FLAWS WITH THE BIG BANG THEORY

The cosmology of the 20th century has become the cosmology of the Big Bang and it is still only a theory. It is the 'standard model' and other possible interpretations of red shifting from distant galaxies have been dismissed peremptorily. Some of the problems with the Big Bang Theory are discussed briefly here.

The cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) was assumed to be a relic of the Big Bang, then used to prove it, clearly a circular argument. Similarly with the free use of relativity - someone wanting to prove he had a sore thumb does not prove his point by wearing a bandage on it.

It is interesting that over the time of the development of the Big Bang there arose a cult of 'intelligent design' or opposition to the more accepted theory of natural selection based on Dawin's 'On the origin of species'. Not coincidentally, these two concepts originated from the same region in the US.

Bumper sticker from the US showing the link between religious ideology and the Big Bang Theory.
Bumper sticker from the US showing the link between
religious ideology and the Big Bang Theory.

A major mistake was in assuming the red shifting of light from distant galaxies discovered by Hubble in 1925 was due to recession. It was counter-intuitive and soon led to troubles. The expansion meant a common origin and a beginning which was unknowable. The alternative, red shifting by loss of momentum after Compton, was more intuitive but led to another unknown which has still not been solved but requires only finding what drains half of a photon's energy after two billion years of travel. This loss of energy of the photon is truly distance dependent the loss expressed as a distance for each value of Z. This is more intuitive than the recessional speed doubling for each value of Z accelerated by a mysterious force. This has received only scant attention in the last eighty years.

It was wrong of the Big Bang theorists to so resolutely exclude the infinite cosmologists while they themselves were so obviously getting into trouble with unreal recessional velocities.

And it was wrong to deny evidence that practically proved Doppler red shifting would not account for different rates of red shifting for different frequencies, more readily explained by loss of momentum red shifting (see Webb).

Extrapolation back towards the actual moment of creation led through a tortuous path outside of known science, producing matter before gravity, unreal densities and temperatures. The singularity, string theory, M theories and supersymmetry have not been given the necessary validity to be used in support.

A theory giving a finite lifetime from its origin gives no latitude to develop a model for the morphology of galaxies.

Considerable expensive research has been made to prove the Big Bang creation without success and without any admission that negative findings might suggest the theory may be wrong.

The Big Bang Theory is founded on a supernatural myth by the misinterpreting of important observations and has serious problems. It produced problems, dark matter without an image and dark energy a sort of anti-gravity which could not be seen.

Gravity red shifts as required by Einstein but this has never caught on and in any case 'tired light' and its possible infinite universe was dismissed. Non-Doppler red shifting should have remained as a candidate. The density of gravity in intergalactic space is unknown and is not open to experiment.

The nature of gravity is poorly understood, It is not similar to electrostatic charges which can be attracting repelling and can be screened off. It is assumed to transmit its force and variation of it at the speed of light and obeys the inverse square law. If light is altered by gravity it needs to be shown that gravity is altered in some way.

The Big Bang Theory has failed to solve its Big problems, the beginning and out of what, the nature of the expanding force and where does the energy come from for such acceleration and why can't we see all the cold matter we know to be there. An infinite cosmology needs only the mechanism of distance dependent red shifting from loss of momentum which is there and of the right nature.

The use of extrapolation has been in error. To complete the procedure the final process should be the sudden annihilation of all matter and introduction and definition of a 'state of nothing' which one must have, to have a beginning.

The Barmaid's Tale

The Barmaid's Tale Einstein said if anyone has a good theory he should be able to explain it to the barmaid (a little sexist by today's standards, but sensible enough if you consider the barmaid to be any regular person). The barmaid these days could well be a recent graduate on her 'overseas experience' (or 'gap year'). She would have no trouble with the infinite which she would have met in her normal mathematics education. When confronted with details of the Big Bang Theory she might well reply with such comments as:

"So everything started with a Big Bang. If there was nothing there, what actually Banged? Do you expect me to believe that?"

"If the edge of the Big Bang horizon is now known to be 13.7 light years away, to the north, the south, the east, the west, up and down then doesn't it mean our Earth is at the centre? Doesn't this takes us back to the geocentric days and a flat earth?"

"If, after the Big Bang, everything was travelling at accelerating speeds away from everything else all on a course away from the origin, then how do you explain galaxies bumping into each other?"

"If the cosmic microwave background radiation is a relic of the Big Bang, why is it still hanging around? It should have spread away from the centre and be way out at the boundary."