Space contains virtually no atoms or molecules so we refer to it as a vacuum. Funny things happen to things exposed to vacuums? Liquids exposed to vacuums will often boil violently as the atoms and molecules frantically attempt to disperse. The gas will dissipate into space as the atoms no longer have any atmospheric pressure to keep them together as a liquid.

If you were to spray some perfume in a room, the smell would at first be strong, but gradually in time grow fainter and fainter till it would become unnoticeable. The vapor will dissipate throughout the room and then the building and eventually escape to the outside as the molecules seek to move away from the original location in every direction.

This is what happens in our atmosphere even with substantial pressure trying to hold the perfume in one place. In the vacuum of space, gases are unrestrained and disperse even more readily and completely.

The "Big Bang" requires a complete reversal of common wisdom concerning gases in a vacuum. The theory states that large masses of gaseous matter will exert a gravitational pull in which once the mass becomes big enough, it will overcome the dispersal tendency of the gas itself.

This doesn't work or make sense. Gravitational pull is proportional to the density of a "body" and the amount of matter it contains. So in reality, as a gasseous mass dissipates, its gravity also decreases from close to nothing to more like mill. At best there may come a point at which the dispersion will slow down and maybe even cease. But, there's no compelling reason why such a mass would ever collapse, no matter how big the gas "cloud" is.

There are other basic problems with the "Big Bang" theory. First, the universe appears the same on both ends of the horizon. One end appears as a mirror image of other. Does this mean that light from one side has reached the other and been reflected back to us? Or is there something keeping the opposite ends of the universe synchronized? The other problem is that the universe is flat, that is it lies pretty much on a single plane across space.

Recently, a Nobel prize was given to 2 scientists for discovering what they believe to be a snapshot of the remaining light from the original blast and expansion of the universe from "380,000" years after the event took place. Wonder what presuppositions that conclusion was based on. Now it seems that the theory of how the universe formed is more of an "inflating" rather than, "exploding". What will they think of next?? Their stories are very colorful with all sorts of "hadrons" and "quarks" and "quantum theories" and "unified gravitation, electormagnetism" and such. Perhaps they should get a prize for such imaginative writing and zeal.

On simple analysis, the "big bang" or is it the "big inflation" is a either a hoax, or at best a poorly reasoned theory. Another attempt at legitimizing spontaneous generation on a grand scale. A better explanation would be that we don't know exactly how the universe came to be. But if the BB theory has such glaring problems, why is it so popular and well accepted by the supposed experts?

I suspect that coming up with an exclusively "natural" explanation for why the universe appears to be presently expanding from a central source somewhere in the middle has forced this conclusion? There are phenomena such as red shift and the doppler effect that seem to indicate expansion as the galaxies, stars, etc. may be moving steadily away from each other.

So, if the big bang doesn't work, what happened? I don't see any compelling reason to come up with a "natural" explanation. I'm very confident that it was no accident! Beyond that, it's a great mystery.

Wayne Hollyoak