Big Bang: The BIG LIE!!
Much to the dismay of many followers of religion, in my previous hub,
Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding
I explained why the universe is a concept, rather than an object. And since concepts cannot expand, then it’s obvious that the universe cannot expand.
In this hub we will discuss the myth of creation, which is known as the Big Bang in many religious circles.
Does the Universe Have an Edge?
The only way the universe can be classified as an object, is if it has an edge, a border....it must have shape!
Many thought experiments for creation and universes were proposed throughout the middle ages, and can be found in antiquity too. One of the most beautiful early examples was proposed by Lucretius.
Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem on Epicureanism De Rerum Natura, translated into English as: On the Nature of Things.
In this work, Lucretius reasons that space is, by his own words, ‘infinite’. His reasoning is: if there is a purported boundary to the universe, we can toss a spear at it. If the spear flies through, it isn't a boundary after all; if the spear bounces back, then there must be something beyond the supposed edge of space. Either way, there is NO edge to the universe; space is boundless. This means that space cannot be contained like an object can be contained in a box. Space is indeed not finite, not physical; space is nothing.
Lucretius also reasoned that nothing comes from ‘nothing’, and nothing can be destroyed. Matter exists in imperceptible objects (atoms) separated from one another by space. The atoms are solid, indivisible, and eternal.
So is the Universe an Object? Is the Universe finite?
All objects have the intrinsic property of shape.
For those who parrot that the Universe is an object or finite, all they have to do is draw a picture illustrating this object they call THE UNIVERSE.
Then they would have to explain what the border or edge of their universe is made from? Bricks? Steel? Plastic? Nothing?
Finally, they need to account for the STUFF outside the edge of their universe that gives it contour.
Is this STUFF nothing? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!
Is this STUFF something? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!
No matter which way they go, the only conclusion they will arrive to, is that their universe is NOT an object. Their universe, like ANY universe, is always a CONCEPT! Concepts do not expand, and certainly DO NOT get created from singularities. Concepts are only conceived (invented) by human apes.
Contemporary & traditional religions always treat concepts as NOUNS in sentences, in the hopes that the public believes that they are dealing with objects. This is a logical fallacy we call REIFICATION (fallacy of misplaced concreteness).
Either way, the stupidity of the notion of CREATION, whether Big Bang or Biblical, is contradictory, it defies all logic and reason, and is instantly debunked!!
Big Bang = Religion!
The Religion of the Big Bang
The Big Bang theorizes that 13 to 18 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot point that was infinitely small. This point is called the ‘singularity’. For some unknown reason, the singularity exploded. The problem with this theory is quite clear. It is suggesting that "nothing" exploded and created "everything." A bit contradictory, to say the least, and yet widely accepted. It states "In the realm of the universe, nothing means nothing...from this state of nothing, the universe began in a giant explosion" (Prentice Hall General Science, pg 362), and goes on to say "After many billions of years, all the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then, another big bang will occur...A big bang may occur once every 80 to 100 billion years." (pg 63).
The concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble, but from a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître. In 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift, Lemaître presented his Big Bang theory on the creation of the universe. This BB theory arose because the Catholic Church, which was active in science, was seeking for a “scientific” proof for many centuries that God created the universe. They wanted to cross the line from belief into science. Only then could they claim bragging rights that their theology was the truth.
The lunacy is realized when one understands that the BB Theory claims the medium for creation was "nothing". It is creation ex nihilo!
There was an initial uproar among some of the well noted scientists of the time. Hubble didn't want to accept this theory because it doesn't explain why there are so many blue-shifted galaxies. Einstein didn't want to accept it either, because the 'singularity' violates Special Relativity. Special Relativity explicitly forbids point-masses like singularities. Both Hubble and Einstein knew the BB was bunk, but they ultimately succumbed to peer pressure. It was either that, or be ousted by the community.
It is quite obvious, that those who believe in the Big Bang theory cannot have it both ways. They cannot harp on religion and creationists, when they are actually pushing their OWN religion with creation out of NOTHING! They have no rational explanations for anything they preach. Their position is hilariously stupid at all levels. The BB is nothing but religion dressed up as pseudo-science!
Relativists claim that the universe used to be a 0D singularity that had no size.
"At the big bang itself the universe is thought to have had zero size (p. 117) a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface eventually shrinks to zero size" (p. 49 A Brief History in Time – Stephen Hawking)
Perhaps in the religion of Relativity there can exist spirits that have zero size, but not in physics. Whatever is alleged to have a zero size can only be classified as nothing! So how did this 0D singularity (nothing) create space and matter?
In Science, we use Theories to explain. Before we explain, we must first make an assumption, the Hypothesis. In the case of the Big Bang, the Relativist makes the assumption that there was a mathematical 0D singularity. This singularity, a concept, is reified into an object so that the miracle of creation can ensue. This abstract concept exploded and morphed into space and matter. And not only that, but it created an object they call: The Universe.
But what did the singularity explode and expand into?
The singularity has 'nothing' (i.e., space) contouring 'it'. It's funny because the singularity ALREADY includes space. So the idiots of this Big Bang Theory have space contouring space, nothing around nothing. Can you believe this nonsense?
So then WHAT gives shape to the Universe? Is it space (nothing)? It is obvious that the universe has no shape or border; hence it is not an object as claimed. And since it is not an object, then the universe cannot possibly expand! The universe is only a conceptual relation of matter and space.
It looks like these guys borrowed the singularity explosion idea from the book of Genesis, which claims that a magical God created matter by converting space into atoms. This is exactly what Lemaître did on behalf of the Pope at the time. Now everybody has bought into the idea that the story of Genesis is supported by hard scientific evidence and proof!
THE BIG BANG CREATION MYTH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN CREATION EX-NIHILO
Both the ‘Singularity’ and ‘God’ are asserted by some fanatics to be: non-physical, immaterial, incorporeal, intangible, of no substance, dimensionless, spiritual/conceptual.
And to add insult to injury, the priests of the BB Theory also claim that TIME was created by the BB. How can ‘time’, which is a concept, be created? It takes a biological brain to conceive of time. Such surrealistic fantasy belongs in Harry Potter storybooks, not in science.
And what is funnier still....is that many Protestant sects are quick to dismiss the Big Bang Theory, because they don’t want to be associated with those Catholic Virgin Mary worshippers. So I’ll give the Protestants some brownie points for dismissing the BB nonsense. But I’m not letting them off the hook because they are still asserting the irrationality of the creation myth.
These are the tough questions we ask anybody who claims Creation:
1. Explain to us where the first bit of matter came from? Did your God create it from his loins?
2. Explain how “nothing” (0D singularity) can acquire Length, Width, and Height in order to form into an “object” with shape.
3. Better still; explain how ‘nothing’ can create space, which is already nothing!
4. What was the ‘void’ before creation? Was it nothing (i.e. space)?
In physics, we explain it as follows:
Object: that which has shape
Space: that which lacks shape
Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.
An object cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.
Since space has no boundaries, matter cannot escape space. Matter is eternal. It has always been there and will continue to be there after humans are gone.
Creation in all of its forms, whether under the guise of God or of the Big Bang, has no place in science. Only those who are pushing a religion will believe and claim that the universe (concept), space (nothing), and matter (atoms) exploded from mathematical singularity (nothing). Anybody who believes that space is a physical object capable of expanding and carrying the stars and the galaxies with it, has to have his head examined.
More by this Author
The Universe is eternal. Matter & space cannot be created or destroyed. To assert a theory of a beginning, under any context....is an ONTOLOGICAL CONTRADICTION and completely IMPOSSIBLE!
Here is a picture of ME after a hard days work. As you can see, my jeans have EXPANDED! EXPANSION: WHAT IS THAT BLACK STUFF?? AND WHAT IS THE "EDGE" OF THE BUBBLE MADE FROM...BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? ...
Introduction Many car audio fanatics will use a power capacitor as an alleged secondary, passive storage device to supply current to their amplifiers. The capacitor is advertised to act as a supplemental power supply...