No Big Bang! Rainbow Gravity Theory Suggests Our Universe Has No Beginning

Since childhood, we have been taught that our more than 13.8 billion years old universe has been created because of Big Bang. But seems like this most popular theory is proven to be wrong. ‘Rainbow Gravity‘ theory suggests that our universe has no beginning and stretches out infinitely.

Rainbow Gravity Theory

Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann formulated the Big Bang theory in 1922. The theory is widely accepted among scientists and physicists as the theory explains how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. But based on the Rainbow Gravity theory – a theory that is not widely accepted among physicists, now some researchers claim that Rainbow Gravity theory highlights flaws in the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory

According to researchers, Rainbow Gravity theory suggests that our universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started. That means, ‘particles with different energies will actually see different space-times, different gravitational fields.’

Rainbow Gravity Theory Highlights Flaws In The Big Bang Theory

It is to be noted here that the theory’s name comes from a suggestion that gravity’s effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light, which can be found in the colors of the rainbow.

Researchers have written their findings in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Over the next few years, these scientists plan to study gamma-ray bursts and other cosmic events for signs of rainbow gravity effects.

Source: Daily Mail

[ttjad keyword=”cloud-storage-drive”]


Anatol Rahman is the Editor at TheTechJournal. He loves complicated machineries, and crazy about robot and space. He likes cycling. Before joining TheTechJournal team, he worked in the telemarketing industry. You can catch him on Google+.

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Tsais

    good work, folks…

    big bang never made much sense.

  2. Danger Money Records

    In future, can you journalists PLEASE only publish articles about proven (or at the VERY least, NEARLY [i.e. research/data-RICH…]) theories? Also, if you journalists could make your articles logico-grammatically harmonious in future, that would be great because statements such as ’particles [quantities of PURE energy…] with different energies [wave functions…] will actually see [… ?!!] different space-times [other than the eternal one which they exist as part of according to the theory?!!]…’ are profoundly flawed in terms of the extent to which they can mislead… The investigation of subjects of this nature relates to the evolution of humanity as a species, so we are ALL (journalists included {“,) existentially duty-bound to do so as BEST as we can. @P_C_T

Leave a Reply