| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

The Nothingness universe: Full Essay: Page 3 of 3.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

The Nothingness universe
The Nothingness universe.

with infinite weightlessness, a mechanism must be sought to allow it to return to its former location: Back whence it came.

If we imagine energy and mass have separated, and all Neutrons are housed at this central point, a slow and steady release may begin. We could assume, at this time, both a dense central point and the entire Universe itself are perfectly formed in their weight, as all is weightless. It becomes a paradox, for once our Universe has ceased in its early action, no mass can be measured, as any body of mass is measured by its resistance to acceleration. Yet as it decays, with a slow discharge of super heavy neutrons, they in turn must capitulate to surrounding energy.

And although we describe it as infinite weightlessness, we must keep in mind a conservation of energy. Neither energy or its equivalent in mass can either be created or destroyed. And so, as each super heavy Neutron espouses with its contemporary in energy, an entire system of orchestrated - universal pyrotechnics begins. Or what we might term: supernova 2.

Those would be the foundation of new galaxies, stars and planets, as each now has the ability to constantly distance themselves from that central region, produce undulation from a natural wave mechanics permeating the universe, and quickly find a position in life's cosmic ocean.

Once this symphony commences, gravity and elementary volumes of mass quickly return. And the continuous progression towards fruition, not only shows a steady-state theory, as each is released as discrete quanta, but hones to perfection quantum gravity, and becomes indicative to show the missing mass so desperately needed if we truly wish to determine an advanced theory of cosmology and theology.

For if we begin with a Universe of nothingness, create a fusion - infusion process: To liquify by heat energy and siphon from it mass, we compose time, allow the Universe to grind dramatically to a halt, before unravelling itself.

But as this occurs, we create motion - and as mentioned, this enables gravity and mass to return. What you might glean from this is, the centre of our Universe now creates an ubiquity of balanced forces (equal parity) with that which surrounds it.

And if we therefore assume only 1% mass is located in the universe, then only 1% mass should theoretically remain at the universes central location. But as super heavy Neutron exchange takes place, our Universe turns at a higher ratio, until once again parity is retained and the Universe is balanced back out. This allows Quantum gravity all big gravity at the centre of the Universe to be released as discrete quanta to apply a steady-state theory; our Universe doesn't particularly expand, but matter within it does, in a stable way over time, and always retains an ubiquity.

And if this is the case, and matter releases from a central region, and the velocity of our Universe increases, its volume of mass increases with it. But paradoxically, as this higher ratio effects that central point itself, the mass there must increase in density too. Therefore, if our Universe measured 2% mass, then 2% would be held centrally. If our Universe measured 3% mass then 3% may be measured at that central point. And this assumption should naturally continue until the Universe measures 50% mass, leaving 50% at its central point.

We might say at this juncture, it would indeed be at finite stages. Theoretically, this should mean the Universe will finish at that time, and once again return to a nothingness. Or a basic diamond physics we spoke of. And although, for simple explanation we spoke candidly of diamond sunstance here on Earth , it should be remembered by the reader, on universal terms a much more significant carbon might be needed. This is still speculative, and shouldn't alter the postulation, as the principle is incorporated.

But as science analyses this concept, carbon 60, or C60 might be more appropriate as it contains little or no hydrogen. But only forensic laboratory tests can settle this argument. And scientific equipment is something I don't have access to. But what we can assume, is the endeavour we sought is justified by the theoretical hypothesis.

We wanted to demonstrate the validity of a theory that satisfies religious belief. We sought to make, what science said was impossible, God's entry to our Universe possible. We hoped to show, where explicable, God could have an entry route laid down under prophecy and biblical teaching. And what we have achieved in this short work is probably the most profound piece of religious text; and we will call it religious text as science needs to understand bullying will not be tolerated; is the most profound contribution I've ever seen.

And there is a good reason why I say that. For without our rewrite of a big bang, religion, quite simply was not possible. But even in stating it, I do not wish to appear haughty. That would be wrong, profoundly wrong. The only thing I've done is bring an explanation to something that had no explanation. It was incredibly hard work, and I received no payment. I gave my time, about 15 years, to advance our thinking. And I have never claimed to be unequivocally right. As I said before, and make no apologies for saying so again, that might be arrogant to do so.

Yet, even with this rewrite, we come-up gainst possibly the hardest test of all; that of making a prediction to justigfy what I say here: We must place a prediction in, if there is to be a meteoric appraisal of our postulate. This is necessary for all involved: Theologians, Cosmologists and scientists, and of course the ordinary man and woman in the street.

I've already stated, one prediction should be - an electrical current cannot be placed through a diamond. Not light, but electricityThis will show diamond does not apply to the laws of physics as we understand the way they should. Secondly, we must be able to construct, from constitutional particles (atoms) around us, a diamond. For if we can create diamond from that which surrounds us, then we can reverse the analogy and demonstrate, all that surrounds us can equally be created from diamond. These two predictions alone should vindicate my original belief.

But on cosmological terms, there must also be a justification of what we term, a fusion - infusion principle. Therefore, as we said a slow and stable release of matter creates new galaxies, and this point must naturally be the most dense place in the universe, a large array of pulsars a source in space of radio signals that pulsate in a rapid and regular rhythm, must be located. Further to this, towards the peripheral wall of the universe, large, giant red Galaxies must be found. These should be old, ancient Galaxies that have so greatly red-shifted: Displacement of the spectrum to longer wave-lengths in the light coming from receding galaxies, as their life cycle should nearly be complete. If this phenomena were discovered it might go some way to showing the postulate accurate; especially if accompanied by the belief of diamond construction from natural particles and the principle of not being able to pass an electrical current through a diamond compound.

In essence, we have ventured far deeper into religious belief, even from a scientific perspective, than science has, with its own postulate. We have demonstrated quite candidly how a nothingness can exist, produce a dimensional universe, incorporate quantum gravity, produce a theory of missing mass and allow the entire structure an ambit of destiny. Even if that destiny might still be shaped by God or Gods plural. And not once did we deal in ambiguity or ambivalence. We answered every question placed forth, and explained the reasons how and why events happen. We conveyed a belief based entirely on cause and effect. We constructed a chain reaction to allow one universe, through expansion and contraction, an ability to produce the next.

Through fusion - infusion To liquify by heat energy - and siphon from it mass, we composed time. We never had to answer what our Universe expanded in to, as we allowed our model to simply collapse. And we can justify a point in space and time for this event, as it was determined by outside factors.

All of those obstacles may seem insignificant to anyone of a religious ilk. But let's not forget, without them religion has no merit, no foundation and no tangible substance. It becomes merely conjecture. And that alone makes it extremely difficult to convey to a wider audience.

Therefore, Christians need to ask themselves a question: Do they wish to promote the word of God?

If the answer is yes, then first they must challenge science in its secular kingdom, and God willing, when that fight is fought - and won, they might move on and convince the rest of the world that God really can enter the Universe from a substance known as nothingness, but not with rhetoric, but science! A rather perverse irony, that to promote God, they need science. But they do say, the lord moves in mysterious ways.

We are only ever servants and messengers who deliver the word. It's not for us to determine how that word should be delivered. Here, we managed to excel most expectations and take logical thought to the very boundary of reason. We have gone beyond any Big Bang singularity and shown the justification of a nothingness concept not only better for Christian belief, but also science itself.

In fact, we have offered science an opportunity to advance their own tenets - and understand that philosophy, theology, science and cosmology do not have to be adversaries. They can be common companions, whatever affiliation or denomination the believer comes from, as they all seek the same end product: The truth!

None of us wish a contrived or perverted debate. None of us wish falsehoods or half-truths. Yet with inflexible individuals in the world of science, who perhaps sometimes supersede their own importance, it might be for the masses to decide who's right. But if science continues to distance itself from this doctrine, and continuously promote a theory, a Big Bang singularity, and hide God's prominence, it must naturally answer those questions we posed originally:

Why did our Universe locate to that place? How long might it expand? How can it hold a universal seat of gravity? Where's all the missing mass? How do you create universal time, and where is Gods remit to govern this mighty kingdom?

These questions I think science will never answer, for there simply is no answers for them to find. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Therefore, it's our duty as truth seekers to advance this philosophy to a wider community and enable them to argue its merits. For my part I wish them all good luck whatever their belief. For the one thing that is sure, is, without reasoned debate we will have nothing. Some people might contest what we say and assume ignorance is bliss, while others may concede, knowledge is the only true comfort in a secular, sceptical world.

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

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |