Copyright by James Carlson
Witness the stars in the heavens and note that there is movement between them and their galaxy. And witness the galaxies in the vast expanse of space beyond our own galaxy and they too move. And how do they move you may ask? It is the motion of galaxies that been at the center of controversy for over a century. The old model of how they move is based upon a Big Bang standard cosmology that is in need of a serious revision as the Big Bang is Busted!
Galileo once commented on his observations about our solar system that the earth moves around the sun and not the other way around. He was punished by Church and State leadership and was told not to teach Copernicium ideas. As he was the first to use a telescope to survey the heavenly bodies, where before the sextant was the only tool available for such observations (re: Tycho Brahe), Galileo saw the motion of moons around planets and of planets around the sun and reported on it. And despite the persecution he received for his discoveries, his dying words were reported as, ‘and still they move.’
Today we are told by a new religious (atheistic) cabal that we cannot deviate from the standard cosmology, if there ever was such a thing. The ideas that surround the motion of the heavens are myriad. It would be hard to codify one set of ideas that points to something standard but the phrase, Big Bang, denotes something incredible happening a long time ago that summarizes the ever fluctuating ideas of the standard cosmology. These ideas still affect us today but was there ever a Big Bang to begin with?
The Big Bang is a product of scientific speculation from 100 years ago that suggested that the origin of Red Shift in galaxies moving away from us (receding) had an original cause of matter exploding (mass and energy). The inherent materialism of the Big Bang is that matter preexisted an energetic moment in which all mass was collected into a very tiny point. From this point an explosion, or Big Bang, supposedly occurred that projected the mass of matter through its course as it is seen today. [Note: The light we witness from far distant stars and galaxies are not all of the same time frame. It takes more time for light at a distance to travel to us than if the light source is nearer to us. Hence, observations are corrected to account for this.] According to Hubble’s observations, the farther away a galaxy is the faster it appears to be moving.
The idea of the Big Bang is a direct result of the observations of light and the shift in the color spectrum of light to the red end of the visible spectrum when galaxies are observed. To account for this Red Shift, the idea that galaxies are moving (instead of a steady state universe) was the logical conclusion. And that this motion had a beginning, the logical assumption was that it began with a big mass and a ‘Big Bang.’
The phrase, Big Bang, was taken from Lemaitre’s statement in the 1930s about a Big Noise associated with a primordial explosion from which all things move. Fred Hoyle recast the phrase ‘Big Noise’ as a ‘Big Bang.’ And following the observations of the movement of light and galaxies that led to a speculation of a Big Bang, the supposed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was determined to be a witness to this original explosion. So we have a partial validation of the Big Bang with CMBR (CMB or CBR). So we are told! History tells us differently.
Many people often consider the Big Bang to be validated by the measurement of the background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in the late 1960s. However, as I’ve shown elsewhere (please see the link below), these measurements were made in the late 1930s by W.S. Adams and derived in the early 1940s by Andrew McKellar. Their work was not connected to Lemaitre or the Big Bang and they thought it was an insignificant discovery. These same measurements were later made in the 1960s by Penzias and Wilson.
Although it remained an obscure discovery (one that even Lemaitre didn’t know about), Hoyle noted it when he critiqued a paper by Critchfield and Gamow (1950s) where their predictions rendered the CMBR as being 11 K, not 2.3 K as derived by McKellar many years earlier. Predictive theories were then adjusted to agree with this available data (Adams/McKellar) and future data (Penzias/Wilson) only agreed with the previous measurements. There was no validation of the Big Bang from Penzias and Wilson; only a repeat of previous measurements. Notwithstanding, this is still a part of the standard cosmology today, which history tells us is invalid.
But it wouldn’t take long before the idea of expansion at a constant velocity would incorporate adjustments to the standard cosmology that rendered expansion at an accelerated rate, not a constant rate. This acceleration, is certain to unravel the entire foundation of the Big Bang, which is based upon the idea of an expansion of the universe at a constant rate of velocity.
To provide a foundation to new information, we can use Newton’s equation of F=ma and integrate both sides of the equation. With this we have the Principle of Linear Impulse and Momentum (PLIM) or mv1 + ʃf(t)dt = mv2, where mv1 is the initial momentum, ʃf(t)dt is the integral of a forcing function over a discrete period of time (an impulse or acceleration of speed), and mv2 as the final momentum at a constant velocity. This equation uses an impulse to show how mass at one speed (even at rest) is accelerated to another speed after a forcing function (impulse) like an explosion occurs. The Big Bang, here is that explosion, forcing function, or impulse. However, all that the bang can deliver is an expansion at a constant velocity, not a continuously accelerating rate. With this we may understand better the work provided by Alan Guth on the Big Bang.
Guth introduced a new concept of expansion in the late 1970s/early 1980s with his theory of Inflation of the universe that originally expanded at an accelerated rate as a part of the Big Bang’s forcing function or impulse. Occurring a fraction of a second after the Big Bang supposedly occurred, this Inflation accelerated matter and energy to fill the observable universe using the matter and energy the Big Bang provided. Acceleration, which is a changing rate of velocity and not a constant rate of velocity was added to the Big Bang (forcing function) that differed from the original speculations of Hubble, et al, about their observations of Red Shift and recession (at a constant velocity). Guth filled in the blank of the impulse for Hubble and others noting how the expansion was begun with the impulse of the Big Bang.
Now, let’s turn to more recent observations of Red Shift with type 1A supernovae that were conducted by 2 independent research teams in the mid-1990s. From their work on supernovae and Red Shift that came from them, researchers agree that the current rate of expansion is at a changing velocity or accelerating rate; the accelerating rate of expansion is now the norm. But as expansion at a constant velocity is a part of the standard cosmology and the Big Bang, the norm no longer includes an expansion at a constant velocity. We have an accelerated expansion in the present (supernovae) that affects the standard cosmology of the past.
So I ask, what is the observable data that shows an expansion of the universe at a constant rate of change (constant velocity)? The Big Bang, an explanation of galactic movement in terms of a constant velocity based on observations of Red Shift, no longer has a foundation. The Big Bang cannot be used as a starting point for the universe, because the expansion of the universe at a constant velocity, from which the Big Bang was originally derived, is no longer valid (do you see the dichotomy?). We cannot use the Big Bang for either Inflation or the current rate of expansion of the cosmos. The standard cosmology is busted. So, where does a Big Bang or an Impulse that drives an expansion at a constant velocity have a foundation? There is nowhere to turn for observable data to qualify or quantify the Big Bang anymore. The Big Bang is Busted!
New Cosmology
Its time to rescue the world of science from itself and its ceaseless circular reasoning that only puts them in a standard box with standard beliefs that cannot be challenged as it is the standard cosmology! But challenge them we may and challenge them we will with a new cosmology and cosmogony based upon the Bible and experimental data. Without any empirical evidence of expansion at a constant velocity there is no foundation for the Big Bang. It’s time to get over it!
What then? Let us return to the field of study where the beginning of the universe is where God said, ‘Let there be light!’ (Genesis 1:3). As such, we may find an energetic moment where energy penetrated the darkness (energy first and not matter first) becoming the origin of the universe. The beginning of Genesis offers us a picture where the one verse (sentence), ‘Let there be light!’, was the beginning of the universe. The one-verse is the origin of the uni-verse. In other words, the universe (one sentence) is the origin of the universe (all things contained in it).
The idea of the Big Bang was originally a model for interpreting all the data that has been collected to support it. In this model, an original mass was at the beginning of the universe and as this mass exploded it provided an energetic moment from which the universe was formed. Did it ever occur to anyone that from both models of origins there is a unique energetic moment? They both agree to this but that energetic moment doesn’t have to have matter first as a part of a standard model required for all to follow (or face house arrest). We can start with Energy first and not Matter first. This is where things start to get interesting.
Instead of the religion of matter first (materialism) let’s follow a different viewpoint of energy first. Light penetrating darkness is likely to have exceeded the present speed of light in order for it to fill the darkness of the void at the beginning of time. So as the clock started ticking, light entered at speeds faster than the current speed of light. We know that the speed of light can be changed and this is without controversy.
So, with the introduction of light into the void of darkness comes an expansion not too dissimilar to the Inflation which Guth once postulated. However, no mythical Orphic Egg is needed as an original mass prior to an explosion or Big Bang. God gave the original energy that penetrated the void of darkness with His spoken word. And as this was the moment when light entered the darkness and the universe began, the speed of light likely slowed down (at different rates). It is from this slowing of light that matter likely precipitated similar to rain from a cloud. [The fact that the far distant galaxies are moving away faster than those closer to us may be a witness to this energy first thesis where the speed of light changed from must faster to normal.]
That matter is the result of Energy First physics is based on physics, which shows that matter and energy can be converted, one into the other. Particle physics also shows how matter can be sub-divided into smaller particles to include units of energy. As the study of particles being divided draws us to the level of energy units, this division of matter in reverse (Energy First physics) may explain the origin of matter in the universe.
Anaxagoras once postulated the infinite divisibility of matter but Leucippus and Democritus (Atomists) countered with the idea of a finite divisibility of matter into the smallest particle of an atom. Modern science has made many discoveries of sub-atomic particles and has continued this division into mass units that are based upon energy. Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Democritus may all be right but for different reasons.
Matter and energy cannot be destroyed but it can be converted from one to the other. As such, mass is sometimes defined in terms of energy such as m = E/c2 or mass is equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. Given this new thesis of cosmology/cosmogony, if this division of mass into energy is reversed, then, as the speed of light squared that entered the universe is slowed down, matter may be the result. So, as light filled the void of darkness and slowed down, the light (like a cloud) precipitated matter (like rain) to fill the universe. This may be the origin of all matter from the first verse of the universe, ‘Let there be light!’
There is a lot to unpack here but let’s approach the light problem of Red Shift, which was the origin of speculation 100 years ago. Yes, galaxies move but how do they move? Do they move as a consequence of their environment? If so, the Big Bangd may be called upon but it cannot be relied upon for this motion as it is no longer valid (busted). Perhaps Inflation and Dark Energy can provide an explanation? Inflation requires a new, undiscovered 5th energy, Dark Energy, that has never been observed for Inflation to work. So Inflation cannot be relied upon either for modeling galaxies as a part of an open system. So, as both the Big Bang and Inflation require a galaxy to be subject to its environment for movement, perhaps we need to reclassify a galaxy from an open system (a system subject to its environment) to a closed system (one that is not subject to its environment). Leaving behind the now non-standard standard cosmology, we can open new doors for potential discovery with a new standard for cosmology.
And Still It Moves
The motion of moons around planets, the planets around stars, stars around a galaxy, and galaxies around the universe is a complex matter to consider. With the model of the universe that isn’t matter first but energy first, we are not subject to the environment of the universe causing galaxies to move but can view the galaxies themselves as having the means to move themselves around as a closed system.
Galaxies may in fact propel themselves through the universe as a consequence of some undiscovered principle of motion. Galactic Self-Propulsion (GSP) is a thesis that is but one consequence of a new cosmology where the Big Bang has been busted and yet galaxies still move. This then addresses the Red Shift problem of light from distant galaxies. But then, how do galaxies move on their own?
GSP has been discussed elsewhere (please see the link below) but it is safe to say that there is empirical data as evidence in support of this thesis of propulsion. The evidence is taken from the data already delivered from those who thought they were studying the Big Bang and various aspects of that thesis. The data itself is not controversial and should be relied upon for testing this new thesis and for making new discoveries with it. However, taking the Linus Blanket of the Big Bang away from people will be disturbing for some. But let’s trek on to discover what we may discover.
For a review of GSP as a partially validated thesis, please visit my blog: A New Light in the Heavens
Comments