Did the Big Bang Really Happen? (Or was it just good for me?)
Here’s a question you don’t get asked every day:
Did the Big Bang happen? You know, the “Big Bang.”
No, no, I don’t mean the first time you had a decent sexual encounter.
I mean, “First there was silence on the face of the deep, and then “BOOM! WHAM! Ka-BANG! SHAZAAM!”
That “Big Bang.”
Today’s all-knowing, truth-seeking, empirically-tested Science says, “Yes, indeed! First there was nothing, then there was everything! So says Science!!”
Hold on…“First there was nothing? Zilch, zero, nulle parte, rien de tout? … and then, suddenly and all at once…everything?”
(click on any image to enlarge)
Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like Genesis? You know, the first book of the Hebrew and Christian Bible? Or like a whole lot of other creation stories?
First there was nothing, but the Deep, and then, BURP! There you go. Here we are!
(image – wikipedia)
BANG! Sayeth the Lord
I mean, you can even line ‘em up with each other, and not skip a beat!
(image credit: Cameron Slayden/ReasonsToBelieve)
And look, I’m not knocking religion, or spirituality, however you participate in it, or don’t. I’ve got my own sense of all of that, and it matters to me. But, that said, isn’t it the same story?
Do you know who invented the Big Bang theory?
Georges Lemaître! Yes, that Georges Lemaître! Exactly the one you were thinking of!
(No, me neither, but here he is):
(image – wikipedia)
Who was he? A 20th Century Belgian Priest, who wanted to line up today’s physics with yesterday’s Bible. I kid thee not.
In any case, I’m doing a lot of reading (always the first sign of trouble), and finding a whole lot worth reading on the topic. If you’re interested in looking at the basis in reality of our ‘scientific’ Genesis creation myth, give a click and a read on:
- Big Bang – Religion as Science?
- Wal Thorhill’s Holoscience.com
- Team Thunderbolts!
- Don Scott’s ElectricSky.com
Radio: Join me on "The Robert Scott Bell Show" Mon-Fri 12-2
Liam,
Click here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit
Even Creationists have valid criticisms of the “Big Bang” theory.
[Reply]
Nuggets of truth are, like the Sprit of the Universe, not the private property of any group of scientists, priests, or dictators.
With kind vregards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
[Reply]
I think it would be very much worth your while to look into string theory. Two excellent books are “The elegant universe” and “The fabric of the cosmos” By Brian Greene.
[Reply]
The article by Michael Rivero linked as “Big Bang – Religion as Science?’ contains a common misconception:
Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth’s shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus’ voyages). Nobody could explain the behavior of a Foucault’s Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning beneath it.
The medieval scholars of the Catholic Church, Aristotle, Plato, and Claudius Ptolemy all correctly understood the Earth to be a sphere and not flat. Aristotle, in particular, describes the Earth as a sphere about 8000 miles in diameter in his book On the Heavens (also known by its Latin title De Caelo). Claudius Ptolemy in his Almagest presents a detailed argument that the Earth is a sphere and ridicules those who believe it is flat. The geocentric theory of Claudius Ptolemy and the medieval scholars is that a spherical Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. The same basic theory is found in Aristotle’s On the Heavens and Plato’s Timaeus.
Both Ptolemy’s theory and Copernicus’s heliocentric theory used epicycles, another widely misunderstood point. Ptolemy’s theory as revised by medieval scholars was demonstrably more accurate than Copernicus’s theory.
Johannes Kepler eventually demonstrated that the traditional geocentric theory and the new heliocentric theory with epicycles were mathematically equivalent and were both giving incorrect predictions for the observed positions of the planet Mars (One can add yet more epicycles to Copernicus’s theory and reproduce the predictions of the revised Ptolemaic theory). Kepler was able to resolve the problem by deducing that Mars (and other planets) travelled in an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse. All of this is presented in Kepler’s book now known as New Astronomy (Nova Astronomia) published in 1609. It was Kepler who finally formulated a heliocentric theory that surpassed the traditional Ptolemaic theory in accuracy.
Kepler was a fascinating character who most definitely does not fit into the simplistic picture of science versus religion. He was an apparently devout Lutheran who was excommunicated by the Lutheran Church for his unorthodox religious views. He was a practicing astrologer and held a range of mystical views.
Sincerely,
John
[Reply]
Hi all,
Darren,
What will I find in Greene’s String Theory? Can you write me a summary? I’ve looked into it, but what should I be looking for, in your view?
John,
Thanks for the bit of history! But what does it say about the ‘big bang?’
Oliver,
I’m sure I agree! We as a species give up our critical thinking to the various priesthoods, and always have… but it’s ours to use, if we want it. I can also see by your webpage that you favor a ‘plasma’ model of the sun… At present, the accepted model for ‘how the sun works’ is a giant, continuous nuclear fusion explosion. Your model is very different – more of an ‘electrical’ model, if I have that right.
I’ll post about that soon, maybe you’ll come back and elucidate a bit?
thanks!
LS
[Reply]
Jonas,
Didn’t mean to skip you! I’ll have a look at the link you posted too, see what they say.
[Reply]
Who owns reality? Who gets to say what’s what?
I put the Big Bang theory in the same place I do for the Christian creation myth. They’re both dogmas. Go ahead and believe in them if you like.
Both of these religions seek to settle the issue of ‘where did we come from’. I don’t mind others believing in these things so much. I DO mind people trying to force their religious belief systems on others though.
[Reply]
Hello Liam,
My implicit point was that Rivero’s article should be taken with caution since it contains a common misconception that careful research would have revealed. Aristotle’s On the Heavens, Plato’s Timaeus, Kepler’s New Astronomy, and Ptolemy’s Almagest are all available in English translations so one can verify this by going to the original sources even if one cannot read Latin or Greek.
I would strongly recommend tracking down and looking at the primary data for the Big Bang, such as the red shift data, if you want to critique the theory. I know this can be tedious but with the Worldwide Web this sort of thing is getting easier. Web pages vary widely in quality and even printed secondary sources such as textbooks can be misleading (as you probably know). Many textbooks, popular science books, and other sources contain highly misleading and even inaccurate accounts of the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the solar system, such as the ones Rivero is apparently relying on.
Sincerely,
John
[Reply]
Hi John,
“The preliminary data for the Big Bang.” Well, as far as I can tell, it was an idea – one that happens to nearly exactly reproduce Biblical creation stories… (See LaMaitre above).
I’d say “redshift” is probably a secondary bit of data, applied to that initial idea, to give it some legs, no? So, let’s talk Red Shift!
What is it, how is it observed, where does it occur?
Is it a stable and reliable source of information (or data)? Does it contradict (or, as the scientists say, “falsify”) itself anywhere, at any time? If so, where and under what circumstances?
I’m looking into it. Post what you know, of course!
bests,
LS
[Reply]
Hi Liam,
perhaps you should take a look at Stephen Hawkins “A brief history of time” on the matter. It’s a little bit dry but very insightful for laymen…
[Reply]
Hi Stefan,
sure, I know the book by title and reputation, and will peruse it..
But does it change the fact that the Big Bang looks like a religious artifact more than an observed, observable, reproducible, testable Natural phenomenon?
[Reply]
The Big Bang and Red Shift are both Dogma and inaccurate science.
Basically the Big Bang was allowed to be made as fact as the Church supported the idea, since the obvious question it generates is: “Well, if there was nothing and then the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang happen?” And religion always answers…”God.” So it fits nicely.
The problem is, String theory and other theories related to Dark Matter and Dark Energy suggest now that the universe we live in, is actually made up of a membrane. Yes, just like a membrane inside your body. Like the ones in your nose that filter out dust particles, membranes are somewhat solid, but some stuff can filter through them. So one theory of what is called “Brane theory” is that much of the energy and matter in our universe has been pulled in, or pushed in through the membrane.
Michael Rivero, who was named above, is a great guy. Publishes a website devoted primarily to alternative views of “official news”. What some would call conspiracy theories. But he also has a background of working with NASA, so his math and science skills are very strong and he understand it all, so his site often has news on Space technology and things like the Mars Rover and so on. Mike also knows that the religion based on the Bible and the story of creation has a lot of flaws in it. And that over the centuries, religion has destroyed many scientists who discovered different answers to our origins than the Bible or priests gave. Such is the power of religion.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are little understood. They are still mostly based in theory instead of fact because we have no means to directly see either. But to simply explain them, you have to understand that when you look up in the sky and see a bunch of stars and galaxies (yes, some of those stars are actually galaxies as big or bigger than our own Milky Way), all of those stars, and the planets around them and the energy put off by those stars, those galaxies and our own Sun and our own planets…Only make up about 5% of the universe. So where’s the other 95%? Well, we can’t see it. It’s invisible, hence the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
It is believed that Dark Energy works much like Gravity. Gravity attracts objects and Dark Energy is believed to both attract and push away having more of a rubber band effect. The farther matter moves away, the strong the pull becomes to drag it back. But, as it gets closer, there is a strong push to separate it. So one theory now is that there was not a Big Bang. Our universe is not expanding forever and ever, but is in fact expanding and then contracting over and over.
The Red Shift is basically a method developed I think back in the 50′s, that enables scientists to know how far an object is from Earth based on how light passes through or around it. Decades ago, scientists believed that Cosmic Radiation was everywhere, in equal amounts, because radio telescopes were detecting it everywhere equally, thus this reinforced the concept that it all arrived from one central location, the Big Bang. Problem is, they have found empty spots and unequal radiation, which kills this theory of an even spread. If it is not even, it doesn’t exist everywhere. This, it does not support the Big Bang theory.
The same became true for Red Shifts. And you have to understand the importance of Red Shifts to science. Much like archaeologists use Carbon Dating to tell how old something is, it’s great if it always works. And for astronomers, knowing how far something is with accuracy, allows them to know how large the universe is. If you say the universe is 15 billion years old because you have seen galaxies or stars 15 billion light years away, and you based this distance on Red Shift…What happens when you find Red Shift is wrong a lot of the time?
One problem Mike Rivero points out is that astronomers have said that they have detected a galaxy that existed 750,000,000 years after the Big Bang at a distance farther than it could have traveled if the Speed of Light is the Speed Limit of the universe. You cannot have objects be 25 billion light years away if the universe is only 15 billion years old, because then you have to explain how it moved so far? Also, if we are seeing an object as it was 13 billion years ago, today, and the universe is expanding, that means that object has had 13 billion years more to have traveled somewhere else, father away. And if that object is supposed to be moving away from us, because of the Big Bang, it is therefore 26 billion light years away. This is a problem. One not often discussed.
The scientists who tell us what happened .0000000017 nanoseconds after the Big Bang, and then what happened .00000083 nanoseconds after the Big Bang, and the way the physics and so on worked at those moments, leave out some very interesting things. Gravity for one. But also, the Speed of Light was either the maximum speed allowed then, or it wasn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
The reason Gravity is interesting, is that the Big Bang is described as being a “singularity”. Which is basically saying a Black Hole. A whole bunch of energy in one itty bitty little point of space, that then went BOOM! The moment it existed, Gravity had to exist too. Can’t have mass without Gravity. So you have to then imagine that the gravity we normally think of as existing between us and the Earth, us and rocks, us and trees, us and everything else, as well as from rock to tree, tree to the moon….Gravity is everywhere. Like Yoda said about the Force, it is everywhere, it binds us. Well, if you had only one point in space where all energy and matter existed, Gravity would have to be everywhere else. And it would be pulling on that singularity from every possible direction, all at once. So Gravity might have torn the singularity apart, creating the Big Bang.
This is also one of the reasons why they try and create a theory of everything. Also known as the Grand Unification Theory. Because Einsteins theories work great with little stuff like atoms, quarks, masons, etc. But Newton dealt with the big stuff like planets, gravity, universes. And the two don’t match up. The rules for one, don’t apply to the other. So you have two theories that don’t work together being used to come up with theories that use both Einstein and Newton to answer. And they are all just that. Theories. In theory, God exists. No conclusive proof either way. The Big Bang made sense for decades. Now it is falling apart. But like religion, science doesn’t like to be wrong either. So it is hard to make new models that people are willing to accept as the old models prove wrong or inaccurate.
Hope this explains a little.
[Reply]
Bill,
Did you write all of that just for a blog comment? Well, wow. That’s an essay…
I quote:
Better explanation: Dark matter and dark energy don’t exist. They’re an invention – as you say – intended to explain the failed math of the Big Bang theory.
There is no ‘missing matter.’ What you see is what’s there.
Now, the reason people decided that there must be ‘missing matter’ is because they believe that Isaac Newton predicted everything, and forever. That is, that Newton’s gravity is the only ‘force’ active in the universe. That space is, otherwise, dead, inert, and neutral, or inactive.
But, space is not inactive. It is full of energy, force, power, and material. The material is matter of all sorts, given an electric charge – and called Plasma.
Plasma is electric, it is moldable, it is fire-able, it is shoot-able, it pulls, it pushes, it squeezes, it explodes, it burns bright and hotter than – well, as hot as the sun (which is plasma). It responds in predictable ways and patterns to magnetic fields – which course through space.
Dark matter is a dark spot in the imagination, left over from a worldview mapped artificially and against rational observation, to a 19th Century understanding of one force – gravity.
Consider it…and please – See links and read in abundance, before coming back with argument.
http://www.holoscience.com/
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma-Universe.com
Plaasssma. A living, energetic material. The blood, and circulatory system of the universe.
Not dark, not invisible, but right in front of our eyes.
[Reply]
I agree that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just more theories. I think a problem science has is that it feels it needs explanations that keep a religion happy. Rather than just find truths.
One thing I always joked about with people, and this is true, is that back around the turn of the century in 1900, it was “proven” that going faster than 60mph in an open air automobile would tear the skin from peoples faces. They proved this with mathematics, the same math Einstein used for his theories.
It wasn’t much later when it was “proven” that traveling faster than the speed of sound in an aircraft was impossible, that you would hit an invisible barrier in space known as a sound wall. They proved this using the same math and physics Einstein used, that Newton helped create.
And Einstein says that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. He proved this using the same math and physics they proved everything else with.
This just goes to show that you can make the end result anything you want it to be, especially if you have an ending already in mind. If a Big Bang is what you are looking for, and its existence solves your problems, you will find it.
One problem I had with explanations about Dark Energy was that it seemed to fit so nicely in to everything they needed it to. Dark Energy and Dark Matter so conveniently explain away all the problems the Big Bang and other theories have.
As humans, who accept that time exists, we need everything to have a beginning and an ending or we just can’t grasp it. People who have no problems saying God must have created the Big Bang and everything else, because God came first, can’t accept that someone might ask…well, where did God come from? What was before God? God, like Dark Energy, Dark Matter and all the other theories, is the perfect answer, requiring no real proof. It’s funny, to me anyway, that people would put in Faith in something, such as a God or a theory, and need no proof. Don’t have to see God, don’t have to see Dark Matter, don’t have to do anything to really prove anything. As long as whatever theory doesn’t disrupt things too much, people are fine with it.
Science has turned in to religion as well. The lab coat has replaced the priestly robes. In the past, only priests could read the ancient texts, translate them for the masses. Today, with all the endless new theories and catch phrases, only scientists can translate it all to the commoner. It has to be hard to understand with concepts too diificult to contemplate to keep it going. If everyone could understand, it would lose its luster and grandeur.
You tap in to a concept I have considered as well. A living source of energy. Call it plasma or whatever you like, but a living source of energy, able to grow and multiply, possessing certain qualities, explains far more than does all the other theories. And this energy likely has male and female qualities as well. Just as we see in all other aspects of life.
Mainstream Science is not really much different from Mainstream Religion or Mainstream Media. All are concerned about creating stories that will be accepted by all, so everyone will continue to listen and believe and give. Truth tends to get in the way.
[Reply]
Thanks Bill,
wonderful post – some nice philosophical analysis. I tend to agree with you on all points, especially:
Yes, indeed: If you start with the theory, and seek to shape the facts to it, you’ll spend a long time convincing yourself that you’re on the right track…
[Reply]
….and just as much time and energy convincing others to go along with it.
[Reply]
…..Absolutely!
If Truth is how one wishes to see it, is there a point in fighting over it, and striving to find the middle ground?
Shouldn’t we be seeking the Absolute truth instead, which unfortunately is outside the realm of current day Science?
[Reply]
Not fighting over it, but fighting for it. Current day science has all the tools it needs to pursue truth, but there are so many obstacles as there have been since the Age of Reason.
Just as I mentioned above how science is a religion now, where only the top scientists get to tell others what is truth and what to believe, they too are compelled to adjust the truth to fit what people will accept. And those people they have to please are the religious people.
Consider something as simple as zoology. The Bible says that Noah built an Ark and aboard it he brought everything in pairs, all living creatures two by two. Then consider how many species of spiders there are. More than a hundred thousand. We can leave out the birds who probably didn’t need a ride on a boat to weather a storm, but Noah obviously could not have gathered two of everything, let alone just two of everything in his part of the world. But back then, when the Bible was written, people didn’t know a lot about the world. Not dumb, just not educated enough. So they wrote things that to them made sense. One man under God’s direction, gathering up two of everything. The idea that there were countless millions of species was beyond them or the notion that it would all fit on a large wooden boat. Just as today, science has terms dealing with unbelievably large and small things that the average person doesn’t question because it’s a lot to grasp.
God said, “Let there be light” and Chuck Norris replied, “Say please…” A funny line, but a lot of people put about as much faith in Chuck Norris as they do in anything else. If Chuck Norris told some school kids how the universe was formed, those kids would eat it up. And if parents were at hand, most would assume he was right and not question it either.
But seeking truth is worth the time and effort. Our current science system is very religious. What Albert Einstein did back around 1910 can’t happen today. No clerk working in a patent office can get a paper like his published today. You have to have peer-recognized credibility, you have to be well published, your ideas have to already be acceptable. Then you might be able to publish a new idea about truth in a journal somewhere. Consider the list of big names. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Steven Hawking. That’s how many people were allowed to become famous. Over hundreds of years. Basically one every century. And that is because those ideas had to be acceptable to others. They had to pass a level of scrutiny that had nothing to do with truth. There is a sort of “security clearance” required. Lots of other voices have to help decide whether the new idea will be allowed and whether it works with the current belief system. And those listed above are like Saints. You cannot speak ill of them or their already accepted theories. To say Einstein was wrong about the Speed of Light is heresy.
When you start to look at Organized Religion in the same way as Organized Science, you start to see the pattern. Both are connected to one another. Separating them would allow truth to come forward, except you can’t separate them now. Too late. The current system of Organized Science rewards certain people and places them in to power, making them the gateway to knowledge. Just like a Pope, Cardinal or any other high level religious figure. And such people don’t relinquish power easily if at all. The only fight going on is the fight to keep the system alive and that requires keeping the truth under control. No idea put forward will be allowed to change anything about the core beliefs. But they do allow people to try.
Consider the quest to find other planets that can sustain life or have life on them. Plenty of funding for those. But what happens when they say they really have found one? Not a big deal. But saying they have found life on another planet is a much, much different situation. That would require a lot of filtering to make sure the current belief system about God and the creation of the universe is not changed too much. There are people to this day who literally believe there is a giant man named Atlas holding up the Earth on his shoulders. And that everything said to the contrary is propaganda. So not only do some try and shield us from the truth, others want to be shielded. They like the current system of beliefs just fine.
[Reply]