Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, a New
Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 3
Galaxies Point to Flaws in Big Bang's Expanding-Balloon Illustration and to Smoking Gun Signatures of GENESIS
(arXiv:physics/0102094 28 Feb 2001)
by Robert V. Gentry
Big bang's pennies-on-an-expanding balloon illustration
depicts ever increasing separation of galaxies predicated on the assumption that
the universe is governed by Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion. There is a significant
contradiction connected with the effects of this assumption. It concerns how
spacetime expansion is portrayed to interact with gravity. On one hand, clusters
of galaxies are pictured as separating to increasingly greater distances despite
their large gravitational attraction. On the other hand, for some mysterious
reason expansion is said to be unable to cause galaxies themselves to increase
in size even though the gravitational attraction within them is smaller than
between clusters. Analysis shows that if expansion ever existed it would have
caused continuous, uniform expansion of all matter, in which case galaxies would
not have formed. Thus the existence of galaxies provides two powerful Smoking
Gun Signatures, the first being that our universe knows nothing of big bang's
spacetime expansion and, second, that the GENESIS of our universe must have
occurred far differently than modern cosmology has ever envisioned.
In his article "The new physics — Physical or
mathematical science?" Oldershaw suggests ,
". . . that an undesirable blurring of the
distinction between physical science and mathematical abstraction has taken
place in the fields of particle physics and cosmology over the past three
He comments specifically on certain results in particle physics
which, before they were obtained, would have been considered sufficient to
falsify a particular theoretical prediction, but which afterwards ended up being
incorporated into a revision of the theory. His point is that, given the
opportunity to inject endless revisions into a theory, there is no longer a
standard by which it can be falsified. In the instances Oldershaw mentions it is
evident that theorists consider they are in the repair business. The philosophy
behind this mentality is of course the assumption that physicists have identified
a core truth in whatever theory may be under study. All that is needed are
continued modifications in order to asymptotically approach the final answer. To
a certain extent it is this mentality that has guided the development of
big-bang cosmology and has therefore, as Oldershaw points out, successfully
blurred the distinction between theory and fact.
All this directs attention to the prime question to be settled
concerning big bang cosmology, and in particular the one that is the focus of
all the papers in this series: Is it a physical theory in the modern sense of
the term, or is it rather a beautiful mathematical abstraction that has no
relevance to the real universe we inhabit? In pursuing this topic further in
this paper it is expedient to quote another part of Oldershaw's article, for
it emphasizes just what criteria must be used if the big bang is to qualify as a
genuine physical theory :
"The sine qua non of physical science is empirical
testing of hypotheses. Without this acid test we would have no way of
distinguishing scientific gold from fool's gold and we might come to view
ourselves as being quite rich when, in fact, our pockets were mostly full of
pretty, but non-negotiable, iron pyrite."
Parts 1 and 2 of this series have already spotlighted internal
contradictions and other aspects of the big bang which could not be confirmed
when tested by comparison with empirical data. Thus we already have strong
evidence to suggest that the big bang is actually only an elaborate mathematical
abstraction rather than a physical theory.
This paper considers another contradiction that has gone
unnoticed until now. Reference is made to MTW's venerable text, Gravitation
. A generation or more of physicists and cosmologists have looked to this
text as a highly respected authority on general relativity and cosmology. So it
is appropriate to weigh its explanation of the expansion hypothesis against
logic and commonly understood physical principles. On MTW's pages 739-740 the
discussion centers on an attempt to find an answer to a rather elementary
question about the physical implications of the expansion, namely:
"If every five seconds a volume of space is added to the
universe . . . about equal to the volume occupied by the Milky Way,
where does that volume make its entry? Rather than look for an answer, one had
better re-examine the question . . . . [p. 739] To speak of
the 'creation' of space is a bad way of speaking, and the original
question is a bad question. The right way of speaking is to speak of a dynamic
geometry. So much for one question!" (p. 740)
The overtones of this "advice" from the authors seem
almost Orwellian. Questions found at the root of the problem are labeled 'bad
questions.' This is hardly an invitation for an open scientific inquiry.
Stonewalling reasonable objections, however, rarely makes them disappear.
Earlier on page 719 the authors expressed similar views:
"Of all the disturbing implications of "the expansion
of the universe," none is more upsetting to many a student on first
encounter than the nonsense of this idea. The universe expands, [but] . . .
Only distances between clusters of galaxies and greater distances are subject to
the expansion. No model more quickly illustrates the actual situation than a
rubber balloon with pennies affixed to it, each by a drop of glue. As the
balloon is inflated the pennies increase their separation one from another but
not a single one of them expands!" (p. 719)
Clearly, budding cosmology students' intuition was that
spacetime expansion appeared to be so much nonsense at its very core. The reason
for confusion is obvious. Confronting them was a very disturbing contradiction:
- If spacetime expansion had caused separation of the galaxies,
why didn't it also cause galaxies themselves to increase in size?
The expanding-balloon illustration describes the concept of
"limited" expansion but does not explain why expansion ceases to
operate within a galaxy. Nevertheless, cosmologists have utilized it for many
decades. Peebles concurs with its long use by noting , "The balloon
analogy remains a standard device for explaining what the expansion of the
universe means . . . ."
This is evident in its wide use in popular accounts of big-bang
cosmology. For example, Parker , in his attempted vindication of big bang
cosmology, also cites the expanding balloon analogy to illustrate universal
expansion. Like MTW, Parker also stresses that : "In the universe
galaxies do not expand; only the space between them." But instead of
pasting pennies on the surface, Parker refers to pasting small circles on the
balloon's surface, and in fact makes a special point of saying that ". . .
if you draw them [the circles] with a pen, the analogy will be incorrect
because the dots will expand as the balloon expands." Interestingly,
Parker does not provide any scientific justification for exempting the dots
(galaxies) from the expansion.
Similarly, there is Peacock who, in his recent graduate level
cosmology text, states : "In the common elementary demonstration of
expansion by means of inflating a balloon, galaxies should be represented by
glued-on coins, not ink drawings, (which will spuriously expand with the
universe.)" In much the same way that MTW used the terms, "bad
way of speaking" and a "bad question," here we find
Peacock likewise discouraging inquiry into the expansion hypothesis by using the
word "spuriously," without making any attempt to show why
expansion of the galaxies themselves should be considered a spurious occurrence.
Hawking also uses this illustration , but his version of it differs
essentially from the usage of MTW, Parker, and Peacock. He compares Friedmann's
assumption of all galaxies moving directly away from each other with a ". . .
balloon with a number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up."
Galaxies, as painted spots, would seem to be what Peacock describes as implying
a spurious view of expansion, for it means that galaxies must continually
increase in size, which is contrary to observation.
This difference over the essential features of the balloon
illustration shows that something of extraordinary importance is missing from
the preceding discussions. Physics is built on equations, not illustrations;
illustrations simply give insight to the equations, and these are absent from
the pennies-on-a-balloon illustration. It is presented as justification for
constant galaxy sizes without any scientific substantiation whatsoever.
This lack of substantiation leads to the fundamental question:
Is there any tangible experimental evidence that would prove that the universe
is governed by spacetime expansion? More specifically, are there any
experimental test results that would confirm that the relativistic structure of
the universe is consistent with the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime
solution to the field equations? This is a prerequisite for the
pennies-on-a-balloon illustration to have any meaning in affirming big-bang
cosmology as the correct theory of the cosmos.
It is certain that Schwarzschild's static solution to the field
equations is consistent with the relativistic properties of the universe
because, as further discussed in Part 5, it has become the general relativistic
basis for the successful operation of the GPS . And since the Schwarzschild
static solution does not include the Friedmann-Lemaitre hypothesis of
time-dependent spatial coordinate expansion, it cannot be used to justify the
expansion concept as portrayed in the balloon illustration. Thus, if the balloon
illustration is going to convey anything meaningful about spacetime expansion,
it should be independently supported by observable evidence. It certainly cannot
be used to prove the universe is governed by expanding spacetime geometry when
this is the assumption on which the illustration is based.
The preceding discussions focus on the dilemma that was
obviously troubling the MTW graduate students first encountering the
complexities of spacetime expansion. On one hand, the balloon illustration was
authoritatively presented as that which should resolve their doubts about the
reality of spacetime expansion. On the other hand, was the persistent question:
Where are the equations that would justify spacetime expansion causing galaxies
to separate to greater and greater distances, without causing stars within
the galaxies to separate to greater and greater distances? MTW doesn't
give these equations . Peebles doesn't give them . Neither does Parker
, nor Peacock , nor Rees , nor Sandage , nor Narlikar , nor
Harrison , nor Longair , nor Weinberg , nor Padmanabahn , nor
Robertson and Noonan . MTW  do cite a paper by Noerdlinger and Petrosian
, but a close reading shows it is ambiguous in addressing the question of
galactic expansion. Obviously the heavy hand of authority has prevailed, because
a generation or more of budding cosmologists have continued to promote spacetime
expansion using this illustration.
Clearly, if it were admitted that expansion works to enlarge the
physical size of galaxies, as well as to expand the separation between them,
then logic would say there should be no galaxies at all, for such expansion
would long ago have equally separated stars to very great distances from each
other, just as the galaxies themselves are now separated very great distances.
Thus, ever since its inception, there has been hidden within the balloon
illustration the requirement that expansion must have been exceedingly
selective. But this requirement is easily shown to be contradictory because, if
expansion existed at all, then by its very definition it must have acted
impartially on all celestial entities, regardless of their masses.
Consequently, in order for big-bang cosmology to be perceived as
a scientific theory there has always been a crucial need for the balloon
illustration to be accepted as validating the intricacies of expansion without
its ever being critically analyzed. We do not deal with why the illustration's
essential features remained unchallenged for so many decades but instead turn to
the examination that has been missing for so long. In proceeding with this
analysis significant contradictions are immediately apparent.
Using the spherical mass approximation for the Galaxy we can
compare the gravitational force, FGS =
ρavg rs / 3,
exerted on the sun by the mass of the Galaxy interior to the sun's position, with the
force, FGC = −GMC2
/ rc2, between two large galactic clusters of mass MC.
If we assume each cluster contains about 500 galaxies the size of the Galaxy
(MG = 2 ×
with a center-to-center separation
of rc = 108 ly, then the ratio FGC /
FGS ≈ 1010, assuming rs ≃3 × 104 ly and ρavg =
10-24 g cm−3.
This shows the attractive gravitational force between clusters
to be about 1010 times greater than that which the interior mass of the
Galaxy exerts on the sun. Moreover, since big-bang cosmology assumes galaxies
were present when the universe was only 1/10 its present size, then the gravitational
force between clusters would have been 1012 times greater than
that within the Galaxy. Yet, according to big-bang theory and the balloon
illustration, expansion somehow overcame these vastly larger gravitational
attractions and caused the galaxies, or clusters of galaxies, to separate,
while at the same time failing to cause the separation of the far more weakly
gravitationally bound stars within the galaxies. Here is quantitative proof of
the contradiction presented by the expansion hypothesis in general
and the balloon illustration in particular. And the contradiction becomes
progressively greater when considering big bang's earlier stages.
In particular, if gravity is going to be invoked to prevent
galaxies themselves from increasing in size, then the much higher gravity in the
big bang's earliest moments should have prevented any expansion whatsoever.
This can be seen quantitatively by first calculating the gravitational field
intensity, I, when the expansion was about the size of a dime  and
the mass was at least 1082 erg, or about m = 1061
g, as per Part 4 of this series. In this case I = Gm/r2 ≈
1054 dynes g−1 for r = 1 cm. For comparison
we can also calculate the field intensity that acts on a unit mass at the
position of the solar system in the spiral arm of the Galaxy. If the average
density of the Galaxy is assumed to be ρavg
≈ 10−24 g cm−3, then the field intensity is
IG = 4π Gρavg
r / 3 ≈ 7 × 10−9 dynes g−1
for rs ≃ 3 × 104 ly. The contradiction is undeniable. On one hand, gravity within a galaxy is theorized
to prevent expansion from increasing a galaxy's size. On the other hand,
expansion effects are presumed to have overcome gravitational field
intensities that are at least 1062 times greater than those within a galaxy.
If such vast forces of expansion ever existed, they would have
worked not only to expand the sizes of galaxies but also to prevent their
formation. That is, since expansion is presumed to cause ever-increasing
separation of even the smallest particles, it would also have worked to cause
ever-increasing separation of atoms of the big bang's presumed primordial H
and He, thus inhibiting even the formation of stars. Without stars there
would have been no galaxies, no sun, and no planet Earth. These results
demonstrate that galaxies cannot form under the assumption that the expansion
hypothesis has been governing the universe. This contradiction invalidates
the balloon illustration, revealing it as perhaps one of the most seriously
flawed illustrations ever used in modern science.
These results prove the balloon illustration and the expansion
hypothesis are completely at odds with the existence of galaxies. Peebles
 earlier attempted to defuse this embarrassing fact by referring to
galaxy formation as being a puzzle, but not one that really threatens the
validity of big bang cosmology. Longair, on the other hand, is more forthright in
listing some of the truly difficult problems that face any attempts to
account for galaxy formation using expansion . Trefil goes further,
openly expressing extreme skepticism about the efforts of cosmologists and
astrophysicists to solve the problem, and forthrightly emphasizes five reasons why ". . .
galaxies cannot exist . . ." in the big bang scenario . This
article confirms Trefil's skepticism by concluding the existence of galaxies is prima
facie evidence that the expansion hypothesis is false. Further, since expansion
was the prop for the balloon illustration, its deflation brings us to the
collapse of all that this illustration was intended to portray, including big bang's
cornerstone expansion postulate.
We conclude, therefore, that the existence of galaxies provides
two powerful Smoking Gun Signatures; first, that our universe knows nothing
of big bang's spacetime expansion and secondly, that the GENESIS of
our universe occurred far differently than modern cosmology has envisioned
 Robert L. Oldershaw, Am. J. Phys. 56, 1075
 C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation,
(W. H. Freeman & Company, 1973) pp. 719, 739-740.
 P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1993), pp. 81, 608-610.
 Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang (Plenum
Press, 1993) pp. 70-74.
 John A. Peacock, Cosmological Physics, (Cambridge
University Press, 1999) p. 88.
 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam
Books, 1988) p. 42.
 Neil Ashby and J. J. Spilker, Jr., Chapter 18 in The
Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, Vol. 1, eds. B. W.
Parkinson and J. J. Spilker, Jr. (American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Inc., Washington, DC, 1995)
 M. J. Rees, Perspectives in Astrophysical Cosmology,
(Cambridge University Press, 1995).
 A. Sandage, Practical Cosmology: Inventing The Past,
in The Deep Universe, eds. B. Binggeli and R. Buser (Springer, Berlin,
 J. V. Narlikar, Introduction to Cosmology (Cambridge
University Press, 1993).
 E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, The Science of the Universe (Cambridge
University Press, 1981).
 Malcolm S. Longair, The Physics of Background Radiation,
in The Deep Universe, eds. B. Binggeli and R. Buser (Springer, Berlin,
 Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, (John
Wiley& Sons, 1972).
 T. Padmanabahn, Cosmology and Astrophysics Through
(Cambridge University Press, 1996).
 H. P. Robertson and Thomas Noonan, Relativity and
Cosmology (W. B. Sanders Company, 1968).
 P. D. Noerdlinger and V. Petrosian, Ap. J. 168,
 P. J. E. Peebles et al., Scientific American 271,
 M. S. Longair, Our Evolving Universe (Cambridge
University Press, 1996) pp. 122-125.
 James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (Anchor
Books, New York, 1988) pp. 55-66.
 Many thanks to Dave Gentry for very useful discussions.