|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Big Bang science of the universe challenged: Page 3 of 24.
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 of 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.
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. ||