The Flawed Nuance in the “Big Bang” Theory

While remnants of the initial gravitational waves of the appearance of the universe demonstrates a beginning usually referred to as the “Big Bang”, there is a nuance in this theory that is a flaw continuing to be ignored.

The whole proposition of science is that information is not lost; effect implies cause and cause (as contrasted with mere sequence) produces effect.

That implies one, of at least two, things:

  1. An external force made it go bang in a way that contradicts the forces of the universe, i.e., the laws of physics (nothing doesn’t go bang!), or
  2. An external force, somewhat like a multi-pole magnet, pulled nothing apart, leaving in its wake (creating, causing) effect-forces that we know today as the four primary forces in the universe. In other words, an external force “spread apart” nothing, rather than a self-contradicting “internal explosion of nothing,” to create the forces that are our universe. It should be called “the Big Spread-Apart”, not the rather sloppy-thinking “Big Bang”!

Further, an explosion implies increasing deceleration – the opposite of our cosmic-inflating universe; while a “Big Spread-Apart” caused by an external attractive force, is consistent with the cosmic inflation of our universe. (As matter comes nearer the external attraction, it accelerates.)

BTW, how does the Tanakh describe it? (נָטָה – Yᵊshayahu 40.22 (הַנּוֹטֶה paal gerund); 42.5 (וְנוֹטֵיהֶם the heavens; paal gerund); 44.24 (נֹטֶה paal gerund); 45.12 (נָטוּ paal pret.); 48.13 (טִפְּחָה piel pret.); 51.13 (נוֹטֶה paal gerund); Yirmᵊyahu 10.12 (נָטָה paal pret.); 51.15 (נָטָה paal pret.); Zech. 12.1 (נֹטֶה paal gerund); Tᵊhilim 18.10 (וַיֵּט paal fu.); 104.2 (נוֹטֶה paal gerund); 144.5 (הַט hiphil imper.)) Still a step ahead of today’s physicists.


kicking the can down the road

The math underpinning physics theories is no better than the premises upon which the math is based; premises which have routinely been poorly understood and flawed, leading to “proofs” that later turned out to be wrong. The math may be right and still the theory wrong if the math itself is ex falso quodlibet.

Supposing, from complete and unfettered imagineering, other universes, bubbles, panes, foams, strings or whatever and then assuming, on top of these shaky theories, how such might (!) have evolved into our universe is wild hypotheses that, at best, merely kicks the can down the road hoping to obfuscate and divert everyone with complexities from the end game: everything in our universe, especially physics, implies that, at some point, there was a Prime Cause.

Scientists of the day, fabulists of tomorrow?

To assert that thinkers of 3-4,000 years ago were not scientists of their day simply because they didn’t measure up to today’s advanced knowledge of science is arrogance, not logic or science.

All scientists err. Are all ancient scientists, then, fable-mongering non-scientists? And their writings “not scientific documents”? Why just those in Tanakh?

Of course, the writers of the Tanakh didn’t understand all of the modern findings of physics and other sciences! That doesn’t imply (logically) that they were fable-mongers any more than any other scientists of yesteryear who thought they had proved that the universe was static and without a beginning, or that the universe orbited the sun or the earth was flat under a revolving firmament. Given the disputes contested in physics today, a lot of today’s physicists and other scientists will be demonstrated to be mistaken. Ergo, a lot of today’s physicists and other scientists must become regarded as tomorrow’s fable-mongers? And their papers “not scientific documents”?

To cite errors in millennias-old scientific thought as cause to regard their thinking as “nothing to do with science” is non-sequitur – i.e., “not science.”

“Beginning” Not Creation?

When the result of an ex nihilo event is something, that is, by definition, a creation. Where there is creation, the Prime Force causing that ex nihilo event is, again by definition, the creator of that ex nihilo event. To argue that this is a “beginning” but not a “creation” is just silliness.

Some argue that, from a scientific POV, Tanakh should be treated like other ancient, namely mythological, theories. Fine, in fact, it’s today’s scientists who are failing to do that. Where are the proponents who argue that this ex nihilo event is the product of a group of titans or idols? Let’s give them their fair hearing. (Insert sound of crickets here.) Meanwhile, scientists treat the authors of Tanakh differently than all other ancient thinkers, ASSUMING they were fable-mongers until proven differently while, for every other ancient thinker, assuming they were trying to apply pragmatic scientific methodology as they understood it, until proven differently. Why the hypocrisy of these opposite assumptions? Answer: peer pressure, PC – “not science”!


To argue that those who define the creator of that ex nihilo event as Elohim (“Gods”) cannot define their Elohim thusly is nonsense.
Similarly, there is no basis to argue that the authors of the earliest historical account of this approach, Israel, cannot define their Elohim, י- -ה, to be that Creator. Thus, the Elohim of Israel, defined by Israel as י- -ה, is the Creator, by definition.

An Old Logical Proof

Reductio ad absurdum (proof by disproof)

  • Every cause has an equal and opposite reaction
  • Every reaction has an equal and opposite cause
  • Atheist argument: There is no cause or creator of the universe.
  • Ergo, there is no universe (and no you). Q.E.D.

“Religious” Drivel

The problem of “religious” interpretation is just that: religious interpretation by people lacking education in logic and science – or, in today’s rabbinic world, by people who defiantly refuse education in science, math and even history to live in their own anti-reality ghetto – and try to impose it upon others. Clerics who reject knowledge of the laws of physics that reflect their Omniscient Creator reject essential knowledge of Torah and Tanakh. As a result, they have no grasp of Torah or Tanakh (and, therefore, no grasp of halakhah). Accordingly, what they represent is a distortion Torah or Tanakh, despite their casuistic claims, costumes and recognition by a secular government stemming from Turkish (Ottoman) appointment.