Home   Contact   LinksBookmark this site   
 
 

   Plasma

   The Electric Universe

   Science and Philosophy
        What is science?
        Skepticism
        The Big Bang
        Mathematics

   Ancient Testimony

   Cutting Edge

   The Way Forward

   Latest News

   Video

 
Science and Ideology  
   
The Big Bang  
   
Although The BBT (Big Bang Theory) can claim to be the dominant cosmology just now, many increasingly regard it as little more than ideology. There are no lack of web resources devoted to its demise, so, rather than going over too much old ground, below is a summary of some of its more controversial claims. "Plasma is for everyone." Anthony Peratt
   
The CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background)  
   

Big Bang supporters are fond of claiming CMB radiation as conclusive evidence for their theory, but these claims begin to look somewhat revisionist in the light of the following facts.

The background temperature of space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, based on a universe without expansion, and prior to the discovery of the CMB. Their predictions were far more accurate than models based on the Big Bang.

In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, accidentally discovered the CMB using a small horn antenna. This discovery was quickly seized upon by Big Bang supporters and they were later awarded the Nobel Prize!

Here is an excellent paper (PDF) that outlines the real history of The CMB

 "It is important to understand that while a theory may permit observations, those observations do not necessarily verify the theory." Anon
   
Light element abundances  
   
Light element abundances were not correctly predicted by the Big Bang, contrary to popular myth. They are yet another example of retrodictions or retro-fitting.  
   
The Red shift controversy  
   

No discussion of the BBT seems complete without mentioning Halton Arp, who was an outstanding pupil of Edwin Hubble. His book, The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, details many Redshift anomalies.

Redshift refers to the fact that light is shifted into the red (longer wavelength) end of the spectrum when it is emitted from a source which is moving away from the observer. This is known as the Doppler effect. Arp has discovered a number of astronomical objects that seem to be interacting or related in some way, and yet have very different red shifts. This calls into doubt the Doppler interpretation, and therefore the very idea that the universe is expanding. Big Bangers simply choose to close their eyes to this blasphemy.

Arp is often described as the modern day Galileo because he was denied observational time at a number of US observatories, and moved to work at The Max Planck institute in Germany.

www.haltonarp.com  Halton Arp: A Modern Day Galileo

  Halton Arp
   
The 'Fingers of God'  
   

If redshift is a measure of distance, as astronomers claim, this gives rise to a peculiar problem. When the galaxies outside our own are plotted, they all appear to point directly at the earth. Copernicus, of course, knew that the Earth was not the centre of everything, but the redshift-as-distance interpretation effectively takes us back to the dogma of the early church. The 'Fingers of God' problem, therefore, provides further proof that the doppler interpretation favoured by Big Bangers is wrong. The universe is not expanding. Unfortunately, Big Bangers also tend to display a religious devotion to their theory, and prefer to ignore this problem.

 "Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion." Hannes Alfven
   
The Hubble Constant  
   

Edwin Hubble, 1889-1953, is famous for confirming the existence of galaxies outside the Milky Way, and the constant of proportionality between the 'apparent' recessional velocity of galaxies and their distance is called Hubble's constant, although some have described it as the least constant of all constants, and refer to it as the Hubble 'Mostly Constant'.

Hubble himself didn't agree that Red shifts were Doppler (see his book 'The Observational Approach to Cosmology'), but his warnings went unheeded. He pointed out several difficulties with this interpretation, not the least of which involved complex problems in relation to photons. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with the necessary brightness correction, and also believed that a more simple -- and therefore preferable -- non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation.

  Edwin Hubble
   
Dark Matter and Dark Energy  
   

The BBT relies on the existence of non-baryonic or Dark Matter to resolve glaring contradictions with observation. Yet data has accumulated that dark matter is not so much invisible as non-existent. Despite almost 30years of extensive searching, it is yet to be found, and the same goes for its partner in crime, Dark Energy.

Anthony Perratt contends that electrromagnetic forces can be shown to be several orders of magnitude greater than gravitational forces, especially in certain types of plasma, and also that electromagnetic forces can have a longer range. On the largest scales, evidence that plasmas exhibit external forces on physical objects such as galaxies is the same as that which has lead standard model researchers to postulate dark matter and dark energy.

 "We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfven
   
Religious Motivations  
   

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth devised to explain creation:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

 

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams

   
Lemaitre is famous for his description of the beginning of the universe as 'A Day without Yesterday' in reference to the creation account in Genesis.  
   
George Gamow, another famous Big Bang proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as 'Divine Creation Curves', and sent a copy of his book 'The Creation of the Universe' to the then Pope. Mind you, even the pope favoured an oscillating model of the Universe in which the Big Bang was not a literal beginning.  
   
General Relativity   
   

Albert Einstein favoured some form of Steady State model of the universe, but there was a problem. His famous theory, General Relativity, didn't seem to work out for a SS universe. A catholic priest and mathematician came to his rescue with the Big Bang expanding universe model (see above), but Einstein had reservations (see quote, right).

To be fair to Einstein, it should be noted that he was never satisfied with his own theories and that he was modest enough to admit as much. He was aware that GR needed tieing back down to reality, but to this day GR and Quantum Mechanics remain incompatible. Unfortunately it was others who ran with his ideas, although this fact is rarely discussed, and today we see cosmology in crisis!

 "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein
   
The Conservation of Energy  
   

According to the Big Bang there was nothing in the beginning, which exploded! The trouble with this is that Nothing does Not Exist!

In other words, The BBT violates one of the best-tested laws of physics -- the conservation of energy and matter, since it produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness, and to ignore this basic law would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

BB supporters dance around this issue by claiming that the initial rapid expansion (or explosion, or whatever they like to call it from one moment to the next) created the laws of physics which we now observe. A classic case of circular reasoning, no less.

 "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett
   
Black Holes tear logic apart  
   

Astronomers require invisible, super-compressed matter at the centre of galaxies because without Black Holes gravitational equations fail to account for the observed movement and compact energetic activity. But charged plasma achieves such effects routinely and without recourse to abstract math. See the Plasma Focus explanation on the Techncal II page of this site. Additionally, plasma scientists can now replicate the evolution of galactic structures both experimentally and in computer simulations without resorting to this popular and problematic fiction.

The requirement for Black Holes arises from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects. Because gravity is a near infinitely weak force, almost infinite amounts of mass are required. Mainstream theories hope that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, will collapse under its own gravity to a single point. Not even light can escape, which conveniently accounts for the fact that BHs cannot be observed. However, these infinite forces require a finite limit in order that they don't swallow everything (that would be greedy)! These relativistic boundaries (contradictions?) are referred to as Event Horizons.

Einstein, however, didn't believe in black holes, although some argue that he failed to clearly articulate his reasons why.

 "Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell
   
Nebular Hypothesis  
   
According to this hypothesis, the planets and stars eventually accreted from the giant dust cloud produced by the Big Bang. It is also assumed that the planets have occupied more-or-less steady and unchanging orbits ever since, and that gravity and inertia are the sole agents responsible. There is no direct evidence or observation to support these conclusions, however. They remain no more than guesswork, albeit guesswork that has solidified into doctrine. "The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill
   
Additional Resources  Eric Lerner
  

Eric Lerner is a Plasma Cosmologist noted for his criticism of the Big Bang. He wrote 'The Big Bang Never Happened', which can be ordered online from the link below. He is currently Executive Director of the Focus Fusion Society, and President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in New Jersey.

www.bigbangneverhappened.org

"The observers come in now with the belief that we live in a Big Bang Universe, and therefore their ways of understanding are tailored to that... They don't come in with the possibility that there are alternatives... There is a complete lack of balance in the way observational programs and funding are conducted..." Geoffrey Burbridge, Theoretical Astrophysicist

 
   
In the eye of the beholder  
   

Fred Hoyle was the first to use the term 'Big Bang'. He did so disparagingly, but by way of irony it stuck. The term turned out to have a simple and memorable elegance.

When Einstein met the catholic priest and mathematician Georges Lemaitre in 1933, he said: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

So it seems that the big bang does have some merit after all. Artistic merit.

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." Einstein