Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1 

Chapter 2

Appendix Part 2

WHY ARE THERE DISK-SHAPED GALAXIES? The experts tell us that IF gas could form itself into stars, and IF these could align themselves into coordinated galaxies, those galaxies would NOT be disk-shaped! Thus, there is no room in evolutionary theory for a rational explanation of disk galaxies.  

"(1) Why do disk-shaped galaxies form when the natural shape for a condensing gas cloud would seem to be spheroidal? (2) Why do so many disk galaxies possess long, winding spiral arms? (3) Why do many spiral galaxies display bars across their nuclei? (4) Why are spiral galaxies so long-lived when their pattern should be destroyed by rotation in times very short compared with the ages of the stars in them?" * William Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 218.

Disk-shaped galaxies have horizontal planes (containing the arms of the disks) which are amazingly thin in relation to their overall diameter. They seem to have been made for beauty, rather than to satisfy the theories of evolutionists. Indeed, they defy the multitude of theories developed to explain them.

"Another remarkable property of spiral galaxies is the extreme flatness of the dust and gas plane containing the arms. Thus, although the central star system possesses an 'oblate spheroidal' structure, the disc and arms, as we have remarked already, seem to project out of this in an exceedingly thin plane. Its thickness is at most about one-hundredth of its diameter. This property, reminiscent of the solar system [in which all the planets and moons lie along a fairly thin plane], has been none too easy to explain theoretically. Why should so many stars be confined to a flat disc when the natural shape of a collection of these objects is the spheroidal distribution we observe nearer the center of the galaxy?"*Victor Clube, and *Bill Napier, "Universe to Galaxy: The Cosmic Framework," Cosmic Serpent (1982), p. 24.

SPIRAL ARMS We will conclude this study with another brief look at the arms, filled with stars, which spiral outward in disk galaxies from the central sphere. Astronomical theorists simply cannot explain their formation, their existence, or why they do not self-destruct. The fact that the stars in the outer third of these arms are revolving far too fast, means that, long ago, the arms should have torn themselves to pieces. As pointed out in chapter 5, this is another strong indicator that the universe is quite youthful. 

"One of the most vexing problems in theoretical astrophysics has been the explanation of the beautiful spiral patterns seen in many galaxies . .

"The difficulty is that by now [the present time] most galaxies have undergone 50-100 revolutions, so that any primordial spiral arms would have been [ought to have been] wound up beyond recognition. " *Bernard Jones, and *Scott Tremaine, "Spiral Structure of Galaxies," Nature, 277:516 (1979).

Not even large computers can figure it out.

"The old puzzle of the spiral arms of galaxies continues to taunt theorists. The more they manage to unravel it, the more obstinate seems the remaining dynamics. . To confound matters, not even the n-body experiments conducted on several large computers since the late 1960s have yet yielded any decently long-lived regular spirals." *Alar Toomre, "Theories of Spiral Structure," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15:437 (1977).


Back in the old days, we would gaze up into the sky at night and it appeared so friendly; so much so that stars are to people everywhere a symbol of hope and a source of renewed courage to press on.

But now we are told that there are sinister things up there, called "black holes, "which devour matter and even whole stars) Even worse, we are told that these are totally invisible monsters which draw their victims from great distances, pull them inside and then crush them.

"A super-massive black hole, concentrating the masses of a billion Suns, would need to consume ten solar masses [ten stars] a year to maintain a quasar's brightness [if the quasar is as far away as the speed theory of red shift requires it to be]. An engine with such an appetite cannot run forever or even for very long, by cosmic standards. Astronomers find increasing evidence that when a black hole's fuel is exhausted, the great engine may be replenished by [gulping down] passing galaxies. "*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 97.

What is all this about black holes?

1- Origin of black hole theory. On November 27, 1783, a Cambridge geologist, John Michell gave a lecture at the Royal Society in London, in which he theorized on the topic of escape velocities. He explained that, in order to break free from the gravitational field of a planet or star, an object needs to be moving at a certain minimal speed, or else it will fall back. The actual speed depends on the mass of the celestial body and the location of the object within the body's gravitational field. For example, measured from its surface the escape velocity needed to leave our planet is 7 miles per second. On the moon it is 1.5 miles per second. Michell postulated a theoretical celestial body so compact that not even light could escape from it..

The French astronomer *Pierre-Simon Laplace came to the same conclusion in 1796. He said that an object 250 times larger than our sun, but as dense as our planet, would be gravitationally powerful enough that not even light could leave it.

Later mathematical calculations verified the essential accuracy of Michell and Laplace's calculations. *Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, in 1915, brought in the same concept. *Karl Schwarzschild's equations the following year produced the actual radius of such a body, within which a given mass would be so dense that its gravity would trap light.

More speculation followed. It was finally decided that this strange object would probably be spinning somewhat, and would be shaped something like a narrow funnel with a wide mouth; something like a whirlpool.

In 1967, *John Wheeler of Princeton coined the term, "black hole," to describe the object. The amount of concentrated mass inside of it would determine its size; one with as much mass as our sun would have a diameter of about 2 miles. Matter inside of one would be intensely compacted. For example, if a telephone directory weighing no more than 2 pounds were brought to within 20 feet of a black hole, it might weigh more than a trillion tons.

Then astronomers began theorizing that stars might eventually collapse in upon themselves. When this happened to the largest stars, a black hole might be the result.

2 - Black holes are a theoretical extreme. Notice all the "mights" here. Just as watches are full of ticks, black holes are full of mights. It is all theoretical; nothing less, nothing more, nothing else. No one has ever seen a black hole or proved that there is one anywhere in the universe. No one has seen a star collapse, and it is only a theory that they do collapse. We have here mathematical theories carried to their extreme limits.  

There are stars scattered all through space. Why are they only so large and no larger? Why is it that the largest of them (the giants such as Betelgeuse) have less density than our own much-smaller sun? They were made that way so they could not become a black hole! There are trillions times trillions of stars out there; why do we not observe them collapsing? They never do. Stars were made to emit sunlight as a blessing, not be voracious matter-eating black holes.

In actuality, black holes are only a theoretical extreme in a calculation. Yes, they are true on paper, but they are not found in real life.

Why are atomic protons, neutrons, nuclei, and other atomic particles only so large and not larger? Because they could change from something beneficial to something very unbeneficial if that were to happen. In theory, an atom could be as large as a house, but in reality it would not happen. There is too much dangerous energy locked within the whirling particles in an atom.

In theory, a land animal could be as big as a mountain. But, given earth's gravitational attraction, the size of animals which have ever lived on the earth is only as large as they could become without being pressed to the ground, and locked there by their own massive weight. It would be futile to theorize how large an animal would need to be in order to be immobilized by gravity, or how small in order to fly into outer space. Yet that is the kind of paperwork exercise that dreamed up black holes and collapsing stars.

Any calculation can be taken to extremes which do not occur in reality. People speak of there being so much of this or that, which, when laid end to end, would reach to the moon. Theoretically, that is true; but it could not actually happen. You cannot stack things out to the moon. The rotating earth, orbiting moon, atmospheric and solar winds, and a host of other factors would prevent the theoretical measurement from being made.

3 - Black holes are needed in order to protect the Big Bang theory. That which Michell and Laplace theorized as something of a parlor game in mathematics for intelligent minds to play with, became a necessity when astronomers discovered quasars.. 

Here were objects out in space that had an extremely strong red-shift, yet they were obviously close enough that they could be seen through a lens telescope, and heard through a radio-telescope. They were powerful electromagnetic-emitting bodies, but what were they? To this day, no one knows. Theorists solemnly repeat their theories and develop new ones. And what are the new ones? theories which buttress their other ones! Theories holding up theories, and it goes all the way back to a time before the 20th century when most of the initial theories were invented.

No one knows what a quasar is; even its name proclaims the fact. They are "quasi-stellar radio objects," and that is all. The name signifies they are a question mark. It is known that they emit powerful electromagnetic waves, and that they have a heavily-skewed red-shift.

But how can they be so bright and so powerful if they are such incredibly distant objects? Or could the speed theory of red-shift be wrong?

At all costs, the speed theory must be defended or the Big Bang theory will be ruined. So it is theorized that quasars are, indeed, located farther away than most anything else in the universe. If they are that distant from us, then they are astoundingly bright and emit far too much electromagnetic impulses.

THEREFORE they must be the black holes that Michell and Laplace enjoyed as mathematical puzzles! In desperation to save their stellar origins theory, men are willing to consider any fantastic concept.

So, in order to salvage the Big Bang theory, quasars have been declared to be black holes. As the story goes, they are monster whirlpools hungrily gobbling up matter from nearby stars until they destroy entire galaxies. Everything absorbed is compressed into tiny bits and imprisoned inside forever. Not even light can escape from them. Why then do black holes emit powerful blasts of light and radio noise? The theorists tell us that, just at that moment when matter is about to enter a black hole, intense light and radiation is produced.

4 - What then are quasars? If black holes are only theoretical possibilities that never occur in reality, what then are quasars? Quasars are real objects. They emit powerful electromagnetic signals, and they do have a strong red-shift.  

But no one knows what they are . People living in the 20th century sometimes think they must know everything about everything, but this cannot be. There is much we do not know, there is much we will never know. It is not wrong or bad not to know everything; it is quite normal. We should recognize that trying to answer every question can bring us false knowledge that is more harmful than maintaining suspended judgment. Yes, we should study and seek to learn, but knowledge gained at the price of founding it on layer after layer of theories is poor knowledge indeed.

Having said that, here are two possible explanations of quasars:

(1) Stellar clusters. Quasars are said to be black holes. We know that quasars are frequently the bright centers of galaxies. We also know that the centers of galaxies are generally formed of giant circular clusters of stars. There may be a relation between a vast cluster of stars and these quasar-like radiations. The sheer largeness of the mass of stars may well be the source of the radio signals and light. Such clusters need not always be located at the center of a galaxy, and some quasars are not in the centers of galaxies. 

(2) Energy centers. Here is another possibility: Aside from the distance factor, they tend to be located in stellar clusters (Cygnus X-1 is an example of one that is not), quasars could be energy sub-stations for the universe. Why would energy be needed; would not the stars produce enough of it? Perhaps so, but it might be that quasars produce certain types of energy that is needed elsewhere in the universe. Of course, such a concept assumes that there is an intelligent purpose to everything in the universe. But that is an obvious conclusion which we observe in the design, organization, and function of everything on our planet and outside of it. All things are designed to fulfill a purpose. Quasars could be fulfilling a special purpose also..  

Why do you go to sleep at night? Because you are tired and need to rest. Why do you awake so refreshed? What happened while you were resting? It takes energy to work. When you lie down to rest, your energy levels are replenished. How? Where does the energy come from? Living creatures are wired to internal storage batteries. The batteries need continual recharging. This occurs during wakefulness, and especially while sleeping. What recharges them?

We know that sugar is produced in the green leaves of plants. Those leaves are energy producing centers and are not fully understood, but we have found that energy conversion cells within them transform light and water into carbohydrates. Each lens-shaped chloroplast in the leaf contains stacks of "coins" (thylakoids), Radiant energy from sunlight is harvested in these coin stacks and stored as chemical energy in sugar molecules.

Taken into your body in the food you eat, the simple and complex sugars are broken down into lactic acid. In the process, energy is produced. This energy is stored in certain phosphate compounds formed in the process of carbohydrate metabolism. The best-known of these high-energy phosphate bonds is adenosine triphosphate (ATP). These bonds store the energy in little packets. Mitochondriatiny power stations within your cells mint the energy packets and provide you with the energy to live, think, and act. When the phosphate bond is hydrolyzed off, the energy is then available to be converted into chemical energy for use in the body.

We also know that gamma and other rays from outer space continually bombard the earth; some of which pass directly through all barriers including our entire planet. It is possible that some of those electromagnetic radiations impart a form of electricity needed by plants and animals.

We simply do not know, and should not be quick to assign electromagnetic energy centers in the universe to this theory or that. There is too much that is not understood, and in this life will never be understood.

STATEMENTS BY SCIENTISTS Here is what several scientists have to say about so-called "black holes:"

1- Only theories. Theoretical astronomers tell us that there are mammoth black holes in outer space which devour everything which comes near them. Each one is supposed to have the size and dynamics needed to slowly or quickly swallow whole stars. But upon closer examination, we find that black holes are only theories developed in an attempt to explain certain high-level radio sources. In scientific journals and popular science publications, that assumption is repeatedly made in introducing black hole descriptions: "Because there are powerful radio sources in outer space and because our red-shift theory tells us they must be the farthest objects in the universe, they must be black holes, for, actually, we do not know what else they could be.".  

The truth is that no one can know exactly what those emission centers consist of. In the absence of facts, theories are devised to tie the mysterious radio sources to Big Bang thinking.

"The astronomy literature for the last 10 years has been abuzz with rumors and speculations about black holes. A black hole is defined as a clump of matter which has been so compacted that its gravitational field has overwhelmed all other forces so that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Nothing can escape a black hole; at least, not a massive black hole." Gerardus D. Bouw, "Cosmic Space and Time" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 31.

2 - Not star eaters. It is of interest that the closest of the theoretical black holes Cygnus X-1 orbits a star which it never quite manages to swallow! How can these imaginary "black holes" swallow galaxies, if they cannot even gulp down nearby stars? "Black holes" which are near enough to be analyzed generally are located close to a bright star.. 

"In the northern constellation Cygnus, an intense x-ray source designated Cygnus X-1 is believed by many astronomers to be a black hole. Invisible to optical instruments, Cygnus X-1 is detectable because it orbits a visible companion star, a blue super-giant named HDE 226868. [It is theorized that] Gases drawn from the companion, heated to millions of degrees as they spiral into the black hole, emit energy at x-ray wavelengths."*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Stars (1988), p. 119.

"In 1965, a particularly intense X-ray source was detected in the constellation Cygnus and was named Cygnus X-1. It is thought to be about 10,000 light-years from us. . Cygnus X-1 was at once investigated with great care and was found to exist in the immediate neighborhood of a large, hot, blue star about 30 times as massive as our sun. The astronomer C.T. Bolt, at the University of Toronto, showed that this star and Cygnus X-1 were revolving about each other. " *Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 74.

Most of the other closest quasar "black holes" are also circling nearby stars that they never swallow. Many of the more distant electromagnetic sources (quasars) are located in the most crowded stellar regions of the universe the clustered centers of galaxies. Theorists tell us that quasars probably have "eaten the heart out of entire galaxies,"yet quasars are not able to swallow extremely close stars which they orbit!

3 - Galactic clusters. Galactic clusters are large circular masses of stars. Cygnus X-1 is not a galactic cluster, but large radio-magnetic centers are either located in galactic clusters or the clusters themselves are the radio source. 

"When radio astronomers first glimpsed the central precincts of the Milky Way, they were amazed at the enormous amounts of energy produced there. In time these signals proved similar to those coming from the centers of several other galaxies; in each case the proposed energy source [is theorized to be] a massive black hole."*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 76.

Some galactic centers appear to be special radio-emission outlets, each broadcasting energy, signals, or both to a wide intergalactic section of space:

"Among the most intriguing objects in the universe are radio galaxies, distinguished by a pair of enormous, diffuse lobes that pour forth radio waves. The lobes are often linked to a central, compact radio source by concentrated jets of matter and energy. The whole complex stretches as much as 18 million light-years from one side to the other. (Viewed at optical wavelengths, radio galaxies are visible only as an ordinary looking star system that spans about a hundred thousand light-years.) The engine at the heart of a radio galaxy has never been directly observed, but the likeliest [theoretical] candidate is. . a rotating, super-massive black hole."*Op. cit., p. 95.

4 - Basic types of radio emission centers. It is clear that the so-called "black holes" are simply transmission centers for large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. The purpose of that radiation is not known, but we can be assured that there is a purpose. Everything else in the universe was created for a special purpose, so we can be assured that these transmission centers have a purpose also. Here are the five types of "active" (high-power) electromagnetic centers identified so far by astronomers: 

"Active galaxies have many names . . Common types are listed below:

"Quasars are the smallest, brightest, and generally most distant of the active galaxies. They emit high levels of radiation, often as visible and infrared light and X rays, and sometimes as radio waves. [Because they have the largest red shifts, they are considered to be very distant, but that may not be correct.]

"N-galaxies are elliptical, with nuclei that are small and blazingly bright. [These are galaxies with large central star clusters, but lacking large outer disks of stars.]

"BL Lacertae objects, a type of N-galaxy, have brilliant nuclei and vary rapidly in luminosity. 

"Radio galaxies emit huge, fast-moving jets of radio energy from a small nucleus. [These are galaxies with disks, but with smaller than average nucleus star clusters in the center. See the page 95 quotation, just above.] 

"Seyferts are disk galaxies; like N-galaxies, they have very luminous hearts. Their spectra indicate violent [high-magnetic transmission] activity at their centers. [These are the most powerful of the N-galaxies in transmission strength.]" *Op. cit., p. 97.

5 - Invented to salvage a theory. An underlying problem is the current theory of red-shift. In order to support It, theoretical astronomers find it necessary to invent strange objects in the sky. Black holes reveal unusual red-shifts which, according to the evolutionary red-shift speed theory, indicate that they must be very dramatic objects. If the scientists would but accept the abundant evidence disproving the speed theory interpretation of red-shift, they would not have to invent such things as "black holes."

The black hole theory is necessary to save the red-shift speed theory, which in turn must be carefully protected since it is supposed to be "an evidence" of the Big Bang. Theory must be piled on theory in order to keep the whole thing from crashing to the ground. Evolutionary theory is a tottering mass, around which little men run with poles trying to prop it up here and there.

"Arp points to other cases in which a galaxy with a small red shift is flanked by two quasars of large and almost identical red shift. He believes the quasars are not at cosmological distances but instead are being ejected, left and right, by the 'foreground' galaxy; and that the red shifts are the result of some as-yet- unfathomed mechanism. Skeptics argue coincidental alignment and the conventional Hubble-Humason [speed] interpretation of the red shift. If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars supernova chain reactions, super-massive black holes and the like would prove unnecessary." *CarI Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 256.

Bouw provides us with a mathematical reason why the black hole theory has to be incorrect. He explains that, because a black hole must be a certain size in order to be theoretically existent, the universe is the wrong size if the black hole theory is correct. If you are mathematically-minded, you will appreciate the following statement:

"A black hole is defined as a clump of matter which has been so compacted that its gravitational field has overwhelmed all other forces so that its escape velocity exceeds the. speed of light. Nothing can escape a black hole; at least, not a massive black hole.

"For a given mass, M, the radius, R, to which the mass must be compacted in order to become a black hole, termed its Schwarzschild radius, is given by: R5 2GM/c2, where G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.

"According to Dirac's large number cosmology, there are about 2x1078 nucleons in the universe. At a mass of 1.67x10-24 gm per nucleon, this yields a total mass for the universe of 3x1054 grams. The Schwarzschild radius of a universe of that mass is about 500 million light-years; far less than the currently held radius of the universe.

"In order to save the big-bang cosmology are we to believe that the universe escaped from out of its own Schwarzschild radius or that the physics of black holes does not work for the universe?" Gerardus D. Bouw, "Cosmic Space and Time" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 31.

THE REST OF THE THEORY Black holes, then, are merely fictitious end products of armchair mathematical doodles carried too far. Before concluding this section, would you like to know the REST of the theory?

Astronomers maintain, not only that there are "black holes" in outer space which gobble up stars, they theorize that those black holes have already eaten the centers out of high radio-emission galaxies! Each black hole is said to be shaped like a narrow funnel with a wide mouth. As the funnel narrows, matter becomes extremely small and dense. The astronomers then tell us in all seriousness that the small end of the funnel then leads into an "Einstein-Posen bridge." Among astronomers, "wormhole" is its more popular name. *John Wheeler of Princeton named it.

Many astronomers are excited about wormholes. They believe that each tiny tube leads from our universe into another one! Each black hole is said to carry matter through is own wormhole into a different universe and there are supposed to be almost as many millions of different universes as there are black holes. (It is thought that, by chance, occasionally two wormholes lead into the same universe.) Each universe is said to be totally different in most physical aspects than all others. As a black hole leads into the wormhole, it comes out on the other side in a "white hole," which spews out the incoming matter. (There is no indication of any white holes in our universe, but that fact does not seem to concern the scientists.)

When Cornell University astronomer *Carl Sagan wanted to write his first science fiction novel, he contacted two physics experts at Princeton and asked them to figure out a way to get a space ship through the wormhole. They worked on it awhile and said that the tube could be enlarged by "exotic (non-real) material." So Sagan had the "research data" needed to write his novel.

As with a number of other scientific fields, astronomy is moving away from scientific facts and toward science fiction. Be on guard when you read science literature. Theories are spoken of as facts, and way-out speculations are solemnly presented as scientific conclusions. The arguments are appealing, the bylines are suffixed with important degrees, and the artwork may be excellent, but the teachings are insidious.


As we near press time, additional powerful statements by scientists have come to our attention.

In an Oxford Press publication, *Novotny discusses the immense problem of gaseous dispersion. Because gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts, it cannot form itself into solid objects, such as stars or planets; not in a thousand years, and not in a billion billion. That which cannot happen, cannot happen even if given a long time in which to do it.

"The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation may become effective, and the angular momentum must in some way be removed."*Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), pp. 279-280.

*Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe agree:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense."*Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, August 18, 1981, p. 413.

*Harwit continues to plague the cosmologists with scientific facts:

"The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That's 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form."*Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

*Harwit then lists three special objections to all modern theories of star formation. The first and third objections, below, provide two new objections not mentioned elsewhere in this present book.

"1. The contracting gas clouds must radiate energy in order to continue their contraction; the potential energy that is liberated in this pre-stellar phase must be observable somehow, but we have yet to detect and identify it [therefore no stars are forming anywhere, yet they should be, according to the theory].

"2. The angular momentum [turning motion] that resides in typical interstellar clouds is many orders of magnitude higher than the angular momentum we compute for the relatively slowly spinning young stars; where and how has the protostar shed that angular momentum during contraction?

"3. Interstellar clouds are permeated by magnetic fields that we believe to be effectively frozen to the contracting gas; as the gas cloud collapses to form a star, the magnetic field lines should be compressed ever closer together, giving rise to enormous magnetic fields, long before the collapse is completed. These fields would resist further collapse, preventing the formation of the expected star; yet we observe no evidence of strong fields, and the stars do form, apparently unaware of our theoretical difficulties."*Ibid.

The nine types of galaxies, pictured earlier in this chapter, have been theorized to have evolved from one another. But *Abell, one of the leading star cataloguers in the world today, doubts that that theory could be true.

"There is much doubt, however, that galaxies evolve from one type to another at all."*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd Ed. (1969), p. 629.

Other leading astronomers agree:

"Our conclusions, then, are that the sequence of the classification of galaxies is not an evolutionary sequence."*Paul W. Hodge, Physics and Astronomy of Galaxies and Cosmology (1966), p. 122.

"A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy formation remains to be formulated."*Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (1980), p. 22.

Writing elsewhere, *Silk (with *Peebles) mentions a mid-1980s cosmological conference, in which a quantity of astronomical data which flies in the face of the various theories of galaxy formation was summarized. Two leading authorities told the fifty in attendance that the probability was only 1 out of 100 that any of the theories of how galaxies were formed could be correct (see *P.J. Peebles and *J. Silk, "A Cosmic Book," Nature, October 13, 1988, pp. 601-606).

"The problem of explaining the existence of the galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."*James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe (1988), p. 55.

Galaxies, stars, the whole thing; it is just a total mystery as far as being explained by the self-origination theories.

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect. "*G.R. Burbidge, quoted by *R. L Sears and *Robert R. Brownlee (editors: *LH. Aller and *D. McLaughlin) Stellar Structures (1963), p. 577.

According to the Big Bang theory, the first generation of billions of stars [Population III stars] could only have been composed of hydrogen and helium. Yet they have never been found.

"One might expect Population III stars to have the same sort of distribution of mass as the stars forming today. . The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star."*Bernard Carr, "Where is Population III?" Nature, April 1987, p. 829.

"Are there any stars older than Population II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. . There is no statistically significant evidence for Population 111 objects [stars]."* "Where is Population III?" Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

*Trefil discusses yet another problem: Galaxies tend to be grouped in still larger "clusters." The galaxies in these clusters are moving so rapidly that they ought to have separated from the clusters, and yet they have not done so.

"It turns out that in almost every case the velocities of the individual galaxies are high enough to allow them to escape from the cluster. In effect, the clusters are 'boiling.' This statement is certainly true if we assume that the only gravitational force present is that exerted by visible matter, but it is true even if we assume that every galaxy in the cluster, like the Milky Way, is surrounded by a halo of dark matter that contains 90 percent of the mass of the galaxy. "*James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe (1988), p. 93.

*Lyttleton admits the lack of a reliable theory of planetary origins. None of the conjectures agrees with the laws of physics.

"But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested." *R.A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (1968), p. 4.

*Whipple says essentially the same thing.

"A great array of observational facts must be explained by a satisfactory theory [on the evolution of the solar system], and the theory must be consistent with the principles of dynamics and modern theory properly applied."*Fred L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and Planets (3rd Ed., 1968), p. 243.

*Peterson says this:

"The trouble is that no current theoretical model of the evolution of the universe seems to fit all of the observations without at least some inconsistencies. Cosmologists find they must labor to squeeze their pet theories into the steadily tightening straitjacket of observational data."

"I'm completely mystified how the present-day structure [of the universe] has come to exist without having left some trace at the level of sensitivity that we know we have with our apparatus. There should have been some kind of energy release [after the Big Bang]. But there isn't anything there."*Ivars Peterson, "Cosmic Evidence of a Smooth Beginning," in Science News, 137:36 (1990), pp. 184, 36.



1 - Select one of the following topics and prepare a report on it: stars, spiral galaxies, novas, interstellar hydrogen clouds, super-clusters.

 2 - Draw a picture of an island universe (spiral galaxy) that agrees with whatever information you can locate on these important stellar objects.

 3 - Explain why floating gas could never result in a star, or in a galaxy filled with stars.

 4 - Write a report on one of the following scientific topics: neutrinos, solar collapse, sun spots, solar transits, spectroscope and spectrogram, mass-luminosity law, parallel galactic orientation.

 5 - Diagram and describe the three types of rotation: (1) solid body rotation, (2) Solar system rotation, and (3) galactic rotation.

 6 - Summarize *M. Harwitt's research on the sticking qualities of particles of matter in outer space.

 7 - Explain why gas clouds in outer space can only expand and not contract.

 8 - Give reasons why an exploding star could not produce another one.

9 - Write a report on a well-known star. In what ways is it like other stars; in what ways is it different?

 10 - There are more binary or multiple star systems in the sky, than there are single, isolated stars. Why would it be impossible for evolutionary theory to produce binary or multiple stars?

 11 - Write a paper briefly explaining the first and second law of thermodynamics, and how they make it impossible for stellar evolution to occur.

 12 - Explain the difference between a globular cluster, spiral galaxy, and elliptical galaxy.

 13 - What holds the spiral galaxies together? How could they have come into existence?

 14 - Explain in what way this is true: "Stellar evolution is non-observable science." Can that which cannot be observed be considered a science?

 15 - In what way is a black hole nothing more than a hypothetical extreme, or hypothetical? Is Big Bang theory based on the same principle of non-real, theoretical limits?

You have just completed  Chapter 2- APPENDIX
NEXT Go to the next chapter in this series:

The  Origin of the Solar System