Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming. Yet we are told by supposed “scientists” that it is an established fact. What utter nonsense.
Problem #1. The vacuum catastrophe. Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream. If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Someone wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness. Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing. This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (1)
So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum energy has a real physical meaning. In fact, the Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude! This is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics in the modern era.
Problem #2. 95% dark matter? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles). What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no. How do we know they exist? We don’t. Why do the astronomers suggest they are there? Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there. Or else the formulas are wrong! (Now there’s an idea!) As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, ” we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (2)
Problem #3. In the first stages of the universe there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger). This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation. Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form. Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means. If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy. In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence. There was no other energy in existence.
Problem #4. The Big Bang clearly violates 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Every counter to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present.
Problem #5. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy. The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few. The energy had to come from somewhere. It could not create itself (See Problem #4) and it could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(2)
Problem #6. The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light. The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on current measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here. They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be much greater than the speed of light. This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories. Just not when it involves Creation.
Problem #7. If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and anti matter should have been expected. Yet we find no such evidence. Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none answer the question. All require some “other” force or condition. In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons. Only quarks and no anti-quarks. Only protons and no anti-protons.
Problem #8. With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant! Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc. The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc. In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant. This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value. We shall see…
- John M. Cimbala, in six days, p. 203, Masterbooks.com.
- “Big Bang Theory — An Overview.” All About Science. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
- Space.com, New Map of Dark Matter Puts the Big Bang Theory on Trial (Kavli Roundtable) By |
- “Cambridge Cosmology: Hot Big Bang Model.” Cambridge University. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
- Castellanos, Joel. “The Shape of Space.” NonEuclid. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/space.html
- Felder, Gary. “Beyond the Big Bang: Inflation and the Very Early Universe.” North Carolina State University. 2002.
- “The Geometry of the Universe.” Astronomy 162. University of Tennessee. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html
- Marmet, Paul. “Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.” 21st Century, Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1990. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html