The Big Bang theory concerning the beginning of our cosmos and existence has been the primary theory for more than half of the 20th Century. It has been around so long and is believed by so many people that many people literally consider it to be a scientific fact. Most people would not even consider questioning it for fear of the inevitable response by the ardent followers who have been programmed since youth to believe it.
Therefore, I expect challenging the Big Bang to be very controversial. I can see the flack coming now. Good, I love a good fight. So let's toe the line and go to blows. :-) (But I will not be alone because not all scientists believe in the Big Bang.)
Before I begin to question the concept of the Big Bang, it is important to give a brief description of the theory for the less learned.
The theory of the Big Bang is based on fundamental physics and theory which has given it considerable strength for so long. The theory basically states that some matter (most believe a cloud of hydrogen) imploded into a tremendous black hole with such force that it set off a fusion type nuclear reaction which resulted in a monumentally large big bang sending the matter exploding outward. This explosion caused the formation of matter as we know it today.
Initially, the smallest particles formed into such items as electrons and protons, then the electrons and protons slowed enough to begin forming atoms, the atoms began pulling together into molecules and dust, and the molecules and dust imploded into rocks, planets, and stars. Next, the stars and planets began imploding into today's galaxies which are now spiraling through space.
Sounds good doesn't it. :-)
A very important part of the Big Bang theory that most people don't know about is that it is what is called a four dimensional model. When you mention the Big Bang, most people think it is talking about a three dimensional model where everything is just scattering through space from the center out like a shotgun blast. The four dimensional model is a little difficult to explain, so hang on.
The way the four dimensional model is explained is to think of blowing up a balloon. Now, think of our cosmos as the very, very think skinned balloon that is expanding out into space in every direction. In other words, think of the usually thought of three dimensional model with a huge hole expanding from the center of the cosmos as the cosmos expands outward. Now, you must understand that the skin of our balloon is getting thicker as it expands so that our cosmos is "expanding" in all directions. In other words, the inside of our cosmos or huge, hollow ball is not expanding as quickly as the outside of the ball so that the wall of the ball is getting thicker as the cosmos expands into space.
So, why do they call this a four dimensional model? Man's mind is not capable of dealing with infinity so we gave our cosmos a very strange ability to keep us from having to deal with infinity. After all, our pride wouldn't permit us to concede that we can't understand something. :-) We say that our cosmos is the totality of existence in our dimension and if you approach the outer boundaries of our cosmos (either the outer or inner part of our balloon skin) space curves so that we will always stay inside of the balloon skin and eventually end up where we started. In other words, you can't leave or enter our cosmos. In a nut shell, that is the Big Bang theory.
What do we see when we look out into space. We see a cosmos that is expanding out into space equally in every direction, the galaxies furthest from us are traveling fastest and have the greatest red light shift, the closer you come towards Earth, the slower the galaxies are moving away from us and there is less red light shift, and there is an cumulative or back ground gravity which is contributed to by all of the matter in the cosmos and is equally distributed throughout our space.
It is important to understand that the red light shift is equated to acceleration. There is a problem with this. According to the fundamental principles of motion and forces, when the initial "push" caused by the explosion ends, matter will continue at a constant speed and direction until acted on by a force. The combined gravity of the cosmos is a force that will act on the matter of the cosmos to slow its speed as it expands outward. Therefore, according to physics, the light shift should be in the opposite direction because it is impossible for the stars to be accelerating without a force, such as the initial explosion, acting on them and they must be slowing down. Unless...I will deal with this unless in my hypothesis.
Some scientists are now saying that the red light shift may not be caused by the stars accelerating and that it may be caused by something else.
Another problem scientists are dealing with is that the amount of back ground gravity in our cosmos requires the existence of nine times more matter than we can find in the cosmos. At first they thought that this missing matter was contained in large dark areas in our cosmos. Therefore, it was named dark matter. I had trouble with this theory because so much matter confined in such relatively small areas would create a massive amount of gravity, even greater than black holes. This gravity would cause light to be pulled out of its path or even into these dark areas. Since such visual distortions could not be seen, then I felt that the missing matter was not in the dark areas. I further reasoned that nine times the matter of the rest of the cosmos could not be dispersed throughout the rest of the cosmos or it would block out the light coming from everywhere outside of our own solar system and probably even our own sun. Therefore, I reasoned, that this missing matter must be at the outer reaches of our cosmos. I will expand on this in my hypothesis about the cosmos.
Surprise of surprises, scientists realized that the extra back ground gravity was not coming from these dark areas. Next, they hypothesized that this dark matter was actually invisible and was spread throughout the cosmos. (This did not make sense to me because it is only common sense that electrons and protons are going to have some kind of visible effect on light photons.) In either January or February of 1999, it was announced that scientists have determined that this back ground gravity is not coming from within our cosmos. Read my hypothesis.
There is a little problem with the expanding, empty sphere theory in relation to what we see in space and we call it geometry. When we look out into space, we see everything in a circular manner as our planet rotates. If you draw a circle inside of our balloon skin, you run into a problem. The inner circumference of the balloon skin must be less than the outer circumference. This means that the stars closer to the center must be closer together than the stars closer to the outer side of our balloon. The stars closer to the inside of our balloon must be moving apart slower than the stars closer to the outside of our balloon. Since we see everything moving away equally, we must be near the center of a three dimensional cosmos. (See my book analysis of doctor Russell Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time.)
Probably the biggest problem facing the Big Bang Theory is space. You see, we debated for a very long time about infinity. Does it exist? Logic tells us that it should but God did not give us minds capable of comprehending infinity. When we try to comprehend infinity, our minds scream out for a beginning and an end. But just because we humans cannot comprehend existence without a beginning or end, does that mean there has to be a beginning or end? Of course not. What it does mean is that our intellect is not perfect. We humans hate to admit that our intellect is not perfect because then we are not the most advanced life form possible and that means that God could exist.
A closed, four dimensional universe is a very convenient security blanket for our minds. By creating this little closed universe, it permits our minds to be drawn into the cosmos and hide behind our curved space barrier. Therefore, we don't have to deal with the concept of infinity because our cosmos is now finite and we can comprehend that. It is intellectually comfortable.
Oooooo, do I like shaking intellectual trees and making people think about things that are not intellectually comfortable. So, I really enjoy asking little questions like,"If our cosmos is expanding, what is it expanding into?" People really hate that one. You see, basic science requires that for something to expand, there must be space to expand into. I don't care where you draw your little magic line in space. If I walk out to it and step over it, what am I stepping into? The only logical answer is space. Their own theories and analyses prove the four dimensional model wrong.
We have debated for a long time as to whether the cosmos would expand until everything flew apart or would it eventually implode into another black hole and big bang. At the end of 1998, scientists finished calculations which show that our cosmos will continue expanding until everything flies apart. But hold it, how can everything fly apart in a closed universe? What will everything be flying apart into? Oops! We must be living in an open, three dimensional universe.
Sorry, people, but I am going to kick down your nice safe little security wall. You have to explain exactly what our cosmos is expanding into. What are we going to fly apart into?
It took me about 15 to 20 years to train my mind to learn to deal with the possible existence of infinity without having to have a starting and stopping point. Does that mean that I can comprehend infinity? No, but it means that I have learned to accept that because I cannot comprehend it, does not mean that it does not exist. All it means is that I cannot comprehend it. So, I'm human.
We humans have the same problem in dealing with eternity. Our minds demand that there also be a starting and stopping point to time. The four dimensional model easily handles this. It states that before the Big Bang happened there wasn't any time. Time was magically frozen. Also, when everything implodes back into that tiny little dot of matter, time will magically cease to exist again.
Hang on, I have some more tree shaking questions. First, if I go back before the Big Bang, how long would I have to wait for the Big Bang to happen? Hold it! If I have to wait any TIME at all, then time must pass and there must be time. Bummer. Second, they have calculated that we are not going to implode back into that tiny time stopping dot again. We are going to continue expanding until everything flies apart. Oops! Then time will never end? I guess we are going to have to learn to deal with eternity after all, aren't we?
The four dimensional model also has a problem with the back ground gravity. If the missing matter causing the extra back ground gravity is not inside our cosmos, then it must either be at the outer expanding side of the hollow sphere, at the inner side, or at both the outer and inner sides.
If the missing matter is at either just the outer or inner sides, then the back ground gravity cannot possibly be evenly distributed throughout our cosmos. It must be strongest towards the side where the missing matter is present.
If the missing matter is on both sides, the back ground gravity still could not be evenly distributed throughout the cosmos because it would be strongest towards the inner and outer circumferences of our hollow sphere.
There is only one possible solution to this problem. We must be existing in a flat, three dimensional cosmos which is expanding outward in a circular manner with the missing matter equally surrounding our cosmos in a huge ring. This solves the problems of the back ground gravity, geometry, and even the red light shift which I will expand on in my hypothesis. But first stop off at my book analysis of Starlight and Time because it lays the ground work for my hypothesis.
None of the above problems with the Big Bang Theory addresses any particular problems between creation science and the Big Bang. The only major problem creation science has with the Big Bang is having a young Earth and still having time for light to have traveled from 10's of billions of light years away to Earth. The book Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys, PhD. focuses on and effectively deals with this problem. The book takes a look at a very key scientific aspect of such an event as the proposed Big Bang which the proponents of the Big Bang seem to have forgotten about. When I spoke with doctor Humphreys in 1994, he had been receiving very positive responses to his theory from other scientists. As is normal in science, my hypothesis builds on his theory. See ya there. :-)