 Click For First Page Of This Chapter
These may seem insignificant questions; what science my even term irrelevant questions. But they are questions the layman asks nonetheless, and therefore, those whom ask the questions, deserves an answer. You can't convince anyone in life on any subject matter, unless you first satisfactorily address the basic questions they pose. Anything else will only create scepticism.
One of the reasons this happens, is based entirely around what ordinary people feel. Like anything in life, people need to experience a sense of belonging. It's all about what makes us us. Human beings are social creatures. They need to belong - and perhaps more importantly, they also need to contribute. When they are alienated from the wider debate, or excluded from it, they seek solace elsewhere. And for this reason alone, science and philosophy must see its priority as answering enquiries those from a non trained, scientific background wish answered. Only then can you move on to the more esoteric debate.
And so, let us not forget, it is, after all, the ordinary man and woman in the street who actually pay with their taxes for all the wonderful equipment science plays with.
I once read in a work by Stephen Hawking, that any theory on the universe, needs to fit a mathematical, cosmological - and scientific criteria if it's to be taken seriously.
And although I would agree with that analogy 100%, there is another piece we could add on. We could also say, as well as fitting any mathematical, cosmological and scientific criteria, it will only ever be as good as the volume of people who might understand it.
We might even assume this is what made the bible so profound, with its prophecies and parables. They were simple, could be delivered word of mouth and emphasise immaculately their message, in easily comprehended text, where necessary.
And for that reason, we have to pose those questions we mentioned a moment ago, as they are the questions ordinary individuals demand answers too. They may sound inconvenient to science, but to the wider masses, they make absolute sense. Some might even term them: Obvious questions.
If we briefly inspect the first question we posed, and ask: "Before the big bang singularity took place, even though I am aware science identifies this point as infinite, what did it condense from?" we find an instant preponderant in the equation.
We've already asked, if this point did condense, what did it condense from, and how would it have an ability to condense?
The easy answer is, it couldn't, not if a big bang singularity was its first movement. At that point science would protest strongly. They would inform us immediately there is an elementary flaw in that argument.
The entire academic world might say, if this original point, a big bang singularity is infinite, it would have always been, until such a time as our known universe was created. Science might state, that is the whole point of having a singularity. A point where space time curvature is infinite. They might even consider this an event.
Yet if we assume, being generous in my opinion, that at this place space, time was infinite, we could pose another questions. Again, simplistic in its nature, yet fraught with problems once broached.
If we said, at this place spacetime was infinite, we might ask how can anything be infinite, if it doesn't exist? It's a reasonable question to ask, for surely infinitude would suggest it continues indefinitely.
But how can it continue indefinitely, unless of course it's already in existance - and thus can continue.
Big Bang 1 Big Bang 2 Big Bang 3 Big Bang 4 Big Bang 5
Big Bang 6 Big Bang 7 Big Bang 8 Big Bang 9 Big Bang 10
Big Bang 11 Big Bang 12 Big Bang 13 Big Bang 14 Big Bang 15
Big Bang 16 Big Bang 17 Big Bang 18 Big Bang 19 Big Bang 20
Big Bang 21 Big Bang 22 Big Bang 23 Big Bang 24
Big Bang Essay Page 1 Big Bang Essay Page 1
Big Bang Essay Page 2
Big Bang Essay Page 3
Big Bang Essay Page 4
Big Bang Essay Page 5
Big Bang Essay Page 6
Big Bang Essay Page 7
Big Bang Essay Page 8
|
|
|
