There Was No Big Bang: The Proof?

The Big Bang Theory is based on the assumption that a stellar object’s Redshift indicates both velocity & distance. This ‘redshift theory’ is known as the Hubble Constant. There are numerous examples in space that falsify this theory, I’ll use just two as examples.

Galaxy NGC7603

In the above image, it is clear that the main Galaxy is connected to the smaller stellar object by a ‘trail’. There are also two faint objects on the course of the trail. However, the redshift of all four objects are radically different, that is, according to the theory that ‘redshift equals distance & velocity’ they should be in completely different parts of the Universe!

Redshift values of NGC7603

Clearly, the established theory of Redshift can be falsified by this one observation alone, but there are others:

The final irrefutable falsification of the “Redshift equals distance” assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

Galaxy NGC7319

Note the Quasar in front of the galaxy. According to its extreme redshift, it should be way behind this opaque galaxy & therefore not visible.

The Big Bang Theory is false – not because I or others claim it to be false – but because it has been scientifically falsified.

More information on this subject:


Halton Arp’s webpage:

Halton Arp
Halton Arp

Because of Arp’s photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away – on which the “Big Bang” theory and all of “accepted cosmology” is based – is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble’s assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of “Peculiar Galaxies” that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object’s being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe – but they are among the youngest.

13 thoughts on “There Was No Big Bang: The Proof?”

  1. 2011 will be a good year for you OL – as you keep turning the pages that expose yet another scientific fraud we can only wonder WHY, if this material has been known and published, has it been ignored?

    It’s one thing for the mysteries of the Universe to be unseen and theories argued back and forth, but when Mega-Billions have already been spent on extending our reach and the evidence is “there”, why is it being discounted?

    Just like CAGW, sooner or later the little bits of the puzzle will fall into place and we’ll see the whole shebang in glorious technicolor……

    PS: Your bit-at-a-time strategy is working a treat – Cullen would be impressed.

  2. NASA says: “the universe is flat”

    Analogous with ‘flat earthism’ methinks……you couldn’t make this up!

    They also say:
    “The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant”

    Hubble constant is totally busted by empirical observation.
    Gravity doesn’t work [see ‘dark matter’]

    I can see a post coming connecting Flat Earth myths with Flat Universe moonshine.

    Yes Blackswan, they’ve known about Arp’s work & the redshift anomalies for many years now…..considering most Cosmology & Astrophysics is state-funded, is it any wonder the resistance when so many funding streams are at stake?

    Just as with state-funded Climate Science: Follow the money


  3. My new years greetings to Admin and Blackswan

    I can only echo Blackswan’s excellent thoughts

    Why is it that I as a newbie star gazer can follow the logic here with regard to dark matter and the big bang?

    Admin you have widened my horizon so far, with your posts, both informative and addictive.

    Clearly there are many other scams and disinformation out there in the scientific community as money and status are confusing the true course of science and knowledge.

    Clearly 2011 is going to be a good year for this blog – and long may it continue with the excellent work.


  4. Greetings to you MOTM and, yes, it sure looks like 2011 will be a great year on the Glebe.

    OL – that NASA site – thanks. If I hadn’t seen it I wouldn’t have believed it (hard to type with my jaw draped all over my keyboard)…..LOL

    Big Bang, now Big Crunch?? Who ARE these people and, more importantly, who do they think they’re talking TO..?

    Big Bang … a warning to a toddler who wants to drag a balloon through a rose bush.
    Big Crunch … a Kellogs Cereal commercial.
    Dark Matter … what you find behind little boys ears.
    Black Holes … where Taxpayers’ Money goes………….

    Fair dinkum!! When will we have had enough of this rubbish and call these crooks to account?

    (Gee, I should have given up the ciggies earlier – nicotine withdrawal sure is an adrenalin hit …LOL)

  5. Happy New Year folks!

    I had used the following paragraph that I lifted and modified from the Electric Sun site in a reply to RealityReturns at the DT. (Who knows how long it will stay there?)
    This sums up the whole “pal” review system so perfectly; all I had to do was add some other fields of potentially peer corrupt science,

    The present day peer review system determines which proposed research projects get funded and which do not. It also determines what results get published and which do not. At first it seems very sensible that any scientific field should be able to keep ‘quacks and crack pots’ from being funded and published. However, when any given area becomes controlled by ‘experts’ who have accepted a deductively arrived at theory, they tend to see any alternative data or proposed hypotheses as ‘crack pot’. When those who steer the ship of science refuse to allow alternative hypotheses from even being discussed or investigated, let alone published, it is little wonder we are wildly off course. The general public thinks of science as always looking for new ideas. The sad truth is: it does not, certainly not in climate study / history / chemistry / geology / archaeology / medicine / astronomy / cosmology. What it does do is constantly seek funding from friendly peer reviewers.

    Which other fields have been tainted by the present day peer review system?


  6. Hi NoIdea

    Seasons greetings to you

    Your post suggests there is much wrong with the peer review and scientific method as published.

    My hope for 2011 is that the internet will be the great leveller as it has been with AGW, where ideas however crackpot they seem, can the given the light of day and subjected to proper scrutiny, as OL has demonstrated here the folly of Dark Matter and the Big Bang theories.

    I was particularly interested in an article the other day that university lectures by boring presenters will be superceded by proper professional lectures by the Open University and I believe MIT. Universities have much to answer for in the current scientific climate and unless they change their act in a major way they will be bypassed by the internet, leading ultimately to a much more open science.

    Is 2011 the true start of the ‘Internet Age’ where Knowledge, Education, Business, Government and Lifestyle all converge. The links between computers, phones, TV, books, business and leisure is already well under way. It is but a small step to add education, science and arts into the mix.

    The biggest difficulty I see is how big money will be made from these things and that elusive factor of growth, both of which are current hallmarks of our current way of life. Growth in particular must have some finite limit but it is unclear what objective will replace it.


  7. Really, you have to apply red shift to whole galaxies by taking the average red shift of all the stars. I wonder how the averages for NGC7603 and its neighbours compare?

    If you could show that averages of galaxies known to be close by and travelling at similar speeds have unaccountable red shifts, that would be interesting, but just taking the red shifts of points or random little blobs does not make a useful case.

    BTW: People who cannot spell three letter words like ‘its’ correctly do not advertise themselves well! ‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun.

  8. David,
    Thanks for doing that spell-check……hey only one in an article is not too bad! Since I do these fast [with no spell-checker] my brain is not infallible. ;-)

    “I wonder how the averages for NGC7603 and its neighbours compare?”

    These ARE the averaged out redshifts, for the objects in question.

    There are many examples of anomalous redshifts throughout the Universe.
    Can you dedicate the time to find & compile them?

    Happy hunting. :-)

  9. I have never been convinced on the big bang theory not for reasons of redshift or any observational contradictory evidence, merely because it seems illogical.

    If negative pressure overcame gravity of a singularity where was this negative pressure hding before the big bang?

  10. Re : NASA – the universe is flat – hahahaha

    Was so horrified with the way that page was presented I sent them the following comment :

    WMAP Public Web Site Email

    Subject: Universe 101 – is the universe infinite

    You state categorically : “If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or “spots”) would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.”

    And then go on to conclude that “Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments … have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.”

    Firstly, what drives the “knowledge” in para 1? This is supposed to be a “101” – information as to how this theory (not conclusion AFAICT) was arrived at is not provided.

    Secondly, even assuming that the first para is a theory, that only means that it has not yet been disproved. What is the reasoning, therefore, for the wording in the 2nd para “We now know that…”

    Scientific history has proven many well researched theories to be incorrect with further study and observation, even in my lifetime. I do not feel that the language presented in this “101” is reasonable given that it’s raison d’etre is to “inform” the public.

  11. This website is a stroll-by for all the info you wished about and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely uncover it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>