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 an infinitely hot and dense region, much smaller than an atom. Can this be described as anything but absurd? There are scientists who don’t have a problem with describing our universe, or some aspect of it, as being absurd. Well, there was a time when the observed paths of the planets, with their temporary apparent retrograde motions, seemed to be quite absurd. This visual absurdity 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? This is the premise that I work with: We will always have a choice between either an absurd Nature, or peoples' view of Nature being absurd. My study of the history of science has taught me that Nature is never absurd, but peoples' ideas about Nature often are.
Besides the absurdity of the whole thing, it is my view that 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.
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 threat to those who hold to a view of a special creation event whether it is 6,000 years ago or 13,000,000,000 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 1/2 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, on the largest scale, appears to be roughly homogeneous * 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.
For comments or criticisms please contact:Vincent Sauvé at
ON THE SUBJECT OF REDSHIFTSThis section will feature 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.’ ”Does the mass, and hence, the gravity of the universe affect light enough to account for the cosmological redshift? Charles Weber has a web page devoted to this question. He concludes that it does. I suspect that he is correct.
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.) 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:
So as to keep this page from getting too long with links, additional pages of mine and more links to other sites are now going to be on a separate Links Page . Please go there to find new material.
Letter to Mercury, magazine of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific regarding a 2002 article "A universe from Nothing" by Alex Filippenko
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 The Expanding Universe
Letter to Skeptical Inquirer regarding the fantastic nature of BB cosmology
Interested in Einstein's relativity theory? See my paper:
Why Time is Absolute, and Relative, But Never Universal
Suggested Links:
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
Did the Universe Have a Beginning? by Tom Van Flandern
Janus-Faced Cosmology by Robert L. Oldershaw
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death and
A New Non-Doppler Redshift by Paul MarmetThe Real Issue: Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang and God
by Henry "Fritz" Schaefer IIICosmology and the Big Bang by David Pratt
(I do not endorse the authors theosophy comments. Otherwise, the article is a nice intro. to BB cosmology.)The Big Bang Myth by Keith Stein
This new editing was done July 1, 2009.The first four lines of the heading use the typeface Centaur. The rest of the text uses OldTypefaces. Most other changes were corrections to grammar.
In this editing I brought in the introduction page which used to be linked from this page. Part of my motivation for the changes are 1. I am unemployed at this time and have some extra time on my hands. 2. Over the years this web page has gone from being placed at the top on Google searches on "Big Bang" to being almost no where to be found when using those key words. I can not even find it at all using Microsoft's new search engine Bing. The best thoughts I have come up with is that when I first posted this web page everything was new and new links were being added all the time. This web page is old now and without hardly any changes over recent years I suspect this page has suffered in the rankings of search engine algorithms. Perhaps these minor changes will improve the ranking.