I recently read 2 books by Simon Singh: Fermats Last Theorem and The Big Bang.
In the first one Simon Singh states that there are two sorts of proof :- the mathematical proof of a problem or theory. That proof can never be altered and is cast iron. It stands for ever. The other one is the scientific proof. No matter how many proofs there are to support a theory, if it is not mathematical then there will always remain an element of doubt as to the accuracy of that theory. That brings me neatly to the Big Bang Theory (Hereinafter referred to as "BBT" or "BB").
Personally I have always been in doubt about the BBT but after reading Simon Singh's book I am nearly inclined to accept the BBT as correct. I said nearly, because there are still some elements that I find disturbing and contradictory.
First of all, the BBT is based mainly on the observation that the galaxies are moving away from each other. Because there is an accelerating increase in the red shift, it is assumed that this happens at an ever increasing speed. What bothers me is that there are also galaxies that are moving closer together as observed by an increase in the blue shift. Mr. Singh says that since there are only a few of such galaxies, they can be safely ignored in formulating the BBT. I always thought that a theory should take account of ALL known facts relating to that theory, not just the one(s) that support the theory to be drawn up.
But never mind. Let us assume for a moment that the BB really took place and try to think about it logically. It soon becomes apparent that here too we find some anomalies.
We start with a universe that is totally devoid of anything, except for a large chunk of matter. It is like an enormous black hole from which nothing can escape. The gravitational pull of that lump must have been uninmaginable. Then, for some unexplained reason, the whole thing explodes, sending fragments in all directions through the full 360 degrees. To overcome the gravitational forces these fragments must have had a very high escape velocity. And since the surrounding universe is empty, there is absolutely nothing to slow these fragments down. Indeed, the distance between fragments following the same trajectory, will also remain constant as they all have the same speed. As I said, the escape velocity to overcome the gravitational pull must have been so great that these fragemnts will not be influenced by the gravitational pull of "neighbouring" fragments that follow a slightly different trajectory. The distance between these fragments will become greater the further they get away from their point of origin. It follows therefore that these fragments will never come close enough or slow down enough to form galaxies in the first place.
However, since galaxies do exist we have a problem in explaining this.
According to the BBT all galaxies originate from the original BB. One would therefor expect them to be all the same age, but that is clearly not the case.
As I stated before, it was assumed that the acceleration in the red shift was due to an acceleration in speed with which the galaxies move away from each other. I think that is wrong. The increase in the red shift is due to an increase in distance between the galaxies, not an increase in speed. This can be observed in our own solar system. Space prevents me to go through the whole process, but just observe the various shifts in the spectrum between earth and the outlying planets over a number of years.
The question is: Is there a solution to the problem of galaxies that show both blue and red shifts? Judging by our own solar system, would it be possible that galaxies too orbit around a common centre? This can not of course be the centre of the universe, just like our sun is not the centre of the universe. As the universe is infinite there cannot be a centre as such.
Where that common centre is I do not know. What I also do not know is where all the matter came from in the first place. But then who does?
If you would like to comment on this my e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org