Now I know what the kid felt like who tried to point out that the emperor was wearing no clothes. Not a single scientific journal I have submitted the following article to is interested in the least in publishing my logical refutation of a fundamental theory of modern cosmology. I do not assert the existence of some grand conspiracy at work. No, no… people are by and large too absorbed with their own individual lives to give the time and effort (and discipline!) required to form a good conspiracy. No, it’s just that, even in the realm of theoretical physics, we have allowed the emergence of a culture which does not consider legitimate any theory that does not arrive through “proper” channels from “proper” (usually government-funded) institutions. An amateur like Ben Franklin would have never been published in today’s climate. Of course, it doesn’t help if the proffered theory threatens the beliefs and life-work of thousands, and additionally puts in jeopardy funding for countless, ongoing and publicly supported projects.
Following is the Big-Bang-questioning article no science journal wants to even seriously consider, much less publish. My blog does not maintain a large enough audience for this publication to have any great impact directly on its own. Therefore, I ask you, my readers, to share this article as far and wide as you can. Even if there are flaws contained in the argument (and assuredly, there are), there is surely merit in the offering of a solid challenge to the spoon-fed ideas of our world which are passed down unquestioned from generation to generation...
— — — — —
The evidence for an expanding Universe is based upon findings that starlight approaching Earth arrives with a lower set of frequencies than predicted. This phenomenon has been determined by analyzing the pattern of dark bands located in the spectral emissions of the radiating stars. Scientists believe they know what these dark-band patterns should look like, and the dark bands in the starlight arriving on Earth are all shifted toward the lower frequencies. Scientists describe such starlight as being “red-shifted.” This description is derived from the fact that, in the visible part of light’s frequencies, the higher frequencies are where the blueish colors are located, and the lower frequencies are where the reddish ones are.
Almost immediately upon discovering the red-shift, scientists assumed that it occurred because the stars are moving away from us. If the stars are moving away as they radiate light, then the distance between each wave-peak will become greater than if the star were stationary. This also means that the frequency of starlight is slowing, since frequency is merely the measure of how frequently wave-peaks are arriving at the receiving location. This is basically a starlight version of the Doppler Effect.
Since practically all starlight appears to be red-shifted, scientists were led to believe that stars, in general and in all directions, are receding from Earth. This naturally led to the surmise that the Universe must be expanding.
However, the theory that the Universe is expanding was an erroneous rush to judgment –as we shall soon seen by the contortions of logic which were necessitated by the fleshing-out of the theory throughout the decades of the twentieth century.
A contending theory which remains unconsidered is that starlight arriving on Earth has slowly lost frequency. I will explain the likely reason for this frequency loss a little later, but first I want to explore the ridiculousness of the Expanding Universe Theory once one really begins to analyze the venerable theory’s sources and implications. I also will be highlighting the comparitive advantages of the theory of Lowering Starlight Frequency…
Those who believe in an expanding Universe are naturally led to also believe that at some point in time the Universe started expanding from a single location. This single location, occuring at the beginning of the Universe, is termed the “Singularity.” The beginning of the expansion of this Singularity has come to be called the “Big Bang.” I fondly call believers in the Big Bang Theory, “Bangers.”
If one considers that the Universe is expanding from a central location and then looks out into space and sees that all the stars– in every direction– appear to be (according to the prevailing interpretation of the starlight red-shift) moving away from us- then one is led to the conclusion that the location of the original Singularity must have been right we are now. In other words– the Earth appears to be the center of the Universe!
It is a little embarrassing for Bangers that, after enlightened humanity spent centuries attempting to prove that Man is NOT the center of the Universe, observations (as interpreted) imply that, actually, as it turns out, we ARE the center of the Universe.
Bangers get around this embarrassingly anthropomorphic outcome by positing that it must be the case that no matter where you stand in the Universe, all stars will appear to radiate away from you as if you were standing at the location of the original Big Bang. In other words, everywhere in the Universe is equally the center of the Universe.
The metaphor frequently employed to explain the meta-physical event that was the Big Bang is that of the expanding balloon. We must, say explaining Bangers, think of the Universe as the surface of expanding balloon; as the balloon expands, any dots drawn on the surface of the balloon (representing stars, for instance) will all be moving away from each other.
But then, what’s in the center of the balloon?, a skeptic may ask. Well, skeptic, the funny thing about this “explanation” of the Everywhere’s-The-Center Universe is that we are supposed to simultaneously believe it and not believe it… We cannot take it literally; the expanding balloon metaphor is merely to help our human minds visualize or contemplate something which is actually beyond our comprehension. This is quite a cop-out for Science. Even Ptolemy’s epicycles did not require that we set aside human understanding.
Another reason that physicists need to resort to the (actually quite illogical) everywhere’s-the-center Universe is to justify the absence of an explosion pattern in the Universe as they see it. If there had really been a mega-explosion starting-off the Universe with a bang, then observers not at the center of the explosion should experience not only objects moving away from them– but also fragments moving toward them, or even across them. And yet, no position in space experiences the phenomena of Big-Bang-propulsed matter radiating toward or across that position. Logic would thus lead one to believe that the proposed Big Bang is a fallacy. It never happened.
One can here see that we are being led, due to the erroneous intepretation of the red-shift of starlight, into evermore extreme justifications of the theory. Unlike the Lowering Frequency Of Starlight Theory, to accommadate the Big Bang Theory implied by the concept of an expanding Universe we must go back in time and completely re-arrange reality. In what other field of endeavor is the complete and incomprehensible re-arrangement of reality a justifiable procedure? Only one… in the realm of magic.
Magic is the anti-thesis of science. No theory, no matter how convenient, can be allowed to stand forever unchallenged when, ultimately, it is based upon magic. Such a theory is, at best, a temporary expedient until new facts or interpretations are presented. At worst, such a theory can, over time, become a petrified prejudice and can impede fresh lines of inquiry toward the truth.
But the story of the Big Bang does not end there. Soon after discovering that starlight was red-shifted, observers discovered that the more distant a star is, the more red-shifted the frequency of its starlight. This is easily explainable with the Lowering Frequency Of Starlight Model: starlight arriving from farther away has simply had more space and time to drop frequency.
However, this simple explanation would never do for Bangers. In fact, it was probably never even considered. Instead, what Bangers decided was that, since farther stars are more red-shifted, they must be receding faster.
This seemingly harmless observation becomes an immense problem for scientists operating under the assumption that everywhere is equally the center of the universe. Bangers, interpreting velocity-differences as a function of increased distance, have to try to explain what “increased distance” means in a Universe where every object is conceivably the most distant from someplace else, and thus every object is theoretically moving away at the fastest velocity– in spite of the fact that velocities appear NOT to be uniform in the Universe.
In other words, objectively, the Big Bang Theory– if it has not before– breaks downhere. It is simply illogical that, in a Universe with varying velocities, all objects are moving away at the fastest velocity. Bangers are only comfortable shrugging their shoulders at this problem and answering, “well… relativity, you know,” because some accepted twentieth century theories have made humanity quicker to accept the completely ridiculous than the partially understood. Again, Bangers must turn to what is fundamentally magic to defend their increasingly tenuous position. Why resort to all this logical contortioning when the Lowering Frequency Of Starlight Model so much more readily explains the situation?
And there is yet more logical debris issuing from the Big Bang…
Due to gravitational effects, many Bangers and non-Bangers alike believe that the rate of the Universe’s expansion should be slowing down. And yet, this is not occuring. In fact, as mentioned earlier, under the Expanding Universe interpretation of the stellar red-shift, stars are moving away faster and faster as a function of increasing distance. However, instead of seizing yet another opportunity to realize that their theory is bogus– Bangers instead went back to their magic book.
After some head-scratching, they decided that there must be some strange, otherwise undetected something out there which is gravitationally repulsive, something giving the Universe that little extra push it needs to overcome gravity and continue expanding, something they call “Dark Matter.” Even the name implies something Merlinesque.
On the other hand, if we accept that starlight is slowly reducing its frequency as it travels through the vast domains of space, then we don’t need an expanding Universe, and thus we don’t need this mystical “Dark Matter.”
And the list of problems with the Big Bang theory continues…
One of the conceits accompanying the concept of the Big Bang (which the expanding Universe model implies) is that we are capable of working mathematically back to the mega-explosion, and thus come-up with a birthday for the Universe. However, as is not unusual, pesky reality gets in the way of even the most elegant theories, and stars have been found which appear to be older than the Universe. Some might consider this a problem.
Dark Matter has been recruited to tackle this issue, too. Some believe that if Dark Matter existed, than the Universe could be mathematically proven to be much older than is currently thought, as the presence of Dark Matter would have worked as a brake on the Universal expansion, thus delaying the arrival of the present distribution of matter in the Universe for eons, with the result that the birthday of the Universe would be pushed farther back in time.
Again, this is another place where the acceptance of the Lowering Frequency model cuts through the conundrums and far-out notions in a sharp display of Occam’s Razor: the simpler solution is preferred. The Lowering Frequency model does not depend upon an expanding Universe… thus, we need not worry with reverse-engineering the Big Bang and arriving at timing paradoxes. There is no need for magic with the Lowering Frequency explanation. We need not create extra dimensions nor mystical types of matter.
Furthermore, under the Lowering Frequency model, we do not have to attempt to imagine something as utterly unimaginable as the beginning “Singularity.” Since the Lowering Frequency model does not require an expanding Universe, it simply does not require a Singularity. Surely, between two equally plausible theories (to greatly flatter the Big Bang theory in this case), the less high-maintenance theory is to be preferred.
Lastly, and I only mention this because Bangers have pointed to it as “proof” of the Big Bang, radiation has been observed to permeate Space.
Actually, Universal background radiation is far from being proof of the Big Bang, and could even be argued to be totally irrelevant to the theory. We do not know how many and what sort of energy-emitting objects have already come and gone in this Universe– what they were like, how they arrived, and how they left. For all we know, whole super-galaxies of galaxies collided or exploded for millennia (without any relation to a Big Bang) before we arrived on the scene, releasing immense amounts of energy. And that is just one alternative explanation. Because Bangers were so quick to seize the discovery of universal background radiation as proof for their theory, other possible explanations for Universal background radiation have been little explored. In reality, all the poetic talk of background radiation being the “afterglow” or the “frozen remnant” of the Big Bang is just that… poetry. Here scientists have mistaken a “possibility” for a “proof.”
And I think it should be mentioned here, as well, that, once the convuluted and weighed-down Big Bang theory is discarded, the “obviousness” of the Everywhere’s-The-Center Universe falls apart, and we should no longer scoff in some knee-jerk manner at those asking the quite logical question: if the Universal background radiation stems from some mega-explosion, where is the explosion pattern in its dispersal? Where are its center and frontiers?
THE COPERNICAN ADVANTAGE
Each individual contention in the long chain of surmises of Bangers listed above is reasonable enough when viewed only in relation to the accepted “fact” behind it. However, when we stand back and look at what has been created, we can see that –from the simple evidence that starlight is red-shifted from expectations– Bangers have been forced to concoct evermore far-out conjectures to justify each preceding conjecture.
Thankfully, however, the first wrong turn science took in this area is easy to pinpoint: scientists were wrong to jump to the conclusion that red-shifted starlight indicates an expanding universe. We simply must re-trace our steps back to that turn and choose the wiser direction.
There is a simpler and sounder theory explaining the red-shift of starlight than that every star is moving away from us. This alternative theory possess an undeniable Copernican Advantage– that is, it is a theory having the dual-attributes of being both simpler and more correct than then next best alternative theory.
The theory holding the Copernican Advantage over the theory of an expanding universe is as follows: starlight is red-shifted because, as starlight travels through the incredible reaches of Space, its frequency, probably due to the cumulative gravitational effects of matter in the Universe, is– very, very gradually– lowered.
If you are with me here, really with me, you may want to sit back in your chair and let that lever fully click over. That was the lever that just stopped the entire Universe from expanding.
Since the advent of the Theory Of General Relativity, gravity has been viewed as the warping of space around matter in such a way that space bends (in a hardly conceivable way) toward the matter. Thus, any entity– massed or not massed– traveling through a location of space warped by a gravitational field will have its path altered toward the matter causing the gravitational field. Still, matter is so sparse in the Universe that gravitational fields become extremely attenuated over the vast domains of empty space, and the overlapping gravitational fields in any particular area of space are so weak as to be usually discountable. However, in a Universe so immense, even these greatly attenuated gravitational fields will have a cumulative effect upon Starlight travelling long distances― an effect big enough to be discernible here on Earth. Experimenters have known for nearly a century now that even starlight– though it is massless– is bent when it passes close to a great mass. What has here-to-fore been unconsidered, however, is that starlight travelling great distances can be affected by the combined effects of even very weak gravitational fields– even if the starlight never passes near a great mass.
Far-travelling rays of starlight, moving across a Universe distorted by the gravitational effects of matter, will travel across a greater area than if space were not distorted. And since starlight travels in pulses (or “waves”), the result is that the distance between each wave is slightly larger than what we would calculate for travel through non-warped space. This means that starlight travelling through space will move with a lowering wave-frequency and show the noticed “red-shift” in its spectrum. Furthermore, the farther starlight travels over this matter-warped space of ours, the more substantial will be the red-shift when it arrives on Earth.