Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

You might not be aware, but there are many things that proponents of the Big Bang theory, including many scientists and 99% of college science professors, do not want you to know about the Big Bang theory.

The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.

So let’s see the top ten scientific flaws in the Big Bang theory and show you why it is just a theory. Some of these theories are extremely complex, so I will try to put it in layman terms as much as possible so almost anyone could understand.


10 The Magnetic Monopole Problem

The Magnetic Monopole Problem
Why it's a problem A magnetic monopole is, in short, a particle which contains an electrical charge, creating a net "magnetic charge" within the individual particle. If the Big Bang theory were true, it should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. However, instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, not even once.

This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory.

9 The Flatness Problem, also known as the Oldness Problem

The Flatness Problem, also known as the Oldness Problem
Why it's a problem Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.

If the universe started off slightly positively curved, it would be enormously positively curved today, and the same holds for negative curvature. However, the curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable.

8 We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don't

We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don't
Why it's a problem This is my own idea that I just came up with (all the other ideas listed are well known and documented). As a result, this is the first time this problem will ever be posed (although I recognize the possibility that someone at some point may have posed the same or similar problem).

Essentially, the problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, then the deeper we peer into the universe, the closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, no matter how deep we peer into space, still we see no evidence of a Big Bang.

A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13.2 billion light years, which is see the equivalent of 13.2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now.)

However, since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13.7 billion years ago, then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. However, instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, the Big Bang could not have happened.

Additionally, although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), if the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, stars, and galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, in one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening.

7 Lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory

Lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory
Why it's a problem This is because how the universe presently exists, galaxies are spread out in an uneven fashion, clumped together at certain points with big gaps and walls. However, due to the supposed age of 13.7 billion years, the universe has not yet had time for such walls and voids to form.

For a Big Bang to have occurred, galaxies would be perfectly evenly spread out. Thus, the lack of universal galactic uniformity contradicts the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory.

6 Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Why it's a problem Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, or observed in any way whatsoever, yet the Big Bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. Not only that, but in order for the Big Bang theory to even be valid, dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe.

The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". In other words, the proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen".

It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, pfft whatever man, yeah right.

5 The theory of Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity

The theory of Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity
Why it's a problem Big Bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called "inflation" to solve several of the obvious problems, including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem.

The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, essentially, that in some magical way everything travelled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang" .

In order for inflation to even begin to be a solution, all matter after the big bang would have to travel 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times faster than the speed of light. That is 1,650 zeros, or 101,649. There isn't a name for this number, but for some perspective, there are only 1089 total particles in the entire observable universe.

Obviously, Inflation is impossible, because it violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. You can't use a false solution to answer problems.

It would be like you asking me, "I have three oranges and I add another orange. How many oranges do I have?"
And then me saying in response: "you now have 100 oranges".
Then you ask, "how did you get 100 from 3 plus 1?"
And then I say, "well I wanted it to equal 100 oranges, so I made up this theory called Inflexion which means that due to a magical force that turns your fourth orange into 97 oranges, now you have 100 total oranges even though you only added one more."

Well, you can't argue that if I make up a magical term that turns one orange into 97 oranges then it doesn't equal 100 oranges, because yes, 3 plus 97 equals 100. But Inflexion doesn't exist, because I just made it up to get the result I wanted; so 3 oranges plus 1 orange always equals 4 oranges!

So then you tell me, "Ok ok smart guy, well now I have 5 oranges and I add 1 apple. How many oranges do I have?"
And then I reply: "100 oranges".
And you say, "WTF?! How did you get 100 again?!"
So I say, "Well I still wanted 100 oranges so I made up another magical force called Inflapplexon that that turns 1 apple into 95 oranges when you add it to 5 existing oranges."

Now you're getting mad because I keep making up terms. But this is the same way that "Inflation" was created to solve the impossible problems.

The theorists wanted the end result to be the Big Bang, so they made up this magical term called "Inflation" and said, "ok this magical force caused the laws of physics to be broken so now the Big Bang works".

Just like 5 oranges and 1 apple do not equal 100 oranges, General Relativity plus Inflation does not equal the Big Bang!

In summary, just like my magical forces "Inflexion" and "Inflapplexon", Inflation also does not exist, because it defies the fundamental laws of physics.

4 The Big Bang theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Big Bang theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Why it's a problem The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Entropy, states generally that all matter has a natural tendency to move to disorder.

However, for the Big Bang to have happened and created the whole universe as we know it, the opposite thing would have happened: all matter would have moved toward order. This is impossible.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if a Big Bang did happen, then even today all that would exist would be particles of all matter strewn evenly throughout the universe. It couldn't have formed planets and complex laws of physics all out of nothing. To say it did you would have to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false (which it isn't so you can't).

3 The Big Bang theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics

The Big Bang theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
Why it's a problem The First Law of Thermodynamics states generally that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a fundamental law of science which says that matter can only be converted into other matter.

However, proponents of the Big Bang theory try to say that the universe was created out of nothing. Obviously this is scientifically impossible.

2 Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models

Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models
Why it's a problem Occam’s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters should be chosen. However, the Big Bang theory opposes Occam’s Razor, because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters.

Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, according to Occam’s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang's Expanding Universe model.

1 The Horizon Problem

The Horizon Problem
Why it's a problem The universe is too big to have formed in only 10-20 billion years as the Big Bang theory suggests, since the Big Bang is theorized to have happened only about 13.7 billion years ago. This is because the speed of matter is limited by the speed of light.

The problem here is that if the Big Bang had occurred, firstly the universe is too large to have only happened 13.7 billion years ago, and secondly there is temperature uniformity which requires matter to have moved beyond the speed of light to become universally uniform. This of course, is impossible according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, because nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

You might be asking yourself, “well, is everybody wrong then?” Well yes, it’s entirely plausible that everyone can be wrong – at least, the few people in the educational establishment behind pushing these false and unfounded theories.

Today, ideas like The Big Bang are pushed so vehemently, especially among higher education, that anyone who questions its validity, even in light of the countless flaws of the Big Bang Theory, can be subject to intense criticism, be ostracized and face social rejection, be given failing grades, and even face expulsion from universities. Professional licenses can be revoked, you can be rejected from associations, lose your job, and worse. All because you went against the prevailing notions.

It’s not about what is true. It’s about what the educational and governing authorities say they want you to believe and say is true. As a result almost all professors and scientists are too afraid of being ostracized from their communities and face losing their jobs to speak out against the prevailing notions.

This is why false ideas unsupported by science like the Big Bang theory and evolution are so pervasive. Most people believe what they are told without even bothering to research it for themselves; and the ones who are informed enough and think for themselves enough to question it are too afraid to say anything.

If you want to believe in the Big Bang theory, you must believe it one of three ways: by faith, by ignorance, or by indoctrination. By faith, because you can’t believe something which does not have adequate scientific evidence except as a philosophical viewpoint.

By ignorance because the only way to be certain in your mind that the Big Bang theory could work is because you don’t have all the facts. Or if you have been so far indoctrinated you haven’t made a logical conclusion with your own rational mind, you may have never even tried to question what you have been told.

However you must decide for yourself what you will believe. If you decide to believe in the Big Bang theory, that’s fine, just realize that since it is not supported by science, you have to believe it as a philosophical viewpoint, not as a scientific fact.

Share this:

ADD A COMMENT
33 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

33 thoughts on “Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

  1. FURTHER PROOF that the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid!

    Ref #1: The Science Channel’s 14 May 18 Space’s Deepest Secrets 2-hour episode titled “Big Bang: The Dark Secrets”
    Ref #2: The Science Channel’s Space’s Deepest Secret episode Season 2, Episode 4

    For years, I have been pointing out to astrophysicists and other scientists, science channels, science organizations, and editors of science magazines how and why the “Big Bang Theory” is invalid (because it is based on invalid mathematical assumptions). But it appears that my points have been ignored. However, based on evidence recently presented in the Science Channel’s episode Ref #1a above, I shall try again.

    1. Perhaps the easiest way to prove that the Big Bang Theory is invalid is as follows:

    a. The Big Bang theorists have computed (according to their mathematical assumptions) that our universe was created essentially “out of nothing” 13.8 billion years ago.

    b. The above Ref #1 episode points out that the oldest star scientists have been able to find so far is over 13.6 billion light years away. Dr. Stefan Keller of the Australian National University discovered this star based on elements in its light spectrum and observing that it had an incredibly low content of iron and a little bit of carbon which shows that it is at least a second generation star (created from the debris of at least one supernova before it formed). It is significant to note that (like me) Dr. Stefan Keller evidently doesn’t believe that the Big Bang Theory is valid, because his light spectrum analysis of our star (the Sun) is that it was derived from “about a thousand generations of stars before it.” The Ref #1 episode didn’t mention a name for that star, so for discussion purposes, I shall refer to it as “OldestStarSoFar.”

    c. It seems to me that any astrophysicist can disprove the Big Bang Theory simply by locating any celestial object that:

    1) Is in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM EARTH from the direction to earth of the OldestStarSoFar described above.

    2) Is moving generally TOWARD EARTH.

    3) And is at least FOUR BILLION light years away from earth.

    d. That would mean that OldestStarSoFar would be at least 17.6 billion light years away from the celestial object that meets the three criteria described above. How could that be possible if the universe is only 13.8 billion years old as the Big Bang theorists claim?

    2. A far simpler explanation for what our astrophysicists have been observing (one which does NOT require hypothesizing violations of the presently known laws of physics) is that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. If so, then

    1) It appears to me that so-called “dark matter” (estimated by Cosmologist Risa Wechsler to be 85% of the universe) is simply comprised of:

    a) BURNED OUT celestial objects (stars, galaxies, black holes, neutron stars, super-nova debris, gas clouds, etc.) that are up to “infinitely old” and haven’t completely dissolved yet, AND

    b) Probably trillions of stars and galaxies that we can’t see at this time, because sometime along the multi-billion-light-year stream of light coming from them toward our solar system got broken for a while (i.e. “eclipsed” for a million years or so (one-or-more times)) by other celestial objects that passed between them and our solar system since that light stream was originated. If we are in one of those gaps in that light stream, we may not be able to “see” the celestial object that created that stream of light, but we CAN observe the effects of its gravitational and electromagnetic forces. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) scheduled for launch in 2022 (which will use outer space “lens effects” to identify “large dark matter concentrations”) might be able to help us quantify how often this is happening and how much this is contributing to our “dark matter” calculations. It may also help to identify to what extent “burned out” celestial objects are contributing to our “dark matter” calculations.

    c) This is an explanation that is simpler and makes far more sense than a Big Bang theorist hypothesis that such dark matter “has been lurking in the universe since the dawn of time” or that it may be “stuff that is passing through our finger nails, but we don’t notice it!” Both explanations were suggested in Ref #1

    2) The concept of “dark energy” would likely no longer be needed, because (as I will explain below) the universe isn’t really expanding in general. However, it is possible that some of the celestial objects that we can already see are being pulled by the gravitational forces of other celestial objects that are so much further away that we can’t yet see them with our present technology.

    3) The Ref #2 episode points out that spiral galaxies like our Milky Way spin in a manner unlike our solar system. It is obvious to me that this is because (unlike our solar system) the three-dimensional INTERLOCKING gravitational forces of the “dark matter” in those galaxies is holding it all together just as the flexible silk threads woven into a scarf can hold things together in a fairly consistent shape.

    4) The reason that there are so many “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy is because according to the Ref #1 episode, “red dwarf” stars can “last a trillion years.” It is estimated that as many as three fourths of the presently observable stars in our Milky Way are “red dwarf” stars, so it is likely that most of “red dwarf” stars in our Milky Way galaxy are FAR older than a mere 13.8 billion years. Perhaps because I have always been highly skeptical about the validity of the Big Bang Theory, it appears to me that our Milky Way Galaxy is at least one order of magnitude OLDER than 13.8 billion years. If you view our Milky Way galaxy this way, you will find that ALL of the phenomena that our astrophysicists have been observing about our Milky Way galaxy make FAR MORE SENSE than if one views the Milky Way galaxy in the context of the Big Bang Theory (which leaves so many perceptual puzzles unanswered).

    5) According to the Ref #2 episode, astrophysicists have discovered an ancient galaxy which they call “Dragon 44” that is as massive as our Milky Way galaxy, but it emits very little light. This appears to me to be an example of an almost completely burned out galaxy with perhaps only few (trillion-year-old?) “red dwarf” stars remaining. So it appears to me that the Dragon 44 galaxy could be over a trillion years old! In any case, the existence of the Dragon 44 galaxy is another pretty much irrefutable PROOF that the Big Bang Theory is invalid.

    6) The speed of light is a ratio (186,000 miles/second = space/time) which is generally assumed to be constant (except by some Big Bang theorists who have hypothesized exceptions to the 186,000 miles/second speed limit in order to explain why their physical observations don’t “add up” to fit within the 16.8 billion-year timeframe of the Big Bang Theory). Anyhow, the idea that the speed of light (within a vacuum) is constant in Einstein’s E=m(c squared) equation is that if an object is traveling at less than the vacuum “speed of light”, then it must acquire at least some of the properties of matter. Indeed, astrophysicists have observed that visible light rays really do “bend” when passing a massively heavy object like a black hole. This means that visible light rays (like matter) REALLY ARE affected by the force of gravity. Furthermore, observations that the visible displays of supernovas are briefly preceded with neutrino waves indicate that those neutrino waves are traveling through space at a slightly higher speed than visible light rays (because neutrinos aren’t affected by electromagnetic forces).

    a) In the first half of the Ref #1 episode, the narrator says “The Big Bang kick started the expansion of the universe. Since that moment, space itself is stretching further and further apart.” This statement was followed by a statement by Astrophysicist Amber Straughn that “the light from the universe is literally stretched.” She goes on to explain that “light from so far away objects has been stretched for so long that the light has become redder than the eye can see and has been shifted all the way to infrared.” Those observations by Amber and the narrator are correct, but their explanations for why that is happening are evidently wrong. It appears to me that it would be FAR more realistic (and simpler) to assume that the light rays that we are observing from OldestStarSoFar have been slowed down by the cumulative forces of gravity and electromagnetic fields encountered while passing through a “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” which are far from being “perfect vacuums”, because they contain light rays from all over the observable universe as well as (in many cases) weak gravitational and electromagnetic forces, neutrino and gamma waves, space debris, hydrogen atoms, etc. Also keep in mind that during the 13.6 billion year trip which the light rays from OldestStarSoFar traveled to reach us, many types of celestial objects may have passed by NEAR the path of those light rays thereby increasing their influence on those light rays. So each cubic meter of “outer space” exerts a weak “prism effect” on light rays that pass through it, and the cumulative effect when passing through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space” can be significant.

    b) So the “red tint effect in all directions” which our Big Bang theorists have claimed is proof that the universe is “expanding in all directions” can be more simply (and I believe more accurately) explained as being this gravitational “prism effect” that “gazillions” cubic meters of “outer space” cumulatively have on the light that is passing through all of them. This criticism also applies to Professor Saul Perlmutter’s conclusion that the universe is “expanding at an accelerating rate”, because he apparently assumed that the speed of light remains constant as it travels through “outer space”, but for the reasons described above, the speed of light actually slows down a bit as it travels through “gazillions” of cubic meters of “outer space.” If our scientists have light sensors that are sensitive enough, they might be able to create outer space cubic-meter simulators that will measure to what degree exterior gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, neutrino waves, gamma rays and light rays from all directions, hydrogen atoms, space debris, etc. have on precisely measured light rays passing through various examples of near-perfect-vacuum cubic-meter containers.

    c) It is important to note at this point that the slowing-down-effect that a stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” has on light rays ALSO slows down everything else that is passing through that stream of billions of cubic meters of “outer space” (although perhaps not at the same rate). This includes radio/microwaves, electromagnetic waves, neutrino waves, “gravitational waves”, etc. That stream might even “slow down time itself”, although that might just be a perspective illusion.

    d) Furthermore, if our universe is “expanding in all directions” as our Big Bang theorists claim to be happening, then how come we’ve seen so many photographs of different galaxies colliding with each other! That couldn’t happen if that claim was true. Furthermore, astrophysicists are also claiming that our own Milky Way galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. This was my first observation that convinced me (decades ago) that the Big Bang Theory cannot possibly be valid.

    7) Also, the Big Bang theorists’ claim that the radio/microwaves from all directions that show up on our TV screens when we select a non-existent channel are “echoes of the Big Bang.” This explanation is dubious, because this observable phenomenon can be more simply explained as being merely jumbled up radio/microwaves from celestial sources that are too far away to be distinctly identified by our present radio/microwave telescopes. It’s kind of like the overlapping broadcasts you hear as you “lose your channel” while driving beyond the effective range of the radio station that your car radio was tuned to. Besides, if they were really “echoes of the Big Bang”, they would have passed by us by now, rather than apparently “continuing forever” as shown in the “cosmic microwave background chart” that supposedly goes back to 400,000 years after the Big Bang. If the “echoes of the Big Bang” theory were true, then it appears to me that by now our radio/microwave (direction finding) telescope projects would have been able to determine the spot in our universe where those radio/microwaves originated, and they would be able to distinguish between original radio/microwaves and echoed radio/microwaves.

    8) The Ref #2 episode also shows that astrophysicists have discovered “super massive black holes” that are 13 billion years old. If the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, then how can “super massive black holes” form during the 800,000 years since the Big Bang? To try and explain this, Big Bang theorists have invented a hypothesis that the first stars must have been “super massive blue hydrogen stars” (no such stars can presently been observed) which grew fast and then blew up as “hyper-novas” in a “few million years.” This still didn’t credibly explain how super-massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. Later on, they hypothesized that perhaps some of those super massive blue hydrogen stars simply “collapsed directly into a black hole”(which may violate our presently known laws of physics) “and then gobbled up other black holes”, but even that doesn’t satisfactorily explain how super massive black holes could form in such a short amount of time. It takes a lot of time for a black hole to “gobble up” another black hole (without exploding), because they tend to spin around each other for quite a while as they approach each other. Our Big Bang theorists seem to be “scrambling around” to dream up hypotheses that violate the known laws of physics in order to explain what they have been observing in a way that conforms to the Big Bang Theory! This itself is symptomatic of a popular theory on the verge of collapse! I figure it will just be a matter of time before improvements in our technology will begin to reveal (directly) that there are MANY celestial objects in “outer space” that are far older (and/or farther away) than 13.8 billion years.

    9) The second hour of the Ref #1 episode describes how the Hubble telescope was programmed to observe a specific point the universe for 100 hours (it required 650 orbits) in order to identify the oldest galaxies that the Hubble telescope could see. The last photo (farthest photo) showed that there were LOTS of galaxies in that particular tiny portion of the universe over 13 billion years ago. How can we reasonably assume that so many galaxies could have formed in that very tiny portion of the universe in less than 800,000 years after the Big Bang?

    10) Astronomer Michelle Thaller says that “Initially, the universe was unimaginably hot and dense, so much so that our laws of physics don’t apply.” This appears to me to be an example of carrying an invalid mathematical model to a ridiculous extreme. Theories that violate our presently known laws of physics should be viewed as a potential “red flag” as far as validity is concerned. The same can be said regarding the narrator’s comment that “’Inflation’ is science’s best explanation for how our cosmos formed. The entire universe would begin stuffed into an infinitesimally small space and expand faster than the speed of light.”

    3. In the Ref #1 episode, Cosmologist Risa Wechsler explained that she was using a supercomputer to test mathematical models of the “creation of the universe since the Big Bang” and to “trace the evolution of the universe back to the Big Bang.” This is what convinced me to write and “publish” this new rebuttal of the Big Bang Theory, because it appears that our scientists aren’t even bothering to test the validity of the Big Bang Theory itself. It is, after all, just a theory (i.e. an hypothesis). She should ALSO be testing mathematical models of the universe based on the assumptions that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. Since the term “infinitely” is a concept rather than a number, I suggest that she use the largest number that her supercomputer can store as a number to simulate infinity.

    4. Two widely accepted “pillars of the scientific method” are:

    1) Karl Popper’s “empirical falsification” technique that is “ if you can find an exception to an hypothesis, then that hypothesis is invalid” and

    2) The “Law of Parsimony” principle (a.k.a “Occam’s razor”) that is that “the simplest hypothesis (i. e. the hypothesis that has the least number of assumptions) for accurately explaining what is physically observed is the best hypothesis.

    5. So it appears to me that many of our astrophysicists have NOT been following those two basic principles of the scientific method. Essentially, what I am asking them to do is to FOLLOW those two fundamental principles of the scientific method!

    CONCLUSIONS: Our astrophysicists have been so enamored with the Big Bang Theory that they are no longer asking the right questions. This is a violation of the scientific method!
    RECOMMENDATION: Our astrophysicists should also be questioning the Big Bang Theory itself. Please forward copies of this document to scientists and scientific organizations who SHOULD be concerned about this.
    Thanks,

    Feel free to publish the above (and the post script which follows) or to use these points in your own articles

    Christopher C. Currie, Master of Science, Information and Computer Sciences, Georgia Tech
    161 Lake Shore Drive, Pascoag, RI 02859 401-568-8266

    PS: Last night (21 May 18), a 2-hour episode of Space’s Deepest Secrets titled “Secrets of Alien Universes” aired which included the following observations:

    1) The first hour describes an interesting discussion of the issues involved in attempts to create a “time travel machine.” Among other things, it points out that the forces through which a vehicle travels while orbiting the earth (at a very high speed) actually slows down the clocks that are in those vehicles. In order to remain accurate, our GPS satellites have to apply a “fudge factor” in their computations to offset this predictable phenomenon.

    2) The second hour discusses various efforts to apply “quantum mechanics” equations to celestial objects and the universe. To begin with, it is important to realize that quantum mechanics is essentially a statistical approach (as far as measuring goes) for describing the universe. For example, for the sake of measurement and mathematical manipulations, light rays are parsed into digital “photons” which has proven to be a useful technique for many practical purposes. However, it appears to me that the quantum-mechanics-based claims that tiny objects can “exist it two places at the same time” merely means that the slices of time during which those measurements were taken were NOT small enough and/or coordinated enough to uniquely isolate such tiny, rapidly moving wave-parsed “particles” (i.e. the “shutter speed” wasn’t quick enough). Or perhaps the techniques used for identifying such particles weren’t fine enough to uniquely identify such particles as being the same wave-parsed “particle” in each case. In other words, it appears to me that the results that they are getting are sometimes more a function of the method that they have chosen parse waves rather than actually identifying “the same object in two places at the same time.”

    3) Anyhow, in the second hour the cosmologist Prof. Mac Tegmark of MIT says the “We don’t have a shred of evidence that the universe ends here” (beyond what we can see). That’s great! But then the narrator explains that Max believes that there is an infinite number of “other” universes “each containing the same finite number of atoms.” WOW! He gets it right, but then falls back to putting his faith in the Big Bang Theory. Then the rest of the second hour describes a variety of different theories as to what the characteristics of such a “multiverse” would be. This appears to me to be examples of carrying the mathematical equations of Quantum Theory to a ridiculous extreme.
    ccc

    PS2: As far as I know, our scientists have NOT been able to credibly demonstrate that ANYTHING can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. So the “inflation theory” excuse (that our universe initially expanded many times faster than the speed of light) dreamed up by Big Bang theorists to explain away the proof that the Big Bang Theory is invalid (i.e. paragraph 1 in the article above) is no more valid than a claim that “A fairy godmother did it with her magic wand.” The failure of our scientific community to insist that Big Bang theorists stick to the scientific method is DISGRACEFUL!

    ccc

    2
    0
  2. This isn’t a critique, I was just wondering, uneducated as I am in this field, why, for the BB theory to work, dark matter would have to be so abundant?
    Great article btw, it’s a shame so many people believe this without examining the evidence, probably due to it being posited so frequently and vehemently in the news/media.

    0
    0
  3. The Big Bang theory is false by just applying common sense and a philosophical approach. From a common sense point of view, to believe the BB began with an explosion to expel matter and energy to populate the universe is nonsense. It would mean that an infinite amount of particles had to come together through gravity to form a very, very big ball. But we know today that the heat and pressure of such a process would cause instability caused by high levels of heat and pressure that will then emit matter and energy back out into the universe as it does for pulsars, quasars, and black holes. Stars will explode when they get too large and dense due to gravitational pressures and heat. It becomes obvious that matter, gases, and energy expelled back into the universe will cause the formation of clouds that will then give birth to new stars as proven by astronomers. Therefore, the universe has reached a point whereby it is self-staining.

    From a Ginex philosophical point of view, “Everything has a beginning including the universe.” Quantum mechanics indicate that atoms are formed through the interaction of particles and they then develop inorganic matter which, after forming stars, are able to form organic matter on planets that revolve around the star if conditions for life exist, such as water and heat.

    0
    0
  4. The Big Bang Theory states that it was an expansion of matter and energy. A problem exists within the theory’s definitions and explanation.

    I agreed with everything else and think you did a very good job on the article.

    1
    0
  5. Anyone with an open mind that puts aside BB indoctrination and reads its fantastical theories, would have to chuckle at the anti-scientific gibberish that in reality is a worse offender of the supernatural than any religion. At least religion is coherent and orderly and has steps that can be followed if one believes the primal ideas: primordial, omnipresent and omnipotent; the last attribute distinguishes religion from one other competitive idea of the cosmos– a specific cosmological energy.

    The scientists of the 1800’s were unsatisfied with vitalism and the aether since although they did have coherence and some observability, they could not be objectified and verified. Thus out of desperation and due to the Age of Enlightenment, God was abandoned for their own mechanistic god: Machines are powered by man-made energy, have parts that are replaceable, and always work the same way without any “mystery”. This combined with the golden idol of Einstein’s Relativity theories, forced the highly learned PhD’s to manufacture a theory about the cosmos which necessities two components: there is nothing in space nor can anything travel faster than light. And manufactured they did as they kept adding variables, constants and exceptions as this article points out. Mostly nonsense and non-verifiable except in a university where under threat, it is taken for granted.

    OK, so if its not the BB or God that created the cosmos and everything in it, what is the third postulate? Nature functions within the laws of cosmic energy, which has order, is self-organizing, evolves and creates material matter. Thus it goes against the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is not a machine but functional. A mammal is highly organized from a single cell, and the fact that is dies and decomposes does not change this anti-entropy. It also loses energy as it is dying and dead. Further, the stars are also organized from cosmic energy streams and live for billions of years before disintegrating; one would not eliminate the observable order just because material objects cannot sustain themselves forever. Are we to be nihilists?

    This energy, called at various times, aether, prana, spirit, elan vital, chi, has been scientifically rediscovered as orgone. It is measurable with a thermometer, electroscope, spectroscope and “gravity”; it is observable in air and vacuum, and in living organisms. It is blue, massless but affected by mass, everywhere and in motion. I won’t try to prove this here since there is adequate writing on this subject, but please don’t look in Wikipedia and other skeptical sites or “orgonite” hucksters.

    In observing Hubble’s photographs of the universe, there is always a spiral like-form in all the stages of a universe and even in some planets’ atmospheres (Jupiter). The spiral is how orgone moves and concurrently creates matter in the center-which is always elliptical or egg-shaped. All biology has the egg-form, and as it is said in the Bible, we come from God. God is really an anthropomorphization of the cosmic energy because as stated in the opening, both are primordial, omnipresent, but not equally omnipotent. In God’s view, he is a sentient being that made everything and sees all. In orgone, the energy is not a “being” with a consciousness, but just is and over eons creates things through merging with each other.

    Since the beginning, man has always been curious about nature and his place within it. The early man felt the spiral move within and understood intuitively he was a child of the cosmos. In the Church, we are children of God, including his “fatherly” protection. The early man believed in animism (nature had a spirit to communicate with), since he felt the spirit, while communicate more from our “head” and make our god in our image. Animist feared crossing the spirit the wrong way—which meant doing something unnatural or destructive; we also fear God and his laws of morality, which tell us to behave properly.

    In summary, one can believe in either God or orgone, since they are both based on the perception of an all-pervasive, unifying and supra-individual force. True science, as in the past, is not anti-God.

    3
    0
  6. The Big Bang is all opinion, and viewed from the standpoint of working assumptions that are proclaimed to be fact. Perhaps within the confines of a particular view of the way the universe works, they are workable assumptions. But then we come to conundrums, which don’t fit that pattern. It may well, however, be inconsistent with assumptions about the Big Bang, or about the way other things work. I am not defending the Big Bang; I am defending the flaw in any absolute belief in a “law” that may be a convenient shorthand by which to deal with a phenomenon in one set of circumstances, but which is not a law in another set – ergo, just a notion, or limited in its scope of applicability. Syllogisms proceed from assumptions. When they don’t work out, question the assumptions. The notion of speed, for example, is distance over time. At the speed of light, time changes – it loses its universality. What does that do to the notion of speed?

    2
    0
  7. See YouTube for, Thunderboltsproject. The Universe is electric, a force billions of times stronger than gravity. The gravity model is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA&t=66s

    The Eu guys had predicted that when we visit comets, we will find that they are rocky objects just like any other asteroid. Comets are not dirty snowballs, nor are they icy dirtballs. Comet 67P has mile high cliff faces, sand dunes, massive boulders ans is double lobed.

    See the sidebar in the link provided and prepare to be amazed. The make a very good argument with experimental data. The effects and behavior of electricity is scalable from the tiniest to the cosmological.

    2
    0
  8. Great article. I have, personally, never accepted the Big Bang Theory as a fact for the origin of the universe. I never knew there were these many scientific flaws within. This is very enligtening. Thanks.

    7
    1
  9. Where and how did all these laws “arise”? As others have pointed out, Newton’s laws of motion will predict the velocity and direction of a snooker ball struck by a que. But these laws by themselves never have, or could, move a snooker ball one millimeter across a table. It requires an external input of energy, and where did this come from?

    2
    1
  10. Great article. I think the BB theory is flawed because you always come back to the problem of what was there before. I think the issue of infinity and our struggle to understand it is part of the discussion.
    BUT maybe we are capable of understanding infinity. We are only tapping a small part of our brain scientists say. If someone can ever use all of their brain, maybe that person will understand issues such as infinity and the universe.

    3
    1
  11. I was a friend of John Dobson… the man behind the dobsonian telescopes (google it). We had great discussions both philosophical and scientific. Neither of us believed (he’s since passed away) in the Big Bang theory. His retort was always … “You can’t make something out of nothing”. Works for me :o)

    6
    1
  12. The flatness problem as I see it, as with regard to homogeneity and isotropy of the cosmological principle, is spacetime curvature should decrease as the universe expands. I also found fault in the brightness test, distinguishing it from tired light, in the intensity of light decreasing because of recession between signals is nullified by seeing a denser past according to the same recessional speed. I also find the clarity of the distant stars can be explained in analogy to magnets being divisible such that they can be amplified by energy to pass through cables and whatnot to reach countless observers. I thus favor tired light whereby a decrease in energy can explain gravity as a long range vacuum effect.

    0
    0
  13. Nice presentation. All spontaneous processes take place with an increase in entropy. Formation of planets and stars from randomly moving particles which arise from the Big Bang would be a process where the entropy decreases. Hence it cannot happen spontaneously.

    2
    0
    • Great point, Gordon, thank you for your input. I agree, in order for disorder to move to order, entropy must decrease – that is, things must become more ordered, not less. This is in diametric opposition to the most fundamental principles of science that not only state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed but also states that everything that occurs spontaneously results in greater entropy, not less.

      5
      1
  14. Good article that needs to be widely read IMO. I will address your criticisms of the Big Bang (BB) model in detail.

    I wrote a paper on it if links can be accepted in this format, on this blog. One way or the other here are my comments.

    10) Magnetic Monopole problem.

    Yes, the magnetic monopole is certainly a prediction of the model that has not been observed and generally does not make sense outside this model.

    9) The flatness problem.

    This is an obvious problem with the BB model as well as General Relativity (GR) IMO. The standard retort is that the universe could be curved at much larger scales than can be observed, or that a completely flat universe does not violate GR.

    Both these statements are true but IMO the first retort is highly unlikely and the second covers all bases so for this reason alone GR cannot be disproved.

    8) The flatness problem.

    This also is obviously a flaw in the theory. This flaw can accordingly be corrected by the “imaginary” physics of the Inflation model. If this is true then seemingly any problem with any model most likely can be corrected by imaginary physics. This is not science. At best it is an ad hoc hypothesis that is needed to keep the ball rolling since there are no other consensus-recognized alternatives.

    7) Lack of universal galactic uniformity.

    Yes, truly a BB problem but said to not be a problem with the “imaginary” physics of the Inflation model, whatever value that may have.

    6) Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The fact that both have been adopted by the BB model, now called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, is a big problem as long as neither have been observed to date. There will always be speculations and claims of discovery, but IMO none will ever pan out.

    This is not just a BB problem but a problem with any model than adopt these entities as being valid, or any other models that cannot better-explain what has been observed in regard to both.

    5) Inflation theory violates General Relativity.

    This is not necessarily a problem with the BB model for two reasons. The first reason is that the imaginary physics of Inflation can explain what is observed without violating GR, And the second reason is that GR by this statement is assumed to be valid whereby the equations of GR (as well as Newtonian physics) are also totally dependent on the existence of dark matter for it to be valid at galactic scales. This is also true for Einstein’s cosmic, universe equations if dark matter is not a valid entity.

    4) The BB model violates Newton’s Second Law of thermodynamics.

    This criticism would be valid if the universe were a closed system, but it appears that the universe is flat and open. So if the universe is flat and open at the largest scales, which it appears to be, then thermodynamics does not apply and this criticism is not necessarily valid.

    3) The BB model violates Newton’s Second Law of thermodynamics.

    Again thermodynamics relates to a closed system such as a steam engine. In an open universe such laws do not necessarily apply.

    2) Static Universe models fit the observation data better than an expanding universe model.

    Yes, IMO this is absolutely a true statement but most practitioners would disagree with this statement. IMO this is because observation data can be interpreted differently and made to fit almost any model.

    1) The horizon problem.

    This also relates to the age problem of the BB model as explained above. This has been a long standing problem with the model which is asserted to be explained by the “imaginary”/ hypothetical physics of Inflation. There are still stars in our own galaxy that are asserted by some practitioners, to be older that the Big Bang itself, which of course is impossible.

    How long will it take for the model to fall? It probably will not be discarded regardless of observation data because it is so deeply entrenched, and most funding by practitioners is predicated upon the model and its related implications. If observations continue to contradict aspects of the model, alternatives will continue to be considered as well as new ones proposed until the tide will eventually turn.

    At that time I expect that most of today’s die-hard adherents will have passed away.

    As Max Plank said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (the new “truth).”

    https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf (link to my related paper)

    2
    2
  15. Thanks for the great article, I really enjoyed reading it. I have some questions though, most of your arguments are based on the laws of physics as we know it. However these laws of physics are discovered, or invented on Earth itself. Wouldn’t it be possible for these laws to actually act differently in the outer space than it is on earth? I mean we only knew that moon has a different gravity on earth as when we observe them, not after Newton discovered a falling apple. Who knows how the universe works?
    P.S.: I’m not supporting Big Bang either.

    1
    0
    • Hi Harry, the laws of physics are constant, they never change. It would not be possible for the laws to act differently outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The moon does not have different gravity than Earth. What is has is a different atmosphere. This lack of atmosphere prevents people from being pushed down like they are on Earth which has as atmosphere miles high.

      3
      3
  16. Or like I often state: the inverse square law in relation to light expanding into the universe shows that when they measure this light expanding into the universe, it’s the light expanding, INTO the universe. But through the big bang theory, they misinterpret this information and say that it is the universe that is expanding because they measure light expanding into the universe.

    That’s like saying that since you can measure a baseball being hit out of the stadium at a baseball game that the measurement of the ball flying through the air proves that the universe is expanding….

    4
    0
  17. Wouldn’t it be better for science to admit that we don’t know, instead of teaching kids at schools about hypothetical explanations (not mentioning that ‘hypothetical’ part)?

    8
    1
  18. I think article is very good, only thing, entropy is mentioned in second Law of Thermodynamics (not third). And second; Second law of thermodynamics does allow entropy to decrease ! Remember, these laws talk only about isolated systems.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamicsGravitational systemsIn systems that do not require for their descriptions the general theory of relativity, bodies always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time. This is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important and the general theory of relativity is required. Such systems can spontaneously change towards uneven spread of mass and energy. This applies to the universe in large scale, and consequently it may be difficult or impossible to apply the second law to it.I hope you are not saying that stars and galaxies do not exist at all, because it is hard to apply second law of thermodynamics onto them?

    0
    0
    • You’re right about it being the second law not the third, fixed. However, entropy by definition means that things will always move toward disorder. Whether entropy itself is increasing or decreasing is irrelevant because entropy always means things are moving toward disorder. Sometimes there may be less entropy than other times, yes, but there will always be entropy, which means that everything will always move toward disorder, this is a law of the universe.

      A good analogy would be food spoilage. Yes, you can decrease the rate of entropy regarding food spoilage by freezing it, but you can’t ever reverse the entropy. For example, it doesn’t matter how cold you freeze food, it will never become *more* fresh, it will *always* become less fresh. Even if you could reach the theoretical absolute zero, it would only freeze entropy to a standstill, but could never reverse entropy. If you could freeze food to absolute zero, it would stop it from spoiling, but would never be able to reverse spoilage.

      Entropy can be slowed, but never reversed. The rate of entropy can decrease, but it can never reverse. Thus, the rate of entropy is irrelevant to the primary point, since the point is that entropy exists and always exists. Whether entropy is occurring faster or slower doesn’t change the fact that entropy is happening.

      2
      0
  19. I agree that the Big Bang theory has its flaws and is mostly based on assumptions, made up physics, and the like.

    4
    0
  20. Great presentation.
    Theorist never considered basic physics and how potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
    Motion never entered their calculus.

    5
    0
  21. Yes as up to today science and understanding of it sure can explain a lot of stuff and even prove it but the very existence of time space and gravity within the universe, trying scientifically to explain it is a huge and even impossible piece of work that could employ entire human generations. Or it could be so simple that we cannot see it yet! Science is all about the truth whatever that may be but theory not proven yet is only theory, nothing less and nothing more!

    We can get help in near future by AI artificial intelligence. The solutions of that problem may be closer than we believe today. It’s also possible that Newton’s Third Law of Thermodynamics stands, but we do not recognize some state of energy yet, there is a lot to explain out there so people help them self with theories and presumptions.

    We know for sure that space between galaxies is increasing and the universe is expanding at constant rate. We should rather stick to the proven facts rather than pushing non-proven theory as only true one. The nature of science is to question everything, as this pushes science forward and this is the very nature of science!

    There is a lot to explain out there, it seems to me like a never ending job! Great article, I only knew about a few of flaws regarding the Big Bang that were questioned by very researchers of Big Bang theory. We just do not understand the universe and we are at very beginning on that journey. A theory is only a theory until proven and there is a lot to prove out there! We will live and see!

    2
    0
  22. Thank you for being unbiased and supporting both sides of the arguments. I understand your beliefs, and it’s clear you have absolute proof that the scientific community is running a huge scam.

    2
    0
  23. Nice article! I agree it is very interesting how so many people believe this “Theory” with so much conviction, even trying to disprove god, yet is so far from a fact and has so many extreme and notable flaws.

    2
    0

Write a Comment



Welcome my friend, Helper Cat says you need to register for that! :)
Register