A good article found on whatreallyhappened.com This article describes how the "Big Bang" theory is flawed and how the laws of physics completely debunks it. It also describes how the church capitalized on these flaws of the "Big Bang" theory to prove that a being of "Intelligent Design" does exist.
The article can be found here after the jump.
Once
upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle.
Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But,
occasionally he made a mistake.
One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it
come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was
moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left
his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was
not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption
that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle
concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of
the universe had to move around it.
Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was
another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it
would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac
Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth
in Newton’s laws of motion.
But for the early church, Aristotle’s conclusions fit in rather well
with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the
universe, unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.
Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast
doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see
during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the
Earth’s shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which
place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the
only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the
horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which
eventually inspired Columbus’ voyages). Nobody could explain the
behavior of a Foucault’s Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning
beneath it.
But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth
centered) universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age
before TV, or even books, the night sky was something every person was
quite familiar with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers.
Watching the night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily
seen to occasionally pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed
forward. This behavior was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a
problem. The church did not have an explanation for this behavior.
Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible, the word “planet”
appears only once, and then only as an object to be sacrificed to.
There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the
Earth, moving in its inner orbit, overtakes an outer planet, it will
appear to hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its
normal path. But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church
Dogma and to Aristotle. What education was tolerated by the church was
“encouraged” to find some way to explain retrograde motion in a way that
did not conflict with the religious needs for a universe centered on
an unmoving Earth. Rather than re-examine Aristotle’s basic claim, the
learned men of the day grabbed onto a suggestion made by Claudius
Ptolemy called “epicycles”. This theory explained retrograde motion
around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the planets moved in large
orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed smaller orbits
called epicycles which produced a “wobble” as seen from Earth.
Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at
universities with religious affiliations were “encouraged” to refine
this theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle
theory did not accurately predict what was being seen in the sky.
Generations of effort was expended trying to figure out why the models
did not predict the actual motions of the planets. At one point, it was
even suggested that the epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many
times the observed results did not match the predictions, the approved
course of action was to refine the theory, but never to question the
basic assumption. Those who dared point to the evidence suggesting that
Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in error in postulating a
geocentric universe were “discouraged”. Galileo was tortured into
recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano Bruno was
burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really just
another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own
planets.
In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo
and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out
wrong. The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even
epicycles on the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based
on a moving Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors
of the planets as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to
those planets on a regular basis.
The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.
The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe
very well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently
and still refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the
perfect word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat,
rests on pillars (Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1
96:10 104:5).
It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our technological prowess.
In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that
objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced
shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on
Hubble’s discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from
Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship
between distance and velocity, called the “Hubble Constant” and
concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding.
Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because
for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it
had to originate from a single point, called the “Big Bang”. Indeed, the
concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble but was
proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lemaître in 1927, two years before
Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift. The “Big Bang”
coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case
with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious
institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over
all others, including the then prevalent “steady state” theory.
Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the “Big Bang”
might not really be a workable theory in the form of General
Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have
gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would
matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in
just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the
universe could not be born.
Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen
provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might
not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic
assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data
in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single
moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by
those invested in the “Big Bang” to explain why the basic foundational
principles of physics behaved differently in the first few
milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as
that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just
a polite way of saying “The rules just didn’t apply when we need them
not to apply”.
An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the
“Cosmic Background Radiation”, the presumed energy echo from the
primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up.
Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic
Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did
and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic
Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang
theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.
But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the
observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be
less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.
For one thing, there is the “Horizon Problem”. At present, the known
universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion
years old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the
universe, it may be assumed that the universe probably extends even
further in at least one direction). Nothing can travel faster than
the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have
traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots
created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic
Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless
glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed
structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that
the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed “Big Bang”,
research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing
theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be
from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the
signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.
Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you
would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our
Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating
the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star
that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen
with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula
is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy
elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there
must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary
nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our
unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the
center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of
structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation.
But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the
“approved” creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have
replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.
So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a
Biblical-consistent “Big Bang” that when William G. Tifft submitted his
first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to
Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not
find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance
themselves from the conclusions.
The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to
the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as
devastating as Galileo’s first telescope was to the theory that the
Earth was the center of the universe.
Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other
explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the
observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the
universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to
be uniformly and randomly distributed.
But they aren’t.
The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into
discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red
shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at
work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding
based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at
work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a
quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative
velocity.
Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no
moment of creation, no “Big Bang” with an epicycle-esque cosmology to
explain why the greatest black hole of all didn’t behave like a black
hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which
didn’t quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the
stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that
computer you are reading this on.
But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains
dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the
quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding
the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since
then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those
scientists who “studied” epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove
the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the
truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the
theory of an expanding universe and a “Big bang” creation.
Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full
re-examination of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our
science classes and TV programs still promote the “Big Bang” view, just
as the erroneous theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even
after Galileo proved it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology,
and the other does not.
Man’s progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by
the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is
unpopular.
The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is
merely a human invention. We believe that we see things have beginnings
and ends before us, but in truth we are seeing matter change form. A
particular configuration may have a beginning and an end, but that
the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom
pf physics. Miss April may be only 20 years old, but the atoms in her
heavenly body are indeed heavenly bodies, being the remains of ancient
exploded stars, and in THAT form for billions of years.
Ancients believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But
while we grudgingly admit that Earth orbits the sun and that our sun
is nowhere near the center of the milky way, the idea that Earth is the
center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big Bang
theory. The “Bangers” describe the furthest objects we can detect
(currently 13 billion light years) and from that calculate the age of
the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).
But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for
all the cosmos that we can see. It is true that we are seeing objects
out to the edge of our technological limits
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually see is really just a tiny bubble in a truly
infinite universe, rather than we just happen to be that one in trillions of worlds that wound up at the point of origin for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually see is really just a tiny bubble in a truly
infinite universe, rather than we just happen to be that one in trillions of worlds that wound up at the point of origin for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the
question of the singularity. The “primordial egg” had to be a
super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of “bang”, no matter how
big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.
Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the
“explanation” that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not
apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology
theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of “rulelessness” of about 3 seconds,
after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the
universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.
Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.
Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that
the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is
found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.
From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon
by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape
velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the
entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is
the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get
c^2=2GM/r.
This works out to an event horizon light years across!
In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the
universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all
fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe’s mass was still well
within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not
the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton’s equation
provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense
mass in a localized region.
Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have
produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the
theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would
have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an
escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.
ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God
waved a magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big
Bang, and that “somehow” the universe escaped from it’s own gravity
well. With the entire 2.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe
confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a
super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova,
the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements
in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in
that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as the universe
started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe
should be creating all the known heavy elements.
So, how to explain the Population II stars?
Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When
they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are
created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating
Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars
have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.
If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with
heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started
to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be
any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there
are.
The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.
YET ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.
The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck
Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have
been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would
take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the
theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a
rotating galaxy.
But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion
light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it
was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years
distant from earth.
In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away
from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had
to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years’ time. That
requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster
than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang
supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.
do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YESReport on confirmations of the observations. Note the reluctance to follow the data through to a conclusion.
“The Big Bang Never Happened” (Book ad at Amazon)
“Seeing Red” (Book ad at Amazon)
Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A ‘Distant’ Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?
mind blowing...
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, the Bing Bang Theory is just but one theory. It is just the most popular.
ReplyDeleteI Big Banged too
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing about this. I think the standard big bang theory has been debunked for years.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this and as a novice who learned more from discovery channel than books it makes sense. I always assumed the big bang theory referred to how a large amount of alcohol and a fat chic caused an inevitable and unwanted expansion in my trousers thus leading up to a "big bang". I never knew it was actual scientific theory.
ReplyDelete