The Big Bang Theory is Absurd
formerly titled
Some
Big
Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged
By Vincent Sauvé
A resource for Big Bang skeptics and
critics. Hyper links provided below are to more pages of Big Bang cosmology critics and
other
Big Bang theory doubters who are on the non creationist side of the topic.
Purpose and Introduction
The purpose of this website is to provide the public with reasons
to be skeptical of Big Bang cosmology. Why do this? Big Bang supporters
have been presenting a cosmology to us that is incredibly absurd. For instance, they tell us that the entire universe arose from a very small hot and
dense region, some saying smaller than an atom where quantum effects are significant. There are scientists who don’t have a problem with describing
our universe, or some aspect of it, as being absurd (For example, Richard Feynman in his book QED). Well, there was a
time when the observed paths of the planets, with their temporary apparent retrograde
motions, seemed to be quite absurd. This was the result
of the primitive, egocentric practice of placing the Earth at the center
of the cosmos. Was Nature absurd then, or was it peoples' understanding
of the situation that was absurd? It is my point of view if something seems absurd it is because of our lack of a correct understanding.
It is my view that the Big Bang cosmology
is the sophisticate's creation story. The expression Big Bang cosmythology
is fitting. For whenever I dug deep into an aspect of modern day cosmology,
I discovered that the real history, combined with reasonable logic, doesn't
provide for a kind view of the whole affair. Rather, it seems to
be a massive (conscious or unconscious) pandering to the prejudice of a culture brought up on the
belief of a creator who created us, and the entire cosmos. For much more
on this point click
here. If you are a practicing cosmologists I know this sound unacceptably rough and hostile to the first so-called actual scientific cosmology, but please bear with me.
Note added July 2000
after some conversations with others:
Although
I am one of several people who critique the Big Bang for its creationist
aspects, this does not necessarily mean that an infinite non expanding
universe is atheistic. Atheism is much more compatible with a universe
infinite in time and space. Yet, most peoples' view of God is of an infinite
being. It seems likely that an infinite being would want something to do
during His (or Her?) infinite existence. Wouldn't His creation also be
infinite? Does it really make sense that He could be content with himself
(or other gods?) for all eternity before He decides to create a universe?
An infinite universe and an infinite God are quite compatible concepts.
This site is only a challenge to those who hold to a view of a special creation
event whether it is 6,000 years ago or 13.8 billion years ago.
If
one has beliefs that the universe is, or should be, a certain way, it
is only natural that one gives importance to corroborating evidence or
arguments that enhance the beliefs. None of us are without our
influences, whether they are cultural, religious, philosophically idealist, materialist
or whatever. My personal prejudice is that of atheistic
materialism;
of a universe infinite in space and time, in eternal motion, and of
the
conservation of matter and energy.
Now
for a few arguments by Big Bang creationist boosters for a finite
expanding
universe. The pro arguments are from George Smoot
and
Keay Davidson’s book Wrinkles in Time. The con
arguments
are not found in their book, which is suggestive of their prejudice for
a “created” universe. The pro arguments are not
necessarily
their original arguments, but since they treat the arguments as valid without
giving
criticism, they are included as pro arguments.
The
arguments presented here are made more concise to save space.
Pro:
The effects of gravity on an infinite universe would lead to an
unstable
situation in which there would be a collapse into a giant fireball. A
way
out was suggested by Newton and involves having the stars be uniformly
distributed. This thereby resolves the problem that the slightest
movement
of a single star would trigger gravitational perturbations throughout
the
system, leading to collapse into a single heap or alternatively into
countless
heaps.
Con:
In an infinite universe uniform distribution is not necessary. Imbalances
lead to the formation of stars, solar systems, galaxies, indeed,
everything
we already see. There is absolutely no ground to believe that an
infinite
universe could collapse. Gravity is nullified at certain scales, scales
that are related to the inhomogeneity/homogeneity of matter, and to
motion,
if the motion is free moving or free falling (inertial motion).
The
strongest gravitational effect is to be found at the edge of a massive
body or conglomeration of matter. There is no edge to an infinite
universe.
As a thought experiment visualize what the gravitational result is for
any body at the center of any larger more massive body. It does not
matter
how much matter surrounds you. The gravitational effect is zero if you
were able to find yourself at the center of the moon, earth or the sun.
(Thought experiments are valuable even if impossible to perform. We are
just considering gravity here. If necessary, visualize being in a ten
foot
sphere that shields you from temperature and pressure, et
cetera.)
Being at the center of a more massive body in inertial motion is the
same
as being anywhere in inertial motion in an infinite universe. For more
on this topic click
here .
Pro:
The sky is dark. If the universe were infinite every line of sight
would
be filled with stars and the sky would be white hot. The solution can't
be in the knowledge that interstellar clouds of matter dim and block
the
light because starlight would eventually heat the clouds until they
glowed,
making the night sky burn brightly. The solution is that the universe
is
finite in time and the universe expands; light from the more distant
stars
is still speeding toward us but hasn't reached us yet.
Con:
Our solar system has been here for a very long time, some 4.5 billion
years. The planets, moons, and even the dust in our solar system must
(obviously)
be dissipating and transforming the heat from our sun and the little we
get from the rest of the cosmos (The chemistry of our biosphere is a good example of how
radiation from our star is converted to other non heating uses). The universe may
be
infinite, but the lifetime of stars is not. The typical lifetime of
luminous
stars is 10 billion years. To fill a static universe with starlight in
thermodynamic equilibrium with stars requires that stars shine
continuously
for 10^23 years—many, many times longer. (See: Edward Harrison,
"Another
look at the Big Bang," Nature, Vol. 352, 15 August 1991,
p. 574). The sky is only dark in the visible spectrum. The universe is
illuminated at the wavelengths that we can't see such as the wavelength
that corresponds to the microwave temperature of 2.7K. Being that
all bodies with temperatures above absolute zero emit electromagnetic
radiation,
this may simply be the mean temperature of a quasi-static infinite
universe,
as some scientists have suggested. (See: Paul Marmet, Science,
Vol. 240, p. 705, 1988)
Pro:
We live in a universe whose space is currently expanding. The
cosmological
redshift is due to the stretching of light by the expansion of space.
The
light from distant galaxies takes longer to reach us and thus is
stretched
to longer wavelengths by expanding space than is light from nearby
galaxies.
Hence, expansion of space produces the Hubble law. If space expands at
a constant rate, this relationship is the linear Hubble law—the
redshift
is proportional to distance.
Con:
(a) Expanding space is a nonsensical concept. Only material things can
be logically described as capable of expansion. Expanding
space-time
metric seems to be something invented by Big Bang cosmologists because
of the dilemma they face of a universe that, at the scale of 300 million light years,
appears
to be roughly homogenous and isotropic—a geometry properly
characteristic
of an infinite non expanding universe. Because of this, the
expanding
balloon analogy is presented (as in their book) to attempt to visualize
how the homogenous expansion works. The problem (with their
analogy)
that they cannot overcome is that our universe has four
dimensions—three
spatial dimensions, and one dimension that describes motion and change
which we refer to as the time dimension. The balloon analogy is one
spatial
dimension short of that needed to describe our real universe.
Particle
physicist Steven Weinberg and astrophysicist Martin Rees had this to
say
in reply to questions by readers of New Scientist:
“Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space.
But
how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How
can
“nothing” expand? ‘Good question,’ says Weinberg. ‘The answer is: space
does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space—but
they should know better.’ Rees agrees wholeheartedly. ‘Expanding space
is a very unhelpful concept.’ ” (See: "All you ever wanted to know
about
the big bang..." New Scientist, 17 April 1993, pp. 32-3).
(b)
Hubble,
in actual fact, was a life-long doubter of velocity being the cause of
cosmological redshifts*. And, (surprise) his linear law of redshifts
applied
to a non expanding universe.
Here is one of many examples from
his
writings: [In the following quote, for those of you new to the
history of astronomy, "nebulae" as used here is to be translated as
"galaxy," explained at my web page on Hubble's views.]
“Since
the corresponding velocity of recession is the same fraction of the
velocity
of light, the nebulae in the most distant cluster observed, if they are
actually receding, will appear 13 per cent fainter than they would
appear
if they were stationary. The difference is small but, fortunately, the
measures can be made with fair accuracy. The results may be stated
simply.
If the nebulae are stationary, the law of red shifts is sensibly
linear;
red shifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each
unit
of light path contributes the same amount of red shift. On the other
hand,
if the nebulae are receding, and the dimming factors are applied, the
scale
of distances is altered, and the law of red shifts is no longer linear.”
(See:
Edwin
Hubble, "The Problem of the Expanding Universe," American
Scientist,
Vol. 30, No. 2, April 1942, pp. 110-1) For
more see the Hubble link below.
* Today (January, 26, 2012) I discovered, after more than a dozen years presenting the truth about Hubble, that finally, a major monthly science publication published a letter by two researchers that challenges the fairy tale that Hubble discovered an expanding universe. From the last paragraph:
"There is great irony in these false-hoods still being promoted today. Hubble himself never came out in favor of an expanding universe; on the contrary, he doubted it to the end of his days. It was Lemaitre who was the first to combine theoretical and observational arguments to show that we live in an expanding universe."
See: "Lemaitre's Hubble relationship" in the letters section, page 8, August 2011, Physics Today.
Those last words are the letter writers opinions based on their acceptance of popular theory. In my, and in Hubble's opinion, the cosmological redshifts are caused by something else besides velocity. For those who aren't very knowledgable of the history of cosmology, Lemaitre was a priest physicist who had a bias for a finite model that implied a beginning.
For
comments please contact: Vincent
Sauvé at vsskeptica@gmail.com
ON
THE SUBJECT OF REDSHIFTS
This
section features comments and links to other sites that will be of
value to those of us who are skeptical or critical of the widely
accepted
interpretation that redshifts equate with velocity in the case of
galaxy
groups expanding away from other galaxy groups, which is the foundation
of the expanding universe idea.
Let
me be clear that I am not saying that a light source moving away from
us will not cause a redshift, it certainly does. But there are other
things that can cause a redshift as well.
An
idea
that I think has a lot of merit and is worth further investigation as
an
alternative interpretation for cosmological redshifts is the idea that
quanta loses “energy”, (also referred to as “momentum”) by way of
gravitational
interaction. This is also referred to as “Gravitational viscosity” in
Ernst
Fischer’s abstract
of his paper: “Global momentum loss in a non expanding universe,” (Astrophysics
and Space Science, vol. 190, no. 1, April 1992, pp. 149-153.)
Also
see the abstract
of his paper "A cosmological model without singularity," (Astrophysics
and Space Science, vol. 207, no. 2, September 1993, pp.
203-219).
Big
Bang
supporters Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg wrote in their article Galaxy
Redshifts Reconsidered (Sky & Telescope, February
1993, pp 31-5):
“As
noted with a hint of frustration by cosmologists such as Steven
Weinberg
and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, ‘The frequency of light is also
affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither
useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shift of
light...in
terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.’ ”
Note
that it is often asserted that “Big Bang cosmology is based on
Einstein’s
general theory of relativity.” With regard to this, it is of
absolute
importance to keep in mind that Einstein and others applied general
relativity
theory to a model that is finite. Relativity theory does not
dictate
that the universe is finite. (More on this subject will be found
in my essay “Is the Big Bang Cosmology Good Science, Or ‘Creation
Science’
Par Excellence” available by mail without charge, and at the link at the end of the paragraph at the first CON argument above.) When
either Newton’s mechanics or relativity theory is applied to an
infinite
model there will be no overall contraction or expansion.
Other
pages of this site:
(If author is not referred to here that means the writing was done by myself.)
Mistakes Cosmologists Make
Why Does the World Exist?; Why Does the Universe Exist?; Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
The
Big Bang Religion: Scientists Speak For Themselves
Letter
to a friend regarding George Smoot's book Wrinkles in Time
Letter:
Evidence for and against expansion and evolution of the universe
Physics
or Metaphysics? A review of Victor Stenger's book The Unconscious
Quantum
Letter:
Flawed alternatives to Big Bang cosmology: a Plasma cosmology model
An
eloquent Letter
to the Editor: No start, no end of universe, by Joseph
Curran
Adolf
Grunbaum and Paul Davies line up on the side of creationism
Chapter 15 from The Cult of the BIG BANG by William C. Mitchell
Is
Dark Matter Just Molecular Hydrogen?
Edwin
Hubble ...And The Myth That He Discovered An Expanding Universe
Letter
to Skeptical Inquirer regarding the fantastic nature of BB cosmology
My letter to the editor of Mercury explaining why Alex Filippenko's Big Bang from nothing article should leave skeptics unconvinced. Click here
It's official: The Big Bang is now a real religion!
Check out this surprising email correspondence.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
by many scientists critical of the Big Bang model.
Interested
in Einstein's relativity theory, or a clear understanding of space and time? See my essay:
And follow up:
Suggested links not hosted at this website:
The Cosmic Expansion Problem How expansion violates observed homogeneity and isotropy By Vincent Sauve
Optical Forces as a Redshift Mechanism: the "Spectral Transfer Redshift'' By Louis Marmet
Thanks to my prodding, A.K.T. Assis and M.C.D. Neves' History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson is now available on the Internet. This is a very important paper. From their abstract: "We show that the models based on a Universe in dynamic equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang."
Why the Big Bang is Wrong By John Kierein
Janus-Faced Cosmology By Robert L. Oldershaw
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death and A New Non-Doppler Redshift By Paul Marmet
The Big Bang Myth By Keith Stein
Quantum Gaps in the Big Bang Theory: Why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed--or replaced
The above is the exact title from the front of the print edition of April 2011 issue of Scientific American. (Strangely, the online version has a different title and description subtitle: The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?) by Paul J. Steinhardt.
Finally, a leading contributor to the idea of cosmic inflation comes clean and discusses the serious untenable issues with the idea. (I don't think cosmic inflation has ever been worthy of being called a theory.)
New and Old Galaxies Show Up in All the Wrong Places
In an infinite universe it would be expected that there is a mixed population of new and old galaxies both near and far in time and space. The news report is at the bottom of the online Discover article linked above. In the print magazine the article is on page 61, Jan. 2006.
The Case Against Cosmology
By M.J. Disney
Abstract:
It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly overblown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers from many fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received.
In standard BB theory, cosmological, as opposed to Doppler, redshifts are the result of expanding empty space. The idea that empty space, as part of a space-time metric can have the properties we normally associate with material bodies, is unsatisfactory to many of us. Additionally, we should doubt that the universe is expanding because the geometry of galaxy distribution is what one would expect of an infinite non expanding universe, i.e., we don't observe galaxy clusters being closer to other galaxy clusters in the distant (deep-time) universe. Yet, in addition to Doppler shifts, there are also cosmological redshifts. These cosmological redshifts need an explanation (other than the hypothesized and unsatisfactory expanding space idea). A physics professor from France contacted me informing me of some papers he has published that suggest a mechanism that may account for cosmological redshifts.
A Doppler-like strong light-matter interaction
The difficult discrimination of Impulse Stimulated Raman Scattering redshift against Doppler redshift
By J. Moret-Bailly
Not infrequently, it is claimed by Big Bang supporters that various light elements can only be accounted for by processes during the first moments of the hypothesized Big Bang event. This paper advances the position that a BB event was not necessary, and that stars can account for these light elements.
The Origin Of Helium And The Other Light Elements
By G. Burbidge and F. Hoyle
An essay I highly recommend on the subject of the unproved and ad hoc nature of much of the new physics. Modern cosmologies marriage with the new physics should be cause for concern for Big Bang advocates. The new physics--Physical or mathematical science? By Robert L. Oldershaw
The Big Bang This is a chapter from the book Reason in Revolt. Be sure to read the sections An Empty Abstraction and Thoughts in a Vacuum. This is very good writing from two Marxist theoreticians.
I'm now hosting on my site a very important paper by Paul Marmet that explains how the cosmological Doppler effect can easily be accounted for by the new discoveries of molecular hydrogen throughout the universe. We now have the alternative explanation for cosmological redshifts that doesn't involve creationist nonscientific assumptions. Click here
COSMOLOGISTS STRETCH TO EXPLAIN BIRTH OF GALAXIES
"...in most models the result is more or less predetermined by the assumptions initially put in."
"All it means [is] that they've put in a prescription that more or less guarantees that they need to get out this particular answer." Click here
Charles Steidel
--Astronomer at the California Institute of Technology
Here's a fun tongue-in-cheek essay:
What Big Bang? by Alexander T. Shulgin
"Are you sure that the anisotropies in the microwave background radiation are really cosmological rather than purely Galactic in origin?"
[Authors desired title. Actual title may be "A conspicuous increase of Galactic contamination over CMBR anisotropies at large angular scales"] See this link for the abstract and paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9903460
Accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics 30.3.1999.
By Martin Lopez Corredoira
[I have what I believe may be referred to as an offprint of the abstract and the full 15 page paper. This paper is more oriented to the professional astronomer/cosmologist than is most of the other papers I recommend to my visitors, nevertheless, this paper is quite noteworthy. Particularly interesting comments like the following make the paper worth a read for the non-professional]:
"One remarkable feature of MBRAs that rouses suspicion about their relationship to our Galaxy is the coincidence of the typical angular size of their structures with the typical angular size of nearby clouds. These structures have an appearance very similar to the clouds observed in other frequencies."
|
|