“The 'Something from Nothing' Universe”
Exposing the supernatural phenomena behind the Big Bang Theory
For free-access download, go to our YouTube Channel at
(Final editing has yet to be finished, but the video will be officially released in October 2011.)
In reference to our use of quotations of short passages, it is sometimes argued that using them apart from their entire source may distort the intent of the author(s). However, by downloading the supporting documents found on our website at Who Is Your Creator.com you will find that the quotes we use are in context and cannot be taken in any other way. If you believe otherwise, please email us with specific information and we will review your claim.
It should also be noted that the quotes in this video are from pro-evolutionary sources and we acknowledge that the expressed content did not alter the author(s)'s belief in evolution.
From the supernatural God of the Bible to the Theory of Evolution, we all believe in some type of creation story and they all require one thing … Faith. Faith in the supernatural creative force of God or faith in the unguided creative force of evolution.
Since man first gazed upon the stars above, the quest for understanding the universe has been a perplexing endeavor. While we will never fully grasp the vastness and complexities of the universe, what we have discovered about it clearly points to the only force which would have the creative power to bring it about.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, a universe created by unguided 'naturalistic' forces would point to explanations that are “based on naturally occurring phenomena” and “are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.” These standards can be found in their pro-evolution book called “Science, Evolution, and Creationism”.
“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), “Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008.
Conversely, a universe created by God would reflect explanations that rely on supernatural forces, commonly defined as ones that would be “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.”
Definition of supernatural: “Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.” Free Dictionary.com.
These are the standards and definitions that we will be continually citing throughout this video as we take you through evolution's creation story for the origin of the universe, commonly referred to as the Big Bang Theory.
The first question one must address is what force is behind the initial creation of space, time, matter, energy, and the laws that govern them. The answer from most Big Bang followers is that there was no force and they all arose from nothing. Yes, while many might bristle at this bold statement, there is simply no other place to start. There was nothing … and then there was something.
The following are several quotes that describe this 'something from nothing' belief. The first one is from NASA and explains that the universe began with a “simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe.”
“The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe.”
NASA website, Universe 101: “Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology.”
The European Organization for Nuclear Research states that, “Space, time, matter... everything originated in the Big Bang, an incommensurably huge explosion that happened 13.7 billion years ago.”
European Organization for Nuclear Research website, “Recipe for a Universe.”
Finally, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Professor Stephen Hawking, stated, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
Professor Stephen Hawking, ”Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God,” September 2, 2010, The Guardian Online.
The belief that something could possibly come from nothing has its roots in the 'uncertainty principle' which was devised in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg. Its original intent was for allowing and acknowledging a limited amount of unexplained phenomena when proposing physic principles. However, in a bizarre twist, the uncertainty principle is now used as an excuse for declaring that supernatural phenomena are actually naturalistic, thus twisting the 'something from nothing' premise into a “naturally occurring phenomenon”.
Here is a proper description of the 'uncertainty principle' from the U.S. Department of Energy:
“In the strange strange non-intuitive world of quantum mechanics some very peculiar things are allowed. Within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time are allowed that otherwise are impossible …
What this 'means' is energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. Particles can 'pop up' out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long.
One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation.”
U.S. Department of Energy: Newton: Ask a Scientist “Quantum Fluctuations,” 2004.
Something coming from nothing is clearly a supernatural process but, if you should happen to profess any skepticism about it, you will be accused of simply not being smart enough to comprehend it. Sadly, the current trend for many Big Bang followers is to fully embrace this 'something from nothing' belief.
Theoretical physicist, Lawrence Krauss, is one of its leading followers and proponents and Krauss even titled one of his lectures "A Universe From Nothing." The following is a brief excerpt from his talk.
“The universe is flat. It has zero total energy and it could have begun from nothing ...
If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something. It's that simple. It doesn't convince any of those people, but it's true.”
Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, “A Universe From Nothing,” October 21, 2009, Atheist Alliance International event.
(Selected quote begins 40:33 into video)
No, Krauss has not lost his mind. He is the Director of The Origins Initiative at Arizona State University and is considered by some to be one of the most influential scientists in the field of cosmology, which is the study of the universe. Rather, Krauss reflects the standard profile of the many who choose to believe in anything, as long as it's not the God of the Bible.
“Professing to be wise, they became fools,” Romans 1:22
Let's examine a couple other variations of the 'something from nothing' belief for the Big Bang phase, the first being the Ekpyrotic Model. This idea proposes that the Big Bang phase was not an explosion. Instead, this model suggests that the universe was created "from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension." Where these worlds and extra dimensions came from is a mystery and no explanation is offered to account for them.
“The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The two three-dimensional worlds collide and ``stick," the kinetic energy in the collision is converted the quarks, electrons, photons, etc., that are confined to move along three dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot big bang phase begins without a singularity. The universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the big bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere."
Paul J. Steinhardt, Director of the Center for Theoretical Science & Professor of Physics, “A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe,” Princeton University.
The Cyclic Universe model picks up where the Ekpyrotic Model left off and suggests that the universe perpetually begins and ends in trillion year cycles. Ironically, instead of just one 'something from nothing' event, this requires the 'something from nothing' process to take place over and over again.
“According to this new idea, there was a big bang, but this was not the beginning of space and time. In fact, in the version proposed by Neil Turok and myself, the big bang has occurred myriad times in our universe’s past, repeating at regular intervals during which galaxies, stars, planets, and life form anew. The result is a “cyclic universe” in which cycles extend far into the past and into the future—and perhaps forever.”
Paul Steinhardt, “Does the universe repeat once every trillion years?: A Cyclic Universe,” July 2, 2007, Seed Magazine.
Then, there is the 'multiverse' or 'parallel universes' model. Varying slightly, there are several 'multiverse' models, but the following one hypothesizes that, because we don't understand time within space, there might be other universes out there and ours was probably not the first.
“We can’t say that the universe is part of something else. But that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m fitting in with a line of thought in modern cosmology that says that the observable universe is not all there is. It’s part of a bigger multiverse. The Big Bang was not the beginning …
So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there’s no arrow of time. There’s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other.”
Wired.com interview with Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist at Caltech, “What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory,” February 26, 2010.
In a different version of the 'mulitverse' model, this model was originally suggested in 2003 but has made a recent comeback. It goes like this:
"The idea centers on how matter and energy falling into a black could in theory come out a 'white hole' in another universe.”
Indiana University, “Our Universe Was Born in a Black Hole, Theory Says,” April 27, 2010, Space.com.
There are endless other models that attempt to explain the initial creation of space, time, energy, and matter but if the Big Bang Theory is so successful, why do scientists persist on inventing new models? Are they devised by creationists or intelligent design proponents in attempts to cast doubt on the Big Bang Theory? No, they're devised by secular scientists who realize the Big Bang Theory is seriously flawed and needs repair. Listen to the following comments reflecting the serious problems with the Standard Model of the Big Bang Theory:
From STAR Collaboration, UC Davis:
"According to theory, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang. However, if that were the case, the two kinds of matter would have canceled each other out, leaving nothing at all. Instead, the Big Bang yielded an observable universe made mostly of matter -- with rare and fleeting particles of antimatter. Physicists call this problem CP violation, and it is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics ...”
STAR Collaboration, UC Davis, “Strange Antihyperparticle Created,” March 30, 2010, Physorg.
From the Journal of Cosmology:
"There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a 'Big Bang' and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence."
Ashwini Kumar Lal, Ph.D., Deputy Adviser, Ministry of Statistics & Progrmme Implementation New Delhi, India, Journal of Cosmology: “Big Bang? A Critical Review,” January 20, 2010, Vol 6.
“The Big Bang model is not complete. For example, it does not explain why the universe is so uniform on the very largest scales or, indeed, why it is so non-uniform on smaller scales, i.e., how stars and galaxies came to be.”
NASA website, “Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: Beyond Big Bang Cosmology.”
Let's continue on and try to build the rest of the universe. According to the Big Bang Theory time line, the next step would be the creation of light elements, which are most often classified as hydrogen and helium-related elements that have a low atomic weight. If this seems complicated, you only need to follow the progression of items ... knowing exactly what they are is not necessary.
The following is the standard explanation for the origin of light elements from NASA. It claims that;
“The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time."
NASA website, “Universe 101: Tests of Big Bang.”
While there are all sorts of elaborate scenarios that might make you think this process could occur and produce these elements, none are “based on naturally occurring phenomena” and this first step is the ultimate description of something coming from nothing.
There are no naturalistic explanations for how or what made temperatures rise to 10 billion degrees, or how neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, photons, and neutrinos spontaneously appear. The vague explanations for the origin of deuterium and helium are also not “based on naturally occurring phenomena” and then lithium appears out of nowhere.
Every explanation devised for the origin of light elements rely on supernatural forces that are "attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces,” so we'll add the origin of light elements as part of the 'something from nothing' belief.
Next, let's examine the origin of heavy elements, which are loosely defined as elements that are almost always metallic, have a higher atomic weight than hydrogen and helium, and are most often referred to collectively as 'dust grains', 'cosmic dust', 'interstellar dust', 'stellar dust', or just plain 'dust'.
Instead of evolving from a process that included lighter elements as believed in the recent past, most Big Bang followers now believe that heavy elements evolved from stars.
“So many problems plague the heavy-element scenario of primordial nucleosynthesis that it doesn’t seem viable ...
Astronomers now realize that better places for the creation of heavy elements are the stars themselves.”
Wright Center for Science Education website, Cosmic Evolution:Origin of Heavy Elements, “Primordial Nucleosynthesis” and “Stellar Nucleosynthesis” section.
But, all stars that exist today are known to contain heavy elements, so claiming that heavy elements evolved from stars is like the cart before the horse and does nothing to explain how they got into stars in the first place.
Here's the catch: It is believed that the very first stars, referred to as 'Population III' or 'protostars', didn't contain heavy elements but they somehow cooked them up later. Following that, real stars came after.
“The simulation reveals how pre-stellar gases would have actually evolved under the simpler physics of the early universe to form this protostar. Dr. Yoshida's simulation also shows that the protostar would likely evolve into a massive star capable of synthesizing heavy elements, not just in later generations of stars, but soon after the Big Bang.”
American Association for the Advancement of Science, “How The First Stars In The Universe Came Into Existence,” August 1, 2008, ScienceDaily.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science explains this process in more detail and suggests that, because the physics were simpler in the early universe, a simpler gas evolved first. They neglected to explain what these gases were or in what way the physics were simpler in order for this unknown phenomenon to occur.
Then, when gravity acted on these simpler gases, matter, and dark matter, protostars appeared and then grew into massive stars that “likely” synthesized heavy elements. How did they arrive at this conclusion? Without any empirical evidence that shows this process can or has ever occurred, they recreated their hypothesis in a state-of-the-art computer simulation and then declared it true.
Where are all these dustless stars now? Regardless of the endless excuses, the fact is that none have every been found, making the Big Bang Theory's explanation for the origin of heavy elements another addition to the 'something from nothing' belief. We'll also declare protostars as being officially missing.
“However, it should be noted that the search is on for Population III stars.”
AstronomyOnline website, “Stars: Stellar Populations.”
Let's examine other scenarios that attempt to explain how stars were originally created. The following scenario from NASA is the most mainstream explanation and claims that;
"As the universe inflated, the tiny quantum fluctuations grew to become tiny variations in the amount of matter from one place to another. A tiny amount is all it takes for gravity to do its thing ... The end result of the pull of gravity: galaxies, stars and planets."
NASA website, Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: “Understanding the Evolution of Life in the Universe: How did the universe start and evolve?”
This process is nothing but speculation and is clearly a supernatural process that is “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.” In a true sense of irony, though, NASA acknowledges that the Big Bang Theory lacks the “needed fluctuations” to even begin this process, so we can add the origin of stars to the 'something from nothing' belief.
“The Big Bang theory is widely considered to be a successful theory of cosmology, but the theory is incomplete. It does not account for the needed fluctuations to produce the structure we see."
NASA website, Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: “How Did Structure Form in the Universe?”
Big Bang followers also believe that new stars are still being created today, but this process is different and is not to be confused with how stars supposedly first evolved in the first place. Many believe that stars form within Nebulae, which are concentrated regions of gas clouds mixed with interstellar dust, i.e. heavy elements.
"The dust and debris left behind by novae and supernovae eventually blend with the surrounding interstellar gas and dust, enriching it with the heavy elements and chemical compounds produced during stellar death. Eventually, those materials are recycled, providing the building blocks for a new generation of stars and accompanying planetary systems."
NASA Science Astrophysics, “Stars: Star Formation.”
These clouds of gas and dust are thought to collapse when some force nearby creates energy around them, such as two clouds colliding. After collapsing, hundreds of 'protostars' (with dust) begin to form and then evolve into real stars. It's a nice story, but it has no evidence substantiating it and the physics supporting it are overwhelmingly problematic.
First, it is known that gas clouds expand in space, not compress, and some energy nearby might cause clouds to break-up, dissipate, or blow away, but not fall inward. Second, what would prompt free-flowing particles to spontaneously attract one another in order to begin the process of forming any structure of mass? The actual step of matter spontaneously clumping together to form mass has never been observed and the mechanism for this is yet unknown. (We'll be covering that issue in more detail shortly.) From an article in Scientific American, listen to why the theory of star formation is problematic:
"Although astronomers’ theory of star formation has advanced substantially in recent years, it still has serious holes. Stars form out of gaseous clouds that collapse, yet where do those clouds come from and what makes them collapse? ...
If there is anything you think astronomers would have figured out by now, it is how stars form ... It might seem that star formation is a problem that has been solved. But nothing could be further from the truth. The birth of stars remains one of the most vibrant topics in astrophysics today."
Erick T. Young, "Mysteries of How a Star Is Born: Making a star is no easy thing,” February 1, 2010, Scientific American.
While there are plenty of excuses given, such as the process takes too long to observe in real time or it is hidden behind clouds so we can't observe it, the bottom line is that the actual process of gases and dust forming stars has never been directly observed nor are any of the theories “based on naturally occurring phenomena.” Note that even the recent claims that radio telescopes have detected signs of 'in-falling gas', the detection of dust clumping together is always assumed, not actually recorded.
"We must continue our studies in this area to understand how the initially tiny protostar grows, layer by layer, to eventually form a massive star. But here, the physics become much more complicated and even more computational resources are needed."
American Association for the Advancement of Science, “How The First Stars In The Universe Came Into Existence,” August 1, 2008, ScienceDaily website.
And … if star formation is indeed occurring now, unless it is explained in naturalistic terms, it is still a supernatural event that would be “attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.”
Naturalistic explanations for the origin of planets are equally flawed. It is hypothesized that planets are formed by dust grains from stars, and this quote from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics's explains it as follows:
“Every planetary system forms in a thin disk of gas and dust orbiting a young star. Small dust grains, a micron or two in size, collide and merge into large aggregates that settle into the midplane of the disk. In the midplane, aggregates grow into planetesimals with diameters of roughly 1 km. Collisions between planetesimals produce planets. SSP scientists use theoretical calculations to understand how dust grains evolve and how planetesimals become planets.”
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Exploring The Universe, “Planet Formation.”
Recent research has discredited this hypothesis but another even more creative model has already replaced it. As with everything else so far, the origin of planets is just another part of the 'something from nothing' belief and listen to these comments refuting any theory that might suggest otherwise. From the European Southern Observatory:
“The new discoveries provide an unexpected and serious challenge to current theories of planet formation ...
“The new results really challenge the conventional wisdom that planets should always orbit in the same direction as their stars spin,” says Andrew Cameron of the University of St Andrews, who presented the new results at the RAS National Astronomy Meeting (NAM2010) in Glasgow this week."
European Southern Observatory, “Turning Planetary Theory Upside Down,” April 13, 2010.
“The formation of planets is one of the major unsolved problems in modern astrophysics.”
NASA Exoplanet Science Institute and University of Michigan, “How and When do Planets Form?” Astro2010 White Paper.
But, do you know what the ultimate punch line is to this? It is the fact that scientists can't figure out how ANY form of mass is created, whether now or in the past. This single issue is by far the biggest challenge to the Big Bang Theory and listen to these indicting comments from experts in the field of particle physics. From Stanford's National Accelerator Laboratory:
“We do not know what causes the fundamental particles to have masses.”
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, operated by Stanford University for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, “The Standard Model.”
From the European Organization for Nuclear Research:
“What is the origin of mass? Why do tiny particles weigh the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present, there are no established answers to these questions.”
European Organization for Nuclear Research website, “Why the LHC.”
The perplexing mystery of how and why some particles spontaneously form into mass and others don't, has prompted many scientists around the world to keep their eyes on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest and highest energy particle accelerator. This multi billion-dollar Collider is attempting to simulate the supposed conditions during the Big Bang by smashing subatomic particles into each other at high speeds.
“Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC.”
European Organization for Nuclear Research website, “The Large Hadron Collider.”
Believing that they can break down subatomic particles further into smaller fundamental particles, one of the things that physicists hope to discover is a particle that might help them figure out how structures of mass are formed. Confident that this hypothetical particle exists, it has been preliminarily named the Higgs boson particle, also referred to as the "God" particle because, without it, matter can't exist ... or isn't supposed to.
“More widely anticipated is the discovery of the Higgs particle -- sometimes inaptly called the God particle -- whose existence is postulated to explain why some matter has mass. Were it not for the Higgs, or something like it, the electrons in our bodies would behave like light beams, shooting into space, and we would not exist.”
University of California Santa Barbara, “What will the Large Hadron Collider reveal?” January 7, 2010, Physorg.
But, what if nature is purposely disrupting the Collider in order to keep its secrets from us? 'Sound far fetched? The following idea came from a couple of well-known physicists.
“A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.”
The New York Times, “The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate,” October 12, 2009.
Let's examine some of the problems with particles spontaneously clumping together to form mass.
It is known that elementary particles have an intrinsic angular momentum called spin and this spin is perpetual. So, even if particles somehow began to attract to one another, the spin motion within each of them would cause them to separate from each other, versus clumping together and compressing into a structure of mass.
“Every particle in the universe has a property called "spin", which can be loosely thought of as what happens to the particle when it is rotated.”
New Scientist Online: Physics & Math, “Knowing the mind of God: Seven theories of everything,” March 4, 2010.
Acknowledging that the spin problem is an obstacle that is difficult to overcome, a clever new model called the Internal Relativity model was devised to offset it. Without one bit of evidence supporting it, listen to this fanciful story:
“Dreyer's model imagines a system of spins existing independently of matter and arranged randomly. When the system reaches a critical temperature, the spins align, forming an ordered pattern.”
Michael Marshall, “Knowing the mind of God: Seven theories of everything,” March 4, 2010, New Scientist.
Then, there's the problem with gravity. Simply put, there is no naturalistic explanation for its origin and no one has been able to accurately define the driving force behind it or why it works the way it does. New theories attempting to explain it are constantly being devised but with no success. Listen to the problem when attempting to put gravity into an all encompassing theory.
From the contemporary Physics Education Project:
“Gravity is weird. It is clearly one of the fundamental interactions, but the Standard Model cannot satisfactorily explain it. This is one of those major unanswered problems in physics today.”
The Particle Adventure website funded by Contemporary Physics Education Project, “The fundamentals of matter and force: Gravity.”
"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."
Dave Mosher, Greatest Mysteries: “What Causes Gravity?” August 10, 2007, LiveScience.
From the New Scientist:
“Part of the problem with unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is what happens to gravity at small scales. The closer two objects are to each other, the stronger the gravitational attraction between them; but gravity also acts on itself, and as a result, at very small distances a feedback loop starts. According to conventional theories the force should then become ridiculously strong – which means there's something wrong with the conventional theories.”
Michael Marshall, “Knowing the mind of God: Seven theories of everything,” March 4, 2010, New Scientist.
One explanation for the force of gravity is that mass emits tiny particles called gravitons that carry a force of attraction but have no mass or charge. Just imagine, though, the delicate balance, or should we say control that gravitons would have to have so that only some particles are attracted to each other instead of an unlimited force of attraction that would continue to clump all particles in an exponential and uncontrolled process.
“In addition, the gravity force carrier particle has not been found. Such a particle, however, is predicted to exist and may someday be found: the graviton.”
The Particle Adventure funded by Contemporary Physics Education Project, “The fundamentals of matter and force: Gravity.”
This would make it fascinating to see how one might explain the graviton's origin … assuming, of course, they ever find it. Along with the Higgs particle, we'll mark the graviton down as also missing.
Proposed by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, it is also believed that gravity causes objects of large mass to distort space and time around them. These distortions or fluctuations in space and time are thought to be mediated by tiny vibrations of energy, called gravitational waves. They fan out like ripples in water further distorting space and time, the force getting weaker as the waves travel outwards from their source. But, gravitational waves haven't been found yet either, so we'll put them on the missing list, too.
"If we find gravitational waves, everyone gets very excited and Einstein has another feather in his cap - but that's it," he says. If, on the other hand, gravitational waves do not exist, not only will general relativity need some significant revision, but our entire idea of how things came together in the cosmos will need a rethink. "We would have ruled out the whole hierarchical model of galaxy formation," says Hobbs. "We would be back to square one."”
New Scientist, “Space, Cosmic clocks: Relativity's final test,” March 17, 2010, About.com:Physics.
Contradicting Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that theorizes that the expansion of the universe is slowing, now most Big Bang followers believe that the universe is expanding outwards at an accelerating rate. But, if gravity causes mass to be attracted to other forms of mass, what would cause it to change directions and instead move outwards towards nothing?
“So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it ...
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy.”
NASA Science Astrophysics website, Big Questions: “Dark Energy, Dark Matter.”
To address this dilemma, the Big Bang Theory added another hypothetical component called “dark energy,” which is believed to be an opposing repulsive force that pushes forms of mass away from each other. But, considering that approximately 70% of the universe is believed to be this “dark energy,” isn't it interesting that it's waiting to be found? We'll add this to the missing list.
Thinking that it would be nice to have something that emits 'dark energy', particles called 'chameleon' particles have been proposed. These particles can supposedly “change their mass depending upon the local environment.” That would be a great trick and very ingenious of the particles, don't you think? Yes, we'll mark them down as missing, too.
“According to the chameleon model, dark energy stems from particles that change their mass depending upon the local environment.”
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, “Chameleon model tries to explain the origin of dark energy,” December 20, 2010, Physorg.
So, if the universe really is expanding outward, what is it expanding into? We're told that it's nothing that we can see and it's not a “profitable thing to think about." But the very reason that all this nonsense is believed by many shows that we need more critical thinking, not less.
“Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about.”
Wright Center for Science Education website, Cosmic Evolution:Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: "What is the Universe expanding into?" section.
To help you see what a mess this all is, let's take a trip into the universe and view it from a macro level. For the sake of time, this brief overview is obviously simplified and doesn't even begin to explore the complexities of the universe. Let's start with the Milky Way.
There are an estimated 200 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, with over half of them orbiting each other in pairs, each pair orbiting around the Milky Way's galactic center.
“More than half of all stars are binary stars, or two stars that are bound by their mutual gravitational attraction, with each star orbiting around the center of mass.”
"Top 10 Star Mysteries: Singles Club?," #7, Space.com
Go to #7 on http://www.space.com/24-top-10-star-mysteries.html
Other stars may be grouped together in 'open' or 'globular' clusters, each cluster orbiting around the galactic center.
“This is what is known as a Star Cluster, by definition, a group of stars that share a common origin and are gravitationally bound for some length of time.”
Matt Williams, “Star Cluster,” November 11, 2010, Universe Today.
Contradicting predictions made by Big Bang theorists, galaxies are known to be unevenly distributed in space and their rotational spin does not uphold commonly held physic principles.
“According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges … However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk - as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other.”
Vlad Tarko, Senior Science Editor, Programme coordinator at Centre for Institutional Analysis and Development, Romania, “Stars escaping out of the Galaxy,” Softpedia.
Galaxies come in all sizes, they exist alone, in pairs, or are grouped together in clusters that have dozens or thousands of other galaxies in them.
“And so, galaxy clusters are made up of galaxy groups. They’re large collections of thousands of galaxies held together by mutual gravitational attraction.”
Frazier Cain, “Galaxy Cluster,” May 6, 2009, Universe Today.
Each galaxy cluster has its own center of gravity which individual galaxies orbit around.
“Galaxies within a cluster are generally considered to be bound together by their mutual gravitational pulls. They each orbit around their common center of mass.”
Nova Online, “Runaway Universe: Galaxies, Clusters, and Superclusters,” PBS.
And within each galaxy cluster is a strange plasma structure that connects all the galaxies to each other.
"Galaxies are connected by a rarefied plasma that is thought to posses a cosmic filamentary structure, which is slightly denser than the average density of the Universe. This material is known as the intergalactic medium, and it's mostly made up of ionized hydrogen. Astronomers think that the intergalactic medium is about 10 to 100 times denser than the average density of the Universe."
Frazier Cain, “Intergalactic Space,” May 4, 2009, Universe Today.
Galaxy clusters also make-up superclusters, with some superclusters having 100 galaxy clusters within them.
"On an even grander scale are the superclusters, large assemblies of galaxy groups and clusters, located at the intersections of sheets and filaments in the wispy cosmic web.”
European Space Agency, “Planck's First Glimpse at Galaxy Clusters Uncovers a New Supercluster,” September 16, 2010, ScienceDaily.
So, how does the Big Bang Theory explain gravitational anomalies like these pockets of matter separated and yet contained within smaller pockets of matter?
Enter “dark matter." Even though it's invisible and no one knows what it is nor can it be directly detected, Big Bang followers believe that "dark matter" accounts for approximately 80% of all the matter in the universe and about 23% of the entire universe. How do they know this? They don't.
“What is the nature of the "dark matter", this mysterious material that exerts a gravitational pull, but does not emit nor absorb light? Astronomers do not know.”
NASA, Universe 101 Big Bang Theory: “What is the Universe Made Of?”
The only thing Big Bang followers know is that something out there is needed to explain all these gravitational anomalies, so, like their other missing components, they just gave it a name, declared it more than likely true, and are now spending billions of dollars trying to find it.
Listen to what an absolute conundrum this presents to the Big Bang followers and why “dark matter” is added to the missing list:
First, from Columbia University:
“The findings show that dark matter, which is believed to make up 83 percent of the matter in the universe, is more elusive than many had hoped...
Scientists first suggested the existence of dark matter in the 1930s to explain how galaxies keep from breaking apart as they spin. Like merry-go-rounds, galaxies generate centrifugal force as they rotate. Gravity is the glue that holds stars and galaxies together, but there isn't enough visible matter in the universe to generate the amount of gravity needed to keep galaxies from tearing apart. That's why scientists believe there must be additional, unseen matter out there.”
Columbia University, “Highly Sensitive Dark Matter Experiment Disproves Earlier Findings,” May 6, 2010, Physorg.com.
“Dark matter is invisible and nobody even knows what it is, but it is evident by the fact that galaxies hold together at all. Some unseen substance lurks in space — concentrated in galaxies — and generated gravity in amounts well beyond the visible matter.”
NASA, “Galaxies Protected by Dark Matter,” March 12, 2010, Space.com.
We could go on and on with more of the 'something from nothing' premise and its missing components. But, whether it is the Big Bang Theory, or ANY other evolutionary-based theory, NONE of them can be reconciled with known physic principles and empirical evidence … let alone reason. And, by definition, each and every one of them is nothing but a supernatural explanation disguised as 'naturalistic'.
Sadly, it is in the rebellious nature of many of us that will cause us to reject the Truth of the Genesis Account of Creation and its supernatural beginnings and existence.
“In the beginning God created ...”
God knew that this would happen and referred to it when He declared, “See to it that one one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.”
Regardless of the lack of evidence, Big Bang followers continue to place their faith in the promise that they can someday prove nothing can actually create something. While we are all free to believe in whatever we wish, we are not free to choose the consequences of that belief.
“And as it is appointed onto man, once to die and, after this, the judgment.”
The bottom line is this: If you reject God's Word, you have rejected Jesus. This Truth is not just in the first verse of the Bible, nor does it end with the Old Testament. Jesus as The Creator, and your Creator, is proclaimed throughout the Bible.
“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”
Yes, this is about faith … and salvation. Heaven or Hell.
“ … for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
God's grace or man's delusion that he can save himself from His Creator's judgment.
“ ... he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”
Please consider your soul today
Produced by Who Is Your Creator
Narration by Carol Osnes
Edited by Samuel Henderson
In Memory of Donald Herkenhoff
“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.”