The Big Bang Theory is generally accepted among astrophysicists as the leading scientific explanation for the birth of the Universe. Although it has some harsh critics and it doesn’t have answers to several profound questions, it also has some strong arguments. The cosmic microwave background radiation, Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, and the expansion model of the Universe are considered as the arguments in favor of the Big Bang Theory.
But some scientists, including Paul LaViolette, don’t agree with the theory. LaViolette has over 34 years of experience in global medical technology management.
A different perspective for the birth of the Universe
According to The Daily Gazette, LaViolette published a pair of papers in the International Journal of Astrophysics, where he outlined his definitive takedown of the Big Bang Theory.
LaViolette believes that astronomers aren’t looking at the data from the right perspective. They observe some distant galaxies as proof of an expanding universe due to their “redshift”/doppler effect, but they’re misunderstanding shifts from the light spectrum. The scientist claims that the shift itself is just the outcome of the loss of energy that some photons have as they travel across space. LaViolette believes that the static universe model, meaning one that’s not expanding, makes a simpler explanation of a lot of astronomical phenomenons.
What’s odd is that even Albert Einstein once considered the Universe to be non-expandable. Later on, the great physicist said that rooting for a static universe was a mistake. Today, astrophysicists consider that initial claim to be Einstein’s biggest blunder. While we’re not sure that Paul LaViolette had any inspiration from Einstein’s original claim about the Universe, it’s surely a perspective to keep an eye on.
