22) Problems of Big Bang Theory as Origin of Universe with reference to the timing of history  

(Checked Nov 2008)

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) was born as a result of Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding in 1929. BBT was initiated by the Belgium priest and cosmologist George Lemaître. It postulates that the origin of universe was started by the explosion of a primeval atom, which later evolved to be called the big bang "singularity". The story is very well known, there is no need to go into details here. So, has Big Bang Theory succeeded in explaining the real origin of the universe? I am afraid not! Because first of all, Big Bang does not explain the origin of its primordial singularity, and if Big Bang does not explain its own origin, then it does not explain the origin of the universe! We all know that Big Bang singularity is a hypothesis. Lemaître once said  "The primeval atom hypothesis is a cosmogenic hypothesis which pictures the present universe as the result of the radioactive disintegration of an atom".  Actually all things that evolve out of a hypothesis must still be hypothetical. However, science has the habit of trying to verify a hypothesis with experiments. That's fine! But there are certain limits. Firstly, experimental confirmation must be very precise and repeatable in numerous times, leaving no doubts whatsoever. Secondly, initial postulate must be at least realistic or credible and acceptable to logics and rationality. One criterion to fix this problem in science is that all mathematical calculations must be in real terms or real numbers, never in imaginary quantities. If one knows a certain hypothesis is not realistic or at least plausible to start with, then even the best experimental confirmations are never enough, because the brain never really accept it. Not until a channel of understanding is built between the hypothesis and rationality. There is a general consensus that the laws of physics should be elegant, simple and harmonious. These factors often act as excellent guides for pointing physics towards laws that might be valid and away from those that are false. An important writer once wrote "Beauty in any context is hard to define, but we all know it when we see it"... .   

Let me wedge in here a short but needful paragraph before I continue. The Big Bang model has become well known, and by some regarded as "the accepted" beginning of the universe, it was mainly due to one incident, which has heavily and vitally (perhaps fatally) supported it. It was the event of 1964 when two scientists, Robert W. Wilson and Arno Penzias found the famous Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB, or CMBR, or Relic Radiation) using a radio telescope with a horn antenna. Their measurement of some Microwaves in the cosmic realm was believed to have been created during the "early universe" at the time of Big Bang some 10 to 20 billions years ago, but still remain entirely untouched, unaltered and un-interfered after all that time (literally since the beginning if time), and therefore still floating freely and independently in our space amidst all other electromagnetic radiations that are continuously emitted from the galaxies and stars. It is believed to be the remnants of the original Big Bang early universe, hence they are referred to as "Relics" and regarded as the crucial evidence for BBT... 

I have written a detailed account describing how cosmic electromagnetic radiations or waves have been created in page #6. This page is devoted in describing not only how electromagnetic radiations are generated and formed; but also how they propagate with a 3-dimensional formation, i.e., electric and magnetic field components mutually induce each other at rights angles in rotation and in such a manner together they propagate perpendicular to the plane of the field. It also describes how the phenomena of "Interference" take place and how easily the energy of microwaves may be mixed, altered, superposed or subtracted by similar waves. In fact, microwaves are just a small part in the same huge electromagnetic radiation spectrum, including various radio waves, AM, FM, TV, Microwaves, X-ray, Infra-Red, Gamma Rays, etc., etc,, which are being constantly used, changed, interfered and mixed in daily bases. Therefore, it is not likely that microwaves alone should still remain intact and un-interfered in cosmic space and in our atmosphere for so many billion years... Please take a look at page #6.             

But has Big Bang Theory truly explained the expansion of universe? After all, that's how the theory got started... Bang! and voi la! There is your expansion! That's why English cosmologist Fred Hoyle coined the theory "Big Bang". Well, even that, I am afraid won't do either! There have been numerous arguments against the theory of Big Bang universe. Please read this InterNet Page http://www.cosmologystatement.org  which is an open letter signed by all sorts (multi-dozens) of scientists to the scientific community about their views on and against the Big Bang theory. I also recommend the page "Big Bang cosmology meets an astronomical death", by Dr. Paul Marmet. The newest over whelming discoveries during the last few years by teams of astrophysics are actual telescopic observations showing that galaxies are receding away with greater speed than before, in fact, faster than the speed of light, therefore, the expansion of the universe has acquired a new name ever since. It is generally referred to now as the "Accelerating Universe", and has already become a decisive consensus among astronomers.  

If there had been a big bang, even after the hypothetical Inflation, then the expansion of universe could only have slowed down with the passing of time, due to the gravitation of masses in the universe. Now Accelerating Universe shows that galaxies are flying apart from each other in increasing speeds. This means, firstly, the forces that drive galactic motion do not come from a single point origin, such as the Big Bang singularity, but they come from each galaxy separately! That's why all galaxies are seen to shows red shift, because they are all going away from us, otherwise, in the case of  Big Bang or Inflation, some galaxies would be seen to come our way, showing blue shift. Secondly, the increased speed of mutual recession between galaxies means that there is a continuous exertion of additional forces from the individual galaxies. This of course cannot be the scenario of a big bang explosion, or Big Bang Inflation, because the big bang explosion cannot produce continuous additional force to accelerate the motion of neighboring galaxies. And thirdly, such continuous additional forces must be electromagnetic ration waves, because galaxies do generate and radiate electromagnetic waves and only wave energy can propagate and transmit energy through great distances. Our Regenerating Universe Theory here explains in great details how electromagnetic force in waves are generated by all galaxies (see page #6) as against BBT, which simply presumes that the existence of electromagnetic radiation waves in the universe is purely a natural condition. In other words, it just happens to be there, despite the fact that electromagnet wave is an extremely finely and beautifully structured waveform in continuous and progressive wavelengths and frequencies, which is not likely to be produced by a violent explosion!.           . 

Besides, for every event, or consequence, there is always a cause. What then causes the Big Bang Singularity to exist and to explode?... Science is always dedicated to finding out the causes of what happens, and never to violate the Principle of Causality... Therefore, the recent discovery by astronomers has decisively taken the usefulness out of the Big Bang theory, since it can neither explain the origin of universe, not even its own singularity, nor can it explain the expansion of the universe, for which it was brought into existence. As Big Bang has obstructed the emergence of new ideas long enough, many scientists are saying why waste any more costly time, energy and money arguing about big bang theory, which is plagued with insurmountable difficulties..... Let me quote an example from a passage from the book "The Cult of the Big Bang. Was there a bang?" ISBN: 0-9643188-0-6 by William C. Mitchell ( to whom I have also given my earlier booklet, also called "Regenerating Universe" in 1998) :-

".... Of science and philosophy it is said that entities are not to be postulated beyond necessity. The following list is presented as an illustration of some concepts of modern BBT (Big Bang Theory) that may have been postulated beyond necessity and some of the associated BBT problems (in alphabetical order). 

Age Problems, Anthropic Principle, Background Radiation Problems, Big Bang Everywhere, Center of the Universe Problem, Chaotic Inflation, Chronology Problems, Collapsing Universe, Conservation of Mass/Energy, Convergence Problem, Copernican Principle, Copernican Problem, enormous Cosmic Repulsion, Cosmic String and Sheets, Cosmological Principle, Curved Space, Cycling Universe bounce Problem, Deceleration Problem, Domain Walls, Exotic CDM, Expanding Space, Fine-tuning,  Flatness Problem (Critical Mass/density), gigantic Galactic Formation, Grand Unified Theory, Gravitational Red Shift, The Great Coincidences of the Dimensionless Constant, the Great Event (Decoupling), Homogeneity, Horizon Problem, Inflation (Exponential Expansion), Isotropy, Light Element Problems, Magnetic Monopoles, Many Worlds, Missing Mass, Multiple Domains and Universes, Negative Energy of Gravity, New 10^1, 000,000 Inflation, Quasar Problems, Singularity (Cycling or One Shot), Smoothness Problem, Speed-of-Light Problem, Superluminal Flares, Symmetry Breaking, Theory of Everything, gigantic Vacuum Fluctuations, and Zero Net Energy... (The above list contains 48 major problems)

If ever a crop was ripe for William of Occam's razor, this is the time for harvest. It's totally unreasonable for scientists to continue to expend time, energy and expenses to generate support for a complex and terribly flawed BBT. In a recent article, commenting on the prevalence of violations of scientific method, cosmologist Robert Oldershaw said, "In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously."  It's time for some alternative theories to be developed, presented and examined..... "   

Imagine a patient was ridden with 48 illnesses, and the sicknesses were becoming increasingly severe with every new discovery, what hope would there be for the patient to recover back to health? What causes all that complexity of controversies? I have a strange feeling that timing of history has much to do with it. The19th and 20th century were the age of revolutionary discoveries and feverish competitions with some degree of confusions, which should slowly even out in the 21st century with the advent of globalization, computerization and the pressure from the reality of space age. Mankind's inability to hold growth in population, coupled with the unstoppable speed of advancing knowledge and the ever greater need of natural resources, are now forcing the opening of an infinitely greater age, the age of cosmology and space technology. Indeed, we have barely entered the reality of a cosmological age, when the knowledge of all our cosmological environments are becoming paramount. If 500 years ago Copernicus hadn't taken risks to start the "Heliocentric Age", scientific knowledge could still be medieval, but he had, and ever since then, no one could stop or hold up the advance of science. However, the heliocentric world describes only our solar system. The next important step is to describe the galactic systems and then the structures of the entire universe. Today the human not only flies in the air, he is already living and working above in cosmic space and claims to have stepped on moon many times. He should hardly make another step further without knowing truly what kind of universe he is stepping into. But how? In the 21st century nobody burns scientists alive, but enough scientists have found it tough to break through the existing norm of cosmological belief, still attached to supernatural roots... 

Nevertheless, the 20th century proved that discoveries of electromagnetism and quantum physics have come through the test of time with flying colors amidst the confusion of curved space, dilated time, 4th dimension, and singularity. During the confusion many new ideas were fascinating and quickly snatched upon. Theory of relativity has much to do with it. Einstein was not the original developer of the mathematics called Lorentz Transformation, which formulated the theory of dynamic space and time by merging the linear phenomenon to the wave propagation phenomenon. As a result he was led to believe that linear velocity was completely identical to the speed of wave propagation. In believing that there is no difference whatsoever between the two phenomena mathematically, and through his personal assumption that speed of light is the "top limiting speed" of all motions in the universe, Einstein incorporated the belief in his Special and General Relativities, in his Energy-Mass equations and in his Principle of Equivalence. Those were the years when quantum physics and wave physics were still in their very early developments, and little was known about the true nature behind the seemingly constant and limiting speed of light in the late19th century and early 20th century.  

If Einstein had not treated the two said phenomena as exactly the same, then the theories of relativity would not have existed. This is a crucial point!. So, the two phenomena, i.e. linear velocity of real objects "V", which belongs to classical linear mechanics or Newtonian mechanic, and the speed of light "C", which belongs to a non-linear sinusoidal transverse wave motion, are they exactly the same? Are they really compatible for transformation into the same mathematical equation? Is the speed of light really the fastest speed in the entire universe? Of course, light is visible to the human eye and the telescopes, but what about the invisible stuffs, the invisible matters (dark matters), the invisible energies (dark energies) and invisible motions (dark speeds) in the universe? Because these are the sources of confusion, Relativity theories have practically turned Newton's world and science of reality upside down for a whole century. The word relativity means it's relative to reality, but not quite reality! 

Let's take an example:- Relativity wants you to believe that Time is the 4th dimension of space, therefore "Spacetime", which can cause space to curve up and even produce gravity (see graph below). But time is used and applied to every kind of events on earth or on all kinds of nature's manifestations in exactly the same way, without any discrepancy whatever. For instance, air is pumped into a container, or a space, in cubic meters per minute. Body weight may be lost or gained in pounds per week or month. Radio waves are broadcasted in frequencies per second. A machine gun may fire so many bullets per second, etc., etc..  If. Space and Time" can stick together to become "Spacetime" in scientific reality, then it is equally valid for "Weighttime", "Wavetime", "Frequencytime" or "Bullettime" to exist also in our sciences! What's the difference? Time is at all times indiscriminately applied to every action and interaction, because time is purely a human invention. It is invisible, untouchable, and has no sound, nor colour. It has neither mass, nor energy. In fact time has no physical form or physical existence at all! In other words, time is only a human conceptual tool used to help describe the pace of nature's actions and interactions. How and why could something with absolutely no energy, nor any physical existence, attach itself to some real existence, such as Space, to become "Spacetime"? If it could, then probably Einstein would have called his theory "Realitivity"... So, never mind what you are told, just what do you think? Logics and rationality are always vital and fundamental to science. When something is real and right, it will always look right and feel right to the logical and rational human mind.

According to Einstein, gravity is not even a force. It is just the phenomenon of spacetime curvature. For instance take the famous and familiar graph on the left for example. The ball sitting on top of the curved spacetime fabric, it is not caused by earth exerting a downward gravitational pull on the ball. Instead, it is because the fabric of spacetime happens to be warped or curved into a concave shape, which allows the ball to sit in it (looks like a lovely perfect fit too!). This reminds us that we are all standing, walking and bouncing on the fabric of space-curvature. Perhaps we can even try bending down and touch it! 

A few days ago, I came upon a book in Hong Kong Central Library titled "Time", by Clifford A. Pickover. In its Preface, it describes that Angulus Silesius, a sixth century philosopher and poet thought that the flow of time could be suspended. Silesius wrote "Time is of your own making: Its clock ticks in your head! The moment you stop thought, time too stops dead". Indeed, with or without the ticks of clock, or the notion of time, nature would simply go on its own way with its own pace, completely unaffected! Imagine since Silesius, time has flown by history already 1400 years, but the honesty and wisdom of the man have not been discoloured at all by the passage of time... The clock may tick away, but time is still not part of space, nor space is part of time!   

Obviously, truth and reality is important to the future of science (Citizens and businesses pay taxes to finance national education and researches. Many parents work their finger nails off just to send kids to school). Since it is so important, we should look deeper into it! Let me quote from a highly authoritative and famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" 1962 -1996, ISBN 0-226-45808-3 by Thomas S. Kuhn :-

".... Einstein's theory can be accepted only with recognition that Newton's was wrong. Today this remains a minority view. We must therefore examine the most prevalent objections to it. The gist of these objections can be developed as follows. Relativistic dynamics cannot have shown Newtonian dynamics to be wrong, for Newtonian dynamics is still used with great success by most engineers and in selected applications, by many physicists.... Einstein's theory can be used to show that predictions from Newton's equations will be as good as our measuring instruments in all applications that satisfy a small number of restrictive conditions. For example, if Newtonian theory is to provide a good approximate solution, the relative velocities of the bodies considered must be small compared with the velocity of light..... In so far as Newtonian theory was ever a truly scientific theory supported by valid evidence, it still is. Only extravagant claims for the theory - claims that were never properly parts of science - can have been shown by Einstein to be wrong. Purged of these merely human extravagances, Newtonian theory has never been challenged and cannot be.... "   

Well, extravagance also means it's exaggerated, and unnecessary. If Newtonian theory is still "a truly scientific theory supported by valid evidence" after more than 300 years and " Newtonian theory has never been challenged and cannot be", then it's about time to turn to examine if there is something wrong, and confusing, with Einstein's theory. The root of problems must lie in Einstein's theories. For instance, is there absolutely and undoubtedly such a thing as the "4th dimension of space"? Or "Spacetime"? Or "Curvature of Space"? Or "Gravity is merely Space Curvature", Or "Time Dilation"? etc., etc... If not, then everything related to theories of Relativity would be a time bomb that could blow up sooner or later, like Big Bang itself! To me, I hope it would be sooner than later! Because now that ideas of relativities have got into the newest particle science so deeply, it can affect every single scientist or engineer and his work, easily for another century! The coming century would be one with increasing abundance of dangerously crucial nuclear potentials and engineering. Yet, it's already obvious that no human will ever be able to encounter and experience in real life things like time dilation, 4th dimension of space, spacetime, or spacecurvature, etc., during that century! 

Newton devoted his life to show the world how to think and practice science in immediately provable terms. As a result Thomas Kuhn concluded that "Newton's theory has never been challenged and cannot be.... ". Einstein devoted his attempts in intriguing concepts that are not easily or readily demonstrable by available science and tools. For instance, take E = MC^2, Einstein's most famous equation. It is simple, neat and clever! Isn't it? Everybody knows that mass and energy are mutually exchangeable. Sun's energy grows food and vegetable for us, we take foods into our body and turn them into energy. Such a general natural phenomenon is not only meaningful but vital to all of us! But nobody has been able to express it in terms of exact science and mathematics impressively. That, like Spacetime, etc., was the area of Einstein's expertise, i.e. the area of impressionistic science, or relativistic reality, or extravagant claims, which Thomas Kuhn referred to as "Claims that were never properly parts of science!" Besides, there is one big slack! Everybody is impressed but nobody has ever used it to calculate seriously the amount of energy in any mass, because in order to prove and calculate, one has to annihilate all of the subject mass completely, or make it disappear absolutely, then turn it into absolute energy. What's more, one must have the right kind of instruments and equipments to do it, to measure it and so to prove it! That cannot be done in Einstein's lifetime, nor in our time. So, true or false, the famous energy equation remains unverified, although highly worshipped as a work of genius.  

According to Einstein, C (the speed of light in vacuum) not only is the top speed in the entire universe. C² is also in the formulae for General Relativity, e.g., in Lorentz Transformation, the factor g is 1/Ö(1-V²/C²). But is C truly the top speed in the universe? The infinitely unfathomable universe? Only half a century ago scientists would make theories, calculations and deductions for all cosmological phenomena, even for much of all physical sciences, based on visible or observed cosmos, i.e., galaxies, stars, etc.. Now, suddenly the universe has become far far bigger! Now we know that the Observable Matters consist only about 4% of the universe. About 22% of the universe are unknown Dark Matters, and about 74% are unknown Dark Energies. Our universe has become many times bigger than the universe scientists knew in Einstein's time. How can any scientist predict with certainty that there are no unknown and undiscovered speeds (Dark Speeds)? Just as how can anyone predict that there are no other living beings out there! So, with all those unknown but newly discovered energies going around, how can Einstein guarantee there is no speeds faster than C in the entire universe? But if the supposed limit of C is broken, what would that make of  Einstein's relativity theories?

Note :-  Between 1998 and 2001 various scientists from US and Europe had confirmed that the remotest galaxies at the edge of observable universe are about 13 billion light years away. This coincides with the Hubble Radius, which means if the galaxy recedes to the length or distance of Hubble Radius, then its speed has become equivalent to the speed of light. Obviously if the galaxy is moving faster than light, then we won't be able to see it. Further more, up to 1998 scientists around the world were expecting that the expansion of universe should be slowing down, but these scientists were surprised to find that the galaxies are in fact receding away faster than before. So the expansion of universe is in fact accelerating! This recent observations therefore show that because there is nothing to stop the driving force, galaxies are receding into regions beyond the Hubble Radius faster than light and still increasing speed. But of course they are! This should have been expected. Let's see:- 

We know that light or electromagnetic radiation has energy (Sun's emission of radiation is seen to push a comet tail in the direction of sun's emission). Each galaxies produces and emits its own electromagnetic radiations (Please read details in page # 6) Where and how are cosmic waves (electromagnetic) created?), which push the neighbouring galaxy away. This causes the galaxies to recede from each other. This is the observed Expansion of Universe. As each galaxy continues to emit electromagnetic radiations or waves, the distance between galaxies continues to widen and gravitation between them continues to decrease exponentially. The addition of radiation plus the decrease of gravitation causes the speed of separation between galaxies to accelerate. Meanwhile, due to the speed of light, our vision is limited only up to the Hubble Radius. It means that Hubble Radius is the distance the remotest galaxy are still visible to us, as they have just accelerated to the speed of light  However, between that remotest galaxy and us there are numerous galaxies, which are continuously emitting electromagnetic energy to add to and increase the recession of that remotest galaxy away from us. This means the remotest galaxy must continue to move away from us in greater speed than before. It must accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is absolutely nothing in the cosmic space, or in science, to stop or retard it from going over the speed of light. Hence the velocity of receding galaxy V can be faster than the speed of light C. 

But of course, since theoretically there is no limit to the magnitude of powers or forces in the universe, then correspondingly there can be no limits to velocities produced by such unlimited driving forces. Further more, the above example shows that theoretically if a large enough electromagnetic force or radiation is continuously applied to shift a cosmic object, as long as the force is large enough and continues long enough, and as long as there is nothing to stop it, then there is no reason why that object cannot move faster than the speed of light! But if a velocity V can exceed the speed of light C , then Einstein's Special Relativity and his Energy-Mass equations, General Relativity, his dependence on Lorentz Transformation, whose component g , written as 1/Ö(1-V²/C²), etc., along with 4th dimensional space, written as ( x_1, x_2, x_3,√-1.ct ), spacetime, space-curvature, etc., would become mathematically imaginary [1/Ö(-x)] or non-existent. All because Einstein would devote his time in "extravagant claims", such as the speed of light is the "top limiting speed" of all motions in the universe, claims such as the universe is static and its energy is constant, hence his famous "Cosmological Constant", which he later disclaimed himself. Einstein therefore claimed a lot of things, but just remain claims! Claims such as space can be stretched or curved, but who has ever really succeeded in doing it?  

In all Einstein's theories C is always the speed of light in vacuum, but in all cosmological phenomena, nature's interactions never occur in prepared condition of true vacuum. Because in reality, even empty cosmic space is not true vacuum, as it is full of particles, such as photons, neutrinos, dark mass, etc.. So nature does not execute interactions in pure vacuum. Einstein could not use the speed of light in normal or natural conditions in which all interactions take place, because speed of light in various medias, such as air, gases, water or other liquids gives different and uncertain values. Hence Einstein was forced to use a hypothetically quantity C, which not only is a "Constant", but has to be the top speed in the whole universe, so that it can be always greater than V, and V²/C² is always smaller than unity (V²/C² <1), Otherwise in Lorentz Transformation the factor 1/Ö(1-V²/C²) would become imaginary. At any rate, the whole idea violates reality, since reality never happens that way! In other words, cosmological phenomena, or nature's interactions, do not occur in absolute true vacuum. The speed of light is therefore dependent on the media in which light transmits... 

Besides, in the case of General Relativity, which is based on the factor 1/Ö(1-V²/C²), the speed of light is a motion of waves, while the motion of a real object V is a pure linear velocity. These are two entirely different and highly incompatible phenomena. The speed of light C is a sinusoidal transverse wave function, and calculated mathematically using calculus, which contains sine and/or cosine components, while the linear velocity V  follows only Newton's laws of linear motion. The two different motions are expressed and calculated under two separately mathematical disciplines or laws. What's more wave motions contain frequencies, wavelengths and transmit energy in transverse directions, while linear velocities are strictly linear and directional. The particle of light, photon is weightless, different to an object in linear motion, such as a ball or bullet in flight, which has large weight. In short, the transmission of light energy is unrelated to direct force driving linear velocities. Thus, Einstein mixes two unrelated phenomena of nature as well as two different mathematical laws in the same equation (linear equation and wave function, or calculus)... 

Since nature does not prescribe a top limit for linear forces, such as Big Bang explosion, it cannot and does not impose borders to linear velocities. Consequently, V can be unlimited, even if C is not! Hence speed of light cannot possibly be the overall top speed in the whole of universe! But if V can be bigger than C, then factor 1/Ö(1-V²/C²) becomes 1Ö(-x) (an imaginary quantity)! However, imagine if there can be stuffs such as 4th dimensional space, or ripples of spacetime, time dilation, etc., etc., then why can't C be the top speed in all universe! Geniuses are not necessary always great sages, they can also be great abilities to present intriguing ideas and make science appear relativistically or relatively scientific! No wonder Thomas Kuhn views "extravagant claims" as  "never properly parts of science!"...

So, this is the effort and support behind the attempt to claim that our universe had actually come into being by one big bang. This is also the scientific wisdom that claims to demonstrates how our universe is created, bearing some hints that it's created by some unknown and unproven supernatural entity, and all of that is based on Einstein's Relativity. However, there are  few questions. e, g., is that why Einstein becomes a unparalleled genius? Why not straight forwardly and directly proclaim that big bang is the scientific proof of God's creation as mentioned by ancient Jewish Bible? And in which case, where, what and for how long was God doing all by Himself before He made the bang, especially in a universe that was absolutely without any people, and void of anything, even totally dark without light? And how and what with was the Big Bang Singularity made of, or for how long had it existed before it blew up?... But why bother with such questions? Since the world is already done for, as most school kids are already overwhelmingly educated to believe in dear great genius, and modern sciences are widely plagued with relativistic stuffs, i. e., stuffs that are relatively or almost real! Isn't it a bit late and pointless to ask questions now. The answers for these questions should have been secured at least a century ago!

The above is an account with some unreserved analysis on many of Einstein's claims of cosmological phenomena that had given start to the belief of Big Bang Universe. Now let's take a quick look at those historical environments of his time and subsequent developments:- 

Although Einstein's general relativity was mainly responsible for the development of big bang theory, it appears that the timing of history also has a role in it. Before light was proved to be an electromagnetic radiation with the duel nature of wave and particles, it was always regarded as a pure linear phenomenon. Actually by habit even today we are still thinking of light as a beam rather than a wave. Light was discovered to be a wave in 1817 by Thomas Young with his two-slits experiment. The existence of electromagnetic waves were first postulated by Maxwell in 1865 but it was only detected in laboratory by Heinrich Hertz in 1888, a few short years before the publication of the Lorentz-Einstein Special Relativity. Between 1888 and 1927 when Heisenberg discovered the Principle of Uncertainty (which Einstein never agreed as he remarked that "God does not play dies"), followed by Edwin Hubble's discovery of Red-Shift in 1929, it was the time great developments of modern wave physics were taking shape, and at times ideas were changing. Einstein himself changed mind about aether and added General Relativity to Special Relativity. He also discarded his Cosmological Constant. There were other differences of opinions between Einstein and some scientists. Some even mistaken Einstein for a practical joker. It appears that in the early parts of the 20th century, there were not only great developments in science, but were also confusions, as well as a lot of bald and unrestrained guessing games too!.  

Historic records show that the theory and mathematics of relativity for dynamic Time and Space were first developed by German scientist Woldemar Voigt in 1887. Therefore, the mathematics (later named Lorentz Transformation) was published one year before Hertz proved in laboratory (1888) the property and nature of electromagnetic waves.  In 1904 Dutch scientist H. A. Lorentz used Voigt's mathematics in the publication of his own version of relativity theory. But 1905 French mathematician Henri Poincare, not knowing the origin from Voigt, used the Lorentz equations for his own version of relativity and credited the origin of mathematics to Lorentz, which he called "Lorentz Transformations". Since then the name "Lorentz Transformations" got stuck. Only later in 1905 Einstein published his own special relativity theory using Lorentz Transformation equations. There are various documents fully verifying that the theory and mathematics of special relativity stem originally from Voigt's publication in 1887.  Later H. A. Lorentz confirmed the priority of W. Voigt's work and suggested that the name of the equations should be called "The Transformations of Relativity".  Einstein's teacher Minkowski also confirmed the priority of Voigt. But it was only a year later in 1888 when Heinrich Hertz detected for the first time in laboratory the radio frequency of electromagnetic waves, for which his name was honoured. 

It was Hertz's important discovery that truly established beyond doubt the properties of electromagnetic waves, including light. Meanwhile, there was also the debate about the hypothetical cosmic media, called "aether", that was thought to conduct electricity. This debate went on for couple of decades further into early 20th century.  All this means is that the mathematics of relativity were developed by Voigt in 1887, it was well before the nature of light and electromagnet waves were fully understood, in fact, even well before quantum physics (1920s), the Quantum ElectroDynamic (QED) theory (mid 20thh century), the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interactions between elementary particles (1980s) were born (all about nature of light).  Amidst the confusion of priority for authorship of the relativity theory there were also obvious confusion of works published in different languages.    

However, the important question is not who was the stem author of relativity, nor whether one can or cannot mathematically transform different systems of motion, i.e. linear motion versus wave motion, into one equation, but rather one should or should not mix two different phenomena of nature and treat them as one only, even if there is a way to do it mathematically. For instance, Minkowski found a format to use an "Imaginary Time" to create the pseudo-reality of 4th dimension mathematically. It is not quite real because it starts with an imaginary time coordinate. 

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ).  So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x_1, x_2, x_3, x₄ ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x_1, x_2, x_3, t ) or rather ( x_1, x_2, x_3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x₄ is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as "world". Einstein called it "Spacetime Continuum". In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for "curved" or "None Euclidean" measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how "Time" became "Space" or "4th dimensional space" for mathematical purpose, which was then used in "Spacetime Curvature", "Ripples of Spacetime" and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, Big Bang etc., ... 

 

Late 19th and the very early 20th century Europe was a time when all interesting impressionistic, even unreal ideas were quickly seized upon as evidenced by many new breeds of art (such van Gogh, or Manet, etc., later Picasso) and music (such as Liszt and Wagner, etc.,). It came to a point when almost any ideas that could defy or break out of the bondage, control and doctrine of past many centuries had suddenly become refreshing and welcome, even whole heartedly accepted, even in science (such 4th dimension time, Spacetime Continuum, Ripples of Spacetime, etc., etc..). The subsequent 2 world wars seemed to have stopped the momentum and diverted those explosive energies. ....  Nowadays, paid space travel has already become a fact of life. But I do think it might be wise for the space passengers to check the design calculations of space-crafts before they embark on their journey. That is to say, any space passengers would be wise to check if the space crafts are designed with the theories and mathemaics of 4th dimension, or spacetime consortium, or Relativities, etc., etc...

 

I believe the future of science will always depend on established facts or proven theories, and of course repeated experience or performance, without a trace of doubt, certainly not impressionism. Unfortunately science, unlike arts, has such a lasting influence on engineering and education..... In fact, in the world such as ours today, filled and motivated by politics, medias and commercialism, everybody is trying to sell you something.  Fortunately, there is still such a thing, called logics or rationality, which prevails. If Newton's laws are true, they will remain true after 300 years, in fact, even after 300 million years. If what I have described in this pages are true, then time will prove that they are too. Otherwise, they will be proven otherwise.  Logics in science are the only truth that is naked! No amount of disguise or propaganda can hide the truth of logics and rationality, because what's true and real are also timeless...      

In modern cosmology there are no shortage of impressive mathematics in support of entirely hypothetical theories. There are many versions of universes, all claim to be supported by mathematics. There are also black hole in the middle of galaxies, singularity, big bang, baby universes and more.... some are serious, some are meant to be fun....  in fact, just like relativity, 4th dimension, spacetime continuum, space curvature, ripples of spacetime, time dilation, energy-mass equation (E = MC²) without specifications, and above all, even static universe, cosmological constant, etc., etc., ...  all of them are based and supported by mathematics, some of them purely by mathematics..... Of course, mathematics based strictly on reality and rationality will always be real and true, but if mathematics were developed or motivated from visions of imagination, then in the long run and at best the consequence could only be relatively real, but not absolutely real. For instance, now one hundred years has passed, and still no one has ever personally encountered curved space, nor dilated time in real life.... Modern telescopes are seeing things some 13 billion light years away, but still no one has encountered truly curved space... Although light can be bent to different degrees as it passes different medias, such as water, vapour or gases, which is why we see the sun appears larger during rising or sitting. There are all kinds of gaseous medias near stars and planets. In order to prove that pure space can bend, one should first remove all the gases and light bending substances from the space containing them.   

As far as "C" the speed of light in vacuum is concerned, well, even today, modern science is still learning about the phenomenon of light. Because no other theory, has ever explained the origin of light, and how and why light becomes the same waveform energy across the entire universe, and why it cannot be the top limiting speed, as well as why and how light can travel through 13 billion light year distance in every direction and still be seen. At least, the theory here attempts to give a plain and simple logical explanation in Newtonian tradition... Besides, impressionistic science has enjoyed fame and success for a whole century already, it's time to confront the reality and necessity of space travel and return some traditional values to cosmology.