When it comes to the origins of the Earth as we know it, in the western world we basically have two opposing views on the origins of the Earth and life there upon.  In the secular, non-religious world, most people fall back on some variation of the basic Big Bang/ Evolution theory. In the religious and fringe world, we have Intelligent Design and/or one of its derivatives that run the gamut from the simple, “God just spoke it into being,” idea, to the “Ancient Alien Astronauts seeded life on Earth (for this or that reason),” end of the spectrum.

Outside of western circles, you have all sorts of fantastical origin stories, most of them also somehow involving gods or beings that intelligently create the universe and life within it.

Let’s discuss each basic idea briefly in order to lay the background for our story.

The Big Bang Theory, in short, says that all matter suddenly just appeared in one single massive explosion that eventually spawned the entire known universe. The expansion caused by this explosion will eventually stop in the dim dark future, and begin to reverse itself until everything eventually re-condenses back down to a single point that will inevitably explode again in another Big Bang that spawns a whole new universe. There is no way to know how many big bangs there have been, or how many more will happen.

In between each of these explosions and the trillions of year’s life-span of each cycle, evolution in some form takes over and spawns life all over again in that cycle’s universe.

This is Big Bangism and Evolution in a nutshell.

For the Big Bang part of their theory, they have scientifically-sound, radio-isotope dating methods that appear to back up the idea of an incredibly old Earth and Universe. They have the red-shift idea of light travel to back them up too, another a scientifically provable fact of light. And they have the speed of light itself, also scientifically ascertainable, to support them as well. 

As for the Evolution piece of the puzzle, its proponents invent all sorts of math and statistics to uphold their theory, which do seem, at face value, to support it. They have each step figured out, and the math to show how statistically, that step was possible (even if improbable).

So at face value, the Big Bang/Evolutionary theory of the origin of life and the universe, does seem to have some merit, and might, might, be what actually happened.

On the more fringe side, you have some variation of the idea that intelligent aliens (origin unknown) in the dim, dark, ancient past, seeded life on Earth in the beginning and have occasionally given evolution here an intelligent nudge to keep it on track. But this theory never really addresses the issue, typically, of the origin of original life, like for those alien seeders, other than evolution of their own, and the original big bang. This theory doesn’t actually answer the question of the origin of original life. It just passes the buck regarding life on Earth, and in the end, isn’t really an intelligent design theory as much as just another creative evolution variation.

And on the more religious side, you basically have the idea that an intelligent creator, or god(s), created the universe, and then created life here.

Beyond this point, Intelligent Design ideas differ though.

Some believe that the Earth and universe are both very young, and that the creation account in the Judeo-Christian Bible is completely literal, happened about 6200 years ago (as of our Gregorian Calendar year 2020), and that God somehow magically just gave it all the appearance of old age.

A second group within the Intelligent Design camp says that the Jewish God, or some other god or group of gods, actually created the universe itself many many eons ago, but that He (or she) only got around to doing the life-creation side of things about 10,000 ~ 100,000 years ago, give or take. Some of them point to the first several verses of the Bible in the book of Genesis where it says that, “the Earth was formless and void,” and then appears to leave the door open after that to an indeterminable amount of time between that moment, and the moment when God (or somebody) actually started the creation process by creating light on the first day of creation. Hence, a very old earth and universe, but very young created life without evolution.

A third camp within this group tries to accept both Big Bangism and Creationism by marrying the two, saying simply that God Himself (or some other higher power) lights the fuse for each Big Bang cycle, and nudges evolution along where necessary within each cycle in order to get to where we are today, with intelligent and complex life. The creation story to them is in essence a series of evolutionary snapshots spanning millions of years for each “day” of creation listed in the Bible.

In a nutshell, these ideas sum up most of the ideas currently taught or accepted around the western world today regarding the origin of life and the universe.


Let’s start by analyzing in a general way each of these four basic ideas, whether or not they are each truly supportable by science, and then I’ll present which I believe to be the most accurate picture, and then we can go from there.

1.      Big Bangism/ Evolution  

The entire Big Bang theory house-of-cards is built on one basic fact, and one faulty assumption that follows. This fact is referred to as the “Red Shift” of light.

This red shift of light is in fact, a very real thing. It is the same thing that happens with a police car with its siren on, goes by you on the street. As it approaches you, the siren is at one pitch. And when it passes you, the siren drops in pitch, and then drops again as it starts going away from you. The faster the police car is going, the more pronounced the drop in pitch. This is called the Doppler Effect after the guy who documented it and condensed it down to mathematics.
When applied to light, the Doppler Effect also holds true, and predicts that when glowing objects are coming towards us, at ultra high speeds, the light’s frequency (of the light the glowing object is emitting), will go up in pitch or frequency, towards the blue colors (as measured by the movement of the spectral lines within the light spectrum). Conversely, when glowing objects are traveling away from us at ultra high speeds, the light they emit  will appear to go down in frequency, or look redder (or more correctly, the light's spectral lines will shift towards red light). This is the red shift of light.

But you have to understand something. In order to get a solid hold on the red-shift and thus direction and acceleration, you have to be able to see and understand the spectral lines within the spectrum, of specific individual objects, in order to see which direction they are shifted. It's critical. It's required. And it's easy to see them with nearby stars. (You also have to understand what the spectral lines of the star at rest look like, in order to ascertain if they are shifted or not because of movement. For nearby stars, this is fairly easy to figure out and predict).

The problems begin when you start to try to analyze the spectral lines of galaxies, especially distant ones. There are so many stars involved, many of them with slightly or even radically different spectral lines, that the individual spectral lines from the galaxy as a whole begin to get fuzzy, and overlap. Soon, the farther away you go, and/or the bigger the galaxy, there just aren't any individually discernible spectral lines to even see any more. The ones that ARE there, could actually be absorption lines of dust between here and there, not even emission lines of the galaxies and stars themselves.

So what do they do? In simplistic terms, they just measure the amount of red light, versus blue light, and the ratio of each to each other, coming from that distant object. (Spoiler alert. Herein lies one of big bang's fatal flaw.)

When astronomers first started analyzing light from distant galaxies back when telescopes started getting bigger and bigger, they noticed that the light from more and more galaxies appeared to be red-shifted (both more red light than blue light, and red shifted spectral lines). In fact, the farther way the galaxy, the more red-shifted they appeared. To top things off, they only found a handful of galaxies that appeared to be blue-shifted at all, all of them relatively close, in our local neighborhood (apparently coming towards us).

The obvious conclusion of this is that the universe itself is expanding, and that the Earth itself must be very near the initial point of expansion, or initial explosion / Big Bang.

So it all sorta makes sense. And the scientific establishment, led by several scientific heavyweights, latched onto it and began to build a framework around it, building a house of cards supported by mathematics and dogma.

The biggest single card (there are several) supporting the entire big bang edifice is the assumption that there are no other explanations, other than the expansion of the universe, that can explain this observed red shift of light.

But this is faulty logic. And if there are other, better, more logical explanations for the red-shift that we see, then suddenly the whole Big Bang idea comes crashing down.

Let’s look at several major problems with, and alternate explanations for, the red shift of light that we do indeed seem to see from all these distant celestial objects. I’m sure there are more, but I figured these would be enough to establish the fact that there are better explanations for the observed red-shift of light that we see from distant objects, other than the assumption that the universe is expanding.


1.      I find it very suspicious that Earth itself should be at the center of the original big bang. But that’s what the logic says. If it were not, we should see a much more pronounced red shift of light in one direction where stuff is supposedly accelerating away from us faster, than in the direction towards where the original explosion happened, where stuff is falling behind us (and thus appears to be moving/accelerating away from us, just slower than in the other direction). But we don’t. The supposed acceleration around us seems to be fairly uniform in all directions.  Of all the trillions upon trillions of possible locations for the earth to come into being in the big bang explosion, how did we end up at dead center? Statistically, that’s so improbable as to be ludicrous.
 

2.      If the universe is truly expanding as postulated, and we are at its ground zero center, there shouldn’t be any blue-shifted galaxies of galaxies careening our direction. But there are, several of them in fact, including the Andromeda Galaxy, a much bigger galaxy than our own Milky Way. And they pretty much all happen to be fairly close to us already, cosmologically speaking. That has always struck me as odd and suspicious, if the big bang actually happened, that the only blue shifted galaxies we see are relatively close to us. We shouldn't see any at all!
 

3.      I also find it incredibly funny/suspicious that every time they build a bigger telescope and discover that they still can’t find the end or edge of the universe or the big bang, the age of the universe suddenly gets shifted up again. The logic is that if we can see the light from a mature galaxy 20 billion light years away, then the universe must be at least that old for the light from that already mature galaxy to have actually reached us. Thus, when the next bigger telescope comes up and suddenly discovers a galaxy even farther away, the age of the universe suddenly shifts with it again. I always found that suspicious.

 
 

4.      To truly and accurately know how far the light from a distant object has been red-shifted by using the red light to blue light ratio method, you first have to know how much blue and red light were emitted in the original source of light, and the ratios of each. You have to. But since we know there are red stars, and blue stars, and thus possibly red galaxies and blue galaxies, it has always struck me as presumptuous, and using faulty logic, to look at a distant galaxy, and measure its ratio of red to blue light in order to establish its red shift, without actually knowing what the original ratio of red to blue was in the original source. We can make some fairly intelligent assumptions based on our studies of nearby galaxies and stars, but the reality is still there, that we simply don’t know, and can’t know the original ratios!

     

In reality though, light is not just bent by gravity, it is prismed by gravity. Different frequencies of light are bent by slightly different amounts by the influence of gravity. The higher the frequency, the higher the bend or angle of deflection. Thus, the light from every single distant star coming to us, as it passes through the gravity wells of countless celestial objects on its way to us, is bent, pulled, and twisted numerous times, in every direction, blue light frequencies more so than red. The upshot of this is that the light from ANY distant object will appear to have a blue halo around it, because the blue light frequencies have all gone out of focus long before the red ones, due to the stresses of gravity all across the universe...

 

6.      Another property of light that is kind of a no-brainer, once you actually think about it, is that blue light is blocked by dust better than red light is. That’s why radio towers have red lights on top of them rather than blue lights. Blue light has a much shorter wavelength because of its higher frequency, so it doesn’t go around or penetrate as large of dust particles as lower-frequency, longer-wavelength red light can. In short, you can see red light much farther away than blue light. You know it. I know it. And people that build and sell red warning lights on top of radio towers know it. Red light is just plain easier to see at a distance than blue light is.

This applies to astronomical scales and objects as well. This partly explains why astronomers have been puzzled by the “fact” that the farther away objects appear to be, the faster they appear to be accelerating away from us, when measuring the red to blue ratio. It’s not because they are actually accelerating and red-shifting their light, it’s because the farther away they are, the more blue frequencies have been filtered out of their light rays by the sparse cosmic dust that is known to drift through the universe. Twenty billion light years is easily enough distance for the blue light from objects that far away to be filtered out by dust and completely blocked from ever even reaching us, leaving behind only red “shifted” frequencies of light.


This also directly ties in with the blue halo effect we were talking about earlier. The blue halo effect actually has two sources, both gravity lensing, and dust dispersion and scattering. Blue light is not only bent by gravity and blocked by dust particles, it is also dispersed by even smaller dust particles that simply aren’t big enough to block blue frequencies completely. They make the blue light “foggy,” for lack of a better word. And working together, both gravity lensing and dust dispersion/ blocking insure that the blue frequencies of light from distant celestial objects never reach us, thus leading the big bang scientists of yesteryear (and today), to jump to conclusions and incorrectly assume that the light is red-shifted just from the Doppler effect (by looking at the red to blue ratio) and thus accelerating away from us. It’s just plain bad logic to assume that just because we see more red light than blue from distant objects, that it’s accelerating away from us.

It's why we see a halo around the moon sometimes when we look up into the sky at night. Usually, it's ice crystals in the upper atmosphere, but dust up there can also cause the effect. Incidentally, there is ice crystal 'dust' floating around in space too...

Imagine my intense gratification, of when I went to verify this logic on the internet, and found numerous references across the net, in photography circles in particular, to this blue halo. It’s the nemesis of astro-photographers. They hate it. It makes their pictures appear out of focus. So they make, buy, and sell several different varieties of blue light filters to get rid of this hazy blue halo that shows up around many many distant glowing objects. This is why most normal star pics of distant objects you see do NOT show the blue halo. Astro-photographers often use the blue light filter to get cleaner, sharper images of distant objects. Key word - DISTANT.

Some examples I found just by googling the internet:


Does anyone else see where this is going?
 
If all the original blue light frequencies from distant objects have been defocused out of the original image by gravity, blocked or dispersed by cosmic dust, and then sometimes even further filtered out by telescope lenses in use by people that assume the blue halo is just lens flare in the glass of the camera or telescope lens and not from the universe itself, then of course the light from these objects is going to appear to be predominantly in the red frequencies (what some people incorrectly call red-shifted), even if the objects themselves might be screaming towards us, not away!!!!

Look at it this way. The blue halo is real. Anyone can see it. Countless pictures of it exist. The blue halo effect affects 100% of distant celestial objects, depending on the amount of dust and number of gravity fields between here and there. 100%. Let me repeat that. 100%. After enough distance, the blue halo then just simply fades away and isn’t even visible anymore because it has been so dispersed by both gravity and cosmic dust, leaving behind only red-“shifted,” light frequencies.


7.  And here’s the final kicker. Gravity. We’ve alluded to this several times already. But there’s another obvious interplay at work here, that big bang scientists simply ignore, don’t talk about, or maybe haven’t even thought of, I’m really not sure which.

Sometimes, we can still clearly see the hydrogen spectral line even in the light from distant galaxies, since hydrogen makes up the vast majority of the contents of most stars and galaxies, anywhere. So obviously, scientists are going to use the shift in this spectral line to measure the red shift of light from that distant galaxy, versus just analyzing the ratios of how much red or blue light there is.

But remember how we mentioned black holes that slow down light? The same thing applies to light coming to us from distant locations. A photon of light coming to us from a distant galaxy is going to pass countless gravity wells on its way to us. We already mentioned this as one of the sources of the defocused blue halo, because of gravity prisming.

Similarly, every single gravity source that that photon passes through or past on its way to us, will slow it down a tiny bit, overall. The photon does recover its initial speed upon exiting the gravity field, BUT the photon gives up energy in doing so - so its frequency drops slightly. It has to, or it breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. Higher frequency light has more intrinsic energy than low frequency light. We even see this in our local everyday world in the little LED lights that festoon our electronics. Blue LED's require up to double or more voltage to turn on than red LED's.

But the point remains. In order for a photon to escape a gravity well, it gives up energy in the form of frequency shifting - yep, you guessed it - towards the red. It's a red-shift due to gravity (spectral lines included), NOT in any way related to the Doppler Effect.

Incidentally, this is also why radio waves can escape some black holes, when light can't. The radio waves started out as light, but in escaping the intense gravity of the black hole, the light gives up so much energy in the form of frequency, and is thus so red shifted, that in finally escaping, the light turns into much lower frequency radio waves, no longer visible as light that we can see with our eyes.

So.... Logically, the farther away the galaxy is, the lower the frequency the photon is going to have when it finally reaches us, based on the cumulative effects of all the gravity wells it has passed through on its way to get to us. Thus, the farther away the photon’s source is, the farther to the left and into the red the hydrogen spectral line IS going to be gravity red-shifted, whether or not the object is moving away from us or maybe even towards us. (It could be moving towards but if the gravity red-shift was more pronounced than the Doppler blue-shift in the other direction, a big banger might (would) automatically assume it was moving away!)

But here’s the key point. If both gravity and the blue halo effect affect the light from 100% of all distant objects (which they do), then some or all of the blue frequencies are already gone out of 100% of that same light, and ALL visible spectral lines are going to be red-shifted to the left at least to some degree, by the time we see the light and try to measure it, whether or not the object is moving away from us, or maybe even towards us!

Let's revisit a maybe disconcerting fact that we've alluded to several times now...

A distant galaxy moving towards us very fast, fast enough to overcome the gravity red-shift effect, could have its Infrared light (invisible light right below red) blueshifted up into the visible red spectrum, such that one of the normal infrared hydrogen spectral lines roughly overlays the normal red spectrum spectral line, while all of the red light and spectral lines from the original source are likewise blue shifted up and then faded out. So the object, could actually be careening towards us on a direct collision course, and because of faulty bigbang red shift logic, we might think it was moving away. Think about that!


 

It all boils down to this. We can’t prove for one second that the universe is expanding!

 

So for scientists to automatically assume, and then teach as fact, that the absence of the blue light frequencies and blue-shifted spectral lines coming to us from distant objects “proves” an expanding universe and the big bang, because of the incorrectly understood red-shift Doppler Effect, it’s both incredibly ignorant, and borderline criminal. It’s bad logic, it’s bad science, and it’s fundamentally unethical for them to teach a big bang expanding universe idea based on the red-shift of light and the Doppler Effect, while simultaneously ignoring the blue halo effect and gravity red-shifting. We simply can’t prove the universe is expanding! Thus the idea of a big bang becomes a moot point, not even worth discussing anymore.  


So if the universe is not expanding (since it would be illogical to assume that it is when we can’t prove it to be so), that kind of wipes out both the big bang/ evolution theory,  and the idea that God might have lit off the fuse for each big bang (that we can’t even prove happened).

---