Date: 07/04/05

This is a copy of a webpage.

Source: The Big Bang Fraud




Revised July 16, 2004
2004 William C. Mitchell

Abstract. The great majority of cosmologists, astronomers, and other scientists, and those who read, see, or listen to the media regarding astronomy or cosmology, have accepted that the curved space of the universe is expanding, that its size and age, and the departing velocity and distance to remote bodies in space, are based on valid science, data and logic. But those ideas are actually the contrived results of the erroneous concepts of Big Bang theorists.


After years of study of Big Bang theory (BBT), I have uncovered many of errors and inconsistencies of that theory; and it would take years for the reader to do the same. But in this short paper, some important information regarding some of those errors and inconsistencies is presented, in simple words, and with only some simple math.

Although many Big Bangers (BBers) might not aware of them, many of the flaws of BB theory are well known to those of the establishment. But in order to maintain the appearance of superior knowledge of the esoteric nature of BB theory, and avoid its examination by outsiders, those of the establishment who have detailed knowledge of BBT, try to keep its secrets well hidden - by what I refer to as "purposeful obfuscation".

The attitude of the establishment is that other, lesser beings, such as we the uninitiated, are incapable of understanding such complex, esoteric, scientific material that is based on "relativistic effects;" that is, we can't understand BB theory because we have an imperfect understanding of relativity.

Warning: The reader is cautioned not to lose sight of the fact that the material presented below to describe BBT below is not scientific fact, but merely the discussion of an unproven cosmological theory.


The accepted equation for velocity as a fraction of the speed of light, V/c, as a function of redshift, Z, is V/ c = [(Z+1)2 -1] [(Z+1)2 + 1], which has been derived from the Lorentz transformations, and provides the basis for what has become the accepted interpretation of redshift data . That equation is intended to portray a universe of closed curved space; Alexander Friedmann's closed case solution to Einstein's general relativity equations.

The expanding space of the BB universe is in accordance with that equation is based on the BBer's belief in the closed, curved space of relativity, and designed to keep the velocity of expansion of the BB universe within the speed of light. It is important to understand (regardless of its lack of logic) that, in accordance with BBT, it is not the matter in space that is moving, but instead, it is the expansion of space that carries that matter outward.

Calculations of departing velocity (as a fraction of the speed of light) for various values of redshift by the above equation, provide an illustration of how the of matter in space varies as a function of redshift as follows:

Velocity as a

Redshift, Z Fraction of c

0.1--------- 0.095








Those figures illustrate that, for very small values of redshift, the velocity of matter in expanding space is in accordance with the Hubble constant, but for larger values of redshift it deviates from that linear relationship; and for very large values of redshift, the speed of light is never exceeded, in keeping with that relativity's requirement regarding closed curved space.

However, there is a very fundamental error in the use of that equation: The Einstein-Lorenz transformations were intended to apply to the velocity of matter in in space; not to the velocity of empty curved space of the BB closed universe case. Although those transformations might apply to matter, there is no logic, mathematics, or experimental evidence in support of their application to empty space.

Furthermore, that closed universe case has virtually no acceptance among Big Bangers; or any other cosmologists!.

Thus the application of the above equation to empty space rather than to matter in space is fraudulent, is compounded by its application to the space of a closed BB universe case that has had virtually no advocates in recent years. The terrible result of that fraud has been that all the data that is presented in the media regarding the departing velocity of matter in space is totally erroneous.

It seems strangely suspicious that the basis for the above material is absent from generally available BB papers and books. Apparently that is in keeping with the the establishment policy of "purposeful obfuscation," or just plain fraud. (Please see Footnote No. 1 at the end of this paper regarding the sources of the above equation.)


According to Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's GRT equations on which Standard BBT is based, there are 3 possible BB universe cases. Two other possibilities for a BB universe are also introduced. All of those possible cases are briefly reviewed here as background material for the discussion that follows. Without that background a valid critique of BBT cannot be made, and the fraud of BBT cannot be appreciated.

1. A Closed BB Universe.

The closed BB universe has positively curved space.

Its average density is greater than a critical level and it is increasing.

Its rate of expansion that is less than the escape velocity of the universe, and is decreasing. It would therefore eventually cease expanding and, unlike the other BB universe cases, it would start to collapse. (Its Hubble constant would be ever decreasing until then.]

The rate of collapse would then increase until what is left of the universe would end in a "Big Crunch".

Some BBers have in the past postulated that there would then be another BB, and the closed universe process would be repeated, and possibly further cycles of expansion and collapse would be repeated thereafter, and possibly that had also happened in the past.

The closed BB universe case, and those recycling universe scenarios, once were taken seriously by many BBers, but they have lost their popularity in recent decades.

2. An Open BB Universe.

The open BB universe has negatively curved space,

Its rate of expansion is greater than the escape velocity of the universe.

Its average density that is less than a critical level.

Its rate of expansion (its Hubble constant) and its average density would ever be decreasing, and they would eventually approach zero.

The open BB universe case has been the choice of many BBers in the past, but it has also lost popularity in recent years.

3. A Flat BB Universe.

The flat BB universe space is at the boundary between the open and the closed BB universe cases. It has flat, uncurved "Euclidean" space,

Its rate of expansion is decreasing, but would ever remain equal to the escape velocity of the universe.

Its average density, although remaining at the critical level would ever decrease.

Its rate of expansion (its Hubble constant) and its density would ever be decreasing, and they will eventually approach zero, but less rapidly than the open case

The flat BB universe case has a very special requirement; some rationale as to how nature might have provided the necessary precise balance of forces to provide for its existence on the boundary between the open and closed universe cases. However, inflation theory, is thought by some BBers to provide that rational. Since the introduction of that theory in recent years, the flat BB universe case has been the choice of many BBers

4. A Fixed-Rate BB Universe.

One of two additional possible BB universe cases that are not accepted within Standard BBT is a fixed-rate universe.

Its space is more more negatively curve than that of the open case.

Its rate of expansion is greater than the escape velocity of the universe, and would ever remains fixed. (ts Hubble constant is truly "constant")

Its average density is less than the critical level, and would ever decrease. It would eventually reach zero, but more rapidly than the open case.

There are no BBers who are known to believe that their universe has a fixed rate of expansion.

5. A BB Universe of Accelerating Expansion.

A second BB case that is not accepted within Standard BBT is that of a universe having accelerating expansion, which requires some unknown force (such as cosmic repulsion) for its existence.

This "extremely open" universe would have even more negatively curved space, than the other cases

Its rate of expansion is far greater, than escape velocity, and would be ever increasing. (Its Hubble constant would be ever increasing.)

its average density is far less than the critical level. It would ever decrease, and eventually reach zero, but more rapidly than the other cases.

This type of BB universe has been postulated in the distant past, and a similar scheme has been given renewed consideration in the past few years. Some BBers believe that evidence has been found in support of this case. Because it would have a lower rate of expansion in the past, providing for an older BB universe, thus easing an age problem that has ever plagued BBT, It has great appeal to them. (See the section below entitled Accelerating Expansion.}

The reason the reader, and many BBers, lack a proper understand of the BB cases described above is that, when members of the cosmological establishment attempt to illustrate or describe them, they are usually incorrectly presented. I have come to believe that is the result of either a lack of understanding of their own theory, or that it is in keeping with their policy of "purposeful obfuscation;" or just plain fraud.


The closed BB universe case is said to have positively curved space in accordance with relativity which would be the result of the positive mass of the universe. But, according to Standard BBT, all of the open universe cases (of Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 above) must have negatively curved space. In order to comply with relativity that would seem to imply that, in those cases, the universe was dominated by negative matter. However, science has no basis negative matter. It is hard to imagine that that fraud been around for decades without the notice of BB cosmologists.

For the Relativists in our midst, the idea of positively curved space due to the presence of mass is accepted. But the fraud of negatively curved space should not be acceptable to anyone. Furthermore. in the most popular BB universe case, the flat BB universe, for the need for a precise balance between positive mass of the negative matter in the universe, resulting in an uncurved space, is is fraudulent beyond all reason.


According to BB theory, if the universe had expanded at a fixed rate equal to the presently postulated Hubble constant ever since the BB, it would have occurred at the "Hubble Time," TH, (also called the "Hubble Age") that equals the speed of light divided by the Hubble constant, c/Ho.

Presently the most widely accepted value of the Hubble constant, Ho, is about 65 kilometers per second per million parsecs (65 km/sec/MPCs), but other estimates of Ho are sometimes in the range of 50 to 80 km/sec/MPCs. For those values of Ho, the corresponding Hubble times are:

For 50 km/sec/MPCs, Hubble time is about 20 Billion years

For 65 km/sec/MPCs, Hubble time is about 15 Billion years

For 80 km/sec/MPCs, Hubble time is about 12 Billion years

As an example of the how those times are determined, for the Hubble constant of 65 km/sec/MPCs, which is equal to about 20 km/sec/MLYs. Dividing the speed of light at 300,000 km/sec by 20 km/sec/MLYs (c/Ho) is said to result in result in a Hubble time (TH) of about 15 billion years (BYRs).


However, there appears to be a flaw in the above calculations. In the division of c (in km/sec) by Ho (in km/sec/MLYs), the resulting dimension is billions of light years rather than billions of years.

That may be just a minor bit of fraud. The explanation by BBers for getting around that inconsistency is that they have assumed that the initial rate of expansion of the the fixed-rate universe case would be at the speed of light, and the expansion of its outer edge would ever continue at that rate. Therefore, for a fixed-rate BB universe the age of the BB universe would be numerically equal to Hubble time.

BBers frequently present the Hubble time as the age of their universe. But that would be incorrect for any BB universe case other than the fixed-rate case, which no BBers are known to have accepted. In recent years, the majority of them have accepted the flat universe case, in which, according to their theory, the present age of the universe would not be equal to TH, but to 2/3 of TH. For a flat BB universe, according to BBT, the age of the universe, for various examples of Hubble times (within in the range that is often presented by BBers), should therefore be as follows:

For a TH of 12 BYRs, the age of the universe should be 2/3 X 12 = 8 BYRs

For a TH of 13.5 BYRs, the age of the universe should be 2/3 X 13.5 9 BYRs

For a TH of 15 BYRs, the age of the universe should be 2/3 X 15 = 10 BYRs

(For the open BB case, the age of the universe would be between 2/3 TH and TH; and for the closed BB case; the age of the universe would be less than 2/3 TH.}

Are the erroneous ages frequently ascribed to the BB universe merely sloppy logic, purposeful obfuscation, or intentional fraud?


The present size of the universe (in billions of light years) is often presented in the media as numerically equal to the value of TH (in billions of years). That is because, as mentioned above, for a fixed-rate universe the outer edge of the universe would have expanded at the speed of light for a period equal to Hubble time. Therefore, depending on the value of Hubble time they have accepted, they often present the size of the universe as in the following examples:

For a TH of 12 BYRs, the size of the universe would be 12 BYRs.

For a TH of 13.33 BYRs, the size of the universe would be 13.33 BYRs.

For a TH of 15 BYRs, the size of the universe would be 15 BYRs.

As in the case of the age of the BB universe, those sizes are based on a fixed-rate universe, that no BBers are known to have accepted. Perhaps that is more sloppy work, purposeful obfuscation, or fraud.


BBers believe that the distance to matter observed in space is proportional to their velocity as determined by the accepted interpretation of redshift data.

Accordingly, the following list shows the distance of matter in space that might be reported for BB universes of three ages (within in the range that is often presented by BBers) as a function of the values of redshift and velocity presented above.

Velocity as a

Redshift Fraction of c 12 BYRs 13.5 BYRs 1BYRs









Presentation of data in that manner is intended to illustrate that the distances reported in the literature for matter in space are subject to the various writer's beliefs regarding the age of the BB universe.

As an illustration of the application of that accepted interpretation of redshift data , if a quasar has a redshift of 2, which puts V/c at 0.8; 80 percent of the speed of light. If BBers assume the age of the universe to be, for example, at 15 BYRs, would report that quasar's distance to be at 12 BYRs.

However, because distance to matter in space is customarily reported as being proportional to fraudulently determined velocity those distances are also fraudulently reported.


Astronomers know that there are stars older than the ages of the universe according to standard BBT, and some astronomers have estimated that it would have taken at least 100 billion years for the formation of gigantic galactic structures such as the "Great Wall" and the "Southern Wall", that span hundreds of billions of light years in space.

For those reasons, BBers face enormous problems regarding the age of their universe. However, they try to present the appearance of little concern about that, and merely dismiss it as an "age paradox". But in truth they have ever been very concerned about this problem.

The reason that BBers prefer to report the age of the universe as that of the fixed-rate universe case is quite obvious: It allows them to report an age that appears to reduce the seriousness of their "age paradox".

In a further feeble attempt to solve their age problem, some Big Bangers (most notably astronomer Allan Sandage) insist that the value of Ho is about 50 km/sec/MPCs (about 15 km/sec/MLYs) resulting in a Hubble time of about 20 BYRs. The age of the flat BB universe, that most of them espouse, should be 2/3 of that, or 13.33 BYRs (as compared to only about 10 BYRs for a Hubble constant of 65 km/sec/MPCs). Some of them have insisted that, because that age is on the order of the age of old stars, their age "paradox" is not a problem.

Obviously, Ignoring the greater age of some stars, and ignoring the presence of gigantic galactic structures, provides no solution to the BB age problem. Thai omission seems to provide evidence of more fraud.


Based on little evidence and much speculation, BBers have have lately embraced the idea that at some time in the distant past, instead of continuing to slow, the expansion of the universe started to accelerate, and now continues to accelerate.

As mentioned above, accelerating expansion has been proposed as a possible solution to the BB age paradox several times in the past. But now, that is claimed to be supported by new evidence, "dark energy" or "quintessence" in space, that acts like negative gravity, and has grown strong enough to overcome the gravitational attraction of the mass of the universe, and has caused accelerating expansion of the universe. That has become the latest BB cosmological fad.

Quite obviously, the reason for the renewed popularity of that idea, as in the past, is because it is seen as a solution to the BB age problem that has ever plagued BB theory. Slower expansion in the past provides for an older BB universe.

However, there is no science that can account of the presence of dark energy or quintessence in the universe, or for any other matter or force that might have the ability to accelerate the expansion of the space of the universe. That is voodoo science, and the evidence for acceleration, that is based on the level of radiation from very remote supernovas, is subject to considerable question.


Although BBers frequently talk about the velocity of matter in space, according to BBT, it is not the matter of the universe that is departing. Instead, it is the space of the universe that is expanding.

However, confusion reigns. Before the appearance of "dark energy" on the scene, when Big Bangers were interrogated they were forced to admit that it must be inertia that causes the continuing expansion of the BB universe. But there is no accepted science that can account for the inertia of empty space.

Also when interrogated, BBers were forced to admit that is must be the gravity of the mass of the universe that has caused the deceleration of the expansion of the BB universe. But there also is no accepted science that can account for the reaction of empty space to gravity. Both of those ideas sound like voodoo science or fraud.

Although BBers frequently refer to the redshift of radiation from matter in space as Doppler shift, that is inconsistent with BBT. That theory claims redshift to be "cosmological." It is not the result of expanding matter in intergalactic space, but of the expansion of space itself. However, not only is the expansion of the matter of the universe subject to serious question, but the expansion of space is beyond the realm of reason. (Please see Footnote No. 2 at the end of this paper regarding an expanding universe.)

Regardless of what the relativists have to say, the idea of the "nothingness" of empty space, as having the ability to expand (or contract) is obviously fraudulent.


  • It has been shown above that the equation for V/c as a function of Z, that might apply to matter in space, has been erroneously applied to the empty space of the closed BB universe case, and that has been used to determine the velocity and distance of matter in space.

  • It has been shown that c/Ho, that might apply only to a fixed-rate BB universe that is accepted by no one, has been erroneously used to determine the size and age of other BB universe cases.

  • It has been shown that the uncurved space of the flat BB universe depends on a balance between the positive and the negative curvature of space. But there is no basis in relativity, or in any other sort of science, for negatively curved space.

  • It has been shown that the ages of older stars, and the enormous age of giant galactic formations, are far older than the age of the universe as determined by BB theory.

It has been shown that the expansion of a BB universe, that might only be the result of inertia; but because empty space cannot have inertia, that cannot be so.

It has also been shown that the deceleration of expansion of a BB universe, that might only be due to gravitation, but because empty space cannot respond to gravity. That too, cannot be so.

Those facts alone (ignoring such nonsense as the universe forming out of nothing), should be more than enough to cause believers to abandon BBT. It seems obvious that highly educated establishment cosmologists must be aware of those errors and inconsistencies, but they don't consider its abandonment. Deception and mendacity, not science, appear to be the name of the game.

Those guilty members of the establishment have much at stake in their practice of "purposeful obfuscation" in support of BBT. They are esteemed by other members of their profession who have similar motivations, by their students, and by the general public that trusts them; and many of them make very good livings as professors, writers and lecturers on science that they know to have serious flaws.

The disturbing result of those errors and deceptions is that almost all cosmologists, astronomers, other scientists, and the general public have been defrauded and "hoodwinked" into accepting totally erroneous information regarding the age and size of the universe, and distance and velocity of matter in space.

(Much of the information presented above can also be found in my paper, The Hoodwinking of Astronomy, Cosmology and All of Science; and in my book, BYE BYE BIG BANG - Hello Reality. However, the fraudulent BB ideas disseminated by Big Bang theorists is not adequately emphasized in those.)

Footnote No. 1, Regarding Equation V/c as a Function of Z

The equation given above for V/c as a function of Z. and an equivalent equation, have been presented in various articles and books by BB theorists. Included among those are:

  • Dennis Sciama in his book of 1971, Modern Cosmology.

  • John Gribbin in his book of 1986, In Search of the Big Bang. However, there was a typographical error in the formula presented in that book. Possibly for that reason, that formula was omitted in the 1988 edition of his book.

  • John Barrow and Joseph Silk in Scientific American of April 1980, but there was also a typographical error in the formula they presented.

Although the ages, distances and departing velocities of distant galaxies, as presented in astronomical and cosmological literature, continue to be based on those formulas. I have diligently searched, and have failed to find them in more recent articles or books by BBers.

I have come to believe that those omissions are part of the "purposeful obfuscation" of the BB establishment, and that might also be the reason for the errors in the formulas that were mentioned above. (It's difficult to believe that the scientists who authored that material would have failed to carefully check their math.)

Those of the BB establishment certainly must be aware of the error of applying that formula to the empty space of a closed BB universe - a BB case that is no longer accepted by any of them. But those folks make their living by teaching, lecturing, and writing about existing BBT, so why should they present anything that might be found to discredit the prevailing theory, and kill the goose that lays golden eggs for them?

Footnote No. 2, Regarding an Expanding Universe

There is no proof that the universe is expanding; and in particular, no proof that the space of the universe is expanding. In fact, there is considerable evidence that, on the large scale, universe is not expanding. Please read about that evidence in the paper or in the book mentioned above.

If anyone should wonder about the cause of redshift, the answer is most likely the hydrogen that permeates all of space, as believed by Professor Paul Marmet and a number of other scientists. Marmet's website address www.newtonphysics.on.ca, or just use keyword "Paul Marmet".


(To obtain copies of the following papers contact the author at Wmitch8493@aol.com.)


This was an 11 page article published in Physics Essays, Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997

Much of this paper was taken from The Cult of the Big Bang by the same author.

Introductory Section of This Paper:

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact.

Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted BB as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who seriously question the BB are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.

As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an unproven theory.

Fortunately there long has been an unindoctrinated minority of scientists, both amateur and professional, who continue to discover and present observational evidence and logic that provides reason to doubt the accepted paradigm. Some of better known and most effective of the scientists in this struggle are Halton Arp of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Jayant Narlikar of the Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in India. Other well known astronomers/cosmologists who have long fought for the proper consideration of alternate cosmologies include Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold and Eric Lerner.

Due to the efforts of those and other fighters for evenhanded cosmological investigation and, despite the powerful influence of mainstream BB cosmologists, evidence against the BB has been building to the point where the world may soon start to doubt it. Some of that evidence is briefly reviewed in this paper.

Big Bang Problems and Related Topics Discussed in This Paper:

Big Bang Singularity

Big Bang Smoothness

Density of the Big Bang Universe

Age of the Big Bang Universe

Microwave Background Radiation

Big Bang Chronology

The Source of Elementary Particles

Doppler Red Shift

Space Curvature

Inflation as a Solution to Big Bang Theory Problems

Decelerating Expansion of the Big Bang Universe

Logical Problems



This 25 page paper has been prepared for presentation at the San Luis Obisbo meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) meeting in May 2002. However, the concept of a Recycling Universe Cosmology was first presented in a paper given at an NPA session of the April, 1999 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Santa Fe, NM. A revised version of that paper, entitled Bye Bye Big Bang - Hello Reality, has been presented at NPA meetings in May, 2000 at Berkeley, CA, and at the University of Connecticut in June, 2000. It was again revised, expanded and incorporated into Chapter 28 of the book by that name, which was published early in 2002.

(For more details regarding the recycling universe, refer to that book.)

From The Introduction Of This Paper:

As a result of my studies of cosmology over many years I have uncovered overwhelming evidence against Big Bang Theory (BBT). But, more importantly, during that time I have also gathered enough general information about astronomy on a cosmological scale that I have been able to postulate a cosmology that may provide solutions to many of the problems that plague the field of cosmology; not just a cycling universe, like a Big Bang (BB) closed reexploring universe, but an ever changing, recycling universe.

Several factors, that have been overlooked by many others, and have provided the basis for this Recycling Universe Cosmology (RUC) are listed as follows:

(1) Old galaxies die,

(2) but they have very long lives.

(3) The universe is very much older; maybe infinitely old.

(4) Enormous amounts of matter and radiant energy are spewed into intergalactic space (IGS) from all the galaxies of the universe, every second of their lives.

(5) Vast amounts of hydrogen are present throughout IGS

(6) New galaxies continue to form in IGS.

(7) The universe is not expanding,

(8) and it is not doomed to heat death.

Old galaxies die, but the universe doesn't. New galaxies have ever continued to form.

The source of that new life is the matter and energy from older dead and dying galaxies, plus other matter and energy that fills all of space. Most importantly, much of that matter is in the form of hydrogen that has been found to be abundant throughout space.

A discussion of the lives and ages of stars, galaxies and the universe is first presented

Following that, evidence is presented regarding the loss of matter and energy from galaxies, and the accumulation of those in IGS, that is necessary for the formation of new galaxies.

That is followed by discussions of the formation of those galaxies and their stellar systems, and the evidence that supports those processes.

Discussions of other related matters are then presented


Impossible Correspondence Index