"Big Bang" Book Celebrates First Anniversary

And the Fall of the Big Bang Theory

Bryan Belrad
One year ago, in February of 2007, a book came out that challenged everything we thought we knew about how our universe came to be. "Testing the Big Bang" questioned the century-old dominant theory of scientific creation - the first work ever to examine ALL the evidence behind the theory objectively - and found it lacking.

Starting with the three main items of evidence, "Testing the Big Bang" examines the prediction of the chemical composition of the universe, the interpretations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the observed Cosmological Redshift.

To the first, the book shows that the universe's matter doesn't matter; most of the predictions were borrowed from Steady State Theory, and every other theory has essentially the same 'prediction', which, incidentally, was made after the rough quantities of the elements in the universe were already known. This prediction, while probably true, is neither a prediction, nor does it support the Big Bang.

Second, the CMB, the supposed 'afterglow' of the Big Bang, passes only a few tests required of the near-mythical 'relic radiation.' It fails many, many more.

Finally, the book shows how the observed redshift in the light of distant galaxies isn't a prediction either; it's the starting observation. What's more, the velocity component of Hubble's Law, which measures intergalactic distances by redshift, is an unfounded assumption. In fact, Hubble himself disproved that very assumption in the 1950's, but, just as the inventor of Bigfoot was ignored by fanatics once he exposed his hoax, the True Believers of the Big Bang paid Hubble's proofs no heed.

"Testing the Big Bang" goes on to examine the observations we've made in more recent years, and shows conclusively that they don't add up to a Big Bang universe - or even an expanding one.

Then, the book continues, addressing other common arguments like Olber's Paradox and the viability of metric expansion. It wraps up with an analysis of what kind of universe we might really live in, based on the sum of all the best information available today.

For more information, pick up your copy through Amazon, Lulu, or most of the major bookstores. Happy anniversary, and happy learning!

Published by Bryan Belrad

The mind behind Zero Sum Theory, author of best-selling fiction and non-fiction, see what else he's up to on Facebook.  View profile

4 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Norman S.4/27/2008

    How do you deal with people who say you don't know what you're talking about? There have to be a lot of them out there.

  • Bryan Belrad2/29/2008

    Thank you both! Yes, Destiny, the problems with the theory have bothered me since I was just a wee nipper-kin. For one, we need a high spatial curvature for the velocity interpretation of redshifts to work, a low curvature for the matter:space ratio to be rational, and, according to the CMB, we have a zero (or near zero) curvature. Hmmmm. Another fav: we can see galaxies redshifts of up to 7.6 (so far), which is only possible if the expansion of the universe is slowing, yet our best data says it is actually speeding up. I know what you're thinking. Why, oh, why didn't I take the BLUE pill?

  • Orchiolum2/29/2008

    Congratulations on this anniversary!

  • Destiny2/29/2008

    And a high five to you also! This is very interesting. I have always known there were inaccuracies!

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.