|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Space Time is Infinite.
And this really becomes the crux of the problem.
Initially, we quoted George Bernard Shaw, who said: "We appear to have lost the power of wisdom through knowledge." And the real magnitude of his words now become apparent. At school, we are taught sciences' theories, and very rarely are we allowed to challenge them, this permeates through into adult life, thus allowing their theory to roll-on unabated. Television stations pick-up the ideas for their own personal, economic motives. As do Hollywood movies.
To visualise on screen with an image, an event that looks spectacular, bodes extremely well for a profit based multi-media phenomena. But what it does not bode well for, is an established, un-partisan theory of existence.
A member of the Nazi Germany propaganda machine, Joseph Geobbles, once wrote, "that if you repeat the lie often enough people will eventually perceive it as the truth."
And it's those frightening words that gives us an insight in to why so many people today assume a Big Bang singularity to be honest in its assessment.
For as we mature into adulthood, we're spoon-fed information, and witness not a truthful advance, but an industry intent on making huge volumes of money at the expense of what might inevitably become the truth. Debate has been stifled by over zealous reporting espoused with self interest. Anf for the scientific community, this is a scenario ease to accept, for a couple of different reasons. They can bathe in the kudos that surrounds them, satisfy an inquiring audience and lubricate the tax payers' pockets for more advanced technological hardware to prove themselves right.
There is a certain justification to what might be no more than a human fallacy designed to forbid our own achievements. This might sound as though I am disappointed, and in a way I am. And the reason for this is fundamental. If we continue with a Big Bang theory, then our understanding of cosmological belief becomes stunted. We must decide, and decide quickly whether we wish to continue with one line of investigation, or pursue more openly, without derision possible alternatives.
As we progress further in to this book, you will see why it becomes so crucial to offer differences of opinion, for not to do so will reduce our potential to move forwards. And although science might contest this belief, and remain convinced of an event that supposedly happened some 15 billion years ago, we must pose some tough questions for them, and their contemporary's who support the idea of a big bang.
We have deduced, from sciences' position, the Big Bang initially happened at the outset of our universe: A point known to them simply as a Big Bang singularity, that event which they insist happened initially.
However, the real flaw with their be lief is, it never allows for a constant production of matter: In other words, during its explosive period all universal matter (mass) was born.
We might like to term this, WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get. And this reaction denies any potential to permit a constant manufacture of new material to be formulated. Not that it denies new Galaxies or stars, merely it prohibits any more matter being produced. And this is really why it excludes a steady-state theory: Universal density doesn't change over time. If a steady-state theory was to be applied to a Big Bang singularity it would have to contain a productive element to constantly produce new material.
But at present, modern science estimates the universe only contains, a possible 1% mass, which means 99% is missing. An explanation for this usually centres around the possibility it is hidden as dark matter. But I think that unlikely, as any reasonable suggestion to explain the logic behind the theory remains as illusive as the missing mass itself.
But there are other, more relevant questions which need to be addressed if we are to pursue Big Bang theory with more resolve.
Why did it explode?
No one appears to be absolutely sure, which is another of the reasons why I remain sceptical to their explanation of this most prestigious event. And although they might like to promote a point of creation at this place, there would appear very few that would like an informed discussion on its original mechanics.
To ask any scientist, cosmologist or purveyor of Big Bang theory about its tendency to defy logic, usually means you are either greeted with a wall of silence, a person that stumbles frequently over their definition, or in some cases, open hostility for asking awkward questions in the first place.
We all known any explosion, big or small must start with a detonation process. There must be some basic start point which creates a chain reaction: Even in nuclear weaponry that may implode first, before exploding. Yet when it comes to a universal event we are expected to take at face value an explanation that really has no substance. And that in itself should start alarm bells ringing.
Whenever we are greeted with anything in life, we usually expect, out of courtesy if nothing else, a productive explanation as to why it happened. Regardless of what event it might be, we normally expect a forensic definition, not some ambiguous postulate made-up to satisfy over inquiring minds. And for that original event to have happened, logic dictates a period of formulation must have occurred.
We would expect to see some system that basically describes cause and effect! An ability for a chain reaction to be facilitated under a logical application to show a sequence of events explained without the mysterious nature of ambiguity. And so far, the reason has not be forthcoming or advanced by an academic institution, not even Oxford or Cambridge. Sometimes their reticence is deafening. For science it seems easier to use that quote I mentioned in the outset of this work: "Events before a Big Bang singularity can be of no significance and so should be struck from the model, and say time had a beginning at that point known as a big bang." Which personally I find rather rebellious.
Myself, I would not like to go on the record as saying time before a Big Bang could be of no significance, simply because a Big Bang does not allow for time itself. If we were to identify time as part of the matrix of this nominal event, then it must have a composure principle. And if there is no composure principle, there can be no such substance. And if there is no such substance, then it most certainly cannot form a definitive fourth dimension, and that would allow us to naturally assume if there is no fourth dimension to its mechanics, there is logically no Big Bang either.
Go Forward Go Back metaphysics
Below is a list of chapters for the Metaphysics Anthology. The book itself is designed as abit of fun! One man thinking out loud. You should not see it as science, merely enjoy the imagination of the human mind in full swing.
Print Version - Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||