View Full Version : There was no Big Bang

07-19-2012, 09:23 AM
There was no Big Bang. This is another thread that will drive RAM insane :D :





Big Bang Never Happened

In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.

This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.

What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances
Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

God Creation Amazes Me. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-19-2012, 09:51 AM
There was no Big Bang. This is another thread that will drive RAM insane :D :

What are you talking about? Your insanity is not contagious! It doesn't drive me insane at all. But it does make me wonder what motivates you to post things you don't understand.

Richard Amiel McGough
07-19-2012, 10:36 AM
There was no Big Bang. This is another thread that will drive RAM insane :D :

Speaking of insanity ... If there was no Big Bang then the common Christian argument that the Big Bang confirms Genesis 1:1 is false!

Ha! You really shot yourself in the foot this time Cheow. When are you going to start reading the articles before you post them?

Here's a very interesting review (http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bang-Never-Happened/product-reviews/067974049X/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0) of the book from Amazon:

"The Big Bang Never Happened" (TBBNH) is an object lesson in how not to engage in the scientific method. Instead of proposing a testable hypothesis and objectively observing whether experimental data support the hypothesis, TBBNH promotes a belief system in the guise of a scientific theory and sets out to prove the doctrine. This presumptive method knows no bounds as to what strategies can be used to discredit the competition, relying on false inferences, misrepresentations, and strawman arguments as it capitalizes on untenable conclusions. The premise of the bangless hypothesis is borrowed from Hans Alfvén's plasma theory, a model that coherently explains such phenomena as the behavior of ionized gases in stars. But the same mechanisms that manipulate matter cannot provide a means for creating matter. Granted, at the time TBBNH was first published in 1991, the Big Bang theory was beset with a few as-yet-unresolved problems, just as any evolving theory would be. But the former "weaknesses" of the Big Bang that TBBNH uses as cannon fodder no longer exist, and the book now reads as though a great shot had been fired that was heard around the world by eager naysayers, except the cannon was only shooting blanks. We observe a paranoid view of the "scientific priesthood" very early on in TBBNH, as though the entire astronomic community is involved in a vast right-wing conspiracy that must be exposed: "This new entanglement of science, authority, and faith, this attempted Scienific Counterrevolution, is dangerous to the whole scientific enterprise. If the wildest theoretical claims are accepted on the word of scientific authority alone, the link with observation is broken. And if appeals to authority extend to Scripture, if one accepts that proof of the Big Bang is proof of one variety of Judeo-Christian doctrine, then attacks on this scientific theory become heresy, as Galileo's attacks on Ptolemy were deemed four hundred years ago. This is a return to a cosmology built on faith, not observation . . . ." (xxi-xxii) We later discern that TBBNH is not so much obsessed with the way that the scientists are looking into the theological implications of the scientific evidence, but that they are appealing to the "wrong" religious worldview. TBBNH wants the evidence to ratify an infinite, eternal universe that pulsates through repetitive cycles of birth, decay, and rebirth (a.k.a. Hindu cosmology), not a universe that began from nothing and is expanding as a finite matter-time-space continuum. How dare the scientific priesthood steer us into a theistic paradigm! And isn't it ironic that the young earth creationists are also screaming bloody murder because the "godless" scientific establishment is steering us away from a theistic paradigm. (Go figure!) The negative criticisms that TBBNH provides to "debunk" the Big Bang are flawed, and models that reflect these flaws were available and were backed up by direct observation even back in 1991. The major "criticisms," all interdependent, include: 1) that the existence of the "Great Wall" of galaxy clusters is said to have taken too long to form from the Big Bang; 2) that observations indicate no dark matter, as required by the Big Bang; and 3) that the cosmic microwave background spectrum is too close to that of a perfect blackbody. These "crises" were resolvable with predictive models that were later confirmed with the COBE findings in 1992 and subsequently. Furthermore, the alternative explanations that TBBNH provides for the redshift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (helium, lithium, and deuterium) are plagued by mathematical errors and observational data to the contrary. Recent findings continue to affirm the Big Bang and tend to cause more headaches for TBBNH (e.g., Yuri I. Izotov, et al, "Helium Abundance in the Most Metal-Deficient Blue Compact Galaxies;" Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 527 [1999], pp. 757-777). As more evidence continues to pour in that bolsters the hot, open Big Bang scenario and refutes all other cosmological models, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain enough legroom for any other viable theory. On a final teleological note (in light of the extent to which the book's latter chapters wax philosophic), TBBNH tries hard to blame the "invention" of the Big Bang on Lemaître's "need to reconcile his physics with the Church's doctrine of creation ex nihilo" (214), to quote Alfvén. Such was the precursor to this whole Big Noise debacle, as TBBNH sees it, allowing bad religion to get in the way of good science. Indeed, TBBNH dogmatically asserts that "the doctrine of creation ex nihilo did not become Christian doctrine until the Middle Ages" (390). But perhaps TBBNH should not comment when it knows not whereof it speaks: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

07-19-2012, 07:05 PM
What made the big bang go bang?
something existed before the big bang ,otherwise there would have been silence.:yo:

Richard Amiel McGough
07-19-2012, 08:01 PM
What made the big bang go bang?
something existed before the big bang ,otherwise there would have been silence.:yo:
Yep. I have never seen any reason to think that this universe is not embedded in a larger universe that gave "birth" to it. So that "larger universe" would be the "something" that existed before the Big Bang.

And while on this topic, it is interesting to note that most people are confused about God as "existing." God doesn't "exist" as one thing amongst all other things. To understand this, think of a day dream. All the characters in your dream "exist" relative to each other, but when you wake up they are all gone but you remain. God is probably like that. It may not be correct to say God "exists" even if God is real.

07-20-2012, 01:32 AM
Yep. I have never seen any reason to think that this universe is not embedded in a larger universe that gave "birth" to it.

I wonder if that larger universe is asking the same questions that we are regarding origins.:winking0071:

Its quite spectacular what has has been born.

07-20-2012, 04:03 AM
I wonder if that larger universe is asking the same questions that we are regarding origins.:winking0071:

Its quite spectacular what has has been born.

What banged?

The word, since "in the beginning was the word"

In banging it remained the same, since the word is God = eternal.

In the same must be also "that larger universe".

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2012, 09:44 AM
I wonder if that larger universe is asking the same questions that we are regarding origins.:winking0071:

Its quite spectacular what has has been born.

Ultimate questions can only be answered by "ultimate answers" - that is, something that is an end in itself.

The "larger universe" could be just the underlying laws of physics that give rise to manifested universes like ours. There is no need to posit a lager universe with sentient beings like ourselves who ask questions.

I am still inclined towards the idea that consciousness is the ground of being because I can imagine matter as arising from consciousness in the same way as any other object of consciousness (ideas), but I cannot imagine consciousness as arising from matter since matter is an object whereas consciousness is a subject.

How does an object become a subject?

Of course, the whole Matter/Mind duality might just be two sides of a single coin.

07-21-2012, 02:24 AM
Another refutation of the Big Bang. In Genesis 1, there is no indication of the Big Bang and neither did God said that He created the WHOLE UNIVERSE or "all the stars". I take it to mean He made the MIlky Way. I know what RAM is gioing to say.....his usual old-fashioned rhetorics and name calling.

Genesis1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

Astronomers Spot Ancient Spiral Galaxy From an Era When Spirals Should Not Exist By Rebecca Boyle
Posted 07.18.2012 at 2:40 pm 6 Comments

Earliest Spiral Galaxy An artist’s rendering shows galaxy BX442 and its companion dwarf galaxy, upper left. Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics/Joe Bergeron
Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have stumbled on a rare and surprising find: A very distant spiral galaxy, swirling billions of light years away, which formed at a time when such spiral galaxies were thought to be nonexistent. Researchers say it’s an astounding discovery — partly because it raises some questions about prevailing theories of galaxy formation.

Understanding galaxy evolution is a central part of determining the early history and future fate of the universe. Astronomers want to understand the physics that trigger vast amounts of stars to clump into galaxies, and that cause those galaxies to organize into clusters. The distant relics of early galaxies has helped solidify some of these theories, but this galaxy, known as BX442, is strange.

Related Articles
A Spiraling Milky Way Look-Alike Shows What We Must Look Like From Extragalactic Space
Video: The Milky Way and Andromeda Crash Together
A Star System 12.9 Billion Light Years Away is the New Most Distant Galaxy

Science, Rebecca Boyle, galaxies, Galaxy evolution, galaxy formation, hubble space telescope, redshift, spiral galaxies, universal expansionMost ancient galaxies — meaning very far away galaxies whose light left them billions of years ago, in the early days of the universe — are clumpy, irregular globs, not beautiful symmetric spirals or ellipses. This is because they moved around too quickly, which favors the formation of blob-like structures instead.

“The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks,” Alice Shapley, a UCLA associate professor of physics and astronomy, and co-author of the new study, said in a statement. “Our first thought was, why is this one so different, and so beautiful?”

Shapley and colleagues spotted it while conducting a Hubble survey of about 300 very distant galaxies. Intrigued, they went to the W.M. Keck Observatory and checked it out with a special spectrograph. The instrument allowed them to look at thousands of locations in and around the galaxy, confirming that it is indeed a self-contained rotating spiral.

This was a key observation, because other putative early spirals could be a trick of the lens, and may be actually more than one galaxy merging together or something that just happened to line up from our point of view. “What we found when we took the spectral image of this galaxy is that the spiral arms do belong to this galaxy,” Shapley said. “It wasn't an illusion. We were blown away.”

Why so surprised? After all, these “grand design” spiral galaxies are common in our cosmic neighborhood — the Milky Way is one, and so is Andromeda. The answer is that earlier galaxies almost universally have different structures, making this one an anomaly. Of the 306 galaxies in the Hubble survey, each of them around the same distance away, this is the only one with a spiral structure.

It is very large and thick, which may have something to do with the spiral formation. Or it could be the result of a collision with another system, which is at the upper left in the image at the top of the page. That might explain how this galaxy formed: You just need the right recipe, and it needs to be spotted at exactly the right moment.

“Not only must a galaxy be sufficiently massive to have stabilized the formation of an extended disk, but this disk must then be perturbed by a merging satellite sufficiently massive and properly oriented to excite an observable grand-design spiral pattern,” Shapley and her co-authors write.

Giod Blessed Our Milky Way. :pray:

07-21-2012, 02:27 AM
What made the big bang go bang?
something existed before the big bang ,otherwise there would have been silence.:yo:

Absolute silence doesn't exist, because there is always your heart that beats and your breath that goes.

It even shows the 1:4 ratio that structures the universe, the inner meaning of the word that was in the beginning.

one breath - four heartbeats.

one+heartbeat+four+breath (http://books.google.nl/books?id=r7nnAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=one+heartbeat+four+breath&source=bl&ots=VMLQ7mg_n_&sig=UcOGDb1mFCDbBbfZ4LHU7SYkXPY&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=_2wKUKyaJIa00QXM66DHCg&ved=0CFUQ6AEwAQ)

One, two, three, four,
Four paces and the bars.
One, two, three, four,
four paces and the cage.
One pace, one heartbeat,
One pace, one heartbeat,
One pace, one heartbeat,
Four paces, one breath,
Four paces, one breath.

One breath, one life.
One cage, one life,
One cage, one death.
One breath, one life,
One cage, one death.

Hebrew "alef" in fact is the outgoing breath, blocked by the second letter "bet", until it explodes in Big Bang.

The written letter "alef" shows two letters "yud", seperated and in the same time combined by the "vav" - thus being an expression of God's name 10+6+10 = 26.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCg5IxjGgdM2TcKUw85c046nb_MiCHd Ihjnawu8hVY7vYF1SQiaw

Four = "dalet", gematria 434, coinciding the 434 words with which the first chapter of Hebrew Genesis is written.

"Alef" and "dalet" together forming the word אֵד (in Genesis 2:6), the structuring principle of the universe.

Note that pace = Hebrew "pa'am" ,to be found in Genesis 2:23, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי, "This one this time bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", and also in Genesis 29:35, הַפַּעַם אוֹדֶה אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה , "hapa'am odeh et hashem", "this time I will confess to the Lord". It is eschatological

10-05-2012, 05:05 PM
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3

For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. Psalm 33:9

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17

Richard Amiel McGough
10-05-2012, 05:13 PM
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3

For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. Psalm 33:9

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17

When I was a Christian, I used to call faith a "mode of knowing" but now I think that is irrational. It means nothing because believers come to different conclusions. And besides, no one ever came to real knowledge about cosmology through "faith." All faith does is confirm your beliefs. But how do you know if your beliefs correspond to reality? That takes science. Science is knowing. Faith is just believing what you've been told.