New Discovery: Gravity in Space Can Explode Neutron Stars and Create Black Holes
You Create the Caption

Does the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Nix Big Bang Theory?

The-big-bang-theory Few theories qualify for Nobel laureate Niels Bohr's famous question than the current Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

There is a growing body of data and theory which question whether the Universe may have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. Several leading cosmologists, such as Sean Carroll of CalTech and Neil Turok of Cambridge University challenge the prevailing model of a "Big Bang" and believe that  in the future we will only look back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much evidence.

The origin of the Big Bang, that is, the state of "existence" which resulted in a Big Bang, is a mathematically obscure state - a "singularity" of zero volume that contained infinite density and infinite energy. Why this singularity existed, how it originated, and why it exploded, has led many scientists to question and challenge the very foundations of the Big Bang theory. 

It has been pointed out that an accelerated expansion limited to the most distant regions of the known universe, is incompatible with an explosive origin, but instead is indicative of an attractive force -a "universe-in-mass" black hole whose super-gravity is effecting red shifts and illumination- creating the illusion of a universe which is accelerating as it speeds away, when instead the stars closest to the hole are speeding faster toward their doom. Other scientists observe that the interpretation of red shifts as supporting a Big Bang, is also flawed and lacking validity. Some experts believe that there is little evidence to support the belief that red shifts are accurate measures of distance or time; that they are so variable and effected by so many factors that estimates of age, time, and distance can vary by up to 3 billion years following repeated measurements, over the just a few years, of the same star.

Although the "Big Bang" is often presented as if it is proven fact, there is a wealth of data, including recent revelations of the several space probes and findings in fundamental physics, which possibly tell a different story.

One of the first problems are found in the Large - Scale Structures in the Universe. In recent years, there have been a number of very serious challenges to the current theory of cosmic evolution and the belief the universe began just 13.7 billion years ago. The existence of these "Superclusters", "Great Walls" and "Great Attractors" could have only come to be organized and situated in their present locations and to have achieved their current size, in a universe which is at least 80 billion to 250 billion years in age. The largest superclusters, for example, the  "Coma", extend up to 100 Mpc!

In 1986, Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii reported detecting superclusters of galaxies 300 million light years (mly) long and 100 mly thick - stretching out about 300 mly across. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billlion years to create such a huge complex of galaxies.

In 1989, a group lead by John Huchra and Margaret J. Geller at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics discovered "The Great Wall"- a series of galaxies, lined up and creating a "wall" of galaxies 500 million light years (mly) long, 200 mly wide, and 15 mly thick. This superstructure would have required at least 100 billion years to form.

A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.

Sloane_9 The "Sloan Great Wall" of galaxies, as detected by the Sloan Digital Survey, has earned the distinction of being the largest observed structure in the Universe. It is 1.36 billion light years long and 80% longer than the Great Wall discovered by Geller and Huchra. It runs roughly from the head of Hydra to the feet of Virgo. It would have taken at least 250 billion years to form.

Then there is the problem of gravity. "Hubble length" Universe, which consists of those galaxies and stars which can be observed by current technology, appears, therefore, to be organized as titanic walls and clusters of galaxies separated by a collection of giant bubble-like voids. The Great Walls are far too large and massive to have been formed by the mutual gravitational attraction of its member galaxies alone.

Based on the cosmological principle, which is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang model, cosmologists predicted the distribution of matter to be homogeneous throughout the universe, implying thereby that the distribution of the galaxies would be essentially uniform. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Instead, contrary to the "Big Bang" universe, we exist in a very "lumpy" cosmos.

Many of the world's leading physicists believe we are entering  a "golden age" of cosmological discoveries. Astronomers working on the WMAP mission stunned the scientific community with their announcement that the first generation stars in the universe were surprisingly born just after 200 million years of the Big Bang birth of the cosmos. The age of the universe has been steadily pushed backwards in time, from 2 billion year to 8 billion after it was determined the Earth was 4.6 billion years in age, and now the estimates are 13.75 billion years. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the HST with ten times the light-gathering power due to be launched in 2014, may well detect ever more distant galaxies. Likewise, the ultra-high resolution radio telescopes such as Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile which is to become operational in 2012, will be peering still deeper into the universe, and probably pushing the hypothetical Big Bang further backward in time as ever more distant galaxies are detected.

Casey Kazan via

Image credit: stellefilanti's Flickr photostream


American Astronomical Society (2010). Jan. 6, 2010, at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.


Perhaps the universe we know is just a big bang of a black hole of other ones in an even greater and unknown universe!

Kudos to The Daily Galaxy for publishing this article. It's almost impossible to find articles that publish data that goes counter to the Big Bang Theory--even when there is so much of it. To call a theory "fact" when you need the "duct tape" of missing matter, missing energy, and a fantastic theory of inflation is absurd. Thanks DG!

Of course there is a lot of data that does support the idea that the universe is expanding, and is about 13.7 billion years old. In the context of that you need to look at something like large scale structures and ask "is this evidence against the idea as a whole, or evidence for something hitherto unknown about the early universe?"

Interesting article. Thanks.

Anyone who is wondering about these clusters and walls of galaxies do yourselves a favour. Find a flat stainless steel surface (I'm thinking the roof or bonnet of a car) and wet it with water. While the car is stationary check it every hour over say 12 hours (even 3-6hours) and you'll see the water forms clusters and lines (aka walls albeit this is only a 2d plane)
If you then take that car and drive it the water will form tracks that it's attracted to caused by motion, and influenced by dents and marks in the body and paint

My point is that matter is attacted to matter. Of course it will cluster and when you have unlimited space to do it of course there will be grand and great voids. It's a known fact like the flipping of a coin. You still get clusters.

As for the rest of it, well when have we ever observed a black hole that becomes full and neutral again? My theory is that all matter will eventually be sucked into black holes, the black holes will suck each other in and at some point, it becomes a shaken can of soft drink and explodes again.

Of course what do I know. I believe in God too...

terminal 53, the idea of "god" is more fake then the theaory of the big bang.

grow up.



I'm a little surprised at this article. It's quite clear that the author is butchering current scientific theory in the same way that creationists butcher the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All of this "that structure should have taken X number of years to form" does not take into account that the Universe behaves like a hypersphere- in other words, that space is expanding, not the objects within space. In other words, most of those structures have been in place since ordinary matter resolved and galaxies began to coalesce.

The "The age of the universe has been steadily pushed backwards in time" argument is also fallacious, considering that our measurements have asymptotically converged on 13.75 Billion years rather than diverging wildly as one would expect if that argument were correct.

There are a great many other problems too (such as the universal uniformity assertion made here), but I'm too tired to address them.

the universe is a 4-d klein bottle. with a screw cap.

The problem is words. Scientists are not skillful writers. Their discipline neglects to carefully select the most accurate words and communicate the true meanings. Instead, they focus on hype, getting others to accept their ideas by means of the style of their presentation. Thank you very much for this article. It's one of the best I've read on the subject. And I've read plenty.

Interesting counter-argument to the current Big-Bang theory. I may have overlooked it but I didn't see any mention of Dark Matter or Dark Energy both of which are said to play a major role in how the universe looks today. I await further evidence coming out showing a far older universe than current theory allows.

Also a big THANKS from me for this article!

The key word to cosmological/universal understanding is: CYCLIC.

In the whole Universe gathering and distribution of gas and matter are taking place eternally in a "soup" of white-black filaments = The Cosmic Microwave Background-soup which has been "all over the place all time".

"Gravity" goes both ways in this movement: Sometimes it pushes and sometime it pulls.

No anti this or that or any strange mathematical equations is needed in order to explain the Cyclic movements in the Universe.

Drop the linear thinking and measurements and grasp the whole idea!

Further interesting links:
Also a big THANKS from me for this article!

The key word to cosmological/universal understanding is: CYCLIC.

In the whole Universe gathering and distribution of gas and matter are taking place eternally in a "soup" of white-black filaments = The Cosmic Microwave Background-soup which has been "all over the place all time".

"Gravity" goes both ways in this movement: Sometimes it pushes and sometime it pulls.

No anti this or that or any strange mathematical equations is needed in order to explain the Cyclic movements in the Universe.

Drop the linear thinking and grasp the whole idea!

Further interesting links:
Especially this:
Steady State Universe

NB: Sorry for the mixeup in my article . . . (need a possibility for extra editing after posting)

It's been quite a good laugh to see Big Science go all the way with their arrogant false belief that they have a Cosmoscope that can peer backwards in Time. Where would I get another laugh as big?

Aether Wave Theory (AWT) models Universe as a very dense particle gas, where energy spreads through along surfaces of density fluctuations like ripples at the watter surfaces. Therefore AWT explains space-time expansion by spreading of ripples at the watter surface. The wavelength of ripples is collapsing fast and from perspective of 2D observer, which is using these waves for observation of obstacles at this surface therefore the space is expanding fast with increasing distance.

Note that the same effect appears like if the source would be surrounded by dense "dark" matter, which slows down the waves around their source. Therefore the very same model explains both omni-directional expansion of space-time, both dark matter.

This model is testable in many ways, because we measured some dark matter effects already.

For example, the Pioneer anomaly attributed to dark matter manifests by weak deceleration, the value of which is given by product of Hubble constant and speed of light with some 10 percent error.

a = (8 +- 1) x 10^{-10} = 2.5 x 10^{-18} x 3 x 10^8 meters/second^2?

I presume, this result is not just a coincidence.

have anything more to do with us.

In your article you state that it has been theorized that what we normally refer to as "dark energy" might actually be understood as the acceleration of matter toward a universe-size black hole. Uh,yeah, it HAS been theorized. That's exactly what I have been saying for over five years, on this post, Bad Astronomy, and in various other places. It's an obvious and sensible question, easy enough to check, and anyone can pose it. But I suppose it's considered a valid conjecture only if a physicist makes it?

Please read ETHER=GRAVITY=DARK ENERGY THEORY OF GRAVITOETHERTONS and balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path --recyclic due to one reaching zero entropy and re bounce to form again matter and antimatter universes on CP VIOLATION --like that again and again --eternal re cyclic and by chance good laws to create life in any universe to pnder again the greatest puzzle --probably un solved for ever . THE THEORIES WERE PUBLISHED BY DURGADAS DATTA IN ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2002 AND LINKS AVAILABLE IN --durgadas datta facebook--.

Good post, I can’t say that I agree with everything that was said, but very good information overall:)

Message toTerminal53 - Who the hell ever told you the Universe was like the hood of a car?

There are a lot of nice elements to wear.

Andrew -
well that is kinda mean.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)