The Big Bang - or just a fizzle?

I have mentioned it before in my blog and I shall surely keep coming back, but after BBC4's feature "Lost Horizons" about the Big Bang, Dark Matter and uncritical (i.e. wrong!!) adherence to Einstein's General and Special Relativity Theories, I have to get this off my chest:

I agree with Fred Hoyle:
There never was a Big Bang - at least not in the form that created the Universe.
Sadly, he died in 2001, so he's not here to say: Well done Jorgen - or more correctly: Frank Atkinson, who woke me up.

Two axioms stood out in the TV feature:
1. The scientists claim, that the redshift of light from distant galaxies implies that everything is moving away from everything. This could only have been caused by the Mother of All Explosions, the Big Bang. Otherwise galaxies wouldn't fly hither dither, leaving more and more space between them. But do they? Some scientists claim that our own galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy will collide in the future - somewhere between 2Bill years and 15Bill years from now. Semantics, I'd say - but it indicates that not all galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies. In fact, there are many examples of colliding galaxies.
2. Scientists still cannot find the Dark Matter - however, they stubbornly maintain that it takes up 70% of matter in our ever expanding Universe.

Come on, guys!!!
We now know that 'time' is a parameter that is as connected to energy as the other side of the medal is to the first. Energy cannot exist without time and vice versa. But as the law of energy conservation says that energy cannot disappear or just increase, so we can conclude (roughly) that time has always been - although perhaps in HUGELY dilated form if we assume the Universe once was a super dense ball in a non-extant soup (a bit far fetched, but why not).
Time can become dilated and consequently the speed of light increased (or decreased if time is contracted) in order to maintain the 300,000 Km/sec. Dilation happens close to a large gravitational field or if a body moves at a speed close to the speed of light.
This we can measure as undisputable.

So how about axiom 1?
Some years ago Science would have us believe, that the redshift of light (stretching in wavelength) was due  to the Doppler effect. As we observe this around the globe, the consequence is that we are at the centre of the Universe and that idea, I believe, was droppped hundreds of years ago, except if you are a creationist.
Next, the scientists forced their theories to conform with the idea that space was able to stretch and contract light - - but there's no scientific evidence that this happens.
The fact is, that we are a little lost!!
What if the Universe is infinite and NOT expanding?
The Hubble telescope keeps surprising us with galaxies in areas that were thought empty, assessed to be 40Bill Light years away.
In a 14.7Bill years old universe?
Time to review the space-time curvature and other obsolete ideas.

We know that light is emitted as photons, travels as electromagnetic waves and is observed as photons at the receiving point.
We also know that large gravitational fields dilate time, meaning that as the light passes through the Universe, it is constantly being pulled or pushed through dilated 'time-fields'.
This is bound to cause considerable redshifting - more so, if the light comes from very, very far away, exactly as will be the case in an infinite Universe.
No expansion, no balloon stretching, no strings - just an enormity we cannot grasp.
And sometimes, most of the time in fact, the redshift is so enormous that it disappears out of sight beyond infra red.
And therefore we cannot see it.
It also loses so much energy that virtually nothing is left over, when it reaches us.
Perhaps that explains the 2.7 degree Kelvin, almost absolute 0, that we observe. Perhaps it helps explain the so called background radiation, which science wants us to believe stems from the Big Bang.

Consequently, there is no reason to invent this explosion.
It quite simply never occurred!!

Now axiom 2.
Dark Matter is an extraordinarily crazy invention, that came about, as we couldn't explain how the clumps originated that were responsible for the creation of galaxies.
It is there to fit the scientists' mathematical equations.
But isn't that exactly what science is NOT about - the wrong way around.
Guys - look it in the eyes: the equations are wrong!

Scientists have even descended into deep mines and caves in order to detect the Dark Matter, well out of interference from any background radiation.
And found nothing.
Yet they tell us that it has mass and takes up 70-80% of matter in the Universe - but emits no radiation (hence "dark").
Newton's law about mass attracting mass, although at a power inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies and directly proportional to the bodies' mass, seems to be universal. This leads to another discussion: is gravity distributed in waves, as claimed by science, or is it instantaneous across the Universe? It is commonly agreed that the Universe is homogeneous ('orderly') on a grand scale. I doubt this would be the case with gravity working 'only' at the speed of light. The conclusion is the extraordinary thought, that gravity 'just is' and also that gravity is a consequence rather than just the so-called "weakest power" at all. This is another topic I shall pick up later - with the help of Frank Atkinson.

The 14.7Bill number is a guess, based on the redshift. But as we haven't explained the origin of the redshift and rather used it as an explanation - unscientifically - this is a wet thumb in the air.
Well, some say the world is only 6000 years old, but compared to infinity 14.7Bill years is as good a guess as 6000 years.
More importantly, if the Dark Matter has been there for a very long time and if there is a lot of it, wouldn't it have collected the odd floating visible, proton and slowly dressed itself up - just like the Invisible Man, who could only be seen when he wore coat, hat and scarf?

Dark Matter therefore appears to be a very un-scientific invention, much like the belief in the existence of an "Ether" - a belief Morley and Michelson defused many years ago.

Are we not getting closer to the realisation that
- there never was a BIG Bang
- there is no Dark Matter
?????

If the above can be agreed and if Einstein's General and Special Relativity theories can be defused (they  can! They self-eliminate - see my blog-entries from Oct 2011) there are at least 3 consequences:

- We have to start all over again, as we still haven't found the unifying theory between the very large (the Universe) and the very small (Particle Theory)
- the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is a waste of money - a lot of money.  Well, almost - we have now paid to know that we don't know; If Higgs Boson and recreated Dark Matter remain elusive we should probably close it down. Unfortunately scientists are unwilling to eat humble pie despite the fact, that they could sit down at their desks and drill a big hole in the Special Relativity Theory using just a bit of brain power, pen and paper!
- perhaps 'time', as a lost or underestimated physics parameter, should be taken out of the moth-bag and checked as a stepping stone to a solution, a very elegant one in fact.

There are more consequences, as if the above were not enough - and some of them have deep impact on our beliefs, both religious and more practical.
It can be tough enough to realise that mass is constant and lightspeed variable, depending on the observer's time dilation.

If there is a God (trust me: there isn't!) she has certainly made it difficult for us to get to the core of the creation process. She's teasing us, lifting just a bit of her dress, but not letting us see the whole leg.
Perhaps that's all we will ever see.
.