In the beginning . . .

          Using a telescope in Antarctica, scientists have recently found what they believe to be evidence of Einstein-theorized gravity waves.  They say this is strong support for the inflation theory, a period of rapid universe expansion shortly after the initial big bang that’s supposed to have started our universe 13.8 billion years ago.

          But I have major doubts about the big bang.  We’re told all the matter in the universe was once compacted into a single speck no larger than an electron.  But how can this be?  It defies logic.  (I admit quantum mechanics and Congress defy my poor simple logic, as well.)  If such a thing were possible, then why do immense black holes, like the one at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, stop shrinking?  Why don’t they continue to cave in on themselves under their almost unimaginable gravity?  Why don’t they wind up as specks?  I think it’s because they reach a limit of matter compaction beyond which gravity can no longer squeeze them further.  I also have doubts about gravity waves necessarily being proof of inflation.

          The big bang theory rests on what appears to be an expanding universe.  An expansion that’s even accelerating, we’re told, which is another illogical concept.  Crank the whole universe backward over 13.8 billion years, they say, and it gets progressively smaller and smaller until you arrive at that initial solitary speck.

          An expanding universe, in turn, is based on redshift.  That is, the light from stars that are far away has longer, redder, wavelengths, stretched out, they say, because those stars are speeding away.  Light from stars even father away is redder still, because they’re apparently moving away even faster, it’s claimed. 

          But in 1929 a maverick astronomer named Zwicky proposed a different possible cause for redshift.  He said it could be that the far-off light has simply aged over billions of years, becoming “tired,” and thus it has shifted into the red wavelengths.  The farther the light has traveled, the redder it will be.  If that’s so, the illogical theories of the accelerating universe expansion, the big bang, and inflation, are all cast into deep doubt.

          I like the “tired light” theory because it’s logical.  We know everything else in the universe ages, from rocks to the biggest stars. (Notable exceptions are certain Hollywood celebrities.)  So why is it not reasonable to expect that light (together with the whole electromagnetic spectrum) ages as well?

          Both theologians and scientists want desperately for the universe to have had a beginning.  Any other option would simply bend the mind too much.  Thus we have God for the one group, and a big bang for the other.

          Yet we know without doubt time itself can change under the influences of velocity and gravity, and time stops (from the viewpoint of a stand-off observer) at the event horizon of a black hole.  Einstein theorized this stuff, and GPS is only accurate because it takes his relativity into account. 

          So why must we insist the universe had a beginning at some moment in changeable time?

          But anything you write here on our planet must have a beginning.  And if you’re wise, you’ll try to start your writing off with a big bang in order to capture every reader's attention.

Phil