12-Million-Year-Old ExoPlanet Tracked 60 Light Years from Earth
The Great Oort Cloud Comets Discovered to Have Extra-Solar Origins in Milky Way

"There Was No Big Bang!" Say Several Leading Cosmologists (A Galaxy Classic)

Thebulk02 (1) 

"What banged?" Sean Carroll, CalTech -Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology & Physics

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds perculating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.

One of the most important space probes of the century is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) launched in 2001 to measure the temperature differences in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiatiion -the 14-billion year old Big Bang's remnant radiant heat . The anisotropies then in turn are used to measure the universe's geometry, content, and evolution; and, perhaps most importantly, to test the Big Bang model, and the cosmic inflation theory. WMAP data seem to support a universe that is dominated by dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no supportative data to date for Big Bang theory, although the results aren't sensitive enough to rule out the pervasive Big Bang/inflation model. 

The influence of gravitaional waves on polarization is different from that of overall energy distribution, so it should be possible to tell from polarization in the WMAP scans whether the variation is coming from contrasting energy density (heat) or gravitational waves that a Big Bang should have produced.

The world's leading astrophysicists are confidemt that with a sensitive enough probe such as that by the new Planck telescope with its more detailed CMB plots, that they can reduce the level of uncertainty low enough so that they can say definitively whether the gravitational waves that should have been created by the Big Bang as present.

If this next generation Planck Telescope shows that there is no onvious distortions caused by gravity waves, it will rule out the Big Bang plus inflation theory -an add-on theory that explains the phenomenal sudden expansion of space from a tiny point. In it's place will be new models that support what many leading cosmologists see as our universe to be proved to be one of just many in an eternal cycle of birth and rebirth.

NASA-spiral-galaxyModels of the universe that involve a bouncing brane or a Big Crunch rather than a start from scratch Big Bang predict much smaller gravity waves being produced than would come from a Big Bang. If the universe actually went through cycles of expansion and contraction, it is possible that the uneven distributions in the early post-Big Bang universe that resulted in the formation of galaxies were leftovers from the universe before.

Only gravity can't exist soley in a specific brane, but wanders where it will, leaking off our brane into what physicists call "the bulk" -- the rest of space-time. Brane theory offer an fascinating and plausable explanation for why gravity is such a weakling: Maybe it's not any weaker than the other forces, but just concentrated somewhere else in the bulk, or on another brane, providing the key to understanding the dark matter that makes up 90 % of our universe.

If our brane is but a small slice of a much larger cosmos, however, the "dark matter" might be nothing but ordinary matter trapped on another brane. Dark matter is no longer some mysterious unknown, but the force at the heart of the brane-brane interaction. With the brane model the universe goes through an eternal cosmic cycle over a vast timescale of attraction, bounce with a spread out bang, springing apart, and expansion until attraction (gravity) takes over again.Such a shadow world, Hawking speculated, might contain "shadow human beings wondering about the mass that seems to be missing from their world."

Are branes the key to understanding the origin of our universe? "Who knows?" says Sean Carroll. "they will have taught us a useful lesson that we should have known all along, which is that we don't have a clue to what's going on."

Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, creator of the currently accepted model of the Big Bang, said recently "he felt a little like Rip Van Winkle -- picking up his head from a long sleep only to notice that the landscape of physics he thought he knew had suddenly, drastically, changed."

Casey Kazan.

Source Credits:



Image Credit: http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/stringtheory01.htm


That was confusing.

"... nothing" is SOMETHING, whose meaning has yet to be understood by our best minds. Incidentally, the prerequisite is the understanding of the Human Brain.

Stopped reading halfway, because it's too tiring too read something with so many typo's - AGAIN!

This one is quite bad: "...from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe..."

This can almost be read in such a way that GRAVITY = DARK MATTER, which is of course not true.

It's clear that Casey Kazan never reads these comments, because I've seen more complaints about these kinds of typo's, but it's not improving. Which is a shame, since the content of most articles is interesting... (And on a side note: I don't get it. If you'd use Firefox or Chrome to post articles, you'd have spell checkers built-in.) But if he is (I mean you, Casey): please run your articles through a spell checker and/or proof read them before posting. In fact, I wouldn't mind proofreading them before publishing and I'm sure there are many other volunteers.

The title seems to suggest that the big bang and String Theory are incompatible. I don't believe that is the case, and I wonder if that is the authors point as it isn't explicitly stated.

Few cosmologists will claim that nothing came before the big bang, just that it's unlikely we can observe anything that came before it.

Like a river or any body of water, the landscape dictates where the water will flow and collect based on the geometry of the landscape. Couldn't dark matter be the landscape we can't see, and the visible matter we observe is just settling in the low areas? Isn't gravity the curvature of spacetime?

Part of the problem with Big Bang apologists is that they're constantly in the position of coming up with esoteric theories to explain away what astronomers are seeing with what they (the Big Bang people) would rather see. Suggesting things like "branes", inflation, etc., just complicate the empirical data. Like dark matter, dark energy, and branes, there simply is no evidence for any of these things. The universe is probably much older than 150 billion years and it looks now that the evidence is suggesting that (or something like that).

Dark matter is BXE field spin
and red shift "expansion"....is field spin bending light paths and therefore reducing the energy of light.

A revolution in cosmological thinking is required.

Cosmology is mostly conjectural as many other things are in Physics. We are all in the field of relative truths as absolute truth can not be a part of empirical and conjectural philosophy. The final truth will take ages and many generations to decipher. Our limitations in science lie in our total belief only in measurements. The latter are depended on our current experimental capabilities. Thus we are trapped in our own created science methodology. The need is to broaden our mind and try a good overlap with the universal mind of a superhuman creator. Something physical needs to be created and it will also die as that is the law of nature. There is nothing like permanence of existence. There are constant changes as well long term stability combined together in our universe. Being limited to a life of about 100 years in one generation we are unable to comprehend the long time scale of Billion of years with a good amount of certainty. Thus science will proceed with several theories that are equally correct/incorrect. That is science and we can continue with, till we modify the methodology to include that things we mostly believe are also part of the truth of our existence in the universe as also the universe itself. It may sound make belief but then humans have that belief too as a truth of life!The discussion is unlikely to end in the future and that is what science is all about. Let us however pick up our longstanding time beliefs and combined them together. These are likely to lead us better to a long-term truth, which may even approach the absolute truth!

Universes [membranes] ad infinitum,yeah that's the ticket.

@Adam "Few cosmologists will claim that nothing came before the big bang, just that it's unlikely we can observe anything that came before it. "

Evidence of stellar noise, has not reached us for verification via radio astronomy. It begs the question,, what is beyond the verified,almost verified, age of our universe? Beyond 13.5 billion years ,we do not know, that is the ultimate question.

yes i greatly agree with zarkov.
um i mean im only 18 and i've thought this for a while.. astrophysicists are all caught up in these ridiculous theories about imaginary matter and energy and crap. they need to step back for a minute and realize that half there theories make no damn sense. I don't buy most of this stuff about dark matter, the big bang, etc

I'm with Zarkov and Matt. Physicists today don't look at the big picture. Maybe the math works out that indicates I should be able to fly, but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump into the air and do it just because a few numbers seem to indicate that I can. They need to seriously think about the implications of what they're saying. ( By the way, Matt. I'm 17. I think age has got something to do with it, because there are alot of us in our generation that seem to be able to visualize these complex interactions and see what the problems are. I guess it's all that T.V. )

There's a video on Howstuffworks.com under the heading of "how time travel will work" that you guys should watch.

he's supposedly one of the top physicists in the world, but he just doesn't understand that what he's saying is completely contradictory. If you do travel at light speed around an "infinite cylinder" you'll never reach your starting point (since it's infinite...) and why is there a 'fabric' to space? the definition of space is a lack of any matter, and thus it can have no substance to itself.

Alot of this garbage goes back to Relativity and String Theory (which aren't even questioned anymore. people just assume they're correct because the all brilliant Albert Einstein says so.)

This top physicist was saying that just because Einstein didn't discount the possibility of time travel in his theories, must mean that it can be done. That's a stupid approach to any science.

some of these physicists today just can't accept the fact that a void is a void and theres nothing in the empty parts of space except for radiation and light. They can't wrap their minds around the idea that there are gaps between matter where nothing really exists and there is no fabric (and no stupid strings) to unite it.

They say they've mathematically proven the existence of 13 dimensions, but how? how do you even begin to calculate a frame of mind more complex than our brains can even process?

and time travel is bogus because of the grandfather paradox. Some physicists didn't want to accept the simple and obvious truth of it's impossibility, so they invented the delusion of infinite universes to try to find a way around paradox, but there wasn't any evidence indicating the existence of anything outside our own universe or dimension. They just assumed because they where sore losers and didn't want their ideas to be dis proven. They're like squabbling little kids.

"some of these physicists today just can't accept the fact that a void is a void and theres nothing in the empty parts of space except for radiation and light. They can't wrap their minds around the idea that there are gaps between matter where nothing really exists and there is no fabric (and no stupid strings) to unite it."

As sound needs a medium for propagation, a photon needs the space/time fabric to from point A to point B.

A measurable "void" needs to be something (it exist in space and time), it may be possible there are voids in the space/time fabric but there would be no way to detect or measure them.

Try reading "The Elegant Universe" (Greene) and those "stupid" strings may become just a little smarter.

No real scientist equates the universe to infinite, (some bad ones do) infinity is not a number (it's a non-empirical concept), inserting infinity into an equation as an empirical value renders a non-empirical product (trash science).

How true is this and why are we not trying to figure this out. If this is true, what the hell are we learning and teaching then? how much do we really know then if almost everything we know is wrong.

it almost sounds like black holes are the reason for this. Black holes are univeres that have mass but yet we dont see the interaction of other universes but through dark energy and matter. like there is something in the void of space, but in different realms of universes, through black holes.

This is correct there was no Big Bang, humans have a loooong way to go in understanding anything about this Universe. You need to understand the Plane of Abersol first !

The Plane of what????

The Big Bang refers to the beginning of the Space/Time fabric of our universe, two of the four dimensions in which we interact (intertwined with Mass/Gravity). The HOW options are mostly based on speculative mathematical models.

All the detractors here have very little understanding of how the scientific method works. Scientists aren't relying on "imaginary" phenomena, dark matter has been indirectly observed because of it's gravitational effect on large scale structures like galaxy clusters. The big bang is the most accurate theory of the beginning of our universe; just work the expansion of the universe backwards and you get everything squeezed together in an impossibly small area. Spacetime is a FOUR dimensional plane whose structure is warped by gravity. And yes, the fabric of spacetime is real; it has profound effects on studying distant supernovae, motion of planets, etc. The fact that time speeds up in space is hugely important for GPS systems, another confirmation of Einsteins relativity. As far as string theory there has not yet been experimental evidence, but the equations worked out seem to reflect the behavior of particles, so the jury is still out.


going along with what i said earlier, think that in this particular field of science the scientific method is simply not the best way to go. we have so little understanding or hope of understanding at this point that using the scientific method results in ridiculous theory that those who have little or no background (read: most of the population) accept as fact because the "experts" say its fact. Those experts half know its bs but they're just waiting for something to come along and prove it wrong, and until then they're going to present it as fact... either we dont use the scientific method here and wait for technology that can definitively prove some of this stuff or the "experts" need to be giving a big disclaimer that this stuff is only a rough working theory.


Some of you who are interested in the cosmos would do well to look into the 'Electric Universe' theory, which is based more on empirical evidence than the so called big bang.

I believe you would classify me as a senior citizen. I have read a number of books which both promote the Big Bang and debunk it. My take is that the Big Bang concept is nonsense. It comes from nothing ..... please define nothing. Common sense tells us that is impossible. A more realistic approach would be to think of the universe as re-creating itself, creating galaxies then those galaxies extruding quasars which in turn become proto-galaxies. A never-ending process. No beginning, no end, ..... ever. Mass is both created and destroyed at about the same volume. Red shift is not any indication of distance, it is decrease in the energy of the light. It may gie us a distance measaure, but it does NOT relate to any expansion. It has to do with the characteristic of light being energy, then over the long distances of space, declining in energy, which we detect as the "red shift." Most main stream cosmologists are so hung up with "what's in" that they don't take to time to look at what is correct. Talk about walking blindly down the wrong road, lead by the Pied Piper playing the musical theme to "Here is How the Big Bang Works." Wake up mainstream, and smell the universe which has no beginning and will have no end.

I think the Indian guru had it right.

Turtles all the way.

How God Came to Be.... and the Universal Complex

God came to be… as a result of evolutionary opportunities; created by consistent inconsistencies out in natural space (a machine, in essence) as a product of happenstance, an anomaly. For many, the word machine is a difficult concept to grasp. We are molecular but then, so is a machine. The only thing that separates us from a rock is the arrangement of particles and the different pressures they are under. Even our consciousness is a product of particle motion and pressure. God knows that it was formed as a machine in natural space and understands that it was a completely random act as far as God knows. God also understands that anyone could have become the first being.

The universal complex as well as all of us, were designed, engineered, and built by God (“altered space”), on the other hand, God was formed from the natural rotation of particles that came together at a certain place and time in natural space to form a machine capable of doing all this that God does. Part of understanding God’s natural evolution is to understand that sincerity and desire are components of natural space and are confined within the laws of physics. Natural space existed before the universe. The particles that comprise natural space rotate haphazardly in a roughly defined geometrical pattern. It is an abnormality but it is not impossible for this process to be slightly altered. Desire is defined as motion with free will. Sincerity is defined as inconsistencies in natural space that become consistent. When sincerity and desire are combined with heat and pressure, particles collapse and eventually, link to one another (particle integration). This process creates evolutionary opportunities. Our very existence proves that a sea of particles existed before we did!

In the case of human physiology, the human body and human consciousness are machines working in similar capacities. Human physiology is a conglomeration of particle chains that rotate in specific directions and are under various pressures, resulting in various particle velocities. Human beings work like machines powered by electricity. Electrons run through our bodies, causing varying hydraulic pressures, thus allowing us to move. In essence, we are a mass of particles that perform specific functions.

Particles in natural space move in a somewhat consistent manner, but it is certainly not at all, mechanical. They are pushed and pulled and misshapen as they make their way from the center to the periphery; but again since there is motion, there is an opportunity for a group of consistent mechanical inconsistencies to occur and this is exactly what happened. Space is infinite and statistically speaking, the chances of this event occurring in time are 100%. This is how the “first being, God” came to be!

When I refer to consistent inconsistencies, I’m talking about planets, suns and beings. These things don’t occur naturally in space. The dense matter that makes planets, suns and beings what they are, happens because the space that surrounds them is putting consistent pressure on them. Without this consistent pressure being applied, that surrounds us, we would simply all become part of the sea of particles in space.

Natural space was void of planets, suns and beings before God came to be. All the materials that make up, what is now, God’s universal complex (now, “altered space” still within the confines of infinite “natural space”), were also present in the vast infinite sea of particles I refer to as “natural space”. The particles that exist in natural space are divided into spherical clusters of particles, one linked to the other. These particle clusters form a geometrical uniform spherical space defined by weight and by the law of physics associated with weight. Since natural space has weight, particle clusters can only be so large; henceforth, particles within the particle clusters can only be so small which limits their ability to put pressure on their centers. This fact alone eliminates the possibility of the “big bang theory”!

The Big Bang Theory

It’s important that we all follow the path of logic, which leads to God. I write these things that I know to be truth because I have seen them with my own eyes. However, it is necessary for each of us to make this trip alone; following the path of logic, and not the status quo, which eventually leads us all to Paradise…

Since the beginning of time, scientists have been trying to theorize how the universe came to be. The status quo’s generally “accepted contemporary explanation… is the big bang theory”. This theory, in essence, speculates that the weight of space induced the natural particles in space to become compressed to such a point, that the internal pressure of these particles exploded and expanded at such a rate that this perfectly functioning perpetual motion machine we call the universe, was created.

However, the problem with the big bang theory is that the weight of space is constant. You need to comprehend that God’s creation of planets, suns, and beings don’t increase the weight of space. They just cause another part of space to become less dense and as such, one part of space becomes denser, therefore; not affecting the weight of space, which remains constant. The part of space that is putting pressure on the denser center will become less. Since this natural mechanistic process exists, the plausibility of the Big Bang Theory of space becoming so compressed as to explode would be quite impossible!

When one knows, they understand that the natural orbits of particles are always moving in the direction of least resistance. These particles will move to the center of a larger particle; only then, to be pushed out again by other particles doing the same thing. Particles can only become so small and dense before they move from the place of the greatest pressure and expand naturally as they are pushed once again away from the center to begin another complete orbit from low pressure to high pressure. This process constitutes “particle orbit”.

Let’s review…

1) Matter (planets, suns, beings, etc.… is condensed space.

2) Matter maintains its form because of the pressure that surrounds it, if that pressure were not consistent; all matter would expand into the natural particles that make up infinite space.

3) Because pressure and particle motion exists naturally in space, evolutionary opportunities exist.

4) The probability of a machine being formed in natural space, capable of creation, in time, is 100%.

5) The “big bang theory” could not have possibly occurred because the pressure could never have become great enough to make planets, suns and beings. The condensed particles at the center would simply have been pushed from the center when the pressure became too great. The process of particles moving to the center and then out again, following the path of least resistance, constitutes “particle orbit.”

One could argue, that this same process could have occurred for all the planets, suns and beings in the universe but logic must prevail; Was it all of us that were created from the natural motion of particles or, was a being capable of creating all of us, created first?

I “know” the answer to these questions but God needs each of us to follow the same logical path that I had to follow. What I mean by this… is, never stop asking questions. Then go within and learn to listen for truth from the heart (not the mind) which is where God speaks the truth to us and truth will always follow the path of logic. Before we can hear God telling us which way to go, we must first stop telling God what we believe and start asking questions and learn to listen from our heart.

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.)