|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Where did God come from.
What you are about to read, from the nothingness, to the nothingness, is an anthology, a collection of human emotions, thoughts and philosophies, which are scripted simply so we all might be able to understand the theories embraced, rather than just an esoteric few - who normally seek to exclude others from a wider debate, merely because opposing views differ from their own. These will be highly original universal theories designed to challange science in their mighty arena.
And it's for this reason this book came about; because I, like many other people have become frustrated at sciences' attitude. It would appear, in that contentious academic world, no one is permitted to challenge their doctrines.
In today's modern high-tech society, we are spoonfed information, down loaded from machines and are expected to be grateful. We are ridiculed if we contest any existing belief and dismissed if we query any postulate placed forth: But why?
George Bernard Shaw once wrote: "We appear to have lost the power of wisdom, through knowledge". And I'm sure you would agree that's a very profound statement from a very eminent gentleman.
But what did he actually mean, we appear to have lost the power of wisdom, through knowledge?
Perhaps we all might have a different translation of them ambiguous, cryptic words, and no doubt mine might differ from yours. But to me, he was actually saying, we have surrendered, abandoned even the greatest gift any of us possess: Our ability to think.
Many years ago reputations could be made with an outlandish theory, if proven right, but get it wrong, and a person already in possession of one of those glorious preserves of an academic world could find themselves, their reputation and their career easily made redundant.
Great names could literally wither overnight.
And so, like anything in life, we as humans learn; we learn the easiest way to build an academic career is to study: We trawl our way analytically through great works formulated over preceded centuries, receive qualifications and recite those said works at given opportunities, perhaps to impress our peers. But in essence all we really achieve is an ability to make ourselves superfluous to the argument.
And we might even be forgiven for thinking in this day and age when we have read one work on the universe, perhaps a good encyclopedia, there is no point in reading any other. And just maybe we should leave it at that, accept we no longer need to discover, to explore or adopt any new theory to justify the human races' existence in this pantheon we call space. But there is a problem: Mankind was given the ability to think, to problem solve, to advance, and hone his belief - and no amount of existing literature may forbid or prohibit that. Mankind will always endeavour to explore those fathest reaches, more distant that any boundary of our known universe; that of his own mind.
Hidden deep within us all, is a multitude of unanswered questions just waiting to be provoked; and to rouse those thoughts secreted inside us all will indeed be a remarkable adventure.
To suddenly wake one morning and find a deep, profound question playing annoyingly on one's mind is perhaps the most exceptional gift of all. And we must ask, what villainous trick of humanity torments us with such difficulties: Why did nature embed into our own psyche this insatiable, perverse desire to know what lies beyond our natural realms, and for what purpose is there to know?
Surely, even if we could understand every small veiled detail, every trait and characteristic that permeates this extensive ether, it would do us no good whatsoever: What difference could it possibly make to us, to know there is other life forms, other solar systems and planets? Yet still we drive ourselves to the very pits of despair in our fruitless pursuit of comprehension.
Or is it that simple?
We have to understand, perhaps from a more logical, philosophical perspective that everything in life purveys a plan. There is no one single adventure, expedition or act that actually occurs for no apparent reason, regardless of its fortuitous, or un-fortuitous outcome. Even more horrendous, events are perpetrated for some devious, sometimes spurious device. And so we deduce, everything that happens serves a purpose, therefore, perhaps to even suggest we as basic humans have this inbuilt curios element that serves no definitive explanation might be the greatest understatement mankind could ever make.
Maybe somewhere beyond our own natural realms of understanding lies some secreted entity or race that patiently waits our contribution, be it significant or insignificant. Perhaps there's a point in every species' existence when curiosity has driven them so far towards the boundaries of desperation they have no other option but to reach out expectantly and embrace whatever lurks amongst the murky depths of space.
And I suppose until we actually embark on some inexorable voyage it will always remain merely conjecture. But what we can be certain of, with an unequivocal certainty is, mankind will never stop thinking, unless of course mankind simply ceases to exist. As long as one person draws one breath, we should assume it will be accompanied by one thought. And no matter how far back we accelerate ourselves, even if we return to the very kindling of life, we see man propagate his thoughts.
Etched delicately over the walls and ceilings, in the bowels of caves, neanderthal man scrawled drawings in animal blood. His emergence into the great wide yonder was heralded with neoliths, stone circles, pyramids and standing stones; mankind began his epic journey towards salvation and perplexed himself with the most monumental enigma imaginable:
What created this that I view? How was it created, and what is my significance amongst it?
Some might argue, and probably from an entirely honest position, that those are secrets we might never know the answers to: They are God's secrets, and only God alone knows their true value. And maybe they're right, maybe we will never know the truth, reach out and touch it, or embrace it with one final act of compassion. But that doesn't mean we souldn't at least try.
Just maybe we have a moral obligation to God to attempt it, or perhaps just a duty to ourselves. For if not we fail everyone; but especially us.
And at that point we must ask ourselves what we seek: Do we wish to know where them dark secrets of our universe originated, where did God come from, or do we wish to know about other planets, life forms or their alleged journeys to visit us? What is Time? How was the universe created?
I would assume each individual has their own interest, slightly different from the next persons; perhaps entirely unique to them.
Yet there are a certain amount of fundamental questions which provoke us all: They are larger questions whose magnitude sometimes gets lost in their own enormity. They might be basic when asked; people simplify their complexity, yet they leave even the most ardent scholar's mind swimming with confusion when they're presented.
An eminent scientist once said that any model of our universe must meet specific criteria, that being, a paradigm must fit a cosmological, mathematical and scientific criterion or be exempted from further discussion. In other words any theory that does not match those massive esoteric traits needed to be excluded from further debate.
And although I might personally agree that any good thesis must match them established borders, forensically there is a problem with that initial diagnostic evaluation: That being, most people, the masses would not understand those specific rules if presented to them.
We should therefore naturally assume that although a cosmological, mathematical or scientific doctrine needs to be formally established, a more elementary foundation needs to be formulated.
We could say that any theory of the universe must also match an ability for a wider, less esoteric audience to understand it.
To simplify matters, we might argue, that any theory is only as good as the amount of people who may comprehend it. For if it fails at that early stage, no doubt it would be resigned to oblivion forever.
In writing this book I had to make some clinical decisions. For years I have suppressed the thesis not wishing to publish because of the hostile backlash that will follow. And whereas I think of myself doing the decent thing, others will not. Even when writing this introduction, I can almost sense the hostility building.
I said previously that reputations can be resigned to the dustbin over night when someone breaks the rules; nasty name calling becomes apparent from an academic world, and it's not unheard of for well respected people to suddenly be accused of insanity. Even ordinary members of the public who seek no more than the most basic of human rights 'freedom of speech' might find themselves ridiculed to a point of embarrassment. And this is something I, like other people have to accept in accrediting my name to this work.
In advancing a theory, even when it's written for fun, in an experimental way, as this is, we should all assume an element of bigotry will enter the equation.
I said a moment ago there are certain fundamental questions that provoke us all, and it's these questions we should concern ourselves with.
That very same eminent scientist who said all universal work should meet a specific set of established criteria is also accredited with another famous phrase: And that is, "Time had a start point known as a big bang singularity, and all events before this event should be struck from the equation, and say time started at that point known to science as a Big Bang singularity." (That is a point in spacetime where space time curvature becomes infinite).
But we might be forgiven for asking how any Time actually manages to exist, unless of course we first compose time?
We could facilitate his statement by saying, it becomes similar to winding-up a clock! Yet even that assumption might be ahead of what should become our initial concern.
Because although most academics would wish to start the universe at a specific jump-off point, a lot of people, those of a religious persuasion might conclude this as cheating: To them, it becomes no more than a selected start point which deliberately excludes their beliefs, for any member of any religious group believing categorically in God will tell you, 3rd century religious text predicts God entered the universe from a definitive substance known as a Nothingness.
And while science contests this biblical event ever took place, do we really have the right to just exclude those people, and religious groups? Rights can be a contentious issue at the best of times, so perhaps we should concentrate ourselves more on responsibility and rephrase that question: Do we have a responsibility to answer questions with no perceivable explanation to them, even if they directly conflict with a scientific evaluation?
There are a couple of schools of thought on this subject which initially tends to divide most university's, academic institutions and wider philosophical establishments. While some promote a more secular doctrine, bordering atheism, others seek a more conciliatory theologian approach. I firmly sit on the fence. And if ever in conversation with friends I would most likely back away and endorse current scientific thinking, probably because there is a welter of evidence to substantiate that belief: But not as much as you might think.
A lot of existing theory is touted round under the pretext it is fact, when it is actually so riddled in ambiguity the tax payer might simply stop funding scientific research if they knew the real truth. But nonetheless, that has not stopped the more conservative school of thought from endorsing mainstream theory.
However, there is another, alternative school of thought rapidly gaining ground as we speak, a more liberal evaluation of our understanding. At the moment this is primarily taking place in the States. But personally I know from my own work of several people in the UK and a couple in Europe who do work diligently on more lateral solutions.
I was talking with some friends several years ago, about the differences in beliefs; most produced an established line of thought, when a few certain individuals, myself included broached the subject of how we might have made monumental mistakes. Our group dissipated. Suddenly people began to leave, and promised to have nothing further to do with any subject matter which might contradict well laid down thought. I remember quite clearly suggesting to a colleague, how we might view the universe from a duel prospective. What I said was, we might like to separate time and non-time. The postulate was based around an assumption of having time, but also, simultaneous, having no-time.
He said I was crackers, and in fairness, I originally reached the same conclusion. But then more soberly he suggested I should take timeout and explore the theory further if I thought I could make it work.
He asked me to outline for him what my intentions were, and when I suggested that if we could formulate time, and allow our universe to have finite boundaries, he viewed me dismissively. He insisted that would mean rewriting a Big Bang singularity. I explained that I knew those difficulties that presented themselves, but I also understood something far more reaching. I understood at that precise moment if I could manage to re-evaluate a Big Bang singularity, not only would it compose time on a universal scale, but it would also show definitive evidence that God could actually enter our universe from that illusive substance, known simply as, a Nothingness.
The reason for this thought is, a Big Bang singularity does not permit God to enter our universe from a nothingness, even if the church has attempted, in some cases laughably, to apply a singularity to a nothingness theory. The two, a Big Bang singularity and a nothingness are inconsistent with each other, and any attempt to espousa the two is ridiculous. You either have one, or the other.
But the moment I did understand how to identify a nothingness, to permit God's universal entry, as mentioned in religious text, another thought struck me. By composing universal time from an alternative Big Bang theory, we would be allowed to produce a very sought after event in cosmology. And that event is known by a simple term "Quantum Gravify".
To simplify things, this event is a process where general relativity, (big gravity) controls an entire universe, but inevitably allows it to decay as discrete quanta, (small gravity). Yet to actually achieve this colossal situation we have to process our universe in to a time framework.
All the theories we discuss at the moment will be explained in easy detail as we progress, so don'f worry too much if initially you find them a touch complex. Presently, its just to allow me to explain more rapidly what you will be reading and the reason why. So don't panic!
If we can compose time in a formulation of existence, then box it into a mathematical equation we can begin to have some real fun at that point.
I did suggest a moment ago, how we could have time, and non-time together. What I actually achieved was an ability to run the two parallel with each other. You will see why later.
The whole principle becomes so simple when viewed, you should naturally be astounded by its simplicity.
The primary reason though for extracting time or, universal time as we will describe it later, is for one objective reason. To vidicate spaceships arrival here.
Hundreds of millions of people openly claim to have witnessed these epic events, reported them, and have been treated by an academic world with absolute derision.
In some small way, scientific dismissal would seem disingenuous to say the least, but for any cosmologist or scientist versed in the mere basic laws of physics, it seems logical to do so.
A scientist who hears anybody report a ufo, instantly jumps to one direct conclusion: The event is not feasibly possible. Any scientist will tell you, light, represented mathematically as a C travels at a velocity of 186,282,397 miles per second in a vacuum, and nothing can move beyond that speed. In other words, they deduce this as an ultimate velocity of transport regardless of how advanced technology might become; thus, an Alien's journey would take so long the trip wouldn't be worth making.
Even to achieve the simplest task, from our closest star, would take a round journey of 8 light years. And if special relativity is included within the equation, for any occupant on board their vessel, time would simply shrink. For every month measured in space at the velocity of light, fifty years would pass here on planet earth.
Therefore, if I visited our nearest star and was arriving home today, I would have begun my excursion around about the time they were constructing Stonehenge: A pretty awesome thought.
However, when universal time is extracted from the equation, we can actually show light not to be a constant in a vacuum, and allow a vessel to move at any velocity it wants, and simultaneously protect any person on board the said craft.
If we simply extract time, we can manipulate a universe, or replicate it might be a better term, within a framework dimension. And this basically means, we could construct a Spacecraft that applies instinctively to its own individual universal criteria; a touch like building a universe inside a universe.
I initially thought when undertaking this mammoth task, I would believe those who had witnessed ufologist events, rather than the coveyed science we still cling to so desperately. And my results were not only frightening, but astounding.
Specifically, I only ever really wished to prove two points: (i) we could allow God to enter our universe from the nothingness, and (ii), we could show those who claim to see Spacecraft not entirely crazy after all. But like most original ideas, by the time it came forwards to fruition something strange had happened, a domino effect had entered the idea - and it progressed out of all intension.
When you look for specifics in this field, you tend to find they have a nasty habit of relaying themselves into much more monumental analogies: I capitulated to this insatiable desire and just followed what emerged.
When my friend suggested I took timeout, he meant steal a year from my life and see what happened, well, what happened was fifteen years later, a mountain of paperwork, lots of original thought and a few grey hairs, I found myself in the unenviable position of trying to process my thoughts in to a pocket sized anthology everyone can easily understand. Only to help the reader enjoy the work, I decided to continue with the original thought and espouse it in an original piece of literary entertainment. It seemed appropriate to do so.
At the same time, I also faced a couple of even bigger problems to solve.
If I write this book loaded with new conceptual evaluations science will simply refuse to believe their merit, even without evaluating their possible further potential. If, alternatively I write it up from a more academic angle, the average, every day man and woman in the street will not comprehend its wider text. That old aphorism about being damned if you do and damned if you don't torments me, therefore, as I appreciate the general public to be far more forgiving than any hallowed hall, haunted by its academics, I thought I would deliver its content to a larger audience and write it for the public as a whole, even though I realise the difficulty in establishing its content.
And so, I would ask you to wait until you have completed the book before you make an informed decision about its multitude of different explanations and to what surrounds them: Reserve your judgement till later and if uncertain at that point view it with ambivalence.
At this point, you might wonder what my qualifications are for writing this thesis, and I can tell you now, absolutely none!, accept for a passion to learn, to discover and push the boundaries of reason to the periphery. Like those who contested established academic knowledge throughout history, I to believe its the work that matters, not regurgitated ideas from university. The base of any work should be judged on its merits, not the qualifications someone holds.
Therefore the two most important parts of this book, the Nothingness and the rewrite of Special Relativity will contain measurable prediction. Science will be able to either dismiss or prove what I say with large radio telescopes, and personally, I don't believe you can have a better qualification than that!
Initially I'll start with scientific evaluation, not too complex, on universal models, show their failings, and then deploy a strategy with more credibility.
And once that's out of the way, I'll delve more candidly into lateral subjects of interest, ufos, ghosts and time travel.
From there, I'll take you through a few hypnotists interviews with the abductees I investigated, and explain how I came to know so much about this subject.
We'll then deal with at the end, because as this is experimental literature, designed exclusively for the web, I feel, not only should the theories be highly original, but the book should be too.
What is the point in me just replicating something you can buy off the bookshelf? Absolutely no point.
Therefore, I hope to retain your interest by giving you something unique, something you can't buy off the bookshelf, but something you can talk with your friends about.
We all know how people enjoy new information, especially when it concerns them.
The theories here will concern us all, to the point of extinction. But don't be under any illusion, the quality will be as good as the bookstore, and at points, even better.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. First Page.
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.
Go To Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||