|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
The Universe and the Big Bang Theory Rewritten: Summary.
We rewrote the Big Bang Theory of the Universe. The Big Bang is a weak theory. The universe had to compose its mass. We should how to start the universe. We demonstrated how the Big Bang could easily by changed.
What we sought to achieve in this short work, was two specific things. We endeavoured to show firstly, a Big Bang singularity had little or no substance because of the missing mass, and secondly, how God may enter the known Universe from a definitive substance, always termed by Christians as The nothingness. A task, I think you might agree, we reached.
It wasn't easy discovering or postulating credible theory on this most difficult subject, but through sheer hard work, over a fifteen year period, we made it happen. And that in itself is remarkable.
Inevitably in this paper after I had completed my work, we made the impossible, possible. We did it with science. And that's something Christians might find unpalatable, but in essence, it serves them better than just religious pontification.
For with a scientific evaluation, there can be no uncertainty - no ambiguity or rhetoric. Some may even say we shot science with their own scientific gun. We showed equations, made predictions and naturally sought to prove the belief we by locking in an experiment. And with an experiment, we once again remove any uncertainty by allowing science the luxury of measuring what we say, in the laboratory - under forensic conditions. Never before has such an extensive search been witnessed by the few, or the masses. But now we can witness it. We can demonstrate with theoretical evidence our belief, and then show demonstrably with tangible results the greatest advance in theology: God's entry to the universe.
And the moment we show this theory accurate, with experiment, religion will take the largest step forwards it has ever taken: Religion will become as real in our physical understanding of the Universe as it does in peoples' hearts.
But to understand these theories, we needed to prove our acceptance of religion from a scientific platform, and that was complex. Some might even argue, it was too complex.
But before they do, let me just ask you this: What do you want from your Christian belief, an ambiguous set of stories always ridiculed or pulled apart by academics, or a strong belief vindicated with experiments that no one can challenge because the composition is perfect?
Most Christians, if not all Christians would say, they want strong vindication of their religious belief, as this allows them to promote the word unchallenged.
But to achieve that, we all had to do some hard work. We had to think about what we discussed, and in some cases, the theory here may have to be read several times before a full comprehension is gained. But that is a small investment of the individual's time and minuscule in comparison to the satisfaction attained.
When we think how a positive response justifies the very fabric of existence, then I'm sure you'll agree, our rewrite of the Big Bang singularity was well worth the effort, for now we have a religion that stands up to scrutiny, even in the laboratory. When Christians now discuss their God, they can do so with confidence. Perhaps even more confidence than science can discuss their Big Bang singularity.
But how did we make all this happen?
Well, to start with we challenged Big Bang Belief. We suggested there was no logical reason for the event, as science calls it, to instigate itself. There never was a reason to create a universe. And with no reason, there can be no universe. We deduced something was missing: Cause and effect. We said this simple process was so fundamental in opening the universe, that a Universe could not be created without it.
Therefore, from 3rd century religious text, we sought guidance. We found predictions of a substance known as The Nothingness. It seemed obtuse at first. But thorough investigation it led us to believe a nothingness was possible if we viewed it from a scientific prospective. It was then we identified the substance as a compound which did not apply to the laws of physics. We chose to term this substance, diamond as it enabled us to explain the theory better, and more simply. But we did concede, on universal terms the compound might have slightly different properties. But to allow all of us an ambit of understanding, we chose to facilitate the explanation with easily definable text.
Yet that doesn't detract from its significance. On the contrary, as atoms can be shown here on Earth , with experiment, to contain all the characteristics needed to produce a diamond, then not conduct electrons, our initial thoughts are proven beyond reasonable doubt. For we show, accurately, the reverse of a Universe in creation.
If we can compose diamond from that which surrounds us, then we can equally argue, a reverse analogy applies. That which surrounds us comes original from a diamond material. Yet apart from this, we also showed how a Big Bang singularity failed abysmally to account for other criteria needed in universal construction. There was no trigger mechanism, no reason why it should explode on a specific date, and nothing for it to expand in to. We also witnessed a much greater problem: There was no justification of Quantum gravity and no possibility to explain why all the universal mass - is missing: Or at least 99% of it.
These two imponderable's alone prohibit a Big Bang singularity, and really, relegate Big Bang theory to the waste-bin. And that's not even mentioning the fact, it deliberately excludes God from universal edict.
However, with our rewrite we showed how all the aforementioned could be adequately explained, and the questions involved, satisfactorily answered. We saw how even scientific criteria could be accurately predicted and strong predictions made. We spoke of large pulsar clusters toward the centre of the universe, and giant red Galaxies on the peripheral wall, dissipating. If we're right, these should be detectable, in time, with large radio telescopes.
And we also showed how, under this new theory, which we termed colloquially a silent scream, how time was composed. We said, however long the Universe takes to centralise, will be the time it takes to return whence it came. Something a Big Bang singularity, could never achieve, not even in a scientist's wildest imagination.
Therefore, in retrospect, we have to ask ourselves - how seriously will this work be taken?, and pose some fairly honest answers. I would say, initially the idea will be treated with open hostility from academia. No scientist likes to believe the Universe a biblical event. Creationists are seen by scientists, as no more than cranks. But with time, and perhaps a strong appraisal, science might come to understand that they make mistakes like everyone else. For in essence, the real determination as to whether the opening of the universe, is not based on theology or cosmology, but is formed on the ability for it to happen.
It makes no difference the description we apply to an event, if the event itself is not theoretically possible. Therefore, at that point of creation, we must assume the event was neither scientific or biblical, but more non applicable. It was neither one thing nor the other. It was just another sequence in a loop continuation. One of many millions that will happen throughout the nothingness.
Yet, when we look to satisfy inquiring minds, we must deduce, as the event which took place was predicted under biblical prophecy, the strongest application must be afforded to a religious community, as their association with such an event preceded all others. As we strive to make this statement, we must accept, that not everything is how we'd always like it to be: Sometimes there are imponderable's, large questions that need answering, and conundrums that appear to have no logical solution. But here, in this short work, we have laid foundations to explain them, not just to justify religion, but also to promote it, for we have taken the single greatest step toward understanding that which we survey. The ability to show creation can be born of the nothingness, that God may indeed enter the Universe under biblical prediction, and solid foundations can be laid.
But it's not for us merely to speculate on this event, it's for science to accept the challenge - and measure what we say. A put-up or shut-up time. Only then might some semblance of common sense enter the wider debate, and move mankind onward to his ultimate destiny: The discovery of God in his mighty kingdom.
But even whilst writing this thesis, there is one important factor I have so far omitted. The definitive Age of the universe in each transcending movement: From its inception, to its decay. And I think as a footnote, we might engineer the paper to incorporate a chronological data, but emphasise, as we do, the unique characteristics of the problem.
We might assume, the duration of our planet is vastly different from other worlds, as the gravity which drives it is measured by different cycles. Therefore, we shall show how we can comprehend a universal duration for us in standard years, and then apply a mathematical equation for all observers regardless of their periodic cycle the planet they inhabit might incur.
The reason why we can do this is a simple, but elegant one; we discovered the missing mass and universal density. And in doing so, we sowed the seeds of calculation. We discussed how science postulates a theory of only 1% mass in the universe. The other 99% is missing. Or at least it was before our quick rewrite of a Big Bang singularity. But even when we show how the Universe composed itself, we suggested a paradox entered the equation.
If 1% mass is in the universe, 1% will lay centrally. 2% mass in the universe, 2% remains central. This evaluation continues until our Universe completes itself at 50% mass, leaving 50% central at the centre of the universe. And obviously the full calculation is completed the other way: When it composed itself.
But, with 1% mass, and the Universe dated at 15 billion years, we can now argue, if we multiply this by 50, we should, theoretically reach an appropriate sum. We might say, the Universe will be 580 billion years at its death. Or, if we take into account its composure as well, some 1,500 billion years will have passed altogether through both stages, the composure and decomposure of the Universe as a whole.
Therefore, If 15 billion has ticked away in our moulder, 735 billion is left until we eventually cease to exist. But as different Planets move at different speeds, we should accept, that all of the universes tenants may measure this death sentence as an equation, as the laws of physics are equal to all. And this is easily written as: (m=eČ). mass equals energy squared. The equation basically means, when all universal energy converts to mass, the universal cycle will be complete - and the only thing to remain at that juncture, will be what we started with, an infinite amount of nothingness.
Big Bang Science Continued
How to rewrite the Big Bang
Pages below are only theory and should not be viewed as scientific opinion
Essay chapters on how to rewrite Big Bang Thoery
Go To Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||