 Click For First Page Of This Chapter
Therefore, what we need to do, is construct a theoretical hypothesis which is vastly more convincing, even in its embryonic stages than a Big Bang sjngularity. We need a piece of theoretical physics that can be modelled, measured, and then justified so we can show conclusively where all the
missing mass is without ambivalence or ambiguity.
And when you read what I've got to say in the following short article, you'll realise just how simplistic this endeavour can be if we first distance ourselves from the contrived postulation academia has conveyed with an almost religious zeal and hatred of anyone or anything which stands in its path or threatens to prohibit its advancement. No convoluted explanation or distorted argument; no half measures.
Just a straightforward piece of postulation, complete with a measurable prediction, cultivated through a common sense approach that tidies up the loose ends and offers a forensic ability to prove what I say.
What fired my imagination a few years ago now, and led me in a totally different direction to current scientific thinking, was a piece of religious theology scripted around the third century AD. In the third century AD,
religious scholars pontificated the virtue of having a nothingness to permit God's entry into the universe, thus allowing God the ability to create everything we see around us today. They suggested God (and don't get me wrong, I'm not a bible thumper) entered the universe from a substance known as nothingness.
And it's important to understand, that they said a substance known as nothingness, and not just nothingness parse.
Even then the emphasis was placed on the fact that there cannot be exclusively nothingness.
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.
This set me thinking, not particularly thinking on how to demonstrate a credible theory of creation, heralding God's imminent arrival, but more, what the hell is a substance known as nothingness? Somewhat distracted from the job in
hand, my thoughts were diverted into another question:
How can you have a nothingness? It was then I chose to look more closely at the literal explanation of the word, nothingness, rather than its looser interpretation or lexicon meaning.
To us, a nothingness is perceived as meaning nothing, non-existent. It's not there! It doesn't exist!
Continued
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 5
Big Bang Essay Page 6
Big Bang Essay Page 7
Big Bang Essay Page 8
|
|
|
