The Big Bang Theory Creationism in Disguise by G. H. Ritz We are moved to comment on the Big Bang Theory because of the disruptions it tends to introduce into the spiritual progress of mankind, and because it represents, in our view, a giant step backward in the realm of true science. This absurd creation of modern medievalism trivializes God, especially the Eternity of God, by suggesting that there was a beginning to the Universe. This is Creationism all over again, about which we have already commented ex- tensively in the book, The Time of the End, and we see no need to duplicate the arguments here. But we will comment on certain aspects of this "theory" which we find especially embarrassing to normal intelligence. Firstly, the Big Bang Theory is a double open-ended concept; none of its proponents can suggest an ultimate cause for this cataclysmic event, save to say "it just happened." And no one can say for certain how it's all going to come out in the end: Will the Universe collapse inward upon itself? Or will it go on expanding forever? We would expect men of science to at least be competent enough to know that a finite event, a happening, can never produce an infinite result. If this were true, then the Universe would be chaos. It isn't. These are not men of science, as the Big Bang Theory isn't science at all but philosophy dressed up to look like science. It is a throwback to the old idea that God manufactured all material substance from nothing, for no reason anyone can identify, and that the earth is the center of the Universe. To the proponents of this fantasy-cum-pseudoscience, that is precisely where the earth is, since the Universe appears to be expanding uniformly from our per- spective. But the Universe only appears to be expanding. It's also doing some other things that astronomers are at a loss to explain, like drifting laterally in the direction of what must be a powerful attractive agent. Recent investiga- tion also discloses that the 12-billion year-old Universe contains stars that are some 17- to twenty-billion years old! Time out. True scientific investigation is actually the best Theology. Responsible research helps man fashion a picture of God in the perfect order of Natural Law, the interdependence of systems, and the infinite variety of experience. Paul said as much in Romans [1:18-21]; the New English version particularly. And there is an infallible test that, when applied, easily identifies the true scientist from the charlatan. All true scientific investigation begins with the Compelling Cause: that is, some change on the material plane; the discovery of something never seen before (like fire), the change of state in a substance (like rust in iron), the disappearance of one manifestation and the appearance of another (like the caterpillar and the moth, or butterfly), or the disppearance of something that seemed to exist (like a mirage in the desert.) The Compelling Cause asks What? Why? How? Pseudoscience never asks why? Consider the discovery of fire. Primitive man, it is supposed, discovered this flaming apparition after a lightning strike had immolated a nearby tree. We can easily imagine the questions this discovery prompted. What is it? What can it be used for? What materials burn? Why do some things not burn, like rocks? How can we produce it when we want it and make it go away when we don't? Fire science is still a vital discipline to this day. Where is the evidence that the Universe did not always exist? Since no one has ever experienced the condition of no-Universe, we would only conclude that there is a total lack of Compelling Cause in this regard. Nor can there every be. Occam's Razor, the truth being simplest explanation, suggests that the Universe has always existed. And why not? It is the worst kind of science that forms a concusion out of thin air or, as in this case, crippled philosophy, and then spares no effort in gathering "evidence" to support it. It is the ego manifest, the desire for attention and the insistence upon being "right" that inspires such mischief on the part of otherwise apparently reputable scholars. But these wild excursions into the never-never land of Fanaticism masquerading as Physics cannot long stand against Truth. Fact: Any "evidence" offered as post hoc proofs of false ideas can always be reasonably cited as evidence in upport of other positions as well, some of them infinitely more reasonable than the originals. So is the case with the Big Bang. Let us examine this evidence carefully. First, there is matter of the background radiation which the proponents of Big Bang insist is the "echo" of this alleged cataclysm. A thorough analysis of this proposition must include four essential components; a) the constituency of the Universe b) the uniformity of perception c) the velocity of light, and d) the integrity of light. As to the first item we hold that the Universe is Energy; there is nothing else. In the same sense we would offer that an ocean does not contain water; the water IS the ocean. Therefore in an environment of total energy it should not be surprising to detect radiological evidence of its presence. But that is a long way from proving that the Big Bang ever happened. Radiation is common to all the Universe. The term has assumed a sinister connotation in the Nuclear Age, but radiation actually occurs in an infinite variety of circumstances, being nothing more than energy transfer, from one place to another, from one form to another. Sunshine, radio transmission, electricity, magnetism, heat transfer, all are forms of radiation. The term echo has a specific meaning, one totally out of place in this context. Usually reserved to the area of sound transmission, an echo is a reflection of sound waves bouncing off some obstruction. As far as anyone can tell, there is nothing in the Universe, such as a wall or shell, for such em- anations to rebound from. In fact, there is a standard of the scientific meth- od which strongly suggests that there is no boundary of any sort out there. A secondary definition of the word echo is remnant or vestige. And this doesn't work either. If the Big Bang actually occurred some twelve-billion years ago, and if it was a phenomenon of energy transmission such as light or sound, or radio, then this dynamic would have had a twelve-billion year head start on any means we might have of detecting it. Further, how could it be perceived, given that the Universe is "expanding?" Then there is the matter of uniform perception, which means that the noise of this "echo" is the same distance away from us no matter in which direction we look. It's as if we are at the center of a sphere. We are, in a manner of speaking. The sphere of which we occupy the center is the range of our perceptions. The Universe of Anaximander in 600 BC consi- sted of a flat, drum-shaped earth, with a diameter three times its height, and surrounded by three rings of fire. By 1755 AD, when Emmanuel Kant, the eminent Germany philosopher and mathematician first proposed his Nebular Hy- pothesis, the direct ancestor of Big Bang, the Universe had changed little. There were six planets, the sun, the moon, and those curious little lights in the night sky. Period. The light-year was unknown, thus the vastness of the Universe was beyond the ken of anyone to imagine. Add to this the influence of the first verse of Genesis, and there just had to be a beginning of some sort for the Universe. But according to the standard of true scientific in- vestigation we referred to above, the evidence supports the opposite conten- tion: that the Universe had no beginning, and will have no end. This standard is the statistical tool we call Trend. It is a philosophi- cal direction, equally valid in conceptual as well as material demonstration, which leads from an intitial contemplation to a reasonable conclusion or a valid prediction. A trend is a general tendency or inclination to assume one state of being or another. The fundamental state of being is being; if one eats properly, gets enough exercise, and sufficient rest, then we can say that such a person demonstrates the trend toward good health. One who spends more than he earns shows a tendency toward bankruptcy. In Anaximander's day the radius of our shere of cosmic perception may have been no more than a few hundred, or thousand miles. By Kant's time it had ex- panded to several hundred-million miles. Today we are at the center of a ball that extends outward more than two-billion light-years! And every time we have extended our range of perception, been able to see farther out, there has always been something out there! For twenty-six hundred years, and by a factor of some two-million, we have extended our view of the Universe without once encountering a boundary of any sort, except of the kind that's necessary for the proof of a preposterous theory or two. In fact, while the Big Bangers labor over their alchemy, others in their field report the existence of at least five Universes! With improvements in optics the visible Universe has expanded beyond the mind to grasp such magni- tudes. With more sensitive radio, microwave, and other listening capabilities we have detected infrared, radio, ultra-violet, and x-ray stars, which leads us to item c) in our list on page two: the velocity of light. One of the delusional aspects surrounding the Big Bang is the unsupported notion that the speed of light is constant over vast reaches of space. There is nothing to suggest that it is and several reasons to believe otherwise. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity maintains that mass becomes pure en- ergy when accelerated to the velocity of light - in vacuo. But there is no such thing as a vacuum; in fact one of the axioms of the physical sciences is that nature abhors a vacuum. Thus, the speed of light is a theoretical upper limit of reality. To be sure, there are regions of extremely low pressure throughout all the cosmos, but there is still something there! It is paradoxical that nature is continually striving to achieve the two things that would spell the end of the Universe were they ever realized: Equilibrium and Uniformity. There is a constant tide shifting between density and sparseness, low pressure and high, and the balance is always out of balance. Lack is always overcompensated and glut always reduced to dearth, then the tide once more shifts in the other direction. Not only does the speed of light vary according to the density of the med- ium but light itself is also subject to gravitation, as Einstein demonstrated in his experiment with the moon and a distant star. Schwarzschild theorized that if the sun were reduced to a sphere ten miles in diameter, the density would be so great, the gravitation so intense that light would not be able to escape. The sun would become a black body. Outer space is not the sterile void of the textbooks of fifty years ago. There is a complete occupation of the cosmos with energy in all its many and varied forms, including dark matter. Are we to suppose that there would be no effect from this uneven material accumulation? And would light maintain its integrity over hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years? We think not. Newton demonstrated that sunlight could be broken down into its spectral components according to the density of the prism he beamed it through, so we believe it also possible to separate the components of light by extrusion. The material of the cosmos would offer resistance to the pass- age of light according to the wavelengths and frequencies of the light and the density of the material or gaseous concentrations. X-rays, having ultra- high frequencies and infinitessimally small wavelengths and amplitudes, would easily pass through most obstructions. Industrial x-rays are capable of pene- trating tempered steel. If this is true then we may possess the key that will unlock the door to the future - our future in space. The Big Bangers present their fantastic scenario in terms which seem to suggest, rather insistently we feel, that the Big Bang actually happened. We hear of what the Universe was like a millionth of a second after this imagin- ary explosion. So desperate is their need to impose this belief on mankind (and we would wonder why) that two prominent astrophysicist of that coterie went so far as to invent an element, called the Instanton, which existed for only a billionth of a second or so, and enabled the otherwise halted process of Big Banging to continue. So exotic and desperate is this reaching that the community of scientists at-large have tended to discount it. Nice going. The key we speak of may be so apparent that it's transparent, as the pos- sibility of heavier-than-air-flight was to the intelligencia who hotly debat- ed the issue while heavier-than-air birds took off and landed, unconcerned. Are the watchers of the skies observing something through their direct exper- ience that doesn't register with them? One of the arrogations of the Big Bang theorists, who are so anxious that we swallow whole their anachronistic teachings, is their representation of what is happening now in the Universe. They tell us that galaxies two-billion light-years distant are speeding away from us at nearly the speed of light. Whatever these galaxies appear to be doing, if they are truly two-billion light-years off then the activities reported for them would have had to occur two billion years ago, as it would take that long for their light to reach us. No star or galaxy is ever seen in the present; visible stars can only be observed in the past, that farther away the more distant the past. Where are they now? We suggest the possibility that the various star systems detectable by other than visual means; x-ray, radio, infra-red, and the rest, may actually be visible stars in time-displaced locations. That is, if x-ray emanations outrun the slower components of light they would reach us sooner than, say, the ultra-violet components which, in turn, would arrive ahead of the visible light. Infra-red and radio components would reach us still later, these com- ponents of light having encountered the most interference in their flight to our locus. In short, a connected pattern of this kind could tell us the more recent location of a visible star, say 100 light years distant, as well as where it has been in more historic times. We expect that the keepers of the gate of academe will scoff at such an idea, proposed as it is by an unlettered mind (as they must view any who do not belong to the club), but consider the possibilities were it true. When planning our first venture to the stars we would be able to determine from the time-displacement charts for a target destination, where that star is likely to be at some future time. We would then be able to plot an intercept- ing course instead of aiming at the visible apparition, which we might never reach by a roundabout Lobachevskian route. If the Big Bang truly occurred it will take more than the account offered up by its supporters. Disconnected events, synthetic elements, and right by insistence, pablum intended for serfs, will no longer statisfy the intellec- tual appetites and spiritual requirements of intelligent people. The time is fast approaching when narrow authoritarianisms must be set aside in favor of the Truth: that God is Infinite and Eternal, Serene and Majestic, favoring no people or religion above any other; that Creation and the Universe, Perfect Demonstration, always was and always will be, needing no jump-start to satis- fy small minds who would create God in their own image and likeness.