first published: 16.08.2012     
over-worked and supplimented: 12.09.2012     
corrected English text: 22.08.2013     
Addendum on: 20.10.2015     

The Big Bang hypothesis, a dead-end road
of the cosmological research

Most scientists who are involved with cosmology, have studied physics, among other things. They know about the fundamental laws of nature, on which is based all natural science, which are proven by hundreds of scientists from many eras and recognized with a variety of experiments with high reliability. In the course of their studies they have taken tests and passed exams about these laws. No scientist has to these natural laws some doubt, they are generally accepted because they are proved and have not been refuted. Some cosmologists, however, doubt the correctness of these laws when it comes to the universe. They even claim that the laws of nature once did not exist at all, that they were created with the Big Bang. Some representatives even believe that in any "other" universe, whatever it may be, very different laws of nature are in force. This is logically so unusual absurd that one would think they have missed their studies and were not present at the discussion of core issues, because they are outside of all rational thinking of supported structures. Emanuel Kant in despair would turn away in the grave about such logic. The result of this state of affairs is a mistaken belief in a "creation" of the laws of nature by a higher cosmic consciousness, standing outside the universe at a predetermined time, a kind of primal beginning, before there was nothing. Even the time itself conjointly with the space is a subject of creation, which fabricated the idea that initially the spacetime did not exist, it would be born with the Big Bang. For supporting and maintaining such impetuous imaginations, are conjured up always new ridiculous mystical transfigurations of the relationships that are incompatible with any scientific method. Some of these will be shown afterwards.

  1. The nucleosynthesis
    The nucleosynthesis, with which one tries to explain the composition of cosmic matter, proceeds from a Big Bang as an incontrovertible axiom, and on this assumption are based calculations that the formation of the particles and later the atoms will be explained. A material development is postulated in a speculative way based on the Big Band, which may not have taken place. Finally, it should be considered afterwards as evidence of the Big Bang hypothesis. This is a logical somersault. The theory already collapses using simple mathematical considerations. The nucleosynthesis is a nonsensical mathematical eccentricity trying to prove a number of untenable assumptions with itself, i.e., the Big Bang is premised and with this condition it is then "proved". Even a high school student inevitably doubts this reasoning.

  2. The "dark energy"
    Dark energy is a very similar metaphysical fantasy, with which should be explained the force causing to expansion of the universe. They should, in other words, describe the opposing force to gravity, which must be present in order to allow a longer existence of the universe. After all, by the absence of such reaction, the universe would collapse because of the gravitation. However, this reaction could be understood easily and without mystical transfiguration, as arising from a general rotation of the universe, creating centrifugal forces as a result of this rotation. But this possibility is not taken into account nowadays, because even in the event of a Big Bang, rotations in the universe could not exist. However, all the astronomical observations contradict this assumption of the Big Bang, because in the universe not a single object has been discovered which does not rotate. These rotations can be caused only by a general rotation in the universe, generating in this way Coriolis forces, which cause the rotation of the objects. Through this general rotation, a general centrifugation is created in the entire universe. This is the counterforce to gravity, which is believed to be found in the speculative fabricated "dark energy".

    In addition, "dark energy" is also an untenable fiction because it is presented as a counterpart to the "dark matter" about which nobody knows what it should be. One calls dark energy on the one hand and dark matter on the other. It is initially explained, that energy does not belong to matter. But if it is not matter, what is it? This is a mistake creating many other inconsistencies. This state of affairs is explained in more details below.

  3. The expansion
    Equally implausible is the thesis that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Just a logical fallacy is herein the assumption to believe that an observed motion might relate to the entire universe. The conception that we could make a statement about the entire universe, would set a cosmic frontier in the finite range. But the universe is infinite in space and time. It is, therefore, impossible to talk about the "whole" universe. We might illustrate this by asking, "How long is a straight line?" Pretending to have an answer to this question is nonsensical. We can not observe the "whole" universe, because such a term is not definable. The assumption of Expansion, in case it may be correct, can therefore have only a local meaning, that is, a finite reference. In infinitely many other regions of the universe, there are other movements. The assumption of the expansion of the universe, is frequently assigned to Edwin Hubble, who in 1929 has shown the redshift of the light spectrum in all viewing directions. But Hubble did not intend to show the expansion of the cosmos by these observations. This conclusion did come from other researchers, who say that the Doppler effect is the only possible explanation for the redshift. From this supposition they arrived at the expansion of the universe. Red shift of an electromagnetic spectrum does alternatively also means energy loss, for which quite different explanations are possible. Finally, we must consider that for the dual nature of light (wave and particle) in the present state of research there is still no unifying explanation which is certainly present. In short, we still know too little about the nature of light. One approach is the definition of matter in the Brockhaus Encyclopedia (see below).

  4. The extrapolation
    Completely insane and extremely naive is to believe that one could from the time that the humans had been available for the observation of the cosmos, to derive the conclusion that the obtained parameters of motion were always valid, and then mercilessly with such a grotesque paradigm to perform a linear extrapolation to a zero point. Such extravagant excesses happen only in cosmology. No one else came up with the idea to ask the question, how we could calculate back when a yeast dumpling rising in the vapor was united on one point. Now, seriously. The period of observation of the universe by humans, comprising a few hundred years, compared with the cosmic processes, about a few billion years, which in the whole has an infinite duration, is negligibly small. So small that a generalization of the observed movements to the entire universe is completely outside of a realistic assessment. The probability for this assumption to be correct is practically zero.

  5. Ignoring motions which are against the Big Bang
    There are a number of astronomical observations that contradict the idea of expansion and thus the Big Bang hypothesis directly. As an example, the Andromeda galaxy, only 2.5 million light years away from the Milky Way, has a radial velocity of -114 km/s. The negative sign means that it moves towards us, what indeed cannot happen in an expansion of the universe. This fact in itself is an unavoidable reason, to reject the Big Bang hypothesis, but there are still more discoveries showing the mutual approach of large, very massive star systems. For example, far beyond the constellation of Virgo a massive star cluster was discovered, approaching other galaxies at a speed of 444 km/s, including the Milky Way. The diameter of this supercluster is, accordance to NASA, about two billion light-years. Such movements remain unaddressed in cosmology.

  6. The outer boundary of the universe
    Yet a further reflection shows the absurdity of the big bang idea. If it were true, then there would be a beginning time for the expansion (postulated to be 13.7 billion years). As the expansion velocity is finite, an external border of the universe would need to exist, outside of which matter cannot exist. However, this is logically untenable, since the space would have in this case a "center", from where the Big Bang should have originated. This would contradict the principle of relativity of space and time, and would raise a question related to the dependence of the spacetime from the inertial system. Nor is there any observed results related to an "empty" space behind such fictitious outer boundary.

  7. The big bang singularity
    Another aspect that seems worthy of note here is the adoption of a so-called big bang singularity. It simulates theoretically a hot, infinitely dense initial state of the universe. Such a singularity, however, can only be interpreted under the premise of the non-existence of natural laws. But the denial of the existence of natural laws, as explained in the first section, is scientifically speaking a farce. But under the existing laws of nature, this singularity, in addition to an infinite energy density, due to the mass-energy equivalence, would have an infinite mass density too. So it would be the greatest conceivable logical Black Hole which could not expand, because of its infinite gravity.

  8. The background radiation
    From nucleosynthesis (see Section 1), among other things, conclusions are derived about radiation processes that occur in connection with the structural alteration of particles. This radiation in the cosmology is called background radiation. It is claimed that it could only have originated in a so-called "early phase" of cosmic evolution.

    This background radiation which was predicted by George Gamow (1904-1968) and found in 1965 by Arno Penzias (born 1933 in Munich) and Robert Wilson (1927-2002) with a radiotelescope, is not to be considered as a residue, a relic from the "formation" of the universe, but it is a constant process, accompanying the motion of the matter. The movement of mass and energy is eternal, both are subjects to perpetual change. The movement is maintained by the inherent forces of matter. This constant interaction between mass and energy includes the continued development and breakup of structures of matter, i.e., the elementary particles, atomic nuclei, atoms and finally the molecules, as well as complex structures, that is, the perpetual building up and destruction of the forms of existence of matter, which is accompanied by energy radiation processes in the entire universe in all directions. Known as the ubiquitous background radiation, cosmic rays show that the motion of matter must include both the change of location of objects in space-time, and the structural changes of matter through the interaction between mass and energy. Mass, energy and radiation are matter, their movement is the eternal evolution.

  9. The Big Father
    According to these analytical results, we have no other choice than to criticize the father figure of the contemporary cosmology, the astrophysicist Georges Edouard Lemaitre (1894 - 1966). His teaching is not based on scientific evidence but on faith. This is largely understandable to me, because he was a priest, who believed in creation as an incontrovertible axiom. His stated goal was to combine the cosmological science with the Catholic doctrine of creation, according to which God created the world and finally the humans. Natural laws and scientific facts cease to exist in this endeavor. All theory is classified into the divine creation and serves it without contradiction. But when considering such sciences as anthropology, ethnology, geology, and some others, like, to some extent, religious studies, it can be seen without much effort: Not God created human, but the evolution of human has created God. The developing intelligence has asked more and more questions about the connections made in the world. It was quite natural to induce usable answers to inexplicable and not understandable relations, attempting to interpret using supernatural powers, all the guiding forces in nature. But with the development of intelligence, it was questioned and is being constantly questioned the religious beliefs, and in case of scientific clarification this process leads to their corrections. This is a normal process. If you didn't do this, you could also look at Santa Claus as a real person who on December, 24, from 16 to 19 o'clock gifted world's 1 billion children - remained for each child including arrival 11 microseconds, when weighted each gift 1 kg, it resulted in 1 million tons of cargo. You could then also believe that Adam and Eve were the first people to date and would have increased to over 7 billion. So were Adam and Eve then my greatn-grandparents. Assuming an average generation time of 25 years would be the exponent n = 80-1. Modern man feels that such an approach is no longer useful. More surprising is that in the current cosmology such questioning is absent. With a deep bow to the clerical doctrine, the scientists no longer think independently and research. This hinders not only cosmology, but the progress of science in the general sense. Even more amazing, however, is the tendency of today's cosmology, no more to require gods for the adherence to the Big Bang hypothesis. The misconception has been cemented in a manner that even scientists who do not believe in a consciousness standing outside the universe, cannot give up their axiomatic attitude to the Big Bang hypothesis. This phenomenon has no logical explanation. This shows quite clearly the hierarchical control of an entire scientific field, whose contributors are kept away, by administrative means, of independent research and thinking.

Since the total loss of academic autonomy of universities and colleges and their total surveillance by government agencies since the 60s of last century, the quality of research is largely running down. Universities and colleges have to submit artificially stage-managed competitions where they are subjected to a variety of perverse quality indicators of a comprehensive comparative evaluation (ranking), the results of these evaluations are then weighted distributed research funds. The interest of the universities and colleges has shifted away from the research tasks to the securing of self-representation parameters in these pseudo-competitions. Mathias Binswanger in his book Unreasonable Competitions - why we produce more and more nonsense quotes Thorpe from 2003: "With the euphoria of market and competition was associated a deep distrust against the independent basic research of universities, happening in "the ivory tower", from which the politicians often do not really know what it is supposed to. Whatever brings the search for knowledge beyond high cost? Former British education Minister Charles Clarke therefore called the "medieval search for truth" as outdated and unnecessary". More about this later in more detail. First, however, some scientific clarification of the above-described abnormal attitudes.

The basic, non-refutable laws of nature include, among others, the conservation of energy and the mass-energy equivalence. Denying these natural laws of science undoubtedly will bring forth unscientific speculations, which are used nowadays by almost the entire cosmology. On a broad front is constructed a rampant mysticism around the cosmic processes, which serves the sole purpose of maintaining something that is not able to be substantiated by a reasonable way of thinking: The Big Bang Theory. The more insubstantial and surreal thought structures are presented, the more nebulous are the attempts of explanation. The public should believe these presentations, because the experts say it.

Let's look first at the energy conservation law: In a system, energy can neither arise nor disappear, but can only change their appearance (Etot = Ekin + Epot = m*g*h + 1/2*m*v2). The total energy in a system remains constant if no energy is dispensed outward and no energy is fed from the ambient. Energy is a conserved quantity. The universe is such a system, but with a special feature: There is no other system outside the universe. Thus, the total energy in the universe is constant, discounting the ludicrous ideas of some cosmic dilettantes about many parallel universes. Let's look now at this constancy in connection with the mass-energy equivalence. E = m*c2 means that mass and energy are two equivalent forms of matter being always present together and are in a constant ratio. If the mass is zero, the same happens with energy, and vice versa (0 = 0*c2, or from the energy conservation law above: 0*g*h + 1/2*0*v2 = 0). By writing E/m = c2, we may recognize that the ratio of energy to mass is constant. Corollary: Mass also cannot appear or disappear in a system. Furthermore it also becomes clear that mass cannot be "converted" into energy, and vice versa, energy cannot "produce" mass. This would mean that mass disappears at the same moment if energy arises, and mass would come into existence at the same degree if energy dissolves. This could be expressed mathematically as the fact that E + m = const. But that is patently false. This means, ultimately, mass and energy - and both together is matter - cannot be "created", and certainly not be created from nothing. Matter exists eternally, without having a beginning and will never have an end. Because the matter exists in the space-time, it is shown at the same time that the space-time exists eternally and there is not a time, which can be assumed to be a zero point, from which everything has been created. Time is not a vector.

The views of some cosmologists abandoned this logic, as they set up the absurd claim that energy does not belong to matter. According to them, the energy is extracted from matter and is opposite or contrasted to it. This only allows the fundamental error of fiction, to convert mass into energy and vice versa - with all the pseudo-scientific consequences resulting from the bad posture itself. For better orientation, we only have to follow the experiments, which were made in the last few years at CERN. The probably found Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2, in June 2012, is an enormous step forward in the explanation of the nature of matter.

Under is found in the free encyclopedia Wikipedia the following completely wrong definition of matter:

"Matter (from the Latin materia = substance) is a collective term for all observation items of science, having mass. Space areas that do not contain matter is referred vacuum. Electromagnetic waves such as light can not be counted to matter."
An explanation for this statement (in German only).

This misconception has gradually established itself in the last 20 years. Until the early 90's more fitting statements were published.

The Brockhaus encyclopaedia in 24 volumes, from the year 1991, Volume 14, pp. 326/327, however, gives a much clearer definition of matter:

"... The real bearers of matter (the particles) are dynamic centers that occupy only a very small space. You have to imagine after the standard theory of elementary particles as a quasi point-like "particles" (quarks and leptons), according to string theory as the alternative forms of state vibrations of a one-dimensional "string". The bulk of the spatial macrophysically represented matter in terms of a naive view is empty, but filled with intense force effects, which can be declared as a very rapidly fluctuating exchanged particles (virtual interaction between particles). They form the field that surrounds the actual material bearers, and as its product, conversely, is trying to understand these real matter, because since the discovery of dualism (wave-particle duality), a sharp distinction between the concepts of particle and field is not possible. Rather, particles with rest mass can be converted into those without rest mass and vice versa (pairing). Both can be considered as two different forms of energy (mass-energy equivalence). One of the fundamental properties of matter, often erroneously equated with it, is the mass. Mass and energy are only different aspects of reality".

This definition is not irrefutable, but comes much closer to the ideas based on modern research findings than the above.

Based on these statements, a generally plausible picture of cosmic movements arise. Metaphorically speaking, the matter in the universe is moving like a cloud formation, in which all is arranged in a comprehensive, general rotation, together with a longitudinal movement, in which there is no definable center of rotation, but large-scale rotation of fields that permeate each other, changing constantly and attaining new forms. The entire motion has a chaotic character, whose driving force originates from the inhomogeneities of the matter regarding distribution and structure. This movement is eternal, had no beginning and will have no end.

Assuming the general rotation, it cannot be excluded that the universe in our spacious surroundings is actually in an expansion phase that could be reversed in an indefinite, finite time, into a contraction phase. This is a kind of wave motion (oscillation), which is taking place everywhere in the universe, and have their driving forces in the dynamics of universal gravitation with the general centrifugation and their effects on the inertial mass. In this presentation, the movement of the cosmic matter is not a process taking place in the whole universe, it is rather regional, taking place in portions of the universe, motions separating or uniting matter, increasing or decreasing, influencing each other. Thus, it would be possible to explain the frequently expressed view of the existence of several so-called "parallel universes", and we could avoid the irritating phrase, which one cannot follow.
With the described understanding of the universe we remove all of the above shortcomings and obscurities of the Big Bang theory, cosmology becomes free from all sorts of mystical transfiguration, which do not follow any scientific method and are largely incomprehensible. Sticking to the Big Bang theory like a doctrine is similar to an iron clamp, which prevents the research and limits its progress. May the many scientific findings of modern times finally lead the cosmological science out of the impasse into which it has fallen by the narrow-minded attitude of a few people. We hope that this process will not necessitate 300 years as the time interval necessary to overcome the geocentric world view in favor of enforcement of the heliocentric founded by Copernicus and Galilei. About 60 of those years have already passed.

As the social conditions prevent the progress of science

The possibilities to achieve at the present time a progress in this case, however, are very low. The replacement of false, outdated notions by those who have come much closer to the truth, is slightly dependent on the scientific content of competing conceptions, but is dictated mainly by the hierarchical relationships within the structures of the relevant scientific discipline. Benefits are not measured by their scientific value, but primarily on the number of publications by established scientists and the number of citations from other publications. Particularly damaging effects it that by such misleading indicators are distributed the government-mandated research funds, so that in this way new scientific evidence are excluded from the provision of financial resources. The objectivity of publications in this way becomes lost. Prof. Dr. Mathias Binswanger, Professor of Economics at the University of Applied Sciences Solothurn, Switzerland, in his book Senseless Competitions - why we produce more and more nonsense describes this situation as follows:

"In the modern university knowledge is only marginal, even if it is still mentioned in speeches as if that goal would continue to stand in the focus. Modern universities are on one hand fundraising institutions, who deliberately set out to divert as much research money for themselves. And secondly, they are publishing factories that seek to maximize their publication output. Accordingly, the ideal professor is a mixture of a fundraiser, a project manager and a writer-maniac, in which is not paramount the search for knowledge, but the measurable contribution to academic excellence. And thus the professors contribute to the academic excellence, there is in addition to the traditional deans of each department, more recently, a faculty manager, and the rector or president today is a kind of CEO (Chief Executive Officer), which dictates new strategies to achieve even greater excellence. Research is central to the struggle for "market share" of universities and research institutes (Münch 2009 a, pp. 148-164)."

And further:

"There are mainly two artificially staged competitions, namely, the competition for as many publications and the competition for as many research grants from third party funded projects that animate the production of nonsense. Both indicators (publications, external funding), to which the artificial competitions are organized, in today's university rankings play a central role."

"Basic research, however, always manifests itself in publications. So what is more natural than to measure the output and productivity of a scientist or an institution based on the number of publications? It is not a fact that many publications are the result of much research, increasing our relevant knowledge?"

It does not need to be an expert to realize that this is entirely not so. Binswanger says:

"Publications produce better growth of written pages, but their number does not say anything about the importance of the research achievements of a scientist or an institution, just as the number of played notes says nothing about the quality of a piece of music."

What chances you now have to publish a theory that contradicts an existing one for many years? Binswanger has researched on the subject:

"Relevant are publications in professional journals, in which the submitted works are subjected in a "strict" and "objective" selection, the so-called "peer-review process." This is to ensure that only are published "high quality" works, which are considered as "real scientific publications." In the artificially staged competitions among scientists, exactly spoken, it is important only to publish as many articles in high accepted scientific journals." ... "Indeed, there are among the scientific journals further hierarchies, which should reflect average "quality" of accepted items. Almost in every academic discipline there are a few regarded with respect Top journals (A-journals) and then different groups of not-so-high-magazines (B-, or C-journals), with which one accommodates easily a product" ... "What is now to understand concretely under peer-review process? When a scientist wants to publish an article in a recognized scientific journal, he must first submit to the editors of the Journal, which are usually already established names or champions of their discipline. This editor, however, in many cases have no time to look after the daily operations "of its magazine", and therefore, there is one less coming managing editor, responsible for the administrative work flow who sends the manuscript from publication to scientists and thus sets in motion the peer review process. He sends the submitted manuscript for review to one or more professors or other recognized scientists (called peers) ideally working even in the same field as the author of the article, and therefore to be able to to assess its quality." ... "As a culmination of the process, the experts inform the editor about advocating the acceptance (very rare), the revision or the rejection of the article (most common) for the corresponding journal. Many top journals pride themselves even with their high rejection rates, which supposedly reflect the high quality of these journals (Frohlich 2007, p 338). In such magazines are the rejection rates in the magitude of 95 percent."

Therefore, it is unlikely to receive a publishing opportunity for a counter-theory to an existing theory, followed essentially by all the experts. Rather, such work will be classified as a conspiracy that is rejected without deeper reflection, perhaps even without reading the work. Thus, the elucidation of a possible scientific error is excluded by administrative means. A publication could succeed only if the applicant speaks to the experts "to the mouth" and so gets his attention. This is of course impossible in the case of an objection against a commonly held theory. Binswanger looks at the situation like that:

"Because the progress of content in the established journals by the reasons already stated hardly takes place, the rate of innovation has shifted to the form. Banal ideas can be inflated to highly complex formal models demonstrating the technical and mathematical expertise of the authors and simulates importance. In many cases, the reviewers will not be able to assess those models, because they have neither the time nor the desire to deal with it for days. Since they cannot admit this fact, formal brilliance is seen as positive in doubtful cases, as this usually means supporting the prevailing theories. It helps to immunize them against outside criticism, so that all colleagues not working in the same specialty have just to believe what has been "proven" in a model or experiment." ... "With that formalization the sciences remove always more from the reality, because the fake precision is more important than actual relevance." ... "The displacement of content by form-up process also affects the appointment policy. The old type of scientist interested from his inner drive and often unconventional is increasingly replaced by formally gifted, streamlined model boys and women, who have to say a little something with regards to content." ... "New and original insights and truly novel ideas are therefore much more likely to be read in books or papers in which there is no pseudo quality control of original insights."

The final results from this overall social nonsense to try to assess the quality of research exclusively and to guide relevance quantitatively by so-called quality indicators, led to displacement effects, which are not recognized anymore in the affected employees due to the ever-increasing penetration of this quantitative ideology at the universities and colleges. Binswanger has summarized these displacement effects in the following list:

So in the end it is no wonder that the voice of hundreds of highly respected scientists who have recognized that the Big Bang theory cannot be maintained on the basis of currently available scientific research results (see the Open Letter of 33 scientists, published in New Scientist from May, 22.-28., 2004, are not heard and so there are no changes in the views about the really happening cosmic processes.

August, 16th of 2012
Dr. Manfred Pohl

Manfred Pohl wishes to thank Prof. Dr. A. K. T. Assis for the large work to correct my English text.

Addendum on 10/20/2015:
Since the above-mentioned address to the site of the open letter to the scientific community no longer available since the end of 2014, I give here the link to the translation of the english edition written by me: Offener Brief