The Myth of the Big Bang
Cosmology - Astronomy - Astrobiology

When Religion Masquerades As Science
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

In 1927 Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a high ranking Catholic Priest, published what became known as the theory of the big bang. It was titled "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae."

Lemaître designed and based his big bang theory on the Biblical story of Genesis. Lemaître hoped to make the Bible scientific and in accord with testable observations. The universe, he said, was created by a creator, as detailed in Genesis, chapter 1:

"In the beginning God created the heavens...And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

Lemaître initially called his theory the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom" and described it as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation."

Lemaître theory is now popularly known as the "Big Bang" a term sarcastically coined by Sir Fred Hoyle who dismissed Lemaître's ideas as ridiculous. Hoyle was not alone. Einstein rejected Lemaître to his face, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories and that "your physics is abominable" and your conclusions unjustifiable.

The denounciation by Einstein should have been a death sentence. Monsignor Lemaître claimed to have based his theory on Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Lemaître's relativistic cosmology was based on the belief that the universe was created from a "primeval atom" and that the radius of the universe increased over time. Lemaître derivation antedated Hubble's formulation by two years. Even so, it became known as Hubble's law and provided the numerical value of the Hubble constant. Lemaître also proposed that the expansion of the universe explains the redshift of galaxies following the "creation."

Lemaître's predictions, however, were not born out by observation and Einstein continued to complain that Lemaître's understanding of physics was "abominable"

Lemaître's physics, as Lemaître admitted, had a spiritual foundation. Monsignor Lemaître firmly believed that Jesus Christ was God, and that God created the universe, as dictated by Catholic Church dogma and as described in the Bible. Lemaître was in fact an honorary prelate with the rank of Bishop in the Catholic Church, a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences which is under the direction and authority of the Pope of the Catholic Church. Lemaître's "big bang" theory was in complete accordance with the teachings of the Church and was supported by the Pope and backed by the authority of the Bible:

The Universe was created. God created the Universe. A universe which is created, has a creator who becomes the creator at the moment of creation, just as a carpenter or a builder becomes a carpenter or a builder at the moment he first builds something. Thus we are told that god existed before the creation, and it was only at the moment of creation, that god became "god the creator." Hence, the "creation-event" which gave rise to the universe required a creator, an all powerful omnipotent Lord God who existed prior to and is responsible for the creation event; exactly as described in the Bible.

By contrast an eternal, infinite universe, has no creator and renders the concept of god irrelevant and useless. The infinite, eternal universe precludes god, does not require god, and is completely incompatible with the creator god worshipped by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. There is no need or justification for religion, or a belief in a creator god, if the universe is infinite and eternal. In an eternal universe god becomes a creation of man, rather than the creator of man and the universe.

Lemaître believed it his duty as a Christian, Catholic, and soldier of Jesus Christ, to defend his religion against the inherently atheistic doctrine of an infinite, eternal universe. Thus, Lemaître used math and a flawed understanding of physics to make his religion scientific. The theory of the "big bang" is in fact, religion masquerading as science, it is the Biblical story of Genesis, dressed up in the language of science.

Subsequently, the theory of the Big Bang has failed every major test and every major prediction has been proved incorrect. For example, if due to a big bang then the universe should be expanding and galaxies and nebula should be moving away from the same point in space at the same speed along similar spoke-like trajectories. However, both predictions have been proved incorrect. No center, beginning point has ever been identified. Moreover, not all galaxies are traveling at the same speed or in the trajectories that might be expected following a big bang. In fact, there are rivers of galaxies flowing in the wrong direction, galaxies orbiting one another, galaxies clumping together, and galaxies colliding into one another head on.

Moreover, in complete refutation of the big bang, and as suggested by the work of Saul Perlmutter and others, it could be argued that the expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating.

To save this failed theory and to account for the "misbehavior" of galaxies which fail to obey predictions, the concept of an invisible, undetectable, "dark energy" was introduced. Dark energy powers the acceleration. However, there is no proof that "dark energy" even exists.

These observations and these failures should have been fatal. However, as the theory has the backing of the Church and has captured the imagination of the Jewish-Christian scientific and media establishment, these failures are ignored or they are covered up with a patchwork of theoretical appendages such that failure retroactively becomes success.

Religion is a powerful and pervasive sociological and cultural force, influencing scientists, teachers, parents, children, the media, and even the most liberal and progressive of thinkers. Moreover, the nature of the human brain and mind requires beginnings and endings and cannot comprehend what it cannot comprehend. In consequence, religious beliefs and faith in supernatural forces, including "endings and beginnings" are repackaged in the language of science, often with the covert backing of the Catholic Church and the Jewish-Christian establishment.

Thus the "big bang" is fraudulently promoted as accepted fact by the scientific, political, and media establishment, as it supports their religious beliefs and the Jewish-Christian Bible. Nevertheless, this theory was not only rejected by Einstein, but is refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence.

For example, the big bang theory predicts that the universe is about 8 billion years old, which is 5 billion years younger than our own Milky Way Galaxy. Also, according to prediction, there should be no stars or galaxies more than 8 billion light years from Earth. And yet, there are stars and more stars as far as the Hubble eye can see; old and fully formed galaxies which are not newly created as predicted by theory, but over 13 billion years in age and so incredibly distant that Astronomers and NASA refused to continue looking as the very existence of these stellar objects completely refutes the big bang. Moreover, predications based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of the known, observable universe. Nor can this theory explain the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding galaxies, the abundance of helium, and why the movement of galaxies appears to be speeding up, and so on.

To bridge the fatal discrepancies between observation and theory, and to account for acceleration, the greater than predicted gravitational influences, the missing 80% of the universe, and so on, the acolytes of this religion invent multiple universes, alternate realities, and hypothetical, invisible, undetectable substances, and supernatural constructs such as "inflation," "dark energy" and "dark matter." And yet, although proposed as a patchwork fix, to paper over the increasing number of holes in this theory, these constructs actually refute the big bang and support instead the theory of the eternal, infinite universe.

Inflation, for example, requires a density at least 20 times larger than that predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the lightest elements. That density, like the missing matter, excessive gravity, expansion, the clumping of galaxies, the age of distant stars, etc., can be accounted for not by a big bang, but a infinite universe.

Not a single quantitative prediction made by the big bang theory has been validated by observation. Instead, the proponents of this religion engage in what is little more than card tricks and "slight of hand," where instead of dealing from the bottom of the deck, they insert and slip in new theoretical constructs and an increasing array of layer after layer of flexible fluctuating parameters that can be adjusted retroactively willy nilly and after the fact to explain away discrepant observations and to support a failed theory.

We have seen this before with yet another failed theory enforced by the Catholic Church and the scientific establishment; i.e. the Earth-centered solar system of Ptolemy. As Ptolemy's theory failed to make accurate predictions and was refuted by accumulating evidence, layer upon layer of epicycles with planets and the sun orbiting in every conceivable direction were proposed to explain away these discrepancies. According to the Church and the scientific establishment, god put the Earth at the center of the solar system and the universe, and claims to the otherwise constitute heresy.

The theory of the "Big Bang" like the Earth-centered solar system, is religion masquerading as science, and is based on a "culture of faith" which can admit to no error and can broker no doubt or dissenting views. Doubt and dissent are not tolerated by the guardians of the faith. To oppose the big bang is heresy.

Therefore, even though it is refuted by overwhelming scientific evidence Lemaître's theory of the Big Bang has become accepted dogma, primarily because it is backed by the Jewish-Christian scientific establishment, and provides a scientific basis for their Bible.

"The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." -George Smoot, 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for discoveries related to the cosmic background radiation / big bang

"the universe was created out of nothing...and one which has an underlying, one might say 'supernatural' plan." -Arno Penzias Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for discovery of the cosmic background radiation of the 'big bang."

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -Stephen Hawkins, a Brief History of Time

"The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly, at a finite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy... is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." -Robert Jastrow, Astronomer, First chairman of NASA's Lunar Exploration Committee

Be it "nothingness" "pure energy" or all the mass of the universe bound in a totality of singularity, the foundations of the big bang theory, or any theory which proposes a beginning, completely collapse when we ask a few simple questions: What exploded and why? Why then and not before? From where did this pre-big bang energy/mass/sinularity originate? Given, "relativity" is not the mass of a universe compacted to atom size still a universe? If all mass/energy/singularity existed before the big bang, and since neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed, the theory of the big bang explains nothing, has no basis, and must be rejected.

The theory of the big bang has failed every major test and cannot explain the origin of the "primeval atom" or the "cosmic egg" which supposedly exploded giving rise to the universe. And yet, the theory prevails.

Because it is based on religion, the magical, supernatural theory of the big bang has been deified, and it is not to be questioned or criticized on pain of excommunication by the scientific establishment. However, it is the proponents of this theory who are the true heretics for they are guilty of the biggest fraud in the history of science.

True science requires that a theory make accurate predictions and be constantly tested against observation. As detailed in Part 2, the theory of the big bang has failed this test. The evidence favors an eternal, infinite universe.


Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.


The very foundations of the big bang completely collapse when we start at the beginning and ask: What was IT which exploded and where did IT come from?

What created IT?

Why did IT explode?

The Big Bangers, including Lemaître, have avoided these questions, relying instead on tautologies and the circular reasoning typical of a fundamentalist religious fanatic who is asked the same question about God.

God, the true believer tells us, existed at the beginning. The very existence of the universe is proof of God's existence. Something must have created the universe. That something is god.

Likewise, the Big Bangers tell us the very existence of the universe is proof of the big bang. Something must have created it. That something is the big bang.

These are not answers. These are tautologies and the "big bangers" are merely substituting the word "god" for the "big bang" which is exactly what Lemaître and the Catholic Church intended.

The existence of the universe does not prove the big bang or the existence of a creator god. The existence of the universe proves the universe exists.

The very foundations of the big bang theory, i.e., the "primeval atom" disproves the big bang and indicates instead the universe has always existed.

Just as the man or woman of faith believes god has always existed and that all things come from god, the Big Bangers tell us that the entire universe began as a hypercondensed primeval atom, which had been compacted into a tiny point of singularity and that all things come from that primeval atom which existed prior to the big bang. Where did this primeval atom come from and why was the entire universe compacted into a point of singularity? The Big Bangers have no answer.

If the entire universe existed as a point of singularity prior to the big bang, and since matter can be neither created nor destroyed, then all the matter of the universe, and thus, the very fabric and foundations of the universe, existed prior to the big bang.

Likewise, if the universe had been compacted to a point of singularity prior to a big bang, then the universe existed prior to the big bang.

The primeval atomized "IT" which supposedly exploded and which contained all the matter and energy of the universe, therefore existed before the mythical big bang and was not created by a big bang.

Since IT was not created, then this "primeval atom" has therefore existed for all eternity which means the universe is eternal and has no beginning and no end.


According to Big Bang theology, within milliseconds of the explosion, the temperature of the universe was in excess of T=1032K. Then the universe cooled down to 2.725 K which is the average temperature of the cosmos.

Since the Big Bang universe is a closed system, what became of the heat generated by the blast?

As based on the Laws of Thermodynamics, the cosmic radiation permeating the universe (supposedly created by a superhot big bang), could have cooled only if it exchanged heat with something cold that was NOT created by a hot big bang, and only if this cold-something exists outside the known universe which is permeated by this radiation (a cold circle outside a hot circle).

The only way temperature of 1032K could drop down to 2.725 K requires a separate external energy source and a cold sink located in space adjacent to but independent of the universe created by the big bang. This means, if there was a big bang, it was a little bang and is not responsible for the creation of the universe.

According to the Big Bangers, prior to the big bang there was no space, no time, no nothingness, no emptiness, no outside, no outer anything. Everything was compacted into a point of singularity. The singularity and the universe created by the big bang was a closed-system totality.

It is claimed that within one second of the blast, the universe was homogeneous and isotropic and 10 -33 cm in size with a temperature of T=1032K. Therefore when this singularity exploded the expanding outward blast remained a homogenous close-system totality of incredible heat.

A modification of Lemaître's Big Bang model, called "inflation" posits that within moments (10-35 seconds) of the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe cooled to around 1027 to 1028K and rapidly accelerated in size followed by a decelerating expansion as originally proposed by Lemaître.

According to theory, within 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang the growing Universe cooled to a temperature of about T=1013 K

Within 56,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature dropped to 9000 K.

13.7 billion years after the Big Bang, the temperature finally drops to 2.725 K (-270.425 C or -454.765 F) which is the current temperature of space.

What happened to the heat?

The all-pervasive, but relatively cool cosmic background is described as evidence that the expanding big bang universe initially was incredibly hot. And yet, this is the equivalent of stating that the existence of ice proves it was caused by fire; which is absurd. Expansion within a homogenized closed system of equal temperature, cannot cause cooling. In fact, there is no evidence that the universe was ever warmer than 2.725 K.

As based on the Laws of Thermodynamics, the only way for the big bang universe to cool from 1032K to 2.725 K is if the radiation had been exchanging and transfering heat with something very cold outside of the universe, for where else would this "cold" come from? Wouldn't this outside become warmer, for where did the heat go? Yet, we are also told, there is no "outside" for any universe created by a big bang had to be a closed system.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant: energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy in an isolated system can only change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.

The theory of the big bang is supposedly based on Einstein's theory of relativity. According to Einstein's theory, energy is associated with mass. In an isolated system the mass of a system cannot change, as energy cannot enter or leave the system.

Since mass also cannot enter or leave a closed system, energy is also conserved.

A closed system universe which supposedly cools from 1032K to 2.725 K violates Einstein's theory of relativity and the fundamental laws of physics--which is precisely why Einstein rejected the big bang as based on a flawed physics.

In a closed system there can be no loss of heat. Imagine a pressure cooker which is completely sealed and which represents the totality of existence and which has a temperature of 1032K. In a closed system with no outside, the temperature would forever remain 10 32 K. Even if the pressure cooker grows in size because of increasing pressure, the temperature would not decrease.

A closed system cannot cool from 1032K to 2.725 K, for this violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. In a closed homogenous system, temperatures that begin at 1032K will remain at 1032K, forever.

Cooling occurs only via conduction, radiation, convection, or a combination of these forces. Convection and radiation require heat transfer to a source with a lower temperature.

In a closed system as envisioned by the big bang we must ask: Transfer to what? Transfer to where? According to the laws of thermodynamics: to an area which is cool and not part of the hot. Heat reduction can only occur via the transfer of heat from a region that is hot to another area which is cold. Thus, a cold area must exist separately from the area of heat. Therefore if the big bang universe had been very hot, this means a cold universe had to exist prior to and alongside, or surrounding the hot expansion created by a big bang--and this is not possible if the entire universe was created by an intensely hot big bang.

In other words, the pressure cooker must exist within a room that is much cooler than inside the pressure cooker, and they must be able to exchange mass or energy. However, this would also mean that the pressure cooker is not the totality of existence.

Further, if the universe were expanding and if the expansion were accelerating, temperatures cannot decrease. A reduction in density, for example, reduces conduction: heat transfer stops. Further, conduction cannot occur in a vacuum. Moreover, if the expansion of the universe were accelerating, the universe would be growing warmer, not cooler, and galaxies would be turning to hot gas thereby fueling the expansion--and this is clearly not the case. Conversely, if the universe were cooling it should have long ago turned into a solid chunk of ice.

Temperature is a property of a population of molecules; a single molecule does not have a temperature. A single molecule has kinetic energy, a function of its mass and speed. Kinetic energy can become thermal energy and give off heat, not cold.

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in a system consisting of a fixed number of particles, the energy/heat of that system can only be lost to its surroundings which are much cooler.

In a closed system, and in a closed universe, there are no surroundings. In a closed system energy cannot be lost or destroyed or transferred because everything is the same: the same temperature, the same mass, the same energy.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if temperatures are equal, they remain equal. Heat must flow from hot to cold. If temperatures are uniformly 10 32 K in the original homogeneous expanding universe, then there are no temperature differences within the system.

Further, it is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process within a closed system. In a closed universe or a closed system, it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work (e.g. the creation of stars and galaxies). At least some of the energy must be passed on to a low-temperature energy sink which becomes warmer.

Heat must flow from a hot material to a cold material. There must be a difference in equilibrium, between hot and cold. Temperatures can change only if there are temperature differences between systems in contact with each other.

An isolated system that has a uniform temperature of 1032K, is 1032K everywhere within the system, and has already equalized at 1032K.

Further, according to the laws of thermodynamics, useful "work" cannot be derived from an isolated system in equilibrium. Molecules could not form, and there would be no stars, planets, or galaxies if there was a big bang beginning.

Therefore, if there was a big bang, and if temperatures were initially at 1032K, temperatures could only have dropped if the universe created by the big bang was not a closed system, and only if there were other systems, that is, other universes where it was much colder. Heat loss and cooling are possible only if there are differences in equilibrium between two systems in contact with each other.

Thus, the universe could never have been created in a big bang, and in a closed system temperatures could have never cooled from 1032 K to 2.725 K . Instead, cooling requires that a cold universe already existed prior to the big bang, which means there was no big bang creation of the universe.

The entire model of a big bang and the "evidence" used to support it (e.g. background radiation) becomes plausible only if we suspend logic and the laws of physics--which is why it was denounced by Einstein, Hoyle, and others as unjustifiable, absurd, and based on a flawed understanding of physics.

The theory of the big bang is religion, and magical thinking, masquerading as science.

PART 3: RED SHIFTS (continued)

Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.


The experience of time is something that has yet to be explained and which is not understood. The ever present "now" is continually slipping away before it can be grasped or analyzed.

And yet, modern day astronomers believe it is possible to look backwards in time by gazing through a telescope; a concept that is little more than a fantasy based on magical thinking.

By staring at the images and light patterns captured by their telescopic time machines astronomers have made the rather fantastic claim that the universe began with a big bang, around 13.7 billion years ago.

This magical thinking is based upon a purposeful misunderstanding of the doppler effect and a phenomena referred to as "red shifts."

It is well know that frequency and velocity of sound or light changes as it approaches or moves away from an observer. Thus a police car siren sounds different as it approaches and changes yet again as it speeds away.

Astronomers have seized upon this concept, claiming that time, distance, and direction of movement can be determined if the light wave patterns emitted by a specific galaxy, are red or blue. Presumably, a galaxy speeding away in the opposite direction from the Earth exhibits a red shift, and those approaching exhibit the blue.

Lemaître, Slipher, Hubble, and others theorized that red shifts and blue shift were due to the Doppler effect (though later Hubble expressed considerable doubt), and were indications of distance and "apparent velocity" and therefore could be considered proof that the universe is expanding in all directions.

The support for the big bang expansion of the universe is based upon the determination of distance of standard stars (super nova Type Ia) and by the relative light energy transmitted from these stars.

However, the distances are also determined by red shifts and the Hubble constant which is based on mathematical derivations originally proposed by Bishop Lemaître.

For example, in the big bang closed universe model, photons increase in wavelength and their red shift also increase as the space through which they are traveling stretches and expands. Likewise, as the distance between two galaxies increases, the space between these galaxies also increase. Therefore, if two galaxies are approaching, the space between them shrinks and distance between light waves emitted by these galaxies also shrink and shift to the blue spectrum. If two galaxies are speeding in opposite directions, the space between them expands as does the light waves emitted which shifts toward the red.

Hubble believed he could determine linear relationships between red shifts and distances, by measurements using nearby calibrated stars.

Hubble and others, however, assumed that all stars are equally bright, and that stars which are more faint must be further away. This reasoning, of course, is completely absurd. Nevertheless, based on these assumption, coupled with the mathematical calculations of Bishop Lemaître, the "Hubble Constant" was invented.

Hubble then assumed that these inferred linear relationships for the assumed distances of nearby stars are also valid for very remote stars which were believed to be remote because of their faint light. Thus, it is believed that red shifts, and the Hubble constant can be used to calculate distances for stars that are assumed to be extremely far away as based on how faint or bright they appear relative to other stars; an assumption based in part on the "Cosmology principle."


Via these measures and constructs astronomers have attempted to guess the age and expansion rate of the universe, using a specific type of star, a cepheid, as a reference point.

Cepheid are variable stars which have cyclic periods of high and low luminosity. The luminosity of cepheid stars range from 100-10000 times that of the Sun. A mathematical construct, called the Cepheid variable has been used to determine its distance to other galaxies. Therefore, because the relationship between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and variability period is precise, these stars have become the foundation of the Extragalactic Distance Scale.

The brightness of a cepheid yields a value, based on the Hubble Constant. Based on these periodic changes astronomers came up with a Hubble Constant of 70, which gives a value of 12 billion light years, which was then interpreted to mean an age of 12 billion light years. Thus, some astronomers have claimed the universe is 12 billion years old based on measurements of light from just a few stars; light which actually gives no information regarding age, but only approximations regarding distance relative to a moving earth.


The theory of the Big Bang, Hubble's Law, and the a mathematical construct called the Hubble Constant predict that the universe is expanding and the expansion rate is constant and unvarying. What some astronomers have discovered instead, however, is that the expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up!

Based on these assumptions, it appeared that these remote stars are even further away than might be predicted from the red shift data. It was concluded that the movement of these distant stars must have increased in speed, and the expansion is therefore accelerating.

These assumptions were bolstered further in 1998 and 1999, based on published observations of red shift-distance relationships of Type Ia supernovae ("one-A"). This data also suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating--findings completely incompatible with the theory of the big bang.

Thus, "dark energy" was invented to provide the energy for acceleration and to save the theory. It is "Dark Energy" which is propelling these galaxies, and Dark Energy must have also been produced by the big bang. Of course, Dark Energy has never been seen or detected. It is merely an imaginary construct.

Dark Energy is an invisible repulsive force which is driving the universe apart and which is inexplicably speeding up the movement of stars and galaxies. It is this mysterious undetectable energy, which is causing certain stars to behave opposite or contradictory to that predicted by the big bang.

Picking and choosing among all these contradictory observations and findings, some astronomers have warned the so called increased rate of expansion will cause the universe to tear itself apart. Others tell us the universe will collapse into itself in a big crunch. In truth, what these speculative flights of fantasy really indicate is that the temple priests of science have no understanding as to the nature of the universe, are are simply grasping at straws and creating ever more convoluted and contradictory theories in order to preserve their big bang theology.

Dark Energy is also believed to account for the "missing" 70% to 90% of the mass-energy of the universe and which cannot be accounted for by the big bang. Conveniently, Dark Energy is believed to be both a constant energy density filling space homogeneously, and to be cyclic and dynamic which would explain why energy densities conflict with predictions of the big bang, and why they vary in space and time.

Therefore, inferences, assumptions and erroneous predictions based on belief in a big bang, have led to additional inferences and assumptions, and imaginary constructs such as "dark energy" and the "cosmology principle." The "Cosmology principle" is in fact, based on the work of Alexander Friedmann, whose physics Einstein publicly ridiculed.


According to the big bang model and the "Cosmology principle", because the big bang universe is a closed system, stars which are moving away are not moving through empty space. Instead, the space between different stars is stretching.

According to the "Cosmology principle" the universe is homogeneous and isotropic: "All points in space ought to experience the same physical development, correlated in time in such a way that all points at a certain distance from an observer appear to be at the same stage of development. In that sense, all spatial conditions in the Universe must appear to be homogeneous and isotropic to an observer at all times in the future and in the past (Mainzer and J Eisinger 2002, The Little Book of Time. Springer).

Therefore the "Cosmology principle" coupled with beliefs about red shifts could be used to determine age and time. The Big Bangers argued therefore, that red shifts serve as a reliable measure of the age of the universe. Increasing red shifts, they claim, corresponds to greater distances backward in time. Thus, the further away a galaxy appears and the larger its red shift, the older it must be. Likewise, galaxies neighboring these ancient galaxies must be the same age. By contrast, galaxies which are closer to the Earth, and exhibiting a blue shift, are younger.

Therefore, since the largest red shifts are associated with the cosmic microwave background, and as the numerical value of its red shift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time). Therefore, according to theory, this red shift was created around 13.7 billion years ago, soon after the big bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) electromagnetic radiation infiltrates the universe as a faint, fluctuating background glow which is roughly the same in all directions and can only be detected with a radio telescope. The CMB was discovered in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and earned them the Nobel Prize in 1978. Penzias attributed the CMB to the big bang, which he believed had been created and was guided according to a "supernatural plan."

There are several explanations for the source of the CMB. For example, it most likely reflects the collective electromagnetic residue of all the galaxies, stars, and other stellar objects in the cosmos. Because the universe is not uniform and galaxies clump together, and leave large regions of space empty, the CMB is not homogenous or uniform, but fluctuates in different regions of space.

However, these fluctuations are inconsistent with big bang predictions. According to the big bang model, the CMB is the residue of big bang explosion and thus should be homogenous and completely uniform--and its isn't.

Therefore, to save this aspect of the theory, "dark matter" and "dark energy" were rushed to the rescue. These hypothetic, invisible "Dark " forces are believed to be partly responsible for the fluctuations in the "cosmic microwave background." Dark matter/energy are also believed to account for the misbehavior of galaxies and light, and for the missing mass/energy of 75%-95% of the universe. "Dark Matter" like "Dark Energy" however, is an invention, designed to save the big bang theory.

The "Cosmic microwave background" probably does not reflect the state of the universe in the ancient primeval past, but rather a combination of factors many of which have nothing to do with distance or time.


According to Big Bang theology, the photons produced by the big bang still exist and have been flowing across the closed system universe, and they have grown fainter because the universe has become stretched and has grown larger. These photons, and the associated red shifts, are therefore "relics" from the past, and thus the CMB can be used to tell time.

Not just the CMB, but the red shifts of distant galaxies have also been used to tell time. And this data has also been interpreted as consistent with a big bang creation 13 billion years ago.

However, our own Milkyway galaxy is over 13 billion years old. There are in fact fully formed stars and galaxies over 13 billion years distant from the Earth. The presence of these fully formed galaxies are proof the universe could not have been created 13 billion years ago.

Red shifts in fact, tell us nothing about time. Time is not distance, and distance is not time. And time is not related to red shifts.

Hubble in fact discovered that the correlations between increasing red shifts and the increasing distance of galaxies were inexact and inaccurate and prone to error. Red shifts could only be employed as very rough estimates.

Doppler and Einstein also concluded determinations of distance can only be approximate as based on the Doppler effect.

Hubble in fact later expressed considerable doubt about this relationship: "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." -Edmund Hubble, Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 17, 506, 1937.

Nevertheless, the acolytes of the Big Bang religion, have deified and elevated these inaccurate and error prone guesstimates to the status of law; known today as "Hubble's law" and the Hubble Constant.

According to the "law" the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old, as determined by red shift data from the CMB and distant stars. And to defy the law, is to risk excommunication from the sacred halls of science.

These assumptions are completely inaccurate. Time, like distance, is relative to an observer. The experience of time, as Einstein observed, is relative and subjective. Time is not a thing that can be located here or there, which is why the ever present now always slips away before it can be grasped.

Time is not distance and distance is not time, and time cannot be determined based on the speed of light. Thirteen billion light years distant is not the same as thirteen billion years in the past.

Light is effected by many variables which is why the red shift of far away galaxies provide only gross estimates of distance and tell us nothing about time.

Time is relative and so too is distance, yet the vast majority of cosmologists, and the journal editors who publish them, have completely ignored relativity and the warnings of Hubble, Doppler, and Einstein, and they have done so as a matter of faith, to serve their big bang god.

Thus we are told that based on the red shifts of the most distant galaxies so far observed, that these galaxies are 13 billion light years away and thus the Universe was created 13 billion years ago, in a big bang.

But 13 billion light years away from what? Relative to what?

Time and distance are relative, and all observations of far away galaxies are relative to where the Earth is now. Red shifts are effected by movement and the stretching of space. And not just distant galaxies, but the Earth and our Milkyway galaxy, are also in motion.

Red shifts and blue shifts are also related to the movements of our galaxy. If space is truly being stretched, then not just distant galaxies, but the movements of our galaxy act to stretch space and alter the waveforms of light.

Astronomers who make fantastic claims about the meaning of red shifts, conveniently ignore the fact that the Earth and our sun is also in motion as it orbits the Milkyway galaxy. And, the Milkyway is also in motion and may be in orbit. Thus, as the Earth journeys orbits the Milky-way galaxy, and as the Milky-way moves through space, the red shifts of far away galaxies can become blue shifts.

That is, just as the Earth and Mars orbit at different speeds, with the Earth orbiting away from Mars, leaving Mars in the distance, and then eventually overtakes Mars, galaxies that appear to be speeding away may circle around, such that red shifts become blue.

Indeed, even the most far away galaxies may be in orbit, thus seemingly speeding away when in fact they are slowly moving round and round, across the face of the cosmos.

Thus, a galaxy that appears to be speeding toward us, may at some future date appear to be speeding away, a consequence of their own unknown orbits and as our solar system swings around the Milkyway.

Red shifts and blue shifts are relative to the movements of the Earth and our own Milky-way galaxy and reflect expansions and contractions of space, not time.

Red shifts, in fact, are incredibly variable, and can change drastically in magnitude in just a few years.

Consider, for example, galaxy STIS 123627, also referred to as "Sharon". Sharon it was announced just a few years ago, is the most distant galaxy every discovered, over 12.5 billion light years away scientists proudly proclaimed. However, by 2007 Sharon no longer exhibited the same red shift previously observed, and is now estimated to be maybe 9 billion light years away.

Red shifts do not measure time, and provide only gross approximations of distance, approximations which may change drastically over just a few years of time.

The fantastic claim that distant galaxies are receding or the universe was created 13 billion years ago has no scientific basis. Rather, at this moment in time, the space between certain galaxies appears to be expanding whereas space between others appears to be contracting, relative to the movement of the Earth and where the Earth is now.


Stars differ in luminance and faint or bright is not an indication of distance or time. Red shifts, and the speed of light, are variable and are effected by numerous factors. Red shift estimates as to distance, even if grossly accurate, tell us nothing about time.

Light is effected by gravity, including the gravity of other galaxies, thus giving rise to "gravitational lensing" and other distortions, including perhaps, the speeding up or slowing down of the speed of light. Gravity would also affect the perceived luminance and red or blue shift of a star. Thus claims about distance or time based on red shifts have no validity.

Any measurements of far away galaxies based on light, red shift, and radio waves are unreliable. The "speed of light" for example is not a constant and the speed and direction of light varies in different regions of the cosmos and is effected by dust, gas, and gravity. Not all space is equal.

Consider a phenomena know as gravitational lensing. Space and light can be twisted, curved, magnified, and displaced by the combined gravitational pull of nearby galaxies.

For example, in deep sky images, mysterious lights have been detected, including a red arc of light beside a distant cluster of galaxies 12 million light years away. The red arc is an illusion, it is merely the refracted and displaced light from galaxies so far away, we have no idea where they are located.

Further examination of this arc of red light revealed a galactic nursery of new born stars. However, its true location and distance, is completely unknown.

Massive galaxies can also bend, mirror, telescope and project this distorted light from other galaxies, creating incredible optical illusions such that clusters of stars billions of light years behind them may instead appear to be neighboring galaxies.

Galaxies and stars may hide, obscure, and eclipse distant galaxies behind them. However, due to gravitational lensing, the light from these distant galaxies can be twisted, turned, and then bent, so they appear alongside instead of behind the galaxies obscuring them.

In 2003, astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope at galaxy cluster Abel 1689. To their surprise, Able 1689 was acting like a cosmic fun-house mirror that was reflecting, bending, displacing, and distorting light from an even more distant cluster of galaxies estimated to be 13 billion light years away. The light from these distant galaxies which were believed to be eclipsed and hidden were captured by the combined gravitational pull of Able 1689 and other unknown factors, creating a galactic optical illusion and arcs of galactic light.

In fact, further examination and inspection of galaxy cluster Abel 1689, revealed that at least five of the galaxies believed to be part of this cluster, were also optical illusions. The true location and distance of these five galaxies is completely unknown.


It is assumed that the effects of gravity are linear for shorter distances. However, there is no justification for assuming it would remain linear at greater distances. As distance from the Earth increases, gravitational drag would also increase.

Indeed, every galaxy between the Earth and the light source would have an effect on the passage of light. As distance increases, the distorting gravitational effects of additional galaxies would multiply.

Then there is the effect of dust and gas. The greater the distance, the more dust and gas the light must pass through. In fact, The dust and gas in the Milky Way can cause extinction at optical wavelengths, and foreground stars can be confused with background galaxies.

Then there is the effect of long distance travel and thus energy loss, as the light passes through increasing distances of very cold space. Photons lose energy with distance, and become increasingly faint, possibly falling to below the microwave range. It is precisely because light loses energy that the night is black and not white despite the innumerable stars and galaxies in the sky.

Thus, light can be bent, mirrored, reflected, distorted, deflected, and speeded up and slowed down, and even red shifts may become significantly altered over just a few years of time. To make any claims about the age of the universe, based on light, is an absurdity.

Indeed, a close examination of the data indicates the basic assumptions about red shifts, the nature of light, and the big bang, are so riddled with errors they raise the specter of purposeful fraud in service of their faith, the belief in the big bang.

The big bang is religion, masquerading as science.


Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.



Big Bang Theology dictates that the universe is homogenous and appears the same everywhere in space; and it is isotropic and appears the same in every direction.

However, this is not true. Over 80% of the mass/energy of the universe is missing. Galaxies are not evenly dispersed but clump together in clusters, which vast regions of empty space separating them.

Not only is the universe behaving in a manner that contradicts the big bang, but there are rivers of galaxies flowing in directions that are incompatible with the uniformity of speed and movement that would be expected.

The universe is swarming with galaxies which are spread out at irregular intervals, and grouped closely together, forming massive super galactic cluster, and great galactic walls. There are also oceans and rivers of galaxies which flow in numerous divergent and convergent directions and many of these galaxies collide head on, with rear end collisions the exception rather than the rule.

For example, Stephan's quartet consists of five separate galaxies which are crashing into each other from every direction.

A bright blue cloud of shock-heated gas is produced by the rapid motion of a spiral galaxy intruder located immediately to the right of the shock wave, and has a temperature of about 6 million degrees Celsius. The heating was produced when these galaxies collided. Indeed, it appears there have been numerous collisions over the eons among the galaxies of this group.

Colliding galaxies are commonplace throughout the cosmos and appear to represent a natural process where galaxies interact and reproduce.

In the images above, spiral galaxy C153 is flying through a cluster of galaxies at a speed of 3,000 miles per second. The gasses of this galaxy are also being blown away by an incredible galactic wind, creating the fuel for the fomation and birth of new stars.

Small galaxies slam into larger galaxies, larger galaxies crash into yet larger galaxies, and galaxies of similar shape and distribution ram into one another from every direction.

The universe is replete with the wreckage of galaxies going the wrong way and crashing head on.

M82, for example,slammed into a much larger galaxy, M81, billions of years ago. This collisions stripped M81 of billions of stars, shrinking it greatly in size and changing other important characteristics. However, when the gasses from these two galaxies collided and began to interact, this inter-galactic mating ritual gave birth to billions of new stars.

In fact, galaxies commonly create new galaxies, and parent galaxies sometimes swallow their children, thereby creating super galaxies.

What this also tells us is that galaxy creation is not a random byproduct of some magical big bang, but a natural, ongoing phenomenon. New galaxies and stars are often formed in a very violent process that could be likened to a mating ritual involving impregnation, fertilization, and birth.


The big bang universe is a closed system. It is an expanding bubble which has no outside, no edge, no borders, and which simply ends 13.75 billion light years from where the Earth is now.

According to big bang theology, the most distant galaxies are the youngest galaxies. As one gazes further back in time, young galaxies become infant galaxies, then proto-galaxies, and then balls of luminous gas, and then beyond that, closer to the very beginning: there are no stars, no galaxies, just opaque light.

In a failed attempt to prove that galaxies ceased to exist at the theological edge of space, astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope at what they believed to be a completely empty patch of sky for approximately 280 hours.

The resulting Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations stunned the temple priests of science. Astronomers thought they were going to stare at the very edge of the universe, that they would gaze upon the very beginning, that their time machine in a telescope was going to peer back 13 billion years, when according to their religion, there was absolutely nothing except a pale after glow of the creation.

And then, to their astonishment, instead of nothing, over 10,000 galaxies were detected where none should exist.

Staring at patches of sky, near the north and south poles, where the prolonged observation can be conducted without being blocked by the movements of the Earth The Hubble gazed nonstop for 10 days at this dark spot of sky, using 3 different light filters and taking over 350 pictures in order to create one full color image.

What astronomers discovered is that instead of a decreasing number of galaxies as predicted by the big bang, they detected an increasing number of galaxies. As the Hubble collected ever more faint and distant light, more and more galaxies were detected; fully formed galaxies of all shapes and sizes. As long as they stared, additional galaxies began to appear, tens of thousands of galaxies so far away it is presently impossible to even guess at their distance; galaxies and more galaxies as far as the Hubble eye could see.

And each of these tens of thousands of galaxies likely have anywhere from ten billion to a 100 billion stars similar to our own sun and solar system; findings which are completely incompatible with the theory of the big bang.

Yes, instead of nothing, they gazed into infinity, and were so frightened by the visage, they stopped looking.

The evidence indicates that galaxies and stars continue outward forever into all eternity.

The Big Bang is a myth.

The universe was not created.

The infinite and eternal Universe has no beginning and no end.