Science is Broken

Gary Novak


Page List

Peer Review 
Junk Science
What Science is
Superficial Science

Big Bang
Intelligent Design
Earth's Core
Windmill Efficiency


Big Bang Theory

It gets more absurd all the time.


A recent news item is that physicists have now measured the existence of inflation by detecting its gravity waves. Inflation means the big bang expanded from its point or origin to the size of the universe in almost zero time, which means laws of physics did not exist. How can there be gravity waves without laws of physics? It's totally contrived fraud.

The frauds are trying to imply that all laws of physics continued to exist during inflation, but everything expanded real fast. Change the distance inside an atom by one percent, and the universe no longer exists. Change the distance between atoms by one percent, and molecules no longer exist. Change the distance between planets by one percent (and not the velocity), and the solar system no longer exists. Did distance not change? What distance changed? It all would have to change by nine times the quadzillionth, quadzillionth, quadzillionth power. Why didn't nuclear reactions occur when atoms were closer together. You get more than gravity waves out of nuclear reactions.


Galaxies supposedly moved to their present vicinity instantly before the laws of physics began.

For several decades, physicists said the universe is 13.8 billion years old, because light from the most distant objects which they can see takes that long to get to earth. But they also said it started at a central point as a big bang. They forgot to account for the time required for matter to get where it is now. So recently, they said matter got to its present location in zero time, and they call it inflation rather than motion.

There are no laws of physics without time and distance. Yet physicists tell us what happened during each instant of the universe forming. Isn't that sorcery, when there are no laws of physics?

They are also saying the size of the universe is 46 billion light years (BLY) radius. This means it's just a coincidence that the age of the universe is the same as the time required for the most distant light to be picked up by current telescopes at 13.8 billion years.

Time and distance cannot be reduced by half and still have a galaxy or an atom, let alone reduced by a huge proportion. Physicists claim subatomic particles did all of this. Those particles don't need time and distance? They produce force and are influenced by force. Physical force is always distance dependent. Why did the ones in the center travel/inflate very little distance and form atoms and galaxies, while the outer ones traveled/inflated 46 billion light years before forming atoms and galaxies? Contrived fraud is the only reason.


Physicists painted themselves into a corner in their incremental development of the big band theory, and it forced them into an extremely absurd end point.

They first based the theory on the simplest logic. Everything seemed to be moving away from the Earth, as if it were an expanding explosion. Then they set distances based upon the speed of light. But when they added everything together, there wasn't enough time for matter to travel to its present location. So they said it got there almost instantly, and then the laws of physics began.

Why didn't the laws of physics begin when matter got half way to its present location? What caused the laws of physics to begin? The whole purpose is to deny the existence of a creator.

Physicists base their claim that the entire universe started at a very small point on a red shift in light. Red shift means spectral lines are located more toward the longer side than usual. It usually results from motion away from the observer. Since the more distant galaxies show more red shift, they are assumed to be moving away faster than closer ones. Supposedly, an explosion would do this, hence the big bang theory.

But there are some quirky red shifts, such as quasars showing more than usual, while they cannot be that far away. A more logic explanation is that light loses energy when traveling for billions of years. One cause could be resistance in the ether which light travels through. Another cause could be "the Compton effect," which means matter which light contacts reduces its energy.

The total context shows that there was no big bang. The distance problem is an example. Physicists claim the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. When they look at a galaxy which is 13.8 billion light years away, they say they see it shortly after the universe began. How did it get that far away in such a short amount of time? If it traveled at the speed of light, it would have taken 13.8 billion years to get that far away from the earth in addition to the 13.8 billion years for the light to get to earth. It doesn't add up. One tenth the speed of light would be a more realistic velocity for matter to travel. It would then have taken 138 billion years to get that far from the earth.

To fix that contradiction, physicists contrived a bit of absurdity called inflation, which means the universe expands instead of objects moving. Then objects can separate without moving. This is after denying that there is anything in space. Emptiness cannot expand without being something.

The inflation concept adds more contradictions. The closest objects would have been expanding by inflation, just as the more distant objects. This means every star in the Milky Way Galaxy, which Earth is a part of, would need to be more than 13.8 billion light years apart at this time, and the Milky way would be invisible.

To get "inflation" to work, it had to magically put everything where it is now located in near zero time—some things moving a long distance, and some things moving a short distance. Inflation had to work like the hand of God, in zero time and without laws of physics. It only differs from God in being spelled differently.

It is obvious from observations that everything in the universe is about where it always has been, and it doesn't move very much. But physicists cannot explain how it got there. They have a terrible need to justify their atheism by denying that God could have create galaxies and stars where they are, so they synthesize absurdities to prove that it didn't happen. Trying to prove that God did not do what he did is not science, it's corrupt religion. Religion needs to stay out of science. This means that if science cannot determine how the universe got where it is, there is no justification in contriving absurdities such as the Bing Bang Theory to explain it.

Part Two: Cosmic Inflation

Inflation is the term physicists are using to explain how all matter went from an infinitesimally small point to the size of the universe in near instant time. It means nothing moved with velocity, while the universe expanded causing pre-matter to separate.

This is a new method of science, where laws of nature are changed without a physical phenomenon existing to explain it. It is a principle synthesized out of words without a basis in laws of nature.

At question are two methods of changing location. Elsewhere in science, change of location is called motion, which is quantitated as velocity. The new method of changing location does not involve motion. How do you tell whether motion is involved or not? There is no natural phenomenon to indicate which method of changing location applies. The only determining factor is whether one is trying to rationalize the big bang.

Big bang creates a need for pre-matter to change location, while normal concepts of motion cannot be used, because nothing can move that fast. So a new concept was created saying location changes without motion. It's creating a concept for rationalization purposes with no natural phenomenon as the basis.

This result stems from the motive of disproving a creator. Atheists in physics claim that the big bang theory proves that random motion created the universe instead of God. As evidence increases to indicate that galaxies were created in approximately their present location, physicists add rationalizations to the big bang theory instead of admitting they are wrong. They are at a point of making a mockery of science instead of admitting that proof is proof.

Conceptual Problems

With explosions, matter is not uniformly distributed. It blows away from the center, as in this image. If earth is located in the rest of the matter, everything is not uniform around it. There is more distance in different directions.

But the big bang is not exploding pre-existing matter; it is creating matter. Maybe the matter is more uniformly distributed while being created, as in this image.

Why would some of the matter have moved away from the center at a different rate than other matter?

Why would the earth be in the center? The statistical probabilities would be zillions to one that the earth would not be in the center. Yet physicists claim everything moves away from the earth uniformly, as if the earth were in the center of the universe. The most logical explanation is that nothing is significantly moving away from the earth; the appearance results from other causes of the red shift than a doppler effect.

An expansion cannot account for differential distribution. Why didn't the galaxies expand as the universe expanded? All of the components have to exist before they can expand. And they all have to have their same relationships before the expansion. If galaxies were created after the expansion, what was it that expanded? And it all supposedly occurred in fractions of a second, which means laws of physics did not exist. Physicists supposedly explain it without laws of physics. What subject are they using without laws of physics besides witchcraft.

Criticisms of Big Bang (outside links)
  Thompson, Harrub & May
  Van Flandern