|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Big Bang science could be wrong: Full Essay: Page 1 of 3.
For at least the last two decades, a Big Bang singularity, a point in spacetime where spacetime curvature is infinite, has somewhat taken precedence, in the realms of science, over what for most Christians is a more biblical event; that of god, creation and the nothingness.
To any theologian, a nothingness is probably the most profound event under their religious teaching.
The reason for this is a simple one: To any Christian who holds faith with God and ecumenical matters, a nothingness belief shows not only Gods entry route into our known universe, but also what God, Christ and that which we survey came from.
And although I wouldn't wish to join a debate, deciphering which of the aforementioned is more important to any Christian believer or scholar, I'm sure you can see the importance of this most prestigious substance. For without the nothingness there can be no God, no Christ, no Christianity.
And so we might even term this highly illusive nothingness, the very foundations of religion. But we do so without attempting to inflate our own stature. It merely happens to be a fact.
Yet initially, we said a Big Bang singularity has been promoted ahead of a nothingness, and so, we first need to understand why this might have happened.
A Big Bang singularity, that point in Spacetime where spacetime curvature is alleged to be infinite, has been advanced out of all context in my opinion.
Unlike scientists or other philosophers, I really can't see the need to get quite so excited over an event which may appear contrived. And I do say that for a very good reason, which we'll come to later.
But first let me just try to explain the reason why I believe science needs this catalyst.
We might like to briefly examine sciences' belief, and ascertain why, like some alcoholic who clings to a bottle, they need to cling so desperately to this philosophy.
One might be forgiven for saying, without an explanation for that event which preceded all others, any attempt at promoting science ahead of religion would be no more than a pitiful effort of explanation. Science needs to demonstrate to a wider audience how answers are easily attained when difficult questions are posed. Not to do so may accelerate other, more ambiguous ideas to the masses, as religion has done for many centuries.
For the scientific community, there can be no greater justification of science, than to advance their teachings, and that means the most fundamental evaluations need to be sought. And there cannot be a more basic promotion than that which brought about creation.
Moreover, there needs to be a credible evaluation of what they say, and in some respects a Big Bang singularity actually meets most criteria needed: Always assuming other people don't pose advanced questioning themselves.
By that I mean, an esoteric debate can be countenanced with strong academic postulation.
But have we let science take the moral, and educated high ground without really putting up a strong fight?
The answer is probably yes. For although I indulge science somewhat myself, I can't help but feel the church, both Rome and England, have languished behind modern thinking from a lack of universal comprehension. And I don't say that in any disrespectful way; more an observation than anything else.
Yet, as science needs this platform, that of a Big Bang to get our Universe under way, I truly believe, in all honesty, we might have undermined the true nature of ecumenical pursuit and our own natural destiny. One might even suggest, science's endeavours are no more than a mercenary attribute to promote and hone its own status.
And for this reason I believe the foundation of universal theory has been corrupted, to allow science a free run at the rest of universal edict; and if that's the case, we must seek to adjust the balance and pursue a more impartial responsibility in this debate; although it won't, from a scientific perspective, prove popular.
In fact I'll be vilified even broaching this subject matter. But that shouldn't deter me, for in life we have a moral duty, and obligation to search diligently for that which others seek. And it's this pursuit that drives me ever onwards to that greater understanding of philosophical fulfilment.
But when I accuse science of being corrupt, I must inevitably justify my accusation if I expect people to take it seriously. When I talk of corruption, I don't particularly believe it for personal gain; as it might be disingenuous to even suggest that. But I do believe there is a malignant nature to it, which allows science to grow beyond control of that which is decent.
And I don't reach that assumption lightly.
We said science needs a reason to promote its theories, and without the foundation of existence, some may argue it has no theories to promote, especially if we assume a ripple effect takes place throughout our universe: (That which is advanced by one event leading to the next). What we might like to term: A rolling universe, made up of a whole catalogue of contributory factors each related to its former, or logical successor.
Therefore something was needed to get this grandest show under way. And for this came a Big Bang singularity: That event science postulates preceded all others. But the genuinity of this might be somewhat suspect if we delve inside the theoretical mechanics and look not just at the evidence science suggests supports this event, but also the evidence that contradicts it ever happening.
One of the greatest contradictions might be a commodity known as quantum gravity. This is a place where all large gravity is honed to one specific point, yet allowed to decay as discrete quanta. Basically, this is the espousing of Einsteinian General relativity with Planck's quantum principle to deliver a very sought after, and very illusive substance that some academics argue can never exist.
And I would point out, under a Big Bang singularity, they are probably absolutely right.
So in our doctrine here, we don't only seek to satisfy our religious friends by identifying the nothingness for them, but we will allow science an ambit of intellectual aggrandise as well.
But to achieve this difficult task, we must accept we will cause a row between both the church and science. This is a natural by-product of any contentious debate or argument. So I would make it clear, it's not our intention here to cause friction between rival factions or groups, merely a secondary process of a quarrelsome topic which logically emerges in any passionate area.
However, we might ask both sides to view the paper impartially before automatically leaping to a conclusion. They may just find something they both search for in the one work. Although, if we do blur the picture somewhat, we might have to re-evaluate both cosmology and theology in a new conceptual thinking, which allows both a bi-partisan reflection of each other. And the prospect of bringing these two opposing armies to the table to establish a mutual understanding of each other will be an interesting challenge!
One of the real difficulties is both the church and science hate the sight of one another, and each will, given the opportunity, put the other to the sword; speaking metaphorically of course.
But again, and to reiterate, we shouldn't allow this to stand in our way, for in this work we neither support the church or science. We merely seek the truth, and intend to convey the belief to a wider, more generous audience.
If we were to actually affiliate ourselves to either faction, we may find our work prohibited by preconceived notions. And that we must never permit, for if we do, inevitably we will only end-up chasing our tails like some mad dog on a hot summer's day. And that wouldn't serve anyone any good; not the church, those of a Christian faith, or the more secular world of science.
Yet some may contest this, and suggest, if we attempt to be all things to all peoples, we actually become nothing to no one. So let me just state, the idea is a very practical one, and one I've already identified. And so I would stipulate, we do not endeavour to be all things to all peoples; we just hope to provide a few solutions in problematic areas and advance their comprehension from that point. We only wish to start them off, not undertake the journey for them. And I sincerely hope an ex gratia system might be recognised.
So where do we begin? Well, the logical assumption would be at the beginning. Only if a nothingness is to be truly endorsed we may need to travel much father back than that. But before we do, let's evoke some semblance of reality into this debate, and analyse, honestly where necessary the belief science holds.
We have already stated, we believe science endorses its postulates for one evident reason; to provide a progressional plan to move its own belief forwards with some indefatigable haste.
But what evidence does it possess to allow this march to commence? Well, one of the most convincing facts in Big Bang belief, is a low audible hiss detected with large radio telescopes, and large arrays of Telescopes at individual sites around the globe.
The Big Bang theory was first detected by members of Bell Laboratories in the US, by accident. They were working on another project when this strange phenomenon occurred, and instantly a solution was sought. Pretty soon a paradigm was constructed, and science in its own inimitable way had discovered more what it wanted to hear, rather than that, that perhaps it was hearing.
The initial model built suited certain academics, and with some fine tuning a progressive approach was delivered. Science had its Holy Grail, and religion was about to take the largest step towards the abyss it could ever imagine. In fact, religious belief, especially that of God entering the Universe was about to be resigned to oblivion forever. Or at least until they read what I have to say here, for I will show another mechanism to start creation, so perfect in comparison with a Big Bang singularity that it literally contridicts modern and established thought.
If, as science suspects, all of creation came spewing from the one place, in some Dantean sea of fusion, then religious ideology is no more than worthless, in everything except the imagination of fanatics who seek solace from the reality of everyday life; its trials and tribulations.
Yet apart from this low audible hiss, what one may even term an echo, there is indeed very little supporting evidence to suggest a Big Bang singularity ever did take place. Some might even call this supposed event, the concept of men's imaginations.
But for us, there is one fundamental flaw that instantly leaps out at you: There is no cause and effect with Big Bang belief. One might even term a Big Bang singularity flawed from its initial outset, for without this very elementary process, cause and effect, it becomes extremely difficult to find any reason why any event might happen at all.
This may seem an insignificant problem, but if we pose a few questions on the subject, you can see yourself just how difficult it could be to sustain a supportive argument to continue with Big Bang theory. And it is just a theory, regardless of the passion of those who support it.
We'll now pose them questions, and then investigate the answers raised, individually, afterwards, to show our concern at the lack of substance this debate entails.
(i) Before a Big Bang singularity took place, the Universe must have condensed all universal material: What did it condense from?
(ii) If indeed it did condense, then surely a Big Bang singularity must logically be a second movement, as composing would become its first.
(iii) How could all matter condense, especially if our Universe is infinite, as this would be an infinite task?
(iv) Why did this detonation take place at that point in space and time with no contributory factor to trigger the said event?
(v) How could a point ever have been chosen for a location of universal material, as logically, all points in space and time must be equal?
(vi) Even if a Big Bang did happen, what does it expand in too?
(vii) How can you compose Quantum Gravity, (big gravity released as discrete quanta), so a Universe may naturally unfurl?
(viii) Would gravity continuously exist if all events were triggered simultaneous, with an absolute ubiquity?
(ix) Where is all the missing mass in the Universe as we currently detect less than 2% of it?
(x) How can you have time, unless of course you first compose it?
These may seem insignificant questions; what science my even term irrelevant questions. But they are questions the layman asks nonetheless, and therefore, those whom ask the questions, deserves an answer. You can't convince anyone in life on any subject matter, unless you first satisfactorily address the basic questions they pose. Anything else will only create scepticism.
One of the reasons this happens, is based entirely around what ordinary people feel. Like anything in life, people need to experience a sense of belonging. It's all about what makes us us. Human beings are social creatures. They need to belong - and perhaps more importantly, they also need to contribute. When they are alienated from the wider debate, or excluded from it, they seek solace elsewhere. And for this reason alone, science and philosophy must see its priority as answering enquiries those from a non trained, scientific background wish answered. Only then can you move on to the more esoteric debate.
And so, let us not forget, it is, after all, the ordinary man and woman in the street who actually pay with their taxes for all the wonderful equipment science plays with.
I once read in a work by Stephen Hawking, that any theory on the universe, needs to fit a mathematical, cosmological - and scientific criteria if it's to be taken seriously.
And although I would agree with that analogy 100%, there is another piece we could add on. We could also say, as well as fitting any mathematical, cosmological and scientific criteria, it will only ever be as good as the volume of people who might understand it.
We might even assume this is what made the bible so profound, with its prophecies and parables. They were simple, could be delivered word of mouth and emphasise immaculately their message, in easily comprehended text, where necessary.
And for that reason, we have to pose those questions we mentioned a moment ago, as they are the questions ordinary individuals demand answers too. They may sound inconvenient to science, but to the wider masses, they make absolute sense. Some might even term them: Obvious questions.
If we briefly inspect the first question we posed, and ask: "Before the Big Bang singularity took place, even though I am aware science identifies this point as infinite, what did it condense from?" we find an instant preponderant in the equation.
We've already asked, if this point did condense, what did it condense from, and how would it have an ability to condense?
The easy answer is, it couldn't, not if a Big Bang singularity was its first movement. At that point science would protest strongly. They would inform us immediately there is an elementary flaw in that argument.
The entire academic world might say, if this original point, a Big Bang singularity is infinite, it would have always been, until such a time as our known universe was created. Science might state, that is the whole point of having a singularity. A point where spacetime curvature is infinite. They might even consider this an event.
Yet if we assume, being generous in my opinion, that at this place space, time was infinite, we could pose another questions. Again, simplistic in its nature, yet fraught with problems once broached.
If we said, at this place Spacetime was infinite, we might ask how can anything be infinite, if it doesn't exist? It's a reasonable question to ask, for surely infinitude would suggest it continues indefinitely.
But how can it continue indefinitely, unless of course it's already in existance - and thus can continue.
And it's this type of conjecture that drives science mad; for they, like the rest of our magnificent world have few answers. It's better to do as Hawking suggested, and say time had a start point known as a big bang singularity - and events before the Big Bang can be of no significance. At least those words allow you a mechanism to move forwards, to explore the possibilities the rest of the Universe has to offer. Or do they?
If we were to adopt this attitude towards that extensive ether called space, we might have missed one crucial factor: a posteriori: (Latin = what comes after). Or to facilitate still further, it basically discusses the principle of cause and effect. That commodity we suggested so vital if we wish to hone and develop our Universe to its natural conclusion.
For although Stephen Hawking, chooses a convenient jump-off point, where natural propagation is allowed to ferment, we have decided, this is simply not good enough. It's lazy! It's cheating!
As we progress deeper inside this thesis, we will deal with those questions never before answered by science, and assume laziness and cheating is something we will leave to others. Our quest shall be the most diligent ever sought, and will inevitably cause ructions within that secular world of academia and the more auspicious world of theology. I guarantee you, we are about to advance a debate, most people would rather not discuss and shake science to its foundations.
Yet, when we spoke of consolidation a moment ago, we did so for one specific reason; to ensure a Universe could be composed, and time fermented under a natural appraisal, and then allowed to unfurl in a majestic way which, theoretically should run like clockwork. But to do so, we first have to envisage the rest of sciences' postulation on Big Bang theory, and decipher the negative attributes, as well as the positive ones already in the public domain.
Science might advance a proposition at this stage, and say the Big Bang model also fits in with General relatively: (That all motion is relative, in the special relativity sense, and then extend the theory to gravitation and motion): To allow the Universe to expand.
To achieve this, Einstein built-in a cosmological constant, later dismissed it, and then proclaimed it the biggest mistake he ever made. Although, personally I think he should have stuck to his original belief that it was indeed a mistake. It might play well to extend original postulation, but it does little to advance God's status in the matrix's of things.
And maybe that's why Einstein dismissed the initial thought himself.
Science tends to like the idea, simply because under his theory, it makes God's position obsolete. Yet, we have already found one anomaly, and we can be absolutely certain there are plenty more. Stephen Hawking makes the protestation about time, and probably says more if you read between the lines than actually reading the lines themselves.
When he discusses events before a Big Bang singularity being of no significance, did he really spare a thought for theologists and Christians? I doubt it!, for had he, he might have reached a different conclusion.
We must remember, in today's society, there is anywhere up to 3 billion Christians on planet Earth . Do we have a right in a modern world to simply turn our back on these people? Or do we have a moral obligation to resign selfishness to the bin, and see if we can't at least construct a model that suits their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. Most people, regardless of their affiliation would say that's the decent thing to do.
And so, we move continuously on in our pursuit of the truth, if one can dare call it that at this juncture. We have demonstrated the problematic area involved in showing consolidation, and the definitive principle of any infinitude. We suggested this idea no more than cheating, although we never used that word lightly.
But suppose for just one moment we were to be generous, and offer a system where we support science in its task, and agree, all universal substance might have a locality, that place proposed as a point where a Big Bang occurred. We might resurrect an argument at that time, and demand to know, how any infinite place could exist, even under the laws of logic? For if this position in space and time is infinite, then it must naturally take an infinite period to produce it.
Therefore, we create a self fulfilling prophecy: Any infinite point would take an infinite journey to complete, and thus never could initiate a Big Bang or any other action, as the ability to locate itself would inevitably take an eternity.
And so, even if we attempt to be generous, over generous in my opinion, we reach another dead end where space and time become no more than a perverse contradiction. And really there is no arbitration with this belief, as the entire structure is based on ironic subterfuge, where debate has been bartered for a cheap way forwards.
Nevertheless, science tends to defend its theories with some vigour, and try a meretricious policy to either hoodwink, or baffle ordinary members of the public into accepting a policy most would not wish to subscribe to: Atheism.
I'm afraid I have to say it, but part of the rapid decline of the church is down to modern physics, theoretical physics and science. We must assume, as the church, its biblical teaching and protestations remained prevalent for thousands of years, something dramatic must have happened in our not too distant past.
But to only blame science is disingenuous. The church has to accept responsibility as well, for although theology has continuously tried to promote itself, it has done very little to defend itself. And that really is a shame, because there is plenty it could have done, if it had just taken the time and trouble to analyse what it preaches.
And so, with science allowed a free reign at universal theories, the church has somewhat languished in the doldrums recently.
It would appear today, that sciences' dispensation, has a far stronger message attached to it than the churches ever will, simply because science deals with tangible evidence where possible. And people are more inclined to sponsor that which they see, rather than that which they hear. That's why, as we continue with this doctrine, it becomes imperative to lock-in equations and predictions where necessary. But we will facilitate matters for the sake of the reader. As I said before, and to reiterate, any theory is only ever as good as the amount of people who understand it. There would-be absolutely no point in writing a paper no one comprehends.
We said, from our initial inspection of a big bang singularity, the opportunity to produce a point in Spacetime of infinitude would be negligible: There appears no apparent reason for this point, except to allow science a proverbial jump-off point, as we mentioned earlier. Yet even if it did exist, we might pose another rather obvious question, and ask: What made it explode in the first place? Where was the cause and effect needed to instigate any reaction? Or are we supposed to believe this event instigated itself spontaneously, for no logical reason?
It beggars belief, to assume, the Universe suddenly sprung into life, without a catalyst to achieve the event. But for a reason known all to themselves, science assumes this is how it begun. Maybe it's because they have no other reason, no other explanation!
But do we?
As much as I have tried, desperately in some cases, to identify this huge problem, and solve its ability to produce something, for no reason, I find it difficult. No that's not true; I find it impossible? There is no honest reason to assume any place would explode, without first producing cause and effect. The equivalent would be to explode a bomb without a timer, detonator, trigger factor or chain reaction.
And therefore, we must insist at this point, if there was a point in space, where time and space were infinite, then this place should, theoretically always remain stable. We could deduce though, if we wish to expand our philosophy at this juncture, we might need to incorporate that trigger mechanism just mentioned. At least that way we might be able to make this event possible, because it's certainly not possible without it.
God willing, when we reach a stage, where we are expected to challenge this existing science, we shall do so without ambiguity or rhetoric. In fact, we will smack science so firmly in the face with our gauntlet of defiance, the ripples will cause repercussions for years to come.
But that's for later. Right now, I wish to concentrate on scientific explanation; even that they have touted around with a demonstrative attitude. We've all seen scientists on our televisions, their chests puffed out, their posture haughty. But forensically, they have not been questioned about creation, the Big Bang or other scientific postulation regarding the beginning of existence. And this is mainly because TV producers are inexperienced with cosmological theorem, or simply bullied by scientists themselves.
Many an academic has refused to undergo TV interview, unless allowed to deliver their message in their own way. This is partly the reason why a staid old debate takes place today. Ask yourself this question: How often have you witnessed on television, radio or in literature any strong challenge to Big Bang philosophy? I wouldn't mind betting, you couldn't even count the number on one finger! And
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. ||