Big-Bang Bunk

Briefly, the idea of the Big Bang has the following history:

Since the beginning of human civilization, people have always questioned the origins of their existence, and the creation of the universe. Where did it all come from? How was it created? These are the questions that plagued ancient societies, and are those that still puzzle scientists today. Cosmology, the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe, is the branch of science that has evolved from these questions.

…

The Big Bang theory of cosmology assumes that the universe began from a singular state of infinite density. As Joseph Silk defines the Big Bang theory, it is a model of the universe in which space-time began with an initial singularity, and subsequently expands. It was first implied in Alexander Friedmann’s complete solution of Albert Einstein’s equations in 1922 [referring to Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, published around 1915, which claims that space is curved]. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre used equations to devise a cosmological theory that incorporated the concept that the universe has been expanding from an explosive moment of creation.

…

The term ‘Big Bang’ for these theories was coined by the Russian-born U.S. nuclear physicist George Gamow in 1946.

…

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began with one large explosion, which took place about 15 to 20 billion years ago. We now refer to this explosion that began the universe as the Big Bang, and it is from this theory that we are able to examine the evolution of the universe, from the milliseconds of creation to the creation of galaxies, and from the formation of planets to the presence of life on Earth. Because almost all astronomical phenomena can be explained entirely within the context of the Big Bang, or if not completely, can be explained to a greater degree than any other mode, this model of the universe has become the most widely accepted up to this point.[1]

The last sentence in the above quote is an example of just how easily one can be deceived into believing the establishment’s mythology. To understand the unstated assumptions in that last sentence I have added a few notes: “Because almost all astronomical phenomena [that we have been told about in the information sources we have] can be explained entirely within the context of the Big Bang [according to those same information sources, because we, like most people, are not in a position to contradict any such claims, other than by citing contrary authorities if there are any], or if not completely, can be explained to a greater degree than any other mode [again, according to those same information sources], this model of the universe has become the most widely accepted up to this point [we assume the Big Bang is true, as we have been taught, so we assume its correctness is the reason for its widespread acceptance].”

Here is the fundamental problem of knowledge that all people face:

you don’t know what you don’t know

The key to misleading people about a given belief is to control the flow of observational data that is relevant to that belief. To promote a given belief, screen out any observational data that contradicts that belief, and, at the same time, present only observational data that supports that belief. If the belief is false, then fabricate, distort, or misrepresent observational data, as needed. As long as a person is only aware of observational data that supports the belief, then that person’s mind, by means of its analytic abilities, will find that belief supported and reasonable.

Regarding the Big-Bang belief, is any relevant observational data being withheld from the public? The answer is an emphatic yes. My authority on this subject is Halton Arp (born 1927), who has been a professional astronomer since receiving his PhD in 1953. He was a staff member at Mt. Palomar observatory, California USA, for 29 years, and, since 1983, a staff member at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, in Germany.[2]

Halton Arp’s Observations

Halton Arp has a long career as an observational astronomer, and he has a substantial bibliography including many peer-reviewed journal articles.[3] His views of the universe and the Big Bang are neatly summarized as follows:

His cosmos is a steady-state universe, with no Big Bang and no expansion, and with the intermittent creation of new matter. … The basic cosmological unit is composed of an old parent galaxy of low redshift, accompanied by smaller and younger companions with redshift excesses, and surrounded by newly-created quasars of high redshift. Both companions and quasars have been ejected by the parent galaxy.[4]

Astronomy’s symbol for redshift is the letter z. A concise explanation of redshift is:

‘Redshift’ describes the characteristic lines in the spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium, and other elements which appear at longer (redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. The simple explanation attributes this effect to the recession velocity of the emitting source—like the falling pitch of a receding train whistle, the Doppler effect.[5]

In Halton Arp’s view, the measured redshifts of objects that are outside our own galaxy have two components:

1. The redshift component that is already understood by everyone, is that caused by the object’s velocity-vector relative to the Earth. If the object is moving relative to the Earth, and the distance between that object and the Earth is decreasing, then the observed redshift of that object is decreased. Conversely, if the distance between that object and the Earth is increasing, then the observed redshift of that object is increased.

2. The redshift component that is not currently understood as to its underlying mechanism, is that caused, in effect, by the age of the outside-our-galaxy object, whose redshift is being measured. In general, for this component of redshift, younger objects have higher redshifts.

My own awareness of Halton Arp is due to my browsing of the Internet, which ultimately led to my learning of his recent book Seeing Red [6], which I bought and read. Seeing Red is primarily a technical book that presumes the reader is already comfortable with much of the book’s subject matter. The book has many numbers and measurements, and also a large number of visual figures of the kind used in the astronomical literature, including charts and graphs, photographs, marked and/or labeled photographs, computer-generated drawings with isometric lines, and other kinds of figures.

Upon finishing Arp’s book and realizing that I had been deceived by the American media—which had concealed from me, and from most everyone else who reads the various establishment science books and magazines, all of Arp’s observations—I decided to write this essay. Note that despite my science PhD and my wide readings in science over many years, I was completely ignorant of Arp’s observations. As I said above: you don’t know what you don’t know.

By Arp’s observations I mean primarily Arp’s observation of a recurring pattern in the astronomical data regarding the objects that are outside our own galaxy. His book Seeing Red has many examples of this pattern which are shown in various visual figures using astronomical data measured by other astronomers and published in the quasar and galaxy catalogues used by the astronomy profession. The astronomical data includes locations (sky coordinates), magnitudes (apparent brightness), redshifts (z values), and rotation-axis alignments of Seyfert galaxies. The recurring pattern that Arp shows is that of a parent galaxy and its children. More specifically:

• A parent object, which is typically a Seyfert galaxy.

  • Seyfert is a galaxy-classification category used by astronomers. Seyfert galaxies are so-called ‘active’ galaxies, characterized by “extremely bright cores whose luminosity shows extensive variability.”[7]

    Most Seyferts are spiral galaxies with a clearly defined axis of rotation.

• Distributed along the parent’s axis of rotation (this distribution tends to lie within two widening opposite cones, whose tips are centered on the parent object), is a sequence of objects (these are the child objects). Because each of the two cones tends to contain the same types of objects, with the same redshifts at the same distances from the parent, the implication is that the parent normally births twins, ejecting each twin at the same speed outward along the parent’s axis of rotation, and in an opposite direction from the other twin. The child objects include high-redshift quasars close to the parent (with the redshift decreasing in fixed steps the further the quasar is from the parent), and ordinary galaxies further out.[8]

  • A quasar is a pointlike object (as observed by astronomers) that has a high redshift (when compared to the redshift of galaxies). Quasar z values range from a low of about .1 to a high of about 5.

    In Big-Bang theory, redshift is primarily a distance measure (the higher the redshift, the more distant the object), and quasars are at much greater distances than any galaxy whose structure can be seen. However, Arp cites enough examples of quasars with an apparent physical connection to the presumed parent galaxy to refute the Big-Bang claim of quasar distances. This physical connection typically consists of a line or filament of luminous matter between the two objects (kind of like an umbilical cord).

    Also, as Arp points out, if the quasars are really at the claimed Big-Bang distances, then they should have a random distribution in the sky relative to the distribution of Seyfert galaxies, but they do not: The actual distribution of quasars is not random relative to the distribution of Seyferts. Instead, quasars tend to be clustered close around Seyferts—a situation that, according to Arp, Big-Bang astronomers simply brush-off as coincidence.

    Another consideration regarding quasars involves their brightness. Observed from Earth, quasars are faint objects compared to galaxies. However, if quasars are at the claimed Big-Bang distances, then quasars are roughly 10 to 100 times brighter than the brightest galaxies. Alternatively, given Arp’s pattern, in which quasars are the young children of a nearby parent galaxy, a quasar, like a young child, should be both smaller and weaker than its parent. And that is what is seen: quasars are both smaller and weaker than their parent galaxy, appearing pointlike and less bright. Thus, Arp’s pattern is a more direct and economical fit of the observational data, because, unlike Big-Bang theory, there is no need to claim an extreme intrinsic brightness for quasars.

  • The initial ejection speed for a child object from its parent has actually been measured by means of radio astronomy using Very Long Baseline Interferometry. About this initial ejection speed Arp says: “typically moving outward with speeds of from a few tenths of [the speed of light] to nearly the speed of light.”[9]

    Over time, the child object slows down and eventually as it ages and grows becomes an ordinary galaxy, moving at an ordinary speed for a galaxy (typically less than 1000 kilometers per second; lightspeed is 300,000 kilometers per second).

    Note that the speed of the child objects, by the time they are seen as quasars, can still be as high as roughly one-tenth lightspeed, and this speed either increases or decreases the quasar’s measured redshift (as measured from Earth), depending on whether that quasar is moving towards us or away from us (the actual amount of this redshift adjustment is a function of the quasar’s velocity-vector relative to the Earth).

  • Regarding quasar redshifts occurring in fixed steps, this is known as the quantization of quasar redshifts. About this quantization Arp says:

    In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge pointed out the existence of some redshifts in quasars which seemed to be preferred…. In 1971 K.G. Karlsson showed that these, and later observed redshifts, obeyed the mathematical formula [Arp gives the formula]. This gives the observed quasar redshift periodicities of: z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, etc. …

    Many investigations confirmed the accuracy of this periodicity. And of course, many claimed it was false.[10]

    As Arp comments elsewhere in his book, the observation that quasar redshifts are quantized contradicts the Big-Bang model, which is why establishment astronomers dismiss the observation.

    Note that the observed quasar redshifts typically do not match exactly the values given by Karlsson’s formula, because each observed quasar redshift includes the effect of the quasar’s velocity-vector relative to the Earth, as already discussed above. However, Arp gives many examples in his book of apparent twin quasars (based on their locations relative to the parent), where each twin has a measured redshift that is offset from the nearest Karlsson number by the same absolute difference, and the two differences have opposite sign (as would be expected for twins ejected in opposite directions from the parent, and at an angle to the Earth, with one twin moving toward us—decreasing its observed redshift—and the other twin moving away from us—increasing its observed redshift).

Arp’s observations refute the Big Bang and give instead a universe of unknown size and age in which parent galaxies give birth to new galaxies that undergo a life-cycle that has a clear evolution from a juvenile stage (a quasar) to an adult stage (a galaxy such as our own Milky Way). The observable universe has many examples of galaxies giving birth, and of juveniles and adults in all stages of development.[11]

A few miscellaneous items discussed in Arp’s Seeing Red follow:

About the possibility that the observed redshifts can be explained by tired-light (the idea of tired-light is that light loses energy—progressively shifting to lower frequencies—as light travels across cosmological distances) Arp says: “if we look through extragalactic space, the example of quasars linked to low-redshift galaxies demonstrates that two objects at the same distance with closely the same path length can have vastly different redshifts.”[12] Thus, the observational data refutes any explanation—including both Big-Bang theory and tired-light theory—that assumes redshift is primarily a distance measure for objects that are outside our own galaxy.

About cosmic background radiation (in the various science magazines that I used to read, this was a frequent and popular topic for several years after the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite—aka COBE—in late 1989) Arp says:

Very weak photons, indicative of low temperature, and coming smoothly from all directions around us, were discovered accidentally in 1965. This [cosmic background radiation] was almost immediately hailed as another, especially decisive proof of the Big Bang.

…

It used to be stated that the Big Bang predicted the temperature of the cosmic background [which is 2.73 degrees Kelvin]. But a review of the history shows that George Gamow predicted T = 50K in 1961. … As early as 1926 Arthur Eddington calculated the photon temperature in and around galaxies as about 3K. Many investigators have since pointed out that if one takes the ambient galaxy starlight, and thermalizes it into lower-energy photons (redistributes the energy into an equilibrium state), one gets closely the observed microwave background temperature.[13]

About academia and the larger society Arp says:

What could be done, and is not done, however, is to use the observations to rule out a 75-year-old model [the Big Bang] which is presently unquestioned dogma. The mission of academia should be to explore—not perpetuate myth and superstition.

Today, any newspaper, science magazine, or discussion of scientific funding, will take for granted that we know all the basic facts: that we live in an expanding universe, all created in an instant out of nothing, in which cosmic bodies started to condense from a hot medium about 15 billion years ago. The observations are not used to test this model, but considerable drama is attempted, by implying that each new observation may force an important (but actually marginal) variation in the assumptions of the Big Bang. It is embarrassing, and by now a little boring, to constantly read announcements about ever-more-distant and luminous high-redshift objects, blacker holes, and higher and higher percentages of undetectable matter…. For those who have examined the evidence on redshifts, and decided that redshifts are not primarily velocity … the important question arises as to how a disproved assumption could have become so dominant.[14]

Why the American Empire Pays the Bills for the Big-Bang Myth

In trying to understand why the Big-Bang mythology is so firmly in place, Halton Arp, in his book Seeing Red, only blames his own profession and academia. However, for a correct understanding, one must look at who is paying the bills. Specifically, the annual research budget for academic science in America—especially an academic science that has no business value, such as astronomy—is paid for primarily by the federal government, which is the core of the American empire.

For roughly the last fifty years astronomical research that assumes the reality of the Big Bang—and whose aim is to support and confirm the Big Bang—has been funded with many billions of dollars. And for any research proposal today that even hints at contradicting the Big Bang: nothing, nada, not one cent. The Americans have a saying: you get what you pay for.

Thus, the Big-Bang Universe has been bought-and-paid-for by the American government. And this Big-Bang Universe has been actively promoted for many years in both America’s media and in the media of America’s imperial provinces around the world. To understand just why this false view of the universe has been put in place and is so actively promoted, one must examine the key beliefs of the Big-Bang Universe and see how these beliefs provide psychological support for the American empire. Consider the following table:

Empires are, as a rule, always in favor of getting bigger—growing larger by enslaving more peoples. The Big-Bang Universe is constantly expanding, always growing larger. The idea of a constantly expanding universe is very appropriate for the world’s biggest empire; America’s promotion of an expanding universe is consistent with its promotion of an expanding population and an expanding economy (the endless growth that American economists are always talking about).

Regarding the creation of new matter: In the Big-Bang Universe, matter creation is not something happening today; instead, it happened only once in the remote past. I cannot help noticing the similarity to the teachings of the Christian churches, which claim that there are no miracles happening today; instead, the only miracles are those recorded in their Bible (the teachings of the Christian churches, like empires, also like to erase history, as they claim that there is no history prior to what is claimed as history in their Bible).

As to why an empire dislikes the idea of ongoing matter creation, consider that creation implies change, and that empires want to deny the possibility of change. The last thing an empire wants is for its enslaved peoples to throw off the yoke of servitude and regain their freedom. Thus, empires want people to believe that the established imperial order is a permanent condition that cannot be changed. The Big-Bang Universe, with its lack of ongoing creation, implies a lack of change, and a permanence for the established order.

The Big-Bang Universe has no families in it: there are neither parents nor children in the Big-Bang Universe. As to why an empire would prefer a universe without families, consider that families are the root of nations, and, as a rule, empires are opposed to all forms of nationalism, including its smallest form, the family.

An effective way to combat a correct view of reality is to create and promote a false view of reality. The Big-Bang Universe is an important part of the false reality that the American empire wants all of its subjects to believe.

Black Holes as Symbols of Imperial Domination

Another long-time favorite cosmology topic that the American media feeds to the public is the idea of black holes, which are claimed to be real objects that are so massive that they suck even nearby starlight into themselves, causing them to be completely dark or black.

Although not a direct part of Big-Bang theory, the idea of black holes has received so much support and promotion by the American empire over the years that a brief analysis is worthwhile. The key qualities of a black hole are:

• Its Blackness.

  • As explained in the section The Gender Basis of the Three Races, in my book A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind), the color white represents the feminine, and the color black represents the masculine. Black is an appropriate color for an all-powerful, dominating object, as a black hole is imagined to be.

• Its all-powerful nature.

  • Nothing can resist the power of a black hole. Anything within its sphere of influence is overwhelmed.

• Its destructiveness, resulting in its further growth.

  • A black hole crushes completely whatever enters its sphere of influence, and absorbs the crushed material into itself, becoming larger and more powerful as a result.

Given the above qualities of a black hole, one can see why the American empire is so fond of black holes: Like a black hole, the American empire is an all-powerful entity that crushes other peoples (destroying their defenses, and murdering their defenders), and then absorbs those crushed peoples into itself (enslaving the survivors), with the result that the empire is bigger and more powerful than it was.

A black hole, like the American empire, is a violent object. Similarly, the Big Bang, which begins with a great explosion, is violent, and appealing to the American empire. One can see how an imaginary universe—containing destructive black holes, and a great explosion that began everything—provides psychological support for the American empire.

footnotes

[1] At: http://www.bowdoin.edu/dept/physics/astro.1997/astro4/bigbang.html

The authors appear to be three college students. See http://www.bowdoin.edu/dept/physics/astro.1997/astro4. I have copy-edited the quoted text to improve its readability.

[2] This biographical information is mostly taken from the following two sources:

http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/arppec/arphalt.html
http://redshift.home.pipeline.com/arpintro.htm

[3] Partial bibliographies for Halton Arp can be found, for example, at http://members.aol.com/arpgalaxy/arpbio.html and http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lempel/publications_de_halton_arp.htm.

[4] At: http://redshift.home.pipeline.com/arpintro.htm

[5] At: http://www.heretical.com/science/redshift.html

[6] Arp, Halton. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. Apeiron, Montreal, 1998.

I have copy-edited slightly some of the quoted text from Seeing Red, to improve its readability.

[7] Ibid., p. 294.

[8] In an effort to explain the observations that quasars are concentrated around low-redshift galaxies, Big-Bang advocates have invoked the idea that the mass of a low-redshift galaxy that has what appear to be nearby quasars, is, in effect, acting as a gravitational lens that focuses the radiation from those quasars which are assumed by Big-Bang advocates to lie far behind the low-redshift galaxy. Thus, with this idea of a gravitational lens, those quasars whose line-of-sight from Earth passes through a low-redshift galaxy are made brighter and more visible to astronomers than quasars that do not have such a foreground object to magnify them and thereby make them appear bright enough to be seen and measured by astronomers.

In Arp’s book Seeing Red, the chapter Gravitational Lenses is devoted to this subject. Arp considers a number of examples that Big-Bang advocates claim to be the result of gravitational lensing. The Einstein Cross, which is perhaps the best-known of the examples considered by Arp, is described as “four quasars of redshift z = 1.70 aligned approximately across a central galaxy of redshift z = .04” [Ibid., p. 173]. Arp presents some of the observational data, including visual figures, and he gives several reasons to dismiss the gravitational-lensing claim for the Einstein Cross. These reasons include “the elongation and connection of the central galaxy to the east-west quasars and the extensions of the north-south quasars toward the galaxy” [Ibid., p. 174], and the fact that each of the four quasars appears to have a round shape, which contradicts the theoretical calculations by others which compute that a gravitationally lensed quasar should be very flattened with its long side paralleling the circumference of the presumably focusing galaxy.

[9] Ibid., p. 245.

[10] Ibid., p. 203.

In the quoted list of Karlsson numbers, I have given the correct value of .96 instead of the book’s .91 which is a typo.

[11] Where there is birth, there is also death. However, Arp does not discuss galaxy death in Seeing Red.

[12] Ibid., p. 97.

[13] Ibid., pp. 236–237.

[14] Ibid., p. 257.