Briefly, the idea of the Big Bang has the following history:
Since the beginning of human civilization, people have always
questioned the origins of their existence, and the creation of the universe.
Where did it all come from? How was it created? These are the questions that
plagued ancient societies, and are those that still puzzle scientists today.
Cosmology, the study of the large-scale structure and evolution of the
universe, is the branch of science that has evolved from these questions.
The Big Bang theory of cosmology assumes that the universe began from
a singular state of infinite density. As Joseph Silk defines the Big Bang
theory, it is a model of the universe in which space-time began with an initial
singularity, and subsequently expands. It was first implied in Alexander
Friedmanns complete solution of Albert Einsteins equations, in 1922
[referring to Einsteins theory of General Relativity, published around
1915, which claims that space is curved]. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre used
equations to devise a cosmological theory that incorporated the concept that
the universe has been expanding from an explosive moment of creation.
The term Big Bang for these theories was coined by the
Russian-born U.S. nuclear physicist George Gamow in 1946.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began with one large
explosion, which took place about 15 to 20 billion years ago. We now refer to
this explosion that began the universe, as the Big Bang, and it is from this
theory that we are able to examine the evolution of the universe, from the
milliseconds of creation, to the creation of galaxies, and from the formation
of planets, to the presence of life on Earth. Because almost all astronomical
phenomena can be explained entirely within the context of the Big Bang, or if
not completely, can be explained to a greater degree than any other mode, this
model of the universe has become the most widely accepted up to this point.
The last sentence in the above quote is an example of just how easily
one can be deceived into believing the establishments mythology. To
understand the unstated assumptions in that last sentence, I have added a few
notes: Because almost all astronomical phenomena [that we have been told
about in the information sources we have] can be explained entirely within the
context of the Big Bang [according to those same information sources, because
we, like most people, are not in a position to contradict any such claims,
other than by citing contrary authorities, if there are any], or if not
completely, can be explained to a greater degree than any other mode [again,
according to those same information sources], this model of the universe has
become the most widely accepted up to this point [we assume the Big Bang is
true, as we have been taught, so we assume its correctness is the reason for
its widespread acceptance].
Here is the fundamental problem of knowledge that all people face: you dont know what you dont know
The key to misleading people about a given belief, is to control the
flow of observational data that is relevant to that belief. To promote a given
belief, screen out any observational data that contradicts that belief, and, at
the same time, present only observational data that supports that belief. If
the belief is false, then fabricate, distort, or misrepresent observational
data, as needed. As long as a person is only aware of observational data that
supports the belief, then that persons mind, by means of its analytic
abilities, will find that belief supported and reasonable.
Regarding the Big-Bang belief, is any relevant observational data being
withheld from the public? The answer is an emphatic yes. My authority on
this subject is Halton Arp (born 1927), who has been a professional astronomer
since receiving his PhD in 1953. He was a staff member at Mt. Palomar
observatory, California USA, for 29 years, and, since 1983, a staff member at
the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, in Germany.
Halton Arps Observations
Halton Arp has a long career as an observational astronomer. His view of
the universe, and the Big Bang, are neatly summarized as follows:
His cosmos is a steady-state universe, with no Big Bang and no
expansion, and with the intermittent creation of new matter. Redshift is not
velocity related but an inherent property of matter that decreases with age.
The basic cosmological unit is composed of an old parent galaxy of low
redshift, accompanied by smaller and younger companions with redshift excesses,
and surrounded by newly-created quasars of high redshift. Both companions and
quasars have been ejected by the parent galaxy.
Astronomys symbol for redshift is the letter z. A concise
explanation of redshift is:
Redshift describes the characteristic lines in the
spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium, and other elements which appear at longer
(redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. The simple explanation
attributes this effect to the recession velocity of the emitting
sourcelike the falling pitch of a receding train whistle, the Doppler
My own awareness of Halton Arp is due to my browsing of the Internet,
which ultimately led to my learning of his book, Seeing Red
, which I bought and read. Upon finishing
Arps book, and realizing that I had been deceived by the American
mediawhich had concealed from me, and from most everyone else who reads
the various establishment science books and magazines, all of Arps
observationsI decided to write this essay. Note that despite my science
PhD, and my wide readings in science over many years, I was completely ignorant
of Arps observations. As I said above: you dont know what you
By Arps observations I mean, primarily, Arps
observation of a recurring pattern in the astronomical data, regarding the
objects that are outside our own galaxy. His book, Seeing Red, has many
examples of this pattern, shown in pictures and drawings, using astronomical
data measured by other astronomers and published in the quasar and galaxy
catalogues used by the astronomy profession. The astronomical data includes
locations (sky coordinates), magnitudes (apparent brightness), redshifts
(z values), and rotation-axis alignments of Seyfert galaxies. The
recurring pattern that Arp shows, is that of a parent galaxy and its children.
A parent object, which is typically a Seyfert galaxy.
Seyfert is a galaxy-classification category used by
astronomers. Seyfert galaxies are so-called active galaxies,
characterized by extremely bright cores whose luminosity shows extensive
Most Seyferts are spiral galaxies, with a clearly defined axis
Distributed along the parents axis of rotation (this
distribution tends to lie within two widening, opposite cones, whose tips are
centered on the parent object), is a sequence of objects (these are the child
objects). Because each of the two cones tend to contain the same types of
objects, with the same redshifts at the same distances from the parent, the
implication is that the parent normally births twins, ejecting each twin at the
same speed, outward along the parents axis of rotation, but in an
opposite direction from the other twin. The child objects include high-redshift
quasars close to the parent (with the redshift decreasing in fixed steps, the
further the quasar is from the parent), and ordinary galaxies further out.
A quasar is a pointlike object (as observed by
astronomers), that has a high redshift (when compared to the redshift of
galaxies; quasar z values range from a low of about .1, to a high of
In Big-Bang theory, redshift is primarily a distance measure
(the higher the redshift, the more distant the object), and quasars are at much
greater distances than any galaxy whose structure can be seen. However, Arp
cites enough examples of quasars with an apparent physical connection to the
presumed parent galaxy, to refute the Big-Bang claim of quasar distances. This
physical connection typically consists of a line or filament of luminous matter
between the two objects (kind of like an umbilical cord).
Also, as Arp points out, if the quasars are really at the
claimed Big-Bang distances, then they should have a random distribution in the
sky relative to the distribution of Seyfert galaxies, but they do not: The
actual distribution of quasars is not random relative to the distribution of
Seyferts. Instead, quasars tend to be clustered close around Seyfertsa
situation that, according to Arp, Big-Bang astronomers simply brush-off as
Another consideration regarding quasars involves their
brightness. Observed from Earth, quasars are faint objects compared to
galaxies. However, if quasars are at the claimed Big-Bang distances, then
quasars are roughly 10 to 100 times brighter than the brightest galaxies.
Alternatively, given Arps pattern, in which quasars are the young
children of a nearby parent galaxy, a quasar, like a young child, should be
both smaller and weaker than its parent. And that is what is seen: quasars are
both smaller and weaker than their parent galaxy, appearing pointlike and less
bright. Thus, Arps pattern is a more direct and economical fit of the
observational data, since, unlike Big-Bang theory, there is no need to claim an
extreme intrinsic brightness for quasars.
The initial ejection speed for a child object from its
parent, has actually been measured by means of radio astronomy using Very Long
Baseline Interferometry. About this initial ejection speed, Arp says:
typically moving outward with speeds of from a few tenths of [the speed
of light] to nearly the speed of light.
Over time, the child object slows down, and, eventually, as it
ages and grows, becomes an ordinary galaxy, moving at an ordinary speed for a
galaxy (typically less than 1000 kilometers per second; lightspeed is 300,000
kilometers per second).
Note that the speed of the child objects, by the time they are
seen as quasars, can still be as high as roughly one-tenth lightspeed, and this
speed either increases or decreases the quasars measured redshift (as
measured from Earth), depending on whether that quasar is moving towards us or
away from us (the actual amount of the redshift adjustment is a function of the
quasars velocity vector relative to the Earth).
Regarding quasar redshifts occurring in fixed steps, this is
known as the quantization of quasar redshifts. About this quantization,
In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge pointed out the
existence of some redshifts in quasars which seemed to be preferred
1971 K.G. Karlsson showed that these, and later observed redshifts, obeyed the
mathematical formula [Arp gives the formula]. This gives the observed quasar
redshift periodicities of: z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96,
Many investigations confirmed the accuracy of this
periodicity. And of course, many claimed it was false.
As Arp comments elsewhere in his book, the observation that
quasar redshifts are quantized contradicts the Big-Bang model, therefore
establishment astronomers dismiss the observation.
Note that the observed quasar redshifts typically do not match
exactly the values given by Karlssons formula, because each observed
redshift includes the effect of the quasars speed, as already discussed
above. However, Arp gives many examples in his book of apparent twin quasars
(based on their locations relative to the parent), where each twin has a
measured redshift that is offset from the nearest Karlsson number by the same
absolute difference, but the two differences have opposite sign (as would be
expected for twins ejected in opposite directions from the parent, and at an
angle to the Earth, with one twin moving toward usdecreasing its observed
redshiftand the other twin moving away from usincreasing its
Arps observations refute the Big Bang, giving instead a universe
of unknown size and age, in which parent galaxies give birth to new galaxies
that undergo a life-cycle that has a clear evolution from a juvenile stage (a
quasar) to an adult stage (a galaxy such as our own Milky Way). At present, the
observable universe has many examples of galaxies giving birth, and of
juveniles and adults in all stages of development.
A few miscellaneous items discussed in Arps Seeing Red,
Regarding the possibility that the observed redshifts can be explained
by tired-light (the idea of tired-light is that light loses
energyprogressively shifting to lower frequenciesas light travels
across cosmological distances), Arp says: if we look through
extragalactic space, the example of quasars linked to low-redshift galaxies
demonstrates that two objects at the same distance with closely the same path
length can have vastly different redshifts. Thus, the observational data refutes any
explanationincluding both Big-Bang theory and tired-light
theorythat assumes redshift is primarily a distance measure.
About cosmic background radiation (in the various science
magazines that I used to read, this was a frequent and popular topic for
several years after the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, aka
COBE, in late 1989), Arp says:
Very weak photons, indicative of low temperature, and coming smoothly
from all directions around us, were discovered accidentally in 1965. This
[cosmic background radiation] was almost immediately hailed as another,
especially decisive proof of the Big Bang.
It used to be stated that the Big Bang predicted the
temperature of the cosmic background [which is 2.73 degrees Kelvin]. But a
review of the history shows that George Gamow predicted T = 50K in
As early as 1926 Arthur Eddington calculated the photon
temperature in and around galaxies as about 3K. Many investigators have since
pointed out that if one takes the ambient galaxy starlight, and thermalizes it
into lower-energy photons (redistributes the energy into an equilibrium state),
one gets closely the observed microwave background temperature.
Another long-time favorite cosmology topic that the American media feeds
to the public, is the idea of black holes, which are claimed to be real
objects, that are so massive that they suck even nearby starlight into
themselves, causing them to be completely dark or black. Arp says: The
greatly publicized theory is black holes where everything falls in. But the
observations show everything falling out!
Regarding academia and the larger society, Arp says:
What could be done, and is not done, however, is to use the
observations to rule out a 75-year-old model [the Big Bang] which is presently
unquestioned dogma. The mission of academia should be to explorenot
perpetuate myth and superstition.
Today, any newspaper, science magazine, or discussion of scientific
funding, will take for granted that we know all the basic facts: that we live
in an expanding universe, all created in an instant out of nothing, in which
cosmic bodies started to condense from a hot medium about 15 billion years ago.
The observations are not used to test this model, but considerable drama is
attempted, by implying that each new observation may force an important (but
actually marginal) variation in the assumptions of the Big Bang. It is
embarrassing, and by now a little boring, to constantly read announcements
about ever-more-distant and luminous high-redshift objects, blacker holes, and
higher and higher percentages of undetectable matter
. For those who have
examined the evidence on redshifts, and decided that redshifts are not
the important question arises as to how a disproved
assumption could have become so dominant.
*** footnotes follow ***
The authors appear to be three college students. See
I have copy-edited the quoted text, to improve its readability.
 This biographical information is
mostly taken from the following two sources:
 Arp, Halton. Seeing Red:
Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. Apeiron, Montreal, 1998.
I have copy-edited slightly some of the quoted text from Seeing
Red, to improve its readability.
 Ibid., p. 294.
 Ibid., p. 245.
 Ibid., p. 203.
In the quoted list of Karlsson numbers, I have given the correct value
of .96, instead of the books .91 which is a typo.
 Where there is birth, there is also
death. However, Arp does not discuss galaxy death in Seeing Red.
 Ibid., p. 97.
 Ibid., pp. 236237.
 Ibid., p. 228.
 Ibid., p. 257.
*** end of footnotes ***
Except for the intro, the above text was copied from the first half of
my longer article, Big-Bang Bunk;
revised in February 2002.