Why is Big Bang not a Scientific Theory?

Big Bang Theory is invalid theory in the capacity of a “scientific theory”.

Modern cosmologists now try to get rid of the term “big bang” by saying that it was derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle etc.

They do affirm at least two things and insist that these two things are scientifically valid. Following are the two points:

  1. That Universe is Expanding and;
  2. Early Universe was hot and dense.

‘Big Bang’ is not a recognized theory as such. But above two points constitute a recognized theory which, in detailed mathematical form, is often termed as “Lambda-CDM Model”.

Both of these two points are actually without any scientific proof. Expansion is said to be derived from observed redshifts. The point is that the observed redshift is not Doppler’s Effect. It has different name i.e. Cosmological Redshift.

Unlike Doppler’s effect, Cosmological Redshift itself does not constitute the proof of receding of anything from us. In the absence of clear Doppler’s Redshift, there is need of direct evidence that galaxies are in fact moving away. But there is no direct evidence. For example they say that galaxies are moving away and at greater distance, same galaxies will become more redshifted.

Now direct evidence can be in the form that we may note increase in redshift over time. We have 100 years old data of redshift of many galaxies and increase in redshift over the period of 100 years has not been recorded. Let’s say the farthest visible galaxy is moving away at speed of light and its redshift value now indicates distance of 13.3 billion light years. After one million years, we shall be able to note slight increase in redshift that will indicate a distance of 13.31 billion light years.

Fact is that … direct evidence of receding of galaxies is not available now and it can be available, if galaxies are really moving away, only after hundreds of thousands of years.

My point is that … till then please call it a philosophical theory. When after many hundreds of thousands of years you will eventually get the direct evidence, then I also will call it a scientific theory. But before that time, it is Philosophical or even Mythical.

They also say that CMB is proof of expansion. I say CMB is not the proof of expansion. They only have ‘interpreted’ CMB in terms of expanding universe.

CMB can also be ‘interpreted’ in terms of non-expanding infinite universe. In this case, there should be daytime brightness in terms of Olber’s paradox. I say that CMB is that daytime (redshifted to invisible spectrum zone) brightness and thus it is proof of infinite and static universe.

They do not even have any explanation of CMB if universe is not expanding.

They also say that abundance of light elements in far-off (early) universe is also proof of expansion.

I say this is also not the proof of expansion. Let’s say Universe was infinite and by the time of their so-called Big Bang there was only universal fog of Hydrogen (may be including other light elements). In that case, first galaxies started to emerge by way of gravitational condensation of already existing fog at the standard accepted time and thus again abundance of light elements has been explained in a non-expanding universe. In fact, abundance of light elements is not any proof of expansion. If correct, then it is only proof to the fact that at earlier time, everywhere throughout infinite vastness, there were only light elements.

In short, fact is that so-far there is exact zero proof of this expanding universe theory. When after many hundred of thousands of years they will get the direct evidence, then I will be the first to accept that yes expanding universe theory is a scientific theory.

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
JeffersonMagellanic Cloudontologicalrealistlarryzb Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
larryzb
Guest

Of course, after many thousands of years, when the direct evidence is in, we will all be long dead. But, good post and interesting observations.

ontologicalrealist
Guest

“Why is Big Bang not a Scientific Theory?”

If a theory is scientific then does it mean that it is true?

Magellanic Cloud
Guest

Scientific evidence is that ‘Doppler’s Effect’ is the indication of receding of objects from us. So if galaxies are really Doppler Redshifted then it is scientific theory and also true. But actually it is not Doppler Effect going on. Galaxies are redshifted and name of that redshift is Cosmological Redshift. Their (non-scientific) theory is that their mathematics (GR equations) tell that universe is expanding. And same mathematics is the proof that Cosmological Redshift means receding of galaxies from us. This (simple) theory also can be true … but truth can be confirmed only with direct evidence that will be available… Read more »

ontologicalrealist
Guest

If a theory is scientific then does it mean that it is true?

Magellanic Cloud
Guest

Yes … a truly scientific theory is true. Because true science is the best criteria that we have for the judgment of truth.

Off course, our truth is approximation of truth.

Jefferson
Guest
Jefferson

No, you are wrong scientific theory is not true, evidence alone is not alone it is how much of the evidence are you able to collect and what part of the evidence you can never observe and the second, since we are so small compared to the entire existence all of our interpretations are completely wrong since we can only observe basically infinitely small percentage of entire universal reality. So no, scientific theory is not true, because of the limitations human brains possess, nothing is ever truly sure except the fact we would die, however it doesn’t meaan we will… Read more »