Episode Transcript
Welcome to faith and science. I'm Doctor John Ashton. In our schools and universities in most western countries, we teach our young people about the Big Bang theory.
Matter of fact, it's a nationwide curriculum requirement here in Australia for year ten that students learn how the universe evolved. It's interesting that we now have overwhelming evidence that the Big Bang theory, in actual fact, is a myth. It doesn't fit the scientific evidence.
One of the things that really highlights this has been the discovery of giant megastructures in outer space. Now, the significance of this is that the big Bang theory is underpinned by a number of different aspects. One of those aspects is the cosmological principle, and that is essentially that if this big bang, which produced energy and matter, expand, space expand, and space is expanding as well, just not matter in space, but space itself is expanding, we would expect the universe to be fairly uniform so structures will form.
But scientists have done calculations that say that the maximum size of those structures, depending on the calculations, would either be in the order of 0.4 billion years or maybe up to 1.2 billion years maximum.
So no structure should form bigger than 1.2 billion years across in diameter. Well, of course, a number of massive structures have been discovered now that are greater than that.
One of the ones was the Hercules corona borealis, great wall that was discovered probably over a decade ago now. But it's 10 billion years across in diameter, 10 billion years in diameter, and there's no known explanation of that. So that's eight times larger than the maximum theoretical limit for the cosmological principle to apply.
Of course, just recently, another one was discovered, too. A couple of years ago, as I remembered now, it was called the giant arc, and it's 3.3 billion years in diameter, again, larger than the theoretical maximum of 1.2.
A number of other structures have been discovered, like 1.5 billion years, 1.4 billion years, 1.6
billion years, again, all exceeding this massive limitation for the so called cosmological principle, which underpins, as I said, this whole big bang theory scenario. So this is pretty serious because there is no explanation as to why these huge structures could form and could exist. And, of course, one of the other aspects of this, that is with the James Webb space telescope revealing as well that if we go back in time, because the universe is supposed to be about 13.8
billion years old, if we go back in time and look at the furthest stars that we can see, one of the things the James Webb telescope has revealed is fully formed spiral galaxies. And yet according to the theory, if we're going, the further away we're seeing, that means the oldest light that we're seeing, which means it should be near the early stages of the formation of the so called big Bang. And these structures, such as fully formed spiral galaxies, should not have been formed.
It's no way known that using the natural processes supposedly involved in the Big Bang theory, that these unique structures, and they're amazing structures. As I said, one is the big arc, there's another one, the big ring, these different structures that are formed that cannot be explained by the Big Bang theory. So this is serious and very, very powerful observational evidence that the Big Bang theory has failed.
Of course, there's more, too, and some of this work has just been published in 2024. A lot of these large structures have been found only relatively recently, certainly within the last decade, several within the last few years. So this is really, really exciting stuff.
Another very interesting paper that was some research that was reported in the astrophysical journal earlier this year. And this is work by a University of Ottawa physicists, Regenda Gupta. And essentially he shows that dark energy and dark matter actually can't exist.
Again, these are two entities that underpin the Big Bang theory without dark energy, which has, as I said, never been observed anyway, and all the attempts to find it have not proved successful. And dark matter, again, this is matter that we just can't detect, but must be there to explain certain rotation of galaxies and formation of stars and so forth. And so it's quite interesting now that the science is coming down, that these important aspects that for years people have claimed existed, we now know that they can't exist.
Well, the evidence is increasing, for example, in the case of dark matter, and that it's absolutely impossible to exist as well. One of the other interesting, fascinating aspects that has come to light, of course, is some of the evidence that has come in from the Hubble spacecraft and also the James Webb space telescope. Now, one of the claims, of course, is the big Bang.
One of the evidences for the Big Bang is the evidence that the universe was expanding. And there's a couple of fascinating aspects here. We've got the Hubble constant and the Hubble expansion.
And this came about from a very interesting observation that the further stars are away from us, the faster they seem to be travelling away from us. And so this is a very interesting phenomena. So one of the classic examples that's used to explain this, for example, if you can imagine in your mind, just imagine a muffin cake with the sultanas in it and say you drew that drew a little pitcher of the muffin and a cross section and say in that, for example, you had a sultana about, say, one centimetre from the centre, and then you had another sultana two centimetres from the centre.
When you expand that muffin and draw the expander vision, say you've moved the first one from one to two centimetres. The second one, by doubling the size, moves from two to four centimetres. So in that same time, whereas the first muffin has travelled one, the second muffin, which was further away, two centimetres away, has actually travelled two centimetres.
So it's travelled further off, or, and if it's in the same time, obviously, to travel further, it's travel faster. And so this is the principle there. Now, one of the things that they try to measure is the Hubble constant, and that is the rate at which the universe is expanding.
And there's a couple of ways in which we do this. One is done using the redshift of pulsating stars. And so the redshift is an effect that light travels at a speed, but because it's travelling away from us, the wavelengths are lengthened.
And so that produces a change in colour, a change in spectrum towards the red. And so this is why it's called the red shift. And from that we can calculate the speed at which the universe is travelling away.
And that can be done, for example, using the Hubble space telescope. The other way it's calculated is from variations in the cosmic background radiation. And so the cosmic background radiation, which is supposed to be the remnant of heat left over from the big bang, that can also be used to calculate the rate of expansion.
Now we're using now the best data that we have from these two telescopes. We calculate different values for the Hubble constant, even though they should be the same. So both methods should be measuring the same rate, but we're getting different rates.
And this is, again, another major problem for the theory of Big Bang. For the big Bang theory, the fact that these two methods give different values for their calculations, it throws a whole lot of, again, problems in understanding what the theory, and certainly don't support the current theories for the Big Bang. So we see this accumulation of evidence.
Other evidence that has come from these space telescopes, of course, is we may have heard that now the cosmic microwave background radiation, as one of the main evidences cited for the Big Bang. Well, there's a couple of aspects of this. Firstly, it just happens to be the same as the blackbody radiation we'd expect from starlite.
Anyway, so that could be a very simple explanation for it. But of course, it's. For some time, it's been claimed that this is, in actual fact, the remnant radiation from the Big Bang itself.
And essentially, some of the proponents of the Big Bang have said, well, look, using this, we can successfully predict the ratios of hydrogen and helium that we observe in the universe. We can predict the abundance ratios. But one of the things that has been revealed, for example, by some of the physicists from Harvard and from Princeton University, in an article they published in Scientific American back in February 2017, an article was titled Pop goes the Universe.
Is that the reason why the Big Bang theorists claim that this, the Big Bang theory, was able to predict these abundances was that they changed and adjusted one of the important parameters related to Bayron number and so forth, Bayron number ratio, so that it actually did line up with the ratios of hydrogen and oxygen. So it wasn't that the theory predicted that they actually adjusted one of the parameters within the theory so that it would predict that. The problem was that when they did that, it didn't predict, for example, the abundances of lithium or any of the others.
So we need to remember that a lot of the so called claimed evidence for the Big Bang is actually, to date, evidence that has been contrived. Well, the factors have been contrived to make them fit the data. And that's why as long ago as nearly two.
Well, it was two decades ago. Back in 2004, a number of top astronomers signed a letter to new scientists saying that the Big Bang has not been able to predict any experimentally verifiable outcomes, and that it's essentially underpinned by theories that in actual facts, such as the expansion that took place, inflation theory that can never be falsified, can never actually be verified by science anyway. So the bottom line is this latest research, observations that we have from space, now confirms that the Big Bang theory, for which, up till now, there hasn't been any evidence for any way that we could find, actually confirm that it can't happen.
The whole, the theories that underpin it don't fit the observations. And so this is a very exciting research that, again, points us back to the fact that the biblical creation account in genesis is the only meaningful account of how we came to be here that really fits the data. There's no other scientific explanation that fits the data.
You've been listening to faith and science, and if you'd like to re listen to this programme, remember, you can just google 3ABN Australia and click on the radio button. And also, please let your friends and social media contact know about these programmes so that they can become aware of the overwhelming evidence that we have that there is an amazing creator and the Bible account can be relied on. I'm Doctor John Ashton.
Have a great day. You've been listening to a production of 3ABN Australia radio.
