that it could turn up to be Neodymium-143 instead of otherwise since nobody could live billion of years to witness the end-result of transformation for Samarium-147 to be Neodymium-143? As that could be so, to comment Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 to be parent-daughter relationship and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would lead to wrong age since they could have no relationship between them in the first place.
d)What if Samarium-147 could decay to Neodymium-143 and yet the decay rate could not be established to be billion of years instead, it could only be a few thousand years, it would certainly affect the figure that has to be used for delta. This is by virtue of the unreliable decay rate would affect the decay constant figure that has to be used in the formula above. As the unreliable decay rate of the above substance would affect the decay constant to be used in the formula above, the end-result of the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would not be reliable.
As it is hard to jump into the conclusion that one material or substance or whatever could be the daughter of another, this makes the computation to be unreliable and it is irrational to use radioactive dating method to jump into the conclusion that the age of fossils or the earth or rocks could be in billion years.
What is radiometric decay or radioactive decay? Radioactive decay is a spontaneous disintegration of a radionuclide accompanied by the emission of ionizing radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles or gamma rays.
Some might argue that radiometric decay could not cause any decay in the rocks or substance or etc.. If radiometric decay could not cause any influence upon the rock or substance. The parent isotope, such as, Rubidium-87, could still remain to be Rubidium-87 after 50 billion years, instead of turning up to be Strontium-87 (daughter). As the parent isotope, such as Rubidium-87, would turn up to be Strontium-87, in 50 billion years later, it implies that there would be a change of quality as a result of the influence of radioactive decay.
Do environmental factors have any influence upon radiometric decay? Yes, there is. If environmental factors could not have any influence upon radiometric decay, there should not be any reason for scientists to assume that the half year decay rate from Parent isotopes to Daughter to be constant in the first place.
The following are the number of websites that have indicated that environmental factors could alter radioactive decay rate despite the assumption that has been established through radiometric dating method to be constant and unchanged:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5076971/description.html; http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_04-05.pdf; http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/; http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm
As the decay rate that has been assumed by scientists in the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or whatever to be in constant rate and yet the actual decay rate might not be constant as a result of the influence of environment, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in billion years would not be reliable. This is by virtue of radiometric dating method has presumed a perfection for decay rate and yet it could be accelerated in reality. As the decay rate could be accelerated, the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could never be accurate.
What if the parent isotopes, such as, Samarium-147, so hard that it could resist radiometric decay that it would not cause any change of quality to turn up to be the daughter isotopes, such as, Neodymium-143, the mathematic formula that has been used to compute the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could not be applicable. This is by virtue of the objects that have been used to measure the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth have to be established to have parent-daughter relationship. Or else, insisting the use of radioactive dating method would simply give false information about the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth.
What if the parent isotopes, such as, Uranium-235, or whatever, could be so weak that any environmental factors, such as, sun, wind, Noah’s ark and whatever, could accelerate radioactive decay rate and yet it could restore to its original rate at the absence of the influence, the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified as a result of great influence from environment.
What if the objects that have been presumed by Scientists would not have parent-daughter relationship in reality, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified through computation.
Let’s give you an illustration. The parent isotope, Samarium-147, has found to be the daughter of Neodymium-143 just because they both emit alpha particles instead of physical witness of the transformation of Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147. What if Samarium-147 could be so hard to resist radioactive decay so much so that it could not be transformed into Neodymium-143, the insisting to place these two items together and to establish them to be parent-daughter relationship and to compute the decay rate to be 106 billion years would certainly turn up to be unreliable. What if the parent isotope, let’s say, Samarium-147, would change in quality as a result of radioactive decay, yet it would not turn up to be Neodymium-143 but other source. The insisting to establish these two isotopes to have parent-daughter relationship would falsify the computation of the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth. Anyway, nobody could live in billion of years to witness whether the isotopes, let’s say, Samarium-147, could transform into Neodymium-143. Scientists simply establish their relationship through observing the similarity of emission instead of seeing physical transformation. Thus, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in million or billion years through radiometric dating method would not be reliable.
From the above analysis, it is irrational to conclude the earth or fossils or rocks to be in million years or billions years as a result of the uncertainty of radiometric decay rate and the questionability whether one substance could be the daughter isotope of another.
The following are the extracts to show the orderliness of the galaxies.
a)The formation of each new galaxy would follow the same pattern that each orbits around its own centre base:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy, The second paragraph of the subtitle, Galaxy, mentions with the phrase, each orbiting their galaxy’s own center of mass. Or in other words, when a first galaxy was formed in this universe in the beginning, it orbits its own centre of mass despite their irregular shapes of design. When the second galaxy was formed, the same pattern would appear that each would orbit each own centre base. And so on and so forth. For instance, if the first galaxy would be generated by Big Bang theory, it would not be possible that each galaxy would orbit each own centre base from the beginning ever since the first galaxy was generated. Indeed, the first galaxy, that would be formed, would be moving in the mess with disorderly manner without guidance instead of orbiting its own centre base if nothing would be controlling the formation of the universe. The outcome (that each galaxy would not be created in such a nice manner that each would orbit its own base) is there would be a possibility that the stars or planets or whatever within each galaxy, that were created, would fly all around the universe without guidance and even to the extent that the stars or planets or whatever in each galaxy, would crash with each other to cause ultimate devastation of the universe so much so that our earth would turn up to be not in secure place. How could Big Bang Theory be able to create the first galaxy in the beginning so much so that it could orbit its centre base especially nothing should have existed before? How could Big Bang theory be able to create the second galaxy to follow suit the first galaxy to oribt its centre base?
The orderliness of the formation of galaxies ever since its first formation to be that each would orbit each own centre mass, gives the signal that something must have existed in the creation of the universe. Religious people call it God.
b)Each time when a new galaxy has formed, the same pattern would occur that something would hold this galaxy together so that it would not turn the whole universe into a mess and scientists call it to be gravitational force.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph of the category, Milky Way from the above website:
In 1750 the English astronomer Thomas Wright in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the galaxy might be a rotating body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk
If nothing would control the entire universe, there would not be any force that would hold the entire galaxy to be in perfect order when a new galaxy would form. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess that it would not give any warranty that it would orbit its own centre of mass. When the second set of galaxy was formed in the beginning, it would not give any warranty that the universe would hold these two sets of galaxies together in continuity. And so on and so forth. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess in hitting against each other. The second set of galaxy, that would be created, would be worse than the first without revolving around its own centre of mass but flying around the universe with random order and nothing would hold these two together. And so on and so forth. There must be something that is in control for the creation of this universe. Religious people call it God.
c)When a new spiral galaxy is formed, spiral arms would rotate its own centre with angular velocity. Despite there would be some step-back to alter its own velocity, it would still return to its original velocity and yet the same pattern, angular velocity, maintains to beautify the universe. Besides, most importantly it would return to its own velocity whenever something has caused it to accelerate its speed.
The following is the extract from third paragraph under the sub-title of Spirals in the same website address as mentioned above:
In spiral galaxies, the spiral arms do have the shape of approximate logarithmic spirals, a pattern that can be theoretically shown to result from a disturbance in a uniformly rotating mass of stars. Like the stars, the spiral arms rotate around the center, but they do so with constant angular velocity…As stars move through an arm, the space velocity of each stellar system is modified by the gravitational force of the higher density. (The VELOCITY RETURNS TO NORMAL after the stars depart on the other side of the arm.)
If the spiral galaxy was created by Big Bang theory, it would not give any warranty that the first creation of the existence of spiral galaxy would result in velocity to return to its original speed after its acceleration due to some influence before. What if the spiral galaxy would not return to its original velocity, the spiral galaxy would keep on increasing its speed whenever it is influenced by external factor. The whole spiral galaxy would turn up to be in disaster since it keeps on increasing its speed non-stop since forever increasing speed would cause the heat to rise up and even be burnt up eventually.
The above show that the nature reflects the existence of God.
Does the absence of cosmological constant from Einstein Field Equation supports this universe could be created to be something from nothing?
The following is the extract under the sub-title, Einstein Field Equations, from the website address, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cosmological_constant:
(…where G is the gravitational constant. .. This “cosmological constant” was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, and it is given the symbol Λ .
R μν －1/2 Rg μν + Λ μν =8πGT μν (2)
When Λ is positive it acts as a repulsive force. )
As the phrase, the ‘cosmological constant was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that Einstein presumed that the universe should be in static stage and that was why he inserted Λ μν into his equation.
At the absence of cosmological constant, Λ μν, from the above equation, the universe would turn up not to be static universe and the equation should be:
R μν －1/2 Rg μν =8πGT μν
From the equation above, the space time as expressed by (R μν －1/2 Rg μν) has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant.
What is gravitational constant? The mathematical formula of gravitational constant could be located in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation, under the sub-title, Newton’s law of universal gravitation as indicated below:
{F = G (m1 m2)/(r) the power of 2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}
From the above formula, it is obvious that F, the force between the masses, has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant is zero, the force between the masses should be zero too. Or in other words, there should not be any gravity at the absence of masses. This certainly would not support Stephen Hawking’s theory that mentions that gravity could exist at the absence of masses so as to generate something out of nothing.
As gravitational constant has to deal with masses and the Eistein Field Equation, i.e. R μν－1/2Rg μν=8πGT μν, has to deal with gravitational constant, it gives the ultimate conclusion that Eistein Field Equation has to deal with masses despite the absence of cosmological constant. Or in other words, in order that Eistein Field Equation to be at work, masses of substances must be in existence in order to generate General Relativity. Thus, it opposes the theory that supports that universe could be generated to something out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking mentioned before that the universe would be formed through Quantum Theory.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Vacuum State, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state:
‘According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.’
As the phrase, vacuum is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned above, it implies quantum vacuum could never be empty. Instead, it consists of electromagnetic waves as well as particles. Questions have to be raised. What would have caused electromagnetic waves to exist? If nothing should have existed prior to the creation of quantum vacuum, why should there be electromagnetic waves? What should thing have existed to give rise to electromagnetic waves in order to generate quantum vacuum? The electromagnetic waves give the implication that something should have caused the waves to rise or else there should never be any electromagnetic waves to be generated. As there would be particles that pop into and out of existence at the function of quantum vacuum, it implies the existence of particles in which something must have created them into beings.
Thus, the above explanation objects the explanation that quantum vacuum could create something out of nothing since the existence of electromagnetic waves would give the information that something should have created it or else why the waves should be in existence. Besides, the existence of particles that pop into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum gives the implication of the existence of matter in quantum vacuum condition. If one comments that quantum vacuum could create the universe, who then should be the one that would create electromagnetic waves so as to trigger off quantum vacuum then? Besides, who was the one that would have created particles that would have popped in and out of existence in quantum vacuum condition?
From the above analysis, it would come to the conclusion that quantum vacuum is not the creator of the universe since how quantum vacuum could be able to create something out of nothing especially there are particles in quantum vacuum.
Some might argue that the word, mass, as mentioned in Newton’s principle or General Relativity might not refer to substances but energy since there is mass for energy. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Definition and basic properties, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.’
The word, matter, as extract above gives the implication that the word, mass as mentioned in General Relativity is meant for objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph under the sub-title, Geometry of Newtonian gravity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein’s elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard an accelerating rocket generating a force equal to gravity.’
The phrases, elevator experiment, and, dropped ball, and accelerating rocket, as mentioned above gives the implication that Einstein has performed the General Relativity on matter instead of on energy. Thus, the matter as mentioned in Einstein’s theory is meant inevitably for substances or objects instead of for energy. As Einstein has performed his General Relativity’s experiment successfully on matter, it is obvious that the word, mass, in his General Relativity’s theory is meant for substances or objects instead of for energy.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation in the website address, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3c.cfm:
(But Newton’s law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton’s law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton’s place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.)
The phrase, ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction, as mentioned above gives the conclusion that Newton referred the word, mass, is his definition to be objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Law of Universal Gravitation, from the website address, http://schools.wikia.com/wiki/Newton%27s_Law_of_Universal_Gravitation, gives an absolute truth that universal gravitation has its derivation from the discovery from an object, i.e. apple, instead of energy:
(Many people know the story of Issac Newton sitting under an apple tree; when an apple fell on his head, he suddenly thought of the concept of gravity. It is actually much more complex than that; the situation brought about Newton’s law of universal gravitation.)
As the word, apple, is mentioned above, it implies that universal gravitation has its derivation from objects instead of energy. Thus, the word, mass, in his theory refers to objects or substances instead of for energy.
Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
(The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
(The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.
Could Big Bang Theory exist in the very beginning to create something out of nothing?
Indeed nobody has ever existed prior to the creation of this universe. Big Bang Theory is just a wild imagination from scientists that this universe could be created through it since nobody has eye-witness about its existence for the creation of this universe.
As Big Bang Theory mentions that this universe was used to be very small and very dense in the beginning, the mass and/or energy and/or protons and/or other particles that are within this tiny universe to trigger off Big Bang Theory would have limited volume. As the mass from universe in the beginning that would work under the Big Bang theory would slowly release the mass from it, it would turn up to be big universe and not so dense. No matter how the mass or energy or particles(,i.e. protons and etc.), that would be released from this tiny universe under the Big Bang Theory, there would come to a point of time in which nothing would be left in it as a result of the entire releasing of mass to its surrounding. Thus, it would come to a time that the universe would no more keep on expanding since the universe that works on Big Bang Theory has released all its mass to its surrounding. Unless the thing or the small universe that would trigger off Big Bang Theory in the very beginning would create more mass of space by itself so as to replenish the mass that has been released from it, there would be no way for Big Bang Theory to create mass of space unceasingly to cause the unceasing expansion of universe especially the law of conservation of mass and energy in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass, states that the mass and energy could not be created. How could Big Bang Theory support that this universe would keep on expanding as if that the mass of space could keep on producing without ceasing?
As mass could never be created by itself, the total mass of matter and/or energy and/or particles and/or protons in the thing or universe in the beginning (that would generate Big Bang Theory) would have the same mass as all the mass of all stars and planets among all the galaxies in this current and sophisticated universe since the mass could never be created as stated in the law of conservation of mass and energy. How could this little universe (that would have existed in the very beginning with the capability to trigger off Big Bang Theory) have the same amount of mass and these include all the stars and planets that are among all the galaxies in this modern world? When Big Bang theory mentions that the universe could be very dense, could the density of the rocks among all the planets and stars in this entire universe be lower than the very high density of the space or whatever in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory? As there are more than billions of planets and stars in this current universe and the density of rocks in each planet is higher than anything else especially the very high density of space in the universe that would create Big Bang Theory in the beginning, how could the density of the space in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory be greater than the rocks of all the planets and stars in this universe and yet the size of that universe would yet be very small then? If you would add up all the mass of planets and stars of different galaxies in this world, it would form a gigantic ball and the outlook would be many times bigger than our galaxy and it would not be a very tiny universe as mentioned in Big Bang Theory. To generate the same amount of mass of all the stars and planets for different galaxies in this modern universe, the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory in the beginning must have the same mass and it should be in gigantic size as many times as bigger than our galaxy especially the weight of a planet is many times as heavy as the very high density of space. As the universe that would generate all the stars and planets for different galaxies in the beginning should be in gigantic size, how could Big Bang Theory supports that that universe would be small and very dense especially the law of conversation of energy and mass states that mass and energy could not be created?
Is it true that the thing that would have existed in the very beginning for the generation of Big Bang Theory could be very dense in nature? This theory seems weird in the sense that how the small little thing or so-called, universe, could be very dense. If you take a balloon to blow air on it and try to suppress its expansion so as to make the air in it to be very dense, it would explode. Thus, if the thing or the so-called, very small universe, that would have generated Big Bang Theory would turn up to be very dense, that thing or universe would explode itself since it would be under hard pressure. If you take a box and blow air in it so as to make it dense, it would reach a stage that no air could enter into the box when the air in the box has been filled up. How could it be possible for the thing or the universe that would have existed in the very beginning to be very dense so as to generate Big Bang Theory since explosion would occur within a limited space? What would have caused the thing or the so-called, universe, to be very dense in the first place?
It is irrational to assume that the thing that would exist in the very beginning would release all its masses continuously non-stop until eternity for the fact that mass and energy could never be created under the law of conservation of mass and energy. As mass and energy could not be created by itself, how could the Big Bang Theory produce mass of space continuously as the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could never be created by itself? As mass and energy could not be created by itself in the thing that would have existed since the beginning, it would cease to increase in its mass when all the elements that would be within the Big Bang Theory have run out till nothing is left inside. Yet in reality what scientists have mentioned about Big Bang Theory is the forever increasing of mass of space in this universe. The forever increasing in the space expanding gives the implication that the assumption that the thing that would have been initiated with Big Bang Theory has been proven to be wrong since how could mass or energy be created itself when the law of conservation of mass and energy mentions that mass and energy cannot be created in the first place?
A simple conclusion has to be made here. How could the Big Bang Theory generate mass of space forever to allow its continuous expansion when the law of conservation of matter states that matter or energy could never be created? If the reply is that Big Bang Theory could generate more mass of space through the work of space and time, the result would turn up to be contradictory with the law of conservation of matter that states that matter and energy could never be created.
Big Bang Theory supports the continuous expansion of space. Is there any mass in the space? Yes, there is. The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state, under the sub-title, Vacuum State:
(According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.)
As the phrase, vacuum state…contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and PARTICLES that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that the space that is in vacuum state is never empty since it contains electromagnetic waves as well as particles that pop into and out of existence. Or in other words, the increase in space could cause the increase of electromagnetic waves as well as those particles that would pop into and out of existence in the space that is in vacuum state.
Is there any mass for particles or electromagnetic wave?
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, under the sub-title, Higgs boson:
(The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is predicted to exist for theoretical reasons, and may have been detected by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. If confirmed, this detection would prove the existence of the hypothetical Higgs field—the simplest of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass. The leading explanation is that a field exists that has non-zero strength everywhere—even in otherwise empty space—and that PARTICLES ACQUIRE MASS when interacting with this so-called Higgs field…)
As the phrase, particles acquire mass when interacting with the so-called Higgs field, is mentioned in the extract above, it gives the implication that there is mass among particles.
The title, Mass of an Electromagnetic Wave, in the website address, http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0041v2.pdf, has spelt out that there is mass for electromagnetic wave.
As there are particles as well as electromagnetic wave in the space in vacuum state and yet it has been proven above that there is mass among particles as well as electromagnetic wave, it would come to the conclusion that the particles in space that are in vacuum state have mass. As the expansion of this universe implies the increase in space results in the multiplication of particles as well as the increase in electromagnetic wave, the entire mass of this universe would increase simultaneously. Thus, the expansion of universe would lead to the entire increase of mass.
As the Big Bang Theory supports the expansion of this universe would lead to the entire increase of mass of space and yet the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could not be created, how could this theory be reliable since it supports forever increasing of mass of space as if that the mass could be created even though it could not?
Big Bang Theory supports that the expansion of the universe is in slow pace ever since the beginning. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 7th paragraph after the question, Is this universe expanding faster than the speed of light?, in the website address, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575:
(If we use the definition of distance given above (and only if we use this definition and no other), then the Hubble constant tells us that for every megaparsec of distance between two galaxies, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometers per second….)
As the phrase, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometer per second, is mentioned above, it implies that this universe would have been expanding in a fast speed at 71 kilometre per second instead of in slow pace. As Big Bang Theory suggests a continuous expansion of this universe ever since its creation and it maintains such a high speed constantly at 71 kilometers per SECOND, the mass of space that it would have been generated must be many times bigger than the thing or the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory. How could this be possible for the mass that would be generated would be many times more than its original mass when the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created? Big Bang Theory is itself unreliable and contradictory.
The Big Bang Theory seems illogical especially its derivation would be from very tiny point. The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, The Big Bang, in the website address, http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html:
(The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.)
The phrase, The universe began…with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point, as mentioned above seems irrational and illogical since how this very tiny point could hold the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of space, planets, stars, comets and etc. of this modern universe especially the law of conservation of matter and energy states that mass cannot be created. Big Bang Theory is itself contradictory and unscientific.
a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.
Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
d)If you might know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?
e)Would there be possible that LHC could create new particles?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/What+is+the+LHC/11833.aspx:
(The LHC accelerates two beams of atomic particles in opposite directions around the 27km collider. When the particle beams reach their maximum speed the LHC allows them to ‘collide’ at 4 points on their circular journey.
Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide and detectors, placed around the collision points, allow scientists to identify these new particles by tracking their behaviour. )
As the phrase, Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide, is mentioned above, it implies the new particles could be generated from LHC. However, question has to be raised about the two initial beams of atomic particles in opposite directions before the collision. Where should they be after the collision? It seems to be that the initial two beams should have vanished. The two initial beams should have been transformed into these thousands of new particles after colliding instead of being treated as new particles are created out from nothing. This is the same logic as why a new product, water, should be formed when hydrogen is burned in the air.
As the formula of mass-energy equivalence would not balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete, the end-result would turn up to be that mass-energy equivalence would be questionable due to the formation of equation to esablish General Relativity could not be established. The end-result that the law of conservation of mass and energy would be obsolete would be E cannot be equal to MC^2 and Ruv – (1/2) guv R cannot be equal to (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv due to the possible creation and destruction of mass and energy. If mass-energy equivalence and General Relativity could not be established as a result of the law of conservation of energy and mass has turned up to be obsolete, the theory could not be used to Big Bang Theory. This reliability of this theory is still questionable.
Let’s examine all the common isotopes that are used by scientists so as to determine their acceptability in radiometric dating method.
The following is the list of isotopes extracted from the website address, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html, and, http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/table_of_isotopes.htm:
Parent Isotope; Stable Daughter Product; Half-Life Values
Lutetium (Lu)-176; Hafnium (Hf)-176; 37.8 billion years
Uranium-238 (U); Lead (Pb)-206; 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235; Lead-207; 704 million years
Thorium-232 (Th); Lead-208; 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 (Rb); Strontium-87 (Sr); 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 (K); Argon-40 (Ar); 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 (Sm); Neodymium-143 (Nd); 106 billion years
Carbon (C)-14; Nitrogen (N)-14; 5730 +/-40
The analyses of the above-mentioned isotopes are as follows:
a)Lutetium-176 (Parent Isotope) to Hafnium-176:
The following is the extract of the article, Neutron-Deficient Nuclides of Hafnium and Lutetium, from the website address, http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v122/i5/p1558_1:
(New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide with 300- to 400-Mev protons. The genetic relationships and mass assignments were established by means of high-purity chemical separations and a series of chemical isolation experiments in which the daughter activity was determined as a function of time.)
The above was the only piece of evidence that scientists have used it to prove that lutetium-176 could turn up to be Hafnium-176 in a half life.
The phrase, New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from lutetium oxide to hafnium. If lutetium-176 would take 37.8 billion years for it to be transformed into Hafnium-176, why is it that the transformation as mentioned in the above example could take immediate effect instead of a half life? Or in other words, it did not take a half life (37.8 billion years) for lutetium-176 to be transformed into Hafnium-176 and this has put radioactive dating method into question. As the formation of hafnium was by means of lutetium oxide as mentioned above instead of through a pure lutetium, it gives no ironic evidence whether the formation of hafnium could be by means of a pure lutetium. What if the formation of hafnium could only be done through the compound of lutetium, i.e. lutetium oxide, the result of the experiment would not serve as evidence that lutetium could turn up to be hafnium in a half life. Besides, a question has to be raised what other substance has been used by this scientist to assist in the explosion. What if this scientist would have added other substance to cause the explosion and that the substance, that would have added, would assist in the transformation of lutetium oxide to hafnium, relating lutetium to be the parent isotope of hafnium might not be appropriate unless with the help of other substance for its explosion. If that could be so, radioactive dating method by means of lutetium is in question since radioactive decay might not cause lutetium to be transformed into Hafnium unless certain substance has been added for explosion.
Refer to he sequence of pictures in website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/re20071121.jpg, pertaining to lutetium. Lutetium would turn up to vanish in the 3rd year. As lutetium could not remain alone and would vanish in the air, it is irrational to assume that lutetium would exist throughout a half life (37.8 billion years) to be transformed into Hafnium since it would vanish in the air within 3 years. This has put radiometric dating method by means of lutetium-176 into question due to the possible vanish within 3 years and yet radiometric dating method gives assurance that it would last until 37.8 billion years for the transformation. How could lutetium be the parent isotope of Hafnium as it might vanish in the air within 3 months when it has been left alone in contacting with air and could not be transformed into Hafnium?
b)Uranium (Parent Isotope) to Lead (Daughter Isotope):
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html:
(The Earth’s uranium (chemical symbol U) was apparently formed in supernovae up to about 6.6 billion years…)
As mentioned in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism, that scientists have accepted the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years and yet have computed the age of uranium through radioactive dating method to be about 6.6 billion years. As the age of uranium is higher than the earth, this has put the reliability of radioactive dating method into question.
Could uranium be able to transform into lead?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm:
(Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and THORIUM into radium, helium, etc., and finally into LEAD.)
The process above shows that uranium has to pass through Thorium in order to be transformed into lead.
Could Thorium be able to transform into Lead?
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1914Natur..93..479L:
(THE work of Boltwood and Holmes some years ago on the occurrence of lead and uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead. From recent generalisations, however, in respect to radio-elements and the periodic law, it is to be expected that the end products of the radio-active elements should all be isotopic with lead.)
The phrase, uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead, as extracted above implies that scientists have no physical witness that thorium could turn up to lead. Besides, it is by no means for them to transform thorium into lead ultimately. As thorium could be by no means to turn up to lead currently, how could scientists assure the transformation would come true in a half life and would be in 14.0 billion years later? This has indeed placed the reliability of radiometric dating method into question. The reason why they put these two together is simply due to they meet radio-elements and the periodic law instead of seeing the physical transformation from Thorium-232 to Lead-208.
c)Thorium-232 (Parent isotope) to Lead-208 (Daughter Isotope):
As explained in clause b) above the impossibility of the transformation of Thorium to Lead. It has placed reliability of radiometric dating method into question.
d)Rubidium-87 (Parent Isotope) to Strontium-87 (Daughter Isotope):
The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, Isotopes, from the website address, http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/P-T/Rubidium.html:
(Rubidium-87 is used to estimate the age of very old rocks. Many kinds of rocks contain two rubidium isotopes, rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock, it changes into a new isotope, strontium -87. Any rock that contains rubidium-87 also contains some strontium-87. )
As the phrase, When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock it changes into a new isotope strontium-87, is mentioned above, it implies the immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87. Or in other words, it does not take a half life (or 48.8 billion years) for rubidium-87 to be transformed into strontium-87. The transformation is simply immediate and this has put the reliability of radioactive dating into question. For instance, if radiometric dating method is a truth, it should follow the rule of half life in which rubidium-87 should take 48.8 billion years for it to be transformed into strontium-87. As it would take an immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87, the reliability of the computation of age by means of radiometric dating would be in question.
e)Potassium-40 (Parent Isotope) to Argon-40 (Daughter Isotope):
The following is the http://www.ehow.com/way_5229579_fossil-dating-techniques.html
(Unfortunately, only 11 of 100 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, and only one of every 10,000 potassium atoms is the K-40 isotope; fortunately, potassium is one of the most abundant minerals on the Earth’s surface.)
The phrase, 11 of 1000 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40. As there is an immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40 despite the amount is small as 11 out of 1000 decayed K-40, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question. This is by virtue of it is mentioned that it would take a half life (or 1.25 billion years) for K-40 to turn up to be argon-40 and yet in reality it would take an immediate effect for the transformation. Even if one would suggest that 11 out of 1000 would turn up to be argon-40 and would take 1.25 billion years to process the balance of 989 (1000-11) atoms, how could the scientists account for 11 to be immediate and the balance of 989 atoms to 1.25 billion years not proportionally?
f)Samarium-147 (Parent Isotope) to Neodymium-143 (Daughter Isotope):
The following is the extract from the 6th paragraph from the website address, http://www.chemicool.com/elements/samarium.html:
(It wasn’t until 1885 that Carl Auer von Welsbach established that ‘didymium’ was actually composed of two distinct, new elements: neodymium and praseodymium.)
The above extract mentions that didymium consists of neodymium and praseodymium and yet didymium was found in Samarium. With the discovery, they conclude that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium in 106 billion years. Their conclusion that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium is not based on seeing the physical transformation from one to another, but the substance, Neodymium, was found in Samarium. That has caused us in doubt about the reliability of radiometric dating method.
Could Samarium be able to isolate itself in the air without influence? No, it could not since the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm, shows the immediate chemical reaction upon Samarium when it has contacted with air. The following is the extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:
[Samarium ( /səˈmɛəriəm/ sə-MAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sm and atomic number 62. It is a moderately hard silvery metal which readily oxidizes in air. Being a typical member of the lanthanide series, samarium usually assumes the oxidation state +3. Compounds of samarium(II) are also known, most notably monoxide SmO, monochalcogenides SmS, SmSe and SmTe, as well as samarium (II) iodide. The last compound is a common reducing agent in chemical synthesis. Samarium has no significant biological role and is only slightly toxic.]
The phrase, Samarium…hard silvery metal which ready oxidizes in air, as mentioned above implies the ease to respond to air in chemical reaction. The ease in chemical reaction with the contact of air would certainly affect the quality of Samarium and even the radioactive decay since it would not be solely Samarium but other elements that would form a new compound with it to increase or reduce its decay. This certainly would put radioactive dating method into question.
Could scientists be able to separate Neodymium from Samarium? The following is the extract under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003267094002746:
(A separation scheme for strontium and light rare earth elements and its application to the isotopic analysis of strontium and neodymium in silicate rocks are presented. This method benefits from the selectivity and high capacity of two newly introduced extraction Chromatographic materials, referred to as Sr.Spec and TRU.Spec, respectively. These afford a straightforward separation of Sr and Sm + Nd with high yield, good purity and satisfactory blank levels, on very small (0.25 ml) columns using small volumes of solutions of a single mineral acid, HNO3.)
The phrase, These afford a straightforward of Sr and Sm + Nd…using small volumes of… HNO3, gives the information that scientists could separate Samarium and Neodymium through mineral acid, HNO3.
Could Neodymium be able to stand alone from scientific point of view? Let’s observe the sequence of pictures of Neodymium in direct contact in air as shown in the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm. For instance, if Samarium would turn up to be Neodymium-143 in a half life and that is 106 billion years, there would not be another half life for it since it would corrode in the air and ultimately vanish since it could not be isolated itself in the air. The computation of Samarium-Neodymium isotopes by means of radiometric dating method presumes Neodymium still retains for another half life and yet in reality, it could not. This has put the accuracy of radiometric dating method by means of Samarium-147 due to the possible corrosion of Neodymium-143 to its ultimate vanishing in the beginning of another half life. The computation of age through isotope by means of samarium has presumed that neodymium would continue for another half life once samarium has turned up to be neodymium after the initial half life. Yet in reality, neodymium would vanish instead of continuing its existence. As the reality is different from the assumption that is set up in radioactive dating method, the accuracy of the age that would have computed through this method is in question.
The reliability of percentage remaining (50% of the remaining rule) that has been used by scientists for the relative half-lives elapsed in responding to radiometric dating method is in question.
Refer to the right hand side of the table in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life. A list of percentage remaining that corresponds to the number of the relative half-lives elapsed are presented as follows:
No. of half –lives; Fraction remaining; Percentage remaining
0—————————–1/1————-100%
1—————————–1/2————-50% (=100% above x 50%)
2—————————–1/4————-25% (=50% as above x 50%)
3—————————–1/8————-12.5% (=25% as above x 50%)
———————–so on and so forth—————————–
n—————————–1/2^n———- (100%)/(2^n)
Using the above principle, we could arrive with weird and illogical conclusion below that would place the reliability of radiometric dating method into question:
If anyone of atoms, let’s say, atom A, has been selected from a parent isotope, let’s say, lutetium, to test the radioactive decay, this atom would surely have 50% of its atomic nucleus to be activated in radioactive decay in accordance to the 50% remaining rule as mentioned above. The rule has turned up to find favour in selecting an atom if one would examine the possible decay from parent isotope since it might not be possible if there would be more than one atom is selected as mentioned below:
If any two atoms, let’s say, atoms A and B, would be selected to test the decay, atom A might not respond to radioactive decay due to the existence of atom B in accordance to the 50% remaining rule. Or in other words, there would only be one atom responds to decay if there are two.
If any three atoms, let’s say, atoms A, B and C, would be selected to test the decay, atom A might not respond to radioactive decay due to the existence of atoms B and C in accordance to 50% remaining rule.
If any four atoms, let say, atoms A, B, C and D, would be selected to test the decay, atom A would have much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the existence of atoms B, C and D. There would turn up to have 2 atoms to respond if there are four as a result of 50% remaining rule is applied.
If there is a piece of 10,000 kg big rock[, let’s say, 10^(a billion) atoms], 50% of the big rock (turns up to be 0.5×10^(a billion) atoms would not activate in radioactive decay and these would cause the above four selected atoms, i.e. atoms A, B, C and D, to have even much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the possible present of many half lives in the future as a result of the existence of numerous atoms. As a result of the wide spread of the 50% inactive atoms within this piece of big rock, it is easily to destroy a piece a rock so as to locate a small portion that does not respond to decay due to it might need to wait for many half lives later in order to respond to decay as a result of the present of numerous atoms in accordance to 50% remaining rule. This is not true since scientists could anyhow pick up any rock, let’s say, lutetium, and yet still could locate decay emitted from it and this has placed 50% remaining rule into query.
If there is a gigantic mountain with 5,000 km height, 50% of this mountain would not respond to radioactive decay. This mountain certainly consists of a huge sum of atoms when huge volume is covered. As 50% of inactive atoms would have spread throughout the whole mountain as a result of 50% remaining rule applied, it would turn up that it would be easily to locate a small portion of rock from the mountain that would not respond to radioactive decay. However, that is not true when scientists would pick up any substance, let’s say, Carbon-14, from environments for examination since they could easily locate a small portion that would respond to decay. This has placed the reliability of 50% remaining rule into question as a result of the ease in locating a small portion of substance that would respond to decay despite its immense size.
The main problem here lies on scientists have placed 50% remaining rule on each half life and that half life is meant to be a very long years. For example, for Carbon-14, it would take 5730 years for the 50% of the initial remaining to turn up to lose its capability in radioactive decay in order to have 50% of what has remained after the initial remaining to activate radioactive dating. What if actual result of decay would not follow the sequence of 50% remaining rule in which it would take a shorter period to become inactive in decay instead of that 5730 years, using 5730 years as a base to presume that the decay would last in every half year would simply falsify the age that would be computed through radioactive dating method. What if the so-called, radioactive decay, would not cause any decay but it would restart its initial operation after numerous years later, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question.
The following is the extract from the last paragraph that is located in the website address, http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/03/q-are-all-atoms-radioactive/:
[…But in general, the heavier something is, the shorter its half-life (it’s easier for stuff to tunnel out).]
The percentage remaining (50% of the remaining) to the responding to the number of half-lives elapsed contradicts the phrase, the heavier something is the shorter its half-life, as stated above. This is by virtue of the biggest the rock the heaviest it is and the biggest the rock the wide spread will be the 50% of the non-activation of nucleus to be in decay and it would lead to the longer the half-life due to the application of 50% remaining rule as spelt out above and this leads to the contradiction of the statement as stated in this website in which the heavier would lead to shorter half-life.
What if this 50% remaining rule as mentioned above would have applied to Carbon-14 (the Parent Isotope), the following condition would appear:
Years —————Half lives—Percentage Remaining
0———————-0———-100%
5730—————–1———-50% (100%*50%)
11460 (=5730*2)–2———-25% [50% (the above)*50%]
17190 (=5730*3)–3———-12.5% [25% (the above)*50%]
22920 (=5730*4)–4———-6.25% [25% (the above)*50%]
——————and so on and so forth—————————
4,500,000,000——837988—8^(-1)x10^(-251397)
Note that the above years have been computed up to 4.5 billion years due to the scientists suggest the age of the earth to be that.
From the 50% remaining rule that has been computed for Carbon-14 above, it could come to the conclusion that 50 atoms out of 100 would remain active in radioactive decay in 5730 years and the rest would turn up to have lost their value in radioactive decay. 25 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay by 11460 years and the rest would turn up to have lost their decay. 12.5 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay and the balance would turn up to have lost their decay by 17190 years. 6.25 atoms out of 100 would remain active in decay and leaving the balance to have lost their decay by 22920 years. 1 atom out of 8×10^(251397) would remain active in decay and the balance would have lost their capability in radioactive decay by 4.5 billion years. As 1 atom for Carbon-14 out of 8×10^(251397) would remain in active by 4.5 billion years in accordance to 50% remaining rule, it implies that it would need to get large amount of atoms from Carbon-14 so as to detect the existence of radioactive decay. This is not true in science since it is easily to locate Carbon-14 that would emit radioactive decay and this has put the reliability of 50% remaining rule into query.
Some might support that the 50% remaining rule is subjected to exponential progress. Let’s assume that what they say is correct and presume that the half lives for Carbon-14 in 4.5 billion years would be shortened by 80% as the result of exponential progress. The percentage remaining would turn up to be (100-80)%x8x10^(251397) and that is equal to 16×10^(251396). Or in other words, only 1 atom would respond to decay out of 16×10^(251396) and the rest of them should have turned up to have lost their value in decay. The ease to locate Carbon-14 that would respond to decay currently has put the reliability of radiometric dating method into question.
.