Chapter 11: The Big Bang: Falling Under the Geocentric Weight
Chapter 11: The Big Bang: Falling Under the Geocentric Weight
Chapter 11, from Geocentrism 101 by Dr. Robert Sungenis...
Chapter 11 The Big Bang: Falling Under the Geocentric Weight
As the geocentric universe was accumulating more and more evidence, the Big Bang theory was suffering from a severe lack of the same. Although a homogeneous universe was the desired state for the longevity and stability of the Big Bang universe, the original Big Bang equations actually produced a slight heterogeneous universe.
Even then, there wasn’t enough matter to serve as the “seeds” of galaxies. Hence, a substance they called “Dark Matter” was invented in order to compensate for the lack of baryonic matter. Additionally, since Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity had limited the speed of light and gravity to 186,000 miles per second, this meant that one side of the Big Bang expansion could not communicate with the other side and therefore it would be impossible to produce the needed homogeneous universe. This was known as the “horizon problem.” Modern cosmologists side-stepped the problem by claiming the Big Bang began by a gigantic Inflation, which allowed it to become 1026 to 1030 times as large in only 10-35 seconds.
The sudden inflation set a mold, as it were, from which the rest of the universe could then expand homogeneously. This allowed Big Bang cosmology to, quite literally, skip over the “horizon problem” and start the universe from a post-inflation homogeneous position instead of the predicted heterogeneous position. Although Inflation seemed to answer some major problems in Big Bang cosmology, in reality it exposed the dubious nature of the whole enterprise and created other unsolvable problems, one being the bare fact that no one had provided an explanation from particle physics of how and why such a rapid inflation could or should take place. Hence, to Big Bang critics, Inflation was just another ad hoc invention propping up an already crippled theory.
Another anomaly affected the credibility of both the Big Bang theory and the Newtonian and Einsteinian physics that was supposedly supporting it and the rest of the universe. In the late 1970s it was discovered that spiral galaxies were not rotating according to Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s theory of gravity as espoused in General Relativity. In brief, observations revealed that galaxies were rotating ten times too fast for the amount of matter they contained and should have blown apart eons ago.
Rather than question Newton’s or Einstein’s theories, or even whether these laws applied in deep space, modern cosmologists went back to the same Dark Matter they had invented for the seeds of galaxies and claimed that the galaxies were surrounded by a halo “Dark Matter.” Hence, another ad hoc invention saved both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics from being falsified.
Today modern cosmologists speak about Dark Matter as if it really exists, but there is no direct empirical evidence for it. As is usually the case, it was added to save the reigning paradigm. This drama will continue until so many ad hoc patches are foisted upon the theory that it will eventually fall under its own weight.
Big Bang cosmology was hit with yet another problem. In 1998, observations of supernova explosions, which are used as time and/or distance markers in current Big Bang theory, forced cosmologists to conclude that the presumed expansion of the universe was accelerating, becoming faster and faster as each year went by. In order to account for the acceleration, a very large amount of energy would be necessary to push out the universe at the required increasing rates.
The latest estimates determine that about 70% more energy is needed than what we detect in the 45-billion-light-year radius of the present universe.
Incidentally, these new “rates” of expansion necessarily exceed the speed of light, which speed limit all Big Bang cosmologists accept as valid. Ironically, then, although the limited speed of light was a major problem for the initial stages of the Big Bang, namely, the “horizon problem,” it is suddenly no problem in the later stages of the Big Bang when the theory needs the universe to expand far beyond the speed of light.
Similar to what was done when Dark Matter was invented in order to preserve the laws of Newtonian physics, modern cosmologists claimed, without any empirical evidence, that an unseen and undetectable energy pervaded the universe which was causing the accelerated expansion. It was dubbed “Dark Energy.”
It is spoken of today by modern cosmologists as if it really exists, but there is no evidence for it at all. All in all, in order to allow the Big Bang model to survive, modern cosmologists make the astounding and unverified claim that the universe is composed of only 5% of the kind of matter and energy we see or detect, and 25% of matter and 70% of energy that we cannot see or detect. Essentially, modern cosmology has created a ghost universe in which 95% of what they claim exists does not, in fact, exist.
The alternative, as we have stressed, is a simple geocentric universe. It requires neither Inflation, Dark Matter nor Dark Energy.
This is admitted by some of today’s top scientists. For example, in a 2008 paper written by three astro-physicists from Oxford, a centrally located Earth was far simpler and practical than the “Dark Energy” model currently being used to sustain the Copernican Big Bang.
ScienceDaily put it in simple terms for the layman:
Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics.
Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.132
ScienceDaily quotes astrophysicist Timothy Clifton as saying:
…it can be argued that the center of a large underdensity is the most likely place for observers to find themselves.134 In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…135 New Scientist made this the cover story in the November 2008 issue.
The implications of this new anti-Copernican theory were understood very well:
It was the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun – and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos – has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe.
Could it actually be wrong, though? At first glance, that question might seem heretical, or downright silly….And that idea, some cosmologists point out, has not been tested beyond all doubt – yet.
“This startling possibility can be accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a price.
That price is introducing dark energy – an unseen energy pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating expansion. Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. ‘If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle….Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.’” “So what would it mean if…the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe….If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes with that [the Big Bang] goes out the window too….Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier.”136
Actually, it’s not tricky at all. One only needs to read Genesis 1 with an open mind and a willing heart.
The James Webb Telescope
The new James Webb telescope (JWST), launched in June 2022, has put even more holes into the Big Bang theory. Below are some pictures the JWST took in the last few months. What do you notice about these galaxies?
If you didn’t notice, all these galaxies are fully formed and functional as opposed to being partially formed and non-functional. But this is not what the Big Bang theory predicted—and science is all about theories making the right predictions. The Big Bang theory predicted that the farther we look into space, the farther in the past we would be looking, and the more primitive the universe would look. In other words, these galaxies shouldn’t be here. The JWST’s pictures show that the farther we look is not making any difference at what we are seeing. For example, take a look at the Andromeda galaxy (next page), our closest galaxy in the universe. Modern science estimates its distance from Earth to be 2.5 million light years or 15 quadrillion miles or 15 × 1015. As for age, it would be one of the youngest in the celestial sky. Interestingly enough, it actually has a blueshift when viewed from Earth.
But with redshifts reportedly as high as 11, 16 and 20, the galaxies photographed by JWST put their distances from Earth in the octillions or 1027 miles. If that is the case, then according to the Big Bang’s concept of “cosmological evolution,” these JWST galaxies should hardly be recognizable as galaxies. Why? Since the Big Bangers claim that light can only travel 186,000 miles per second from these galaxies, their light is only now reaching us; and that means their light can only carry the earliest and most primitive stages of galaxy formation. But obviously they don’t. The very far away galaxies look the same as the very near galaxies.
What this new evidence tells us, of course, is that the Genesis account of the universe is correct—God created all the galaxies at one time and thus they have no age differences.
-end of Chapter 11
-from Geocentrism 101 by Dr. Robert Sungenis…