Cosmology
Astronomy - Astrobiology - Earth Sciences
Origins, Evolution, Metamorphosis, Extinction

The Myth of the Expanding Universe
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

Infinity, Relativity, Space-Time and the Myth of Expanding Universe

THE BIG-BANG EARTH CENTERED UNIVERSE
Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and astronomers have made fantastic claims as to the age and size of the universe, claiming that the universe is expanding--and not just expanding, but accelerating. These assumptions are based on red shifts, red giants, supernova, and the light of far away galaxies; all of which, we are told, is proof for the existence of the big bang. However, red shifts do not accurately measure distance, red giant and supernova are irrelevant to the question, and galaxies which are in motion are not proof of a big bang, but only that they are in motion--and this may best be explained not by propulsion, but the gravity of an infinite universe.
The belief in an expanding universe begins with belief in the Bible and the Jewish and Christian religions. The theory of the Big Bang was proposed by a high ranking Catholic priest. Bishop Georges Lemaītre who was president of the Pope's Research council. His theory was designed to prove the Bible and to fight against the atheistic doctrine of an infinite, eternal universe. A big bang has a creator, an eternal universe does not. The Big Bang is consistent with Jewish-Christian beliefs about a creator. An infinite universe is not.
The Big Bang is the Biblical story of creation as told in Genesis and posits that the Universe was created 8 billion years ago, but with modification of the theory, we are now told the universe is 13 to 14 billion years young.
According to Big Bang Theology, the most far-away galaxies, are believed to be 13 billion light years distant, and they are in motion; proof that the universe was created 13 billion years ago in the mythical big bang. Most certainly galaxies moving. However, in an infinite, eternal universe the cosmos is not expanding, it is merely in motion.
The overwhelming body of evidence is consistent with an infinite, eternal universe. However, as this conflicts with the Bible and religious beliefs, the Jewish-Christian scientific and religious establishment have engaged in what could be considered the biggest fraud in the history of science.
Everything is claimed to be evidence for the big bang. A car backfires? Proof of the big bang. Lost your socks? Proof of the big bang. Someone farted? Proof of the big bang.
An close examination of evidence does not support the big bang, but instead reveals that the Jewish-Christian scientific establishment have seized upon baseless assumptions to support their religion.
We are told, for example, that there are stars 13 billion light years away and this prooves the big bang.
However, we should ask: 13 billion light years distant from what, relative to what?
From where the Earth is now, they reply; an answer which is as foolish as it is ridiculous.
And what of those stars which are so far away and which died so long ago, their light cannot be detected by the telescopes so far invented?
There are no more stars, they reply. The universe simply ends 13 billion light years from where the earth is now and beyond that there is a solid wall of nothingness, a complete absence in which nothing exists, not even space.

Thus, in every direction astronomers cast their gaze, the universe they claim, comes to an end 13 billion light years from where the Earth is now, and sitting at the center of this Universe? Our Milky Way galaxy and the Earth!

Of course, even as they admit that all observations are based on the position of the Earth making it the center of the universe, they will deny that they believe the Earth is at the center of the universe--even though an Earth-centered universe is the foundation for all their measurements and conclusions.

Even as though they lie about it, explicit in the theological assumptions of the Big Bang theologians, is that the our galaxy sits at the center of the universe; conveniently located at ground zero for their god, the Big Bang.

And from the vantage point of the Earth, the big bang universe is expanding; in every direction they look, galaxies appear to be speeding away from the Earth! And not just expanding, but accelerating--and neither concept is possible if the universe had a big bang beginning.
A closed universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine, and material ejected from an explosion does not slow down only to speed up. And yet, this is what the big bangers claim. The universe speeded up, slowed down, and then speeded up again!
Are we also to assume that God, the big bang creator, is behind the wheel, first accelerating, then slowing down, then speeding up? Why is this big bang universe behaving in this reckless fashion? Ah, another imaginary construct. Its not the fault of big bang. The problem is: Dark Energy! Yes, that's the ticket. Dark Energy!
Dark Energy is an evil, invisible force that like the devil, forces the universe to behave in ways that contradict the laws and predictions of the big bang. There is no problem with the big bang. Its Dark Energy!
We must not be fooled by flights of fantasy, for like the Devil, there is no evidence that dark energy exists. Its a way to excuse the fact that the big bang makes inaccurate predictions: Dark Energy made me do it!
The Universe is not speeding up. Rather, the evidence is of a universe which is in motion, with rivers of galaxies flowing in various directions depending upon the gravitation forces of their surroundings.
Oceans have currents, air has currents, and there are gravitional currents within the universe...and like rivers which are formed from streams and interacting tributaries which pour into each other, those galaxies which flow along these currents sometimes crash into one another.

Yet, a river does not end, it simply joins a larger body of water; water which may be recycled.
Galaxies are in motion not because of big bang propulsion, but due to gravitational influences. And just as a river picks up speed as it flows toward the ocean, via gravitation forces and accumulating masses of water, there are galaxies that may also pick up speed as they flow from there to there, and often they too grow larger as smaller galaxies are consumed or as they merge to become one.
This is not possible in a big bang closed universe, as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and as gravity should diminish not increase at the edge of the cosmos. Moreover, according to the theology of the big bang, all galaxies are evenly spaced and expanding in the same direction--which is clearly not the case.

The universe is not expanding. Galaxies are in motion.
THE BIG BANG EXPANSION MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE

According to the Big Bang model: The Bang effect, starting from a singularity event, requires that all matter created (photons, atoms; subatomic particles) moves apart systematically in a continuously expanding Universe. According to the big bangers, the universe is growing and expanding, and this view has been accepted by most, but not all astronomers. We must remember: science is not democracy, and when a herd mentality prevails critical thinking is usually the first victim--even when the mob with pitchforks and torches consists entirely of "scientists."

The entire model of an expanding universe, and an accelerating universe is based on the fact that all observations are from Earth and galaxies appear to be receding from the Earth. Yes, that's right: According to the big bangers and as based on their measurements of shifting red shifts, most galaxies are speeding away FROM THE EARTH!

Thus, whereas for two thousand years the Catholic Church had the Earth as the center of the universe, this model has now been accepted by most astronomers who immediately deny the possibility of a Earth-centered universe, even though their observations are based on the Earth being at the center of the universe.
According to the big bangers, as a result of this expansion, galaxies, each holding a fraction of this matter created by the creator, THE BIG BANG (as gas and dust), are receding from one another over a range of velocities (as demonstrated by the spectral red shift phenomenon that depend on their relative proximities and on their apparent ages as a function of distance. The apparent age of a given galaxy (according to big bang theology) is based on the belief that most galaxies started to form early in cosmic time [first 1 - 2 b.y.], which is an assumed age) when the astronomer sees it is just the time elapsed for light to have traveled (at ~300,000 km/sec [186,000 miles/sec]) the total distance it is now from Earth. Thus, the Earth is the center point of reference and telescopes are time machines!

All observations are based on where the Earth is now, which assumes (though denied) and requires the belief (again denied) that the Earth is at the center of the universe. All measurements and conclusions are based on the fact that all observations are relative to the Earth--even as those making these measurements deny that the Earth is at the center. Which means, these measurements mean nothing as the Earth is not the center of the universe. Its not even in the center of this galaxy.

Nevertheless, the big bangers tell us if a galaxy is, for example, 9 billion l.y. away today (a distance of ~8 x 10¹⁹ kilometers), light has taken that long to get here and the galaxy must therefore have been in existence since at least 9 b.y ago (and likely longer, perhaps to the first billion years of the Universe). Therefore, because it is 9 billion light years distant from Earth is most be 9 billion years old--which is ridiculous.
Even, ignoring this absurdity, the big bangers tell us that a galaxy 9 billion light year distant from Earth was therefore formed 4 billion years after the big bang. Thus, again, the Earth is believed to be ground zero for the big bang, even though the astronomers deny this, even as they use the Earth-as-ground-zero as the foundation for their claims.
Certainly, a galaxy whose light has reached the Earth after 9 billion years no longer looks the way it appears to us on Earth--as billions of years have passed and the star may have long ago winked out of existence.
If somehow we could image the galaxy in its present (current) state, it would appear different from what we can actually see that represents its state 9 billion years ago. And, we cannot say anything directly about the galaxy prior to (older than) 9 billion light years, since light from any more ancient time has long since moved past the present-day center-of-the-universe Earth.
According to the big bangers, that galaxy and the Earth (within the Milky Way) were much closer to each other 9 b.y. ago and have continued receding from one another since. However, if that is true, then the light we are seeing may not be 9 billion years in age. It may be only 4.5 billion years--assuming light travels at a constant speecd (which it doesn't) and assuming that light is related to time--which it is not.

Today the galaxy is much further away from Earth and light leaving it now will take much longer than 9 billion years to reach us. According to Big Bang theology, the two galaxies were indeed very close, as were all galaxies including those now at the maximum observable distance from Earth; since then the two have separated a distance specified by that covered by their mutual travel and increasing over the 9 billion light years of expansion. This seeming paradox is addressed by applying Einsteinian concepts of gravitationally moderated space-time (his theory of General Relativity). According to Big Bang theology, the age assigned to a galaxy at any distance from Earth depends on its distance (in light years) and the age chosen for the beginning of the Big Bang. Thus, depending on the age chosen for the big bang, e.g. 8 billion years, 12 billion years, and so on, and as based on how far away the galaxy is from Earth (again making Earth ground-zero for the big bang), the big bangers then guess the age of the galaxy!
To calculate this: Age we now see = Stage of Development = Age of Universe - Time elapsed during the travel time of light [l.y.] from galaxy to us. Assuming the Universe's age to be 14 Ga, the galaxy 9 Ga away shows us today what it looked like at 14 - 9 = 5 Ga after the Big Bang.
If the galaxy formed 1 billion years after the Big Bang, we will have missed all evidence of its growth and evolution for the 4 Ga time interval prior to the 9 Ga moment in which we observe it now.
According to Big Bang theology, we must now employ magical thinking: In order to gain an idea of what galaxies older than 9 Ga looked like, we must peer back farther into spacetime, i.e., search for galaxies that can be "dated" at, say, 11 or 13 Ga, etc. in terms of measured light-years away. In the other time direction, if humans are around one billion years from now, and decide to observe this same galaxy, they will see it as it has changed (evolved) to an older stage of its existence one billion years later. Thus, this model also requires that human and the Earth remain the center of the universe and all existence, for everything is dependent on Earth-centered observations which put the Earth and keep the Earth at the center of the universe, even though the Earth and our solar system are also in motion.
Perhaps a diagram will aid in comprehending these fantastical big bag ideas of the effects of expansion on the perceived ages of galaxies at different distances:

From J. Silk, The Big Bang, 2nd Ed., © 1989. W.H. Freeman Co., New York
In the diagram, the Big Bang itself is the zero point in time and space on the right end of the wedge diagram. Both straight lines from this point are non-linear time lines (the one on the right ends at 20 billion light years - an upper limit for the age of the Universe chosen arbitrarily by Professor Silk as a maximum estimate at the time he fashioned the figure. Now an age based 13.7 billion l.y. is believed to be more factual, so this illustrative diagram is out-of-date in that respect; the line on the top shows in words major events during the Universe's history). The long circular arc can be thought of both as a distance measure and another expression of the time involved in light speed travel of photons from any point on the curve to observers on Earth in the Milky Way - it is the timeline for the present day. The shaded area lies within the 300,000 year span from the Big Bang moment until the end of the Radiation Era - any event in the then smaller Universe is forever hidden from detecting/monitoring by the opacity of early Universe prior to Decoupling. The first luminous matter to form after this Era (300,000 to 500,000 years after the Big Bang) has taken just under 20 (think 14 hereafter) billion years to get to Earth, covering a distance of 14 (minus 0.5) billion light years as traced by the long white curved line. Galaxy B as seen appears several billion years younger (that is, is in a stage of development at, say, 3 billion years after the BB, so that the distance traveled by its light path (white) is less. Galaxy A seems much younger still in terms of when its light left it for Earth; for that case, the light path is shortest.
Nevertheless, both Galaxy A and B can be nearly the same actual age, since the bulk of the galaxies are believed to have organized over a time interval of a 1-2 billion years at most after the Big Bang. (However, keep in mind that many astronomers believe that some [possibly many] galaxies have formed at various times subsequent to the era of main galaxy formation - about a billion years after the Big Bang - and would thus appear younger [in earlier stages of evolution] at various distances from Earth within the 4 dimensional mix of galaxies distributed throughout the expanding Universe.) But, in fact the appearance of Galaxy B shows it to be in an earlier stage of development than Galaxy A. This seeming paradox is simply the relativistic effect of time of travel: B took longer to get here because it is further away and at the time of departure was developing at an earlier time in Universe history. Light from A left later, when that galaxy was in a stage of evolution that appears further along, and has traveled a shorter distance, being located also closer to the Milky Way (B is further away because it is located among those galaxies that have been receding from Earth as an observation point at faster rates; see below).
Now, consider this thought experiment: Suppose telescopes are really time machines. Thus you peer through a telescope one night, gaze backward in time, and happen to see the moment of detonation - the earliest stage - of 3 supernovae. They all will disappear as bright objects within hundreds of years. You might conclude that they all were happening right now or at least recently. Measuring the recessional velocity redshift of each, from which distances to observer can be calculated, you find that Supernova A is 2 billion l.y. away, B is 7 b.l.y from Earth, and C is 12 b.l.y distant from the Earth.

This last supernova, because it is 12 billion light years from Earth, actually occurred 12 billion years ago, the others 7 and 2 billion years ago respectively. They are indeed not simultaneous events, and all three in today's time have no trace of their existence (some of their materials have been incorporated in other stars and the rest are dispersed in intra- and inter-galactic space). Yet, as you witnessed them suddenly appear, you might conclude they were happening NOW - not so. The one distinction among them is that the luminosity of the three decreases in the time-distance sequence from brightest A, then B, and C with the lowest luminosity; this is simply the effect of increasing distance making objects of similar absolute magnitudes progressively decrease their apparent magnitudes.

Intuitively, one might imagine while looking outward and back in time that the farther out we see, the older are the galaxies. But as shown above, this is in fact just the opposite of distribution of developmental ages. That is one of the insights that Relativity has led us to. Also, intuitively we might (subconsciously) harken back to the belief of the Catholic Church up almost to the 20th Century that the Milky Way in fact lies at the center of the observable Universe. Since we don't actually know where the outer boundaries of the Universe are, and since the universe appears to be infinite.

Nevertheless, the big bangers require that we be at (near) the center, though this is highly improbable. More likely, the Milky Way is not equidistant from all the outermost galaxies seen so far, and is not near any center (expansion models do not allow for a discoverable center) - a positional state that may not even be valid. One can however speculate about the spatial distribution of galaxies relative to the singularity which doesn't have a location since the space associated with this Universe did not exist until after the Big Bang, or so claims Big Bang theology.
We on Earth are likely subject to the Copernican Cosmological Principle which says that there is no preferred location in the space within the Universe we dwell in. What this also means is that an observer at any galaxy regardless of location will see a Universe which looks completely different from the view offered from Earth. As all galaxies are in motion in different directions and at different speeds, a distant galaxy would have a completely different perspective of how far away galaxies are, from their vantage point, and at what speeds and directions these galaxies might be traveling--again from their perspective. All things are relative, and what is relative from Earth is not the same as what is relative from a distant galaxy. At distant galaxy might see another galaxy as moving toward it, whereas from Earth, the same galaxy might seemingly be moving away. An astronomer on a planet in a galaxy 7 billion light years from Earth would see completely different patterns of movement and age relationships in a Universe and which are completely different form those deduced from our vantage point. He/she would see a different set of sky map features - a different zodiac and different constellations (these are largely comprised of stars resident in the Milky Way galaxy) and so on.

Because the above ideas may seem bizarre and perhaps contradictory, we will reiterate for emphasis their essence in this (seemingly repitious) statement: Galaxies detected by the HST as very far away, say 10-13 billion light years, will look to us like they are among the youngest in the Universe. However, what of those galaxies which are so far away, they have not yet been detected? What of those who died so long ago, there light has long ago passed us by. What about a galaxy which is 50 billion light years away? Astronomers on that distant galaxy will see a universe completely different from that envision by astonomers on Earth.
What we see of these distant objects is their status or appearance at that time, from where the Earth is now, and in accordance with preconceptions about the origin of the universe. Further it is a mistake to assume that time and distance are the same thing. Thus, a galaxy 2 billion light years away may appear to an Earth astronomer as it was just two billion years ago but this does not mean it is 2 billion years old. If that same astronomer were on a galaxy 10 billion light years away, and looking at the same galaxy, if he has the same immature thinking of an Earthly astonomer, he would deduce that this galaxy, which is 2 billion light years from Earth but 8 billion light years from his galaxy, is therefore 8 billions old. Relativity!
From the grand concepts of Relativity (perhaps the greatest "thought" of the 20th Century), as interpreted by Big Bang theology, it is concluded that space itself is the entity that is doing the expanding rather than just the matter within it simply flying apart. As one looks ever farther towards the expansion front, evermore new space appears and the matter it will contain can be said to be "created" and organized from the events ordained by the Big Bang. The expansion of space is four-dimensional (3 spatial and one time dimension); this is often referred to as spacetime . Since the Big Bang, as time increases after the singularity-activated, ever-larger regions of the Universe become progressively visible.
According to big bang theology, while space is the entity doing the expansion, there is no corresponding expansion within galaxies (their stars are not drawing apart from each other, and in fact over time they tend to contract as the stars move inward towards the usual Black Holes at their centers). A major reason why galaxies (and our own Solar System) do not seem to participate in the general expansion, which applies primarily to the large-scale Universe, is the effect of "local" gravity (from the stars within a galaxy, plus some contribution from nearby galaxies in clusters) that roughly counterbalances the enlargement of space even as it serves to maintain equilibrium with galactic angular momentum.
For the Universe, any point on the sphere is equivalent to any other point but the idea of a center on the sphere itself has no meaning. Only when one point (such as Earth) is chosen as an observing reference does any meaningful framework of spacetime geometry have any value in discussing "location". Earth, in Babylonian and Ptolemaic models, and in those adopted by Christian theology, was once held to be the center of the Universe. Later, the Sun was accepted as center. Now it has become obvious that our Solar System occupies a non-important position part way out from the central region of our Milky Way galaxy. This galaxy is as typical ("normal") as most others in the Universe. Its location within the Universe cannot be specified with respect to an ultimate center, since none can be found; it would be extraordinarily fortuitous if the Sun and the Milky Way galaxy were actually at or near the "center" of a finite (and spherical) Universe. (Thus, some civilization on a planet around a star in a distant galaxy could likewise elect to place themselves as apparently at the center of their perceived Universe).

But, again, no real center can be fixed anywhere since all points on the expanding geometry (see next page for the spatial alternatives, which include non-spherical and contracting models) have equal weight and significance. In a sense, the fourth dimension has a "center", namely the singular point in time when expansion began.
It is difficult to draw upon ordinary visual experience to envision this expansion, since observation does not correspond to big bang predictions. Nevertheless, when facts fail to support the theory, analogies are excellent substitutes.

To help picture in one's mind the more abstract 4-dimensional (time included) expansion of the big bang Universe, the example is often cited of the spreading apart of polka dots on a balloon's surface that is progressively enlarged as the balloon is inflated.

This analogy is a good working description of one big bang mode of the enlargement of space (spherical) if one simply ignores the everyday experience of a balloon having an interior - instead think only in terms of its surface; the analogy is not meant to imply that the Universe coincides with an expanding surface of a sphere within which there is nothing (but air or gas in a real world balloon). A spherical surface has the special property of being dimensionally finite but has no edge as such; it curves continuously on and through itself. In the balloon example, its surface is in effect a 2-D curved surface. The balloon's surface can be thought of as representing the surface of an expanding sphere on which the Universe's components - galaxies, intergalactic matter, "empty" space between stars and between galaxies, radiation - are located. The universal space being generated associates with the equivalent balloon surface (however, the galaxies, unlike the dots, do have dimensional depth).
Of course the balloon model is completely fraudulent. Galaxies do not behave according to the balloon model.
Big Banger like the balloon example because it can be used to convince the naive into picturing an expanding space with curved dimensionality, to picture the separation of points on a finite, curved, closed space geometry, by working on the 2-D analog that illustrates some of the properties of cosmic expansion--and to thus ignore factual observation and to accept a model in place of reality. The disadvantages: This is only a surface; the interior is empty and ignored; also the spots would stretch out on the balloon surface (ignored in the illustration) A word of caution: other expansion geometries - hyperbolic and flat - are possible and lead to different end results--thus defying the big bang.
Another commonly cited "mental picture" is the raisin loaf analog. Consider bread dough(with a high dosage of yeast) in which are embedded randomly but uniformly spread out numerous raisins.

The dough (envision this either in the traditional shape or as a sphere) is then baked in an oven. As it cooks, the entire loaf expands outward indefinitely (in reality this process will eventually stop). With growth, the raisins become progressively farther apart but the individual raisins largely retain their original size. During expansion the raisins farthest from any one chosen as a frame of reference will move the most and hence at a faster clip (velocity) than those close to each other. While helpful in the visualization, this model too has problems. The raisins near or at the edges do not see raisins in all directions, only inward, which violates the Cosmological Principle. And, as one stands back from the baking loaf, the bread "universe" has a conceptual center. The most serious shortcoming: The analogy does not give a sense that the outer raisins appear as though younger, i.e., represent earlier stages of development; there is no indication that large separations involve long transit times for information to move at the speed of light (almost nothing in our Earth experience can duplicate this, although the very brief delay when someone on television is communicating with another half way around the globe, which results from the large distances that the signal [moving at light speed] must travel out and back is an actual example of a relativity effect). So then, this analog is imperfect and aids only in envisioning a part of the expansion picture.

There is a third analogy utilized by big banger to help maintain the faith in this theology.This is quoted directly from Joseph Silk's The Big Bang, 1989 (comments in parentheses are the writer's [NMS]):
" We can try to visualize the initial expansion (of the Universe) by imagining an immense swarm of bees (matter; later, the galaxies) crammed into a tiny hive. Suddenly the beekeeper removes the hive, and the bees rush off in all directions (at once). Any given bee will observe its neighbors to be moving away from each other. Suppose all the bees fly in straight lines but in random directions. The swarm of bees will steadily spread out, covering an ever-increasing volume, and the fastest bees will be farthest away. A simple relation connects the velocity of any bee with the distance traveled.". To this I add: there always remain some bees close-in to the hive site; and some bees don't get too adventurous and start flying at greater speeds past other bees further out, i.e., they elect to stay in their relative positions after release. And, like the bees, within galaxy clusters, the net motion of individual galaxies tend to be in all directions (i.e., random) including some coming towards Earth even as the cluster groups themselves are moving both outward and apart.
Of course, the major problem with this analogy can be summed up with one question: "Where did the bees come from?" And if the bees already existed before they swarmed out, then obviously, the swarming did not create the bees.
The Big Bangers, however, ignore these questions and instead ask for the suspension of judgement and common sense, and to instead indulge in flights of fantasy: Imagine you are in a spherical room completely filled with marbles. Then, conceive of the boundary of the sphere as now moving outward and at the same time, all the marbles move away from each other, as though propelled by some gas. This continues indefinitely with the marbles progressively moving further apart. No gaps or holes develop within the expanding marble complex, so that the density of marble distribution, while ever decreasing, is uniform. As one looks around while within this array of marbles, each moving away from its neighbors as the whole group draws apart, it is impossible to determine just where the original center of the complex was - in effect, there seems to be no center.
The question again becomes: where did the marbles come from? Where did the gas come from? To answer: "the big bang" is no different from answering: "From god."

Another failure in the balloon and raisin bread models is that it is hard to perceive that the objects farthest away must move fastest during the expansion. And this is because instead of expansion, the universe is in motion; not expanding, just in motion. A river which flows from multiple sources to the sea, and which increases speed as it nears the ocean, is a function of gravity and increasing mass--not a big bang creation of something from nothing.
The Big Bangers, however, offer instead another flight of fantasy: The rubber band experiment: Take a wide rubber band and penmark five marks on it - one [make it an X] at the center as a reference, then one dot on either side an inch apart and one more dot on each side separated by another inch from each of the inner paired dots; holding the band around your two forefingers, gradually stretch the rubber band outwards about three inches and observe the shifts of the dots against a backdrop of a ruler, placing and holding the center X at some number; the two inner dots move some distance and the two outer dots also move but over a greater distance; also, the increase in separation between inner and outer dot on either side is larger than between the X and inner dot; since velocity (v) = distance (d) divided by time (t) and the time of the stretch was the same for all dots, the outer dots are said to move apart at a greater velocity than the inner pair; this is a relative effect since any set of points along the rubber band do not actually move at different speeds as it pulls apart. This manner of motion is inherent to cosmological expansion; otherwise, if all points expanded at the same velocity along radii of a sphere from a common starting point, all would simply migrate outward as an expanding shell creating an increasing void bounded by their inner edge (here, the balloon analogy may help to picture this).
Of course the problem with this analogy is it conflicts with the facts. Galaxies are not moving in the same direction and at the same speed. There are entire rivers of galaxies flowing in directions opposite to prediction. There are galaxies which crash into each other, with rear end collisions being the exception. That is, they often crash side by side.

Let us now consider the big bangers quantitative view using another pictorial way to visualize this notion of expansion with the help of this diagram (a variant of the balloon case) which presents the process as a 2-D portrayal using circles (the concept depicted works just as well for the 3-D [balloon] version):

The circle on the left depicts a sphere with a radius r₁ on which a coordinate system (essentially, latitude and longitude lines) has been traced. That describes expansion from an initial point (radius r₀). As expansion continues, the circle on the right now has a radius r₂. The coordinate system has correspondingly expanded so that the coordinates of any point, such as locate any of the three "Saturn" discs (note that they remain constant in size even as they separate; this is analogous to the above-mentioned statement that galaxies themselves do not expand in proportion to space expansion), have changed only in scale. From this one can define a basic function called the Cosmic Scale Factor, given by the symbol R(t) which describes the changes in spatial separation (lengths or distances in a three-dimensional Universe) in an expanding system as a function of time. Scale factor is not the same as "scale" in the conventional sense. We can refer to a model of a sailboat as at a scale of 1/40th the size of the same boat as it really is used; scale in this usage does not have a time connotation.
As a hypothetical example, let's say that the Scale Factor is 3 - in some unit of time, two galaxies separated by a beginning distance of d will after t time become separated by 3d. The Scale Factor considers this question: How much does the distance between two points in an expanding Universe increase between t₁ and t₂? The answer is given by the scale factor which in turn relates to the rate of expansion.
In one mode of application to the expanding Universe, the current scale factor is set at 1 and all preceding factors are decimal fractions of 1. So, a scale factor of 0.001 at, say, 400000 years after the Big Bang would indicate the Universe to be 1/1000th its present size, or a Hubble horizon of 13.7 million light years. Used this way, the scale factor is a direct measure of the extent of expansion at the time specified.
For the general case, this simple equation applies to cosmic expansion: R(t) = r_n/r₀, where r_n is the radius at some specific time and r₀ is the initial radius (for the Universe, the singularity point). Thus, the amount or rate of expansion (or contraction) can be adjusted by a given Scale Factor; if not defining a linear function one value will yield a faster (slower) rate than another that is numerically less (greater). For a given span of time, separations (length spreads) will be greater for higher R's than lower ones. The coordinates are said to be co-moving, that is, they enlarge during expansion but all x, y, and z points referenced to them scale proportionately with R while maintaining their same relative positions. The Scale Factor is a fundamental geometric property that is relevant to a description of an expanding Universe.
The scale factor R(t) participates in expansion in what is known as the Minkowski Expansion equation:

Δs² = (cΔt)² - R²(t)(Δx² + Δy² + Δz²

However, a fudge factor must be introduced to support this model, simply because it is not supported by observation and as it can't consistently make accurate predictions. Thus, at least four general modes of change of R with time are necessary, and as depicted in the next diagram. Note that in three of the four cases shown R varies in magnitude with time.

Graph a shows a decreasing rate of expansion, b a uniform or constant (linear) rate, c, an increasing rate, and d a negative rate of expansion (i.e., a contraction).
Note that for a given increase in expansion over some time from t₁ to t₂, points that are farther apart at t₁ expand at progressively greater velocities than those nearer each other; thus, they cover greater distances in a unit of time (we shall see on the next page that this ever increasing velocity outward is associated with progressive increases in wavelengths of light as shown by the redshift phenomenon).
This can be further elucidated with this diagram:

From J. Hawley and K. Holcomb, Foundations of Modern Cosmology, © 1998. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain.
Let the upper row represent the position of three galaxies at t₁ and the lower the later expanded location at t₂. The elapsed time is (t₂ - t₁) = Δt (Delta t = a finite interval of time). Initially, each galaxy is separated by a distance d. Following expansion, A is now separated from B by 2d and from C by 4d. Therefore B has moved with respect to A (the observation position) at a recessional velocity (d/t) of (2d - d)/Δt = d/Δt and C from A at (4d - 2d)/Δ t = 2d/Δ t. Thus, the velocity of recession of C with respect to A is twice that of B to A. (Returning to the balloon analogy, one can see that farther dots recede faster than closer ones relative to some dot chosen as the point of observation.) The relative velocities will depend on the Scale Factor. As determined from red shift studies (next page), in this dynamic Universe any two galaxies are moving relative to one another at different recessional velocities which depends on their distance apart; the velocity between one of these galaxies and still a third that is twice as far away will be double (twice) that of the first pair considered.
Again, the problem is the model does not correspond to reality. Galaxies are not evenly spaced. There are entire walls of galaxies and huge empty spaces where galaxies should exist but don't. Then there are the colliding galaxies and innumerable galaxies flowing in the "wrong" direction. Simply put: the model does not correspond to reality.
Let us turn our attention to what has been learned in the last decade about the outer reaches of the observable Universe. This next illustration is a panorama of galaxies imaged by HST in which some of the light points are located in what has been called the Deep Field region, i.e., in that region of space with galaxies that are the farthest from us, in terms of light-year travel distances. What this evidence indicates is that there are galaxies as far as can been seen. There is no beginning. There is no end. The existence of these galaxies should not exist if there was a big bang beginning 13 billion years ago.

The apparent 2-D aspect (i.e., flat; lack of depth) of this image is misleading in that many of the galactic bodies (stars cannot be resolved) - generally, the ones appearing to be larger, with discernible structure - can be shown to be relatively close. Size, then, is mostly a function of distance although galaxies do vary in dimensions to some extent. Most of the smaller ones may be 9 to 12 billion light years or more away. Those objects farthest way - near the edge of the (so-far) observed Universe - appear as tiny blue specks (about 1,000,000,000 times fainter than can be detected by the human eye); their red shifts (see next page) of greater than 3-4 indicate them to be the fastest moving in the expanding Universe as predicted from the Big Bang model.
All of these extremely distant objects are fully formed. They are old galaxies, not new, infant galaxies as predicted by the big bang. An example below (which also illustrates how the Hubble scientists go about the process of making their observations and drawing their deductions) shows a small region of the Deep Field (and several closer galaxies) as imaged by HST in four spectral bands from the UV to the Near-IR.

The arrows point to a location within this region in which no object appears in the left three panels (UV and two Visible bands) but a dark spot under the arrow in the right panel (Near-IR) shows an object (presumably a galaxy) in that position. Its red shift (see next page), now out of the visible red into the near infrared, is great enough (> 5) to fit an object near the time-space edge of the Universe corresponding to the earliest period of galaxy formation. Thus, detection of very distant galactic objects is very much dependent on wavelengths sampled.

The more distant galactic objects detected so far (by the Hubble Space Telescope [HST]) are at least 7 billion light years, and some perhaps 10-13 or more billion l.y., away from us. HST has now found galaxies whose redshift distance calculates out as 12 billion l.y.(and one at 13 b.l.y.). However, the most distant galaxies so far detected are so faint that even after an exposure time of 36 hours via the NICMOS (Near Infrared and Multi-Object Spectrometer) instrument, there is no way to determine their age or their distance.

The larger field shows the galactic cluster Abell 2218 which lies a distance of about 2 billion light years from Earth. Look at this image, made using the HST in conjunction with the Keck Telescope:

The small square in this image is enlarged and inset in the upper right. Within it, arrows point to (apparently) two red spots. This double image is made visible by the gravitational lensing effect of the massive Abell 2248 cluster. The pair is actually a single small galaxy at a distance from Earth calculated from a redshift of z = 7.1 to be 13.4 billion l.y. (in this case, the Hubble constant that gives a Universe age of 14 billion years was used) . Thus, the galaxy was already fully formed and quite old even when, according to the big bang model, the universe was less than a billion years old; which means the model is incorrect.

The reason for the double red dots is another case of the effect of image splitting owing to the Einstein's General Relativity mechanism of optical bending of light as a result of gravitational influence of mass, concentrated in galaxies and stars (see Preface to this Section). This Einstein mechanism is thus responsible for the gravitational lens effect exerted largely by the Abell cluster, which magnifies this galaxy (estimated at 500 light years across), defies all expectations of what the big bang predicts for the appearance of the first galaxies.

The longer astronomers look, the older the universe becomes, first 8 billion, then 12 billion, then 13 billion, now 14 billion. Japanese astronomers, using the powerful Subaru telescope, made multiple exposures of the objects in a small segment of the celestial sphere. They added (superimposed) the luminosity measurements from these repeat observations so as to get a brighter image. Thus:

Of course, distance is not time, and time is not distance. What this tell us is that fully formed galaxies exist 14 billion light years from Earth. And the Earth is not the center of the universe, so measurements from Earth are relative to where the Earth is now, and the Earth is neither at the beginning or the end. These measurements, therefore, are relative and mean nothing.
In any case, the notable brightness and irregular shape of this galaxy are attributed to an hypothesized large number of young giant stars undergoing explosions (most likely, supernovae), with its luminosity possibly added to by rapidly forming quasars. It is conceivable that this galaxy (and presumably others) is actually undergoing destructive disruption and may have since disappeared.

The big bang model claims as the galaxies began to form and afterwards evolve - producing visible entities whose relative motions with respect to one another can then be monitored - they all continued the earlier expansion motions imposed since the Big Bang. This, in effect, means that they should all be moving generally in the direction of expansion while at the same time are each moving apart from its neighbors. This is not true, of course, for again, galaxies are flowing in every conceivable direction, and at different speeds, and even crashing into each other. In any (and all) region(s) of the Universe, such as the Local Group which contains our Milky Way and many nearby galaxies, the movements of these galaxies, while expansive overall, tend to be in various directions including towards one another (thus ensuring some collisions). A few, such as Andromeda, are currently moving towards us and Andromeda and the Milky Way will eventually crash into each other. And whenever galaxies that form a group or cluster are examined, some proportion of the total will show shifts towards the blue (not necessarily into the blue). This multi-directional motion pattern results from gravitational interactions that mutually perturb their relative movements and thus disprove the big bang model. This is observable only nearby; at great distances the larger red shifts swamp any variation caused by more immediate conditions around the observed galaxy(ies).
To sum up, General Relativity demands some degree of curvature for expanding space whereas the known universe appears to be oval shaped, or flat--thus defying what should be the balance of gravity against the forces imposed by the initial Big Bang. The distribution of matter determines the geometry of space but does not conform to the big bang model. According to this model, space in some way will curve back on itself, maintaining the requirement that it has no (edge) boundaries. If space completely curves back on itself, the Universe is closed--but a closed universe can in fact have no beginning and no end. We can only see that part of the (visible) Universe in which light has had time to get to our observing station. In any mode obeying General Relativity that recognizes perpetual expansion, the Universe will be infinitely large; this means that it goes on continuously forever.
We must remember, all observations are from where the Earth is now--this model requires that the Earth be at the center of the universe: from our observation location, however, we seem to be at a "center" in that all galaxies appear to be receding from us (the exception: a few galaxies - which are indeed moving along with the expansion - will appear as though moving in our direction (like a bee that temporarily turns inward toward the hive point). The Earth is not at the center of the universe--this is a religious myth. Nor was the universe created. The big bang model is religion masquerading as science.
TIME AND THE INFINITE UNIVERSE
Time is not a thing that can be located here or there, which is why the ever present now always slips away before it can be grasped.
Time is not distance and distance is not time. Light is effected by many variables which is why the red shift of far away galaxies provide only gross estimates of distance and tell us nothing about time.
Time is relative and so too is distance, yet the vast majority of cosmologists, and the journal editors who publish them, have completely ignored relativity and the warnings of Hubble, Doppler, and Einstein, and they have done so as a matter of faith, to serve their god.
Thus we are told that based on the red shifts of the most distant galaxies so far observed, that these galaxies are 13 billion light years away and thus the Universe was created 13 billion years ago, in a big bang.
But away from what? Relative to what?
Time and distance are relative, and all observations of far away galaxies are relative to where the Earth is now. Red shifts are effected by movement and the stretching of space. And not just distant galaxies, but the Earth and our Milky Way way galaxy, are also in motion.
Red shifts and blue shifts are also related to the movements of our galaxy. Not just distant galaxies, but the movements of our galaxy act to stretch space and alter the waveforms of light.

Astronomers who make fantastic claims about the meaning of red shifts, conveniently ignore the fact that the Earth and our sun is also in motion, as it orbits the Milky Way galaxy. Thus, as the Earth journeys orbits the Milky Way galaxy, the red shifts of far away galaxies can become blue shifts and vice versa.
Indeed, even the most far away galaxies may be in orbit, thus seemingly speeding away when in fact they are slowly moving round and round, across the face of the cosmos.
Thus, a galaxy that appears to be speeding toward us may at some future date, appear to be speeding away, a consequence of their own unknown orbits and as our solar system swings around the Milky Way.
Red shifts and blue shifts are relative to the movements of the Earth and our own Milky Way galaxy and reflect expansions and contractions of space, not time.

Consider, for example, galaxy STIS 123627, also referred to as "Sharon". Sharon it was announced just a few years ago, is the most distant galaxy every discovered, over 12.5 billion light years away scientists proudly proclaimed. However, by 2007 Sharon no longer exhibited the same red shift previously observed, and is now estimated to be maybe 9 billion light years away.
Red shifts do not measure time, and provide only gross approximations of distance, approximations which may change drastically over just a few years of time.
Thus, the fantastic claim that distant galaxies are receding or the universe was created 13 billion years ago, is inaccurate. Rather, at this moment in time, "the space between certain galaxies appears to be expanding" relative to the movement of the Earth and where the Earth is now.
THE EARTH CENTERED GALAXY

For almost 2,000 years Western scientists and theologians, believed in the Earth centered solar system. The dogma of the day was that the earth was surrounded by 9 concentric spheres that corresponded to the moon, the sun, and other planets which were believed to orbit the Earth.
The Earth was at the center of the solar system, so preached the Temple Priests of science.
So strong was their faith that scientists clung to these beliefs despite accumulating discomfirming evidence, even threatening to kill and burn anyone who dared disagree. Thus, even though it became increasingly clear that the movements of the planets and our own earth could be more easily explained by a sun-centered solar system, and charted in a simple circular motion, astronomers instead refused to abandon their religion, and devised ever more complex theories, including the notion of epicycles, to explain these observations.
Epicycles were the dark matter of their day.

The Earth-centered solar system was based, they proclaimed on empirical science, and was supported by their theories.
With the Copernican revolution, and the realization that the sun and not the earth sit at the center of the solar system, these false gods and idols were finally toppled and shattered; or were they?
Today the temple priests of science tell us that the Earth, our solar system, and our galaxy is at the center of the Universe! Their claims, we are told, are based on empirical observations and supported by their theories.
And what are these observations. with their magical telescopes which allow them to see backwards in time, astronomers have determined that from the perspective of our planet and our galaxy, in every direction they look, our galaxy is at the center!

This childish thinking is equivalent to having a visual field that extends 20 feet distant, and by turning in a circle, discovering that the circle extends 20 feet from where one stands and that one is at the center of the circle. However, only a fool would conclude that the universe and all of reality ends at the edge of this circle, and yet this is in fact the position of modern cosmology and astrophysics!
Of course, if we could fit that person with a strong pair of corrective lenses, and gave them glasses that would extend their visual field a few more feet, if they were truly a fool they might conclude the universe was expanding but that it nevertheless still comes to an end at the point where their feeble eyes, and the glasses they wear, prevent them from seeing yet farther away.
Likewise, the observed universe, is limited by the visual capabilities of the telescopes employed. Since these telescopes are Earth based, not surprisingly, the Earth, or rather, our galaxy, appears to be at the center of the Universe.
Not surprisingly, with the launching of the Hubble and other telescopes, and then when the visual capacity of the Hubble was improved, some scientists began proclaiming: the universe is expanding. And of course, at the center of this expanding universe is our Milky Way galaxy; proof of our exalted status: their god would have it no other way.
We are also assured that there are no more stars beyond the edge of this circle, and that the universe comes to an end at the edge of this visual cliff. And why is that? Because these stars cannot be seen. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the more distant stars may be so far away that modern day telescopes are incapable of detecting their light.
Nevertheless, according to the Temple priests of science the universe ends at the edge of this visual cliff at the edge of this circle. And what is beyond the visual range of these telescopes? Nothingness.
This thinking is equivalent to the flat earth theories that were briefly in fashion two thousand years ago, and popularized again during the Middle Ages. Then as now, the Temple Priests of science proclaimed that the Earth extended only so far as could be seen, and at the horizons edge, the world ended.

Modern day Temple priests, however, tell us that the edge does not represent the end, but the beginning. Yes, the edge proves that everything began with a big bang. Their magical telescopes which can see backwards in time, prove it empirically. The Milky way galaxy is at the center of the universe, ground zero for the big bang, and at the outer edge are those stars expelled 13 billion years ago by the big bang!
Again conveniently ignored is the fact that the more distant stars may be so far away that modern day telescopes have not been provided sufficient time, or are incapable of detecting their light.
Thus with the help of circular reasoning, astronomers have deduced the universe was created 13 billion years ago, because the most far away galaxies, those that sit close to the circles edge, are 13 billion light years distant from where the Earth is now.
But what of the fact that a planet has been found in our own milky way galaxy that is 13 billion years old, the same date as the supposed Big Bang? This ancient planet, which is 3 times the age of the earth, is part of a star system on the other side of the Milkway galaxy. This star system includes a fast spinning pulsar and a white dwarf star.
What is a 13 billion year old planet doing at the supposed center of the Universe, in our own Milkyway galaxy, when we are also told that those at the outer edge were the very first to be expelled 13 billion years ago in a Big Bang?
How could this planet have already been in existence, here at the supposed observational center of the universe--from which all measurements which support the big bang are made--at the same time the Temple Priests of scientist claim everything began with˙ a Big Bang?
This isn't science, it is a religion; they have dressed up their theology in the language of science, and their science and their big bang theology is based on little more than magical thinking which is defied by logic and refuted by the evidence.
There is no edge. There was no big bang. Space, time, and the universe does not suddenly end at the beginning.
In fact, when telescopes such as the Hubble are allowed extensive viewing time, thus collecting ever more faint and distant light, more and more galaxies are detected; there are galaxies and more galaxies, tens of billions of galaxies as far as the Hubble eye can see. The evidence indicates that galaxies and stars continue outward forever into all eternity.
Indeed, in a failed attempt to prove that galaxies ceased to exist at the theological edge of space, astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope at what they believed to be a completely empty patch of sky or approximately 280 hours. The resulting Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations stunned the temple priests of science. Astronomers thought they were going to stare at the very edge of the universe, that they would gaze upon the very beginning, that their time machine in a telescope was going to peer back 13 billion years in time, when according to their religion, there was absolutely nothing. Instead of nothing, over 10,000 galaxies were detected where non should exist.

By allowing the Hubble to stare for a relatively brief period of time at a particular seemingly blank spot of space, it was able to eventually capture enough dim light to reveal the presence of galaxies and more galaxies as far as Hubble could see. thus, the longer Hubble is allowed to stare into the deepest regions of space, tens of millions of galaxies that are not supposed to exist, are detected.
Moreover, galaxies of all shapes and sizes were observed; and this is because there was no big bang. The universe is infinite and eternal and has no beginning and no end.
Primary Author: Nicholas M. Short, Sr.