‘Big Bang’ really more of a fizzer?

 

 

 

“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:

http://www.originsquest.org/expansion-not-a-ldquobig-bangrdquo-explosion.html

 

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]

 

Creationist John Hartnett, writing in Creation 37(3):48–51 (July 2015), is of a similar mind:

https://creation.com/big-bang-beliefs-busted

 

Big bang beliefs: busted

by John Hartnett

 

The commonly accepted big bang model supposedly determines the history of the universe precisely (see Figure 1). Yet to do so, it is filled with unprovable fudge factors. That may sound like an exaggerated claim, but it seems to be the state of cosmology today.

 

This situation has come about because the unverifiable starting assumptions are inherently wrong! Some brave physicists have had the temerity to challenge the ruling paradigm—the standard big bang ΛCDM inflation cosmology.¹ One of those is Prof. Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama, who wrote:

 

“Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .”² [emphasis added]

 

He goes on to say that this is “because the Universe offers no control experiment, …” He means that the same observations can be interpreted in several different ways. Because there are no other universes to compare ours with, you can’t determine absolutely which is the correct answer. That means, we do not know what a typical universe should look like. As a result cosmologists today are inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but it is stuff that has never been observed in the lab. They have become “comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown”, says Lieu.

Figure 1. Alleged history of the universe.

 

Dark matter and dark energy

 

Cosmologists tell us we live in a universe filled with invisible, unobserved stuff—about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter (see Figure 2). But what is this stuff that we cannot detect yet should be all around us? Only 4% of the matter/energy content of the Universe is supposed to be the ordinary atoms that we are familiar with.

 

In June 2013, after the release of the first results from the Planck satellite, the fractions of dark energy and dark matter were significantly changed to 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter, leaving 5% normal atomic matter.³

 

Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .—Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama

 

Yet we are told that now we are in a period of precision cosmology.⁴ But we see a total disagreement between the determination of these fractions from high redshift supernova measurements and Planck CMB measurements. Even the claimed errors do not help the values to coincide.⁵

 

For 40 years, one form or another of dark matter has been sought in the laboratory, e.g. the axion (named after a popular US brand of laundry detergent, because they thought its discovery would clean up some problems with particle physics). Recently a claim was made alleging the detection of a dark matter particle in a lab experiment, but that claim requires rigorous verification.⁶

Figure 2. Alleged mass/energy content of universe³

 

Now we also have dark energy— some sort of anti-gravity that is supposedly driving the universe apart at an even faster pace than in the past. It was reported that,

“It is an irony of nature that the most abundant form of energy in the universe is also the most mysterious. Since the breakthrough discovery that the cosmic expansion is accelerating, a consistent picture has emerged indicating that two-thirds of the cosmos is made of ‘dark energy’—some sort of gravitationally repulsive material.”⁷ [emphasis added]

Supposedly, dark energy is a confirmed fact. But does the evidence confirm that the universal expansion is accelerating? They are right about the irony; even though this energy is allegedly so abundant, it cannot be observed locally in the laboratory. In 2011, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the discovery of the accelerating universe, which means dark energy must be real stuff (it would seem that science’s ‘gatekeepers’ can’t ever renege on that now). But it has no correspondence to anything we know in the laboratory today, which hardly makes sense.

 

As Lieu points out,

 

“… astronomical observations can never by themselves be used to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ a physical theory. This is because we live in only one Universe—the indispensible ‘control experiment’ is not available.”⁸

 

There is no way to interact with and get a response from the Universe to test the theory under question, as an experimentalist might do in a laboratory experiment. At most, the cosmologist collects as much data as he can, and uses statistical arguments to try to show that his conclusion is likely. Says Lieu (emphasis added):

 

“Hence the promise of using the Universe as a laboratory from which new incorruptible physical laws may be established without the support of laboratory experiments is preposterous …”.⁸

 

 

 

 

Unknowns to explain unknowns

 

Lieu lists five evidences where cos­mologists use ‘unknowns’ to explain ‘unknowns’, and hence he says they are not really doing astrophysics. Yet these evidences are claimed to be all explained (and in the case of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)⁹ radiation even predicted¹⁰) by the ΛCDM inflation model of the big bang. None of them are based on laboratory experiments, and they are unlikely to ever be explained this way. The ‘unknowns’ in the lab (meaning not known to physics today) are listed in italics. They are:

 

1.       The redshift of light from galaxies, explained by expansion of space,¹¹

2.       The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, explained as the afterglow of the Big Bang,

3.       The perceived motion of stars and gases in the disks of spiral galaxies,¹² explained by dark matter,

4.       Distant supernovae ¹³ being dimmer than they should be, hence an accelerating universe, explained by dark energy,

5.       Flatness (space has Euclidean geometry) and isotropy (uniformity in all directions), explained by faster-than-light inflation (see box)

 

As an experimentalist, I know the standards used in so-called ‘cosmology experiments’ would never pass muster in my lab. Yet it has been said we are now living in the era of ‘precision cosmology’.¹⁴

 

Cosmologist Max Tegmark said,

 

“… 30 years ago, cosmology was largely viewed as somewhere out there between philosophy and metaphysics. You could speculate over a bunch of beers about what happened, and then you could go home, because there wasn’t a whole lot else to do.” [But now they are closing in on a] “consistent picture of how the universe evolved from the earliest moment to the present.”⁴

 

How can that be true if none of Lieu’s five observations listed above can be explained by ‘knowns’? They have been explained by resorting to ‘unknowns’ with a sleight of hand that allows the writer to say, ‘We are closing in on the truth.’

 

What this leads to

 

Nobel Laureate Steven Chu said that we now understand nearly all there is to know about the Universe, except for a few small details; like what is dark energy and dark matter which [allegedly] make up 96% of the stuff in the Universe.

 

I recall Nobel Laureate Steven Chu speaking to a large gathering of high school children on the occasion of the Australian Institute of Physics National Congress at the Australian National University in Canberra in 2005. He said that we now understand nearly all there is to know about the Universe, except for a few small details; like what is dark energy and dark matter which [allegedly] make up 96% of the stuff in the Universe.

 

Cosmologists may have their objectives—to shore up their faith in a model based on false and unverifiable assumptions—but it is a leaky bucket that cannot hold back the evidence that ultimately will be published against it.

The fact is that the history of the universe cannot be determined from a model which cannot be independently tested. And many fudge factors are needed for the present model to describe the observations. The Big Bang cosmology is verified in the minds of those who already hold to that belief—that the Universe created itself about 14 billion years ago—ex nihilo. To me the biblical big picture is far more believable—we are only left to fill in the details. ….