|| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | |
|| Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine ||
Stephen Hawking and the Big Bang Page 1 of 7.
It seems inconceivable to any rational person, or anyone else in the field of science and cosmology, that the universe should come into being, on some specific day, for no perceivable reason.
Why did it go bang? What made it go bang? Why that day and not the day before or the day after? What did it explode in too? Where did it all come from? And perhaps more importantly, where was the trigger factor so desperately needed to initiate a sequence of events, that all other events followed on from?
These are just a few questions that really shouldn't be ignored if the postulation is to be taken seriously, although the academic community seems to have found a rather novel, if somewhat laughable way to circumvent the aforementioned. Stephen Hawking suggests in his book A Brief History of Time Events before the Big Bang can be of no significance, therefore we should say time had a start point know as a Big Bang Singularity. Very scientific Stephen.
Personally, and it is only a personal opinion, I think if we are to accept any credible explanation for the creation of our universe, we must first agree, that we need a trigger factor to make the event happen, and set the programme in motion. In life, in existence, all events without exception happen for a reason, regardless of how insignificant the reason might be.
There is no collective or individual event that takes place spontaneously without an elementary reason to drive it.
And so, we need a reason to initiate the said event in the first place, for without it, there can be no event, no Big Bang, no universe.
From the reasons I've just raised out, you can see, quite clearly, a scientific explanation currently offered, doesn't just come down to the evidence science wishes to include within a very dubious hypothesis when promoting Big Bang theory, but becomes more about the tough, unrelenting questions they choose to omit.
If science had been honest with the general public over the past three decades, and explained comprehensively where necessary the failings included in their postulation when closely inspected, I'm certain a Big Bang singularity would never have gotten off the drawing board. It would have been resigned to the waste paper bin immediately.
But the truth seems to get somewhat lost in the confusion. Hype and self promotional advancement of academic peacocks who eternally plump up their feathers on the world stage, and an obsessive media, with televised special effects who have been prepared to convey sciences message regardless of the content or credibility of the postulation. for profit, have failed to foresee the problem they themselves have caused. Quite simply, under the laws of physics, a Big Bang singularity in its present state is not only unlikely, it's theoretically impossible. No missing mass, no big bang! And that's really where the argument should end.
If we measure the available amount of mass in the universe, we come up with a figure of between one and five percent mass.
That means anywhere between ninety five and ninety nine percent of all universal mass is missing.
And if we assume there will not be a secondary Big Bang, or third or fourth Big Bang, we have to consider the finer detail of this fantastical event - and say it somewhat lacks not just mass, but also substance and a credible alternative to such wild observation. No pun intended.
Go To Print Article
Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts
|| GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. ||