What is Evidence of the Big Bang Theory and how solid is that Evidence?

The only so-called evidence of the Big Bang Theory is that Georges Lemaître had derived Hubble type redshift-distance relationship in light coming from far off galaxies from relativistic (GR) equations in year 1927 whereas Hubble could experimentally find this relationship in year 1929. In this way, it is claimed that (GR based) mathematics had already successfully predicted that important relationship two years before its actual discovery.

But this so-called evidence of the Big Bang Theory is not acceptable because Georges Lemaître had not derived that relationship from (GR) equations. In year 1927, he had derived that relationship not from GR equations but from a method which he took from Hubble himself.

Georges Lemaître’s 1927 French article remained unnoticed until he, with the help of his former teacher Arthur Eddington, published English translation of his 1927 article. That English Translation was published in year 1931 i.e. two years after the experimental discovery of redshift-distance relationship.

There was huge blunder in the 1931 translation article. In the original French article, there was whole para under equation No.23 where Lemaître had clearly mentioned that he had data of redshifts of various galaxies and he also took method of finding distance of those galaxies from Hubble. But in the manipulated translation of 1931, this whole para was replaced by a single sentence.

lemedngtn

This crucial omission was in the notice of Arthur Eddington and he was guiding Lemaître to present translation in that particular way. Yes, he is the same Arthur Eddington who already had authenticated whole General Relativity through his famous (may be notorious) 1919 experiment of confirming bending of light ray during solar eclipse.

manipulation

And following is translation of omitted para under eq.23. This translation is given at the end of this paper.

revised translation

In 1931, the strategy worked and GR equations were projected, through a manipulated translation, as having extraordinary magical powers. But equations had no magical power as such. It was a trick. Arthur Eddington was already expert in those tricks.

For further details please see: A Philosophical Rejection of The Big Bang Theory

About the author

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Dr Stanley Wallenkhuram Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
khuram
Guest

Reblogged this on khuram.

Dr Stanley Wallen
Guest
Dr Stanley Wallen

The leftover radition from the Big Bang was predicted by Gamow and discovered by Penzias and Wilson for which they received the Nobel Prize. The better question is “what is the evidence aganst it?”All serious cosmoligists take it for granet and if you oppose it the burden of proof is on you, The Universe certainly looks as it expanded from a single point. Subtle is the lord but milicious hew is not!

khuram
Guest

Sir first thing is that CMBR is not leftover of any single event. It is infrared light coming from everywhere.. CMBR is not the proof of Big Bang. I have explained it in book: https://getbook.at/bbtrejected

Dr Stanley Wallen
Guest
Dr Stanley Wallen

The Steady State was at one time but no longer. It always required matter to appear from nowhere and the CMB was its death blow. Fred Hoyle, it’s leading
, named the Big Bang as a joke¡

Dr Stanley Wallen
Guest
Dr Stanley Wallen

My spell check is dead