Energy Conservation in Big Bang Cosmology

Robert Gentry has criticized Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) by claiming that it violates energy conservation.  In a 3-article series (in PSCF, December 2004, pp 260-284) J. Brian Pitts defends BBC and criticizes Gentry's young-universe alternative (Cosmic Center Model of the Universe) by explaining why BBC's cosmic expansion does satisfy energy conservation; then Gentry replies, and Pitts counter-responds.

1. by J. Brian Pitts:  Has Robert Gentry refuted Big Bang Cosmology?  On Energy Conservation and Cosmic Expansion (21 k + 9k)
2. by Robert Gentry:  Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe (43 k + 12k)
3. by J. Brian Pitts:  Reply to Gentry on Cosmological Energy Conservation and Cosmic Expansion (23 k + 9k)

ABSTRACT for 1-Pitts:  Robert Gentry has argued that Big Bang cosmology is unsatisfactory because photon redshifting violates energy conservation and because cosmic expansion ought to occur on all distance scales and so not cause redshifting.  By remembering to include the gravitational energy and discussing how to account for it, I show here that Big Bang cosmology satisfies energy conservation adequately.  Recognizing the merely conventional nature of Gentry’s key distinction between expansion-based and Doppler-based redshifts reconciles the allegedly suspiciously conflicting explanations.  A survey of the work matching Big Bang exterior solutions to local inhomogeneities gives plausible support for traditional claims that cosmic expansion has a negligible effect on small scales.  Thus both of Gentry’s conclusions are unsupported by his arguments.  I suggest that Big Bang cosmology is neither very harmful nor very helpful for Christian faith, but it is a serviceable physical theory.

ABSTRACT for 2-Gentry:  It is good that respected theorist J. Brian Pitts has contested my refutation of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC). [1]  This gives opportunity to show that its huge nonconservation-of-energy losses are genuine, that its key spacetime expansion hypothesis is false, and that its expansion redshifts are mythical entities, without any physical reality.  In making these discoveries, I point out that cosmologists committed modern science’s greatest faux pas by decades-long promotion of BBC while, incredibly enough, never bothering to test its key spacetime expansion postulate experimentally. [2]  These results invalidate BBC’s explanation of the Hubble redshift relation, its identification of the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) as relic radiation, and show that its Cosmological Principle has always been science fiction. [3]  This led to my discovery that the locally observed, spherically symmetric galactic redshift distribution is unique and hence that a universal Center exists nearby. [4]  I identify it as the location of God’s eternal throne, as per Hebrews 8–10 and Revelation 20.  Finally, I describe my Cosmic Center Universe model that reproduces eight of BBC’s major predictions. [5]

Introduction for 3-Pitts:  In reply to my recent criticism of his work, Robert Gentry has composed a long and energetic reply.  Unfortunately he maintains the key erroneous claims that Big Bang cosmology violates energy conservation and that it relies on a confused notion of cosmic expansion.  He also raises some additional matters, a few of which I will address.  In particular, the issue of cosmology and young earth views will be discussed briefly. 

At the end of each article is a discussion about the compatibility (or lack of it) between Big Bang Cosmology and bible-based Christianity.

Copyright © 2004 by ASA, Brian Pitts, and Robert Gentry, all rights reserved