Strong Skepticism Regarding the Big Bang Cosmological Theory
Normally I’m a big science fan and I rarely meet an accepted theory I don’t like, but I must admit that I’m very skeptical regarding the “Big Bang” theory of the “birth” of the Universe.
As I understand the theory, it holds that at a point in time about 14 billion earth years ago before any matter existed, a gigantic explosion in a single location resulted from a sufficient buildup of energy. In this explosion matter was not only created, it was also propelled outward from that central point as if on the surface of a balloon being filled with air, with everything moving away from everything else. A later conjecture to the theory held that it is conceivable that the universe could contract back upon itself to that original point if there was sufficient gravitational force, and a still later conjecture held that this expansion and contraction could have already happened multiple times.
My first objection to the theory is the most obvious one that an explosion or implosion usually destroys matter, even if it creates smaller pieces out of the bigger piece, but does not give birth, form, and structure to matter.
My next objection is that not only is there no evident center of the universe from which the “big bang” sent celestial matter hurtling, but the agglomeration of galaxies has no shape or pattern, or at the least they are certainly not all located at the boundary surface of an imaginary balloon with nothing located in the direction of the interior.
Perhaps most importantly, not everything is retreating from everything else. Our solar system certainly seems to be holding strong as are most galaxies we can observe. Some astronomers even seem to be miffed that the arms of spiral galaxies are holding in place with the rotation of the more central parts when they calculate by the rules of momentum that that shouldn’t be the case. Even the failed planet between Mars and Jupiter consisting of thousands or millions of rocks is holding largely steadily in orbit which would very likely not be the case if physical distancing were the order of the day. There are also “binary stars” that hold closely together as they revolve around a common gravitational center. There are even some galaxies that seem to be colliding with each other, in other words coming closer together, not moving apart.
One factor that has contributed to the big bang theory is undoubtedly the “Doppler red shift” as observed from the Earth when viewing far-away celestial objects. As most or all galaxies’ light frequencies shift in the red direction rather than the blue, it is interpreted that all these galaxies are receding from the Earth rather than moving towards it. The obvious next conclusion would be that the Earth is at the center of the universe (since everything else is “receding” from it) but that conclusion is laughably anthropocentric, especially since it was proven hundreds of years ago that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa!
As to what could be causing the predominance of red Doppler shift I only have a rudimentary theory, but whether my theory is correct or not I don’t believe it affects the deniability of the opinion that everything is receding from everything else. It’s widely believed that the mass of stars, planets and space debris can gravitationally bend the path of light so I attribute the lengthening frequency of distant starlight (Doppler red shift) to that phenomenon. The further away the light, the more matter it has to travel by to get to the Earth and thus the more it’s diverted (and/or slowed down) thereby lengthening its frequency. Curiously my theory fits nicely with the “observation” (misinterpretation?) that the further away light is from the Earth, the faster it is receding, thereby increasing the red shift.
In light of all the above observations which I’m jointly promoting to the rank of evidence, I can’t fathom how the Big Bang theory can be accurate. Next I’ll address a related theory which I also find highly implausible and which casts further doubt on the Big Bang theory.
A Related Topic – The Age of the Universe
Based on the big bang model and estimated distances to far-away objects, astronomers have surmised that the age of the universe is about 14 billion earth-years which I think is an extremely low figure.
I find it easy to accept evidence that the Earth is about 5 billion years old and our Sun is about 10 billion years old and that for ease of calculation 10 billion years is a fairly typical length for a star’s lifespan even though the give and take can vary based on star type. Can it vary by 5 billion years for a fast- or slow-burning star though? That would put the age of a slow-burning star at greater than the Universe itself which obviously cannot be.
The next question becomes how old is a typical galaxy? Since we have seen for sure that stars have “died” during our lifetime and since we have at least indirect evidence that other stars have also been born in that period, we must ask ourselves how many stellar life cycles must we add up to arrive at the age of a typical galaxy? If your answer is only 1, meaning that all a galaxy’s stars were born at approximately the same time, then I could see the age of the universe being 14 billion years. But I think it’s far more likely that a typical galaxy has had more than one “generation” of the birth and death of its stars just as the Earth has seen more than one generation of the birth and death of its humans and also just as a human has seen more than one generation of the birth and death of the cells in its body! If we assume that 10 generations of stars have come and gone in a galaxy then the age of a typical galaxy moves up to 100 billion years. If the figure is 100 generations then the universe’s age becomes a trillion years.
By reasonable extension we could also imagine that there have been more than one generation of galaxies during the time of the universe but the numbers then get into the mind-boggling or “infinite” range. In any case I believe my method for arriving at the age of a galaxy also helps to contradict the timing of the Big Bang Theory; and if the timing is off by orders of magnitude as I estimate, then I believe that’s further evidence that the theory itself is very tenuous if not outright preposterous.
