Replies

The big bang idea is bad physics, bad theology, and bad logic rolled into a package.

There are two kinds of basic problems with the "big bang" idea. One is that it is based on a totally wrong interpretation of redshift data. Halton Arp (www.haltonarp.com), http://www.dragonscience.com etc. and others have shown multiple instances of high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, clearly refuting the entire basis of big-bang.

But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to bang its way out of that?

Aside from that, time appears to stretch out to infinity both before us and behind us and to my knowledge, there is no evidence for believing anything else. Suppose a big bang DID occur 17 billion years ago.: is time supposed to have STARTED 17 billion years ago? If so, how and why? If not, then an infinite amount of time existed prior to the big bang; the mass of the universe would have sat there at its starting point literally forever prior to that event; why would a situation with an infinite past change?

Are we supposed to believe that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs and then big contractions to the original everything-at-a-point condition? The big contraction would be an absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact they don't even have enough real mass in a single galaxy to explain why it doesn't fly apart and are reduced to talking about "dark matter" supposedly making up 95% of the universe (you'd be vacuming the stuff up off your carpet every day if that were the case).

Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.