The Big Bang is Wrong (Or, How the Universe Works)

Something unexpected recently occurred in cosmology when the James Webb Telescope—the most advanced, expensive, wonder of science telescope ever made by man, which was launched into space in 2021 and set to orbit one-million fucking miles from Earth—just proved correct one of my foundational arguments in my new book Under A Libra Godabout how the Universe works.

All my life whenever contemplating the Universe (which was quite often, because I’m a nerd) and scientific hypotheses like The Big Bang about how it came to be I was never remotely satisfied. Mostly this is because such models are founded on the concept of a beginning and end, but beginnings and endings are the realm of religion, not science, and in reality there can be no such thing as a beginning or end in such a thing as the Universe. Not being a physicist myself I went on with my life until it entirely fell apart and I was forced to reevaluate not only my personal philosophy but every aspect of existence as I understood it, including the very foundations of the Universe.

‍Most people uncritically support accepted positions whether scientific, religious, or philosophical, believing wrongly that because the authority establishment accepts something to be true then true it must be. But even the most educated and intelligent human is capable of mistakes and biases which motivate those mistakes (my work is full of them!). Yet while this may diminish religion or philosophy it does not diminish science, as science inherently opposes stability and acceptance and always questions ‘truths’ and demands evidence and proof, and anyone who seeks stability and consistency from science is confusing science for religion and should go to a fucking church instead and leave us scientists to break the rules and defy convention.

As an example, one significant error in accepted biology is the accepted explanation for human bipedalism and the relative lack of body hair, as discussed in my article Human Hairlessness Hypothesis Hysteria, in which I discuss how it is impossible for humans to have lost our body hair to keep cooler when hunting and sweating as claimed by prominent researchers because insulation works in both fucking directions and does not only keep heat out but also keeps cool in. If this were not the case the insulation in your home would only keep you warm in the wintertime, but it also keeps your home cool in raging summers, and this principle is why animals like wild dogs which, unlike humans, are actually distance hunters, never lost their thick fur coats in exchange for nakedness as we supposedly did. Wild dogs have an even more active survival strategy than humans, hunting in the same hot biomes in which we lived but chasing prey much further distances, and they kept their coat because it actually keeps them cool in the oppressive heat.

Not many other animals sweat as humans do, but horses sweat and yet they also retained their coat in spite of evolving in North America during the same climate periods through which our ancestors evolved, because another important function of body hair or fur is to protect from ultraviolet radiation, which is why we as humans, who walk upright, retained hair at the top of our head to block the sun at the height of midday when its radiation is most intense, so losing body hair increases the risk of radiation exposure AND overheating, and must be worth the evolutionary exchange. The marine biologist Alister Hardy whom originated the semi-aquatic ape theory of human bipedal locomotion and hairlessness observed, correctly, that all animals like whales, dolphins, rhinos, hippos, and elephants which exhibit hairlessness have aquatic or semi-aquatic ancestors, and hypothesized, correctly, that we all lost our hair in exchange for fat because hair is a great insulator in air but poor in water while fat is an excellent thermoregulator in water, and all our primate relatives retain their hair and oppositely do not retain subcutaneous fat as we do (which also by the way refutes fat as caloric storage as discussed in F*ck Portion Control).

Similarly, there is an obvious flaw in the The Big Bang conception, which is that all structures in the Universe would be moving away from a single point in space from which the Big Bang occurred, and the exact location of the center of the Universe could be pinpointed. Instead, all structures of the visible Universe move at random directions and velocity, some toward each other, others past, and yet others away. This motion, were the Big Bang to have occurred with such enormous violence and energy, entirely defies the basic Laws of Motionwhich have long been proven correct, as there was nothing for the matter exploding from the Big Bang with which to interact to have set them in their current, random course we see today. Like the obvious benefits of having a fur coat to also resist heat, this demonstrates fundamental, basic observational errors that even someone as myself, with only a high school education, easily recognizes but which has been overlooked somehow by those who do nothing but cosmology (probably a ‘forest for the trees’ problem).

To explain instead the function of the Universe as discussed in Under A Libra God, I believe that there was never a single “Big Bang,” but many instances of creation which happen constantly, and the Universe has no beginning and no end but exists perpetually. A reason scientists do not believe this is that if the Universe was infinite in age then our entire sky should be filled with light, since light traveling infinitely would eventually reach us no matter our age (which is only about 4 billion years on this Earth and 14 billion in our section of the Universe) because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But this is also completely wrong and easily proven untrue because space stretches between structures in the Universe as they move away from each other, and the distance between them can and does increases at speeds which exceed the speed of light since for instance two such structures would only need to move in opposite directions at greater than 50% the speed of light to exceed the speed of light such that no light from either structure ever reaches the other. Physicists have established that this does happen, so the explanation for why space is largely dark and not apparently filled infinitely with galaxies, though it is, is because the distance between our local region of the Universe and everything else increases faster than the speed of light such that it will never reach us.

When a Theory of Everything is established it will unify the micro and the macro, but reality is already this way since we cannot alter it nor define it ourselves, and we observe the Theory of Everything all the time, right in front our faces, without even realizing, as phenomena in the micro must also be true in the larger macro scope of the Universe else there would be no reality to begin with. One such interesting observation is that mass stretches and warps the space between masses, and all observable phenomena of elasticity eventually snaps or break from the stress of that stretching which weakens it. The simple rubber band is a good example, but solar flares (coronal loops) are even better, when great, arcing bands of energy stretch from the surface of the Sun and eventually snap and release that energy out into space in random directions. Apparently elastic physics are so complex that they cannot be modeled by humans and will require quantum computers, but this also helps prove that the Universe is in fact based on an elastic model since we have not yet been able to figure it out unassisted.

Image credit: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, L. Bradley (STScI), A. Adamo (Stockholm University) and the Cosmic Spring collaboration

Some claim that space cannot break or tear because it is not made of anything, but that is not true at all as the energy from which everything is made comes from space itself, and the phenomenon of dark matter and other forces which are suspected by physics are the underlying factor which ‘snaps’ or ‘tears’ as space expands between enormous structures to the point of failure, and the force of that ‘failure’ or ‘snapping’ is what forms new matter to create new galaxies and structures of mass and, unlike a “Big Bang,” likely occurs across a field rather than a single point, and like any snapping elasticity then creates whirls and eddies and vortexes such as we can see in coronal flares and galactic superstructures, which set them in their random motion we see reflected in reality which then accelerates the formation of galaxies and stars and planets.

If I were wrong and accepted hypotheses correct the James Webb telescope would have looked back 13 billion years into the past (by looking 13 billion light years into the known Universe) and seen a proto, nebulous blob that preceded galaxies, planets, and stars. Instead, it saw fully formed galaxies just 460 million years from the Big Bang, which is literally impossible according to the current accepted model and can only mean that model is wrong. But this is not impossible if the Universe truly has no beginning and no end and functions on principles of elasticity as simply and neatly posited by my model explained in Under a Libra God. If you want to know more about how the Universe works, what is Time and how Consciousness forms, and how to literally predict the future, give it a read.