Abstract

For over a century the prevailing belief has been that the universe was created by a big bang singularity. This speculative event is an impossibility that has become a firmly entrenched notion only because of a fundamental scientific error that few have questioned until now. This article provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from any singularity, that galaxies are not receding from the Milky Way, and that we are not on a collision course with Andromeda. Big bang theory presupposes that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. This notion defies both physics and logic, the science of thinking and reasoning. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Aristotle is reputed to have expressed it this way: “The notion that there could be nothing that preceded something offends reason itself.”

Key Words

Big Bang; Universe; Astrophysics; Cosmology; Astronomy; Hubble’s Law; Expansion Theory; Dark Matter; Redshift

Introduction

For over 100 years, the prevailing belief has been that the universe was created by a big bang singularity. Because of both logical and scientific errors, this speculative event could not possibly have happened [1].

The big bang notion has become firmly entrenched because of a fundamental scientific error compounded by faulty assumptions, presumptive reasoning, and miscalculations. When these oversights are corrected, we are left with zero evidence supporting any of the suppositions that (a) the universe began from a singularity, (b) galaxies are receding from each other, or (c) we are on a collision course with Andromeda.

Every variation of big bang theory suggests that somehow the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing. This notion defies both physics and logic, the science of thinking and reasoning. Nothing cannot be the cause of something.

The universe is everything that exists. There is nothing existing outside the universe that could possibly bring it into existence. Aristotle is reputed to have expressed it this way: “The notion that there could be nothing that preceded something offends reason itself.”

The Redshift Blunder Obstructing Cosmology

In 1915, astronomer Vesto Slipher observed that light from some spiral nebulae is redshifted, meaning that its frequency drops toward the red end of the spectrum and its wavelength correspondingly increases. Slipher falsely presumed this phenomenon to be a Doppler effect in which a light source moving away from the observer somehow stretches the wavelength of the light it emits [2]. If Slipher had understood that the true wavelength of sound remains constant during the Doppler effect, he would have realized that redshift is an entirely different phenomenon.

Redshift and Doppler are two separate and distinct phenomena. In redshift there is an actual increase in wavelength. In Doppler there is only the illusion of a change in wavelength. Redshift is attenuation whereas Doppler is distortion [3, 4]. To presume they are the same “Doppler-redshift” is rather like referring to a line in geometry as a straight-curve [3].

Light waves are transverse (i.e., oscillate perpendicular to their path) and do not require any medium through which to travel. Sound waves are longitudinal (i.e., vibrate parallel to their path) and can only propagate by compression and rarefaction of the medium through which they travel (e.g., air, water, solids) [4].

Doppler is distortion. Sound consists of uniform longitudinal waves passing through the elastic medium of air at a constant frequency. When its source moves towards you, identical length waves hit your ear more frequently, distorting the perceived sound to a higher frequency. As a sound source moves away from you, identical length waves hit your ear less frequently, distorting the perceived sound to a lower frequency.

Suppose an ambulance heading towards you at 70 km/h emits musical note A (frequency 440 Hz, wavelength 0.773 m). Suppose also that the first note you hear as the siren comes into earshot is Bb (466 Hz). As the ambulance passes by, you hear the true A440. After the siren passes, you hear in the distance Ab (415 Hz). The wavelength of the sound emitted by the siren (0.773 m) never changes. Both the Bb and Ab are distortions of the true A440 sound.

Light waves are transverse and travel at 3.0 x 10⁸ m/s through space, where there is no medium to resist their movement. Thus, light waves can neither bunch together (creating the illusion of increasing frequency) – nor drift apart (creating the illusion of decreasing frequency). Whatever frequency is measured is the actual frequency of light at the respective point of observation.

Redshift is simply the measurable tendency of light to attenuate. The velocity of light always remains constant. However, over extreme distances the frequency of visible light gradually diminishes (attenuates) towards the red end of the spectrum while its wavelength increases correspondingly.

For over a century, astrophysicists have been falsely presuming that redshift measures the velocity of a light source away from the observer. Redshift, however, is a function of only two variables, surface temperature and distance, neither of which have anything to do with velocity.

Because the surface temperature of the Sun is 5,500⁰ C, it emits light in the yellow range of the spectrum. Similarly, a star with a surface temperature of 12,000⁰ C emits light at the blue end of the spectrum, and one with a surface temperature of 3,000⁰ C emits light at the red end of the spectrum.

If Star X at a temperature of 7,000⁰ C and Star Y at 12,000⁰ C are the same distance from Earth, we could simultaneously be receiving light from X in the red end of the spectrum and light from Y in the blue end of the spectrum. The temptation is to conclude that light from X is redshifted and light from Y is blueshifted, but that would be a mistake. The light from both X and Y is being attenuated (redshifted) at the same rate. It is only because light from Y started out at a much higher frequency that it has not yet dropped into the red end of the spectrum.

Expansion Theory

In 1925, mathematician Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe could be either expanding, contracting, or remaining static. He developed equations to predict either the rate of expansion or rate of contraction, once it was known which was the case [1].

In 1927, astronomer Georges LeMaître independently developed the same equations as Friedmann. LeMaître, however, presupposed that the universe is expanding and provided mathematics to support his foregone conclusion [5].

In 1929, Edwin Hubble published “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae” in which he proposed that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate [6]. Hubble made the unwarranted assumption that galaxies are accelerating away from each other and used contrived mathematics to support his foregone conclusion [7].

In 1931, Georges LeMaître published the English version of his earlier paper entitled, “A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae” [5]. He initially called his theory the “hypothesis of the primeval atom” and described it as the “cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation.” In addition to being an astronomer, LeMaitre was also a Catholic priest who felt comfortable with the notion that God had created the atom/egg that subsequently blew up to create the universe. Thus, what later become known as big bang theory had its origin in metaphysics rather than astrophysics.

Circular Reasoning

Every version of expansion theory includes its conclusion in its assumption, then uses this assumption to prove its foregone conclusion. This is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Both LeMaitre and Hubble calculated what they believed to be radial velocities of nebulae. They did so by taking presumed velocities they claim to have measured between Earth and each nebula in question, then using trigonometry to estimate what the velocity would be on a vector from the Earth’s presumed origin – without having the foggiest idea as to where said origin could possibly be located or if it even existed. Both scientists started with the a priori assumption that the universe was created by a singularity that happened at a specific unknown point in space, then developed calculations to justify their foregone conclusion.

Hubble’s False Law

In 1929, Edwin Hubble presented data from which he formulated Hubble’s law, which theory is considered the ultimate observational basis for expanding universe theory. From 24 sets of nebulae data, Hubble selected five that demonstrated a perfect straight-line relationship between distance and presumed velocity of nebulae [15].

Table A: Hubble’s Presumptions of Distances and Velocities

Cluster Galaxy	Distance-EH4 (light-years)	Presumed Velocity4 (km/s)	Ratio (Velocity/Distance)
Virgo	78	1,200	15.4
Ursa Major	1,000	15,000	15.0
Corona Borealis	1,400	22,000	15.7
Bootes	2,500	39,000	15.6
Hydra	3,960	61,000	15.4
Average			15.4

The results in the Ratio column above are the five points that Hubble posted on a graph to create a remarkably tight straight-line relationship between the distance of a galaxy and how fast it is supposedly moving away [16].

Something is seriously wrong with Hubble’s estimates of distance, however. If we substitute modern estimates of distance in the Distance-Modern column below, an entirely different picture emerges. Data in the Distance-Hubble column are the figures published by Edwin Hubble in his seminal 1929 paper. Data in the “Distance-Modern” column are published data sourced from the Hipparcos Catalogue of 188 218 [16].

Table B: Modern Estimates of Distance Compared to Edwin Hubble’s Presumptions

Brightest Star	Distance-Modern (light-years)	Distance-Hubble4 (light-years)	Error Factor
Spica (Virgo)6	262	78	(-3.4x)
Alioth (Ursa Major)7	81	1,000	12x
Alphecca (Corona Borealis)8	75	1,400	19x
Arcturus (Bootes)9	37	2,500	68x
Alphard (Hydra)10	180	3,960	22x

Edwin Hubble thus estimated Virgo to be about 3.4 times closer than it really is, and the other clusters to be from 12 to 68 times further away than they really are. If Hubble had used realistic estimates of distance, there would have been no straight line on his graph, only random points indicating a zero correlation between distance and velocity. Hubble began with the a priori assumption that galaxies are accelerating away from each other, then contrived data to justify his foregone conclusion [16].

The Universe is Not Expanding

In 1930, Richard Tolman devised a surface brightness test to determine whether the universe is static or expanding. Tolman’s test compares the surface brightness of galaxies to their degree of redshift (measured as z). Tolman believed redshift to be the degree of reduction in energy (i.e., attenuation) of each photon [13].

In a static universe, the light received from an object drops in proportion to the square of its distance, and the apparent area of the object also drops in proportion to the square of its distance. Thus, the surface brightness (light received per surface area) is constant, independent of its distance. In an expanding universe, however, the surface brightness would decrease with the fourth power of (1 + z).

In 2014, Eric Lerner and a team of astrophysicists applied the Tolman test by measuring the surface brightness (per unit area) of over 1,000 near and far galaxies. If galaxies had been moving away from each other, they would have appeared fainter the farther away they were, i.e., the surface area would have been diminishing. Lerner’s team found that in every case surface brightness remains constant regardless of distance. If any far distant galaxy had been in motion away from us, its surface brightness would have been much less than nearby galaxies, a phenomenon that has never been observed [14]. Thus, there is zero evidence that galaxies are moving apart and overwhelming evidence that they are not.

The universe is an infinite expanse and as such cannot have any boundaries that are expanding. Infinity cannot become larger than the everything that it already is. Application of the Tolman surface brightness test tells us that galaxies are in the same position relative to each other that they have always been in.

Cosmic Microwave Background is Blackbody Radiation

In 1964, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation was discovered by radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. They heard the CMB as an odd buzzing sound coming from every part of the sky. Big bang proponents had been searching for confirming evidence for their singularity theory, and this discovery appeared to be it.

CMB radiation can be detected by telescope in every direction as a patchy background, about 13.4 x 10⁹ ly away. This observation is mistakenly believed to be thermal radiation left over from recombination, the epoch during which charged electrons and protons supposedly first became bound to form electrically neutral hydrogen atoms, shortly after the alleged big bang. The assumption is that hydrogen, the lightest element, was made exclusively during the big bang and in the general area of its supposed origin. However, ionized hydrogen gas in fact permeates the entire universe.

From 1989 until 1993, COBE satellite Explorer 66 investigated the cosmic microwave background. Astrophysicists expected to see evidence of directional dependency (anisotropy) that could be traced back to the presumed site of the alleged big bang. That was not what they saw, however. Instead, Explorer 66 measured an isotropic blackbody spectrum with little variation across the sky [8].

Figure 1. Blackbody measurements of cosmic microwave background

The above graph represents the cosmic microwave background spectrum as measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE. As it turns out, this is the most precisely measured blackbody spectrum in nature. The error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.

NASA thus confirms that the CMB follows the precise curve for blackbody radiation. A blackbody is an opaque object in space that absorbs radiation of all wavelengths that falls on it. Then, when the blackbody is at a very hot and uniform temperature, it emits its own radiation that is outside the visible spectrum of light. NASA’s measurements show that this blackbody curve peaks at 0.3 cm. wavelength and 100 GHz frequency, which is at the high end of the microwave spectrum. The blackbodies in question could simply be interstellar dust.

The cosmic microwave background is smooth and looks the same in all directions for the same reason that a fog looks smooth and uniform in all directions. The CMB thus appears as an electromagnetic fog on optical telescopes and as a static hum on radio telescopes [1].

Fictitious Dark Matter

In 1933, Fred Zwicky inferred the existence of missing mass (dark matter) when he discovered that the mass of all the stars in the Coma cluster of galaxies provided only about one percent of the mass needed to keep the galaxies from escaping the cluster’s presumed gravitational pull [10]. In 1970, astronomers Vera Rubin and W. Kent Ford supposedly confirmed dark matter’s existence by the observation of a similar phenomenon: the mass of stars visible within a typical galaxy is only about 10 percent of that presumed to keep those stars orbiting the galaxy’s center [11].

Dark matter is called dark because it does not interact with observable radiation and cannot be seen by telescopes nor detected by any other means. Light passes right through dark matter, which neither emits nor absorbs light nor any other electromagnetic energy. Dark matter does not interact with normal matter and does not participate in nuclear fusion. Dark matter does not have any properties at all, because dark matter does not exist [12].

Dark matter has been hypothesized to explain an unknown force of gravitational attraction that supposedly keeps the universe from expanding too quickly. However, the universe is not expanding. The mythical big bang explosion never happened [1]. There is no gravitational force opposing any falsely presumed rate of expansion. Dark matter is a fictional diversion that obscures cosmology.

Bang Goes the Theory

The prevailing, firmly entrenched cosmological model for the universe is that it was created by a big bang explosion/singularity that happened some 13.8 billion years ago. This date was arrived at by working backwards in time from equations that purport to measure the universe’s presumed rate of expansion.

According to this theory, the entire universe began from some tiny point (or microdot, or quantum) violently exploding out pure energy that almost instantly became particles – and then atoms that eventually combined to form elements, molecules, gases, stars, and galaxies. In other words, the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing.

Proposing a big bang or other singularity as cause does not answer the question as to how the universe was created. It simply raises another question as to how the singularity was created.

Points are artificial mathematical abstractions used to specify locations on a graph. Points do not in fact exist. Some variations of the theory are vague about naming what it was that was supposed to have exploded but suggest it was something that had zero dimensions. The same faulty logic prevails: to have zero dimensions is to have zero existence.

Some big bang theorists believe that the imagined singularity was a tiny, solid mass with all the matter in the universe compacted into the tiniest bit of space, and then it blew up. Even if it were possible to compress so much mass into such a small space, the intense gravity would have caused it to implode inward rather than explode outward. In addition to this scientific impossibility, there are also two logical errors: (1) all the matter in the universe could not have existed prior to the universe, and (2) something could not have compacted all this matter before any means of compaction existed.

The universe is defined as everything that exists. Big bang theory imagines that the something which created the universe existed prior to existence – a contradiction in terms.

Space is defined as the expanse of the universe beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. Space is in the universe; the universe is not in space. Big bang theory imagines that the something which created the universe was located somewhere before the concept of location (i.e., in space) existed – a second contradiction in terms.

Time is defined as the continuous duration of existence as seen as a series of events. Without existence and events, the concept of time has no meaning. Time is in the universe; the universe is not in time. Big bang theory falsely assumes there was a point in time at which time began – a third contradiction in terms.

Many big bang proponents claim that it was not a single point in space that exploded but rather every point in the universe participated in the big bang. In other words, the explosion happened everywhere at the same time but not at any specific location. Whether one location or every location existed prior to existence is an equally nonsensical argument.

A Child’s Perspective:

Parent Speaking	Child Responding
Once upon a time, a teeny-weeny dot exploded, creating everything that exists.	Who made this dot?
Nobody, it was just there.	Where? If nothing existed, there was no place to put a dot.
Stop interrupting, I am trying to tell a story.	And how could a dot exist before there was such a thing as existence?
Never mind, it just did.	When did this event happen?
Almost 14 billion years ago.	A year is the time it takes for Earth to circle around the Sun, isn’t it?
Yes.	Before there were planets or suns, there was no such thing as years. Correct?
Yes.	So how can you say this story began once upon a time? If there weren’t any years, there wasn’t any time.
Stop trying to be so logical. Not everything is logical.	Apparently not. So why should I believe this story?
Because I said so.

An Infinite Universe

Either the universe popped into existence, or it did not. There is no third possibility.

Because a big bang could not possibly have happened, from our frame of reference the universe must have always been here. The universe is a limitless, endless, infinite expanse that is without beginning or ending [9].

Conclusion

The alleged big bang could not possibly have happened. That the universe could have begun from any kind of singularity is both logically impossible and scientifically indefensible. There is no point in time at which time began. Time is in the universe; the universe is not in time. The universe is a limitless, endless, infinite expanse that is without beginning or ending.

References

1. Rowland D (2020) The big bang never happened: a conclusive argument. Journal of Physics & Astronomy 8:193.
2. Slipher V (1915) Spectrographic observations of nebulae. Popular Astronomy 23: 21-24.
3. Rowland D (2020) Redefining redshift as attenuation. OSP Journal of Physics and Astronomy 1.
4. Rowland D (2021) Redshift blunder has been obstructing cosmology for over a century. OSP Journal of Physics and Astronomy 2.
5. LeMaitre G (1927) A Homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae. Annales Soc. Sci. Bruxelles 47: 49-59.
6. Hubble E (1929) A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 15:168-173.
7. Rowland D (2020) Hubble’s failed law. Journal of Physics & Astronomy 8: 200.
8. Cosmic Microwave Background. Wikipedia.org.
9. Rowland D (2021) An infinite universe. OSP Journal of Physics and Astronomy 2.
10. Zwicky F (1933) Die rotverschiebung von extragalactischen Nebeln. Helv Phys Acta 6:110-127.
11. Rubin VC., Ford WK (1970) Rotation of the andromeda Nebula from a spectroscopic survey of emission regions. Astrophys J 159: 379-403.
12. Rowland D (2021) Dark matter revealed. Journal of Physics & Astronomy 8: 196.
13. Tolman Surface Brightness Test. Wikipedia.org.
14. Lerner E., Falomo R., Scarpa R (2014) UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z-5. International Journal of Modern Physics 23:1450058.
15. Hubble E (1929) A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra galactic nebulae. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 15: 161.
16. Rowland D (2020) Hubble’s failed law. Journal of Physics & Astronomy 8: 200.