# Big Bang theory contradicts both Special and General relativity

#### Marvas

The standard cosmoillogical model or Big Bang theory is entirely based on the notions of vacuum energy and space expansion- which are interlinked (the latter is caused by the first).
But at the same time is claimed to be based on general relativity, and also on special relativity. In reality, it flagrantly violates both.

In special relativity, energy is equivalent with mass.

### If energy is equivalent with mass, how does a vacuum or empty space have any energy ?​

It can't ! Because E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass, so it can't have any energy either ! The energy of vacuum is precisely ZERO according to SR ! In this theory, empty space or vacuum cannot contain any energy, since it contains no mass which can be equivalated with energy E=mc^2. How can anyone claim that vacuum has energy, without rejecting this equation and special relativity altogether ?

And even if vacuum had mass or energy, how does that energy expand space ?
In General Relativity space is curved by mass and energy, which is what causes gravity according to Einstein. Einstein never claimed that energy expands space, and actually he claimed that the universe should contract from gravity according to his theory, where space is curved by mass and energy ! Even if empty space had energy, it would simply curve and contract at a faster rate, and not expand, which is the exact opposite of contraction. It simply does not follow why a space that contains energy (and therefore mass) will expand, it is a non sequitur. And a clear contradiction of Einstein's theory, and of the notion of a vacuum itself. Because a vacuum which has energy or mass is not a vacuum, and is not an empty space at all.

So in order to claim that empty space has energy, you need to reject Special relativity. And in order to claim that this energy expands space, you need to reject General relativity. Big bang cosmologists claim both, so they reject both, while at the same time claiming that both are true and building their standard cosmoillogical model on them.

And then they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis ! Because their stupidity is truly infinite and it just never stops. In fact it accelerates at an ever increasing rate, just like the expansion of their big-bang universe.

Last edited:

#### Marvas

I may, but what does it have to do with this topic ?

Last edited:

#### BGaede

1. In that the vacuum [aka space] does not have ‘energy’.
2. Energy is an unscientific word when used as an object or thing in the context of a physical interpretation.
3. The word energy is defined as ‘the capacity…’
4. The capacity is not a thing.
5. The so-called ‘energy’ of space [aka background radiation] consists of countless vibrating physical mediators criss-crossing from every atom to every atom in existence.
6. All atoms are PHYSICALLY bound to each other.
7. Light consists of torsions along these mediators.
8. Gravity demands that there be a PHYSICAL entity mediating between the Sun and the Earth.
9. Can’t do PULLING [aka gravity] without a mediator between two objects.
10. Otherwise the theorist is introducing witchcraft and black magic [aka action at a distance] in his dissertation.

#### Marvas

I see, but this thread is meant to show the inconsistencies in the big-bang theory, so I'm working with their premises here. I dont agree with most of them or with Einstein's theory of gravity either, and in fact I disproved general relativity in my other thread:

Last edited:
Rod Mack

#### Marvas

Can’t do PULLING [aka gravity] without a mediator between two objects.

And how does that affect my perfect demonstration that Big Bang theory contradicts both special and general relativity, and is therefore incompatible with their much beloved einsteinian science ? So even if Einstein was right, their cosmoillogical model is wrong.

#### BGaede

The point of view that I’m raising is that it is irrational in Physics to state [in the General Relativity context] that energy expands space because neither space nor energy are physical objects. You can say that a gas expands a balloon. It is irrational to say that a mathematical concept expands another. In Physics, love does not expand intelligence.

It is also irrational to say that mass can be converted into energy or that mass expands [Special Relativity scenario] if neither mass nor energy are physical objects. The theorists are introducing abstract mathematical concepts into their physical interpretations.

Irrationality has three main criteria:

1. reifying concepts and using them as objects

2. failing to define strategic terms that makke or break the explanation or using thhem inconsistently thrroughout the diissertation

3. the theory doesn’t follow from the assumptions

If, instead, we make the assumption that all atoms are PHYSICALLY interconnected, then all these magical words of incantation — energy, mass, field, time, charge, force, etc. — disappear during the PHYSICAL interpretation of a phenomenon.

Physics is done with objects. Without objects there wouldn’t be any Physics. What would be happening? What would we be observing? What could we measure?

Ergo: the contradictions between GR and SR arise because none of their PHYSICAL interpretations have anything to do with Physics. They are mathematical descriptions and nothing more. To say that abstraction X morphs into abstraction Y does not constitute a PHYSICAL interpretation... which is what Einstein and all 20th centurers were attempting to provide.

Classical Motion

#### Eddie young boulder

And how does that affect my perfect demonstration that Big Bang theory contradicts both special and general relativity, and is therefore incompatible with their much beloved einsteinian science ? So even if Einstein was right, their cosmoillogical model is wrong.
I'm sorry but I don't mean to be rude in any way but why is it that everybody that tries to prove Einstein's theories wrong come out to find out that they are right in the end

#### Classical Motion

The argument with Einstein and space time is conducted on a false stage. Einstein's math is correct. It's only Einstein physics that is fantasy.

Einstein worked with what he had. And with those concepts his math does provide an explanation.

But the fundamental dogma concept is NOT logical OR physical. It came from an early measurement of light and the rational for that measurement.

This is the false concept "light has the same velocity to all observers". That statement is neither physical or logical. And it has never been measured or verified. We do not have the technology or method to measure it.

But IF that dogma was true, then Einstein offers a possible explanation. Which would demonstrate that this universe is NOT logical.

And IF this universe is not logical........then math is useless.

Rod Mack

#### BGaede

I'm sorry but I don't mean to be rude in any way but why is it that everybody that tries to prove Einstein's theories wrong come out to find out that they are right in the end
In Science, there is no right or wrong. Right/wrong, correct/incorrect, true/false... are opinions. Opinions = religion. In Science, there are only explanations and rational at that. Einstein's 'explanations' [e.g., warping of number lines = gravity] are neither wrong nor right. They are irrational.

Rod Mack

#### BGaede

The argument with Einstein and space time is conducted on a false stage. Einstein's math is correct. It's only Einstein physics that is fantasy.

Einstein worked with what he had. And with those concepts his math does provide an explanation.

But the fundamental dogma concept is NOT logical OR physical. It came from an early measurement of light and the rational for that measurement.

This is the false concept "light has the same velocity to all observers". That statement is neither physical or logical. And it has never been measured or verified. We do not have the technology or method to measure it.

But IF that dogma was true, then Einstein offers a possible explanation. Which would demonstrate that this universe is NOT logical.

And IF this universe is not logical........then math is useless.
In Science, we don't measure anything. It is the mathematicians who introduced measurement and equations into science. In Science, we only explain. In Physics, we explain mechanisms and causes.

We don't need to measure the exact speed of light. In Physics, we say that it is fast and constant. That's qualitatively adequate for our purposes.

The 'wave' equation shows why: c = ƒ λ = frequency * wavelength .

When the frequency increases, wavelength decreases and vice versa. The only object imaginable that can simulate that equation is a rope.

Take a 1 meter length two-strand rope. Count the # of links and check their lengths. Now torque it several times.

Light is not a 2D abstract transverse wave made of mathematical vectors. Light is a 3D torsion wave propagating along a rope. It is the EM rope that mediates light. The EM rope PHYSICALLY interconnects any two atoms.

#### Marvas

I'm sorry but I don't mean to be rude in any way but why is it that everybody that tries to prove Einstein's theories wrong come out to find out that they are right in the end
I did not say they are right. I said even if (by absurd) they are right. And I disproved his theory of general relativity on another thread. So you clearly misunderstood what I was saying.

#### Marvas

The argument with Einstein and space time is conducted on a false stage. Einstein's math is correct. It's only Einstein physics that is fantasy.
Einstein's math was not actually his. The space-time non-sense was invented by a mathematician named Minkovsky, the geometrical framework by Riemann, and was helped by a mathematician named Grossmann with the field equations. Which didnt help Einstein much, as he was contradicted by another mathematician named Fridmann- who came up with completelly different solutions to Einsteins field equations- i.e. the exact opposite ! So I dont know why you say Einstein's math was correct- when he had to reject his math and accept Friddman's. Einstein's maths lead to a contracting and then to a static universe (when he added the cosmoillogical constant), Fridmann's lead to a contracting or expanding one (with the same constant, altough Im not sure it was the same as it had different values). Then Einstein removed the constant and his universe was suddenly expanding for no reason, instead of contracting as he innitially predicted. He said he did this because Fridmanns solution to his equations were right and the universe was expanding, after Hubble foolishly concluded this based on an insane intrepretation of redshift as from space expansion. But Fridmann's equations required the cosmoillogical constant in order to yeild an expansion, and Friddman did not remove it. There is a complete and absolute mess and inconsistency in relativistic maths and physics. Universal constants pop out from nowhere and then dissapear, and then reappear, but they are not even constant as they have relative values, so the cosmoillogical constant can be set at different values which is absurd and irrational, just like Einsteins whole general relativity theory is in general.

*But as usual, Einstein took credit for others ideeas. Like he stole length contraction from Lorentz, relativity from Poincare, photon from Plank, and the list can go on.

Last edited:

#### Marvas

Classical Motion said:
Einstein's maths were correct
sciencenews said:
Einstein objected (to Friedmann's equations). He wrote a note to the journal contending that Friedmann had committed a mathematical error. But the error was Einstein’s. He later acknowledged that Friedmann’s math was correct, while still denying that it had any physical validity.

Last edited:

#### Marvas

I dont know who's maths were correct, but I find it rather amusing that the great genius Einstein had to admit that his maths were wrong because a russian weatherman was better at maths than him and his math wizz Grossman. Whats even more amusing is that Friddman equations were based on the cosmoillogical constant which Einstein removed, and called his biggest blunder, yet he allowed Fridmann to use it and humiliate him with it. Or maybe he removed it after he got humiliated ? Then how is it that Einstein did not contest Fridmanns equations and accepted them, despite having the cosmoillogical constant in them ? Or he changed his mind and did not remove it after all ??
In any case it seems that Friedmann understood Einsteins theory better than Einstein, who was unable to comprehend the implications of his own theory, and of his cosmoillogical constant which he removed from his equations, but accepted Fridamann's use of it. Perhaps that is why Einstein got frustrated and claimed that 'ever since mathematicians have invaded my theory of relativity, I myself dont understand it anymore'.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I have observed many times that SPACE is flatly unobservable. That the only observable, including observable universe (u), is the "coordinate point past histories' past light cone," 1/2 of SPACETIME (the other half being the unobserved and unobservable, as yet!, coordinate point future histories' future light cone) beyond in time, beyond in SPACETIME, relativity to the local-relative Earth observer. So, not necessarily beyond in time, beyond in SPACETIME, relativity to the local relative Martian, or Vegan, or Andromedan, observer. Many 1-dimensional thinkers, who simply can't see things in the "mind's eye," deny even the existence . . . deny even the possible existence . . . of the unobserved and unobservable, as yet!, coordinate point future histories' future light cone beyond in time, beyond in SPACETIME, relativity to the local-relative Earth observer. Yet, it is the only road through space and time, even on Earth, travelers will ever travel from spontaneous entangled concurrent REALTIME point A to [as yet!, unobservable spontaneous entangled concurrent REALTIME point C always beyond in the future histories' future light cone of observed and observable "coordinate point past histories' past light cone" of SPACETIME] point B! Point A and point C currently exist, probably. Observed and observable point B (of C) no longer exists current! in space and time.

I know this picture, this model, is simply too multi-dimensional, too complex, too complicated, for some to see but that is not, and never has been, my problem!

#### Classical Motion

One can't argue with a valid math equation. It's a waste of time. Because a valid equation is a valid equation.......that's math. That's why I stay away from it.....it's a fatal trap.

Math is always a lose lose situation. Math is not physical. Trying to understand physicality with a non physical standard? Math is based on the self relationship of numbers. A valid equation is just that....a valid math equation. Valid math is not true or real......is just mathematical. Symbol mechanics. Auguring math is a waste of time.

Physicality is not mathematics.

Mass is NOT needed for energy. Only field density is needed for energy. Light is mass-less, but it has momentum. It has energy and it transports energy. Field density has momentum. It has force. Field density can accelerate mass. That's energy.

The space in and around this universe is not empty, because the mass has polluted it with orphan emissions for eons. Static. You may listen to it on a radio. If you go out a few universe diameters away, the space will be clean with no temperature. No static. Completely empty.

Only after you understand the interaction, can you use math to describe it. There is an old saying, a car design engineer should repair previous designs for 5 years before picking up a slide rule. This principle should be applied to all professions.

What is the authority of science? It's now math. In one hundred years, we replaced principle with math. ANY and ALL principles have been discarded with math. Simply because a math equation can do it. Math can give space properties. That's real power. A false power. Math power.

Mathematical science will have a long life. But will eventually be known as man's greatest folly.

Energy and mass are NOT entities. They are properties and characteristics of an entity. There are only two entities, charge with the field around it, and the field separated from it. That's it. The whole universe from these two. There is nothing else. Physicality is simple and will stay hidden for a long time. Energy is the MOTION of these entities. Separated, emitted fields, have un-confined motion. This is radiant energy. Light.

Mass has a different motion, it's motion is confined to a small area. A particle can catch wind and put it into a bottle for latter use. A particle can catch EM radiation motion and spin it into a confinement. And store it. That is mass. Mass is energy stored, by confinement. Stored motion.

E to M is just a ratio of unconfined motion to confined motion. Because the particle can catch, store and emit field motion. With spin. The motion never stops, it is stored with confinement.

Every entity in this universe is in perpetual motion. And we can't stop the motion, we can only corral it. Spin it.....to hold and keep it.

Physics is physical, not mathematical.

#### Marvas

Atlan0001 I don't understand anything you say. Probably because it's a complete word salad. Anyway, you're off topic because you don't adress any of my arguments.

#### Marvas

Classical Motion you claimed that Einstein's maths are correct. If they were correct then Fridmann would not have corrected him, and no one would use Fridmann's equations instead of Einstein's. The reason why even Einstein accepted that his math were wrong was because he was pressed by Hubble's so called discovery, that the universe was expanding- which was in agreement with Friddmans maths. But Hubble was merely speculating that redshift implies a space expansion, he never proved it, and simply used a solution from Fridmann equations which supported the expansion. But
Fridmann s equations relied on the cosmoillogical constant to prove that the universe can expand (and also contract, because it was 'dynamic'), which Einstein simply made up for his own convenience (because his relativistic universe was immediatelly collapsing due to all the space curving from gravity, and needed to counter that somehow to achieve a stable static universe) and has nothing to do with actual physics. And which he later removed. Therefore Friedmann equations, or Einstein's for that matter, simply do not describe the real physical world. But an immaginary world, where the space expands because Einstein made up a cosmoillogical constant from his ass, which can have any value one wants- so its not even a constant.

That said, I dont agree that physics have nothing to do with maths. My demonstration of refractional redshift is based on mathematical equations and operations, and without maths I can't prove it. And all physics require some sort of formulas which consist of mathematical equations and operations. But these equations have to be applied to physical things, not to metaphyiscal things like Einstein does. His ideea that space can curve and have geodesics is simply absurd and no matter what maths you use space will not curve because it's not a physical object and doesnt have a surface on which any geodesics can be traced or measured. Einstein was a pseudo-scientist and a crackhead who smoked too much weed in my opinion. And in Tesla's opinion too, as he called him a metaphysicist and a curly haired crackpot.

Last edited:

#### Classical Motion

Marvas, I believe you have misunderstood my comments. In order to be a valid math equation, all that is necessary is the the legal application of symbol mechanics.

Then the equation is valid. All of the arguments between all those men have valid math equations.

Those equations are why they continue to argue. All of modern science is now based on equations, and like I said, it's a fatal trap. You can test an equation with numbers alone. The proof of math is done with numbers, not an event. Not physical motion. Math is absent of motion.

ALL of those equations are valid but have nothing to do with physicality or motion of it. They are just valid number equations. By making time and length variable.....ONLY THEN......can light be c to all observers. It's the very zenith of stupidity. It's a lazy cheat. And a welcomed one by institutional science. Institutions love this crap.

Our dogma of light is garbage. All this crap comes from that idiotic dogma. AND THE VALID MATH FOR IT.

Math has no power, no principles. It's just math.

No one knows that light is only there half of the time. EM radiation blinks. It does does wave and is not continuous, only the flux of it is continuous. It's a duty cycle.

Duty cycle light. It occurred to me while studying Parson's Magneton......and baling hay. I noticed the "duty cycle" of hay bales on the field.

This duty cycle shifted differently with tractor velocity, than a Doppler shift.

The velocity of the hay bales is the same kind and mode of velocity as light is.

Hay field math. It's valid too.

#### Atlan0001

Atlan0001 I don't understand anything you say. Probably because it's a complete word salad. Anyway, you're off topic because you don't adress any of my arguments.
Marvas, I'm pretty sure if you keep up personal attacks and snide remarks because you are deliberately misunderstanding people, you are in for a lot of trouble!

Besides, Einstein put in his cosmological constant, and thought he had blundered, because his own GR Theory did make predictions that bothered him to no end.

#### Marvas

@ClassicalMotion I mostly agree with what you say, except your assertion that Einstein did not make any mathematical errors. As I have shown, Einstein himself admitted that he made one.

sciencenews said:
Einstein objected (to Friedmann's equations). He wrote a note to the journal contending that Friedmann had committed a mathematical error. But the error was Einstein’s. He later acknowledged that Friedmann’s math was correct, while still denying that it had any physical validity.

And his maths have been shown to contain errors by Stephen Crothers from Sky Scholar, and others.
So there are errors in Einstein's maths as well as logical errors which I have shown.

Last edited:

#### Marvas

Marvas, I'm pretty sure if you keep up personal attacks and snide remarks because you are deliberately misunderstanding people, you are in for a lot of trouble!
I honestly did not understand anything that you said in that post. It was not an attack, dont call 911 please.

Besides, Einstein put in his cosmological constant, and thought he had blundered, because his own GR Theory did make predictions that bothered him to no end.

Yes, it made the prediction that the universe was contracting from his stupid space bending gravity. Since it wasnt, he doctored the equation by adding the cosmoillogical constant by hand and artificially inflate the space with his brainfart constant, so that it was in balance with gravity. That is not science, its voodoo magic man. The fact is einsteins theory was falsified the very moment it made that prediction, which was obviously false. He can doctor it all he wants, its still false and it will remain false because it was falsified. And I have proved it is false because its other predictions such as gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation are false, and no one can disprove me. If someone wants to try, then they would have to disprove refraction physics.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I honestly did not understand anything that you said in that post. It was not an attack, dont call 911 please.

Yes, it made the prediction that the universe was contracting from his stupid space bending gravity. Since it wasnt, he doctored the equation by adding the cosmoillogical constant by hand and artificially inflate the space with his brainfart constant, so that it was in balance with gravity. That is not science, its voodoo magic man. The fact is einsteins theory was falsified the very moment it made that prediction, which was obviously false. He can doctor it all he wants, its still false and it will remain false because it was falsified. And I have proved it is false and no one can disprove me.
I understand that cosmological constant (/\) to my own complete satisfaction ("collapsed cosmological constant (/\)....") and it runs though many of my many posts (described and explained to my satisfaction).

I'll leave you to your belief system, however different from mine and others (including in understanding), just stay away from the personal and you'll get by on the forums. The non-personal content of posts is a different story if you reason out a disagreement, or just say, as you did above, I don't understand. I and others have posted more than enough over time for you to find some understanding of content, though maybe still not having any agreement with it.

FYI, I'm a very good and most savage retaliator and the moderators have had to slap me down a few times, so I speak to you from experience.

Last edited:

#### Marvas

I understand that cosmological constant (/\) to my own complete satisfaction ("collapsed cosmological constant (/\)....") and it runs though many of my many posts (described and explained to my satisfaction

And you understand that Einstein made it up because he was not satisfied that his relativistic curved space universe collapsed into a black hole without this arficial geometrical inflation of space to counter gravity i.e. curving space ? And that he later removed it, because he was not satisfied with it anymore for some reason, and when he did so, the universe was expanding, instead of contracting ? What is the logic in this ?

Replies
11
Views
659
Replies
0
Views
330
Replies
15
Views
770
Replies
0
Views
394
Replies
0
Views
231