The Theory of Big Bang

— a mistake build on wrong precondition —

Introduction

The theory of Big Bang is about the creation and the expansion of the Universe. According to this theory, it all started with a very small object, far smaller then a pinhead, which exploded and send its contents out in all directions. This explosion is called Big Bang, and from the contents of this the whole known Universe with stars and globes came into being. The proof that the Universe came into being this way and still expand is to be found in a displacement of the spectral lines in the starlight, towards the red end of the spectrum, and called redshift. This redshift is linear increasing with the distance to the galaxies as shown by Edwin P. Hubble (1929), and taken as a proof that the stars have a velocity outwards (Smoot and Davidson 1993). However, below it should be shown, that the redshift is caused by an intrinsic atomar change of frequency and the primary explosion Big Bang never took place.

Overlooked problems

Einstein (1960, p. 69) calls his Universe Minkowskis 4-dimensional world. To explain what that is Einstein beginns with a 3-dimensional spherical space borrowed from Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) :

From one point is drawn straight lines (or stretched cords) in all directions. All lines or cords have the length r. And all free ends will therefore lay on a spherical (ball-shaped) surface with r as radius. The spherical surface has a certain size F. If the world is euclidean then F = 4πr², but if the world is spherical, then the spherical surface will always be less then 4πr². When the lines is extended the spherical surface will increase with decreasing tendency until it has reach a maximum, determined by The Worldradius R. If the lines are still increasing, the spherical surface beginns to decrease, and eventually be zero, when all the lines (radii) meet in an Opposite Point.
A spherical space (or world) like this has a finite volume V, determined by radius R. Thus V = 2π²R³. Yet the space has no boundaries.

Einstein says at last:

From what is said it appears, that closed spaces without limits is thinkable. Among those distinguish the spherical (respectively the elliptical) itself by simplicity, as all its points are equal.

Thus we here have a spherical space of a finite size. It has no surface and there is no point, which can be said to be a centre, because all points are equal. However a spherical space with neither surface nor centre is unlikely outside the world of mathematics. It defy common everyday experience and logic.
This space is now supplied with a fourth dimension, which not only is the time, as it popularly is said. The fourth dimension is corresponding to the relativity theory x₄= ict (Einstein 1960, p.76) That means the velocity of light (c) is to be multiplied with the time (t) which gives a number of kilometres, as the seconds are cancelled out. This result also has to be multiplied with (i), which represents the square root of minus one. Then as a final result the 4th dimension is a number of imaginary kilometres, which no one can neither imagine nor understand. It is irrational, and thus evidence that the theory is wrong. Notwithstanding, this space is the universe of Big Bang.
According to the Theory of Big Bang, this universe was initiated as a socalled entity exploded. Out of the explosion products, which was thrown out in all directions, emerged the whole inconceiveable large Universe, still growing bigger and bigger!
When all points in the Universe in agreement with the theory are equal, we should see galaxies that in the same way drift apart each other, no matter where we are and in which direction we are looking.
In the meantime, a sphere with neither centre nor surface defy nevertheless common everyday experience and logic. The 4th dimension is not only imaginary, it is irrational.

Since 1970 the american astronomer professor Ph.D. William G. Tifft and some others have investigated these distance-dependent redshift, and it is now beyond doubt, that the redshift is quantized. Tifft (1984, p.502) wrote in Astrophysical Journal:

The overall consistency and very high statistical confidence levels leave little room for doubt about the quantized nature of the redshift, both globally and within physical systems.

In Sky & Telescope (Tifft 1987, p.31):

No matter what interpretation is attached to it, the evidence for redshift quantization will not vanish by being ignored.

And in Astrophysic and Space Science (Tifft1995, p.31):

Tifft (1977a) demonstrated that Local Group galaxies were periodically distributed in redshift at 72 km per second when galactocentric corrections were applied. Arp (1986) confirmed and extended the work using an independent solar motion determination. Napier et. al. (1988) further verified the periodicity. Since the Local Group is a physical group, quantization at this level is a three-dimensional generalization of the differential work in pairs and groups. The analysis shows the significance of the transformation to the galactic center. To extend the quantization linkage between groups, Tifft (1977a) went on to show that the redshift pattern in the external M101 group was apparently in phase with the Local group. The intergroup phasing was then extended out to the Coma cluster to provide an accurate estimate of the periodicity, (72,46 ± 0,5 km per second), assuming a global scale for linked redshift states.

And in Astrophysic and Space Science (Tifft 1995, p.36 and p.37, line 24):

A question often asked when quantized redshift are discussed is 'is there any connection with the Cosmic Background Radiation?' The answer to this is now yes. When redshifts are transformed to the CBR rest frame using the COBE cosmic dipole velocity and apex, widespread quantization is seen at the original 72 km per second period.
There are now two frames which produce quantization, both involving apparent velocity transformations. There are indications that the CBR reference is widely applicable. The galactic reference may be more local.

When the redshift is used as a measure of velocity in connection with the expansion of the Universe, it means that the galaxies are drifting apart each other with quantized velocities. That is to say, there exist only a limited number of velocities with fixed jumps between, which has been shown to be 72 km per second. All velocities are then multiples thereof, 72 - 144 - 216 - ..... km/s (fig.1).

When all points in the Universe are equal, we are allowed to imagine an observatory A (fig.2) on the Earth as the spot of the primary explosion. All galaxies with the same velocity away from the spot, will at any time have equal distance to this centre and then form a spherical shell. All celestial bodies have thus to be ordered in a number of concentric spherical shells, corresponding to the number of different redshifts. As velocities can not be changed stepwise, they will be absolutely fixed and multiples of 72 km per second. The space between the spheres will be void, as this space represents velocities that do not exist.

An observer B (fig.2) on a distant glaxy should have the same right to be able to see himself as a centre of concentric spherical shells.
These two systems of spherical shells will naturally cut into each other, but this does not change that the space between the shells should be void in both systems. When it should be obvious that large parts of our spheres will coincide with his void space, and vice versa, the number of galaxies is reduced to those few in the points or lines of intersection between the two systems (fig.2). Due to his being on a distant galaxy, many of the galaxies we would otherwise see, would be replaced by his void space, and so on. As there are no limit to how many spectators there could be placed in the universe, all galaxies could in this way be removed.

This bizarre situation implies the above outlined Einsteinian space. Without this the points were not equal, and there should only have been one system of concentric spherical shells, namely one with the explosion spot as centre. But even without relativity there are still problems.
The shells have never been observed, and it is unlikely these quantized velocities have been generated by an explosion. In clusters of galaxies there are several redshifts. Even in the same galaxy there can be two different redshifts, the one of which, converted to escape-speed, is 72 km per second greater than the other. In Astrophysic and Space Science Tifft writes (1995, p.26, line27):

all major galaxies (and presumably related objects) contain two states of redshift which appear on opposite sides of the nucleus. Lesser amounts of other states may be present.

and (ibid. p.28, line15):

It either eliminates large scale motion or constrains it to quantized jumps.

When no galaxy or cluster can move with more velocities at the same time, it is evident that the Hubble-redshift may not be interpreted as a measure of velocity. With other words, it is no Doppler effect. The Universe is not expanding and the primordial explosion Big Bang has never existed.
A comparison between old and new measurings of redshifts has shown, that the old ones are larger then new. In Astrophysic and Space Science Tifft writes (1995, p.34):

It was therefore interesting to find that comparison of new and old 21 cm data contained periodic systematic deviations. It had been known previously (Rood 1982), that Fisher-Tully redshifts were, on average, slightly too large. Tifft (1991b) demonstrated this offset conclusively (9 sigma), and shoved that other studies from the same era also deviated. Still older data from the 1960's by Roberts (1968) contain larger displacements, some exceeding 30 km s^-1. The effect was first reported at the Venice Symposium (Tifft 1988), where new redshifts were compared with Fisher-Tully values. Deviations were subsequently confirmed (Tifft & Cocke 1990) using entirely new redshifts spaced 2-3 years apart.

Thus the redshift for the same celestial body has turned out to be smaller and smaller, corresponding to an increase in frequency. It may explain the distribution of the redshifts in assamblies like the Coma Cluster (Tifft 1973, p.29), where the largest red shifts are to be found in the background, and the smallest in the foreground. The light from the rearmost galaxies have spend several years travelling through the cluster, and in the course of this time the foremost galaxies may have increased the frequencies and thus decreased the redshift.
Observing a distant object we are looking upon a picture send out when the object was very young. When this object is growing older the frequency will change, and if we were able to observe this object as it really is this very moment, we most probably should see an object as old as our owen galaxy and with the same level of frequency. There would be no indication of universal expansion.
The reason why the frequency increases with age may be owing to mass-increase. According to this it has been found, that the standard-kilogramweights increases in the course of time. According to "Raum & Zeit" is the change of all national standard-kilogramweights written down since 1889 with an accuracy of one microgram. At the last comparison there was only two weights which showed negative gain. (Raum & Zeit, 93/98, p. 42).
According to the danish magazine "Ingeniøren" the danish standard-weight was renewed 1949 on account of over-weight. The danish standard-weight is disposed 5 metres under ground in a glass globe, which is placed inside an other glass globe disposed in a strongbox in a carefully locked room. Nevertheless, by the last comparison 1979 the new kilogram appeared already to be 144 microgram heavier than the master-kilogramweight in Paris. (Ingeniøren, no.16, 2001, p.15.)

The change of weight comes out by comparing the individual weights with the master-weight in Paris. The result can therefore only be a difference, which most likely is owing to the geographic placing of the individual weights. So the total weight change is unknown.
When we have been able to ascertain the change of frequency of the galaxies, it must be because our local change of frequency had taken place in a slower tempo. If our own galaxy had changed the frequency at the same rate as the distant ones, there would have been no difference we were able to measure. Therefore the change of frequency of the galaxies may be thought to take place with decreasing velocity. The measured change is thus only a difference, whereas the total change still is unknown.

Alternative explanation of the redshift

Besides the Doppler effekt caused by the “fleeing” galaxies, it should be noticed, that the redshift also has been explained as a stretching of the wavelength because of expansion of the space itself. According to this explanation, expansion of the space should be the only cause of the redshift.
Referring to this thesis the Hubble-redshift is not an indication of velocity, but thus a function of how long the lightwaves have been on the way. The plenty of quasars as found by Sloan Digital Sky Servey, with redshift up to z = 5.82, should in this way be acquitted of the charge of mowing faster then the light.
Given that the Universe expand, the following analysis should clarify whether the redshift really is owing to >space-expansion<. It should be presumed that metersticks and other physical substances do not grow because of any space expansion:

Say the space expands, and the number of wavelength between the source of light and the observer is constant. As the space expands it stretches the wavelength. They will grow longer and longer, in the same degree as the total distance between light source and observer being longer.
When the individual wave crest, because of the stretching, has to run through a longer distance at the same time, the velocity of light must increase concurrently as the space expands.
As the number of wavelengths on the distance, in spite of the space expansion, is constant, there will be received the same number of waves per sekund as are emitted from the source. Under these circomstances the light received will have the samme frequency as the light had when it was send out, no matter the streching of wavelength. There will be no redshift to see. Therefore space-expansion cannot be the cause of the redshift.

In the meantime it has been established that we are seeing a redshift. If we still assume, that the space expands, it means there is received a lesser number of waves per second as there is emitted from the source. The result is an accumulation of waves between light source and observer, and that the velocity of light do not change, but propagates independent of the expansion of the space. If not, the velocity of light should increase and the redshift disappear, as mentioned above. The redshift is here only depending on the increasing distance, and should be observed no matter whether "the space itself" expands or not. This, however, is only a thought experiment, as previously shown the universe is not expanding, and the redshift is caused by the frequencyshift of the atoms through time.

It ought to be mentioned, that it according to the thesis about "space-expansion as cause of redshift" is maintained, that the quasar with the large redshift (z = 5.82) is still (not moving)relative to the space, while the redshift indicates that the space itself is moving outwards with a velocity of 540.000 km per second. This is quite leaving out of account that it, according to Einstein, is certainly not allowed to use the concept of movements on the ether (or space). In a celebration-speach Einstein said (1920, p.15):

Summarizing we can say: According to the general theory of relativity the space has certain physical qualities; in this sense an Ether does exist. According to the general theory of relativty a space without ether is unthinkable; because in a space like this, not only the transmission of light would be impossible, there could not exist measuringsticks or clocks, thus neither distances in time nor space in the physical sense. This ether should not be thought endowed with properties characteristic of ponderable media, or consist of parts that can be traced through time; the concept of motion is not to be used on it.

Diskussion
When it is maintained that the frekvens of the atoms is increasing because the mass is growing, then it is on account of two equations. The famous equation E = mc² is the first one. The other one is E = hν, there says that the energy is equal with Planck’s konstant h multiplied with the frequensy ν. That is mc² = hν. Planck’s konstant h should be konstant, and if the velocity of light also is considered as a konstant, thus are mass and frequency directly proportional. Grow the one of them, grow the other. It is pure mathematics, but is it also reasonable?

From mecanical systems one know a correlation, that is quite opposite, as the frequence is growing, when the mass is decreasing. The principle is, that the heavier a system is, the slower is the vibrations. As an exemple is a bass string in a piano long and thick, weil the high tones come from short and thin strings.
The danish standard weight is changed every 30 years and the german ones with only 12 years space between, on account of overweight in relation to the Paris weight. In the previously mentioned there is anticipated that weights are growing. But one can just as well imagine that all the weights are growing lighter, and the Paris weight has lost more than the other. That gives the same result. Provided the mechanical system can be used upon the atoms, it is evident, that a little light atom sends out higher frequences then a large heavy atom of the same element. And no matter wich model we are choosing, there is no inconsistency.
Such a mechanical model imply therefore, that the atoms are born large and heavy, and end as small light atoms, there eventually have so little energy, that they disappear in the quantum field, from where they came. With this there has been tidiet up and made clear to the creation of a new universe.

Conclusion:
The Universe does not expand. The Theory of Big Bang is false, because:

1. one and the same celestial object can have more different redshifts. When no object can move with more different velocities at one and the same time, the redshift cannot be interpreted as a Doppler effect.
2. the Hubble-redshift is quantized. Interpreted as a Doppler effect quantized redshift would mean quantized velocities, which is an unconvincing result of an explosion.

3. the Hubble-redshift is changing in the course of time. Since it do not erase the quantization, the changing has to take place in jumps. When stars cannot change velocity in jumps, the redshift is no indication of velocity.

4. "the equality of all points” is inconsistent with quantized red shift.
5. a spherical space with neither surface nor centre is unlikely outside the world of mathematics.

6. the fourth dimension is irrational.

The redshift is no proof of universal expansion, but is due to an intrinsic change of the atoms. The frequency increases with the age, whereas the pace of change decreases.

____________

References

Einstein, A. (1920). "Äther und Relativitätstheorie, Rede gehalten am 5. mai 1920 an der Reichs-Universität         zu Leiden". Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin, 1920, p.15, line 8.
Einstein, A. (1960). "Relativitätstheorie. Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie". –         Friedr.Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig 1960, p. 69, line 13.
Einstein, A. (1960). "Relativitätstheorie. Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie". – Friedr.         Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig 1960, p.76.
Hubble, E. (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". Proc. Nat.         Acad. Sci. 15, Issue 3, pp. 168––173.

Ingeniøren, no.16, April 20, 2001, p.15.
Raum & Zeit, 93/98, p. 42.
Sloan Digital Sky Servey - www.sdss.org/news/realeases/20000413.qso.q.html
Smoot, G. / Davidson, K.   Wrinkles in Time. William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, 1993. (Danish         version: Big Bang. P. Haase & Søns Forlag as, København, 1994)
Tifft, W.G. (1973). Proporties of the Redshift-Magnitude Bands in the Coma Cluster, The Astrophysical         Journal 179, 29-44, 1973, p. 29.
Tifft, W.G. (1984). Global Redshift Quantization, The Astrophysical Journal, 287:492-502, 1984 December 15,         p. 502.
Tifft, W.G. (1987). Quantized Galaxiy Redshift, Sky & Telescope, Januar, 1987, 19-21, p. 21.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p. 26,         line 27.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p. 28,         line 15.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p. 31.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p.         36.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p. 37,         line 24.
Tifft, W.G. (1995). Redshift Quantization – A Review, Astrophysic and Space Science, 1995, 227, 25-39. p. 34.