Big-Bang

At the present time, the Big-Bang is the heavyweight champion theory of the universe. Most scientists accept it as the scientific explanation most likely to be true. Most scientists believe that this explanation has currently knocked out all of the serious contenders. They would believe that, while needing some points of clarification, the Big-Bang theory most closely fits all of the experimental data.

Strangely enough, most non-scientistists have their doubts about the Big-Bang. Very few people I've talked to believe the big bang will hold up over time. Probably less than 30% of the general public believes in the Big Bang theory.

The Big-Bang theory predicts that the universe started off some 15-20 billion years ago, from either absolutely nothing, or an assumed singularity.

If the universe started off from absolutely nothing, then everything we now find in the universe was due to some properties of space and time abhorring a vacuum. Some have speculated that the quantum flux vacuum (nothingness) had so much potential energy that, after the beginning, an expansion occurred, during which, all matter and energy existing nowadays popped-up. [The C-R theory may speculate that these individuals who proposed this made out like bandits from the tooth-fairy, too.]

If, on the other hand, the universe was created from a singularity, here is one scenario. A singularity (from somewhere?) existed. This singularity consisted of a gravitationally collapsed point of some amount of matter-energy. At some instant in time, out (or up) from that location, an event called the Big Bang started. As a consequence of that event, from the initial starting conditions, everything arose which we find in the universe today.

The Big Bang theory essentially was derived by taking the present universe, with all that we observe, and time-reversing all events seen today. Since the universe gives the impression that it is expanding, the time reversed universe should be collapsing. Without some good scientific reason to believe otherwise, as we imagine that the time and the age of our Universe are reversed; the matter and energy of our Universe are assumed to have come together at one nearly-infinitely dense physical point at one instant in time, and for one event.

The C-R theory detects a problem with this scenario: it incorporates too much wishful thinking. Reversing the events, up to a limit, is fine. Once that limit is exceeded, the starting conditions and the reasons for the start-up become obscured in the standard Big-Bang model.

The increasing red-shift in objects which appear to be further away is one of the first phenomenon encountered which appears to support the Big Bang theory. For this reason, most scientists unquestionably believe that the universe today appears to be expanding. A potential problem exists. The C-R theory maintains the standard gravitational time-warping could also slow down time. This would also give the farthest components near the outer edge of the universe the reddest appearance.

After George Gamow first proposed a theory of an exploding, expanding universe, he predicted that the remnant from this first, energetic spectrum might still be detected echoing around. This spectrum should be highly red-shifted.

Unknown to theoreticians at that time, two workers from Bell labs, Arno and Penzias had already measured a mysterious microwave radiation equuivalent to 2.7K coming uniformly from every direction in the sky. This was lower than the 10-15K microwave radiation teams were searching for.

The uniform nature of the background radiation in every direction suggested the spectrum originated from the outer reaches of the universe and the very beginning of time. Once the predicted redshifted energy was indeed discovered, it was (almost) unquestionably accepted that the expansion of the universe was true.

The CR theory agrees that any expansion can account for some of the observed red-shift. Another possible explanation, ignored by conventional theories, is that the universe is not (rapidly) expanding, but gravitationally time-slowed. The trouble is - the gravitational redshift could easily produce exactly the same observed effect, over a short period of time.

Both any ongoing expansion, and the normal, time-slowdown in a more intense, (more bent, more warped) gravitational curvature could, in fact, be contributing to the overall appearance of the redshift in the universe. This leaves a dilemma. Is there any way in which we can conclusively say: By how much is the universe expanding and/or to what extent is the timeframe slowed-down?

The C-R theory says no, there is no immediate way to easily tell if the universe is only expanding, and by how much? Unfortunately, over the comparatively short measuring period of a few years or decades, the changes which would differentiate between the relative contributions from two causes might not show up, and if they did, the differences might be so subtle as to be masked entirely.

While the C-R theory does not absolutely forbid that the universe is rapidly expanding, we suspect (and predict) that at least some, if not most (or all) of the red-shift seen will be found to occur because of the gravitational red-shifting.

The conventional basis for the determination of the age of the universe has been thoroughly pummelled by the C-R theory knockdown of at least four basic assumptions. Lesser assumptions were that the entire expansion has been somewhat linear from the beginning of time, and that the far-away objects measured were producing energy at nearly the same rate as similar objects in our part of our galaxy.

Since the speed of recession (or expansion) has been called into question, now we will throw in the additional monkey-wrench of the time slowdown. If some of the far away, red-shifted objects observed are indeed slowed down to only 10% of our real-time rate, (which we experience here, in this part of our galaxy), then the brightness and distance estimates which have been painstakingly worked out over the years are questionable, too.

Notice that this line of inquiry has possibly knocked the pillars out from under the two most important key assumptions used to compute the age and size of the observable universe. Therefore, the methods used to compute distance, speed and light-travel time, the present size of the universe, and it's age may be seriously flawed. A preliminary, uncalculated guess would be that both the age and the size of the universe were seriously overestimated. (The possibility exists, that, even if all of our new lines of inquiry were followed-up, the newly calculated age and size may be close to current estimates.)

A best guess might suggest that the objects nearer to the edge of the observable universe were nearly as young, (time wise), as the age they appear to be. Additionally, that they were dim, due less to the immense distance to be covered than to the slowed-down nature of their environment. Even worse, if the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle held-up, the light reaching us might have been delayed in it's speed, causing an even lower estimate of the real age and brightness of the most distant objects observable. Strictly a guess, but from the suspected amount of errors, less than a Billion light-years in diameter and in age1.

Until new determinations can be worked out, or unless the clues exist in present data, I would fear that we could not reliably speculate on either the age or size of the universe at the present time. This will have to await further research before we can hazard an accurate guess. (For an unsubstantiated guess, see above.)

The present Big Bang theories would predict: if the universe was still increasing in size; as the universe expanded, the outer velocities would increase with the size of the universe. This would be due to the Hubble constant, which demands that the farthest out galaxies expand at the fastest rate. On the other hand, if the universe was neatly closed, the velocities would stay the same and/or the velocities would be decreasing somewhat, if the universe was slowed in it's expansion by the imminent inward pull of gravitation.

C-R theory possible prediction scenarios.

Here are a few possible scenarios which the C-R theory would predict. The outer portion of the observable universe could still be expanding, due to the initial impetus (or push) from the positive, self-repelling charges released at the start of the Big-Bang. Until enough of the positive charges met up with their long lost negative companions to re-neutralize the matter, the acceleration would increase. Otherwise, their mutual gravitational pull and simple friction from collisions would slow these charges down again.

If the matter in this outer edge portion of the universe was stationary, then the red-shift would be entirely due to the gravitational time slowdown. The outer matter of the universe should be steady in it's redshift, and the rate of redshift would not change.

An additional consideration is: if the matter at the edge of the universe approached a more intensely curved space-time, there would be a greater amount of red-shifting over time. This would occur if the matter had some outward velocity, and drifted into more intensely time-slowed down space.

Since the gravitational timeshift (or slowdown) would be the most intense in this outer region, we would expect objects here to be very much dimmer, and very much younger than would be predicted by conventional theories. Conventional theories say that the reason these objects appear to be so young is that it has taken light so long to traverse the enormous distances. We supposedly are observing objects that existed billions of years ago, and which are likely to have long-ago either vanished or evolved into more normal, mainstream stars and galaxies.

The C-R theory says that, the best reason these objects appear to be as young and as dim is that they still are very young and they are also dim because they are time-slowed down. When they produced their light, up through today, these objects are only aging at 10% of the aging rate on Earth (for a 90% red-shift.)

If time slowdown is the only true cause of the red-shift, then both the size and the age of the universe may have been seriously overestimated. In other words, not only are we seeing these edge-of-the-universe objects at an early stage in their life, but that these objects are still much younger than conventional theories would allow. This means that there may not necessarily be the huge (15-20 billion year) delay as a gap between the generation of light and the moment of observation by us, here on Earth. This also implies that the vast distances imagined by the Big-Bang to be filled by this universe may be considerably less vast (yet still wondrously impressive.)