The above artistic rendition is approved by both CERN and NASA as an accurate representation of the “big bang” and our universe. What’s wrong with this picture?
By Mike McGee
Most people today believe the outdated twentieth-century notion that “big bang” is what created our universe. A minuscule singularity exploded and held enough energy to propel the rocks and stars throughout a cone-shaped section of empty space for more than 13 billion light years of time and space. The hard truth, according to me, is that our universe, however big or small it is, has been around a long time, without the need for a singularity to get it started.
The twentieth-century creation myth of the “big bang” is not and never has been based on facts or observations. It is a fictional story told by scientists who have done mathematical calculations, and cherry-picked “observations” through telescopes. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Our scientists wanted to be the prophets of the new age. Largely they succeeded in the twentieth-century. Now it’s time to strip away our belief in these old made-up stories. Here, I’m a legal scholar looking at evidence, and not a philosopher. I have no guidance as to what you should believe in after you lose this belief. Just lose it.
Let’s look at the legally admissible evidence we have available. This and other evidence is why I think the “big bang” is wrong.
The metaphorical basis for the scientific “big bang” as the creator of the universe is that it resembles the formative event which occurs each time sexual intercourse between a man and a woman results in the coming together of a sperm and an egg inside the human body.
The process of expansion from an extremely small singularity, whether it be the “big bang,” or the conception of a single child, hardly requires any time, space or energy, only memory of the laws of nature. You know in your rational mind that all the huge expansive forces creating the universe from a “big bang” do not exist. This all-powerful force forges a creation story not unlike the religious creation stories. They all require belief; none can offer certainty.
Each newly formed human being develops from two single microscopic cells. Almost all of these “big bangs” grow to billions of times the size of those two cells. Each fully grown human body contains about 37 trillion unique cells, and they are spread over a contained human body to a size at least 13.4 billion times the size of the original two cells. The only real energy added during this growth period is food and water. The growth is guided by a pre-set format contained in the genes, or DNA.
There is only an infinitesimally small amount of energy contained in each uniting of human sperm and egg and the genetic material each carries. The lesson to be learned is that big things, like people, can develop from small things, like a sperm and egg, without the presence of a cataclysmic fireball of almost infinite amounts of energy.
(In like manner, if there ever was a very distant “big bang,” it could have grown to the “present size of the universe” with only a very small amount of motive energy and small added energy.)
We have only very human mathematical computations which give the energy and size of the sort of event that would do what scientists want us to believe was done. Mathematical computations are not a scientific substitute for a tape measure and a thermometer. Mathematics is so earth-bound that it cannot rise above a sheet of paper or a computer screen (Except when a jet or a rocket flies). Of course, math is a very sound and extremely useful analytical method, and has been responsible for many of the scientific advances here on earth. On earth.
Other evidence of the “big bang” is given by earth-bound machines which purport to measure such things as “red-shift.” Scientists ask us to believe that when a needle or a graph line moves in a certain way on a small machine in a laboratory here on earth, we have tangible proof that the light that caused the needle to move is billions of years old: because the needle moved. Sorry. The needle could have just as easily been moved by the headlights on the highway just outside the laboratory.
There are three dominant myths which arise from the currently accepted “big bang” theory:
1. The singularity which started the “big bang” contained enough energy to propel inanimate objects outwards for 13.4 light years in a cone-like structure which we call the universe. The uncountable number of inanimate objects which make up the present universe are still being propelled outward from the center by the initial motive force of the singularity.
The “big bang” pictures which have been creatively drawn by scientists almost always show the “universe” as a cone-like structure moving out into a void. Generally, most explosions create a 360-degree blast radius. How convenient that our “big bang” blast radius is pie-shaped and comes away from the singularity into the void utterly alone. So, we only have to “compute” to the origin point of the blast in order to describe and quantify our “universe.”
A circular “big bang” would change drastically the way our scientists analyze the expansion of the “universe” from a single point. The singularity would have to be a lot bigger and stronger than has been specified. The math would have to be gigantically bigger. Scientists avoid these unusual circumstances by drawing the size and shape of the “universe” in a way that is conveniently computable. Most scientists, though, accept the “cone shape” of the universe as gospel.
As to actual observations, what our scientists see in telescopes are bright spots of light somewhere in the sky. Radio telescopes hear only signals coming in from either near or far. Sometimes we see the actual pictures, usually enhanced. The “hard evidence” is that the scientific measurements and locations are taken from visual representations of such data in the form of drawings and art work, usually derived from theoretical mathematical computations which may or may not be accurate.
2. The presence of the Void. Even the best scientists can’t specify the void. The void is that empty space which has always existed. This is our Universe. With the advent of the “big bang,” scientists have co-opted the empty space surrounding and containing the expansion of our “universe” from the “big bang” until now. In every attempt at explanation, though, the void space must be larger than the cone-shaped “universe” it contains.
What’s not there? Descriptions and measurement of the universe which are not focused on the “big bang” computations. I call the universe an unmeasured void, even though there may be a lot of material floating around in the empty space.
Almost by definition the void must have existed prior to the explosion we call the “big bang.” It’s that vast and empty space which cannot be defined in any respectably scientific way. Some writers have actually declared that the entire “universe” is 93 billion light years across. The Void must be really big, for sure. “Big,” though, is a vague word. It could mean anything from a few hundred light years from earth to billions of light years from earth. We just don’t know, and have no way to measure.
3. “Box of rocks” Scientists tend to describe the universe and its contents as being almost entirely inanimate, being made up mostly of rocks and gases. The accepted theory is that the universe is just a big “box of rocks.”
The planet earth, we all seem to say, is an extreme and unrepeatable exception. In addition to its inanimate rocks and soil it has abundant plant and animal life, and the sentient beings which we call humans. This narrative makes the earth a very special place, a narcissistic dream of being “master of the universe.”
Our scientists have done an exceptional job of observing and accurately describing earth’s solar system, even sending satellites out to its farthest reaches. Beyond the solar system, though, we’re still guessing, still making up fictional descriptions of the “box of rocks” that lies beyond.
I propose a hypothesis. The predominate matter outside the solar system includes much that is organic and biological; living and yet not sentient, growing, dying and changing shape and form, perhaps on a different scale of time and space than ours. Everything we see in the sky could be very close outside our solar system, or at least not as far away as we think of celestial distances.
I have no proof to back up this organic hypothesis, so make of it what you will. I’m not in any way suggesting that any of the living material is sentient, or represents any alien threat. The moss on a forest floor is certainly not a threat to our way of life.
From http://www.mcgeepost.com Copyright © 2017 by Michael H. McGee. All commercial rights reserved. Non-commercial or news and commentary site re-use or re-posting is encouraged. Please feel free to share all or part, hopefully with attribution.
============================
Lagniappe. Not a part of the blog. If you find the blog interesting and have the time, you can read more below about my view of the universe. Only if you want to, accept this as a gift.
I wrote this on April 11, 1998.
Thus, according to the second law, the passage of thirteen billion years will, by necessity, lead to a massive degradation of the order of any light or other entity which was present at the big bang. What this means to observers on our planet is that the light and other stuff our observers are seeing now is absolutely not the same as what may have been present at the big bang. And, using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to both measure and observe the nature of the changes which have taken place over these thirteen billion years.
The second problem has to do with gravity, and reflection, and the natural spread of light. Gravity generates a cosmological curvature of light, as prescribed by the special theory of relativity. When light, or any other signal speeding through the cosmos for thirteen billion years, passes by any mass in the cosmos, be it a fleck of space dust or a star or a galaxy, the light or other signal will curve or diffract into a different direction from which it was going prior to passing by the mass. It’s possible to assume that signals described as red shifts are subject to the same curvature principle.
Further, the reflection or bouncing of light off a mass of any kind will cause the light to go off in a different direction. Therefore, cosmic masses will create reflection in addition to curvature. On a more mundane scale, mirrors, lenses, and optical fiber cables are all ways to force light to take a more circuitous path.
Further, any ordinary beam of light spreads as it travels. This spreading may be an inherent quality of light, or it may be due to the constant diffraction of the light off masses even as small as an atom. Even a laser’s beam gets wider and dimmer on the way to a distant point. Signals of other kinds such as radio waves spread in the same manner.
From these well-established principles one may confidently assume that over thirteen billion years the light or signal signatures from the big bang have bounced and curved and spread out so wide that they in no way remain identical with what was actually emitted at the time of the big bang.
It is highly unlikely that any entity, or any light, could travel through space and time for thirteen billion years, without running into any other entity with mass, or developing any curvature from close passage by any entity with mass, or otherwise reflecting off any entity or diffracting in any manner.
Therefore, what is available for us to view in the sky is an entirely random fog, having absolutely no relationship to what may have been present “thirteen and a half billion years ago.” With the presence of such a random fog, it seems utterly ingenuous for any scientist to claim to know the age of the universe at all, or how it began.
mcgeehome 
It’s hard to constructively criticise your article as it’s based on a total miscomprehension of modern cosmology. You need to understand the models first. Victor Roth on Quora writes well on a range of topics in cosmology which you may find interesting.
Thanks for commenting on my Word Press blog about the absence of a Big Bang. All of the computations and red shifts and many other proofs would be ruled as inadmissible in a court of law due to lack of a proper evidentiary foundation. They are “beliefs” and as such have as much substance as the belief that getting a covid vaccination is dangerous.
You speak of “models” as if they are the real thing. Is a model train set the same thing as a railroad line cargo train? Even so, there are very few people who do not believe in the Big Bang. So, your position is accurate and secure.
What I said and say now is also a “belief” and as such cannot be proven either. Far be it from me to take on all the priest-scientists of the last hundred years.
All learned persons were secure in the belief that the sun revolved around the earth until 1517. Since I’m not a scientist, someone else will have to take the part of Copernicus if beliefs about the cosmos are to change. What I’m writing is not fact, it is opinion, and thank you for pointing that out.
Regards, Mike McGee