There’s a crisis in the study of the cosmos. Scientists Say they Were WRONG About the Big
Bang and the Universe. This rude jolt to the astronomy community has already been dubbed,
the “Crisis in Cosmology”. But now, the crisis has become a thunderbolt shocking even
more scientists as new models and calculations are punching big holes in the Big Bang theory
that was thought to be gospel for decades. The contradictions are so profound, it’s
time to sound the alarm because essential predictions of the Big Bang theory are increasingly
contradicted by better data. As shown by many teams of researchers, data from new observations
are consistent with a non-expanding universe. That means, there was no Big Bang. That’s
correct! The real crisis in cosmology indicates that the Big Bang never happened.
There’s a lot to unravel. You’re about to discover all the key pointers disproving
the Big Bang! You might want to sit down for this. You’re about to be stunned and immobile.
Here’s what scientists got wrong for decades about the beginning of our universe.
Subir Sarkar, a professor at the University of Oxford, told the New Scientist publication
that he’s discovered evidence suggesting that our current understanding of cosmology
is broken. In support of this crisis to cosmology are several other scientists who are all saying
that we need to completely revamp our entire understanding of the universe. Not everyone,
though, is on board. Sarkar was quoted saying, “We are in a very
unenviable position in that most of our colleagues don’t even want to hear about it.”
But you should be kept up to speed. Here are the catastrophic facts that devastate the
study of cosmology as we know today. Number 1) Light elements: Lithium and Helium
When it comes to light elements, predictions foresaw that any superhot explosion throughout
the universe, especially like the Big Bang, would definitely generate a certain small
amount of the light element lithium and a large amount of helium.
Yet, actual observations show that the older the stars, the amount of lithium observed
has gotten less and less. As a matter of fact, the oldest stars radiate less than one tenth
of the predicted level. The problem is; The Big Bang theory unequivocally
predicts certain amounts of light elements like lithium, helium and deuterium. They must
be produced in the explosion that is hypothesized to have started the universe. For lithium,
the prediction is 400 lithium atoms for every trillion hydrogen atoms.
To the bewilderment of astronomers, measurements of lithium in old stars in our galaxy don’t
add up. Thus, the Big Bang predictions don’t align with reality. They know the stars were
formed very early in the history of our galaxy, because they have very tiny amounts of iron
and other heavy elements that are produced by previously-existing stars; But in most
of these stars, the lithium abundance is only 160 lithium atoms per trillion atoms, which
is vastly far below the Big Bang predictions. Peer reviewed studies indicate that both lithium
and helium observations of abundances in old stars differ from predictions by more than
a dozen standard deviations. And as scientists delved deeper into experimentation and evaluation,
the gap has been widening at an accelerating pace.
The oldest stars have less than half the helium and less than one tenth the lithium than predicted
by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The lowest lithium levels observed are less than 1% that
predicted by the theory. Therefore, the evidence is consistent with no helium or lithium
having been formed before the first stars in our galaxy.
Equally important, the study shows that the right amounts of these light elements have
been predicted by an alternative explanation, which hypothesizes that these elements were
produced by stars in the earliest stages of the evolution of galaxies.
This alternative explanation, led by research from astronomer Eric Lerner known as the
Galactic Origin of Light Elements or GOLE hypothesis, shows that expectations from the
first generation of stars to form in a galaxy are intermediate-mass stars that are from
4 to 12 times as massive as the sun. These stars burn hydrogen to helium in tens to a
couple of hundred million years, much faster than our sun’s burn rate of ten billion
years. The helium then disperses in powerful stellar winds during the late stages of these
stars’ lifetimes. Cosmic rays from these early stars, colliding at high energy with
other nuclei, produce deuterium and lithium. Meaning the Big Bang theory predictions are
certainly not conforming to cosmic predictions.
Number 2. Antimatter-matter Annihilation It’s been universally understood that since
the intense radiation of the Big Bang would produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts,
a mutual annulation of particle-antiparticle pairs would reduce the surviving matter density
to around 10 -17 protons/cm3. The observation showed that the matter density
in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 . That is more than 10 billion
times higher than the Big Bang prediction. So, to align with the Big Bang prediction
and fill in the unknown gap, Big Bang theorists proposed there’s some unknown asymmetry
between matter and antimatter that would lead to more production of matter. Unfortunately,
it’s all speculation as this has never been observed in laboratory experiments. Large
scale experiments have contradicted this prediction as well, with no evidence of decay at all.
One might just as well call it “God”.
Number 3. Surface-Brightness According to the original predictions of the
expanding universe theory of the Big Bang, an optical illusion makes objects at high
redshift appear larger and dimmer, so their surface brightness—the ratio of apparent
brightness to apparent area—declines sharply with redshift. The history of the subject
began with the development in the 19th century of wave mechanics and the exploration of
phenomena associated with the Doppler Effect. The effect is named after Christian Doppler,
who offered the first known physical explanation for the phenomenon in 1842.
However, true real-life observations show that based on observations of thousands of
galaxies, surface brightness is completely constant with distance, as expected in a universe
that is NOT expanding. So, Big Bang advocates attempted to adjust
the prediction after observations showed that the surface brightness dimming did not occur.
They went on to hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller in the distant past and
have grown greatly. Unfortunately, observations have contradicted
this solution as well. Truth be told, there have not been enough galaxy mergers for the
growth rates needed. In addition, the ultra-small galaxies hypothesized would have to have more
mass in stars than total mass. This is an obvious impossibility that can’t be taken
lightly – pun intended.
Number 4. Cosmic Structures are Too Large According to the original predictions guided
by the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.
Structure starts small and grows over time. Yet due to Observations via space observatory
telescopes like the Hubble that have peered farther into space and discovered huger and
huger structures of galaxies, tangible details show that these massive galaxies are too large
to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
And it’s not only for galaxies. The newly discovered black hole in the middle of the
Milky Way Galaxy also disproves the Big Bang Theory. It is a supermassive black hole or
SMBH that is way too large to have been created from dying stars. The time of its origins
and its location just don’t justify the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.
On top of that, the idea that the cosmos looks largely the same no matter where you go, which
is called the cosmological principal, has been around in some form or another since
the 1500s. Now, scientists like Sarkar advocate that the way our Milky Way moves through the
universe could be interfering with our understanding of the rest. Similarly to how our ancestors
first thought the sun was rotating around Earth.
According to Sarkar, our relatively small number of known galaxies, and the inability
to know exactly how far apart they are, leaves ample room to doubt and speculation.
A concrete example is watching a single animal slow down in a large herd. It looks like all
the others are running away from it at a fast pace. In the same perspective, it’s possible
that from Earth it only seems as though the universe is expanding at a given rate.
And don’t think that Sarkar is the first cosmologist to suggest that the current Big
Bang models are inaccurate. Just two years ago, the New Scientist published several white
papers showing that the expanding universe theory moves too fast to be compatible with
accepted models of physics. And the following year, just in 2021, Alexia Lopez of the University
of Central Lancashire discovered a giant line of galaxies that broke all sorts of rules
regarding the Big Bang Theory. Number 5. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
or CMB The Big Bang predictions of CMB showed a smooth
relic of initial radiation. But the observations show that only large scales demonstrate the
predicted CMB levels. Over all, the Big Bang models don’t allocate enough time for many
regions to reach the equilibrium to receive the energy needed for measurements of CMB
seen today. As a matter of fact, the most suitable solutions
imply a curved universe, rather than the predictions of expansion for a flat universe. And with
that, the predictions of density of dark matter are far greater than any measurements derived
from the motion of galaxies. So, dark matter is necessary in the Big Bang
theory, yet dark matter can’t be quantified or even verified in the Big Bang theory.
And that brings us to Number 6. Dark Matter The Big Bang theory requires the existence
of dark matter. But unfortunately, dark matter has been this mysterious particle that has
actually never been observed in a laboratory. Despite the billions of dollars in extremely
sensitive experimentation on earth, the abundant observations of the motions of galaxies, and
the massive mixture of dark matter in our sci-fi lexicon, dark matter particles have
actually never been detected.
In response, a growing number of cosmologists agree that the Big Bang theory calculations
have been fundamentally misguided or even falsified.
But data falsification is a discussion for another impactful video.
For now, leave your thoughts down below regarding the evidence for and against the Big Bang.
After hitting that like button, make sure you’ve subscribed to Space Infinity.
Then, head to the archive and watch more peculiar videos from Space Infinity!