The Big-Bang Creation Myth
A critical introduction by a non-scientist for non-scientists who have an intellectual
curiosity about this famous theory; five pages with pictures, references and citations to
authority.
One of the most ponderously contemplated scientific theories is the “Big Bang” theory in
modern astronomy, or cosmology.
Although it is not the product of any one mind, the founder of big-bang theory is
commonly looked upon as Belgian priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre (1894-1966). Fr. Lemaitre
studied relativity theory and astronomy as
a Cambridge graduate student in 1923-24
under prominent British astronomer
Arthur Eddington. Lemaitre spent the
following few years at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology where he studied
“Einstein‟s general theory of relativity”
and the then developing expanding
universe theory of American Astronomer
Edwin Hubble, among others. In 1927 he
returned to Belgium to become a
professor at the Catholic University of Louvein. In that same year he published an intellectually
creative paper wherein he essentially merged general relativity theory with existing expanding
universe theory wherein he envisioned a “primordial atom” from which the present universe
originated. With Eddington‟s help this paper brought Lemaitre world notoriety.1
It wasn‟t until 1950, however, that a critic of Lemaitre‟s theory, British astronomer Fred
Hoyle, sarcastically referred to it as “this big bang idea,” that the term big-bang theory entered
common vocabulary.2
Today this theory dominates modern cosmology, for better or for worse. Hundreds of
scientists, with increasingly sophisticated equipment, continue to promote and defend big-bang
theory.
There are three basic postulates of big-bang theory:3
1) An estimated 13.7 billion years ago a speck of matter smaller than an electron
somehow popped into existence. What Lemaitre called the “primordial atom,” and is today
given the vague name of the “singularity,” was an “infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely
dense something.”4 This something did not then somehow explode into surrounding space, but
explosively inflated with space. We are told that there was no time or space around this
something, but that time and space somehow expanded with it into the present universe.
2) Within seconds, the cooling of the universe resulted in the creation of subatomic
particles—neutrons, protons, etc.—making up the physical mass of the universe.
3) The universe continues to expand. Galaxies continue to move away from each other.
The farther out they are, the faster they are moving.
Over the years, a considerable amount of scientific evidence has been gathered that
allegedly supports the big-bang theory.
Firstly, beginning with Vesto Slipher at the Lowell Observatory in
Flagstaff, Arizona in 1910-1914, continuing through Edwin Hubble (left) at the
Mount Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles, California in 1919-1953, and
through the modern 12.8 ton Hubble space telescope launched in April 1990,
years of astronomical observations are usually interpreted to support “Hubble‟s
Law”, that, in general, the more distant a galaxy is, the more rapidly it is
receding from our galaxy. From this has been derived the above estimated age
of the universe.
Secondly, many of the most common elements of the universe, such as
helium, deuterium, and lithium, allegedly could only have been formed at
very high temperatures—ten billion degrees dropping to about one billion
degrees. Such as would have been the case during the big-bang.
And thirdly, there is the existence of alleged
cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB, first
discovered in 1955 by E. LeRoux, a radio astronomy
doctoral student at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris,5 although this
discovery is usually attributed to Bell Lab researchers Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson in 1965. In any case, the existence of CMB was allegedly
confirmed by NASA‟s COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite,
which was launched in 1989. This is microwave radiation which is
imagined to have originated in, and been caused by, the big-bang.
However, there have been several prominent critics of big-bang
theory. And they would be more numerous, visible and outspoken were
they not subject to browbeating, suppression of evidence, threats of adverse
career action, and discriminatory retaliation by big-bangers, who are in the majority, for
criticizing big-bang theory or for coming to conclusions based on scientific evidence that are
inconsistent with it.
An example would be prominent American astronomer Halton Arp. In 1983, after 29
years at the Palomar Observatory near San Diego, and several years criticizing big-bang theory,
he was denied further research time at the observatory. He solved this problem by moving to
Germany where he continued his research at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics.
However, he continued to experience suppression of evidence as major astronomy journals
refused to publish his papers that criticized or came to conclusions inconsistent with big-bang
theory.6
Big-bang theory is the greatest creation myth since Genesis 1-2 for the following reasons:
1. Big-bang theory‟s first and fatal defect is that it relies on general relativity. We have seen
in the previous Appendix that general relativity relies on special relativity, and that special
relativity is substantially, but not entirely, invalid. Therefore, general relativity is
substantially invalid. And therefore, big-bang theory, to the extent that it relies on general
relativity, specifically on the concept of curved space-time, is substantially invalid, also.
2. All the matter in the universe was not created from a particle of some kind that was less
than the size of an electron. This cannot happen. Something cannot be created out of
nothing. Matter/energy cannot be created, nor can they be destroyed. But big-bangers live
in Relativityland, like Alice (and Albert), where anything can happen.
3. Big-banger‟s conclusion that the universe is expanding is based on the spectroscopic
analysis of light coming from distant galaxies. As the siren of an emergency vehicle has a
higher pitch as it comes toward you, and a lower pitch after it passes and is moving away
from you, so light from distant galaxies is commonly red-shifted indicating it is slower.
Big-bangers interpret this to mean these galaxies are moving away from us. If all distant
galaxies are moving away from us, big-bangers argue, the Universe must be expanding.
The greater the red-shift, the greater the speed of expansion. However, if all distant
galaxies in every direction are receding from Earth because of an expanding Universe, this
would place the Earth in the center of the Universe, which seems unlikely. It would also
mean that after the alleged big bang, all the other galaxies moved spherically outward, but
our Galaxy stayed where it was, which also seems unlikely.
Although such a concept as an expanding Universe captures the imagination, this
misinterpretation of the red-shift is the third fundamental flaw in big-bang theory. After
many millions and billions of light years of travel it is reasonable to imagine that sooner or
later light will slow down. This could explain the red-shift. This “tired light” theory was
first proposed by German physicist Walther von Nernst who in 1921 proposed that light
energy would eventually lose energy to the ether causing it to slow down. Hence the redshift. Ultimately ether would reabsorb the photon.7 Caltech astronomer Fritz Zwicky
restated this theory in 1929.8
As the red-shift data from distant galaxies began to mount and apparent velocities of
distant galaxies was reaching 13% of the speed of light, Hubble himself began to doubt that
the universe was expanding. As a result, in 1936 he came out in favor of the tired-light
explanation for the red-shift. But by then expanding universe theory, which would
eventually be called big-bang theory, had become institutionalized.9 It was rooted in
Einstein‟s relativity theory and relativists wanted to keep it.
Following Hubble, two Nobel laureates, Max Born and Louis de Broglie, also came to
accept the tired-light theory as an explanation for the red-shift of distant galaxies.10
Tired-light proponents today include leading American
astronomer, Yale-trained Thomas Van Flandern, PhD, and
theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette (right),11 among others.
LaViolette estimates that “a photon energy loss of just 10%
for every billion years of its travel would entirely account for
the observed increase of red-shift with distance.”12 The sum
of actual astronomical data fits the tired-light model better
than the expanding universe model.13
Another explanation of the red-shift is that of Halton Arp,
whose first career job as an astronomer was with Edwin Hubble. Astronomy is an
observational science, not an arm chair philosophy. In his Seeing Red (1998), Arp explains
in detail how observational evidence collected over a period of 45 years supports the
conclusion that excess red-shifts are correlated with younger ages of the stars emitting the
light. “Since 1911 it has been known that the youngest, most luminous stars in our own
galaxy have excess red-shifts which generally increase with the relative youth of the stars.”
Therefore, according to Arp‟s data, a red-shift is not necessarily a product of a galaxy‟s
velocity away from Earth but only reflects the galaxy‟s age.14
In either case, it appears that big-bangers have substantially misinterpreted the red-shift
phenomenon to suite their pre-existing biases. As evidence in support of an expanding
Universe, the red-shift phenomenon is weak indeed and is plausibly explainable by
alternate theories. Van Flandern concludes, “despite the widespread popularity of the big
bang model, even its most basic premise, the expansion of the universe, is of dubious
validity, both observationally and theoretically.”15
4.
Further alleged evidence that big-bangers claim supports their theory is that many of the
most common elements of the universe, such as helium, deuterium, and lithium, could
only have been formed at very high temperatures—ten billion degrees dropping to
about one billion degrees. Such would have been the case during the imagined big bang.
To this allegation, however, award winning Professor of Chemistry at the University of
Pittsburgh, David Pratt, replies, “observations show that there is less helium and far less
deuterium and lithium in the universe than [big-bang] theory predicts.”16 Paul LaViolette
adds that the big bang model “fails to predict the correct ratio of these elements,” and
argues that stars are more plausible sites of element synthesis in nuclear fusion reactions. 17
5.
The last major cosmic phenomenon that big-bangers claim is evidence for their theory is
cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB. But if CMB were a product of any “big
bang” it would have travelled much faster than matter since then and would no longer be
around our part of the universe. In 1933, German physicist E. Regener predicted the
existence of a 2.8 degree Kelvin microwave background produced from the warming of
interstellar dust particles by high-energy cosmic rays.18 The 2.73 degrees Kelvin
temperature of CMB is too close to Regener‟s estimate of the temperature of the
intergalactic medium—the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight from billions of
stars—to be coincidence. Van Flandern observes, “The microwave „background‟ makes
more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a
fireball.” 19 And LaViolette concludes, “No big bang is required” to explain the existence of
CMB.20 Halton Arp concurs, “An obvious, and much simpler, explanation for the [CMB]
is that we are seeing the temperature of the underlying extragalactic medium.”21 Therefore,
it appears that big-bangers are again interpreting a cosmic phenomenon to suit their theory,
and that CMB is really microwave radiation from interstellar space.
6.
Another factor that invalidates big-bang theory is the clumpiness of the observable
Universe. Big-bang theory would predict that after the big bang, matter would expand
evenly in all directions. Thus today galaxies would be found equally dispersed and all
moving outward from the alleged original place of explosion. To illustrate this process bigbangers often use the polka-dot balloon example. Uninflated, the dots are small and close
together. But as the balloon is inflated they grow larger and move further apart. The bigbang analogy is that the dots represent galaxies in an expanding universe. However,
observational evidence contradicts this theory. Astronomers know today that “galaxies and
clusters of galaxies are not uniformly distributed in the Universe. Instead they collect into
vast clusters and sheets and walls of galaxies interspersed with large voids in which very
few galaxies seem to exist.”22 This further weakens big-bang theory.
7.
Yet another factor that invalidates big-bang theory is time. Big-bang theory estimates that
the Universe was created approximately 14.7 billion years ago. However, the abovementioned super-cluster strings and walls of galaxies would have taken at least 100-150
billion years to form.23 This further weakens big-bang theory. Halton Arp concludes that
the Universe is much older and much larger than big-bangers allow, and it may be
“continually unfolding from many points within itself.”24 The Universe may be much
larger, and much older, than is presently ascertainable because distant new galaxies cannot
be known until light from them reaches us. For example, if a galaxy was created 10 billion
years ago, yet its location was 11 billion light-years from us, we would not know of its
existence for another billion years. Even then its location may not be the same as it was 11
billion years previous, as we will be seeing it. This may account for what astronomers call
dark matter.25
Competent astronomers and physicists have mobilized many more detailed and credible
arguments against big-bang theory than those few that have been mentioned above. See, for
example, Tom Van Flandern in 30 Biggest Problems with the Big Bang,26 and plasma
cosmologist and popular science writer Eric Lerner‟s excellent The Big Bang Never Happened
(1991).
In summation, evidence in support of big-bang theory becomes weaker and weaker the
closer one looks, leaving it the biggest creation myth since Genesis. But big-bangers typically
live in Relativityland and do not see this. Relativists and big-bangers are lost down a dark deadend alley. They need to back out of big-bang theory, back out of general relativity theory, back
out of special relativity theory and start over. There are other more credible, plausible and
meritorious models of the creation of the Universe.
This writer offers no opinion on the creation of the Universe because even if he relied on
observational evidence obtained through a huge space telescope or satellite such a theory would
still be highly speculative. But human suffering is not speculative. Better to use our intelligence
and imagination to reduce human suffering here on Earth and leave creation of the universe
theorizing until later.
Notwithstanding its invalidity, from the standpoint of Fr. Lemaitre and his denomination
big-bang theory was somewhat of a success. It may have served to bring the Roman Catholic
Church out of the Middle Ages—to some extent anyway. In 1951, Pope Puis XII endorsed it.
And having made his denomination look so good, in 1960 Lemaitre was promoted to monsignor.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
3
Encyclopedia Americana, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
4
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
5
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 275
6
Boerner, Rochas “The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics,” http://www.worldmysteries.com/sci_supr.htm#CITEHatch2, 2003, citing Arp, Halton Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
Academic Science, Apeiron, 1998
7
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, pp. 261-262
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
9
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 262
10
Kelly, Alphonsus G. Challenging Modern Physics, BrownWalker, 2005, p. 241
11
Pratt, David PhD “Cosmology and the Big Bang,” http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bng.htm,
pp. 10-11, citing Van Flandern, Thomas PhD. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic
Books, 1993 and LaViolette, Paul PhD. Genesis of the Cosmos, Bear & Co., 2004. See also Van Flandern‟s
article “The Top Thirty Problems with the Big Bang” on his website www.metaresearch.org/cosmology.
12
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 298
13
Ibíd., pp. 268-275
14
Pratt, David PhD “Cosmology and the Big Bang,” http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bng.htm,
p. 4, citing Arp, Halton Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, 1998
15
Pratt, David PhD “Cosmology and the Big Bang,” http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bng.htm,
citing Van Flandern, Thomas PhD. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, 1993
16
Ibid. p.6
17
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 278
18
Ibid., pp. 275-276
19
Van Flandern, Thomas PhD “The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang,” www.metaresearch.org (2)
20
LaViolette, Paul A., PhD. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 278
21
Arp, Halton Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science, Apeiron, 1998, p. 237
22
Powell, Richard, MSc www.atlasoftheuniverse.com,
23
Lerner, Eric J. The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, 1991, pp. 23-25
24
Arp, Halton Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science, Apeiron, 1998, p. 8
25
Kelly, Alphonsus G. Challenging Modern Physics, BrownWalker, 2005, p. 243
26
www.metaresearch.org, See also Von Flandern, Thomas PhD, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets,
2nd Edition, 1999.