The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe

by Eric J. Lerner

A mesmerizing challenge to orthodox cosmology with powerful implications not only for cosmology itself but also for our notions of time, God, and human nature -- with a new Preface addressing the latest developments in the field.

Far-ranging and provocative, The Big Bang Never Happened is more than a critique of one of the primary theories of astronomy -- that the universe appeared out of nothingness in a single cataclysmic explosion ten to twenty billion years ago. Drawing on new discoveries in particle physics and thermodynamics as well as on readings in history and philosophy, Eric J. Lerner confronts the values behind the Big Bang the belief that mathematical formulae are superior to empirical observation; that the universe is finite and decaying; and that it could only come into being through some outside force. With inspiring boldness and scientific rigor, he offers a brilliantly orchestrated argument that generates explosive intellectual debate.

Genres: Science, Physics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Astronomy, Space, Reference

496 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Owlseyes · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It's impossible that the Big Bang is wrong"
Joseph Silk, 1988

"Down with the Big Bang"
Editorial of Nature, 1989


(Lerner in 1993)

Eric Lerner defends that observations don't match the predictions of the Big-Bang model. Yet, there are authors, like Marc Lachièze-Rey, who say Lerner is wrong. One of the greatest proofs for the Big-Bang theory are the data provided by the COBE satellite, on cosmic radiation.



However, Lerner argues that COBE data didn't solve the problems posed by the Big-Bang model. There are alternative models, like "Plasma cosmology" developed by the Swede Hannes Alfven.

Lerner's view leads one to imagine another conception of the universe: one universe which is continuously evolving, rather than one that's bound to end. So much so with time itself.

"An infinite universe evolving over infinite time", that is Lerner's view.

This is a book about a personal struggle, I would say; it’s the author’s “conflict with conventional Physics”, one conflict his mentor (Alfven) had already gone through some years before (versus a mathematician called Sidney Chapman).


(from left to right: Hannes Alfven, Toni Perrat and the author, in San Diego, in 1989, after the International Workshop on Plasma Cosmology).

Lerner dedicates some chapters exposing the prevalent view in science throughout history, which stemmed from “the Church fathers Tertullian and Saint Augustine”, who “introduced the doctrine of creation ex-Nihilo, as the foundation of a profoundly PESSIMISTIC and AUHORITARIAN worldview”.

Nevertheless he recalls the views of Anaxagoras (in 430B.C.) : the universe was Infinite, there were many worlds inhabited and the world began in a “vortex”. Lerner cites Nicholas de Cusa, Pelagius, Galileo Galilei and the Islamic Renaissance.

Then he explains an alternative view: Plasma Cosmology.*

After exploring super clusters complexes, universe’s dark matter distribution, redshifts and blue shifts, electromagnetism and much more, his optimistic option is for an Infinite Universe.

I would humbly add the views of Michio Kaku who acknowledged Einstein’s equation breaks on (1) the instant of Big Bang and (2) at the center of a black hole; so, we need another theory. Kaku advances the Strings theory, where there is a Multiverse. That is one way of escaping the death of the universe. This time around the Universe (big-bang?) may be the result of a (1) split of a universe, or (2) collision of universes.

As in Alice in Wonderland, one day, perhaps, a wormhole (technology) will connect Universes.
Jul 13, 2017

UPDATE
I recently came into contact with the work of Halton C. Harp. He's a Galileo of sorts, one could say, as a critical voice on the Big-Bang theory.
3rd August 2017.

UPDATE
Older than the universe? The Methuselah star case.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...

And, how about dark matter?

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-stud...
8th August 2019

UPDATE

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...

UPDATE

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...

UPDATE

https://blog.thespaceacademy.org/2022...

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/cen...


*(From Wiki) "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe. In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of astronomical bodies and large-scale structures in the universe as influenced by gravity (including its formulation in Einstein's theory of general relativity) and baryonic physics."

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

I imagine a lot of the scientific content is outdated if not falsified, but the way everything was argued was beautiful. Instead of engaging in the intellectual preening one finds among most science popularizers, Lerner is down-to-earth: his scientists are actually real, flawed people, he appeals regularly to philosophy—a field disdained by Neil deGrasse Tyson and cohort—and unlike them he does not deny scientists' subjectivity. The philosophical aspect is fascinating: Lerner brings forth the old argument that the big bang is too creationist—and dwells greatly on the issue. Lerner much prefers an eternal universe (and perhaps cyclic; I don't remember). So while the title is appealing to religious creationists, Lerner is very much their ideological opposite.

While you'll probably get the wrong idea from the conclusions about the science, you'll learn at an introductory level the problems astrophysicists/cosmologists have and how they think about their fields: There's a very good description of stars' radial velocity curves as evidence for dark matter, for example. And since Lerner has unconventional ideas about the conclusions we should make based on existing data, the book is a good example of competing scientific paradigms in action. Lerner frames his argument as over the nature and direction of science itself, and he's not unconvincing. The grandness of the book's subject and scope combines with its retelling of the relevant history and experimental observations to make a pretty exciting ride. I'd give it five stars, but it's been so long since I read it that I don't remember it well enough to do so.

[Shanna Mae · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a sort of Cult Classic among creationists. While I consider myself devout, this book is terribly outdated. His arguments may have been valid when he wrote it 40 some years ago, but since it's publication lots has happened in the field of astronomy. Many of the points his argument hinges on have been well refuted to the point that, in my opinion, his stand disintegrates. Specifically, when this book was written, the idea of dark energy was new and there were a lot of questions and doubts, as there should have been. Since then, many questions have been resolved, including the ones raised in this book. With dark energy, Lerner's alternate theory is extraneous. I will concede that his plasma theory does seem probable as a contributing factor to creation but not a replacement.

Honestly, that parts of the Christian community continue to refer to this book do so at the risk of being discredited by educated people aware of current cosmology and astronomy. Creationists who continue to hold to this book as proof of God, will also be disappointed to note that his argument does not preclude a creator-less creation. I understand the desire to reconcile what we know through observation (astronomy) with what we know through faith, but this is the wrong mountain to die on.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved the first half of this book. Mr. Lerner provides a great synopsis of the evolving theories regarding the cosmos. He provides the background of new observations that reinforced or challenged existing theories. I like his observation as to how our concept of the universe has swung like a pendulum between closed and open systems. These swings have been accompanied by social changes. The most recent dark age coinciding with the pessimistic conclusions of the big bang model where the inevitable dwindling heat of the big bang freezes us as we peeter out in the dark or the other alternative finds us rushing back to the bang in a giant crushing event.

The good news is that there is mounting observational evidence that the big bang theory does not explain. The bad news is that the cosmologists are in denial and are postulating unobserved phenomenon to fix their model. The most obvious suspects being "dark matter" and "black holes". This book was written in 1991 and these suspect devices remain theoretical to this day. The sad thing is that the alternative theories presented involving cosmic plasma are receiving nearly as little attention now as they were 22 years ago. This despite the fact that they do resolve the observable phenomenon of everything from lab scale experiments to solar, galactic, and super-cluster scales.

The second half of the book is called "Implications". I found it to be a little uneven. The author extrapolates from plasma theory into the theory of evolution, plus social and religious implications. Some of his assumptions in these areas don't fit my perception of reality but, what the heck, it's his book. I guess I just didn't feel it was necessary to delve into areas of non-quantifiable data and conjecture when you open with such a groundbreaking thesis.

In short, the big bang never happened.

[Augustine Kobayashi · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book really needs to focus. At first Lerner's challenge to the idea of the Big Bang derives a merit. Then his oversimplified ancient history undermines his argument by presenting his over political view of world history, backtracking from today's liberal democracy as the ultimate goal for humanity, and categorising ancient and medieval regimes as mainly obstacles to scientific advancement. The best part of the book is in the middle, where he explains why he thinks that the idea of the Big Bang was flawed. Then came the worst part at the end: instead of any meaning conclusion, he goes on talking about how human society is stagnating today (late 80s). Is this a book of science or sociology? His analysis of the evolution of human society is too one dimensional and does not add much except the reader can know why he thinks that the majority of scientists got things wrong. If he just went on explaining his idea of the plasma universe, the book would be more convincing. Sadly, no.

[Moe Shinola · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eric Lerner is the director on Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, in Lawrenceville, N.J., and was a friend of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Hannes Alfven. He is carrying on Alfven's work and the group is close to acheiving their goal of proving the viability of cheap, safe fusion power using the dense plasma focus, an obscure technology. I hope the ideas he expresses in this book are not enough to deny him a place in the scientific community but they may be, since in this book he boldly dares to challenge the accepted "Big Bang" theory of cosmology, and does a very good job of stating his case, I think, both factually and philosophically.

[Tao · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The idea of continuous space leading to irreversible time also potentially resolves the paradoxes plaguing the concepts of consciousness and free will. In our universe the future does not exist—there is a real now, the now of consciousness. The map of the future and the past laid out in the fourth dimension is merely an abstraction. Since one cannot, even with the greatest possible degree of knowledge, totally predict the course of the future, free will is indeed real. Even if a scientist were to know the exact location, to ten decimal places, of every atom in a person's brain, he or she could not determine what that person would do next."

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This brilliantly illuminating book opened my eyes to so many new things and issues, and corrected others I'd previously wrongly made assumptions about. Science aside, what this book taught me about world history, religion, the economy, technology, social revolutions (and how all these things connect to one another) made it worth reading, even if I didn't fully understand every single plasma cosmology related chart I saw (you don't need to be a scientist to enjoy this).

Eric J. Lerner is a very talented writer and took some very big ideas and somehow found a way to make it relatable for the average person.

If you're bothered by ignorance in general, I highly recommend this book. I learned so much from it and I'm glad I went a bit out of my comfort zone with this pick because it ended up actually exceeding my expectations.

I recommend this to anyone who still believes there is hope for this world.

[Stephen]

Generally well written. Points out some of the flaws in Big Bang cosmology, with (I am told - I'm neither an astronomer nor a physicist) few gross errors and distortions. Provides an alternative, with some support. Good for the scientific minded individual who either doesn't want to or can't wade through the mathematics.

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

yes

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first picked up this book as I finished reading Reason in Revolt by Alan Woods & Ted Grant (an amazing book).
It was mentioned in the chapter on the Big Bang theory, and not only did I find this section particularly appealing, it also piqued my curiosity to go and check the original source material itself.
Since a young age, I’ve had a fascination with space science, but I always found the Big Bang theory somewhat strange and mystical. I couldn’t quite put words to it; it was just a vague feeling, which I repressed due to my deep-rooted need for scientific orthodoxy. Only later, as I came to read the Revolutionary Communist International’s work on philosophy and science, did I realise that this feeling was, in the end, justified.

First, in general, The Big Bang Never Happened is a great book: very well vulgarised and easy to read for any audience, accompanied by collections of images and tables that make comprehension more visual and overall much easier. As for the content itself, it amazed me from the very first chapters how materialist the whole analysis was. The biggest surprise was to see an entire section of the book dedicated to history, society, and the development of science in general, which adds an important philosophical dimension that was very much needed.
In his acknowledgements, Lerner mentions being inspired by the historian Gordon Childe (a self-proclaimed Marxist!) as well as the great chemist Ilya Prigogine, who is also mentioned in Reason in Revolt. The section of the book dealing with the history of creation myths throughout history is a close approximation of a historical materialist approach to the question, linking economic developments to the superstructure of society.

As for the cosmological aspects of the book, his theories seem quite plausible. He defends the idea of an infinite universe permeated by plasma currents, a theory based on the work of Hannes Alfvén. This may quite possibly be vindicated in the future—something no one can be certain of—but it is certainly more reasonable than the idea of the entire universe coming into being in a single instant.

My main concern with Lerner is his sometimes mechanical materialist view of things. He seems to reject Einstein’s discoveries in favour of returning to a more Newtonian framework. Don’t get me wrong—I understand why. With the way Einstein’s theories are often stretched to the point of science fiction and fantasy in academia, it is almost inevitable that someone will bend the stick too far in the other direction. The real issue, however, is the lack of the dialectical method, which would be particularly useful when analysing the progress of science in the recent period.

The most impressive chapter, in my opinion, is the last one: Cosmos and Society, in which Lerner arrives at conclusions that are very close to Marxism:

Francis Fukuyama argued that in present Western society humankind’s evolution has ended, achieving ‘the final form of human government,’ a perfectly egalitarian ‘classless society’ in which economic prosperity is permanently assured.
As in cosmology, in political and economic thought there is often an abyss between theory and observation. The actual state of society, so evident in socioeconomic statistics or a glance at any urban area, is quite different from the utopia of the editorialists and essayists. Society is retreating; living standards are falling throughout the world—including the developed and developing market economies that constitute the bulk of the world’s population and wealth.

If we look at the evidence, there can be no doubt that the development and advance of global society has halted, that the current dominant society—capitalist society—has reached its ultimate limits. Clearly, the Stalinist model that collapsed in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe offers no alternative.
The choice facing humanity is either to develop a new, as yet untried form of society or to suffer a collapse of culture and civilization.

The issue of who shall rule is today posed most sharply in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where the old Stalinist regime has self-destructed. But what will take its place?
One answer, the obvious one, is capitalism. This is the answer advocated by the governments of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But this would be a change of masters, if even that, rather than a triumph of self-rule. The people of these nations are not gaining control of the factories. The factories are to be sold to either multinational corporations or, amazingly, to the very bureaucrats who managed them under the old regimes. Yeltsin, like Gorbachev, is proposing to convert a section of the old bureaucracy into a new capitalist class, at the expense of the working population.

The alternative is for the peoples of the nominally socialist states to gain democratic control over their own economies and their own fates, to decide for themselves if they need more austerity or more production, faster payment of foreign debt or more meat on the family table. The alternative to bureaucratic planning is not the autocratic rule of private capital but democratic planning—the working people deciding themselves, through truly democratic institutions, what should be produced and how, from the level of the factory to that of the nation, and thus gaining control of the socialised industry that is rightfully theirs.

Some of these passages almost sound as though they were taken from an article by Leon Trotsky or Ted Grant. What this revealed to me is how scientists who hold a conscious or semi-conscious materialist view of the universe can arrive very close to the same conclusions as dialectical materialism. To me, this only demonstrates its power as the most advanced philosophy of our time, and as the one that can help free humankind from the agony of toil and the misery of mystical theories that blind us to the laws of real material reality.

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting!

[0:50 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book presents a staunchly empiricist critique of the excesses of modern theoretical cosmology, promulgating an evolutionary vision of decreasing entropy against what he deems as the pessimist paradigm of a decaying universe. From what I gather, the vision of plasma cosmology would treat the most gigantic and alien objects of the known universe in strikingly life-like terms to account for temporal asymmetry. This is in stark distinction to the ominous depictions of black holes and mysterious dark matter: the primacy of gravity is abolished in favour of an electro-magnetic dance of intertwining currents and vortices that generate ever-greater forms of complexity as time passes. Space is not empty but teeming with plasma and energy. The author connects the over-focus on mathematics to technological stagnation and lack of progressive vision for society, relying on a dichotomy between mythical establishment thought and scientific thought that is ultimately derived from a pre-Socratic conception of Nature and its forces.

Lerner makes a persuasive point that the unwieldy architecture of modern cosmology and particle physics has been developed via an ever-deepening series of ad hoc-constructions to justify theory from some idealised perspective. He is sceptical of general relativity and rejects the mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. He presents dark matter as a prime example of this type of ad hoc-entity used to justify the observed inhomogeneity of the universe while preserving the Big Bang which would by itself predict a homogenous universe. In terms of general relativity, dark matter also serves to correct that theory's predictions of galactic orbitals in a similarly ad hoc-manner. If one of the greatest reasons to change Newton's theory was the orbit of Mercury, why would not a failure to predict galactic motions lead to some new theory? Inevitably, there are anomalies and then it's a matter of interpretation how much you want to preserve the structure of the old, otherwise good theory with ad hoc-modifications(that *might* come to be confirmed) as opposed to exploring completely new theories. As far as I know there doesn't exist like a rule or law as to what to do in a situation like that. All in all, it's a sobering perspective that contextualises the process of science so as to counter a kind of gee-whiz mythologisation of it.

Despite these virtues, I think this book presented its arguments very selectively. It doesn't seem to be just modern cosmology that has deviated from pure empiricism because other unobserved micro-scale entities like photons actually follow a similar process to dark matter: nobody has observed them but rather they have been postulated to explain anomalies. They are also massless particles which is something that Lerner criticises in the context of the more exotic particles but still he appeals to photons in his evolutionary explanation of the development of the universe(p. 299):
From the surface of the star plasma[...]sends out light into the universe. Part of this is absorbed by interstellar and especially intergalactic dust[...]The infrared photons emitted by this dust, in turn, heat electrons trapped in the filaments snaking out of galactic cores. A convenient abstraction like photon clearly has a place in his cosmology. Considering the complexities of the idea of photon in quantum mechanics, it can't even be said that it's doing a very good job of predicting reality since now it has to be treated as a probability wave. So you could, perhaps controversially, say that the situation there is already exposed to similar kinds of criticisms that Lerner would level against the particle physicists.

Lerner places great emphasis on the duality between mythic gods-oriented thinking and purely scientific naturalism but as one reads the book, it increasingly seems like the naturalism comes at a price. Lerner is quick to point out the paradoxes of beginning from nothing but neglects the incommensurability of infinity with temporal succession: for how could any temporal state be reached through an infinite amount of temporal distance between the two moments? He notes the absurdities of discrete matter but dismisses the question of how an infinitely divided matter could come to constitute a form. He says experiment should always come first but argues for the primacy of calculus on the grounds that our current depictions of our currently known technologies are based on the notion of infinitesimals. Yet quantum mechanics, which is equally important technologically, depicts a non-continuous reality that is not only calculus: but somehow matrix mechanics is the bad kind of application of mathematics. The point is that there are clear biases at play here, especially for a text that purports to support non-mythical, naturalist conceptions.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction has to do with the book's vacillating attitude towards the evidentiary values of various empirically observed data. Firstly, the mass measurement based on spectral profiles is taken as authoritative and used to criticise the Big Bang predictions while the error effect of interloper stars who display misleading redshift is criticised as a source of error in the context of dark matter. Surely such misinterpretations could lead to mistakes in mass estimates just as well when the perception of the massiveness of the objects would be false. He also displays a heavy support for an analogy between concrete laboratory observations and the far cosmos when it suits the criticism of Big Bang's positing of events anomalous to anything going on now; but then he goes on to criticise thermodynamic thinking for over-extending into distant spaces in the mainstream cosmology of heat death.

The philosophy of naturalism opposes a non-homogenous universe as an obvious observation while ignoring the many problems that make any of these observations far from simplistic. The most extreme moment comes when Lerner admits that the non-homogenous nature of plasma at the start of the process that he described is something to be explained, especially since the whole explanation hinges on the extremely dynamic, conducting nature of plasma meeting magnetic fields. While certain absurdities of the Big Bang are avoided, a new absurdity takes its place with the added force that it can pretend that it is not appealing to anything problematic or sudden even if the whole cosmology must be taken as self-derived and self-sufficient. This is methodological naturalism banging against its limits, refusing to encounter Nature as the obscure, high-level theoretical entity that it is and merely identifying it with some type of reasonability.

Lerner is also concerned about bringing consciousness to the fold of naturalism so that "nonsense" such as telepathy would not find justification in quantum theory. These remain vague gestures associated with the ideology of dogged progressivism because bringing consciousness into a scientific unity with the objective reality depicted by spectral blobs, on the terms of the spectral blobs, raises a whole can of worms of its own. With consciousness, we are faced with the non-commensurability between senses and qualia given the possibility of synesthesia: all sense-data might be represented via qualia not traditionally associated with that sense organ which means there is no obvious light, or obvious sound, but rather we enter a realm of pure structural profiles, away from any simple sense data that would justify empiricism. I don't think anything like this is even on the horizon with this book: I'm also not sure whether it would suit the optimist message propounded here.

What underlies all these divisions, then? It is Lerner's interpretation of history as a battle between mythology and science, with finitude always representing mythology and infinitude always representing the spirit of science. Scientific research has only started with the Pre-socratic natural philosophers: before that people apparently functioned on pure mythology and no real knowledge was gained. That sounds like a suspiciously mythological fable to my ears, erasing the great civilisations of Sumer, Babylon, China and Egypt solely because some guy said "I have an idea what if maybe everything's water??". Isn't that ultimately the Greek revolution? What's more, pre-socratic thought is mythical but to the opposite direction as that complex which ended up spawning monotheism. The presocratic natural philosophy starts not with insistence on observation or pattern but with a monolithisation of the real underlying nature of the cosmos: everything is water, everything started with vortices, all elements are mediated by two forces etc. This is not empirical science but a mythologisation of nature as a monolithic entity despite possessing no holistic grasp of Nature - I think only God could do that. Strangely, it seems that the more mathematical and "mythological" science of the Ancients is more keenly observant than the natural philosophy whose ultimate virtue would theoretically be observation. It is not (at all) obvious that Greek ontology has technological supremacy.

That said, I do think he has a point with many particular things but it is all connected to this strange narrative that is not at all plausible and biases interpretation. It gets to the point where he chastises the theoretical physics community for not being empiricist enough and next page he's making his point via computer simulations. Go figure. It's true though about the fusion/antimatter-thing and do I have to state the obvious: technology is about military, military is about war, war is about conflict, conflict is about lack of trust, lack of trust is about secrecy. This whole complex certainly has something to do with it. I regret some of my criticism because I appreciate that he connects the issue of technology to social change. There can be no true social progress unless there's transparency of technology but this means that the priorities of almost everyone would need to shift. Why would you defend an entity which by necessity shields insanely life-enhancing technology from you?

Despite the flaws of the presentation, the filament/spiral stuff is pretty interesting. Even here his Greco-centric thesis seems to be challenged, though, because it is most strikingly in Indian Yoga philosophy that you will find this filamentary structure of electro-magnetism in the depictions of the vital energy Kundalini with its Ida and Pingala representing the vortices of the plasma in the cerebrospinal fluid. This puts Indian philosophy at the forefront of whatever new innovations might emerge from the plasma approach. It makes you think, though: Moses' bronze serpent on a pole, Rod of Asclepius, Caduceus, Spindle of Necessity, the list could go on. All depicting the same thing. Increasingly, to interpret the ancients merely through psychological myth seems unwise though inevitably many layers of cargo cults have formed on top of the true content of the myths. It is actually interesting that while these plasma filamentary models seem to correspond to ancient glyphs of transformational energy, Hawking's quantum foam seems pretty well in line with Hermetic conceptions like microcosm-macrocosm as well as Swedenborg's notions of the inside of the human body as a spatial location or even direction.

There's also an interesting parallel with aether theories, though plasma is distinct from aether in that it does not communicate forces. But it seems to be similar to where Lerner's thoughts are heading: he is already sceptical towards GR where the explanation is only geometry, while the philosophical problems of disembodied forces were admitted by Newton himself. A fluid carrier matter would seem to make sense: in this context I think Charles Howard Hinton's ideas might become extremely valuable in that they connect fluid vortex processes to anomalies in micro-scale observations which was what Prigogine had not yet undertaken at the time of writing this book if I remember correctly. Hinton's ideas also combine elegantly the transcendent aspects of the ominous worldview and the naturalistic monolithic thrust of Hellenic thought in positing analogical methods of thinking about motivating entities which we do not understand but which may be completely natural in their own plane. This supposition is not to be dogmatically ruled out especially if it does not fetishize transcendence for its own sake.

I guess it could also be noted that the evolutionary thrust of progress is somewhat halted by the phenomenon of death. Death means that any social progress after human's own death is meaningless to him. Any construction over and above his life is naught. There is no need to contribute positively to society. But in naturalism, one would have you think that it's obvious. In old age and death, also, muscle tone returns closer to the level of a baby, women stop menstruating again, mental faculties and independence decays, so that the temporal growth of an organism is not strictly asymmetrical process of endless growth: first he doesn't exist, then he does, then he doesn't exist again. The awareness of death and the questions it poses for a human is not very strong here.

[Devinder Dhiman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I became interested in reading this book as soon as I came across the title, because I also do not believe in Big-Bang theory. I wanted to learn the alternative offered by the author. I was not disappointed, this book made my belief firmer.'Big Bang never happened' blows off all the evidence generally associated with the theory of Big-Bang. It gives valid reasons for refuting the three most important pillars of Big-Bang theory; namely- relative abundance of elements in the universe, homogeneous microwave background radiation and hubble expansion of the universe.
Moreover, it gives reasoning for the existence of super clusters where Big-Bang fails.
The author starts with the history of the understanding of universe by various philosphers and scientists, more than two thousand years back and takes you through all the religious and scientific beliefs and finally makes you aware of the developments in 20th century, how the Big-Bang theory originated and what difficulties it faced from the scientists who were not in favour of this theory. After you complete the initial phase of learning about Big-Bang, you are led to an alternative approach of plasma technology. Plasma technology is well explained as the author himself has contributed to the research in Plasma technology.
Thereafter, the author elaborates the biological and social evolution. At that time, you wonder whether you have picked the physics book or philosophy, but at the end of that chapter , you realize the reasoning of that addition in the book. Next, the author explains about Quantum chromodynamics Theory, and you are back in your familiar territory of physics. The drawbacks of QCD are well explained and it is clearly shown why QCD, inspite of being one of the most accurate thoeries of physics, fails to provide a support to Big-Bang theory.
The author writes that 'Renormalization' in QCD theory is totally arbitrary, which has been used to give mass to an electron, and the reason for this renormalization is not known to any physicist. After dealing with quantum theory and particle physics, the author once again goes into philosophical mode and discusses the effect of social and theological events on the study of science and cosmology. May be, because of my own lack of understanding of philosophy and social science, I felt little uninterested in some of the chapters of the book, but I really liked the book overall and believe that there was no Big-bang. Alternative to Big-Bang given by filaments formation in plasma is a very good concept, and in line with my own idea of 'Lines of Space'. This book has enhanced my knowledge about creation of universe.
I recommend this book to all the people who are curious about universe and do not blindly believe in the theory of Big-Bang which requires a 'Creator

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

According to Eric J. Lerner, the Big Bang theory has been in trouble for quite some time. It predicts that there should be no objects in the universe older than 20 billion years, but there is. It predicts that there should be 100 times as much dark matter as there is visible matter, he makes a compelling argument that there really is no dark matter at all. He even provides an alternate theory to the observable redshift of distant galaxies, hailed as indisputable proof of the big bang.
To quote Lerner "The Big Bang is a myth, a wonderful myth maybe. which deserves a place of honor in the columbarium which already contains the Indian myth of a cyclical Universe, the Chinese cosmic egg, the biblical myth of creation, the Ptolemaic cosmological myth and many others."
Lerner compares the dogma of modern cosmology to a time of Ptolematic thinking, when astronomers refused to look through Galileos telescope, when mankind believed the earth to be the center of the universe, and when observation proved otherwise, people still stubbornly refused to believe otherwise, just as modern cosmologists do today.
Lerner offers a new theory that is as compelling as it is simplistic, Plasma Cosmology does away with the need for a Big Bang, and offers alternative explanations for many observable phenomena in our universe.
If you have ever questioned the validity of the Big Bang, this book might be for you.

[Jason Whittle · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book should have offered a detailed analysis of the evolution of the main cosmology theories and where they each fall down. Instead over half the book is used up on a history of man, civilisation, and science. It drifts off into nuclear physics and generally avoids getting down to the nitty gritty of a step by step analysis of observational anomalies and refutations from each camp. So with just 175 of the 400 pages available for the grunt work, plasma theories are presented without refutations or counters to them. The problems with the Big Bang theory are dealt with in broad strokes. A shame, as this is an important issue that deserves a meticulous and unbiased approach.

[Mike Lisanke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a decent book because it deals with a subject that gets little coverage in mainstream science circles... that Cosmology has some big problems and current theory has evolved to explain nothing... only to continue to adapt numerology to accept and filter ever more data in an attempt to justify the instrumentation costs to obtain it. The author puts forth a plethora of alternative ideas, some of which are quite popular alternatives to mainstream science. But, in covering a wide-range of ideas, tends to present alternative suiting only the author's bias of what's possible/likely etc. The author is fair in presenting all these questions as theory (not facts) and that all of science should be subject to testing. Unfortunately today, much of mainstream science is unfalsifiable (and therefore crap).

I would have to dissect each of the areas+theories the author covers in order to make use of them with arguments against the mainstream and thus I'm like to relegate this book to Just Background info!

Also, the author seemed fixated in connecting the sociologic studies of religion and social justice etc. into his rational for attacking the obviously struggling scientific theories of mainstream science. This further made the book far too political to be any use in serious discussion.

These are obviously my opinions (not the authors) and Lerner has made a tome out of supporting his beliefs... too bad very little is proof positive with concrete refutations of the mainstream (which we all know are available). I wish people didn't beat around the bush; attack the crap head-on and let those in the mainstream struggle to defend or lock themselves in their echo chambers.

[Garret Seinen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that I spent a good deal of time finishing. I read it in conjunction with another, "We Have No Idea" subtitle, 'A Guide to The Unknown Universe'. The exercise was illuminating, to say the least. The thinness of the ice we're skating on with respect to our knowledge in both physics and cosmology can be clearly seen when these two books are absorbed.

The amount of things we know nothing about is discerning in the face of the public confidence that all that is said is proven. Confidence is unfounded. Almost all of what is portrayed as knowledge is seer speculation and hubris. We are standing on a speck of dust in the cosmos that is multiple billions of years old and, as Eric Lerner speculates, possibly never-ending with also, no beginning.

I personally like his view of the universe as a timeless continuation rather than the 'out of nothing in the blink of an eyes' prevailing popular view. That we keep adding invisible unknowns to our universe in order to balance complex mathematical proofs that fail without that missing matter, leaves me with a harsh sense of doubt that we know anything about many things other than that they are, but not the why of it all.

Time to invoke Richard Feynman's words, "I'd sooner have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question." Like so many other subjects, doubt rather than confidence is appropriate.

[Sean Reeves · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author questions the reality of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang and even quarks. He spends considerable time relating the present and historical Zeitgeist to the prevailing and accepted scientific theories. For my part, too much time is spent on history, philosophy and sociology and not enough time on science. However, anyone who reads the book will view the current cosmological orthodoxy with deep and permanent suspicion, and that is a good thing. The book was written in 1991 or thereabouts but Eric J. Lerner is still active and iconoclastic as ever. He is involved nowadays with nuclear fusion and has a YouTube channel where he explains and promotes his ideas and theories.

[Chris Eve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting ideas, and far more plausible than the ridiculous fantasies of the iron orthodoxy of professional cosmology: the massive violations of the laws of thermodynamics involved in (a) the mass/energy of the universe suddenly created; (b) the undiscovered new force of dark energy that increases with distance; (c) the colossal infinity of spatial dimensions needed by the multiverse. And the principle that if there is no evidence that something doesn’t exist that is sufficient reason to spend precious scientific resources on looking for it (would anyone like to fund my search for the 17 legged octopus of the Sahara desert?).

[Edward · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting argument and book. I picked it up in Middle School partially to try and fit in with my youth group friends who were reading Contemporary Christian Literature, and partially because my family was giving me books on Creationism. This book is not Creationist, and years before the Higgs Boson the author predicted that subatomic particles played a larger role in the origin of the universe than the current model holds. It is a challenging read for a Middle Schooler and I am not sure I can do an accurate review unless I go back and reread it.

[Jonathan Hockey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some very convincing arguments against the big bang, though his alternative theory is quite unwieldy and complicated, and is perhaps why the mainstream sticks with the simplistic big bang account, as its a simple story to tell people to control them and lull them to sleep. The plasma physics and electric universe style ideas may turn out to be correct, but I think it will take a few centuries at least of civilisational development for the general consciousness of humanity to be ready for them.

[Rong Ou · Rating 5 out of 5]

On the surface, this book sounds like your run-of-the-mill flat earth conspiracy affair, but it turns to be a very well written, deeply insightful treatise on science, history, philosophy, religion, and man's place in the universe. And yeah, a little cosmology and plasma physics thrown in. It changed my perspective on life, universe, and everything, and made me more optimistic about our future. Highly recommended.

[Richard Seltzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published more than 30 years ago, but it helps make sense of the current barrage of science news. It convincingly challenges such scientific dogma as dark matter, entropy, and Hubble's Law, in addition to the Big Bang. The universe is messy and complex. We should not presume that the human brain can arrive at "truth" on its own, by deduction, that there is a magical connection between how we think and how the universe works. Rather the "laws" of physics are approximations based on observations. Science needs to be based on observation not pure thought. There is no natural imperative in favor of simplicity and beauty and opposed to complexity and chaos. There is no Theory of Everything, that explains everything and that can be arrived at by mathematics.

[Mark Luedtke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Still holds up despite it's age

It's an interesting perspective from 30 years back. While the Electric Universe theory has advanced, the Big Bang has more hikes in it than ever, but it appears bullet proof because it's proponents control the government money.

[Cieran Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth the read, I've just never thought of it like this.
When you think about the start of the universe, everyone goes to the big bang, but Hubble and JWST both have problems with it. So maybe let's have another look at it.

[Clive Tickner · Rating 1 out of 5]

disappointing, very repetitious.

[Kurt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Far too long and repetitive, but worth a read. I learned a lot.

[Douglas]

Eric Lerner has several YouTubes and explores some interesting subjects. I don't doubt that his views are well researched and, being a physicist, he gets points for being an expert, but as regards his speculations and those of mainstream cosmologists, I think the jury is still out and always will be. I think all the asseverations about what happened billions of years ago is just another example of hubris of people who are blinded by science. They see only its power, not its limitations. They are all intellect and no body; and they don't understand how the latter circumscribes the former. There are several great 50s sci-fi movies out there which probe the question of what the disembodied mind would be like. The unanimous answer seemed to be it would be monstrous. (cf. Donovan's Brain, 1953)

This is where Prof. Lerner's work is beneficial because it reminds us that there are huge questions looming over the received models. It should also remind us of this circumscription by our bodies because the evidence that we are able to take in through our senses and revolve in our finite minds could be consistent with a thousand realities. Part of evidence for this assertion is the ever changing character of our imaginings.

A final point stemming from this is that the use of the word model as opposed to, say, imagining creates the illusion that speculations are solid; that they are less likely to go poof! And this, in turn, leads scientists to be more resistant to opposing speculations, to wit, "My imaginings may be wrong, but not my model!"

[Brian Widmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting