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

The Big Bang universe is a classic example .

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

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

Big Bang Universe
The Big Bang Universe.

It might be true to say that in life, desperate men cling to desperate ideas. They latch themselves to a certain idea as though it a piece of driftwood in life's cosmic ocean, and refuse to let go.

On many occasion people have endorsed a belief or philosophy, because there is precious little alternative to endorse. When any individual reaches a conundrum with no obvious solution, there often tends to be an element of acceptance that anything which sounds reasonably sensible will suffice; after all, it is better to attribute your name to a theory everyone else agrees with, rather than shrug your shoulders with a blank expression. And in an ever media hungry, inquisitive world where the population feels as though it desperately needs information, a certain pressure arises for answers to be found; usually profound, unforgiving answers whose very body is riddled in ambiguity and leave the human mind tormented in sufferance.

And a Big Bang singularity would appear no different in that respect.

We said during the introduction of this book, people have monumental questions to pose to scientists. And although most of these requests are basic in their format, once presented they open-up into such enormous explanation it would appear on first assumption to defy human imagination.

One easily asked question, provided it is presented at the right moment can throw an entire academic world into turmoil. Tens of thousands of philosophers, scientists and academics can literally feel impotent before a very basic education. And when this happens there tends to be a tendency amongst academia to fudge the issue.

The Big Bang universe is a classic example of how this frugal purveying of truth works.

There is little fact to suggest a Big Bang singularity ever happened, and even less tangible evidence, apart from a low audible hiss detected by Bell laboratories in the mid 70s.

But personally I don't necessarily think I could agree with Bell laboratories, as machine data tends to be fraudulent at the best of times.

To produce a piece of kit and expect it to inform you, conclusively, of that which you wish to hear isn't that difficult. It is far more likely the background noise currently being detected in our universe is from a far more productive source: Probably the nothingness, which we will tackle in our next chapter.

But for now, I wish to concentrate more on the application of a Big Bang singularity, and attempt to explain its belief more fully.

A singularity in itself means, a point in space time, where spacetime curvature becomes infinite. We might describe this place easier, as an event. An event is a point in space, specified by its time and place: Or what we might term, fourth dimensional space time.

Fourth dimensional space time, is slightly different from three dimensional space, where everything might be accurately measured. In three dimensions, you can measure anything you choose, from the tip of your nose, to a hot friday night date.

However, by applying a fourth dimension to it, we actually provide a definitive point at which an event occurred. Therefore, if this event happened at the very outset of our universe, that specified place becomes a singularity, where spacetime curvature itself is infinite.

It would have been at that decisive moment in the history of the universe, that brought it into being. From that place, the universe would be born in one orchestrated motion on biblical proportion; or at least that is how science currently postulates the event.

No doubt most of you will have witnessed the event for yourself, possibly a thousand times over, as this seems endemic with media images transmitted via television. After all, there is nothing quite like a cataclysmic inferno on dantean proportion to fuel the imagination.

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 father 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.

Once you interfere, as we have, with the chain, or simply show links are missing within it, the whole theory collapses at that point. The eqivalent would be for you to remove DLL files from your computer.

A Big Bang singularity at that point should really be perceived as no more than a universal house of cards cobbled together when someone had nothing better to do. And like that proverbial house of cards, it will collapse at the first sign of interference; and that is not an enviable position to find yourself in.

What we are searching so desperately for here is a productive element which appears to remain obscure by it absence. There is no feasible possibility, let alone probability why this event should happen. But if we could show a stronger correlation between contributory events, we might apply a slightly more lateral dimension and give it more credibility.

However, we can't. If we find it difficult, some might even say impossible to show reason why this enormous and universal explosion took place, then unfortunately it falls at the very first hurdle. It would be nice, for myself include, who does seek to find some sensible explanation to that which we obviously belong too. After all, we are as much part of it, as it is part of us.

But to misinform a wider audience of its potential is unprofessional. No matter how often television or the movies translates its potential via our screens, we are still left with such gaping wounds in the theory any serious evaluation is lost at that point.

We asked what made a Big Bang singularity, that point science describes as an event, take place. And what we have come to accept, rather sadly is, there is no coherent reason for it to explode. Therefore, although disillusioned by the prospect, we might still cling to its concept. Some might argue it only needs a touch of fine-tuning; we can make it work! But in essence there are other questions it poses.

Why did all universal material consolidate to that place?

If we were to be generous in our initial belief, and keep, just for the moment an open mind, and approach this subject from a more conciliatory fashion, we might be able to offer this conceptual analysis a touch more dignity, because it does appear to have very little. And some disbelievers of a Big Bang singularity, less generous than myself of course might even term this a universal whore.

Most academics have slept with it, the majority simply to satisfy their own lust, while others abandon it at the earliest opportunity. Quite frankly most see the Big Bang as a convenient opportunity to be usurped to promote their own careers.

We asked why this entity would have suddenly exploded a moment ago, and decided it probably wouldn't have done. But now, as we are in generosity mode, we will, for the sake of argument say it can explode.

At that point we can offer an interpretation of what this Big Bang singularity actually resembled.

But in saying that, we must still insist, strongly where necessary, that it meet specific examples and explain its production. Even when we offer a generous example of how this works, we still see no plausible explanation for the entire universe to have located to that original start point.

What we would be searching for, would be a reason, that reason which could only hold one positive attribute, a centre of gravity. So, indeed what we need to find, is initially why all the known matter in our universe first located to that precise spot. And perhaps that in itself defeats the object, for had it all transferred to that primary place, then a Big Bang singularity would not have been its first movement, it would have been its second movement.

You might understand from that thought, a process of cause and effect does enter any established theory. But as there is no tangible reason to believe a centre of gravity existed before a big bang, there cannot be a definitive account of its centralization.

And so, although we became perhaps a touch over generous at that point, and provided an excuse to allow an event to emerge, we still find internal problems with the very basic framework which governs it.

We assumed a Big Bang could not take place because there was no acceptable reason for it to do so; and now have to endorse a very sobering thought, that even if we did permit an explosion, on universal terms, no one can give a reasonable explanation why all universal matter might have all located to that precise universal zone before detonation.

For proponents of a Big Bang creation theory, there are ever surmounting problems, most of which seem to be overlooked, dismissed or simply ignored. When these early flaws are mentioned there tends to be a reluctance to accept them, and a lot of excuses to be made.

Perhaps we should also make an excuse or two as we're feeling generous at the moment.

We said we could offer a reasonable amount of generosity and say that point in spacetime could explode, but at the same time found no obvious reason why it should have moved to that point initially to explode. Indeed a puzzle. So let's make an excuse for them.

All universal matter not only had an ability to come into being, but was already located at that central place ready and waiting to explode.

And I know those opposed to a Big Bang singularity will be furious I offer such easy escape routes for those that do support Big Bang theory, but we must show how, even with an excuse or two being made along the way, the belief is a touch meretricious.

Can we show what it exploded in too?

Let us imagine, just for a moment, this galactic event has spontaneously occurred, a surge of energy has suddenly erupted and creation is born: An almighty explosion took place and all the new Galaxies are now expelled and spread out across the inhospitable regions of space. Heading out in every imaginable direction are new galaxies, packed with stars, loaded with planets, dust and debris: What is it expanding in too?

Even when we endeavour to go that proverbial extra mile on their behalf, we still see huge and mountainous obstacles restricting our progress.

For the sake of civility we fixed selective jump-off points, we even provided an ambit for detonation that really had no honest explanation, but still became bogged down in a new set of problems. To suggest all universal matter might advance as a newly formed universe we envisage today would suggest the universe itself already existed, only in vacuum format. But that throws a few preponderants in itself, for if it already did exist as a huge vacuum, just patiently waiting all universal fabric to conveniently fill it, then it must naturally have finite borders: At least that might offer us a reasonable excuse to locate time somewhere in the equation; because if it does have finite distances to run, we could not theoretically measure them over any distance.

And that appears to prohibit our generosity of allowing the consolidation of all universal material we offered a moment ago.

By now you should begin to understand just how awkward and clumsy a Big Bang singularity can be. Even when we make excuses, certain contemporary elements are liable to contradict themselves. Its reminiscent of lying for a good friend, only to be caught out and have to continuously make other lies for them. And as each lie becomes a tounch bigger, it leaves you feeling no more than a touch embarrassed.

Therefore, even if we do provide a preamble at this time, there are indeed other, more delicate matters to consider. Like most things in life, our generosity became indicative of our own good nature. We sought where possible to appease certain criteria, to fudge the issue if necessary, and still found ourselves prohibited from pursuing a convincing logic to explain this event which allowed creation.

We could do some more creative explaining if we so choose, but again I think this evaluation would most certainly become fraudulent at that time.

So far a Big Bang singularity, that point at the outset of the universe where spacetime curvature became infinite has so far failed, for us at least, to satisfy the aspects of creation we need. There appears to be no real sense of conviction to it. In fact it led us to fabricate certain events of the said event, purely to please others.

We asked some searching questions in our quest for possible answers. We asked why this event termed a Big Bang actually exploded in the first place, and found no plausible answer to describe the event. There appeared to be no explanation of pressure, a chain reaction or even the possibility of cause and effect. There was no reasonable action to start a reaction.

Therefore, to say time had a start point at that place, on that specific day, for no apparent reason leaves one wondering why anybody might endorse such a concept in the first place?

We also toyed with the question of what made all the universal material locate to that specific area in the first place? And again we were really searching for that principle of cause and effect, but evidently, once again we found nothing. There was no true definition of how universal mass could consolidate, produce time and a dimensional universe and allow, simultaneous, itself to return whence it came.

Already betrayed by the original desire, we sought to be over generous in my opinion, but then I am a big softy at heart. We provided an ambit for consolidation, then an ubiquitous Big Bang to follow, but perplexed ourselves once again when we asked honestly what it might have expanded in to? As usual the evidence was apparent by its abscence. It never emerged.

However, a more radical assessment is formulated at that time. And that is, most of those that hold to a Big Bang principle are fundamentally wrong in their belief, specifically because of the tests we laid down.

We offered an opportunity, but found failure and excuses along the way. Disappointing I know, but that's the rub of it. We began to understand there could be no centre of gravity to produce a mechanism needed to drive the universe: Help keep it together and turning. We might even be so bold as to say, without this seat of gravity, which would be lost at that point of fusion, our own Solar System could simply end-up in one big pile in the corner of our galaxy. Not a pleasant thought.

But even without that drastic disaster happening, we could still assume an element of drift would occur. Without a central gravitational influence permeating throughout the universe, there quite simply would be no universe.

So why does modern science cling so desperately to Big Bang belief?

To explain that, we need to understand humans probably more than we do the univers. Cosmologists and scientists need to show they have answers to the most basic questions we ask, and the point of creation is the most basic of all. It is the single event which preceded all others. Therefore, for an individual it becomes the question most commonly posed. Where did the universe come from? Where's all the missing universal mass? Where did God come from? What is Time?

But for most ordinary people, there are really only two preparatory inquiries asked before hearing a fuller, further explanation of universaltheories: Where did it all come from, and what is God?

And although science refuses point-blank to have anything to do with an ecumenical G God argument, the former is not an inquiry they can shirk. Believe me, if they could, they would.

But by asking where all our universe originated, which is a fair question, most scientists feel obliged to find a respectable answer. So far a Big Bang is probably the best they've managed. It sounds plausible, gives the media wonderful soundbites, and allows Hollywood movies spectacular special-effects. And in some respect satisfy's certain scientific predictions. The fact it fails abysmally in other areas appears irrelevant. But more important than all that, it prohibits God, the term science refuses, rather ridiculously in my opinion to discuss, from being allowed to enter the universe.

By making creation a scientific event, rather than a biblical, natural occurrence, science seeks to protect the esoteric high ground. And as long as the Big Bang theory remains unchallenged by a theologian doctrine this belief will continue.

There is of course another reason, specifically designed to appease those from a scientific background. And that reason is, as long as they can show a justification of specific events, then an ability to progress might continue. In others words foundations are laid and a construction can commence. But with no foundation they would always remain at that initial point, bogged down with a problem that stopped their progression.

We can see there is a natural necessity to endorse something, anything, to allow them to venture forth to more tangible evidence. Some people might say that is devious; and perhaps in a way it is. But I am sure it is done with the best of intension.

There does seem no logical alternative. If anybody is presented in life with an obstacle, then the seemingly easiest explanation, is the one to grasp. If a smoke screen is thrown-up at that time, they might advance undetected. Unfortunately though, the satisfaction of the few excludes the many.

It would appear that a modern, secular society has forgotten the basic principles of decency. When others hold such a strong religious belief it might seem more courteous to abandon the mercenary element science holds. We might even be forgiven for saying science is selfish to a fault; but no doubt they already know that.

Therefore, in conclusion, we have to view the analogy presented before us and calculate its potential from a logical position, and ask did it meet criteria we believe it needed to meet to produce a productive universe? And the answer to that is an emphatic no. A Big Bang singularity failed abysmally in key areas: There was no reason for it to consolidate. There was no reason for it to explode. We could not show what it might have expanded into, or why it should detonate at that precise time.

There is no tangible evidence to suggest this event took place, except a low background radiation in the universe that some might suggest is the early echo of the big bang.

But we should always remember in life there are alternatives to modern thinking. And so, if we don't believe the Big Bang did happen in the way we are told, what do we have to show ourselves, as the proverbial alternative?

Well, in our next chapter we must show credible theories to explain the logic of events. We must look for that general rule used for basic reasoning that produces cause and effect. In essence we must show the universe came in to being at the point of creation through a chain reaction. A definitive sequences of events that permitted existence in the first place.

In retrospect we must also remember, that an explanation is not the preserve of the few, but the desire of the many. Therefore we must determine a religious aspect to creation. As so many people believe in God, and we won't shy away from the term, it is our moral duty to help those people. That would appear a decent thing to do. The simple principle of the good samaritan.

But we must also reflect on other individual groups who seek definition: Those of the wider UFO community. They also have a right to understand our universe might not be an accident created at a specific period in history for some inexplicable reason.

But pure theory would be useless on its own, therefore as we progress through the next chapter we must also offer a reasonable ability to show what we talk about to be accurate. And that means to build a few predictions in to its framework.

What will we look for in the next chapter, then?

That is simple, we will be looking for a productive nothingness as promised in the bible. We will be searching for the very foundations of creation.

    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

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