Modern Myths - The Big Bang Theory

Science has become the new religion in America having, as does the more familiar brand, an ideaology that members of acadême are required to endorse or be labelled " heretics " and miss out on all the generous funding. The new religion borrows heavily from the old one and tries to justify its faulty belief systems. The Big Bang Theory is probably the best known of these attempts a looking like science. The BBT is pseudo-science, completely false, and is based on Creationism's " literal " interpretation of the Bible. In this case it's the first verse of Genesis, Chapter One.
" When God created the heaven and the earth, the world was without form and void, and the spirit of God moved across the abyss. " This verse, probably the most troublesome collection of words ever assembled, has been taken to mean that nothing existed before this great event: the Creation. The Ignorant power-seekers expanded this idea into a preposterous fantasy worthy of the borthers Grimm and fed it to the Easily-Convinced, who gobbled it up whole and still profess to believe in the " something from nothing " ideaology.
A strong structure needs no supports. Creationism identifies itself as a weak structure in that it needs further support to " justify " itself. Truth is its own justification, a strong structure that can always standon its own. But Creationism needed the appearance of science to counter critics who expressed serious doubt on several counts; that God would act impetuously, that what was before wasn't perfect ( else why change it? ); that God couldn't have existed prior to this Creation thing as there would have been nowhere to be, and nothing to work with; that God made Adam and Eve in " His own image and likeness " but they sinned anyway, thanks to the interference of a talking snake. The attempt to justify Creation through scientific means has produced results as preposterous as the initial thesis. It certainly isn't science.

Scientific investigation may be thought of in two ways; investigations by scientists wearing white coats and working in laboratories, or by anyone using the Scientific Method. Deductive logic is the process of examining evidence and formin conclusions based on that evidence. The Big Bang starts with the conclusion and then tries to gather evidence in support of that conclusion. It's science worked backwards. Not only that but it lacks the one starting point of all scientfic investigation: The Compelling Cause.

The Compelling Cause is the motivation behind every investigation of any kind: it is when;
Something is seen from a subjective viewpoint and attracts attention,
Something appears that wasn't there before,
Something was there is no longer there and has been replaced by something else, or is missing altogether,and
Something that was present in one state or condition has changed.
Some examples:

Imagine when man first encountered fire. More than likely it was a tree ignited by a lightning strike and a small band of hunter-gatherers happened upon the scene. They would certainly would have been mesmerized by the sight, and upon closer investigation, finding it to be a source of light and warmth they obviously decided it was something they wanted. How to transport it from one place to another would have been the first item on their list; what burns and what doesn't would be second, and how to make it happen when desired and make it go away when no longer needed would also be an item to consider. Fire science is still a major discipline.
Consider the Iron Age blacksmith who twists a few strands of iron together and hammers out a shiny new sword. But then, in a short while this magnifience work begins to show signs of a red, powdery substance, and little black holes ( pits ).The compelling cause here is to discover why this is happening and devising a way to avoid it. From this grew the science of metalurgy.
Imagine now that a scientist of perhaps the 17th Century is studying caterpillars, and has five in a big glass enclosure. The furry little multi-legged creatures have lots of leaves to munch on as they crawl around on the twigs that bear the leaves.
Our scientist is taking careful notes of everything he sees and feels that he is getting to know quite a bit about caterpillars. Then he is called away on another and is absent from his lab for two weeks. When he returns the caterpillars are gone!
Some dirty prankster has stolen his caterpillars and replaced them with - of all things - MOTHS! Well, that's what he might think at first, but in time he would find that caterpillars eventually turn either into moths or butterflies.

Now let us examine the Big Bang in terms of Compelling Cause. It fails the first requirement in that it is not subjective: Whether the universe came in to being suddenly or was already there doesn't affect my state of being in the least. The second requirement also, since no one has ever experienced a condition of no universe. It's always been there to us.
The Big Bang is also logically false in that it begs the question: assuming the conclusion to be true in the absence of any hard evidence. It is only after this a priori conclusion that the evidence has been gathered. True evidence points in the opposite direction: that the Big Bank is totally false, and two items should make the point.
A few years ago a team of astronomers headed by Wendy Freeman observed that the 12-million year-old universe contained stars that were 17-million years old. More recently there was an item on Yahoo! about a galaxy 13-billion lightyears away. The article stressed the point that that is were the galaxy was thirteen-billion years ago; if the Big Bang is true, then how did this galaxy get way out there a billion years before the big event? Then there is the matter of the Instanton.
Stephen Hawking was analysing the Big Bang, focusing on the events that " must " have occurred a millionth of a second after the explosion. He concluded that there was a key element missing, one without which the Big Bang could not happen. So he invented one: the Instanton, an element that was there when needed, then disappeared never to be seen again. It's very much like the retrograde motion of Mars. The Ptolemaic astronomers, anxious to preserve the Earth-centered universe, attributed this motion to epicycles, circular paths that the planet described along is pricipal orbit. But when the retrograde movement wasn't in evidence, neither were the epicycles! Shouldn't the planet have been wobbling along the whole time? Gravity was another topic upon which the scholars of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century got it wrong.
In Watchers of the Skies the German physicist Willi Ley tells the story. It seems that when isaac Newton concluded that the force of gravity is the product of the mass of an object and an acceleration, the equation: F = ma, the scholars of the time began to teach that gravity is a Constant Force. But expressing gravity so, making the force of gravity a constant, craeted a problem that wasn't discovered in time to keep it out of some text books. The problem is that the equation describes a mathematical area. If the force is held constant the either the mass or the acceleration would have to be the independent variable, the other therefore being the dependent variable. A change in one necessitates a proportional change in the other: as one get bigger, the other must get smaller. It's the same as an area of, say, 48 feet; is it six feet by eight feet, twelve by four, ninety-six feet by six inches? Who knows? Now, if the force of gravity is constant, then a small mass would plummet to the ground at the higher acceleration, while a 100-ton boulder would float to the ground like a feather. Gravity is an acceleration. More than that, gravity is not a primary force but a reactive one as we perceive it.
To understand this let us consider the all subsuming Law of the Universe, that elusive concept that ties all the laws of the universe together in a single, seamless whole. It's simple. The Law;

Energy is all there is. Because it is present in infinte supply, energy cannot combine with itself fully, but only in local situations. Accumulations of particles form centers of mass which in turn develop gravitational forces. These forces grow in intesity until the total concentration of matter is sufficient to ignite at the center. Then a star begins its dazzling life. In smaller concentrations, all formations being spherical, planets form from the superhot gases ejected from the parent star. AS these planets move farther away from the star they cool, form crusts, and then gravity as we experience it comes into play. Were the crust of the Earth not solid, everything on its surface would continue to approach the center of mass: the center of the Earth. So much for anti-gravity machines, another modern myth.