first published: 04.08.2012
corrected English text: 22.08.2013
A letter to the astrophysicist Dr. Arnold Benz, Professor of Astrophysics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
Is the Big Bang theory the only acceptable model of the world?
Below I'll describe a correspondence with Prof. Dr. Arnold Benz, whose problems, in my opinion, are of very general
interest. Arnold Benz is Professor of Astrophysics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
The scientist and theologian lic. theol./dipl. rer. nat./high school teacher Felix Sachs of St. Gallen, Switzerland, with him for many years I maintain an intensive exchange of ideas, pointed out me an interview Prof. Benz has given to the Swiss radio station DRS 1. The interviewer guide was Mrs. Simone Hulliger. In the interview, he made some statements, about which Mr. Sachs and myself think they are factually incorrect. Therefore I have written to Prof. Benz in order to advise him of my objections as before this has done Mr. Sachs.
Beelitz, June 27th, 2012
I'm Dr. Manfred Pohl, emeritus scientific associate at the University of Potsdam, computer scientist, physicist, mathematician, and also actively involved in the fields of linguistics and cosmology.
Mr. Felix Sachs from St. Gallen sent me, as before he announced to you, the e-mail correspondence that he had with you and Simone Hulliger from the radio station DRS 1. I listened to your interview with Ms. Hulliger on the Internet.
In your letter to Mr. Sachs, May 18th, 2012, you had written:
"Big Bang means that the universe emerged from a hot and dense state and since then it has expanded. Any good astrophysicists would gladly launch a new theory and so would be famous. The Nobel Prize would be certain. But effectively, there is no alternative theory, that would be somehow relevant."
The first sentence is not true, because the Big Bang hypothesis, including the fiction of expansion, nucleosynthesis and "dark matter," is pure superstition. Almost all serious physicists know that the contradictions between the theory and astronomical observations in recent decades can no longer maintain the theory. The current adherence to the theory is not based on a scientific method, but to conventions only.
Also, the last sentence is not true. Due to the rejection of the Big Bang hypothesis by a rapidly increasing number of world-renowned scientists, it would be highly surprising if there were no alternative to such massive delusion. There are several approaches showing a way out.
The main contradiction, from which everything emanates from, is the obsession that the universe must have had a beginning. This is suspect because it is completely absurd. It contradicts fundamental, reliable proven natural laws. Based on the laws of nature, logical reasoning inevitably leads to the fact, that the universe, it means the space-time and the matter moving in it, exists eternally, had no beginning and will not have an end. Today's widespread misconception about a beginning of the universe was substantially supported by a false representation of the nature of matter that has become increasingly common over the last 20 years. Accordingly, the energy is extracted from the matter and opposed to it, one speaks about matter on the one hand and about energy on the other. This error subsequently opened the way to arrive at false conclusions, by which mass may be "converted" into energy and vice versa. This, however, contradicts a fundamental principle of natural science, the energy conservation law. When viewed together with the mass-energy equivalence (E = m*c2), it follows necessarily that mass and energy may be considered just together as two manifestations of the same category, the matter. Mass, as well as energy, cannot be created nor disappear, the ratio of energy to mass is constant (E/m = c2). This is, essentially, the refutation of the view that the universe has come into existence from a hot and dense state.
There is a theory that essentially eliminates all the incomprehensibilities of the Big Bang theory, and provides in the core very simple and comprehensible explanations of the cosmic processes and relationships. Unfortunately, today's cosmologists established in their jobs are fixed like a cult to the Big Bang hypothesis, as a dogma, so that hardly a budding scientist dares to oppose the so-called "mainstream". This is not surprising. I know of cases in which highly respected scientists have lost position, rank and name by going against the Big Bang theory. Halton Arp's name should be sufficient as an example, it is known to you certainly.
The alternative theory I'm speaking about, the rotation theory, is described in my book The Big Bang hypothesis, an obstacle to the cosmological research, Re Di Roma Publisher, Remscheid, Germany, 2011, ISBN 978-3-86870-353-5. A Nobel Prize I do not claim for it, to be famous is not my goal, it would be already enough for me if I could help to replace the disabled postulate of a Big Bang through a hypothesis based on science and logic, and thus allow moving forward the cosmological research, which is blocked for the time being.
If your time or other reasons do not allow you to read the book, you can find a few pages summarizing the main arguments and theoretical approaches on my private web space, available at
or alternatively in English at
Still a second statement in your interview was not properly presented. It is your statement, that the opponents of the Big Bang hypothesis, correspondingly, are a dying species, so as would turn more and more of them to the Big Bang theory. In fact, the opposite is the case. The number of scientists who have recognized in the Big Bang theory a false doctrine is constantly increasing. For example, the open letter to the scientific community against the Big Bang hypothesis, published on May 22th, 2004 in the magazine New Scientist, was signed at his publishing by 33 scientists. After its release it was additionally signed worldwide by more than 500 prominent scientists. The entire list can be found at the Internet at http://cosmologystatement.org.
Dear Professor, if about my theory you should obtain a positive cognition or you have critical remarks to it, I would be very pleased about a message from you. I am aware that a consent to anything other than the Big Bang theory at the present time involves risk, so I will give you the full assurance in such a case to use nothing from your possible response elsewhere to your detriment, if you not decide yourself to open up to a logically reasoned thinking.
Dr. Manfred Pohl
Beelitz, August 4th, 2012
A response from Prof. Benz I have not received. This can have several reasons.
The third reason, I think, is more likely to be correct.
Dr. Manfred Pohl
Manfred Pohl wishes to thank Prof. Dr. A. K. T. Assis for the amendment of my English text.