Why the Big Bang Universe Can Never be Older than 13.8 Billion Years
Erroneous assumptions and math dominate our current myopic view of the Infinite, Eternal Universe.
Before the Webb Space Telescope, astronomers estimated there was evidence for over two trillion galaxies in the observed universe. The recent Webb photo confirms that estimate, with its clarity showing ten times as many. It takes billions of years for a spiral galaxy to form. Our own Milky Way is thought to be 13.61 billion years old. One intensely studied “elderly galaxy” in the recent Webb photos has a cosmological redshift of z = 9.1. As of 20220802, the new tentative record is z = 13, which corresponds to only 300 million years after the supposed Big Bang. It is not possible for a galaxy to form that fast. Even our tiny little Sun took 4.6 billion years to form. I expect we will see even larger z values, with calculated galaxy ages approaching 0 million years and a million laughs.
As I have pointed out many times, these elderly galaxies provide evidence for Infinite Universe Theory, disproving the Big Bang Theory in the process. So, why do cosmogonists adhere to the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe in the face of so much data indicating it is much older?
It all comes down to the interpretation of cosmological redshifts. When Hubble first observed galactic redshifts, he was apparently enamored of the doppler effect, jumping to the premature conclusion all the redshifts of the galaxies he was seeing indicated they were traveling away from us. In consequence, his biggest mistake was his 1929 title: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.” In 1931, the good Abbé Lemaître, a priest as well as a physicist, always ready to justify creationism and science, jumped right on it, writing a paper entitled: “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ.” Hubble could never live that one down, ever since being blamed for the notion the universe was expanding. He objected many times to no avail. Lastly, in 1953 Hubble said: “When no recession factors are included, the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance.”
So that was the choice cosmologists had to make concerning cosmological redshifts:
1) galactic recession or
2) a distance effect.
Easily becoming cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning), they chose the doppler effect to wide acclaim from most folks (who were religious). Of course, that was not the end of it. Numerous contradictions always have plagued the Big Bang Theory. For instance, once the cosmological redshift exceeded z = 1.5, traditional doppler calculations implied distant galaxies were traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light. By then, however, cosmogonists and their cosmological brethren were too deep into the paradigm. Something drastic had to be done.
In following Einstein, cosmogonists assumed the universal speed limit to be the velocity of light, c. That something drastic was to assume empty space itself was expanding. Of course, that perfectly empty space also had to expand at velocities greater c. Never no mind about that, or about how the equally imaginary culprit, dark energy, could do that. One reason theoretical physics has been in crisis ever since 1905 is the failure to actually involve physics: the collision of one thing with another to produce an effect. Since neither perfectly empty space nor energy exists (energy is a calculation), that is a fundamental problem for the Big Bang Theory.
As you might surmise, none of that reality stuff is of particular importance for cosmogony. After all, if you can believe in perfectly empty space and Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, for which there is no real evidence, then you can go about your mathematical business. You can grasp at any bit of real evidence, interpreting it to suit your imagined theory.
Now to that question at hand:
Why can the Big Bang Universe Never be Older than 13.8 Billion Years?
In the analysis below, remember these unprovable fundamental assumptions must be used to adhere to the Big Bang Theory, although they are seldom acknowledged:
1. The universe had a beginning and will have an ending.
2. The universe is finite.
3. The cosmological redshift is a measure of galactic recessional velocity.
4. The universe is expanding.
5. Gravitation is an attractive force.
6. Einstein’s 4-dimensional space-time theory allows for curvature of the universe.
While none of these are correct in Infinite Universe Theory, we need to understand a bit about them to understand the 13.8-billion-year age.
Wikipedia on 20220728:
“If there is just enough matter in the universe for its gravitational force to bring the expansion associated with the big bang to a stop in an infinitely long time, the universe is said to be flat. The flat universe is the dividing line between an open universe and a closed universe.”
“An important parameter determining the future evolution of the universe theory is the density parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value of that density. This selects one of three possible geometries depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively, the flat, open and closed universes.”
Cosmogonists don’t really know which of these models pertain, so I have included a link further below so you can see the effect of changes in the cosmological redshift (z), the Hubble constant (Hₒ), and the Omega values. As mentioned, redshifts range up to 11.1. The Hubble constant is the subject of much debate, ranging between 73.8 and 69.6, with 70.2 producing the 13.8-billion-year age. As you can see in Figure 1, the whole thing is a mathematical mess. In other words, pick your poison and get whatever you wish:
Here you can see the contradictions that arise when galactic velocity instead of distance is calculated from redshift values. Obviously, cosmogonists must have been shocked when so-called recessional velocities exceeded those of light, c. They assumed rightly, that nothing could exceed the velocity of light. Circumlocutions in their math ultimately resulted in the cosmological redshifts having no effect on the so-called “age of the universe”. Of course, the invention of the incongruous expansion of perfectly empty space allowed for greater recessional velocities and perhaps greater ages. Those have not been popular assumptions, and so we are stuck with the 13.8-billion-year age. Below I have a link to a calculator in which you can put in various estimates for cosmological parameters. You can change the z value all you want, but the recipe below will give you nothing but 13.8 billion years.
Ned Wright’s Calculator Demonstrating z Values Don’t Change the Age of the Big Bang
Here is an example you can do yourself. Put these values in the calculator:
Hₒ = 70.2
Omega M = 0
z = 11.1
Omega vac = 0
Click on “Open”
Note the Omega values use General Relativity Theory’s 4-dimensional space-time to imagine the universe is curved positively or negatively. I don’t think GRT is valid, but you might wish to use them as explained in the link.
Here is an interesting graph showing the straight-line relationship between the assumed recessional velocity and distance, which was favored by the younger Hubble (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Recessional velocity versus distance. Credit: Prof Brad Snowder.
Now, if one chooses the distance assumption (#2 above) instead, then one can replace “recessional velocity” with the cosmological redshift (z), which is generally assumed by cosmogonists to be a measure of galactic distance (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Cosmological redshift versus distance (modification of Figure 2 from Prof. Brad Snowder). Note that this figure is only for illustrative purposes. The z values actually are used with c to calculate velocity with a different equation.
Note that I have not been able to locate a graph plotting z versus distance like the one above. No one inside or outside the Big Bang paradigm seems to have done so, although the elder Hubble recanted his early recessional velocity interpretation implying it actually was a distance function. By the time I was born, he had rejected the expanding universe idea. Cosmogonists ignored Hubble, ironically naming the constant for the red shift/distance relation and the first space telescope after him. In the meantime, we are stuck with the imagined 13.8-billion-year age of the universe. Although cosmogonists inevitably will have to increase that, don’t expect the mea culpa and the demise of the last creationist theory any time soon.
This essay is an update of PSI Blog 20220801 of the Progressive Science Institute.
Thank you so much for reading. Please follow me and clap at least a half dozen times (bottom left corner of this page). Each clap adds a tiny bit of cash to the Progressive Science Foundation:
Read more than three essays monthly on Medium.com by joining for $5/month.
Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click here.
