"One cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it." So stated Albert Einstein. Cosmologists today are a good example. The theory they have created has become a monster that has consumed their energies while giving them nothing but headaches. For those scientists who still believe in experimental results it is time to throw in the towel. Eric Lerner, a prize-winning science writer and author of the Big Bang Never Happened is one of these [1]. He thinks the Big Bang is a total disaster and I agree.
The Big Bang is not an explosion. It is an extravagant expansion of space-time. When space-time expands galaxies grow farther apart as though all the galaxies were travelling away from us simultaneously. It is assumed that the universe is homogeneous so that everything looks the same from any point in space and gravitational forces are similar.
By 1986 we knew this was not so. Groups of galaxies were grouped into clusters which were found to form a long snake-like string of clusters across the sky. Apart from this there were vast unoccupied regions of the universe. Under the available expansion rates and forces these complexes required 100 billion years to form. Ooops!
Gravitational forces are supposedly responsible for the formation of both galaxies and solar systems. Yet the planets in solar systems have velocities that decrease with their distance from the Sun. On the other hand galaxies have stars that have much the same velocity whatever their distance from the centre. Big Bang cosmologists find this anomaly hard to explain.
| Galaxy with stars with same velocity |
 |
| Planets with varying velocity |
The COBE satellite measured the Cosmic background Radiation from deep space. This is supposedly the light echo of the early Big Bang. According to theory this energy radiation would not be perfectly smooth but small variations would exist in the energy from which the seeds of galaxies would eventually come. The COBE satellite data was disappointing to the theorists as it was 100 times smaller than expected. This created another problem for those trying to find the source of galaxies, galactic clusters and even larger structures.
Supernovas recently provided more data that required major adjustments to theory. Data indicated that expansion rates were higher than previously thought and Big Bang theories realized quickly that more energy was needed to provide the acceleration. This meant that star masses in the universe were grossly inadequate for the job. Even so-called "dark matter" which is invisible and radiates no energy, was inadequate. Thus "dark energy" was created to fill the hole. This "dark energy" composes 70% of the universes supply while "dark matter" supplies about 27% and real visible matter provides only 3% of the universe's actual energy. So what exactly is "dark mass" or "dark energy" made of? We don't know. And what does all this newly added energy and acceleration do to the age of the universe? Well, new acceleration rates mean we arrive at the here and now sooner. About 6 Billion years sooner. Oops!
Why do so many scientists agree on a theory that appears to predict almost nothing and keeps them constantly making major renovations with every new discovery. S.P. Langley once likened scientists to a pack of hounds that followed their leaders "nearly as often in the wrong path as the right one." [2] Portraying a highly educated group of scientists as a pack of "hounds" is hardly complementary in 1889 but it seems little has changed. Eric Lerner has proposed that the forces of electromagnetism played a significant role in the formation of the universe. This idea was proposed by Dr Alfven, a plasma physicist, in the last century. The advantage of plasmas is that they enjoy two forces electric and magnetic from which many more motions and formations can come. Its disadvantage is that its forces are smaller and therefore short-ranged. Laboratory plasmas exhibit some phenomenon that are seen in space.
Finally, the new expansion rate of the universe requires the reintroduction of the cosmological constant. (There is another story but not now.) The laboratory measurement of this constant differs from the actual by a factor of 10 to the power 120,000 [3]! Another disaster! Still Cosmologists cling to a theory that has never predicted anything right. Why? The best explanation I can give is that they are trying desperately to explain the universe without God.
In the beginning God created the universe out of nothing. No need for universal "big bangs" that happen just so to be fantastically creative or "big crunches" in defiance of the laws of entropy. No need for just so stories about just so constants, just so orbital radius, just so atmosphere and just so DNA that provide just what we need to thrive on this planet. Our life, our planet and our universe is the supernatural in origin. The more educated one becomes the more obvious is this conclusion. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to demand a different answer from the start - disbelief.
[1] Eric Lerner, 1991. The Big Bang Never Happened, New York Times Books
[2] S.P. Langley,1889. Address as retiring President of the A.A.A.S., American Journal of Science, Series 3, V37:1-23
[3] Michael Brooks, 2008. 13 Things That Don't Make Sense; The Most Baffling Mysteries of Our Times, Random House, NY, p.26
As long as people don't confuse theories with facts, I have no problem!
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning God created the universe and it sounded like a big bang :)
ReplyDelete