Well, not really. The subject is too large and ingrained to debunk in just a few pages, but read on anyway and see if my arguments are plausible.
In opening this discussion, my intention is to question the general acceptance of the Big Bang Theory from a layman’s perspective. At the risk of being burned at the stake, I cannot accept both the Big Bang and subsequent Expanding Universe theories. With no reputation to protect and no formal background, I can comfortably argue against these theories.
A hundred years ago Charles Le Maitre’s theory on the ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE was a startling revelation. It was not until the 1960’s that an enterprising science reporter coined the name THE BIG BANG THEORY. It caught on and has become the defining text explaining from whence our universe in its present form began.
That was a hundred years ago, and many advances in astrophysics and cosmology have been made in recent years. Our view and knowledge of the visible universe has expanded exponentially with space telescopes like Hubble now orbiting beyond the interference of our atmosphere. The Voyager space probes are travelling millions of miles across our solar system and, in time, far out beyond it. Terrestrial radio telescopes and space probes have added significantly to our knowledge.
Why then, should we question the validity of The Big Bang Theory? One aspect of it particularly disturbs me; the EXPANDING UNIVERSE. I must admit, right from the start, that I am neither a scientist or physicist. My views are drawn entirely from logic with a smattering of common sense coupled with a limited understanding of the science. Common sense tells me that how the universe began and when it will end are essentially irrelevant to all but a few interested cosmologists today. They have no impact whatsoever on anyone living on earth now.
My observations are based on our knowledge of how our planet, solar system and galaxy work. I am neither qualified nor knowledgeable enough to present a theory, and must then present these as suppositions.
If we begin with our planet earth, some indisputable facts emerge. Two fundamental forces govern the existence of our planet; GRAVITY and MOTION.
Gravity draws all mass into the core. Motion is the equal and opposite force that keeps it globular and stable. Motion occurs in three forms, but I will deal only with CENTRIFUGAL MOTION now. The revolution of the earth around an axis counteracts gravity to create a continuum. All active matter, moons, planets and stars are globular and revolve on an axis because physics and force dictate that only this form will exist under these conditions. Other matter, described as dormant or inert, also exists. This matter is also in motion, and may have some gravitational pull, but they are inert at the core.
The second form of motion is ORBITAL. Our moon is drawn by earths gravitational pull but the orbital motion counteracts this. Our planet, for the same reason, must orbit around the sun to resist coalition. If, as our knowledge expands, we accept that our solar system also orbits around the core of our galaxy, we can confirm the fundamental laws of the universe. Motion, in the three forms, counteracts gravity to maintain a stable continuum.
The third form of motion is DIRECTIONAL, or on a trajectory. It is now widely accepted that our solar system is set on an orbital trajectory within our galaxy. Isaac Newton theorised that the trajectory of matter in the vacuum of space will continue on its course until another force is exerted to deflect it and change this trajectory. Keep this in mind, because I will return to it again.
Few scientists would argue against the assertion that GRAVITY is a fundamental force that is both pervasive and inescapable within the universe. If this is true, the three forms of motion which counteract it, must present the fundamental laws of the universe. These are the laws that determine both the existence of matter, its shape and form and the trajectory they follow. In examining this, one further fact emerges. The clock-work precision with which all solid mass in the galaxy functions as it rotates, orbits and moves through space. Without this, collisions would be regular occurrences, trajectory shifts would be frequent and there would be no order. Order, or the continuum of solar systems and galaxies is evident and can be observed.
If these laws apply to solar systems and galaxies, why would they not apply universally? Logic dictates that most matter in the universe is governed by the same laws. There may be some aberrations that must be regarded as anomalies and explained separately, but these do not negate the laws. We must then assume that all matter in the universe moves on an orbital trajectory and a path set by the forces at play.
The Big Bang theorises the universe began with a massive explosion. Collisions between galaxies have occurred and stars implode. I can find no evidence of a star spontaneously combusting or exploding. This would defy the laws of physics as applied to the universe. They do implode with a resultant explosion that sends matter outwards, but only as they come to the end of their nuclear life. When gravity draws the matter towards the core, they become red dwarfs and eventually, BLACK HOLES. If anything, a star’s life begins as it reaches critical mass and the nuclear engine starts. But not from spontaneous explosions.
Einsteins theory of black holes is also now widely accepted. Recent evidence suggests that black holes exist within the core of some, if not all active galaxies. Once again, logic dictates that these areas of intense gravity generate the forces that form and create galaxies. Motion is all that prevents them from imploding. Andromeda clearly displays all the properties mentioned.
Extrapolating this information and taking a giant leap of faith, we must assume that galaxies also orbit around a cosmic core, probably one or more immense black holes. Is this assumption unreasonable? I think not. At the risk of generating controversy, we could logically assume that more than one universe also exists. We are just not able to see them or comprehend such a vast expanse. Don’t lose this thought.
Little mentioned up to now is contentious, if not established fact. It is at this point that I move forward with great trepidation to challenge some of the greatest minds in cosmology.
There are a number of troubling questions around the Big Bang Theory. First and foremost is what existed before the Big Bang. Le Maitre and his adherents have little to offer in this regard other than dense gaseous clouds. The cold universe theories were quickly discarded in favour of the hot universe pre-requisite. The questions that immediately come to mind are what volume of gas would be required to create the solid mass that exists in the universe today? There is no doubt that it is immense. Why were these gasses so hot? Why did they begin to cool and coagulate. These questions have been considered and answered many times but I am not convinced. I suggest that solid matter did exist in the pre-universe and gravity was also extant. The gasses could not have amalgamated without a force to compel them.
As we move on, another potential flaw emerges. The Big Bang would have created immense heat, which up to this point had prevented the gasses from agglomerating. The answer is that, as they travelled out at immense speed into the void of the universe, they again cooled down. There are some cosmologists who suggested that this would lead to more LITTLE BANGS. This makes sense to me, but has been largely discredited. The burning issue is how these gasses cooled and coagulated travelling in an outward trajectory at immense speed. The other issue is how they gradually formed solid mass. Logic suggests that gravity provided the engine, but the rapid expansion of the Big Bang would have made this impossible until they slowed down and cooled. We must return to Isaac Newton for the answer to that question.
Let us assume that at the epicentre of the big bang all gas and matter was blasted outwards in every direction. Le Maitre’s bell-shaped time line conveniently avoids this thorny question but does not give the full picture. The result, a void at the core, has yet to be identified or described. Until we can locate this epicentre, there is no proof of this cosmic event. We don’t even know at present where our galaxy is in the greater universe or the full extent of the universe. These problems have no doubt been addressed and plausible answers found. I wonder if these answers were based on proving and supporting the theory, or if they have been explored independently with a view to disprove it?
The time scales involved in the universe are so vast that we have difficulty comprehending them. Research into the event suggests that it occurred 13.74 billion years ago. This is based on an extremely complex set of equations and calculations derived primarily from the discovery of RED SHIFT by Edwin Hubble and other luminaries which defined and expanded on the Hubble Constant. Many preeminent cosmologists have agreed with and expanded these theories. These are well beyond my understanding so I will not question their validity other than to ask what their founding premise was. If it was the search for supporting evidence, was all other evidence also considered or some discarded? Science has a predilection to collect and retain only the supporting evidence, disregarding any that does not serve that purpose. As insulting as this may be, let us return to Newton’s Law and his observation that an object in motion will only alter trajectory if an external force is applied. Until more convincing evidence is found, cosmology will continue to be bound by the Big Bang Theory.
This is certainly the case with the EXPANDING UNIVERSE theory. It is a fundamental assumption based on the Big Bang Theory. Supported by RED SHIFT and the discovery of COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND in the mid-1960’s, the requisite evidence, “the smoking gun” has become the go-to in cosmology. This subject is far too deep and complex for a normal mind to assimilate. I can offer only a different point of view to controvert them.
COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND, CMB, is described as the relic radiation emanating from the Big Bang. This discovery using radio telescopes has expanded our view of the greater universe. It presents the universe not as a ball-shaped mass, but more like a ‘flying saucer’ shape, circular at the perimeter, but discus-shaped towards the centre. This makes sense, because this shape is prevalent across most galaxies and is an extension of most patterns observed.
The issue is whether it is a relic, or evidence of an extant force. My interpretation is two-fold. The first is that it could be the relic of the millions of cosmic collisions and coalitions that have occurred. My preferred explanation is that it is the product of the tension that exists between gravity, motion and the magnetic forces that permeate the whole universe. Is it proof of these forces in operation, or a left-over of the past. The jury is still out.
RED SHIFT presents an even more complex problem. Essentially, the light wave band of stars is used to determine distance and speed of motion. First identified by Edwin Hubble and since expanded on over the last hundred years, it relies on a set of ‘known entities’, most commonly QUASAR STARS, as the benchmark. It draws on the Doppler Effect to determine both distance and speed. The wave length and light intensity produce red waves if it is moving away and blue waves if approaching.
The interpretation and calculation of red shift is subject to so many different factors that it can only be done by vast, complex computer algorithms. About 120 benchmark stars, predominantly within our own galaxy or Andromeda, have been calibrated and used for comparative purposes. Far be it from me to question the brilliant minds of Edwin Hubble and other pre-eminent cosmologists who have pioneered these techniques and refined them.
The only answer I can offer is a different perspective, or point of view. Yes, we can agree that planets, stars and galaxies are in motion. The fundamental difference is on what trajectory. It is quite possible that the universe is expanding. I have no reason to contradict this view, but the notion that it is expanding exponentially outwards is not plausible given the laws already established. Disregard the Big Bang, and a different interpretation needs to be found. Consider instead, the orbital motion already observed and established.
To measure this, three elements are crucial; the position of the observer; the position of the observed; and their relative orbits and motion. This is best done by illustration, but can be described in text. Consider two ants, one on the front wheel of a bicycle and another on the back wheel. Assuming one is at the top and the other at the bottom of each wheel, they will only pass each other once in close proximity as they travel. Without knowing that they are both travelling on the same bicycle going in the same direction, their relative direction will not be easy to establish. Therefore their point of view will suggest they are moving away from each other at double the actual speed. As they pass at mid-point, each will appear to be stationery, but once past this, it will be twice that of each. This is a simple equation. Now use two different wheels, going in different directions and speeds, and it becomes very difficult to determine direction and speed. More so because of the distances involved and the time scales applicable.
My argument is therefore that red shift may measure distance, but speed is confused by direction of travel, different trajectories and a number of other factors. If as Albert Einstein postulated, gravity can bend light and speed increases with distance, the equation becomes even more complex. I must then question the validity of basing the expanding universe on this evidence.
I stand to correction, but my view is that the order of the universe is unlikely to have been established from the chaos of the Big Bang, even after 13.7 billion years. One single explosion is barely plausible, but unlikely to have created the present universe, assuming that it did not exist previously. I suggest that we cannot at this point in time and knowledge assume to present a feasible view of how it began, nor can we predict when it will end. Both are pure speculation and should not concern us. What is more important is to continue our exploration and expand our knowledge of how it functions now.
We are at present, a grain of sand in a vast desert, unable to see beyond the closest dune. As our vantage point and technology improve, we may be able to see the horizon. What lies beyond that is any bodies guess. Our present view suggests our universe is a desert, but we know that beyond it there are many other biomes waiting to be discovered. Let us not pre-determine what they are and how they function. Time will tell. Only one thing is certain. Many more surprises and revelations await us.