The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory

[xps13579]

At present, the big bang cosmology cannot explain galaxy formation and can not make its statements consistent, it is really in a disastrous state, the property of pseudo science is getting more and more apparent,and more and more scholars are abandoning the doctrine. The real universe is changing gradually and continuously, no matter what galaxies or objects keep in continuous change, however big bang cosmology belongs to the catastrophic theory which can not describe and reflect these actual process of change, the big bang theory dooms lumpish and useless, will certainly be replaced by the gradualistic cosmology. However, do not go to find the problem from general relativity itself, instead from another fresh road trying to start the establishment of alternative models of the big bang theory is superficial, at all can't be replaced and at best coexist. Chinese scholar by modifying the Einstein gravitational field equation complete the replacement to the big bang theory, clearly established the gradualistic cosmology, has improved and extended the the theory and application of general relativity. Many industry insiders believe that if general relativity continues to stop or grow complacent it will probably be overthrown or replaced. The new modified field equations continues to have the simplicity and elegancy of the original equation, unlike other modifications that only in order to cater to the cosmological application, free added items to field equation so that cannot go back to Newton's law of gravitation in spherically symmetric gravitational field in the distance, so such modified field equations can no longer continue to be called gravitational field equation because it didn’t have contact with gravity again. Jian liang yang’s pioneer paper “Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation----- Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter”was published in international journal. The new alternative model of the big bang theory abandons the moment creation and accepts the concept of negative pressure which makes naturally the mass of celestial bodies increase and new matter generate constantly in celestial bodies, and today is the key to understand the past and the future, on logic more reasonable, can more rationally explain the observed facts. The new theory shows that not only the space between galaxies is expanding but also galaxies themselve and the average density of the universe remains unchanged, and also can explain accurately in the solar system the observed gravitational anomalies, such as the other backward movement of unknown cause of the moon after considering the tide effect, and the observed change of length of day is inconsistent with the tidal theory, and the radius of the earth is detected to increase 0.2-1 mm by the monitoring satellites each year, and the increase of distance between the sun and the earth. Obviously the continuous expansion of universe is the need of material’s generation, and vividly interprets that the space-time and matter are an indivisible unity. Besides the above distinguishing features the new gradualistic theory of universe has the following characteristics:

 

1. the modified field equation requires the pressure is negative, some people may feel uncomfortable, however this is actually a kind of secular bias. In fact both classical mechanics and relativity don’t really reject negative pressure, only appears in the equation of motion the pressure’s derivative in classical mechanics and the size of the pressure can be any value, do not rule out the negative. In relativity not only the size of the pressure but also pressure’s derivative appears in the equation of motion, which requires pressure value can not be arbitrary, but isn’t ruled out the negative pressure yet. It is the emergence of negative pressure that leads to the continuous generation of material, as the field equation is applied to an object dm + P dv = 0, the increase of mass of celestial bodies comes from the work done by the negative pressure, new matter arises doesn’t mean the infringement to the law of energy conservation.

 

2. Although galaxies or objects increase, the angular velocity of their rotation or revolution keeps constant, i.e. periodic invariant, like using a magnifying glass to watch the circular motion, not only the radius of the orbit but also the speed is amplified and the period constant, all energy come still from the work done by the negative pressure. Orbital expansion can completely be derived from geodesic equations rather than additional assumptions. The new theory has important guiding significance in solar physics, space physics, geophysical and seismic genesis and so on

 

3. Similar to the big bang, the new theory still explain the microwave background radiation for comprehensive reflection of light after red shift emitted from far bodies whose distances can not be distinguished in our instrument, but do not think from so-called final scattering surface. Compared with vast space galaxies amount to molecules, these molecules form extremely thin and deep gas, in other words our universe is equivalent to a cavity, so the light from far has black-body spectrum. But the big bang can not rationally explain the black-body spectrum, in the big bang frame universal temperature is decreased, the so-called thermal equilibrium didn’t exist at all.

 

4. The rapid generation of matter (such as the big bang) is contrary to common sense, but slow generation is not contrary to common sense, should be allowed, and any absolutization to physical laws is never a scientific attitude.

 

5. Space-time is infinite, no longer rely on the so-called critical density, the universe's expansion and contraction cycle, alternately, the scale factor meets the sine function R(t)=Csinat, excluding the irrational expansion: big bang --- decelerating ---- inflation --- decelerating ---accelerating ....... The new relation between distance and redshift derived from the modified field equations is highly consistent with observations, and universal expansion is still decelerated and the shoddy conclusion that expansion of universe is accelerating no longer exists. In the new theory sometime in the past the scale factor R (t) =0, at which mass of any body was zero, the absolute temperature of universe was also zero, with mass to increase temperature gradually rose to meet mass-luminosity ratio. That is to say, universal temperature is higher and higher but not lower and lower, and the big bang fireball didn’t exist at all.

 

6. The new theory has unified the dark matter and dark energy, the modified gravitational field equation is including all effects of dark matter and dark energy and is a complete field equations. Due to negative pressure has the multiple properties of pressure, dark matter and dark energy, dark matter and dark energy arise no longer, all effects of dark matter and dark energy are fully absorbed in the negative pressure. The more important thing is that the negative pressure can be solved through the gravitational field equation, so reduce three cosmological parameters.

 

7. The continuous expansion of the universe and the continuous creation of matter are inseparable, the expansion of the universe is not  reciprocal retreat of galaxies in existing space, but rather  continuous creation of space between galaxies, since the universe can create space, it can also create matter. The simultaneous creation of space and  matter is an inseparable manifestation of the two. It is the expansion of the universe that provides a fundamental source of energy for all things in the universe

Edited August 28, 2017 by xps13579

[exchemist]

At present, the big bang cosmology cannot explain galaxy formation and can not make its statements consistent, it is really in a disastrous state, the property of pseudo science is getting more and more apparent,and more and more scholars are abandoning the doctrine. 

What evidence do you have for this claim? 

[xps13579]

there are already a lot of reports about the errors of the big bang

[exchemist]

there are already a lot of reports about the errors of the big bang

So which scholars are abandoning the Big Bang, as you claim them to be? 

 

Or would these scholars consist of the somewhat obscure Yang Jian liang (whose name crops up in all your posts)  - and, er,  nobody else?

Edited May 10, 2017 by exchemist

[xps13579]

 

So which scholars are abandoning the Big Bang, as you claim them to be? 

 

Or would these scholars consist of the somewhat obscure Yang Jian liang (whose name crops up in all your posts)  - and, er,  nobody else?

 

the voice opposite to big bang is full of internet, you may go to search

[Buffy]

the voice opposite to big bang is full of internet, you may go to search

 

Telling people to "go...search" when you are making controversial and extraordinary claims is not acceptable here. You have been asked to produce at least a few examples, and if you can produce none, pretty much everyone will consider your arguments invalid.

 

This is a formal request from an Admin to respond to the above question appropriately. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

Belief has nothing to do with facts, especially for the unbelievable facts, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

there are already a lot of reports about the errors of the big bang

 

 

Pointing out what you consider errors in the big bag theory is not the same as providing evidence for alternative theories. How do other theories explain the expansion of the universe better? You really need to support your assertions, not anyone else's job to search for them...  

[xps13579]

Background information about

the error of the Big Bang hypothesis

 

History and handling of criticism

 

For many decades I have been observing the development of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. Around the decade of 1960 of last century, the majority of cosmologists decided to accept the Big Bang theory as the only valid model describing the movements of matter in the cosmos. This occurred despite well-founded objections of a large number of recognized scientists all alluding to the fundamental contradiction to modern discoveries, and this situation still happens today. On the other side, with the help of many theoretical constructions, which are not confirmed in any way and are not provable, everything is done for the preservation of the Big Bang theory, without considering and exploring other models of the cosmic mass movement. Meanwhile it is now known that the majority of today's astronomical observations cannot find any viable explanation with the Big Bang theory. Such objections are not allowed by the established scientific institutions. People fight against these objections, they are suppressed, ignored, shown partly like conspiracies, like campaign against science and excluded from any discussion. This is promoted, despite the fact that all previous criticisms show conclusively the contradictions between the theory and observations, by saying that they don't describe any antithesis, which would be suitable to be an alternative to the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

In the German magazine GEO kompakt, issue 29/2011, page 27, it is stated: "the Big Bang theory is today the most plausible one regarding the beginning of the world - until scientists develop a new one", and then further down: "... unless it is replaced one day by another, more compelling intellectual edifice (which currently appears, however, difficult to imagine)". The following text describes a theoretical approach which can overcome the postulated unimaginability. This approach is called the Rotation theory.

 

The German Wikipedia

 

Institutions, which turned against the discussion of other models of the world, also include the German-language free encyclopedia Wikipedia, that delete immediately and without notice or justification any attempts to include potential new theoretical approaches, even if they were delivered by registered users. Even the attempt, in the reference list of the chapter "Big Bang," to include the above mentioned book, was subjected to the immediate deletion.

 

Alternative to the Big Bang theory

 

This in part politically motivated handling of the legitimate criticisms of the scientific viability of the Big Bang hypothesis motivated me to publish in 2011 a book which describes a different theoretical approach to understand the universe, mathematically and physically grounded, and to subject the current cosmological approach to a critical consideration. I titled the book "The Big Bang hypothesis, an obstacle to the cosmological research" (May 2011, Re Di Roma Publisher, Remscheid, ISBN 978-3-86870-353-5). The book contains numerous popular science topics for such interested readers for which some strictly physical-mathematical representation may be less interesting.

 

At this point I would like to state some basic theses of my book, which may be appropriate to raise awareness to the reality, to disprove the viability of the Big Bang hypothesis and to show a different view of the universe that is free of mystical transfiguration and unsustainable, not provable theoretical constructs, and that presents the cosmic mass movements on the basis of the natural laws.

 

The open letter

 

One of the most important criticisms of the Big Bang theory is the "Open Letter to the scientific community" which was published in the American magazine New Scientist, 22-28th May 2004, page 20. This letter was initially signed by 33 scientists, being at the top of the list the American astrophysicist and astronomer Halton Arp, later at Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Garching near Munich in Germany. The letter deplores that research funds are provided only for works that are devoted to the support of the Big Bang theory and do not foster other lines of research. According to Eric J. Lerner, to the mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org and to many other scientists around the world, the dominance of the Big Bang theory is based on conventions rather than on scientific method. This open letter has been later on signed by more than 540 astrophysicists, cosmologists and other scientists worldwide. The letter with all primary and secondary Signers can be found online at http://cosmologystatement.org/. In the above-mentioned book is included a German translation of this open letter in Appendix 1.

 

The main mistake and conclusions from the big bang theory

 

The main mistake of the Big Bang theory in my opinion is the wrong basic assumption, that the universe is not eternal, but must have had a beginning. For many reasons, the most important of which are elaborated below, this is considered as an error. From this basic assumption the following conclusions are drawn, which are not only incorrect, but in some cases violate the logic. Thus, in almost of all works on this subject it is always discussed the beginning of the world, the birth of the world, the birth of time, space and matter, as if these concepts had been proven without any reasonable doubt. I will show below with the help of some essential facts and considerations, where the main error comes from and how it impacted the development of cosmology. Other arguments and details can also be found in the chapter of natural scientific contributions on my homepage www.unipohl.de

 

1. Lemaitre and the "primeval atom"

 

The basic hypothesis of the Big Bang theory, that the universe "evolved from an initial stage of unimaginable density" at a finite time, did not come from astronomers, astrophysicists or cosmologists, but from the Belgian priest Georges Edouard Lemaitre, a man of the Catholic Church. He was inspired in very young years by the idea of creating a theory, which could combine science with the Catholic doctrine of creation. From this effort, he developed his theory of a "primordial atom that produced by permanent division the entire cosmos." In 1927 Lemaitre started writing down his ideas for the expansion of the universe, which he published in 1929. In connection with these considerations, Lemaitre was intensely occupied with the question of the compatibility of the Catholic doctrine of creation with the scientific reports about Big Bang theory. The clergy was very interested in these considerations, seeing in them a striking confirmation of the idea of creation. Initially the idea of the "primeval atom" did not find acceptance among the scientists, and Lemaitre was somehow ridiculed. In December 1940 he was appointed, due to his scientific achievements, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. From 1960 until his death he was the president of the Academy. Connected to this official position was the title of a papal prelate. Priest Georges Edouard Lemaitre became professor emeritus in 1964. The fact that his basic ideas today dominate the whole cosmology, is due in large part from the response of the clergy to this idea. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed Lemaitre's theory at a session in November 1951. Pope Pius XII spoke on November 11, 1951, to the members of the Academy and explained in the final presentation, that the beginning of the world, fixed by the Big Bang, sprang from a divine act of creation. The results of "modern science", to which Pope Pius XII referred to, have been brought together on the best way with the Church's doctrine.

 

2. The Big Bang singularity

 

As a result of this fundamental idea introduced systematically into the science, the Big Bang singularity as the starting point of the universe, has become a very controversial scientific object. It is unacceptable and contrary to reason to assume a point where it should have been no natural laws, and in which it is denied the existence of the space-time. So, for example, the time period below 10-43 sec (the Planck era) down to a supposed beginning cannot be described comprehensibly. The state of matter that should have existed in the Planck era is not describable. If, however, to adhere the Big Bang hypothesis, should the universe have a beginning, one should certainly require such a singularity. This singularity is based on speculations, cannot be proven by observations nor by laboratory simulations.

 

3. The false concept of matter

 

Another fundamental error of the big bang theory is a false concept of matter. In many descriptions and definitions of the concept of matter is the energy separated from matter, energy is not recognized as matter, is opposed to matter (Wikipedia, keyword Matter: "Electromagnetic waves such as light are not to be considered as matter"). This is a mistake with far-reaching consequences. In fact, mass and energy are two forms of representation of the same category - the matter (Brockhaus encyclopedia in 24 volumes, Mannheim, 1991, ISBN 3-7653-1100-6, Volume 14, p. 305). This follows trivially from Einstein's mass-energy relation E = m*c2. Where there is no mass, there is also no energy, and vice versa (0 = 0*c2). This also is evident from the presentation of the mass-energy relation as E/m = c2. That is, the ratio of energy to mass is a constant. The result of this consideration is that the "infinite" energy density, which was adopted in the Big Bang singularity, necessarily would also imply an "infinite" mass density. The Big Bang singularity would also imply, due to the energy concentration, also a mass concentration. Therefore, it would be the most logically conceived as a Black Hole. Therefore the Big Bang, which would thus be the expansion of a Black Hole, could not have occurred, on the basis of currently accepted definition of a Black Hole.

 

4. The mass-energy equivalence

 

This mistaken attitude related to the concept of matter allowed, on the other hand, mass to arise or to disappear, to "create" mass from energy, or even to "convert" one into the other or vice versa. This would be tantamount to say that in a fictitious process, the appearance of energy would mean the disappearance of mass, or in a process in which the "disappearance" of energy would mean the "origin" of mass. However, this is not the statement of the mass-energy equivalence. Mass and energy cannot arise out of nothing nor disappear, they can only change their forms of appearance. That is also the basic message given by one of the most important principles of natural science, the conservation of energy: The total energy in a closed system cannot change with time, it is constant. The origin of the universe out of nothing is therefore an assumption that is far from the scientific method. Mass and energy - and these both constitute matter - exist eternally and are in permanent motion in the eternally existing space-time.

 

5. The rotation of the cosmic objects

 

In the universe there are no objects that not are spinning. But if the universe begins from a Big Bang, only radial forces can exist, other directions of force are not available. Each type of rotation would then miss the initial force, all objects would be subject to their inertial motion and gravitation only, which would limit the duration of their existence. Here we put aside the most mystical notions about the so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy", in which it is stated once again that the energy does not belong to the matter. Consequently, it remains the imperative belief that the universe itself is spinning. Only under this precondition can exist those Coriolis forces that initiate the rotation of all cosmic objects. After a Big Bang, which consists indeed in the expansion of a point, such a movement is impossible. From here I have developed the idea that the universe is subjected to large scale rotations, like a cloud formation, in which everything rotates, but without forming a central axis of rotation. All movements have a chaotic nature and can be expressed only locally and approximately in mathematically comprehensible laws of motion. As a result of this general chaotic rotation, a general centrifugation arises. This centrifugation is the repulsive force, which is believed to be found at the current theory in the "dark energy". The general centrifugation forms with the universal gravitation a dynamic equilibrium of forces. This is the reason for the dynamics of the universe and its permanent change. Unexplained fictions such as "dark energy" or "dark matter", from which the separation of the energy from the matter is already suspect, are not required for the explanation of this movement. Finally, these fictions are not discovered or confirmed, they were introduced in order to confirm, for example, the differences between the age of stars, especially the Earth, and the supposed age of the universe. Without these fictions, we obtain contradictions, which cannot be explained with the Big Bang theory. For example, the Earth would be older than the universe. Also, by ignoring these rotations, orbital velocities of cosmic objects, which in rotating parts of the universe are dependent from the Coriolis forces, cannot be explained. With "dark energy" and "dark matter" these differences are presented as a pseudo-explanation, which, however, contradict the facts.

 

6. Motions found in the cosmos which are against the Big Bang

 

Objects were found in the universe which cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. For example, it has been confirmed by astronomical measurements that the galaxy Andromeda, which is situated at approximately 2.5 million light years from us, has a radial velocity of -114 km/sec relative to the Milky Way galaxy. The minus sign tells us here that the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us, so that it will reach in a few billion years the Milky Way and both galaxies will collide with one another. This fact is not explainable by the Big Bang theory, because under the premise of the expansion of the universe, all galaxies have to recede from each other. In 1980 it was discovered beyond the constellation of Virgo an enormous star cluster, approaching the other galaxies, including our Milky Way, with a speed of 444 km/sec. The diameter of this supercluster is, according to NASA, about two billion light years. As NASA scientist George Smoot said, "this cluster suggests that the matter of the universe can never have spread explosively and uniform" (see item 4).

 

7. The Big Bang hypothesis limits the universe

 

By assuming a big bang, the date of the beginning of the universe is assumed to be known, and the expansion velocity is finite. So the universe must have an outer limit beyond which there is no matter. Such an outer boundary has not been found, and certainly it does not exist.

 

8. The expansion of the universe

 

After Edwin Hubble in 1929 observed the redshift of the radiation spectrum of the cosmic objects in all directions of observation, the expansion of the universe has been considered as proved, which, however, must be limited to the part of universe of our observation. However, this point of view is not due to Hubble himself, who did not consider there was a proven correlation between redshift and expansion. But for the big bang theorists, this observation led to almost absurd conclusions. It was assumed without limitations, that this direction of movement of the cosmic matter applied at all times and at all distances for the entire universe. However, two logical considerations contradict these conclusions:

 

a. The time period in which the universe has been observed by humans is negligibly small compared with the time periods in which cosmic motions have been taking place. To assume from the data from human observation, that this motion have always existed, and afterwards with that to carry out a relentless extrapolation backwards until a zero point, is absurd and unjustified. The probability of the correctness of this assumption is practically zero.

 

b. The part of the cosmos, which the human observed, is tacitly accepted as the entire cosmos. That shows, in my opinion, humans overestimation. The universe is truly endless, so that what can be said with certainty, is that the whole universe is currently and certainly in a very long period out of our observation. We observe only a very small part of it.

 

9. Stereotype argumentation

 

Almost all so-called evidence for the Big Bang theory have one thing in common: they use cyclic calculations. The existence of a Big Bang is assumed axiomatically, the following calculations, which are based on this assumption, lead then to the Big Bang hypothesis. This result is then regarded as proof of the Big Bang hypothesis. In the above-mentioned book, I have analyzed as an example of this proof a work by Michael Ralph Pape, of the University of Karlsruhe, in 2000, from which I have worked out this typical approach. The so-called nucleosynthesis is also an example for such cyclical calculations. The composition of occurring elements in the universe, in my opinion, cannot be proved on that way. All calculations worked out for the nucleosynthesis set the Big Bang as an axiom, and so obtain what has been given. The now calculated thermal evolution of the universe, based on this assumption, is an unsustainable, unverified conjecture. The present composition of elements in the universe has certainly other causes. Likewise, the cosmic background radiation which certainly exists and has been proven, receives an entirely different explanation, if you look at the Big Bang not as an axiom. Radiation is not understood as "background" radiation, as a relic of a Big Bang, rather it is the general presently available radiation due to the spatial and structural mass motions, which spreads throughout the cosmos and in all directions. Spectral shifts occurring in the direction of the microwave range is the result of movement of matter, but hardly a residual radiation from a previous cosmic "development phase". Certainly the cosmic background radiation is not a proof of the Big Bang theory.

 

The Rotation theory, an alternative

 

From all these inconsistencies and inadequacies of the Big Bang theory, I arrived by following the work of astronomers and astrophysicists, and by logical considerations, to the Rotation theory of the universe, by which all paradoxes of the Big Bang theory are corrected, or can be resolved by other orientations in the scientific community. The Big Bang Theory has become untenable by numerous observations and measurements of the modern sciences of astronomy and astrophysics. Today there is no way to ignore this. It is necessary to allow research in other directions and also materially to support them. To deny this knowledge is tantamount to a rejection of all science, it is an obstacle for the scientific community.

 

Science and Clergy

 

I am aware that the Rotation theory is contrary to the official representations of the clergy, who knew how to win the cosmological science for his views on the creation of the world and to remain tied to it up to now. But I think it must yet be allowed to ask if the words of the Bible "In the beginning God created heaven and Earth" (Old Testament, First Book of Moses, Genesis, Chapter 1, The Creation) can be viewed today still as a viable basis for cosmological research. All serious scientists know that things did not happen this way. Even the scientific areas in the Vatican, which deal with these issues, arrive at different conclusions.

 

+*+*+*+

 

Albert Einstein presented a phrase that have here certainly a very practical meaning: "Two things are necessary for our work: untiring perseverance and the willingness to discard something for which you have put a lot of time and effort."

 

May the human mind have the ability to overcome incredible fictions and to turn toward rational considerations.

 

[xps13579]

besides, about errors with the big bang

 

Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:

 

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

 

 

 

The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.

The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn't conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.

The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.

Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it's a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.

There are several other models as well. Could one of these theories (or other ones we haven't even thought of) one day replace the big bang theory as the accepted model of the universe? It's quite possible. As time passes and our capability to study the universe increases, we'll be able to make more accurate models of how the universe developed.

[exchemist]

Background information about the error of the Big Bang hypothesis History and handling of criticism For many decades I have been observing the development of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology. Around the decade of 1960 of last century, the majority of cosmologists decided to accept the Big Bang theory as the only valid model describing the movements of matter in the cosmos. This occurred despite well-founded objections of a large number of recognized scientists all alluding to the fundamental contradiction to modern discoveries, and this situation still happens today. On the other side, with the help of many theoretical constructions, which are not confirmed in any way and are not provable, everything is done for the preservation of the Big Bang theory, without considering and exploring other models of the cosmic mass movement. Meanwhile it is now known that the majority of today's astronomical observations cannot find any viable explanation with the Big Bang theory. Such objections are not allowed by the established scientific institutions. People fight against these objections, they are suppressed, ignored, shown partly like conspiracies, like campaign against science and excluded from any discussion. This is promoted, despite the fact that all previous criticisms show conclusively the contradictions between the theory and observations, by saying that they don't describe any antithesis, which would be suitable to be an alternative to the Big Bang hypothesis. In the German magazine GEO kompakt, issue 29/2011, page 27, it is stated: "the Big Bang theory is today the most plausible one regarding the beginning of the world - until scientists develop a new one", and then further down: "... unless it is replaced one day by another, more compelling intellectual edifice (which currently appears, however, difficult to imagine)". The following text describes a theoretical approach which can overcome the postulated unimaginability. This approach is called the Rotation theory. The German Wikipedia Institutions, which turned against the discussion of other models of the world, also include the German-language free encyclopedia Wikipedia, that delete immediately and without notice or justification any attempts to include potential new theoretical approaches, even if they were delivered by registered users. Even the attempt, in the reference list of the chapter "Big Bang," to include the above mentioned book, was subjected to the immediate deletion. Alternative to the Big Bang theory This in part politically motivated handling of the legitimate criticisms of the scientific viability of the Big Bang hypothesis motivated me to publish in 2011 a book which describes a different theoretical approach to understand the universe, mathematically and physically grounded, and to subject the current cosmological approach to a critical consideration. I titled the book "The Big Bang hypothesis, an obstacle to the cosmological research" (May 2011, Re Di Roma Publisher, Remscheid, ISBN 978-3-86870-353-5). The book contains numerous popular science topics for such interested readers for which some strictly physical-mathematical representation may be less interesting. At this point I would like to state some basic theses of my book, which may be appropriate to raise awareness to the reality, to disprove the viability of the Big Bang hypothesis and to show a different view of the universe that is free of mystical transfiguration and unsustainable, not provable theoretical constructs, and that presents the cosmic mass movements on the basis of the natural laws. The open letter One of the most important criticisms of the Big Bang theory is the "Open Letter to the scientific community" which was published in the American magazine New Scientist, 22-28th May 2004, page 20. This letter was initially signed by 33 scientists, being at the top of the list the American astrophysicist and astronomer Halton Arp, later at Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Garching near Munich in Germany. The letter deplores that research funds are provided only for works that are devoted to the support of the Big Bang theory and do not foster other lines of research. According to Eric J. Lerner, to the mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org and to many other scientists around the world, the dominance of the Big Bang theory is based on conventions rather than on scientific method. This open letter has been later on signed by more than 540 astrophysicists, cosmologists and other scientists worldwide. The letter with all primary and secondary Signers can be found online at http://cosmologystatement.org/. In the above-mentioned book is included a German translation of this open letter in Appendix 1. The main mistake and conclusions from the big bang theory The main mistake of the Big Bang theory in my opinion is the wrong basic assumption, that the universe is not eternal, but must have had a beginning. For many reasons, the most important of which are elaborated below, this is considered as an error. From this basic assumption the following conclusions are drawn, which are not only incorrect, but in some cases violate the logic. Thus, in almost of all works on this subject it is always discussed the beginning of the world, the birth of the world, the birth of time, space and matter, as if these concepts had been proven without any reasonable doubt. I will show below with the help of some essential facts and considerations, where the main error comes from and how it impacted the development of cosmology. Other arguments and details can also be found in the chapter of natural scientific contributions on my homepage www.unipohl.de 1. Lemaitre and the "primeval atom" The basic hypothesis of the Big Bang theory, that the universe "evolved from an initial stage of unimaginable density" at a finite time, did not come from astronomers, astrophysicists or cosmologists, but from the Belgian priest Georges Edouard Lemaitre, a man of the Catholic Church. He was inspired in very young years by the idea of creating a theory, which could combine science with the Catholic doctrine of creation. From this effort, he developed his theory of a "primordial atom that produced by permanent division the entire cosmos." In 1927 Lemaitre started writing down his ideas for the expansion of the universe, which he published in 1929. In connection with these considerations, Lemaitre was intensely occupied with the question of the compatibility of the Catholic doctrine of creation with the scientific reports about Big Bang theory. The clergy was very interested in these considerations, seeing in them a striking confirmation of the idea of creation. Initially the idea of the "primeval atom" did not find acceptance among the scientists, and Lemaitre was somehow ridiculed. In December 1940 he was appointed, due to his scientific achievements, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. From 1960 until his death he was the president of the Academy. Connected to this official position was the title of a papal prelate. Priest Georges Edouard Lemaitre became professor emeritus in 1964. The fact that his basic ideas today dominate the whole cosmology, is due in large part from the response of the clergy to this idea. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed Lemaitre's theory at a session in November 1951. Pope Pius XII spoke on November 11, 1951, to the members of the Academy and explained in the final presentation, that the beginning of the world, fixed by the Big Bang, sprang from a divine act of creation. The results of "modern science", to which Pope Pius XII referred to, have been brought together on the best way with the Church's doctrine. 2. The Big Bang singularity As a result of this fundamental idea introduced systematically into the science, the Big Bang singularity as the starting point of the universe, has become a very controversial scientific object. It is unacceptable and contrary to reason to assume a point where it should have been no natural laws, and in which it is denied the existence of the space-time. So, for example, the time period below 10-43 sec (the Planck era) down to a supposed beginning cannot be described comprehensibly. The state of matter that should have existed in the Planck era is not describable. If, however, to adhere the Big Bang hypothesis, should the universe have a beginning, one should certainly require such a singularity. This singularity is based on speculations, cannot be proven by observations nor by laboratory simulations. 3. The false concept of matter Another fundamental error of the big bang theory is a false concept of matter. In many descriptions and definitions of the concept of matter is the energy separated from matter, energy is not recognized as matter, is opposed to matter (Wikipedia, keyword Matter: "Electromagnetic waves such as light are not to be considered as matter"). This is a mistake with far-reaching consequences. In fact, mass and energy are two forms of representation of the same category - the matter (Brockhaus encyclopedia in 24 volumes, Mannheim, 1991, ISBN 3-7653-1100-6, Volume 14, p. 305). This follows trivially from Einstein's mass-energy relation E = m*c2. Where there is no mass, there is also no energy, and vice versa (0 = 0*c2). This also is evident from the presentation of the mass-energy relation as E/m = c2. That is, the ratio of energy to mass is a constant. The result of this consideration is that the "infinite" energy density, which was adopted in the Big Bang singularity, necessarily would also imply an "infinite" mass density. The Big Bang singularity would also imply, due to the energy concentration, also a mass concentration. Therefore, it would be the most logically conceived as a Black Hole. Therefore the Big Bang, which would thus be the expansion of a Black Hole, could not have occurred, on the basis of currently accepted definition of a Black Hole. 4. The mass-energy equivalence This mistaken attitude related to the concept of matter allowed, on the other hand, mass to arise or to disappear, to "create" mass from energy, or even to "convert" one into the other or vice versa. This would be tantamount to say that in a fictitious process, the appearance of energy would mean the disappearance of mass, or in a process in which the "disappearance" of energy would mean the "origin" of mass. However, this is not the statement of the mass-energy equivalence. Mass and energy cannot arise out of nothing nor disappear, they can only change their forms of appearance. That is also the basic message given by one of the most important principles of natural science, the conservation of energy: The total energy in a closed system cannot change with time, it is constant. The origin of the universe out of nothing is therefore an assumption that is far from the scientific method. Mass and energy - and these both constitute matter - exist eternally and are in permanent motion in the eternally existing space-time. 5. The rotation of the cosmic objects In the universe there are no objects that not are spinning. But if the universe begins from a Big Bang, only radial forces can exist, other directions of force are not available. Each type of rotation would then miss the initial force, all objects would be subject to their inertial motion and gravitation only, which would limit the duration of their existence. Here we put aside the most mystical notions about the so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy", in which it is stated once again that the energy does not belong to the matter. Consequently, it remains the imperative belief that the universe itself is spinning. Only under this precondition can exist those Coriolis forces that initiate the rotation of all cosmic objects. After a Big Bang, which consists indeed in the expansion of a point, such a movement is impossible. From here I have developed the idea that the universe is subjected to large scale rotations, like a cloud formation, in which everything rotates, but without forming a central axis of rotation. All movements have a chaotic nature and can be expressed only locally and approximately in mathematically comprehensible laws of motion. As a result of this general chaotic rotation, a general centrifugation arises. This centrifugation is the repulsive force, which is believed to be found at the current theory in the "dark energy". The general centrifugation forms with the universal gravitation a dynamic equilibrium of forces. This is the reason for the dynamics of the universe and its permanent change. Unexplained fictions such as "dark energy" or "dark matter", from which the separation of the energy from the matter is already suspect, are not required for the explanation of this movement. Finally, these fictions are not discovered or confirmed, they were introduced in order to confirm, for example, the differences between the age of stars, especially the Earth, and the supposed age of the universe. Without these fictions, we obtain contradictions, which cannot be explained with the Big Bang theory. For example, the Earth would be older than the universe. Also, by ignoring these rotations, orbital velocities of cosmic objects, which in rotating parts of the universe are dependent from the Coriolis forces, cannot be explained. With "dark energy" and "dark matter" these differences are presented as a pseudo-explanation, which, however, contradict the facts. 6. Motions found in the cosmos which are against the Big Bang Objects were found in the universe which cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. For example, it has been confirmed by astronomical measurements that the galaxy Andromeda, which is situated at approximately 2.5 million light years from us, has a radial velocity of -114 km/sec relative to the Milky Way galaxy. The minus sign tells us here that the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us, so that it will reach in a few billion years the Milky Way and both galaxies will collide with one another. This fact is not explainable by the Big Bang theory, because under the premise of the expansion of the universe, all galaxies have to recede from each other. In 1980 it was discovered beyond the constellation of Virgo an enormous star cluster, approaching the other galaxies, including our Milky Way, with a speed of 444 km/sec. The diameter of this supercluster is, according to NASA, about two billion light years. As NASA scientist George Smoot said, "this cluster suggests that the matter of the universe can never have spread explosively and uniform" (see item 4). 7. The Big Bang hypothesis limits the universe By assuming a big bang, the date of the beginning of the universe is assumed to be known, and the expansion velocity is finite. So the universe must have an outer limit beyond which there is no matter. Such an outer boundary has not been found, and certainly it does not exist. 8. The expansion of the universe After Edwin Hubble in 1929 observed the redshift of the radiation spectrum of the cosmic objects in all directions of observation, the expansion of the universe has been considered as proved, which, however, must be limited to the part of universe of our observation. However, this point of view is not due to Hubble himself, who did not consider there was a proven correlation between redshift and expansion. But for the big bang theorists, this observation led to almost absurd conclusions. It was assumed without limitations, that this direction of movement of the cosmic matter applied at all times and at all distances for the entire universe. However, two logical considerations contradict these conclusions: a. The time period in which the universe has been observed by humans is negligibly small compared with the time periods in which cosmic motions have been taking place. To assume from the data from human observation, that this motion have always existed, and afterwards with that to carry out a relentless extrapolation backwards until a zero point, is absurd and unjustified. The probability of the correctness of this assumption is practically zero. b. The part of the cosmos, which the human observed, is tacitly accepted as the entire cosmos. That shows, in my opinion, humans overestimation. The universe is truly endless, so that what can be said with certainty, is that the whole universe is currently and certainly in a very long period out of our observation. We observe only a very small part of it. 9. Stereotype argumentation Almost all so-called evidence for the Big Bang theory have one thing in common: they use cyclic calculations. The existence of a Big Bang is assumed axiomatically, the following calculations, which are based on this assumption, lead then to the Big Bang hypothesis. This result is then regarded as proof of the Big Bang hypothesis. In the above-mentioned book, I have analyzed as an example of this proof a work by Michael Ralph Pape, of the University of Karlsruhe, in 2000, from which I have worked out this typical approach. The so-called nucleosynthesis is also an example for such cyclical calculations. The composition of occurring elements in the universe, in my opinion, cannot be proved on that way. All calculations worked out for the nucleosynthesis set the Big Bang as an axiom, and so obtain what has been given. The now calculated thermal evolution of the universe, based on this assumption, is an unsustainable, unverified conjecture. The present composition of elements in the universe has certainly other causes. Likewise, the cosmic background radiation which certainly exists and has been proven, receives an entirely different explanation, if you look at the Big Bang not as an axiom. Radiation is not understood as "background" radiation, as a relic of a Big Bang, rather it is the general presently available radiation due to the spatial and structural mass motions, which spreads throughout the cosmos and in all directions. Spectral shifts occurring in the direction of the microwave range is the result of movement of matter, but hardly a residual radiation from a previous cosmic "development phase". Certainly the cosmic background radiation is not a proof of the Big Bang theory. The Rotation theory, an alternative From all these inconsistencies and inadequacies of the Big Bang theory, I arrived by following the work of astronomers and astrophysicists, and by logical considerations, to the Rotation theory of the universe, by which all paradoxes of the Big Bang theory are corrected, or can be resolved by other orientations in the scientific community. The Big Bang Theory has become untenable by numerous observations and measurements of the modern sciences of astronomy and astrophysics. Today there is no way to ignore this. It is necessary to allow research in other directions and also materially to support them. To deny this knowledge is tantamount to a rejection of all science, it is an obstacle for the scientific community. Science and Clergy I am aware that the Rotation theory is contrary to the official representations of the clergy, who knew how to win the cosmological science for his views on the creation of the world and to remain tied to it up to now. But I think it must yet be allowed to ask if the words of the Bible "In the beginning God created heaven and Earth" (Old Testament, First Book of Moses, Genesis, Chapter 1, The Creation) can be viewed today still as a viable basis for cosmological research. All serious scientists know that things did not happen this way. Even the scientific areas in the Vatican, which deal with these issues, arrive at different conclusions. +*+*+*+ Albert Einstein presented a phrase that have here certainly a very practical meaning: "Two things are necessary for our work: untiring perseverance and the willingness to discard something for which you have put a lot of time and effort." May the human mind have the ability to overcome incredible fictions and to turn toward rational considerations.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which scholars are abandoning the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

 

So far you have been totally unable to name any. 

 

You appear to be deluding yourself that there is a crisis, when there isn't.  

[xps13579]

it is unpossible to tell you how many scholars are against the big bang all over the world, countless people including you yourselve think the big bang is pseudoscience,isn't it?

[exchemist]

it is unpossible to tell you how many scholars are against the big bang all over the world, countless people including you yourselve think the big bang is pseudoscience,isn't it?

If you can't support your claim, you should not be making it.

 

I am unaware of ANY serious cosmologists who have abandoned the Big Bang theory, regardless of its undoubted incompleteness at this point. But I don't claim to be an expert in this field. You, however, do seem to make such a claim. And yet you cannot name a single one either.  

 

So I have reasonable grounds for thinking that you are talking rubbish. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

it is unpossible to tell you how many scholars are against the big bang all over the world, countless people including you yourselve think the big bang is pseudoscience,isn't it?

 

He did not ask you "how many scholars" he asked you to "name any scholars at all."

 

As he just mentioned, you don't appear capable of mentioning even one.

 

We all have to ask "why?"

 

You may also wish to make more liberal use of carriage returns in your posts to make them more intelligible. Not using paragraphs is often an indication of blind cut-and-paste reuse of stock responses and that is considered rude.

 

 

The validity of a doctrine does not depend on whose ox it gores, :phones:

Buffy

[Super Polymath]

He did not ask you "how many scholars" he asked you to "name any scholars at all."

 

As he just mentioned, you don't appear capable of mentioning even one.

 

We all have to ask "why?"

 

You may also wish to make more liberal use of carriage returns in your posts to make them more intelligible. Not using paragraphs is often an indication of blind cut-and-paste reuse of stock responses and that is considered rude.

 

 

The validity of a doctrine does not depend on whose ox it gores, :phones:

Buffy

I don't think English is his first language.

 

So what we can take from all of this is that translation software is still in the stone ages. 

 

We have no idea what he's really saying. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Buffy]

I don't think English is his first language.

 

Mmm hmm.

 

So what we can take from all of this is that translation software is still in the stone ages.

 

Nah. No translation software--no matter how old--would have come up with "unpossible."

 

We have no idea what he's really saying. 

 

That may be the case, but we can give him another chance.

 

 

I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible, :phones:

Buffy

[Super Polymath]

 

 

Nah. No translation software--no matter how old--would have come up with "unpossible."

 

I took a foreign language course & google translate literally is that bad. 

 

Then again, foreign languages are in the stone ages, that might be how you say impossible in JapaKoreaNese. 

[xps13579]

F. Hoyle, Shyamal K. Banerjeew, Jayant V. Narlikarw, W. H. CcCrea, J. P. Wesley, Toivo Jaakkolo, G.burbidge, LingJun Wang, Harutyunian, H.A., Cooperstock, F. I., Faraoni, V., Vollick, D. N. , Zhou Yao qi, Chen Hai Yun,and so on ......

the above are against the big bang