Cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- Anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe show an axis. The big bang proposes no special orientations, so an axis discredits the big bang theory, but it is consistent with creationist cosmology.
Source: Humphreys, Russell, 2003. Light from creation illuminates cosmic axis. Acts and Facts 32(6) (Jun.): 4.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Humphries referred to the work of Tegmark et al. (2003). Tegmark et al.'s map shows an axis of symmetry for the quadrapole and octopole maps, but the hexadecapole map shows no such axis of symmetry, which could indicate that the axis is an artifact of a systematic bias in the data analysis.
Talk Origins statement that "the hexadecapole map shows no such axis of symmetry" is not quite accurate. Examination of the hexadecapole map shows a hint of an axis, that would roughly agree with the axis of the quadrapole and octopole maps. It's not as obvious as the other two, but it does seem to be there. Tegmark et al. even said it had "no obvious preferred axis" suggesting that they may have seen a hint of one. This hint of an axis suggests the possibility that the hexadecapole has experienced some form of scattering affect that has blurred the axis.
2. A cosmic axis is compatible with the big bang. If Tegmark et al.'s results are correct, they imply that cosmology is anisotropic (not the same in all directions) on very large length scales.
The problem is that this contradicts the major assumption of the Big Bang, that the universe is isotropic (the same in all directions) on very large scales. This assumption is based on the evolutionary need to keep the Earth from being in a special place in the universe, such as near its center. The solution to this problem is to remove the center, and make the universe isotropic on very large scales. This is called the Copernican principle. A cosmic axis destroys this assumption.
There has been, to date, little evidence gathered about the universe on such scales, but anisotropic cosmologies have been seriously considered.
True but anisotropic cosmologies are contrary to the major Big Bang assumption called the Copernican principle.
Goedel's rotating universe is one example.
But a rotating universe requires a center of rotation and this is contrary to the major Big Bang assumption called the Copernican principle. Furthermore, to get the observed affect we would need to be near the center of rotation. While this is not a problem for creationist cosmologies, it is a problem for naturalistic cosmologies like the Big Bang, since the odds of us being near the center of the universe, by chance, is impossibly small.
Another is a universe with one spatial dimension compacted relative to the other two.
This too is contrary to the major Big Bang assumption called the Copernican principle. It also requires us to be in a special place, or one of two special places on a hypershpereoid.