I. SCIENCE C. Theories 2. The Big Bang Theory

27 Jan

idealized big bang

As we have gone, in the world of ontology, from thinking that the world is composed of the four great elements of history — earth, air, fire, and water — to thinking now that the world is composed of ninety-or-so elements (and their isotopes, and their states of change, and their constituent, even smaller parts) we have, in the worlds of cosmology and astronomy, gone from an Earth-Centered Universe planned by a force or deity at least as intelligent and purposive as a demiurgos, to a Universe arisen pretty much due to chance. As if this is not problematic enough in itself, the explanations given which attempt to describe and justify this Big Bang Theory, which I may refer to as the Kaboom Theory from time to time, stand on very shaky ground, to say the least.

I have long believed in the science, let me be clear. Until only a several years ago I believed as I was taught, that the Universe is trillions of years old, the Earth billions, that there are millions of galaxies like our own, that our sun is not unlike any other of the same size, that we have a common ancestor with the primates, and so on. But since I began asking myself “by what evidence” I believe these formerly-held to be “obvious” theories, I have unwittingly dropped into the position of Descartes, and found that these things I have very much accepted on authority alone.

Still, today, I find it very difficult to abandon this science, despite my research which has made me skeptical of my beloved. But I will say that while I will attempt to be impartial, it gets very difficult, perhaps because of the intensity of our relationship. I am sure my impatience will make this difficulty appear exaggerated to my readers. Let me state again: Real science must work. I want the science to work.

Having said this, let’s get to the Big Bang Theory proper.

History of the Big Bang Theory

If you will recall, the origins of the Big Bang Theory are found first and foremost in the work and conclusions of Edwin Hubble, back in the first couple of decades of the 20th Century. It is his research that has provided the foundation, the evidence, that made scientists adopt this theory as the most sustainable.

Besides Hubble’s work, Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, George Lemaitre‘s “Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom”, and Alexander Friedmann‘s special adaptation of Einstein’s Theory, all led up to Fred Hoyle’s coining of the phrase “Big Bang Theory” in 1949. Now 60 years later, and many changes beyond its original formulation, the Big Bang Theory, in all seriousness, has taken such a stronghold in the firmament that men have lost their jobs in arguing against it. It has achieved a level of dogma not unlike belief in the supernatural.

We need to remember also before we begin this study of the Kaboom Theory that:

“Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant” (source here and secondary sources here and here esp. 4.3 and 4.4).

This means, for us doubters, that the Big Bang apologizes for itself from the beginning; qualifies itself in effort to ward off attack from the unbelievers, we could say. In plain English, the Big Bang Theory assumes that there was a central point of energy, matter, or a combination of both, and that for one reason or another, exploded, and continues to scatter outward. It need not justify the origin of this primordial speck, or say a thing about its consistency. You might as well begin with a peanut.

The Big Bang Theory tells us it does not attempt to explain the origin of the mass, or the cause of explosion. It has latched onto the “expanding universe” concept, and taken the notion back in history and come to the conclusion that if celestial objects are moving outward, they must have begun from a collected center. But there is no evidence of this, it could have begun at very near the distance it now is, or maybe it could pulse in and out at large intervals, using the same line of reasoning.

This matters to us because despite their qualifications offered up front, the fact remains that nevertheless this science of the Big Bang, like the science, as we shall see, of Evolution, carries itself and represents itself as the explanation of the Universe, the truth, and it is taught in schools, is considered esteemed enough to receive the Nobel prize, and somehow warrants millions of dollars a year in government funding. Worst of all, those of any clout in academia who dare speak against it (the rest being disregarded, usually very offhand, as “ignorant” or “fools”) are thrown without fair trial into the heretical fire.

So while we can use this very qualification to discount the entire theory quite easily, especially being armed with a knowledge of their measuring tools and devices and similar “proofs,” let’s just accept it (but keep in mind that this tolerance has become a custom with this research) and assume for now, nevertheless, that the Universe is just as the scientists of the Big Bang Theory say it is [cough cough]…

Big Bang Theory Foundations

Deciphering the very identity of the Big Bang Theory is a study in patience. We are asked to accept so many things. It goes like this:

For an event to occur, any event, goes the assumption, space and time must exist; no event can occur, or at least be known to occur, without this space and time. Using this assumption, the Big Bang adherent argues that the actual Big Bang occurred outside of space and time, and therefore is beyond analysis. This also assumes there was a “time” without space and time. As Stephen Hawking noted in A Brief History of Time, interesting for our purposes here (and eerily-similar to Eastern Creationist arguments), the universe has no beginning and is beyond space and time (see 116 et seq.).

The Big Bang, the foundation for our cosmology and conception of the universe is, that’s right, imaginary. Admittedly, and purposefully, imaginary.

Let us continue with the fable. Once again, the imaginary Big Bang is required to account for what is believed to be evidence for an Expanding Universe. If the Universe is not expanding, or expanding and contracting in intervals, or if limitations or errors of the scientific equipment, or cosmic factors, can be shown to taint this Expansion premise, the Big Bang Theory becomes the biggest scientific joke since Aristotle declared that flies were created from (out of) garbage.

The Big Bang Theory Itself

In the beginning, the world was void, without even space and time, and all that existed, we know not from where, was condensed into a tiny but energy-laden point of no mass. Had it had mass, it would be within space, which the good prophets tell us could not have happened. In this state this mass-less time-less point existed for we know not how long. It was, say the prophets, actually existent, but outside of time and space:

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[22] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[23] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarksleptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe[24]

This is quoted from Wikipedia’s article, but the same “explanation” (qualifiers intact) can be found in many places. So let’s see what we can make of this first day of creation, Big Bang style. In the second sentence quoted just above, we find that according to “most models” (very appropriate word…) of the Big Bang Theory “…the Universe is filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling.”

Now we talk about “making a big jump,” but this sentence simply leaps like Evel Knievel over some buses, and in this case he sure at least looks like he’s about to crash. The leap that is made just from “no space or time” to “the Universe is filled” baffles the reason, and makes it want to run away and join a linga cult. How can we go from nothing existing, but a hypothetical point, to a filling Universe? By our understanding so far, there should be no Universe, for if there was, that point of power would exist within space! And furthermore, where did that point reside? Oh I forgot, they don’t have to answer that question. But it is simply too big a presumption to make. To me, at this point [sic.], we have to ask where the substance came from when this point went Bang? Are we saying matter comes from nothing?

You will also notice the 10 to the negative 37th power. This I will convert for the sake of our sanity, using the same artistic license through which negative time was created, to 10-37 real seconds in time. Like “parallel universes” negative time is a completely hypothetical, if not completely bogus, a fabricated construction science should be embarrassed to embrace as anything more than bad science fiction. You can read about negative time here, here, here, and here. Myself I find its likelihood about the same as our ever seeing a time machine.

So if we follow the story, after the first existence of this non-existent point, there came a cause, we will call it The Cause (perhaps logos? maybe parabrahm, or demiurgos?), by virtue of which, and through which, let us recall, in literally no time at all had already spawned the entire Universe. ALL the matter and ALL the energy, if we believe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of matter. Not only that, the Bang, (in less than our REAL 37 seconds) filled the Universe “… homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling.”

When it is said that the filling of the Universe is done “homogeneously and isotropically” this is a fancy way of saying that the filling of the Universe from the central point occurred in a fabricated background, imagined as, say, another dimension, and the filling was done equally in all directions. So then, in the beginnings of the Universe, something that doesn’t really exist, and for no apparent reason, exploded into nothingness, became the visible and organized Universe, and everything in it. The point itself, we are told, generated out of nothing not just mass, but mass of high density; not just temperature (and so heat, heat source, and conductor…) but high temperature, and regulated temperature; not just pressure, and the containments necessary for it to be, but high pressures, and so also containing and exerting forces were made to be.

How do we get these time numbers? Has anyone really looked at this scenario objectively?

Now then, on the second day of scientific creation, or the Big Bang, sayeth the prophets, after everything had expanded to where it should be, and cooled to its proper temperature, some time later (we’ll give them a little wiggle room…) “…a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.

Click on the links and have a look if you want to know about these neologisms “phase transition” and “cosmic inflation.” These things are in reality the same–exponential expansion. The “phase transition” concept is used to account for the fact that, if still everything is accepted, and the Kaboom stays true to theory, then the Universe should have expanded equally in all directions, meaning, the universe should have looked like a jack from the jacks-and-ball game, or like a 3-dimensional asterisk. That it is not, a fact proven by astronomical observation and such phenomena like the curvature of space, was discovered early on to be a problem with the theory, and necessitated the need for the phase transition specialism.

So, as the story continues in the scientific genesis, “After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.”[23]

Here is a quark-gluon plasma quark-gluon produced from the heavy ion collider at the Brookhaven national laboratory:


Quarks and gluons, it is usually assumed today, are the basic building blocks of matter. They are what you get when you break up parts of the atom. This special “plasma” is unlike normal matter because normally quarks either pair up with an anti-quark to form a meson, or join with two other quarks to form a baryon (neutrons or protons). According to the science, in the case of this plasma, mesons and baryons lose their identities and turn into a “fluid” of quarks and gluons (source here).

Just one quick note on the particle physics. Quarks are located inside protons and neutrons and can never be seen isolated and perhaps never exist alone. Their very existence, at least as currently understood, is debatable; at the very best, their existence seems to rely on confinement in an elemental particle. The Dancing Wu Li Masters is a very good, if a bit dated, non-technical introduction to this field. These quarks are sorted into six types (according to the model by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964) of  “flavor,” these flavors being “strange,” “top,” “charm,” “up,” “down,” and “bottom” (picture here).

So we have a bunch of these unstable quark-like things flying around our new Universe. The prophets then say that “Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions.”

As we can again see by this quoted explanation, the tale we are told by science is intertwined with complexities, created to justify pre-existing hypotheses. That any of this attempt at justification for the Kaboom Theory can be described as anything more than an educated guess seems so far unlikely. It has all the makings of hoaxes and science fiction, and not even the merit of good legends. It is nonsensical and inane, one who is being objective, with no axe to grind or paycheck to justify, would have to admit.

But we shall plod on, not knowing why there are high temperatures, not knowing why these particles wouldn’t just fly off without colliding, or to combine and meld, and not knowing what other way they can move but relativistically. These particles, say the prophets,  nevertheless move randomly, a statement and proposition at odds with everything we know about the celestial objects, and even about particle physics (see James Gleick’s Chaos, which, I hate to spoil it for you, shows pretty convincingly that atomic and molecular particles demonstrate a marked tendency to order and uniformity).

Furthermore, how exactly do, or can these presumed “collisions” destroy a particle? Would not the Law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy already be in place at this point in the scientific creation? It is easier, but still not simple, to justify how these collisions can create new matter;  it would seem rather that only an altering of that matter which already exists could be possible.

Be this as it may, let’s continue, because this all needs to be heard; whether to be believed or not, we must decide. So let’s finish our analysis of, at least this rendition of, the Big Bang Theory:

“At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarksleptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.

We must now come to that crucial step of considering the whole idea of antimatter, or antiparticles. I have retained the links in the quote for your perusal. I have also taken a “trip” (if in a Disney World sort of way) that tries to explain this concept. Go check it out here. But don’t forget to go to the Brainwashing Briefing Room first! Anyway, this antimatter is allegedly necessary to explain how matter is transformed into energy, or energy into matter, and is required for Einstein’s E=mc2 to mean anything at all. If mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared equals energy (E), how can we get this energy and use it? Is it true the energy contained in an ear of corn, if accelerated to the speed of light squared, could theoretically power my house for the next 100 years?

To replicate this process we use particle accelerators, and the energy produced thereby is almost always in the form of heat. This process, or some simple variation of it, provides the power we glean from nuclear power plants, and the devastation of nuclear bombs. Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Neils Bohr (there were about a dozen others…)  Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and other members of the Manhattan Project, and indirectly Heisenberg, are its creators.


To explain “anti-matter,” or “anti-particles,” and the myriad of black energies and black holes and negative such-and-suches that have arisen since, scientists tell you to analogize the process by considering something like a flattened out piece of dough, which will stand for matter, or, energy. If we take a cutter and cut out a gingerbread man, we would leave a hole. The gingerbread man would be the matter or energy (depending on which we are converting), the hole left in the matrix of dough, the anti-matter, or anti-particle; this is nuclear fission. When we use fusion, and so if we stick the gingerbread man back into the hole, we create more energy as well.

This matter-antimatter is an addendum to Relativity, a testament to our being unable to yet understand how matter and energy work, and a consequence of our hasty elimination of the ancient concept of the Ether. It was even idealized further to justify some of Hawking’s theories. We cannot stress enough that this theory itself was created to accommodate other theories, and presumes the same fable we are trying to explain.

Einstein, whose treatment of it only set the nail in the Ether’s coffin, was mild and careful about discarding it, but his opinion still relegates it to the realm of the incomprehensible. This is very important to our study, because if when we cut out that gingerbread man, the hole is simply a hole filled with the Ether, or if the hole becomes filed immediately again, perhaps due to a reshaping, the whole idea of antimatter or antiparticles, for yet another reason, is brought down in ruins. Read Einstein on the Ether here.

What we call antimatter today, I venture to say, was once called the Ether. Antimatter, just like we have been told about the Ether, exists but has no real properties alone, only in relation to something else. Antimatter, just like the Ether, can only be coincidental with something material.

We are nearing the end of our story, as the foundation is laid. We need not go much further as from this point on everything rests on these initial hypothetical and questionable assumptions and conditions we have been examining. But let’s just go a bit more so we can get the feel for what happens next.

Further, according to the story of the Big Bang, the earliest days of the Universe were full of wars amongst particles, matter against antimatter, like a celestial Ormazd versus Ahriman, like tiny angels and devils fighting it out for possession of the World. Why, even taken on its face, this is considered in any way a progression beyond primitive conjecture, remains unclear, and rests solely on presumptions, ALL of which we have found so far to be either circular in argumentation or assuming of already existing and also shaky theories; ALL of them dedicate their sterile and fleeting tidbits to defending the gospel we term the Big Bang Theory.

It should also be mentioned at this point that most of the originators of these “conceptualities,” and “original pushers” of the Big Bang fantasy were, and to a large extent still are, either atheists or from Jewish backgrounds. Few of the founders of this theory came from religious or Christian backgrounds. However, from the idea’s conception to this day, many Christians have been “converted” to this Big Bang theory, and now far outnumber Jewish and atheist adherents. Neither can it go without saying that academic survival nearly requires Bang-compliance for any teaching or publishing effort. It is not coincidental that Evolution being taught to the exclusion of Creation in public schools has been accompanied by an increase in crime and things like lying, cheating, and being hypocritical. But these are just the tip of the Unfair Iceberg.

For now, I will end this examination of the Big Bang Theory. Should we follow the hypotheses further, we would find that it rambles on in its guessing about what happened to create this World, and as it goes much further beyond the Day of Dissemination (BB Day…) we have discussed, believe me, it only gets uglier, and the opinions even more shaky and varied. The further questions and problems are answered but not well. When we ask, for instance, why some particles went on to become planets, and others stars, while some became gases and others minerals, we get more of the same;  every stop along the way is, seemingly, an occurrence of chance, with no better odds than this theory’s being in any way descriptive of the truth.

If I’ve erred, or missed something, please let me know. Because as of right now, trying my best to understand how we got to this point, and given the existing evidence, I am fast becoming fearful of all theoretical science. The airplane and automobile, the compressor for air conditioning, mass communication, electricity and the light bulb. These are useful, their derivations perhaps the only useful things science has yet provided, and they have been given to us by conventional practical science. Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus. Plato, Aristotle, yes even Aristotle who put the Earth at the center of the world (if you read him, you will understand why), all of their cosmologies, among Western thinkers alone (I will get into Eastern thought later on), make a hundred times more sense than what we have just studied.

My preliminary guess as to why this theory has been allowed any credence at all is as follows. Theoretical scientists are not hard scientists. They are at best creative thinkers and at worst charlatans. Practical scientists create things, make inventions, and contribute to society, for good or evil. They belong there, doing what they are doing. Theoretical scientists should be separated, as if they have the plague, from hard practical hands-on scientists. We do not say a theorist cannot theorize, after all, theory is the essence of all progress. But he should not call himself a scientist proper until his idea is adequately proven in a way that is repeatable, using tested tools, and having answered thereby any questions satisfactorily. I will tell one short story from a mostly unrelated field to illustrate this.

Today another science, medicine, is as much a business as it is about healing. One particular specialist of medicine often steps outside his field of expertise, meaning science. This happens every day when a man or woman of science, a doctor, brings it upon him or herself to advise the “patient,” who has nothing really physically “wrong,” about how much better they will look with a breast augmentation or reduction, a nose job, or botox. This is wrong because a  scientist is not an aesthetician, he has not been trained to recognize beauty, or what is beautiful. Today plastic surgery is big business, to the tune of over half a million operations a year, for cosmetic reasons alone. Now I believe in anyone’s right to cut off their own nose if they so choose. But something is wrong when, as is done today frequently, a doctor or physician, supposedly abiding by the oath of Hippocrates, “advises” his patient about how good he or she will look with a breast augmentation or reduction, or with a nose job, or with botox. Such a determination on beauty is not science, it is aesthetics, and few doctors are trained in that, know enough about art and beauty to determine what is more beautiful, more appealing, or even more suitable. It is like this with theoretical scientists of The Big Bang. They are working outside their fields of expertise.

Which is more beautiful? Before (left) or after (right)?

Which is more beautiful? Before or after? Were I to remove the blue, you would really be upset.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2009 in Big Bang, Creation, ontology, Origin of Man


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: