“These
"shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor
star,
and a
dusty galaxy – but they do”.
Bob Enyart
Experience should teach us that explosions, be they big or small, do
not create anything orderly. They destroy.
Explosions can destroy whole civilisations (e.g. Thera), can Krak-atoa,
wipe out cities (atomic), collapse skyscraper buildings, leave humans dismembered
all over battlefields.
‘Explosion’ was at least the beginning of the ‘Big Bang’ theory,
though scientists are now at pains to distance themselves from that inconvenient
image:
Lemaître started the idea that the universe began with an explosion.
He was also wrong about that. The universe did not explode. It expanded.
Explosions disrupt existing order, but the expansion of the universe was
orderly. Astronomers have photographed the universe as it was after a great
deal of expansion. Considerable order is still clearly visible, particularly
the order of uniformity or homogeneity.
[End of quote]
Bob Enyart has rejected the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the origins of the
universe, listing these reasons why: https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
* RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For descriptions and links to journal references, see
below.
- Mature
galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.4Bly
distant GN-z11)
- An
entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB
prediction
-
Observations show that spiral galaxies are missing millions of years of BB
predicted collisions
-
Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should
not exist
- A
trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements,
a total of nine billion years worth
- Galaxy
superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in
the alleged age of the cosmos
- A
missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed
search has implied simply never existed
- Missing
uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar
system formation theory wrong too
- It is
"philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the
universe has no center
-
Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun
missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
-
Supernova theory for the origin of heavy elements now widely rejected
- Missing
uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing
billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface
brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is
identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing
shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind
nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB
and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions.
See that we're #1.)
- These
"shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor
star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
- Fine
tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists
doubting the big bang.
[End of quote]