|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Questioning the Big Bang Singularity: Full Essay: Page 2 of 3.
that's alarming. What we must understand is, without any credible alternative, ideas become stagnated. With only one strong theory we might just get it wrong. What then? Where do we go? It's akin to making a wrong turn in a maze. Inevitably all paths after that lead in the wrong direction and you only get farther and farther away from the truth.
But if we were to be generous again, and those opposed to Big Bang theory, and there is a few in science-who do remain hostile to this philosophy; then we might allow for an explosion to take place. In other words, we could tamper with the evidence to show, that even when a fraudulent avenue is sought, other anomalies still lurk out there.
To do this, produce an explosion, we might say a sense of ubiquity is needed. Or to term it simply pressure, so the reader can understand our thinking more simplistically, pressure might be a more apt explanation. We could deduce a Universe of infinite density might bear down on this point, and create such strong forces, that everything in the universe, even though, according to science, the Universe still didn't exist, at this time, was able to produce this pressure we just briefly mentioned.
To get around this huge problem, we might argue, the Universe we speak of during that period, was no more than a huge vacuum. Although, if we did, we may assume a vacuum is still part of any universal model, and is indeed, still in existence.
But to manipulate the evidence even further, we could support a period, some 15 billion years ago, and suggest all universal pressure created a detonation. That point in our universal history, known to science as a singularity, exploded. But another problem arises.
If we imagine, a universal vacuum, so dense it creates ubiquity, then we must also assume, any explosion would not have the force to actually distribute the contributory matter throughout the universe. And so, even though we went the extra proverbial mile, and provided an ambit for Big Bang postulation, to facilitate a universe, we still found a problematic approach in its construction: Universal ubiquity would be too strong to allow the said event.
We've now seen a few reasons why a Big Bang singularity is not likely. We showed consolidation would not happen as there would be no substance for it to consolidate from. That meant we have no opportunity to compose time, no opportunity to produce cause and effect, and no reason to get this show started.
We might assume, everything that happens in life, happens for a reason, and our universe, theoretically would be no different. Yet these are just small questions we deal with here. They are ordinary everyday questions posed by ordinary members of the public: Why did our Universe move to this place? Why that place as all places are equal? What did it explode in too? And where was that cause and effect so crucial to instigate such events. These are simple questions, yet valid if we truly wish to explore the wider possibilities in cosmology, ufology and theology. And until science explains them fully, without the luxury of ambiguity, they'll be hard pushed to convince anyone, myself included.
But in saying that, and without making this simple rewrite of a Big Bang singularity too complex for the individual, I only wish to touch on those stronger difficulties these large anomalies present, as an in-depth discussion would involve a too complex debate. And that would serve none of us any good, as the argument may become lost in its own complexity.
And so, with a simple appraisal, we might be justified in asking of science, how any universal seat of gravity might remain in production if an explosion took precedence over any other theory? We must insist, forcefully where necessary, that if an explosion took place, all universal gravity would be lost at that decisive moment. There cannot be any room for compromise on this question, for if all gravity was lost as this event happened, our Universe would not only be ejected, but a paradox would enter the equation. And a rather perverse one at that.
If we imagine, just for one second, a Big Bang has happened: A large explosion has manifested from the centre of a dead universe, even though the centre, theoretically could never be accurately predicted, as all points would be equal, then a strikingly obvious occurrence happens. As matter comes gushing away from this point, it gradually slows as its distance increases, but as it slows, it would find that matter behind it, still accelerates.
Eventually, all universal material would have to crash to a definitive point, as the principle of ubiquity insists no part of any universal material may include a stronger force than any other. Therefore the content must be distributed equally from the initial point of force, and moved at a rate proportionate to its distance.
One of the real ironies to this is, the velocity of light most certainly could not be constant, as a universal accelerant would naturally need to be incorporated into any logical deduction sponsored or placed forth.
Sciences' supposition of this event takes a strange, yet natural twist at that juncture. We could assume, as matter gradually distanced itself, its volume of mass a body measured by its resistance to acceleration, must increase, and thus that coming along behind it would have a higher accelerant value, as naturally it hasn't reached the stage of the first property.
Down here on Earth , that may seem a small consideration, but on a universal basis, this single application should prevent a Big Bang singularity ever occurring. And I now I'll be castigated for saying so, but if we wish to defend a theological approach to creation, we must not favour science by neglecting to mention crucial details, simply because academics would like to forget them themselves.
The principle of ubiquity, is a system never before tackled; as far as I know. But if our Universe did indeed deteriorate, and throw all matter across the universe, not only will academics find difficulties from the accelerant rates of matter moving through space at different points in its history, but also from accretion in the formation of stars and galaxies.
We mustn't forget, if ubiquity prohibits forward matter outrunning that which comes along behind, then it naturally defy's clumping too. The reason for this is under an ubiquity theorem, where all points and places are equal, then equidistance must follow. Not to do so would-be absurd.
But from that statement, we might find a contradiction arises. If matter races away, but following matter quickly catches it up, how could equidistance happen? And the chances are, it can't. However, universal mathematics say it must, and so, with an inbuilt universal anomaly we see an event science advances, somewhat flawed, even from the outset. And that doesn't bode well for the construction of galaxies, stars and planets. We might even term this theoretical observation, a universal building without foundations, that like any building without foundations, will collapse at the first opportunity.
Yet as this event, a big bang, continues to rouse passion in science, we must ask what would happen to its strategical central point, from the prospect of gravitational influence? We might assume if all gravity was lost simultaneous, then no ambit to control large gravity, that from a General relativity model, would exist, and most certainly, no ambit would be included to allow it to decay as discrete quanta, under Planck's quantum principle may exist either.
These two events espoused, are what inevitably drives a quantum gavity theory: All strong gravity held at one strategic point, yet allowed to decay as discrete quanta.
Yet if we could, by some small miracle, discover a new theory in the construction of the universe, we might be able to produce for science, a strong seat of gravity that is allowed to diminish as discrete quanta: Or that quantum gravity we just mentioned.
For science we could place a steady state theory back on the books and permit them to work with an event far more productive than the one they toy with presently. But before we reach them dizzy heights, we must first pose the last difficult question that forbids a Big Bang singularity: That of all the missing mass in the universe. And to reiterate, to a theologist, or supporter of Christianity it might seem irrelevant. But it's not, for this reason.
Science tends to mock Christians, as they believe Christian faith can never replace science as a dominant force. But maybe, if we can show that faith can advance sciences' quest as well, we might just allow our religion to be accepted by science with a more practical understanding. Because we must never forget, the parable of the good samaritan. If we can help someone along our way, it's our moral duty to do so. And although a lot of Christians and theologians might shrink from the idea, because of the appalling way science has treated them, I would ask a behest - and beseech: Let science play at understanding if it makes them happy!
We said science and cosmology currently predict the Universe to contain only 1 % mass, the other 99% is missing. One of the postulates doing the rounds at the moment is it may be hidden as dark matter. But that's not only ambiguous, it's clutching at straws. In fact science has no idea why this strange occurrence of only 1% mass appears, and as it does, it throws a huge dark shadow over a Big Bang singularity. For if our Universe was constructed in one cataclysmic bang, then all matter would have appeared, and logically all mass would be apparent. We might like to call it: A what you see is what you get principle. But as this missing mass appears to remain as illusive as any sensible postulate, we might like to say there is something wrong with Big Bang theory, rather than theology, or even a scientific steady-state theory universal density doesn't change over time.
In other words, a production line is born, and allows the constant and stable release of matter over a sustained period, to permit universal density to continuously retain parity as other universal material dissipates on the universes peripheral wall.
And this might seem complex, but what I'm attempting here, is a conciliatory process where we provide science with a few treats. However, if we are to achieve this phenomenal task, we must expect our new theories to be attacked. Having identified this hostility which will manifest, we must therefore reduce the ferocity of any such attack by building in some criteria of our own, to make the theorem credible.
Firstly, we have to ask ourselves what we hope to achieve? And for any theologian or Christian, the answer is simple, yet beautifully uncompromising. We wish to discover God's route into the Universe from the material religion claims God, Jesus Christ and all which surrounds us is constructed from: The Nothingness. We don't just want another theory of half baked ideas or ambiguities. We want something tangible, that carries an equation, a prediction and the opportunity to provide science with an ambit to measure what we discuss, in the laboratory under forensics conditions: No fudges!
So what criteria should we set for ourselves, to attain what some scholars instantly say is unattainable? From speaking to ordinary members of the public, the clergy - and those of a more secular background, I've compiled a set of questions, most of which arose during our discussion of a Big Bang singularity:
(i) What is a Nothingness made of? (ii) How was the Universe created? (iii) Why did it come into being? (iv) Can God actually arrive in the Universe via this Nothingness route as religion predicts? (v) How do you compose time? (vi) How do you produce Quantum Gravity? (vii) Where's all the missing mass? (viii) Can you prove this event accurate? (ix) Will it provide a stronger explanation than a Big Bang singularity? (x) Can a steady-state theory be built? (xi) Can cause and effect be demonstrated accurately so a more common sense explanation is found to define that we witness around us?
From those questions you can immediately tell which belong to theologians, the man in the street and science. You don't need me to spell it out for you. But from them, I would suggest, we attempt to answer them all, not just some as science has done with its postulation on Big Bang theory. Those questions we just identified are honest in their application, thought provoking and the ones ordinary people seek answers to. Our Christian community in particular.
But I would momentarily point out at this stage, for a Christian definition, we need sciences' help. The most fundamental of the aforementioned questions, the Nothingness, I suppose, is the one Christians reading this work would be waiting for. So I'll deal with that first, but say, this type of work cannot be evaluated peace-meal, you must read it all, otherwise only part of the paradigm may be built.
When we talk exclusively of a nothingness, we might have, in the past been slightly misled by our own definition of what it actually is. We know religion defines the nothingness as a substance, as all we survey is born from it. And so therefore, we must look, not for some kind of vacuum as others have done, but for a tangible block of nothingness.
After years of mind destroying work, I came up with a unique idea one day. I believed, if we took sciences' champion, physics and sought to neuter it, we might provide ourselves with a platform to advance. But what could this illusive substance religious theology predicts, actually be?
After deducing most of that which surrounds us is carbon based, I decided that should be a logical place to commence my search. But could a carbon based material really cancel physics? The idea seemed wild. But before it's dismissed, we have to ask ourselves what physics actually is?
Under dictionary text, physics is described as: That branch of science which deals with the mechanics, dynamics, light, heat, sound, electricity and magnetism of natural events. I soon realised, if we could prohibit these natural elements, then our search might prove fruitful. But to do so I first needed to discover a substance as predicted by early theologians, that contained zero electron a negatively charged particle that occurs in all atoms and is the primary conductor of electricity, value.
I knew if I found this deceptive substance - and perfected it, I might be able to facilitate the opening of one Universe from another. Or that cause and effect we spoke so candidly of.
To understand what we wish to achieve, it's important to identify this compound quickly, so we can move forwards, but reiterate, its identifiable content at a later time. That way the reader won't have to constantly keep checking the detail. If we were to assume, the entire fabric of the universe, and that which lies beyond it for an indefinite period was made of solid diamond, we might just have laid the foundations of what we're about to discuss. It might sound obtuse, to postulate theorem on such a common, if rare substance down here on planet Earth . But before we dismiss the idea, we must first explore some criteria we said we should meet.
Firstly, a diamond compound contains the zero electron value we so desperately need. Try and pass an electrical current through it and nothing will happen. And if that's the case, then it does not apply to the laws of physics in its embryonic state. Therefore, with one easy lesson, we've managed to strip the laws of physics from an elementary substance that relates to you, me and everything we together survey.
If we imagine an infinite block of diamond, what we might term, a vitreous neutation, then we should assume it could never be measured. If science used any form of measuring device, light, heat, sound, electricity or magnetism, then no detection would be registered. Science could never determine whether this place was a mile wide, a million miles wide or a trillion miles wide. It would be infinitely black, contain no energy and as it wouldn't be in motion, no mass either. It would be a lifeless, dead universe, of immeasurable proportions. This substance, and it would still be a substance, would be termed: Nothingness, simply because, at that juncture in time, it would not apply to the laws of physics as we understand them.
A quick experiment in the laboratory proves this thinking accurate. If an experiment was undertaken, where a diamond was located - and a simple electrical charge placed to it, we should, theoretically see a vindication of our belief. At that point, we might say the diamond becomes an hermaphroditic physics, as it neither applies to one thing nor the other. Neither energy or mass, but applies to them both equally, at the same time.
From our evaluation, we have neutered the compound to produce a substance, which under biblical text suits our purpose: The nothingness. But to just ascribe a term to a substance and say this is indicative of what we need is not enough, even though we can show unequivocally, under forensic conditions our assumption right. For any theologian this postulate alone should be strong enough to vindicate a religious ethos: It meets necessary criteria as laid down in prophecy, does not apply to any law of physics at that moment, and as it is solid carbon, produces enough contemporary components to create a Universe as we know and understand it today.
But that might be preaching to the converted, and expecting people to defend us, without enough proof to accept what we say in a wider, secular world. Therefore we must go further, and match the strong arguments we insisted upon earlier. The first thing I wish to demonstrate at this stage, is what we spoke of initially: Cause and effect. Basically, that means: To show an event, motivated by chain reaction, that has an indeterminable amount of reactions to produce an event capable of creating a universe.
Some people might reel away in horror at that challenge; but not us. We've come to accept the bigger doctrines science demands, and will not shrink from that huge task now.
One of the things we didn't mention with a Big Bang singularity, is a hot early universe. Protestations from science say, as an explosion is infinitely hot, this early period shows justification of a big bang. Microwave radiation actually vindicates this young, hot universal period. And so we won't contest that. We will just contest what caused it. If we imagine in our block of diamond, a Universe is born. Not our universe, but another, more distant universe, beyond our realms of discovery. What actually happens? We could assume as this early Universe is born from a fusion reaction, energy races away.
As energy accumulates, its intensity becomes hotter and hotter. And with heat, expansion is created. An inflationary period. If you picture in your mind a bubble, you should see that bubble like a balloon being blown-up, that then increases in dimension. With a steady increase in dimension, other points recognise an intolerable pressure which is placed upon them - and eventually they succumb to universal forces. Once this pressure is unbearable, a fracture in the diamond would register, just like a block of glass shattering, only still held in place by its own density. This might prove a catalyst for dozens of new universes. But we will only concentrate on ours.
The first early universe, over tens of billions of years will eventually start to cool, but as it does, contraction begins. It simply shrinks back to its original dimension. Yet with shrinkage, our universe, with a newly applied fracture in its fabric, witnesses a division. And it would be this division that instigates a reaction.
The first Universe was the cause of the event, now a new Universe shall be its effect. With division, fusion occurs. Both energy and mass must move to opposite ends of the spectrum. As energy races away in a dantean inferno, mass centralises.
We could quickly apply an obvious equation to this. To do so, we say our nothingness is represented by a small (n), an indefinite number, energy by a small (e) and mass, a body measured by its resistance to acceleration, as a small (m). The Č simply means squared, a number multiplied by itself.
To kick off our new Universe its equation, should theoretically be written as: (em=nČ). To explain things simply, we say, from our nothingness, both energy and mass are created, and God's arrival into our Universe is imminent. We never needed to rely on ambiguities, nor did we need to fudge the evidence. We demonstrated how one Universe can act as the catalyst of another, or several others - and how our Universe should naturally keep the ball rolling.
Our universe, over time, will expand from a heat application - and create a multi-universal loop. The reason for this is we can now apply finite boundaries to universal dimension and show the Universe not to be infinite and expanding forever, as Einsteins cosmological constant suggests.
The boundaries of any Universe will logically be determined by the fracture line produced. Its two farthest points become the boundary lines needed to show, conclusively, the measurement any Universe might envelop for its life cycle. If we assume, a fracture produced in our diamond neutation has a determinable length, then the fracture line, measured by its circumference will be the dimension of a newly emerged universe. The reason this happens, is because the two farthest points are its weakest places. Everything inside this dimension, we will allow to collapse, or to consolidate as we called it earlier.
Science speaks quite enthusiastically of a Big Bang singularity, and so, perhaps we should now begin to demonstrate the very same confidence, and talk enthusiastically of a silent scream To liquify by heat energy - and siphon from it mass. And to understand the next part, I will facilitate the narrative somewhat, and use easy analogies everyone can comprehend.
Let's imagine an infinite block of diamond that doesn't apply to any law of physics: The nothingness as we described it. One Universe has opened in a distant region, and as it expanded via heat application, it has created pressure in another area. A large star shaped fracture appears. Gradually, over billions of years, the first Universe cools, the pressure has eased and our fracture witnesses a slight division in its matrix's. As the division is noticed, a recognition is registered and an effect happens: Fusion!
Fusion will now provide us with a Universe infinitely hot, that continuously burns in pure radiation, and once completed will move to the peripheral wall, as it has nowhere else to go. But as it does, the rest of our Universe collapses. And the collapse, under Newtonian law, must locate exactly central to the rest of the universe. There is no margin of error at this juncture, because each movement provides a catalyst for the next. The only thing then to determine its locality, is weight.
In other words, as one atom, or what we term Neutron an elementary particle with roughly the same mass as a proton, but with no electric charge, and present in the nuclei of all atoms except those of ordinary hydrogen, positions itself, then the second movement, or what we term a particle is attracted by density alone.
Therefore - it must be noted, this event becomes precipitous, because, as a third particle tries to determine its position in space and time, it has only half the opportunity of its opposite two numbers. The fourth particle will have only one third the denomination, and so on and so forth, until an entire Universe has moved to the central point. And although we have termed these elementary particles as neutrons, I think to change the text slightly to super heavy neutrons might be more appropriate.
The reason behind this analogy is quite simple: We have shown how one Universe acts as a catalyst for the next: It produced cause and effect. Once we've demonstrated, as fusion takes place from a sub-division in the matrix's of the nothingness, an ambit is provided to locate all universal mass, leaving only an inferno of residual energy in its wake. We showed this earlier on with an equation: (em=nČ).
What we have achieved, is not only a Universe by design, but a Universe by attraction. Yet also, we should remember, not only have we separated energy and mass from the nothingness, but we have also divided two nuclear energy and mass, contemporaries from one another. In achieving this massive task we simultaneously provide time. Because however long this event takes to happen, will be its duration once we allow our Universe to unfurl.
We could now apply a second equation to that: (m=eČ). Or in layman's terms, by the time all energy has converted to mass, our Universe should, theoretically be at finite points; or back to what it was: Nothingness. And just to complete our equations for this postulate: (n=meČ). Nothingness equals mass - energy squared.
We have opened the universe, consolidated all universal mass - and given it finite boundaries. We have offered a credible definition to explain such a hot early universe, and composed time. Yet something else happened here as we built a model to illustrate time has a locality and expenditure. By accident, we've produced Quantum gravity - that most illusive substance science seeks.
As we begun to consolidate all universal mass, we provided a point in our universe, so infinitely dense, that its weight can effect the entire dimension of the cosmos. However, at the point of completion, when it finally consolidated to this central place, no energy was left, and so it could never explode in a Big Bang singularity.
What might happen is, with an entire Universe consolidated to a central region, the Universe then becomes a basic system of infinite weightlessness. Yet
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. ||