The Time Paradox of the Big Bang Theory

Bryan Belrad's image for:
"The Time Paradox of the Big Bang Theory"
Image by: 


What is time? When you take away all the arbitrary demarcations of hours, minutes, seconds, years, it becomes clear that time is really just a rate of change. It is the difference between an electron being on the right side of an atom, then the left, and where it was in between. It is the transition from summer to winter. Time is the glue that binds together causes and effects. Or, looking at it another way, it is resistance the universe applies to events to keep everything from happening at once.

Big Bang Theory, among its other problems, has an issue with time. In fact, it has a full-scale paradox on its hands.

Plato described a paradox as an apparent contradiction in reality. We can see these in Quantum Physics, where a photon will travel both left and right at the same time. In cases like that, a concept is only a paradox until it has a rational explanation.

When there is no explanation, no chance to resolve the paradox, then it becomes an absurd paradox. One example is the statement that every person's point of view is just as valid as any other. What if someone holds the view that that very statement isn't valid? According to the statement, that view must be valid, so it is valid to say that the statement itself is invalid. Absurd, yes? That's exactly the point.

Plato also proved that an absurd paradox can actually be useful: it automatically proves the opposite of whatever point it is trying to make. As in the example above, the given statement is an absurd paradox, so, automatically, the statement all points of view are not equally valid' is true.

What's this got to do with the Big Bang? Well, you see, according to the theory, everything in the universe came into existence at the moment of creation, including time and space. Before that, there was absolutely nothing. Not nothing as in the absence of something', like empty space, but nothing as in not even the emptiness where nothing' should be.

But there's the paradox: Since time is just a rate of change, and time came along with the Big Bang, how could the event itself ever come to pass? How could the nothing' change into something'? Can there be change without a rate of change? Mathematically, that's like having a fraction without a numerator. It can't even be computed.

Physicist Stephen Hawking said that "Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole." But that's a fallacious statement; the two are not analogous. Eric Lerner pointed out that north is a direction; time is a rate. It is more closely akin to velocity than vector.

Look at it this way: if you measure the speed of a runner who doesn't exist, how fast is he going? It isn't zero, because he'd have to exist to be' not moving. He clearly isn't covering any distance either, because he's not there.

So, if time came with the Big Bang, how did it get there? Short of an "act of God", or another arbitrary suspension of the physical laws, like Inflation, it is clear that we're faced with an absurd paradox. Which means that the opposite is true.

The simplest form of the paradox is stated thusly: Time came into existence. It is this statement that is absurd, and in contradiction with itself. Therefore, it is automatically false, and the opposite is true: Time always exists. It seems self-evident, yet we've been barking up the tree of time-without-time for nearly a Century now. How bright are we?

Furthermore, since Time and Space are one fabric', as Einstein put it, then Space must also have always existed. Since Time is infinite, by definition of having always existed, then Space must likewise be infinite, else we will run afoul of another paradox.

If Time and Space are both infinite, then the Big Bang really doesn't work. All that's left is an explosion of matter and energy somehow expanding in infinite space that already existed. The Temporal Singularity goes right out the window, and we already know that a physical inertia explosion can't work gravity re-collapses the universe instantly.

Since the Big Bang Theory depends on a premise that is an absurd paradox, it is automatically false. In fact, it runs the risk of being an absurd paradox itself. Our "brightest minds" should know better. Shame on them.


The whole theoretical basis of the Big Bang rests on two main supports. First, there is the assumption that galaxies are all receding from each other. Note the key word: "assumption". Unchallenged assumptions seldom lead to valid science.

Second, there are the calculations that show no finite universe can exist in a static state. Note the key word there: "finite".

Newton failed to prove a static universe by calculating gravity's effects on the whole of the universe on an infinite scale. He made one mistake: he could not complete the calculation using the value "infinity", so he replaced it with an ever-increasing value. There, he erred. No finite value, no matter how large, is the same as infinity. In fact, no single number is any closer to infinity than any other; infinity is always infinitely larger.

Einstein made a similar mistake in his own calculations. He assumed that because gravity is the curvature in time-space that results from the presence of matter (mass) that, collectively, the universe must also be curved, and thus, finite. Since all matter possesses mass, and thus disrupts time-space into a curved shape, he had no reason to believe otherwise. As it turns out, though, the thought was incorrect. To be more precise, it was incomplete.

It never occurred to Einstein, despite the similarity between the force formulae for gravity and electromagnetism, that matter with an opposed electromagnetic system might posses the balancing force, gravity's negative'. Since mass, and thus, gravity, is a function of the existence of an off-balance electromagnetic wave (matter), then it MUST be the case that the opposite wave form generates the opposite curvature in space.

Furthermore, since a neutral charge cannot give rise to a +1 charge without also birthing a 1 charge, it can be stated that for every particle of matter, there must be an equal, opposite particle: antimatter. Thus, it is proposed that antimatter posses this property of reverse-curved gravity. Incidentally, this also predicts that there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, contrary to Big Bang's mostly matter' nucleosynthesis.

THEREFORE, the universe is infinite and eternal, logically, mathematically, and relativistically: there is no overall curvature, so Space is "flat" and has no boundary whatsoever. This must be the case; every physical law, every mathematical principle, and every logical proof are all in agreement. The universe cannot be otherwise.

Also, it is predicted that the universe has a full set of balanced forces; gravity has an opposite, an inverse curvature in time-space, generated by the existence of antimatter. Incidentally, this also predicts that gravity generated by matter's existence, contrary to the standard model's prediction of a single particle being responsible, such as the Higgs Boson, or the Graviton.

This PREDICTION is testable: it has already been determined that antimatter particles have equivalent masses to their matter counterparts. It only remains to be seen whether that equivalent' is of the same curvature, or opposed.


An Alternative View of the Universe (2006), published by Lulu.

Additional Reading:

Testing the Big Bang (2007), published by Lulu.

More about this author: Bryan Belrad

From Around the Web