Scientist claims Big Bang theory is WRONG as revolutionary idea could change our understanding of universe - The bombshell new theory could upend how researchers view the beginning of time

Link: https://www.gbnews.com/science/scientist-claims-big-bang-theory-wrong-revolutionary
Credit: George Bunn, GB News
Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/Ha7oF

Illustration of the Big Bang event 13.8 billion years ago

A controversial new theory claims the Big Bang never happened, challenging one of the most fundamental beliefs in modern cosmology.

Professor Richard Lieu of The University of Alabama in Huntsville has published research suggesting the universe wasn't born from a single massive explosion.

Instead, he proposes that the cosmos grew through numerous rapid-fire bursts throughout history.

His alternative explanation, published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, introduces the concept of "temporal singularities" that blasted new matter and energy into space.

This groundbreaking idea directly challenges scientific consensus that has stood since the 1960s.

According to Lieu, each of these 'temporal singularities' sent bursts of energy and matter into space, which eventually formed planets, stars and galaxies. These bursts weren't confined to a single explosive beginning like the Big Bang theory suggests.

Instead, they have continued throughout cosmic history, collectively pushing the universe to expand.

"The new model can account for both structure formation and stability, and the key observational properties of the expansion of the universe at large," Lieu explains.



The first all-sky microwave image of the universe soon after the Big Bang
These random bursts occur rarely and quickly, dissipating before they can be detected by current technologies like telescopes.

The traditional Big Bang theory proposes that the universe began as an infinitely small, hot point of densely packed matter and energy that exploded and continues to expand. However, this model cannot work without dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter is theorised to be the invisible scaffolding holding cosmic structures in place. Meanwhile, dark energy is believed to be the undetectable force pushing the universe to expand faster.

Scientists have yet to prove these mysterious substances actually exist. Despite this, Lieu has attempted to rework our understanding of the universe to align with known laws of physics without relying on unproven forces.

The theory could explain why the universe is expanding rapidly without needing dark energy. It also addresses how galaxies and galaxy clusters formed without requiring dark matter.

"These singularities are unobservable because they occur rarely in time and are unresolvedly fast, and that could be the reason why dark matter and dark energy have not been found," Lieu stated.

The physicist describes his approach as "radically different" from conventional models.

However, he acknowledged the theory had drawbacks. The temporal singularities he proposes are, by definition, unobservable, similar to dark matter and dark energy. There is currently far more indirect evidence supporting dark matter and dark energy than these temporal singularities.

His theory also fails to explain what causes these bursts in the first place.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

I don't really think so. I think you can cognitively understand, for example, that odd numbers and numbers divisible by 5 are two infinite sets, of which one infinity is larger than the other. But I don't think anyone has much of an intuitive sense for what that difference "means." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Yes, both are infinite subsets of the natural numbers, each having the same cardinality.

The first infinity is "ok I can do +1 +1 +1" (etc) forever. That's easy enough unless you're literal about "ok so after the magic mental gadget comes back from the end of time."

But tl;dr you're just doing subsets of N selected by a property (can be divided by 5 without a remainder) and (cannot be divided by two). This is very well understood. It's symbolic, it's not handheld, but then again neither is analysis, which also depends on infinite limits and infinitesimals.

I blame math education for being bad almost as much as the attitude toward being bad at math people have.

 

[draggs]

Okay so where is the evidence of these temporal bursts technobabble. We have clear evidence of the Big Bang from the CMB and other things

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

I think this is the paper he published on the matter for those smarter than myself:

https://arxiv.org/html/2503.08733v1

@Agent Snigger might be able to help with this one.

When I can be fucked I'll try to parse the paper for myself but for the most part it basically looks like attempt #9001 of describing the universe without dark matter/dark energy.

 

[Anti Snigger]

I think this is the paper he published on the matter for those smarter than myself:

https://arxiv.org/html/2503.08733v1

@Agent Snigger might be able to help with this one.

When I can be fucked I'll try to parse the paper for myself but for the most part it basically looks like attempt #9001 of describing the universe without dark matter/dark energy.

I'm going to preface this by saying that GR isn't my strongest suit, but the application of Gauss' law with the spherical symmetry is at least correct. That said, if I'm interpreting this correctly, he's trying to model the mass flow as a fluid, which I'm not very certain of. It's a bit above my pay grade without me brushing up on some topics.
Author GS


This is my long-winded way of saying ionknow lol

 

[deleuzeon]

Yes, both are infinite subsets of the natural numbers, each having the same cardinality.

The first infinity is "ok I can do +1 +1 +1" (etc) forever. That's easy enough unless you're literal about "ok so after the magic mental gadget comes back from the end of time."

But tl;dr you're just doing subsets of N selected by a property (can be divided by 5 without a remainder) and (cannot be divided by two). This is very well understood. It's symbolic, it's not handheld, but then again neither is analysis, which also depends on infinite limits and infinitesimals.

I blame math education for being bad almost as much as the attitude toward being bad at math people have.

Yes, I know you can cast a set of numbers as being a subset of real numbers and so on. You're demonstrating, as I said, a cognitive understanding of what an infinite set is and the procedural operations you can therefore do on that set. But that's not the same as having any intuitive sense of how the one infinity is greater than the other. You don't have any relationship to anything infinite, nothing you evolved from ever had to deal with it. One infinity being larger than another is not something you can relate to anything you've ever perceived; even one infinity by itself is not something you've ever perceived. We are animals in local space with a limited amount of time before we die and so were all the things our brains evolved out of. If you're going to insist to me that you walk around intuiting infinities, idk. Great.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

that's not the same as having any intuitive sense of how the one infinity is greater than the other

Except we have defined that.

One infinity being larger than another is not something you can relate to anything you've ever perceived

What's the next natural number after 2? 3.
What's the next irrational after pi? (You can't know)

This is actually a very useful insight: if you know the next step or element of an ordered infinite set, it has the cardinality "size" equal to the naturals, which is a simple matter of +1 +1 +1 and so on. A foundational idea of arithmetic is starting from nothing and doing +1 over and over. EZPZ. There's also a way to show any number that can be expressed in the form a/b (where a and b are both naturals or integers) has the same cardinality.

And yet, we have real numbers, which are almost entirely transcendent irrational numbers. We can stumble into a few of them (like pi, e, etc) and we can get close to them with rational numbers, but never exactly 'at' one. They're everywhere, there's more of them than any kind of number we could ever construct, and they fill "gaps" between these rational numbers, that them selves are infinite, but can be defined to have a 'next number' and are reachable.

The issue is taking naive intuition about real life every day things and insisting that all abstractions play by the same rules. It's better to realize that abstractions can do as you please, or need, or want, so if we stumble on a new one or make a new one that's "weird" compared to "Timmy has 5 apples and a nigger stole one now he has four", that's fine.

Georg Cantor went a little craycray figuring this shit out, so don't feel bad that this is hard to take on and you can just do it in one sitting. I'm not saying that. I am saying it's doable for most people who put the work in, for differing amounts of work done.

 

[Dagobert]

The big bang theory is fake.

We knew about 1400bc how the world was made (literally the first few sentences of the book of genesis)

Some literal faggot in the 1800s just made up some retarded big bang shit

The origin of the Big Bang theory came from a Christian Priest, Georges Lemaitre, in 1931 and his proposal was directly cited by Pope Pius XII as a meshing of the Biblical account of Creation and observed science. Unless you insist on a literal 6 days of Creation, the Big Bang fits quite well with Genesis, and God's instruction: "Let there be light."

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

The origin of the Big Bang theory came from a Christian Priest, Georges Lemaitre, in 1927 and his proposal was directly cited by Pope Pius XII

So, catholic, not christian

as a meshing of the Biblical account of Creation and observed science.

its never been observed

Unless you insist on a literal 6 days of Creation,

i dont insist, God, the prohpets and Jesus Christ insist

 

[Thomas Talus]

i dont insist, God, the prohpets and Jesus Christ insist

Only insofar as the rendition in English can mean a literal 24-hr day; the original word does not carry that same meaning, just "a period of time."

 

[Dagobert]

So, catholic, not christian

Catholics are Christian.

its never been observed

I mean, by technicality, yes. But, you having a functioning liver or heart hasn't been directly observed unless we open you up, and the existence of a fire was not directly observed from its ashes. Yet some reasonable presumptions can be made. The CMB is the afterglow of the event, and we can and do observe that among many other things.

i dont insist, God, the prohpets and Jesus Christ insist

No, no they don't. Outside of Genesis' account and two reference to the days of Creation in correlation to the Sabbath in Exodus, the Bible never says a thing about Creation being a direct six days or any length of time in particular. Christ himself certainly never said a thing about it in any account of Scripture.

The literal 6 days of Creation, and Young Earth, is entirely born of personal interpretation of Scripture. And, in my opinion, it's one which requires denying much of the grander majesty of God's Creation itself in order to justify.

 

[mlanguishi]

There's one constant with human perception, they always think they either have it all figured or or are right on the cusp. Then every 100 years or so it's all rewritten and probably always will be.

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

So, you're telling me the universe still started with an explosion, it was just a normal sized explosion and not a "BIG" explosion, hence the Big Bang Theory is wrong.

....................



And you faggots all question why I say soyience is a fucking joke.

 

[Positron]

The theory could explain why the universe is expanding rapidly without needing dark energy. It also addresses how galaxies and galaxy clusters formed without requiring dark matter.

"These singularities are unobservable because they occur rarely in time and are unresolvedly fast, and that could be the reason why dark matter and dark energy have not been found," Lieu stated.

I can't see how replacing one form of (hitherto) unobservables with another form of unobservable is any improvement. Does the new theory bring on the table that ΛCDM doesn't?

Here is something I found from another article of the same news.

The only difference between this work and the standard model is that the temporal singularity occurred only once in the latter, but more than once in the former.”

In other words, instead of one Big Bang, he postulates multiple Biggish Bangs. My concern is that the more Bangs there can be, the more leeway to flob your theory to account for data. Doesn't look promising to me, but I'm not dismissing the new theory out of hand.

The researcher noted, “The best way to look for the proposed effect is actually to use a large ground-based telescope – like the Keck Observatory [Waimea, Hawaii], or the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes in La Palma, Spain – to perform deep field observations, the data of which would be ‘sliced’ according to redshift. Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing.”

It's good that this theory can at least be empirically corroborated. And wouldn't such multiple singularities leave behind ripples of gravitational waves? I wish we have the technology to map gravitational waves in high resolution.

 

[Male Idiot]

Only insofar as the rendition in English can mean a literal 24-hr day; the original word does not carry that same meaning, just "a period of time."

Even as a non believer, that is interesting. There has to be a lot lost to 2000 years of translations.

This is interesting, but I am also interested in the Big Crunch, or the cyclical universe theory.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Only insofar as the rendition in English can mean a literal 24-hr day; the original word does not carry that same meaning, just "a period of time."

Right. Because God doesn't understand English/s

Even as a non believer, that is interesting. There has to be a lot lost to 2000 years of translations.

Interestingly enough, one of the most miraculous things about the bible is that nothing was lost in it's 5000 (not 2000) years of translation

Every copy ever found gas been exactly the same, and no "alternate" or edited versions have ever been found

Catholics are Christian

no lol. Different diety, different spiritual lineage (pharisees from Israel went to Europe and blended their beliefs with pre existing pagan cults, Yada yada)

.

I mean, by technicality, yes. But, you having a functioning liver or heart hasn't been directly observed unless we open you up, and the existence of a fire was not directly observed from its ashes.

Bingo. You can observe most of these things. The human life span is not anywhere even remotely close to the 6 gorillion year time span (((they))) claim the universe is

only God existed, God says 6 days.

Yet some reasonable presumptions can be made. The CMB is the afterglow of the event, and we can and do observe that among many other things.

Right but you dont know what this "afterglow" even is, what it means or even where it camr from. Youre calling it an "afterglow" under the assumption it is from a big bang

No, no they don't. Outside of Genesis' account and two reference to the days of Creation in correlation to the Sabbath in Exodus, the Bible never says a thing about Creation being a direct six days or any length of time in particular

ok so.. it does "say a thing" about the length of time then. You just ignored the specific parts that talk about it and then said it doesn't talk about it

in fact one of those parts you wanna ognore gives a DAY BY DAY account of creation

. Christ himself certainly never said a thing about it in any account of Scripture.

no, but jesus (and later apostles) cite moses. Jesus wouldnt cite moses if moses was inaccurate

if God on earth is citing moses, we can suppose that what moses said was true, and moses wrote that the earth was created in 6 days.

The literal 6 days of Creation, and Young Earth, is entirely born of personal interpretation of Scripture.

the bible isnt open to interpretation. It says what it says. Moses wrote it was created in 6 days. Granted, moses could have been lying, but if moses was lying, christ wouldnt have explicity cited Him

it's not an "interpretation" it literally says it was created in 6 days

And, in my opinion,

Jesus's opinion, even moses opinion, overrides your opinion.

Moses and the apostles were much more knowledgeable on the subject than you, who was brainwashed with schools run by satanists and your brain atrophy by seed oils and malnutrition

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Big bang theory was always a retarded Atheist cope.

 

[Crex Crex]

Interestingly enough, one of the most miraculous things about the bible is that nothing was lost in it's 5000 (not 2000) years of translation

Except a large amount of apocryphal gospels and various lost books mentioned in the old testament (the book of Jasher, for example).

Every copy ever found gas been exactly the same, and no "alternate" or edited versions have ever been found

Some of the Dead Sea scrolls have significant differences from later texts. Several biblical books are blatant composite from different authors. The adulterous woman in John was a late addition as no surviving greek biblical manuscripts from before the 4th century contain that passage.

Bingo. You can observe most of these things. The human life span is not anywhere even remotely close to the 6 gorillion year time span (((they))) claim the universe is

Right but you dont know what this "afterglow" even is, what it means or even where it camr from. Youre calling it an "afterglow" under the assumption it is from a big bang

But we do know all of those things. The "afterglow" is background microwave radiation. Without going into too much detail, the Big Bang would have generated a background electromagnetic radiation permating all space, which would have naturally "decayed" from X-rays to microwave frequencies. This means all space in the universe should be filled with microwave radiation, and that was confirmed in 1964 after being predicted in 1948.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Big bang theory was always a retarded Atheist cope.

It was invented by a Catholic priest.
Take from that what you will.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Except a large amount of apocryphal gospels and various lost books mentioned in the old testament (the book of Jasher, for example).

They arent lost books and the apocrypha came long long after the fact, with dubious authorship or straight up contradict the gospels, depending on which book we're talking about

This discussion is about the word of God, not satanic fanfics from centuries later

Some of the Dead Sea scrolls have significant differences from later texts.

not the canonical books. The dss has some non biblical things in those jars but the biblical books aremain unchanged from what we have today

Several biblical books are blatant composite from different authors. The adulterous woman in John was a late addition as no surviving greek biblical manuscripts from before the 4th century contain that passage.

It wasn't a late addition, it appears elsewhere

But we do know all of those things. The "afterglow" is background microwave radiation.

you have a microwave creator in your kitchen. You think youre creating a universe when you geat up your tv dinners?

Without going into too much detail, the Big Bang would have generated a background electromagnetic radiation permating all space, which would have naturally "decayed" from X-rays to microwave frequencies

Says who?

. This means all space in the universe should be filled with microwave radiation, and that was confirmed in 1964 after being predicted in 1948.

Again, says who? Literally all just made up

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Big bang theory is bullshit because the explanation always goes something like "within 2 seconds after the big bang, all matter in the universe was created from an infinitely small point". Yet, time didn't exist, so how was it only 2 seconds and how do we know that?

Also, the big bang theory disproves all known physics, as mass can't be created and nor can energy. And without any physics, gravity, time, decay or any of that, how did any of it even exist to begin with?