The Big Bang Never Happened

■ THE COSMOLOGICAL DEBATE ■started from unquestionably correct and extremely beautifulphilosophical-mathematical results. No one can study the Pythagoreanscience comprising the mathematical theory of music andthe theory of regular polyhedra without being immensely impressed.The same holds for the theory of relativity. . . ." But neitherthe Ptolemaic nor the Big Bang cosmology corresponds toobservation. In particular the Big Bang's use of general relativityis valid only if the universe is dense enough to be "closed," ornear to that. Otherwise, as observation shows, general relativityand its whole mathematical approach are a mere nuance on thecosmological scale. For similar reasons—as we have seen—BigBang theorists' initial predictions were wrong: the microwavebackground temperature is lower than predicted, by an order ofmagnitude, and the universe is in no way homogeneous.Since it is without empirical support, Alfven concludes, "theBig Bang is a myth, a wonderful myth maybe, which deserves aplace of honor in the columbarium which already contains theIndian myth of a cyclic Universe, the Chinese cosmic egg, theBiblical myth of creation in six days, the Ptolemaic cosmologicalmyth, and many others." The underlying method of relativisticcosmology is based on flawed philosophy:The reason why so many attempts have been made to guess whatwas the state several billion years ago is probably the general beliefthat long ago the state of the Universe must have been muchsimpler, much more regular than today, indeed so simple that itcould be represented by a mathematical model which could bederived from some fundamental principles through very ingeniousthinking. Except for some vague and unconvincing reference tothe second law of thermodynamics, no reasonable scientific motivationfor this belief seems to have been given. This belief probablyemanates from the old myths of creation. God established aperfect order and "harmony" and it should be possible to findwhich principles he followed when he did so. He was certainlyintelligent enough to understand the general theory of relativity,and if He did, why shouldn't He create the Universe according toits wonderful principles?Worst of all, this approach allows theory to rule over observation,like the Ptolemaic astronomers who refused to look throughGalileo's telescope. Today cosmology is in the hands of scientistswho228