From the Big Bang To Now
I have recently painted a picture of our planetary evolution from the Big Bang to the Bombardment Of Earth at the end of the Hadean era. The next step in evolution of life on planet Earth starts in the following Archean era.
However, did the “Big Bang” really happen? Or is it just conjecture?
There is now dispute among many scientists and some cosmologists about the “Big Bang” theory.
It appears that the “Big Bang” idea is an unproven theory and is based on speculation. As more scientific knowledge is explored and physicists delve in quantum physics, the “Big Bang” idea sits on shaky grounds. The techniques and the postulated theories used to extrapolate what happen are now appearing to contradict what is acceptable to the understanding of the physics of space and matter.
So! What is going on?
Well! It is all about what you are willing to believe and what you know.
Perhaps the thinking went back to Isaac Newton with his assumptions of an eternal, infinite universe. Although Newton was very clever, he was not always right.
There was dissension between Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton over certain proposed theories. However, Newton’s insight into mathematics, planetary motion and universal gravitation had an indelible influence on many scientists to come. Many of his insights are still applicable today.
Charles Darwin and his thoughts lead others to Darwinism, which became a theory of biological evolution. Darwin postulated many things and wrote many books upon his thoughts. His reasoning was very thought provoking for his time and many scientists have even elaborated on his thoughts and works, even until the turn of this century. But with our current knowledge, Darwinism fails to hold water and is dismissed on many levels.
It seems however, that Cosmology stemmed from the ideas behind Darwinism. But! How?
Many people have questioned religious teaching since the popular 1611 King James Bible was published. Non-believers have always thought about different types of theism to suite their own theology. The “Big Bang” was expounded by many atheists to suite their own ideology.
Since there are more non-believers and atheists than believers of the one almighty God, the idea of the “Big Bang” became mainstream and widely taught without question of authenticity. The belief over the past 50 years or more was if it was written and talked about often, then it must be right. But gossip is not necessarily true or right.
Conceptual Thought
Polytheism perhaps goes back to Nimrod, (great grandchild of Noah).
However, most of our knowledge in the western world goes back to ancient Greece. They had gods that were neither transcendent nor capable of creation. The Romans continued the belief in these gods, although they gave them different names.
Many non-believers still carryon with the belief and or attributes of other gods. Non-believers accept the concept of the “Big Bang”, for it seems to fill a void in their understanding. Atheist argued against the biblical idea of creation and the “Big Bang” idea gives them an acceptable viewpoint as to the beginning of our Universe. Others also believe that the Universe has always existed and the creation of planet Earth is just a natural development of the universe.
It is religion that seeds the mind of men. Whatever your religious thoughts are, they affect your outlook to the world around you. People of different religious persuasion will view the world around them differently, accordingly to their religious outlook.
Religion is not just about faith and worship, it is also a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. Religion goes beyond the 12 major religions of the world, which are considered to be Baha’i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.
Atheists have no belief in any gods at all; they are supposedly against theism in general. If atheists were against theism, then they would theoretically be against the belief in Satan, demons, angels, karma, heaven, hell or anything else that relies on the supernatural and or biblical perception. But according to their upbringing and subconscious thoughts, they could well harbour such thoughts. But even if they were fundamentally against theism, they would be religious in their thoughts through their own following of non-belief.
Cosmologists are human; they are affected by religion to one point or another.
If Cosmologists were or are of a particular religious persuasion, then their thoughts would oscillate around or upon a particular concept. With the concept of “Birds of a feather, flock together”, the Cosmologists in the past conceived the “Big Bang” theory.
Theoretical Thought
The ideology of the “Big Bang” was derived from the works of others, whether proven or not, to formulate a theorem of understanding of the beginning of our universe. It appears that Cosmologists incorporated the works of Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, Pierre-Simon de Laplace, Adriaan van Maanen, Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann, Willem de Sitter, Albert Einstein, Edwin Powell Hubble and Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître to formulate their theorem of the “Big Bang”.
In the 1920s and 1930s many cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, some complained that the beginning of time, (being implied at that time), would import religious concepts into physics.
Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer, coined the term the “Big Bang” theory on BBC radio on the 28th March 1949. He rejected the subjected theory as he went on to promote Panspermia as the origin of life on Earth. Hoyle found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudo science, resembling arguments for a creator.
Hoyle argued that the universe was in a “steady state” and went on to co-formulate the Steady State theory. However, Hoyle’s ideas were not always accepted either. The discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation in the 1960’s helped the “Big Bang” theory to gain victory over the steady state model.
As people of different political, ethnic and religious persuasions entered the realms of Science and Cosmology, questions were asked of the “Big Bang” theory. If the “Big Bang” started with a singularity, what was the singularity?
You cannot get something from nothing, for nothing is void of anything. So! What was the catalyst that caused the event? Was it something known or unknown? Something had to exist, but due to circumstance it was unobservable. This quandary has created a field day for Scientists and Cosmologists of Judeo-Christian faith. They now exploit the singularity as being God, the Creator. Back to “Genesis” they go.
So! Now the “Big Bang” theory is becoming unpopular among some cosmologists. Some still resist the change in thought, whilst others seek new explanations such as the Cyclic Universe.
The Cyclic Universe is an alternative to the Big Bang (Inflation) Theory.
It utilizes Brane Theory that starts with a bang caused by the collision of two branes. Who or what the branes are is a mystery. Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy come into play for expansion, but then due to the weakening of gravity, contraction occurs. Contraction continues until the two branes crunch together resulting in a bang to create next cycle. Of course, all this is based on speculation and is unproven.
The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. But it then continues on with the theories of the Big Bang. Well! That’s way out there.
The proposed Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. This proposition is still in the theoretical stage of consideration.
There are other theories, which rely on either a quantum fluid of hypothetical massless particles, multi-universes or even a holographic mirage from another dimension. Gee! Try and prove that with evidence and observation.
Problematic Evidence
The “Big Bang” theory fails scientifically by its disagreement with evidence and observation. If the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is the end to a observable beginning, then anything between it and the singularity cannot be observed and it is just speculation. And that speculation appears to be based on a faulty premise. So! The “Big Bang” cannot be proven factually.
The CMB radiation appears to be omni directional, which makes the singular point idea suspect. Also the background radiation is too weak, too smooth and its temperature spectrum is too low to suite the “Big Bang” Theory.
The discovery of dark energy that is used as a means to explain the speeding up and expansion of the entire universe is just a hypothesis. Dark energy has never really been discovered and a recent scientific experimentation could not validate dark matter. You cannot call it a lie, just misleading. Since dark energy is used to postulate the expansion of our universe in the “Big Bang” theory, the theory itself falls well short of the truth.
The theories used to explain the “Expanding Universe” of the “Big Bang” theory seem to contradict accepted scientific reasoning based on Newton’s and Kepler’s laws. So they really defy accepted principals.
Radiometric Dating, used in validating the “Big Bang” theory, was based on meteorite and lunar material. But how can you tell if the samples were actually original. The originality of such is not observable. Dating is based on a ratio of Parent to Daughter due to half-life (decay rate) of an element.
However, decay rates are not constant and vary over time, they are also random. Also, how could they tell if the parent samples were not contaminated by other daughter elements, because they were not purely original? So the dating is open to corruption!
Redshift is used with observations in astronomy and extragalactic movement. Redshift is a phenomenon where electromagnetic radiation, (such as light), from an object undergoes an increase in wavelength. Redshift is perceived whether or not electromagnetic radiation is visible. The increase in wavelength is equivalent to a decrease in wave frequency and photon energy in accordance with wave and quantum theories of light. The opposite of a redshift is a blueshift, where wavelengths shorten and energy increases.
The Calculation of Redshift (z) is based on either wavelength or frequency.
The three types of Redshift are the Relativistic Doppler, Cosmological redshift and Gravitational redshift.
Relativistic Doppler is based on Minkowski space in mathematical physics and is used for motion.
Cosmological redshift is based on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, which is proposed as an exact solution of Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. The Cosmological redshift is used as FLRW space-time, in the expanding Big Bang universe.
Gravitational redshift is utilized in any stationary space-time calculation and also in Schwarzschild geometry.
There are problems with Redshift (z). How do you know if the light observed is affected by an unknown source? Well! You don’t.
Using a spectrometer to identify the chemical composition of matter appears to give the best results. But spectrometers have calibration problems and false results are given with unknown compounds. This is why space probes are sent to check things out and usually scientists are surprise by the observed results.
Cosmologists used Redshift (z) in order to calculate the distance of stars and planets. And doing so, they use Hubble’s Law. The Hubble Law states that the radial speed of a galaxy is proportional to its distance (v=Hd).
The Hubble Law is used to find the distances of far-away galaxies. However, it requires the Hubble constant, which is a guess at the best of times. The Hubble constant has been a quandary for many years.
The velocity, (speed), of a galaxy is measured by the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is based on the light emitted from a source that is shifted in wavelength by the motion of the source. If you do not know the real origins of the source or what unknown thing could be affecting the source, then the Doppler effect is just a guess.
So! Redshift (z) is a guess at best. Redshift (z) is flawed when calculating the distance of stars and planets.
Black Holes also cause a dilemma with the “Big Bang” theory.
Measurements of known black holes have shown that the diameter of the black holes varies in proportion to their mass. The minimum size of a black hole is called the “Rieske Minimum Black Hole Mass”. This size is reached when the gravitational force stops the light from escaping. The minimum diameter for the smallest possible black hole is certainly massive and not the size of a pinhead.
And all this leads us back to the singularity, which is presumed to be photon that was compressed until it exploded. Well! Where did the photon come from?
A photon is a type of elementary particle. It is deemed to be the quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation. A photon is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit.
A strong atom can pull an electron from a weaker atom due to circumstances of quantum physics and chemical reactions. This also would affect its orbit.
During the fall from high energy to normal energy, the electron emits a photon, which is simply a packet of energy, a source of light. But for the electron to reach a higher state it needs to absorb a photon. The photon is destroyed as the electron is energized. So does a Photon exist omni presently? Back to the Creator we go.
Back To Genesis
If the creator is perceived to exist as an energized force of creative, righteous, free will, then all is good. If this thinking entity talks to itself in the midst of creating, then it has the ability to create by its word. This entity is also considered to be the Supreme Being, which is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Then why is it not recognised as the creator and ruler of the universe?
The creator, God Almighty, could have simply willed that photon into existence and compressed it with the might of its thought.
So according to Genesis of the Bible:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
So the evening and the morning were the first day.”
The term day in the bible comes from the Hebrew word Yom.
Yom can be used as a concept of time covering such things as:
- Period of light, (daytime).
It can be contrasted with the period of darkness (night). - General term for time.
- Point of time.
- Sunrise to sunset.
- Sunset to next sunset.
- A year (in either a singular or plural sense).
- Time period of unspecified length.
- A long, but finite span of time, such as: age, epoch or season.
Geneses in the bible is also used to establish calendation to determine the Sabbath days and Feasts of God. Many proponents of the bible take Yom to mean the literal day. But taking Genesis in the literal sense also creates problems in today’s understanding of time and development, especially that of a universe.
I think that a time period of unspecified length is both reasonable and more accurate in the scheme of things. The truth is… only God knows.
In Summary
The “Big Bang” itself is just a scientific theory that fails by its disagreement with evidence and observation and known laws of physics. The beginning of our universe in the material realm by the means of a creator is looking more plausible.
The interpretation of Genesis in the bible is mainly taken in the literal sense.
I feel that it was given in simple way to establish worship through Sabbath days and feasts. The concept of a day being a time period of unspecified length is more feasible to me.
So! Who or what created our universe. The only plausible answer is:
God (Yahuah) did!