Big Bang Theory in Big Trouble
"The currently popular cosmological model is subject to many doubts based upon observational data which suggest that, perhaps, there never was a Big Bang." 1
This statement came from three highly respected astronomers and was published in a prestigious scientific journal in 1990. More recently though, a popular science magazine article carried the following introductory headline:
"There's not one crisis but two: the universe seems to be younger than the stars in it, and a huge chunk of it is headed in the wrong direction, fast. As cosmologists scramble for answers, no theory is safe anymore." 2
The theory of the Big Bang was first conceived as a result of the work of American astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble was the first person to propose the idea of an expanding Universe.3 If he is correct, and if we could travel way back into the past, to the beginning of time, when it all expanded (or so the theory goes), then there must have been a time when everything was clumped together into one tiny ball of matter. And then we are told that something happened...
All of the sudden, this tiny clump of matter is supposed to have exploded into a Big Bang, and then vwuallah! Seven to 20 billion years later (depending on whom you ask, and what year you asked them), here we are -- without any sort of Intelligence to plan out, or act upon any of that matter. And this it still the ONLY viewpoint that is allowed to be taught in our classrooms today, for any viewpoint that even hints at the (very strong) probability of a Creator being involved is said to be off limits, and out of the realm of "science" and therefore should not even be examined and explored -- to any degree (at all).
Those who promote this theory also usually speculate that this "clump" of matter (that is supposed to have contained all the matter in the universe) was no larger than a golf ball.
In other words, the Big Bang theory speculates that out of a great chaotic explosion came all of the order and complexity that we see around us today, with no intelligence required to plan out, design or build anything. In reality though, this theory is nothing more than an attempt by men (whose knowledge is quite limited) to try and explain how they think we might have been created -- without a Creator. For this reason, this theory goes hand in hand with the theory of evolution, which is an attempt to do likewise.
In reality though, astronomers are not even sure that the Universe is expanding.4,5,6 That's because no one has ever seen it doing so. Rather the expansion of the Universe (theory) is based on indirect evidence, such as the red shift of many stars and galaxies.
Some scientists are also trying to tell us that the cosmic microwave background radiation (or CMB) also supports the belief in an expanding (Big Bang) Universe; however, as we shall see, the actual data appears to contradict it.
Even if the Universe is expanding, speculative theories such as the Big Bang still cannot account for the order and complexity that we see around us. This is because, explosions are never observed to create (or result in) order, but rather disorder and chaos. Also because we never actually observe anything even remotely similar to a self-replicating organism forming by itself in laboratories, or slime pools, or ocean vents -- nor have we been able to make one ourselves by (LOTS and LOTS of) DNA programming (i.e. ordering), and organizing (i.e. planning, and designing and ordering) all sorts of different proteins and even more complicated structures that are found inside of living organisms.
However, in spite of these facts many scientists (apparently) WANT to believe otherwise, and appear to WANT us to do likewise. Its as if they WANT to believe in anything but a Creator/God, even when that is where the evidence clearly leads. Why this is I'm not sure; perhaps because they don't like the idea that they were (almost certainly) created by a Being who is Far Greater than they are, and are upset that this Creator of theirs would dare to try to assert any control over them and their lives -- and especially not if it involves any of their time, talents, or money, or more personal things, such as what they do with their free time, or who they select as their close friends. Or perhaps they are simply afraid that their colleagues won't approve of them if they were to admit that a Creator is, in fact, the best and most logical explanation as to how we got here.
The Red Shift
There once was an astronomer whose name was Edwin Hubble. And Mr. Hubble noticed that some stars have an orange or reddish color to them, while others are white or green or bluish. Hubble theorized that this was because they were (in the case of orange or reddish stars) moving away from us, or (in the case of bluish ones) because they were moving toward us. For when one considers that red colors have a longer wavelength than blue colors, and that a glowing object that is moving away from an observer will have a stretched out (or longer) wavelength than if it were stationary, or moving toward that observer, then the idea of red shift (or that reddish colored stars or galaxies are red because they are moving away from us) seems logical. And since many stars outside of our own Milky Way galaxy are shifted to the red side of the color spectrum, many scientists have interpreted this as evidence that the Universe is expanding.
However, there are a few unexplained problems with the data. One of which is that almost all of the most distant galaxies that we observe are blue-shifted. 7,8 This would seem to indicate that these galaxies are moving toward us, and that the Universe is not expanding, but rather imploding, or coming back together.
Another problem with regard to the red-shift / expansion theory concerns some observations made by American astronomer William Tiff, and later verified by British astronomers Bruce Guthrie and William Napier. They reported that:
"New evidence has been found to support the controversial claim that the red shifts or nearby galaxies show a periodic pattern: that is, they are 'bunched' together at regular intervals." 9
They also stated that: "...new physics is needed to explain them" 9 -- in reference to red shifts of nearby galaxies.
They also reported that the odds of the stair-stepped (periodic) pattern occurring in the red shift were about 1 in 100,000. What this means is that, if the Universe is (or at one time was) expanding, then it appears that the expansion itself was controlled (as opposed to being simply a randomly scattered outward explosion). To those who reject the idea of (and belief in) a Creator/God, this evidence may be unsettling; however, to creationists it is readily acceptable since we are told very plainly in Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 (and other places in the Scriptures) that God did, indeed, stretch out the Heavens.
For a more detailed explanation of this, and how it is that we see stars and galaxies that are supposed to be many thousands (or millions) of light years away, see "Starlight and Time" by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Another reason for questioning the red-shift expansion theory is an observation made by astronomers Halton Arp and Fred Hoyle--who have pointed out galaxies with “very different red shifts” which “appear to be connected.” 9,10,11
See also Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle 10 ... and, More evidence for galactic "shells". 11
But other problems have also spelled trouble for the Big Bang. For example, recent measurements made with the Hubble telescope, and verified by at least one other earth-based observatory, contradict what astrophysicists have been saying (both publicly and in University classrooms) for years: i.e. that:
"... there is almost no doubt that the oldest stars in the Milky Way... are at least 14 billion years old." 12
The only problem with this (great) age is that measurements of the Hubble Constant (H) -- a ratio linked to the supposed expansion rate of the Universe -- by two separate, and well respected teams of astronomers, have indicated that the Universe is (according to evolutionary thinking) only 7-12 billion years old. This, of course, presents a problem for cosmology, since:
"A universe younger than the stars it contains is, to say the least, a fundamental contradiction." 12
Regarding these measurements (and other unexplained data) one astronomer remarked that:
"It would be premature to panic... But if these results are confirmed, we theorists will be in big trouble. We really have no good ways of explaining these observations. 12
And regarding attempts to reconcile this age problem by stretching the theoretical formulas that (supposedly) prove such great ages for "old" stars, one astrophysicist said that:
"We really are happier with 17." 13
As in 17 billion years for the age of the oldest stars, and that:
"The cosmologists are constantly pressuring us to stretch this a little further, but believe me, we can't. And our group consistently gets younger ages for the stars than most others do. The stars could easily be as old as 19 or 20 billion years old, or even older." 13
Similar statements from other sources are quoted below.
"Reports that the big bang is dead may be premature. But the theory that the universe originated in a single, gigantic explosion of matter has definitely been dealt some savage blows in recent years." 14
"Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have produced the most compelling evidence yet that the cosmos is younger than scientists previously thought, calling into question the... age of the stars and the Big Bang theory itself." 15
"... all three studies strongly suggest that the... universe... may be considerably younger than the stars themselves." 15
"An international team of 22 scientists... used NASA's orbiting telescope... to determine with unprecedented accuracy... that the universe is between 8 and 12 billion years old. This contrasts with... estimates... (of) the age of stars..., which range from 16 -- 20 billion years." 15
"The universe is a far younger and smaller place than anyone suspected, two independent teams of distinguished astronomers announced yesterday. In fact, the universe may be only about half as old as the oldest stars and galaxies it contains." 16
"The two international teams have arrived at what ... experts say are surprisingly similar and unsettling answers..." 16 "Their calculations led them to believe that the universe could be as little as 7 billion years old, compared with previous estimates of as much as 20 billion..." 16
"But... many of the stars in the globular clusters... have such low mass that they must be at least 16 billion years old. In other words, many stars are at least four billion years older than the universe that contains them." 17
"Observations of red supergiant stars in a nearby galaxy... suggest that the universe is less than 10 b.y. old... This is ... less than the ... age of some stars, posing an awkward problem for cosmologists." 18
"This age conflicts with that of tightly packed clusters of old stars known as globular clusters whose age has been deduced from models of stellar evolution..." 18
In the above referenced article we note that Sandage and Tamman -- using photographic plates to measure the amount of light coming from a galaxy named IC 4182 -- came up with an age of between 13-17 billion years for the universe, while Pierce, Ressler, and Sure came up with around 8 billion. The latter are quoted as finding that:
"These values... imply that the Universe is only 7.6 to 9.6 b.y. old." 18
Isn't it interesting how astronomers can tell how old a star is just by looking at it? And isn't it noteworthy how one team of astronomers can come up with 13-17 billion years, while a few years later another team comes up with half that much. 19 Is it not possible, if not probable, that neither astronomers nor cosmologists really know how old the universe is?
One of the problems with this is that the Universe is quite large, and the stars and galaxies in it are too far away to measure with much accuracy. For example, it is said that:
"The speed of a galaxy can be deduced from its Doppler shift of the lines in its spectrum. Most of the motion of nearby galaxies is caused by the gravitational effects of their neighbors, so astronomers have to study galaxies at least 20 or 30 million light years away to disentangle the effects of the expanding universe." 19
Big Bang History: Short Version
Hubble may have been the first to propose an expanding Universe, but Lemaitre was the first to actually propose a "'big bang' ... "explosion of a 'primeval atom'" 20
The Shaky Foundation of the Big Bang
The evidence for the Big Bang consists of the following evidences:
1. The alleged expansion of the Universe, based on the red shift.
2. The Microwave Background Radiation.
3. the abundance of helium in the Universe. 21,22
However, none of these evidences is proof of a big bang, since each can be accounted for by things other than an explosion. 23
Regarding the evidence for the big bang, the editors of New Scientist remarked that:
"Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations." 24
"... the big bang theory will definitely need some major modifications if it is to survive into the future." 24
From Big Bang to Long, Continuous, Smooth "Bang"
The Big Bang theory is dead. The only thing left is for the scientific community to come clean by announcing that they were wrong, and for an appropriate eulogy to be written. The Jan. 1997 issue of Discover magazine stated that:
"...with the flood of (new) data, old ideas about galaxy formation are toppling. Particularly imperiled is the notion that virtually all galaxies came into existence at the same moment in the distant past, emitting a collective burst of light like some grand fireworks display." 25
"Now... astronomers believe that galaxies..." (were created) "not all at once but continuously ... over a period of billions of years." 25
The only thing the author didn't tell us is what it was that made astronomers change their "notion" about the "collective burst of light" (i.e. their former belief in the Big Bang) and why they now think that new galaxies are continually being created. The author did give us a clue though when she stated that astronomers:
"... figured there was a precise era when galaxies were first constructed, when all those islands of new stars 'turned on' in relative unison...(they) therefore were looking for signs of a sudden eruption of light in the distant cosmos." 25
So "For years they probed the distant cosmos and came up empty handed. They could say only that distant galaxies and clusters looked a bit 'bluer,' a sign perhaps of heightened star formation. Young and massive stars..." (so we are told) "tend to put out more blue light." 25
In effect, what astronomers are now saying is that many of the closer galaxies are red shifted because they are moving away from us, but the furthest ones are blue shifted, not because they are moving toward us, but because they are younger. In other words, since the (blue shift for-furthest-galaxies) data doesn't fit with the red shift for-things-that-are-moving-away-from-us-theory, and since we are not ready to completely dump the Big Bang (expansion of the Universe theory), then we will simply change the rules a bit, by saying that the furthest galaxies are blue shifted, not because they are moving toward us, but because they are young, while the red ones really are red (not because they are old, but) because they are moving away from us. In other words, they want to have it both ways.
For IF the Universe were indeed expanding, and IF the galaxies were all created as the result of a Big Bang, then they would all have formed at about the same time: meaning that the furthest galaxies should have the highest degree of red shift (and actually be red, as opposed to blue). But since they don't, astronomers are now saying that the blue color has nothing at all to do with their motion, but rather is simply a sign of their age.
In other words, astronomers and cosmologists still don't know all that much about how our universe (and the stars in it) was created, nor do they know when it was created either. In fact, they don't even know whether it is expanding or collapsing. For those who doubt what I just said, consider the following quote from an article in Astronomy magazine from 1996.
"Four years ago an ambitious pair of young astronomers ... looked deep into the ... sky trying to confirm a prediction made by every respectable cosmological theory. On very large scales, these theories said, the universe should be moving just one way -- outward..."
"That is not the way it worked out. Instead, Laur and Postman found that a huge chunk of the universe appears to be heading off ... toward some far off point in the direction of Virgo..." 26
Laur and Postman's results sent shock waves through the world of cosmology. If all that mass is moving away on so large a scale, then the big bang was not as smooth and uniform as virtually all modern cosmological theories demand. As one astronomer put it, 'If this result is true then we know less than nothing.'" 26 Emphasis Added
Cepheid Variables and Great Distances
Because the universe is so large, astronomers are unable to measure the distances to the overwhelming majority of stars and galaxies directly, but must devise other (indirect) methods of doing so, such as the use of stars called Cepheid variables.
Cepheids are stars that vary in brightness over time. The time it takes for them to go from their brightest phase to their dimmest and back again is referred to as the period. It usually varies from several hours to ten days. But perhaps the most interesting thing about these stars is not that they vary, but rather that the individual star's period is believed to be proportional to its brightness, and therefore, it is also believed that "the distance to a Cepheid can be calculated from its period and its average brightness (or luminosity as observed from the earth)." 27
In principle, determining the value of the (believed) expansion rate of the Universe (referred to as the Hubble Constant, or H.C.) is rather simple, requiring only a measurement of distance and velocity. 27 And although it is said that: "... measuring the velocity of a galaxy is straightforward, gauging the distance is rather difficult." 27 It should also be mentioned here that the "straightforward" method used to determine a galaxy's velocity is its red shift, 27 and that determining the distance to a galaxy requires the use of a "variety of complicated methods," each of which "has its advantages" but none of which are "perfect." 27 Also, each of the methods requires the use of Cepheid Variables.
Difficulties with Using Cepheids to Measure Great Distances
Even if astronomers are correct in saying that a Cepheid's period is related to its brightness, there are still assumptions which must be made in order to use this technique to calculate how far away a given Cepheid is. And even if their assumptions are correct, there are still other significant problems.
For example, it must be assumed that Cepheids with similar periods are also the same size, and therefore the same brightness. While this may be a reasonable assumption, it is an assumption nevertheless.
But then there is the problem of Polaris: for although it is a Cepheid, its pulse "mysteriously stopped beating" 28 for several years, and then, just as mysteriously, started up again at a different pulse rate, and now it appears to be slowing down again rather fast. 28,29,30,31,32
Another problem with using Cepheids as distances ladders (or yardsticks) is that their luminosity can be diminished by space dust. To compensate for this "astronomers either observe" (them) at infrared wavelengths where the effects are less significant," or they "observe them at many different wavelengths so they can assess the effects and correct for them." 33
Then there is the local vicinity (or nearness) problem, since Cepheids are "... bright enough to be observed only in the nearest galaxies, not the distant ones." And although we are told that nearby galaxies are "participating in the expansion of the universe, the gravitational interactions among the neighbors may be causing some to move faster or slower than the rest of the universe" -- except, of course, for the HUGE CHUNK (which we are a part of) that is moving in the direction of Virgo. Therefore "... to calculate the Hubble Constant, astronomers must accurately determine the distances to remote galaxies, and the task is extremely difficult." 33
Translation: Although Cepheids are used as a "standard candle" to measure distances, they are really not that foolproof, and especially when it comes to measuring distances to far-off galaxies.
"Nevertheless," we are told that "astronomers have developed several methods for determining distances to remote galaxies," 33 but that:
"Because many of these techniques must be calibrated using the Cepheid distance scale, they are considered secondary distance indicators ... Yet scientists cannot reach a consensus about which, if any, secondary indicators are reliable." 33
"Furthermore," (astronomers) "disagree about how they should apply any of the methods and then whether they should adjust the results to account for various effects that might bias the results." 33
What is CMB, and Why it Doesn't Support the Big Bang:
CMB is short for Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. It is supposed to be radiation left over from the (purported) Big Bang that (supposedly) occurred from seven to twenty billion years ago. Scientists were hoping they could point a directional radiation detector in a certain direction in outer space, and come up with a greater amount of radiation when pointed in that direction, and which they were hoping would be an indication of the direction that the far off bang is supposed to have come from. However, what they found is that no matter what direction they pointed their detector in, they got (almost exactly) the same result. This was a big disappointment to Big Bang theorists and required some fancy footwork to "recover" (their theory) from. Below are a few quotes with regard to this episode.
"...cosmic background radiation now seems to be contradicting our very existence, by telling us that matter in the early universe was distributed extremely smoothly, with no evidence of any lumpiness out of which galaxies could have condensed." 34
"... a third version of the big bang ... (said) that the universe seemed to be uniformly filled with very even heat at a temperature of about 3K... This was interpreted as ... the afterglow in the form of microwave radiation left over from the huge initial explosion." 35
"Another problem was the very smoothness of the so-called background radiation. Large scale surveys of space have shown that matter is not evenly distributed at all, but exists in the form of huge clusters of galaxies, and even larger-scale clumping, including some huge structures... like the Great Wall... while there are vast empty reaches..." 35
"Big bang theorists decided that if they could find some variation or ripples in the pervasive 3K radiation, this would be an adequate explanation of the origin of the large-scale structures." 35
"To verify this prediction, NASA designed a special satellite detector called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer). COBE was launched in 1989; however, the expected ripples were never found." 35
So what actually happened was that:
"By 1991, no variation had been detected and the big bang theorists were beginning to panic. Then in April of 1992 a computer program was used to analyze the data, and at last something was detected -- hot and cold spots differing in temperature by up to about 3/100,000ths of a degree Celsius. 9" 35
Note: Other explanations for these minute differences (other than evidence for a big bang) are given in references 10-13 of this paper.35 Instrument sensitivity/noise limit was not listed, but this is certainly also a possibility.
What Scientists are Reluctant to Admit about Star Formation Theories:
Cosmologists have theorized that stars form from huge clouds of gasses (primarily hydrogen and helium) that somehow collapse in on themselves due to gravity. But this is only speculation. The truth is that, as far as we know, gasses resist being compressed. And the more that they are compressed, the greater the outward force becomes. However, in outer space, there is nothing to keep a cloud of gas from moving (or expanding) outward into a larger and larger area. There is also no proof that once a cloud of gas gets so large it will somehow collapse in on itself. Therefore, in outer space, the more gas there is, the more space that any given gas cloud will take up. This is also why we (even today) still observe extremely large clouds of gasses way off in outer space. And when we do so, they are not always round, but take up all sorts of different shapes. And though some stars may be nuclear furnaces with lots of gas in them, we do not know how they came to be, nor have we ever actually seen a new star form (and light up). 36 Some may say that this is because it would take "millions of years" for it to do so; however, such notions are nothing more than fanciful excuses for theories that are weak. For the fact is that once that furnace ignited, it would do so immediately, and immediately begin producing light, that would immediately begin traveling outward in all directions. In other words, one would think that IF new stars were indeed still forming in other galaxies, that they would be doing so almost continuously, and that (at least some of them) somewhere in the great universe would start "popping up" somewhere. But as far as we know, NOT ONE of them has done so.
See also "Speedy star changes baffle long-agers"
The Hidden Secret Behind Dark Matter
For some time now astronomers have been telling us that the universe consists of 95-99% cold dark matter (CDM), that cannot be seen or even detected except by its gravitational force; however, they haven't told us why they believe this, other than to tell us that the motions of stars and galaxies demands it.
What is wrong with this scenario?
Are cosmologists and astronomers hiding something from us?
Let's take a look at some of the things that have been said in this regard:.
"With 95% of the visible universe consisting of cold dark matter of unknown composition, we are in the humiliating position of knowing only about 5% of what we see is made of." 37
And with regard to what this "dark matter" consists of we are "completely in the dark." 37
"...calculations have shown that the detected matter in the universe is only about 1% of the amount required to produce the gravitational attraction needed to form all the galaxies and clumps of galaxies, even within ... 15 billion years. This problem was solved with the stroke of a pen..." 38
"In the early 1980's, cosmological theoreticians decided that the universe was now made up of nearly 99% 'cold dark matter' (CDM) -- necessarily 'dark' because no one has ever seen it or detected it..." 38
In a nutshell, the theory of Dark Matter was invented (out of thin air) to try and explain why Galaxies exist, and especially why they have "structure" (i.e. spiral arms) and why they look as if they are quite young -- when, of course, we just KNOW they must be (very, very) OLD.
For more on the subject of Dark Matter and how the Galaxies themselves provide evidence of a Young Universe see What Happened to all that Dark Matter? 39
Randy S, Berg, Copyright © 2005
|No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy||Scientists Speak About The Origin Of Matter - 2|
Link to other Doc