The Big Bang is not good science, part 1
The Big Bang is not good Science.
The Big Bang was rescued from collapse by Inflation Theory which states that the whole early universe "somehow" had to expand explosively and unbelievably fast in an even more incredible and unimaginable short time.Princeton University Professor Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of the inflationary model, has since expressed serious concerns about the model, namely that it introduces more issues and more serious issues than the issues it was intended to solve. There is still no actual evidence supporting inflation. It remains a conjecture.
We attach names like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to things we do not know as it gives us an illusion of knowledge.
Be careful before you believe scientist's claims on these topics.
I TIMOTHY 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
The Bible says that science has got it wrong when science (human knowledge) opposes the Bible.
“Gnosis” is the Greek for “knowledge”.
So it is Gnosis versus Genesis. Human knowledge versus the Bible.
Please remember, the physical universe is far more complex than what we can imagine.
We cannot duplicate a human hair. We cannot duplicate a plant's ability to turn sunlight into food. We do not know how an electron travels between two points. Weather patterns are too complex to predict accurately more than a few days in advance, and even then we often get it wrong. We do not know what an atom looks like. We are baffled when trying to puzzle out how the gravitational force works.
Our scientific theories are just too simplistic compared to the bottomless pit of complexity in a "simple" cell.
So how can Science get the Big Bang wrong?
Surely they have proved it? If that is so, why are so many scientists looking for alternatives? Highly respected Professors Alan Guth and Steven Weinberg, two famous supporters of the Big Bang, are now reluctantly thinking of a multiverse, an infinite number of universes. Why? Because one Big Bang cannot solve all the problems of creation.
Science claims that at the Big Bang "something unknown" exploded and everything raced outwards, but this expansion would slow down in time as the gravity forces between stars and galaxies pulled backwards on each other. But in 1998 scientists claimed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. So they developed the idea of dark energy to produce this expansion. But no-one knows what Dark Energy is or how it works. Dark Energy is an utterly baffling phenomenon. We have absolutely no explanation for it. Then scientists also needed Dark Matter to surround our galaxies as they claimed that the stars in the galaxies were moving too fast and something had to hold them in place. But they also cannot see or explain this dark matter. They have absolutely no clue what Dark Matter is. Without electrically charged protons and electrons, no matter would exist. Dark Matter is supposed to have no electric charge, which is why it is called dark, as it gives out no electromagnetic fields like radio, microwave, light, X-rays etc. This is completely unlike every particle we have ever observed in the laboratory. So Dark Matter lurks outside the boundary limits of good science. Good science must agree with our laboratory experiments.
According to scientists, Dark Energy and Dark Matter add up to about 96 % of our universe.
The Big Bang theory has absolutely no explanation for this Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Thus, the Big Bang cannot be the full truth. That is why many scientists are exploring other possibilities.
There is zero physical evidence of what the universe looked like at the start of the Big Bang.
So scientists actually claim that only 4 % of our universe is visible and can be seen by us. Good science involves seeing what went into the experiment and seeing what came out of it. If the Big Bang is true then our universe came out of it, but only 4 % can be proven to exist because those are the stars and galaxies that we can see. So the scientists have not been very successful. After years of hard work, all they have managed to do is "lose" 96% of our universe. The legacy of modern science is that 96% of our universe is "missing" as we cannot see it or know what it is.
This is just like Evolution which is based on the "missing link". The only thing scientists know for sure about the missing link is that it is still missing. So do you really think that the scientists know what they are talking about when it comes to creation?
Is it really worth abandoning the Bible for a theory that admits total ignorance concerning 96% of our universe? If you believe the Big Bang, you only have a 4% chance of winning.
Professor Guth says that in the 1970s and 1980s the scientists thought that they were so smart that they almost had everything figured out on how to explain everything in the universe from a few basic principles. This is called the Theory Of Everything (TOE).
But remember Daniel, who was also smart in science, saw a Rock ( the Second Coming of Jesus ) smite the image of the Gentile kingdoms in the feet (the foot is where the TOE is). So, put your faith in the Rock rather than in the TOE. The Rock will finally win as It represents Jesus Christ Who is the Word of God, the Bible. The Gentile image, including its TOE, then crumbled into dust.
Adam was made from dust, and humanity will finally return to dust. The Bible will rule supreme.
Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding SCIENCE, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans….1:6
Now among these were of the children of Judah, DANIEL, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
So far, all of Daniel's prophecies have come to pass. So rest assured, the Rock will crumble up and destroy our Gentile civilizations with all of our scientific knowledge. God has a better kingdom in mind. A kingdom of love that is based on faith and innocence to replace our present world of knowledge that is based on science and technology.
Faith in the Bible will finally triumph over the wisdom of man. The greatest battle ever fought is in man's mind, the struggle of human wisdom versus faith in God and His Bible.
So if you feel that you must forsake the Bible because you believe that Science has disproved the Bible, then you will be smashed at the Second Coming of Jesus and find out that even the scientists who preached the Big Bang for years have also forsaken that theory.
But if the multiverse (an infinite number of universes that are all completely out of sight and cannot be contacted by us) is true, then the scientists admit that they will never be able to explain why the properties of our universe are the way they are. There is also no way that scientists can prove this idea that many universes exist, as our telescopes can only see the one universe that we live in. We cannot see the other universes.
Scientists are thus forced to believe in what they cannot see or prove.
This is not good science. Good science only believes in what can be proved.
Other universes are guessed at although their existence cannot be truly proved. As Alan Guth says, “ We had a lot more confidence in our intuition before the discovery of Dark Energy and the Multiverse idea….. We will miss out on the fun of figuring everything out from first principles…. The Multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes of understanding the world from fundamental principles”.
If modern science has made brilliant and professional scientists so unsure of themselves, why are you abandoning your faith in the Bible in order to embrace this uncertainty?
The two most basic laws of good science are the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics.
The First Law is the law of conservation of energy that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But, the scientists claim that all the energy of the universe was created in the Big Bang.
This is a direct contradiction of the First Law and is thus not good science.
No scientist has ever got more energy out of an experiment than what went into the experiment. Energy is a mystery to us. We do not know what it is, and we certainly cannot create it. Energy obeys certain formulae. These formulae yield numbers that tell us how much energy there is in a system. That is all we know about what energy is, just a number that came out of a calculation. So if we have no clue as to what energy actually is, we also have no clue as to how it was created because we have never been able to make energy out of nothing. We cannot add any energy to the total amount of energy that exists. We have no clue as to what the "substance" of energy is. What energy is, remains a profound mystery.
The Second Law states that natural processes create an increasing amount of disorder as energy degrades into heat energy (the junkyard of energy), usually due to friction, that causes random jiggling of air molecules so that this energy is no longer readily available to do useful work. This means that the universe is in a state of slow decay as the available useful energy that keeps things orderly, gets less. The untidy, messy and basically useless heat energy that can't be focused to do something useful, is getting more abundant, rather like a teenager's bedroom.
Thus the laws of physics cannot describe the creation, where energy is created out of nothing, and a highly ordered universe is set in motion.
When scientists speak of creation, they are outside of the boundary lines of science.
Physics only deals with the laws of decay as useful energy gets used up and ends up being degraded like worn-out junk on a trash pile. That’s why you have to keep putting new batteries into electronic gadgets and keep on maintaining your house and servicing your car while your clothes gradually wear out.
Give a scientist nothing and ask him to make something. Then you will see if he has mastered the laws of creation. He cannot do this. Science can merely rearrange the atoms and energy that already exist into new substances. But the things that man makes deteriorate with time. And the waste products accumulate. And the raw materials get harder to find. All this is as a result of the dreaded Second Law.
In summary: the First Law of science says you get nothing for nothing.
The Second Law says you are always going to lose to some extent.
The Third Law says you cannot get out of the game. There is no escape from the first two Laws.
These are the limits of good science. There is no fourth Law of science that allows creation from nothing.
Notice how the Big Bang is presented in a way that tells us absolutely nothing of value.
“Something” exploded. But they cannot tell us what exploded. So how much the wiser are you now?
Scientists have absolutely no evidence of what was there just before it exploded. They have absolutely no evidence of why it exploded nor of the mechanism that made it explode.
They say that this explosion created time and space and energy.
If there was no space before the Big Bang, there was nowhere for this “something” to be.
There was no time either. But time implies change. Whatever exploded had to change from what it was before it exploded to what it became after it exploded. But changing implies time. So there had to be time at the instant of explosion. Thus time was not created in the explosion. If there was no time, then there was no change, and without change occurring, an explosion could not occur.
To say that time was created in this explosion is not scientifically proven. No one has ever created time. We simply do not know what time is. Thus we certainly do not know how it began. Time is so mysterious that we cannot even measure it. We measure the movement of the hands on a watch dial, but we do not come anywhere close to measuring time itself. Time is so mysterious that Einstein called it an illusion. It is so far above our ability to comprehend that we are aware of time's passage as we change and age, but we cannot grasp or understand time's “substance”. So how can we claim to know how it started? That is just a sheer guess to cover up our total ignorance of the laws of creation.
Let’s go back to the beginning when there was "nothing". No matter, no energy, and no light.
How do we get started to create the Big Bang when we have got "nothing".
Scientists are very subtle. They tell us that the vacuum of space is not empty but is full of energy. Thus they do not start at the beginning. They insist on starting with energy. But let us go further back to when there was no energy. No anything.
Then the scientists are stuck. They cannot get started. Every one of their creation theories always starts with something.
But in the beginning, there was nothing. Not even energy.
Acclaimed physicist Stephen Hawking said that whatever exploded had to be infinitely small, infinitely hot, and infinitely dense. And the laws of gravitation had to be in existence. All of this is not "nothing". Nowhere in the physical universe is there anything that is infinite. But Professor Hawking requires three infinities without saying where they came from. After all, before the Big Bang created space, there was “nowhere” for these infinities to be. If it existed, this whole setup would be right outside the limits of science as we determine density by dividing mass by volume. If the volume was infinitely small then it would be zero and mathematicians cannot divide by zero. Astronomer Stuart Clark says that current physics cannot describe the very beginning of the Big Bang because science cannot deal with the tiny fractions of time and space that would need to be considered if the universe was squeezed into a tiny dot, smaller than an atomic nucleus.
Run the Big Bang explosion backwards. All the stars and galaxies must compress together until they are much, much smaller than a pinhead. Such a thing is not possible using any of the known laws of science. Today, with the whole universe present, there is no way to compress it so small. So how did it suddenly happen when there was nothing to compress and also nothing to do the compressing. And “nowhere” for this compression to happen either. And there was no time either for the compression to act. Compressing something takes time. But in the beginning, there was no time.
To describe “nothing” as three infinities is simply not a useful truth. Then they must also explain how the laws of gravitation came into existence out of nothing. Even to this day, scientists cannot explain the gravitational force and how it works. They have made good progress towards combining the laws of electric forces and magnetic forces with the radiation forces that obey the laws of nuclear decay that cause radioactivity. They have also developed an impressive Standard Model to include the strong forces in the nucleus, but this theory requires the proton to decay. So far there is absolutely no evidence of any sign of proton decay, so the Standard Model is obviously not the final goal. Although it is an excellent theory, it cannot be the full truth.
But the gravitational force just defies all attempts to include it with the other three forces. If they can include the gravity force, this will be their Theory of Everything (TOE). But the gravity force stubbornly refuses to come to the party.
So how can scientists claim that this gravity force, which is still so baffling to our brightest minds, just happened to be there at the beginning?
Professor Hawking must start with nothing and then prove his case from there. He denies that an infinite God created the universe and replaces Him with three infinities and an ultra-mysterious gravitational force. It obviously takes less faith to believe in One Infinity than in three infinities. An atheist thus has to have more faith than a Christian. Yet atheists condemn Christians for relying on faith.
What is a black hole?
Einstein combined space and time into a fabric of space-time which can be roughly represented by a thin elastic sheet. Place a heavy object like the Earth or Sun onto this sheet, and it will make a dent in the sheet, as shown by Wikipedia.
Stars that are bigger than the Sun will make deeper and deeper dents until the space-time sheet looks like a funnel with the heavy star at the bottom of the stem of the funnel. If the star has even more mass, it will finally rip through the fabric of space-time, leaving a hole at the bottom of the funnel's stem.
Any stars or gas that slide down the steep slopes of the funnel will disappear through this hole and be lost to our universe. Nothing can escape from this black hole as the gravitational attraction of the massive star causing the black hole simply pulls everything into it. Black holes are a brilliant concept and, if they exist, are the most extreme objects that exist out in space. They continue to challenge our understanding of the most fundamental laws of physics. The known laws of physics break down in the extreme conditions of a black hole. So it is difficult to know how far we can trust our calculations as we cannot, as yet, confirm our calculations through laboratory experiments. The pressures in a black hole are just too high for us to duplicate.
Another way to make a black hole is to compress a large object like our Sun so that its mass pushes on a smaller and smaller area of the space-time elastic which then dents more and more. Rather like a woman wearing stiletto heels. Her heels make a dent in the floor because all her weight, which is not much, is acting on such a small surface area. If the Earth was compressed down smaller than a one-cent coin, it would start to form a black hole from which nothing, not even light energy could escape. A billion suns would have to be squashed down to about the size of our solar system to start forming a black hole from which nothing can escape.
So picture the entire universe of about ten thousand billion billion suns (plus planets etc.) all compressed down to smaller than an atom.
This would represent the ultimate black hole if there was some space-time to put it somewhere. But there is neither space nor time right at the beginning.
This unimaginably dense object could never allow anything to escape from it.
But the Big Bang theory claims that the entire universe escaped from it. This is a complete contradiction.
Scientists have to have a lot of faith to believe that this happened.
But then it gets worse.
To get the almost constant energy distribution of background microwaves observed from space today, Professor Guth invented a brand new inflation force.
In less than a billionth of a second after the Big Bang started, this inflation force switched on for one hundred billion billion billion billion billionths of a second. This time scale is so unimaginably tiny that it is completely outside the ability of science to measure and thus it is simply a guess. Nothing realistically can switch on for such a short time. No scientist knows what the inflation force was and no scientist knows what switched it on and then off in such an unimaginably short time. This inflation force has never been repeated. Nor has the Big Bang ever been repeated in our universe. Good science is always repeatable. Thus the Big Bang and Inflation are not good science.
But things get worse still.
In that tiny, tiny fragment of time, the entire universe ballooned out and increased its volume by, wait for it, one hundred billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion times. This is not science fiction, this is seriously what scientists believe and the fact that the entire universe expanded far, far faster than the speed of light does not worry them either.
It requires incredible faith to believe all this actually happened.
Even now, it still gets worse.
Energy produces matter and antimatter in equal amounts, but when they collide with each other, both disappear in a flash of radiation. So a huge puzzle for scientists is why there is so much matter and so little antimatter in the universe.
One theory is that if one billion particles of matter formed, then there would be one less particle of antimatter. So a billion particles of matter had to form before one particle could survive the antimatter onslaught. That simply means that the universe once had a billion times more matter than it has now. Imagine trying to squash a billion universes into a size that is smaller than an atom. But this theory has never been proven and as such, it remains a guess. As a result, scientists are still trying to puzzle out why the antimatter is missing. Evolutionists have the same problem because the missing link between man and ape just remains missing.
All of this is speculation because no-one was around to see it happen.
Nor can anyone explain how all that matter and energy got compressed, nor how it all escaped the ultimate black hole. In good science, you must see and measure what went into the experiment, not guess what you think happened.
So Science has not done a good job of explaining the origin of the universe.