Is there any supporting evidence?
I am in the extremely lucky position of not being an expert in any one subject. I say lucky because, firstly, I have not been subjected to the institutional indoctrination into the cardinal 'laws of science', imparted by our formal educational process, and feel more than happy to question them, and secondly, because I don't rely on these Laws to earn a living, I am free to challenge them in the certain knowledge that it will have no financial ramifications for me. In other words, I won't get fired from my job for questioning the rules.
That having been stated, though, I still need to be able to back any hypothesis I come up with with evidence. I cannot expect to be taken seriously if I make claims that challenge the accepted norms and provide no supporting evidence to back those claims. This, unfortunately, is not the case for many theoretical physicists and mathematicians who can conjure up an equation based totally on conjecture, possibly using other conjectured equations as proof, and provide absolutely no real-world physical or observational evidence. That is a luxury not afforded to me. My big disadvantage in not having a formal qualification in these sciences is that I have to provide 'evidence' that backs any claims I make, and not evidence in terms of maths or algebra, but in terms of real-world and observable physical evidence.
So here, once again, I will repeat my title statement that will probably upset a lot of conventional theorists and say that the big bang never happened.
To support this statement I will ask readers here to picture an outwards moving explosion (a big bang) and to visualise where most of the matter always ends up. Then, I would ask the question of why, when it comes to the creation of the universe, everything appears to have worked the opposite way round.
 
Above are pictures of two galaxies. Pictured on the left is our closest galaxy, Andromeda. Being close in physical location means that Andromeda is close in age to our own Milky Way galaxy. On the right is a picture of one of the very oldest galaxies captured by the Hubble space telescope. When comparing the images the very first observation has to be that the older galaxy has a lot less matter and density. It has a more distinct spiral and more open spiral shape, but an important comparative element here is missing. Where are the other stars? Where is all the other matter?
Above is a picture of a supernova explosion in Cassiopeia A taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Note here that the central point source of the explosion has pushed the majority of matter to the outside edge. The internal region contains much less matter.
Taking this piece of observational evidence to its logical conclusion, and knowing how explosions work in space, then applying it to the Big Bang Theory, means that the majority of matter in our universe should be located in the farthest regions, the oldest, not the younger regions where we live. This would mean the oldest galaxies, having had both the greater time to form plus most of the matter available from the initial 'big bang' from which to form, should be super-massive and the whole region should contain more galaxies and stars than the younger regions. However, in reality, confirmed by physical observation, the oldest regions appear to have less galaxies and contain a lot less matter, not more. If our universe started from a single big bang, this would not be the case. The distribution of matter would look more like the picture of the supernova above.
If, instead of a Big Bang, we say that our universe formed, over time, from the rotating space between two other universes (dimensions) with different vibrational (energy) states, it would mean that over time the amount of energy transfer from the two universes would leak increasingly more matter-creating material into our universe over time. This would, in turn, mean that the older our universe became the more mass it would gained, meaning that in its very early stages there would have been a lot less than there is now.
Because of the directional rotation
of our universe, coupled to the fact that atoms have spin, the combination of the two forces create the common spiral form we see in most large (age-related) masses, like galaxies. However, time combined with less mass would also mean that the older galaxies would have less material in them (mass) and therefore posses a lower gravitational force, the matter in them being less cohesive. With less mass, overall, the matter in these older galaxies would be spread further apart. Also, because of the rotational direction on the universe and their greater age, and lower mass, the older galaxies would have a lot more time to establish a more distinct spiral shape. Younger (more recent) galaxies, by comparison, would have a lot more matter from which to form themselves, would be denser, and because the extra matter would provide more gravitation force the matter would be held in tighter spirals. These two factors appear to be confirmed through observation evidence and measurement.
|
...back