Imagine measuring the size of the ocean by how far your flashlight reaches, then declaring that anything beyond that circle of light simply does not exist. This, in essence, is how we arrived at a 13.8‑billion‑year‑old Universe.
The "Big Bang" theory is not even science fiction; it is just fiction, and it is as believable as saying God created it all.
"Big Bang": in the beginning, there is no time, no space, no matter, no energy—there is nothing. Suddenly, magically, a small proton- or so-sized particle appears out of nothing, and, of course, into nothing. And, of course, this happens with no time and no space for said particle to even exist within to begin with. Next, for some unknown reason, without any other elements, energy, time, or space, said particle self-explodes. Not a second before, not a second later—just like that. This “self” explosion somehow expands into “nothing,” magically “creating” space and time for expansion. This one small particle somehow explodes into all of the matter that will ever exist. This infinitely small particle of infinite density and mass has many of the powers of God and is just as unbelievable.
We prefer that the Universe has always existed and is infinite and eternal, and that “big bangs,” as well as “small and medium bangs,” happen all the time throughout it. Thereby, the need for any “creation” is eliminated—recycling of baryonic matter, but no creation.
The theory of the "Big Bang" is, in fact, religion masquerading as science; it is the Biblical story of Genesis dressed up in the language of science. The theory of the "Big Bang," like the geocentric solar system, is based on a “culture of faith” that can admit no error and can brook no doubt or dissenting views. Doubt and dissent are not tolerated by the guardians of the “scientific” faith. To oppose the "Big Bang" is heresy.
In 1927, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a high-ranking Catholic priest, published what became known as the theory of the "Big Bang." It was titled "A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Growing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extragalactic Nebulae." Lemaître initially called his theory the “hypothesis of the primeval atom” and described it as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation.”
Lemaître's relativistic cosmology was based on the belief that the Universe was created from a “primeval atom” and that the radius of the Universe increased over time. Lemaître’s derivation antedated Hubble's formulation by two years. Even so, it became known as Hubble's law and provided the numerical value of the Hubble constant. Lemaître also proposed that the expansion of the Universe explains the redshift of galaxies following the “creation.”
Lemaître's theory is now popularly known as the "Big Bang," a term sarcastically coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, who dismissed Lemaître's ideas as ridiculous. Hoyle was not alone. Einstein rejected Lemaître to his face, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories and that “your physics is abominable and your conclusions unjustifiable.”
The denunciation by Einstein should have been a death sentence. Monsignor Lemaître claimed to have based his theory on Einstein's theory of general relativity. Even though it is refuted by what is claimed to be overwhelming scientific evidence, Lemaître's theory of the "Big Bang" has become accepted dogma, primarily because it is backed by the scientific establishment. There is always that magic number of 97% of mainstream scientists who are supposed to make any theory “believable.”
Be it “nothingness,” “pure energy,” or all the mass of the Universe bound in a totality of singularity, the foundations of the "Big Bang" theory completely collapse when we ask a few simple questions: Why did it explode? Why then and not before? From where did this pre–"Big Bang" energy or mass originate? Is not the mass of a Universe compacted to atom size still a Universe?
The all-pervasive but relatively cool cosmic background is described as evidence for expansion and the "Big Bang," which was supposed to be very hot. Because it has cooled, therefore the radiation is exchanging and transferring heat as the Universe expands with something very cold outside of the Universe. Wouldn't this “outside” become warmer? Yet we are also told there is no “outside,” for this refutes the "Big Bang" expansion theories.
The background radiation supports the "Big Bang" only if we suspend the laws of physics. The cosmic radiation permeating the Universe (supposedly created by a superhot "Big Bang") could have cooled only if it exchanged heat with something cold that was not created by the hot "Big Bang," and only if this cold something exists outside the known Universe, which is permeated by this radiation (a circle inside a circle). Conclusion: there was no "Big Bang." The “known Universe” is a fragment of the infinite and eternal whole.
The logic of “cooling” after a "Big Bang" defies the laws of physics—the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Cooling occurs only via conduction, radiation, convection, or a combination of these.
Expanding Universe? A reduction in density reduces conduction; heat transfer stops. Conduction cannot occur in a vacuum.
Convection and radiation equal heat transfer—transfer to what, where? To an area that is cool and not part of the hot.
The "Big Bang" is a myth.
Because it is based on religion, the magical, supernatural theory of the "Big Bang" has been deified, and it is not to be questioned or criticized on pain of excommunication by the scientific establishment. However, it is the proponents of this theory who are the true heretics, for they are guilty of the biggest fraud in the history of science.
Furthermore, the reliance on abstract constructs such as singularities—points at which known physical laws cease to function—raises serious philosophical and scientific concerns. A theory that depends on conditions where mathematics diverges and physical meaning collapses cannot be said to offer a complete or self-consistent description of reality. If the foundational premise requires abandoning causality, continuity, and measurable physics, then what remains is not empirical science, but speculation cloaked in technical language. The invocation of such singularities does not resolve the problem of origins; it merely relocates it to a domain beyond scrutiny.
Equally problematic is the assumption that all structure, order, and complexity observed in the Universe today arose spontaneously from an initial state of maximal simplicity or disorder. The transition from a hypothetical uniform singularity to a highly structured cosmos filled with galaxies, stars, planetary systems, and the precise conditions necessary for life introduces questions that remain unanswered. Random fluctuations and probabilistic models are often cited, yet they do not adequately account for the persistence and scale of organized complexity observed across cosmic distances.
Moreover, the interpretation of observational data is not free from bias. Redshift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and large-scale structure are frequently presented as definitive confirmations of the "Big Bang," yet alternative explanations are often marginalized or dismissed without equal consideration. Scientific progress depends on the rigorous testing of competing hypotheses, not the elevation of a single framework to near-doctrinal status. When dissenting views are excluded from discourse, the process begins to resemble ideological enforcement rather than open inquiry.
It is also worth noting that the language used to describe the "Big Bang" often relies heavily on metaphor—“explosion,” “expansion,” “creation”—terms that imply processes occurring within space and time, even though the theory itself asserts that space and time originate from the event. This linguistic inconsistency reflects a deeper conceptual ambiguity. If space and time did not exist prior to the event, then conventional notions of cause, location, and sequence lose their meaning, leaving the theory resting on descriptions that are, at best, internally contradictory.
In contrast, a model of an eternal and infinite Universe avoids many of these conceptual pitfalls. By removing the need for an absolute beginning, it preserves continuity and allows for ongoing processes of transformation without invoking creation ex nihilo. Cyclical or steady-state mechanisms, involving the redistribution and reconfiguration of matter and energy, offer an alternative framework in which the observed Universe is simply one phase or region within a larger, unbounded reality. Such models may not yet provide all the answers, but they maintain adherence to the principle that physical laws remain consistent and universally applicable.
Ultimately, the question is not merely which model is more widely accepted, but which model adheres more closely to logical coherence, empirical accountability, and intellectual openness. A theory should invite scrutiny, not resist it; it should evolve with new evidence, not depend on consensus for its validation.
Furthermore, from a strictly physical standpoint, the concept of a true “beginning” presents unresolved contradictions. In thermodynamics, conservation laws require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. If the total energy of the Universe is finite and conserved, then a literal origin from absolute nothingness violates this principle. If, instead, one invokes a singularity where known laws break down, then the theory concedes that it cannot describe its own starting condition. A model that cannot define its boundary conditions is, by definition, incomplete.
Relativity compounds this issue. Time is not an external parameter but a dimension linked to space. To speak of “before” the origin of spacetime is mathematically undefined. Yet the theory implicitly relies on causal language—cause, event, expansion—which presumes a temporal framework. This creates a conceptual inconsistency: it uses time-dependent reasoning to describe a state in which time does not exist.
Equally important is the human tendency to favor narratives with a clear beginning and an eventual end. These concepts align with everyday experience—birth, growth, decay, death—and provide psychological closure. A Universe with a defined origin and a projected end satisfies this intuition, making it more readily accepted regardless of its unresolved inconsistencies. In contrast, an eternal and infinite Universe lacks this narrative simplicity. It offers no singular starting point and no final conclusion, only continuous processes. While less intuitive, such a model avoids the need to explain how something emerges from nothing or how existence abruptly ceases.
In this sense, the appeal of the "Big Bang" may lie as much in its conformity to human expectation as in its scientific claims. A beginning provides a story; an eternal continuum requires abstraction. The distinction is not trivial: one satisfies instinct, while the other demands adherence to physical continuity.
Having rejected the "Big Bang" as a creation myth disguised as science, we now turn to a different foundation for understanding the Universe. Instead of beginning with an inexplicable explosion from “nothing,” we begin with an eternal spacetime continuum that is physically real, structured, and dynamic. In this view, what we call matter, energy, and gravity arise from the properties and behavior of this continuum itself, not from a one-time act of creation.
The spacetime continuum, with viscoelastic properties, distributed mass, and variable density, permeates the entire Universe and makes up about 96% of its mass. All the galaxies, stars, planets, and all other baryonic matter make up only about 4% of the Universe.
Baryonic particles are made of localized volumes of the spacetime continuum, which is perturbed in a vortex-like manner. Localization of a certain volume of the spacetime continuum forms a baryonic particle. In this localized volume, the spacetime continuum pulls toward the center of mass at the moment of mass formation—a gravitational field appears.
Baryonic mass is surrounded by a certain volume of deformed (stretched) spacetime continuum, whose density is reduced compared to the density of the undeformed spacetime continuum. Thus, the deformation energy of the spacetime continuum by mass is negative. According to the law of conservation of energy, as masses approach each other, the potential energy of the system decreases, converting into other forms of energy. The elastic force of the stretched spacetime continuum tends to bring the masses closer together, which manifests as the force of gravity.
There are short-lived, medium-lived, and long-lived or stable baryonic particles. Single vortices of the spacetime continuum, as a rule, immediately disappear with the emission of energy in the form of waves (in femtoseconds after formation). If a particle consists of several spacetime vortices (two, for example), then these vortices can stabilize each other, and the medium-lived particle (meson) lasts longer—picoseconds or microseconds. Then the particle transitions into another particle or several particles, usually short-lived. After several transformations, the particle disappears, and the energy is successively emitted in the form of several waves. Long-lived particles consist of three or more spacetime vortices (quarks), which firmly stabilize the entire structure of the particle. The lifetime of a particle can range from milliseconds (hyperon) to minutes (neutron) and even billions of years (proton). It is, in fact, our belief that protons have an eternal lifespan.
One of the central problems we face is methodological: humanity insists on trying to measure non‑baryonic matter—the spacetime continuum—with baryonic instruments. These instruments are built to register interactions of ordinary particles, so when they fail to “see” the continuum directly, the conclusion is not that the instruments are limited, but that the medium itself must be denied or declared “mysterious.” After decades of null results in direct searches for non‑baryonic dark matter particles, this approach has produced more confusion than clarity. It is not even funny: we are effectively demanding that the ruler prove the existence of the table it rests on, and when it cannot, we eagerly denounce the table.
In view of our spacetime continuum theory, we can now refute the major “pillars” of the Big Bang theory, which have been misinterpreted for more than a century.
Big Bang cosmology rests on several observational “pillars”: the cosmic microwave background (CMB), redshift and so‑called expansion, the abundances of light elements, large‑scale structure and galaxy evolution, and the ages of the oldest stars.
None of these observations require a Universe created from nothing.
In what follows, we will refer to spacetime continuum in a simple sense: a real physical medium that fills all of space, has mass, elasticity and viscosity, and can carry waves and deformations. Later we will describe its properties and behavior in detail. For now, it is enough to contrast two pictures: an abstract, empty spacetime that mysteriously appears and expands, and a concrete, material continuum that has always existed and can store, transmit, and dissipate energy.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
The nearly uniform 2.7 K microwave background is presented as the cooled glow of a primordial fireball. In an eternal continuum, it has a simpler interpretation. Over infinite time, stars, galaxies, and all particle processes constantly launch electromagnetic waves into a medium that has nonzero density and viscosity. High‑frequency waves gradually lose energy as they propagate; their frequencies slowly diminish and their wavelengths increase. The lost energy is transferred into the medium and into other modes of oscillation. The natural result, over unlimited time and distance, is a quasi‑uniform bath of low‑temperature microwave radiation: the thermal hum of a medium that has been stirred forever. The CMB is then evidence for a real, energy‑storing continuum, not uniquely a fossil of a one‑time “Big Bang.”
Redshift and the myth of expansion
Distant galaxies exhibit systematic redshift, almost automatically interpreted as a Doppler effect from recession in an expanding spacetime. On that assumption, running the film backward leads to the idea of a singular origin. But as Rowland has emphasized, redshift is more naturally understood as attenuation: as light waves travel extreme distances, their frequency slowly diminishes and their wavelength correspondingly increases. This is a property of wave propagation, not a measurement of source motion.
In a real continuum, redshift has a clear physical cause. Light is an elastic wave in a medium with nonzero viscosity and mass. As the wave propagates, it continuously exchanges energy with the medium; friction in this medium causes the wave’s energy to diminish, its frequency to drop, and its wavelength to grow. Additional redshift accumulates as waves climb out of or traverse regions of varying gravitational potential created by concentrations of mass. Integrated over cosmological distances, these effects naturally produce a roughly linear redshift–distance relation—a Hubble‑like law—without any need to stretch the metric itself.
Crucially, unless we know the emission frequency at the source, we cannot separate attenuation from motion just by looking at the received spectrum. Assuming from the outset that all redshift is recessional Doppler, and then using that assumption to “prove” expansion, is circular reasoning. Redshift is evidence that waves are damped and distorted in a real medium, not proof that the Universe exploded out of nothing and has been expanding ever since.
Light‑element abundances (H, He, Li)
The observed dominance of hydrogen and helium with traces of lithium is claimed as the chemical fingerprint of the first few minutes after a hypothetical explosion. In an infinite, eternal Universe with a real continuum, there is no need to compress all nucleosynthesis into a brief early epoch. Structures in the continuum corresponding to baryons and nuclei form and break apart wherever conditions are extreme: in stellar interiors, supernovae and hypernovae, accretion disks and jets, and other high‑energy regions.
Over endless cycles of star formation, stellar evolution, and explosive events, baryonic matter is driven toward low‑energy, stable configurations. The lightest, most stable nuclei—hydrogen and helium—dominate, while heavier nuclei occupy a smaller fraction of the total baryonic mass and are more easily broken apart. The global pattern that Big Bang theory calls “primordial abundances” can therefore be seen instead as the equilibrium outcome of continuous recycling in an eternal continuum, not the frozen ash of a unique creation event.
Large‑scale structure and distant galaxies
The cosmic web of filaments, clusters, and voids, and the fact that very distant galaxies often look fainter, redder, and less chemically enriched, are used to tell a story of growth from tiny fluctuations in a young Universe. In a continuum picture, large‑scale structure arises from self‑organization. Slight inhomogeneities in the medium’s density or deformation potential attract more matter, deepening the inhomogeneities. Over infinite time, this nonlinear feedback generates a web of filaments, sheets, and voids—the observed large‑scale structure.
Distant galaxies appear redder and fainter primarily because their waves have traveled farther through the attenuating medium, not necessarily because we are seeing them at a universal “early time.” Different regions of an eternal Universe can have different histories of deformation, star formation, and chemical processing. We are sampling regions with different “chemical ages,” not peering back along a single synchronized timeline to a common birthday.
Ages of the oldest stars
That the oldest known stars have ages slightly below the Big Bang age (~13.8 billion years) is often cited as a consistency check. But stellar ages are inferred using models of stellar structure and evolution that already presume a particular cosmology and nuclear history. They are model‑dependent and carry significant uncertainties, as illustrated by historical cases where stars initially appeared older than the Universe and were later reconciled by adjusting the models and error bars. In an eternal continuum, stars are not fundamental cosmic clocks; they are transient configurations that form, evolve, interact, and vanish in cycles. The fact that current models give lifetimes of order ten billion years constrains stellar physics, not the age of the medium itself. It is hardly surprising that no star is dated older than the cosmology it is calibrated to support.
Light is a wave; quantization belongs to matter
Underlying these misinterpretations is a deeper confusion about light. We assert that photons do not exist as fundamental particles. Light is an elastic wave of the continuum. The “quantum” behavior observed in optical experiments is not evidence for little massless bullets of light; it is the quantum behavior of the matter they interact with—electrons and other bound systems—which can only change their energy in discrete steps.
Semiclassical analyses by Lamb, Scully, and the quantum‑optics work of Mandel and Wolf have shown that key phenomena usually cited as definitive “photon evidence,” such as the photoelectric effect, can be explained by treating the electromagnetic field as a classical wave and only the electrons as quantum systems. The thresholds and discrete emissions arise from quantized energy levels in the material, not from indivisible light pellets. In our view, matter is quantized; light is the wave of the medium that activates those quantum transitions.
Once we stop misreading attenuation as expansion, stop treating a visibility horizon as a creation date, and stop assigning quantization to fictitious light particles, the supposed “pillars” of the Big Bang cease to be evidence for a beginning. They become what they truly are: signatures of a real, viscoelastic spacetime continuum that has always existed and is constantly creating, sustaining, and dissolving structures within itself.
The fundamental properties of the spacetime continuum are elasticity, isomorphism, viscosity, and density. Density should be understood as mass distributed in a volume of space. Density is a function of the deformation potential of the spacetime continuum.
The spacetime continuum can be locally disturbed (deformed). These deformations can be static (time-invariant, corresponding to static fields) or dynamic (time-varying, corresponding to particles and waves).
We believe that all known force interactions are carried out by static or dynamic deformations of the spacetime continuum. Gravitational and electrostatic interactions, for example, are based on static elastic deformations of the spacetime continuum by masses and electric charges. We hold that the deformation potential of the spacetime continuum around a mass or a negative charge is negative; therefore, the potential energy of the field of an electron or the field of mass (gravity) is negative. The force of gravity, as well as the force of electric charge interaction, is the elastic pressure force of the spacetime continuum. An uncompensated force appears when there is a difference in deformation potential due to a disruption of the radial symmetry of the deformation region near a mass or charge by another mass or charge.
An example of dynamic deformations of the spacetime continuum is found in electromagnetic and magnetic fields. In our view, the magnetic field is a vortex deformation of the spacetime continuum, which is viscously dragged by a moving and rotating charge (electron). Because of the elasticity of the spacetime continuum, periodic complex deformations of the spacetime continuum spread in the form of elastic waves, also called electromagnetic waves.
One piece of evidence that the density (mass distributed in space) and viscosity of the spacetime continuum are not equal to zero is the observation of shock waves in front of rapidly moving massive stars. Another indication of the presence of mass distributed in the spacetime continuum is the recently discovered gravitational waves, which transfer momentum through the Universe in the absence of continuous ordinary matter capable of propagating such waves.
Waves are periodic alternations of regions of compression and extension of the spacetime continuum, propagating with the limiting speed of elastic interaction, C (the speed of light).
The speed of light is variable even in vacuum; Einstein argued that it is a constant, and we believe he was wrong. It is proportional to the elasticity of the spacetime continuum and inversely proportional to the density of the spacetime continuum. Therefore, it increases near massive bodies (stars), because the spacetime continuum is strongly stretched near the surface of a star (a gravitational well). Conversely, inside dense bodies the spacetime continuum is compressed, so the speed of light decreases noticeably.
Light is a wave. Photons do not exist.
By analogy with supersonic (superelastic, shock) waves, superelastic superluminal waves can exist—for example, in a supernova explosion.
Waves may be electromagnetic, gravitational, or relic. Relic waves are the ultra-low-frequency radiation of the Universe—in fact, oscillations of some giant volumes of the spacetime continuum relative to others—resembling a jelly-like shiver.
Because the viscosity of the spacetime continuum is small but not zero, electromagnetic waves propagating through the Universe, including light, attenuate. This explains the Hubble effect—the reddening of the spectra of distant galaxies. Hubble initially (1929) explained this effect by the Doppler shift arising when galaxies move away from the observer, which, incidentally, contradicts Einstein's postulate that the speed of light propagation does not depend on the speed of the light source. Subsequently, Hubble abandoned his hypothesis. The rest of the scientific community did not, instead interpreting the effect as supporting the "Big Bang" theory.
In the equation of state of vacuum (in general relativity), in order for the equations to allow a spatially homogeneous static solution, Einstein introduced the so-called λ constant, representing density. Einstein later abandoned it, then returned to it. The λ is now called the “cosmological constant,” and there is no consensus on its meaning for the theory. We believe this constant represents the density of the spacetime continuum, which is not constant at all. The density of the spacetime continuum depends nonlinearly on its deformation potential. For example, λ is 2 for gravitational interactions, 3 for electromagnetic interactions, 7 for nuclear interactions, and 9 for the birth and death of particles. Calculations show that the average density of the spacetime continuum inside the heliosphere is approximately 0.72 × 10⁻⁹ kg/m³ (about a microgram per cubic meter). Measurements by the Voyager 2 spacecraft showed that at the boundary of the heliosphere (a radius of about 14 billion kilometers), the density of the spacetime continuum is even higher.
The nonzero viscosity and sufficiently high density of the spacetime continuum make it possible to use it as a supporting medium for spacecraft acceleration. We propose to capture a certain volume of the spacetime continuum, accelerate it, and eject it in a chosen direction. Since the spacetime continuum has distributed mass, the law of conservation of momentum implies that the spacecraft will acquire acceleration in the opposite direction. Thus, using the spacetime continuum as a working medium will create thrust.
Because the spacetime continuum permeates the entire Universe and its reserves are effectively unlimited, it can serve as a working medium for continuous, constantly accelerated motion for as long as an electric power source is available. A nuclear reactor, solar power system, or any other adequate power source can provide the required energy.
AI-powered Astrodrive spacecraft will reach the stars.