The Big Bang Never Happened

My first big concern about the CMB, is that its spectrum - black body radiation - is analogous to the Gaussian curve in statistics - i.e. it is the curve you expect after radiation has undergone many interactions. It isn't clear to me that it could not be due to large dust clouds or something else not yet understood. It is the way science has started taking huge leaps like this that massively increases the danger of it just being wrong.

When you bear in mind that it takes enormous effort to clean up the signal to correct for all sorts of local effects, it is very hard to believe that those residual fluctuations mean anything at all!
Local effects in a system are quantified by statistically comparing effects outside the system to a norm inside the system. Correct me if I am wrong, but CMBR is the ONLY omni-directional signal that has been discovered. There is no outside -- outside CMBR signal range -- to compare. Dust clouds cannot be a source of the signal.
The speedometer in my Honda Accord is also an abstraction.
Do you think Red Shift provides some indication of an object's movement?
Charlie, not your fault, but we won't get along. I can decipher your meaning, but its literal statements are imprecise. My answer is - yes there is a logical trail of inferences that connect z values of redshift to data about the movement of celestial objects. I never implied different. I said that this chain of inferences is NOT a direct measurement and is an approximation.

However, your speedometer is a physical measuring device - not an abstraction. What is abstract in the unit of measure of mph or kph. The readout of the speedometer is reporting data. The speedometer is a direct measuring device, but what it is measuring is an eddy current signal, which detects the moving drive shaft.

There is substantial math-based conceptualization that supports the model of a beginning to space/time. It is conjecture, at this time. On the other hand, there is empirical and direct evidence of the CMB, and the math/physics to back it up. One can throw the period from the "singularity" to the CBMR event in to the "we can't measure it directly" pile. We can however, process math information about the interval and make educated conjecture about the BB.

I have never seen an alternate model of the universe that predicts the CMBR. Please correct me - as I assume that there is no worthy candidate, and there well could be one.
We can however, process math information about the interval and make educated conjecture about the BB.
Therein lies my beef with Big Bang proponents. They do not present it as conjecture. They present it as Science Fact, and mercilessly ridicule anyone who questions it as akin to a religious nut-job or flat-earth conspiracy buffoon.

[ Fast-Forward to 3:16 ]
Therein lies my beef with Big Bang proponents. They do not present it as conjecture. They present it as Science Fact, and mercilessly ridicule anyone who questions it as akin to a religious nut-job or flat-earth conspiracy buffoon.

[ Fast-Forward to 3:16 ]
To be fair, in my experience with Cox he pretty much mercilessly ridicules anyone who questions anything he believes in.
Ha! The guy has a rock-star ego to compliment his Stephen Fry-esque belief in his own genius. Just what we need here (not that he'd demean himself to come down to our level).
The odd thing is, despite all Cox's expositions on his subject areas, I think he's as clueless as the average man or woman in the street on the things which matter. Unfortunately he tends to illogically think that having knowledge of one topic qualifies him to speak on other unrelated topics which he hasn't studied.
The ad hoc idea that people cling to theories because of the money is easily disproven by the fact that old theories are replaced all the time as new information comes in. The big bang replacing the steady state theory is an example. And scientists are people too, they get the glory if they discover something, or formulate a new theory.

This is not to say people don't cling to outdated theories, but usually this is for other reasons than money. Emotional attachment for one.

And it's not just red shift that is evidence for the big bang, it is the brightness of delta Cepheid stars as well. Delta Cepheid stars pulse in brightness on a regular basis, and their absolute brightness (how bright they really are as opposed to how bright they appear) is directly linked to the rate of pulsation. So observing delta Cepheids tells us how bright the star really is, and the apparent brightness then tells us how far away the star is (allowing for dust dimming). And this ties in with the red shift, the further the galaxy, the faster it is traveling away from us.

And on the few occasions it does not tally, then you need to look at all possible explanations to see why. An example is when they discovered there were more than one class of delta Cephied stars. You don't simply dismiss the theory as being wrong (although that is a possibility).

As to the connected objects with different shifts, how do we know they are really connected? For example, Aldebaran appears connected to the star cluster Hyades. But this is just because the star is in between us and the star cluster.

And this is why I don't trust Youtube videos, because you frequently see people misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence. You need to know and understand the science, and for that you need to look at the science papers.
As to the connected objects with different shifts, how do we know they are really connected? For example, Aldebaran appears connected to the star cluster Hyades. But this is just because the star is in between us and the star cluster.
We can plausiby accept it in some cases because an actual bridge of material can be seen connecting the two objects with different shifts - as in the case of Galaxy NGC 4319 and an apparently connected quasar. The pictures you'll find sometimes de-emphasise the bridge (on purpose?). The obituary of Halton Arp in the Telegraph remarks:

From the 1960s, however, astronomers began to discover strange objects that became known as quasars — intense radio sources whose spectra are shifted dramatically towards longer, redder wavelengths of light, implying they are moving away from our galaxy at enormous velocities and are therefore at extreme distances away from us. Arp began looking at quasars and noticed that many appeared to be lying quite close in the sky to galaxies, sometimes in alignment with them. In 1971 he claimed to have found a “bridge” of gas joining a galaxy named NGC 4319 and a quasar that sits next to it in the sky. As the quasar had a far higher red shift than the galaxy, under conventional Big Bang theory it should be millions or even billions of light years further away. Its apparent proximity needed some explaining.

Most cosmologists concluded that Arp’s observations were wrong, explaining that the galaxy and quasar simply appeared to be close because they were in the same line of sight. Arp’s response was to produce more and more images of objects which seemed to be associated with each other, yet had remarkably different redshifts. One showed a neat row of stellar objects consisting of a deformed spiral galaxy flanked at equal distances by two quasars which appeared to be related to it even though the quasars had enormous red shifts, much bigger than the central galaxy. Another quasar-like object had a redshift which placed it about a billion light years from us, but appeared to be in front of a galaxy only 70 million light years away.

Arp went on to suggest that quasars are created in and ejected by galaxies, and have an “intrinsic” high redshift that has nothing to do with distance or velocity. He went on to join forces with a small band of astronomers supporting a rival theory to Big Bang, known as Steady State, which had first been proposed by Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold in the Forties, and was further developed and popularised by Fred Hoyle. Steady State holds that the universe has always looked much the same and, if it is expanding, new matter must be created to maintain its general appearance

While Big Bang is almost universally accepted as the most plausible account of the origin of the universe, it is still only a theory, not proven fact, and in principle should be open to any scientists to test it against alternative cosmological possibilities. Yet Arp found himself being treated as a pariah. Warned in the early 1980s that his research programme was going nowhere, he refused to change course. “The committee that allocates time on the telescopes finally told me that I could no longer make those kinds of investigations,” he recalled, (though he admitted that he had refused to submit a research proposal at all on the grounds that everyone knew what he was up to). In 1985 Arp, who described his experiences in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1989), took scientific refuge at the Max Planck Institute in Munich.

The following year Emil Wolf, a distinguished physicist at the University of Rochester, New York, predicted a mechanism that could produce redshift not through movement. The idea (now known as the Wolf effect) was subsequently confirmed experimentally, and provided at least some support for Arp in arguing that quasar red shifts might be a special case.

It's a familiar story in all sorts of areas of science: consensus being used as a sledge hammer to try to prevent honest research that stands to gainsay it. Even if Harp were wrong, it's a disgrace that the authorities should have done everything they could to prevent him exploring the issue. And shame on you, because it's plain you are the puppet of consensus issues both here and in respect of Darwinism. Consensus scientists are the high priests, and you're one of their altar boys.
The last few lines in this:

"The Universe exploding

Is one mans lie.

Look out

There I go

Yeah I'm running out of change

There's a lot of things

If I could I'd rearrange."

And yeah, anyone who says the BB theory is bunk? You are correct: it is bunk.

In fact, it is extremely erroneous for us to even discuss "The Universe"

We are in one Galaxy, the Milky Way, and though we have seen other galaxies, we really have no idea, what so ever, what the Universe is or is comprised of. Saying or talking abut the Universe AT ALL is bitting off way way way way way more than you can chew, I'm sorry, but it just is. We don't even have a grip, at all, on this one Galaxy we ARE in. At all. Sirius is the next closest star to our own, and it is 4 light years away. At the fastest speed possible without having the occasional rock or asteroid rip the vessel to shreds (because it was going too fast and could not change direction in time to avoid a collision) it would take us 1200 years to get to Sirius.

Honestly, the big bang theory is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

And THAT is the goal. A world full of dumb people.
... and I just read some more from what is above and you guys are all correct: Brian Cox is an idiot, no better than the man on the street, and to repeat myself from just above here: THAT is the goal. I'll tell you this though, I've been places and seen things, and we already have many photographs of other class 1 planets just like ours, same colours, same clouds, same white caps on both ends, the whole nine yards, AND ... (drumroll please) you know the way ours is lit up at night? Well, so are many of them too. Coxs' insistence that we are unique in our Galaxy is ... THE GOAL!!! A world full of dumb people ...

and one other thing before I turn in for this evening: not all of the other class one planets we have photographed (they haven't released any of these pictures because it mucks with religion and lots of other things including Brian Coxs' opinion that we're alone in our Galaxy) are lit up at night like ours is, just most of them. Some of them are dark at night, like ours is about to become, and it is very likely that they are dark at night for the very same reason we are about to go dark at night too.

Be happy, though, that the majority of them are lit up at night. Life goes on, with or without ... us.

earth at night.jpg
Last edited:
As I see it, the real problem with many areas of modern science modern science, is that they extrapolate out into areas for which the data is sparse, or is based on too many assumptions.

Take the microwave background - supposedly the relic of the big bang - but to study this, we can only make measurements in the vicinity of Earth, and then correct for a host of factors that distort the signal (like our galaxy!) and then it is claimed the signal is remarkably smooth! Next they look for minute ripples in that remarkably smooth signal, and try to deduce things from them (usually about some of the extra dimensions that have never been observed, but endlessly fascinate mathematical physicists.

One interesting fact is that the CMB contains components aligned with the ecliptic (i.e. the orientation of our own solar system). This rather suggests that it hasn't been possible to clean the signal of the influence of our own solar system - never mind the rest of the galaxy!

To me, science would achieve far more if it concentrated on less grandiose projects where high quality data can be collected, with far fewer assumptions, and far less resort to smoothing/cleaning/filtering the raw data to supposedly reveal something utterly mind boggling amazing!

Last edited: