“Man’s progress should not be measured by the advances of his science, nor by the limits of his imagination, but it is by the limits of his superstition.”
The question that almost everybody asks at one time or another, from the very young who are looking for answers as they set out in life, to those who are nearing the end of theirs.
Where do we come from?
Science and religion both agree in principle that the universe was ‘created’ by a definite method, is ever expanding, then at some point in the distant past it had to have originated from a single point, ‘The Big Bang’.
That theory was not suggested by a traditional scientific mind per say, but by a Catholic Monk, George’s Lema’tre in 1927, a full two years before the astronomer Edwin Hubble gave his name to the observational basis for the expanding space paradigm, known as ‘Hubble’s law’.
Hubble’s theory was based on his observation of the already existing ‘fact’ that the universe was indeed ‘constantly expanding’.
It is of course, far more complicated than that, but if you actually ask a scientist the simplest of questions, you will undoubtably be met with an endless list of impossibly confusing and long-winded scenarios, specifically designed to deflect closer scrutiny.
So for the purpose of this article, I will attempt to make it as easy to understand as possible.
The “Big Bang” theory appears to sit very comfortably alongside pre-existing religious doctrine, and various institutions have sought to encourage this ‘new idea’ of the creation of the universe, to be taught over all others, including the then prevalent, “steady state” theory.
Evidence began to appear however, that the “Big Bang” might not really be a workable theory which would fit with Einstein’s observations, due to the later discovery that super massive objects produce gravitational fields so strong that even light could not escape.
So the ‘Big Bang’ theory now became far more difficult to explain.
As the entire universe existing in just one spot at any given time in the past, would be the most super massive object of all, it would mean that the universe, according to the ‘Big Bang’ theory anyways, could simply not be created that way.
Although ample evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the flawed ever-expanding universe theory, school science classes and mainstream TV science programs, even today, continually promote the “Big Bang” explanation, just as Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved his theories wrong, simply because one theory fits into an instilled belief system, and one does not.
The idea that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention.
Human beings are generally so blinkered, they simply have to believe that everything must have a beginning and an end, and have still not grasped the concept that all matter has the ability to change it’s form.
Any object can of course, have a beginning, and an end, but the actual matter and energy that the object consists of, simply cannot be created nor destroyed.
It goes against all known laws of Physics.
An Axiom, so therefore an indisputable fact.
The ancients believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Humans do now grudgingly accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that the sun is nowhere near the centre of the Milky Way.
But, and this is what most people do not realise, the outdated idea that the planet Earth is still at the centre of everything, remains at the heart of the Big Bang theory.
Big Banger stalwarts have described the furthest objects they can comfortably detect are 13 billion light years away, and from that figure they just calculate the age of the universe, which they have currently set at 14 Billion Years.
The problem with the Big Bang Theory is the question of it’s singularity, or oneness.
They admit that the “source” of the universe had to be a super-massive black hole.
What they do not acknowledge however, is that nothing can escape a black hole, not even light, so no amount of “bang”, no matter how big, is going to be powerful enough to thrust the universe out into, what has come to be known as, ‘The Universe.’
Cosmologists, to their eternal shame, continue to promote this theory and have even tried to explain it, by stating that the laws of physics, gravity, etc, simply “did not apply in that moment the universe was created.”
They teach that the universe enjoyed a period of “complete anarchy” lasting about 3 seconds, after which the basic elements formed and the essential components of the universe, including gravity, became what we know and see today.
You see my problem?
And what a problem it is, given that the sheer size of the universe, if indeed it was actually formed from a single source, is quite simply, incalculable.
Scientific and mathematical estimates of the total mass of the universe also vary wildly, depending on which source is used, which is understandable when you consider that the ends of the universe have not yet even been determined.
Do a search for yourselves, you will not find many estimates that tally.
So, in my opinion, ‘The Big Bang,’ as is currently explained by Acadaemia, could not have produced the universe as it exists today.
After three seconds, the time the Bangers claim the universe started operating as we know it, would have come under the influence of its own gravity and therefore be unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, so would have simply collapsed back into itself.
They do have an excuse for that too, as they say when the universe was created, “it had no mass at all.”
It simply did not exist.
“There was no gravity so therefore there was no valid reason that the bang matter (or “batter”) could not escape the bang and expand outwards into the universe.”
And then, after this formless, massless and non-existent matter was conveniently far enough away from it’s source, Cosmologists insist it then interacted with something named the ‘Higgs Boson.’
The fabled and ever elusive, ‘God’ particle.
They further surmise that the Higgs Boson then “became mixed with this divine “batter’, producing normal matter from within it’s own mass.”
That’s their theory, and it makes no sense to me either. :)
How all this matter then knew exactly when to merge together, is of course, still hotly debated, but by this point, even staunch supporters of this theory are usually heard muttering into their beards about ‘God’ and ‘Creation’ etc….
It would be remiss of me not to mention the obscenely expensive and highly ambitious project based at The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), known as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Designed in part to search for the wondrously secretive ‘Higgs Boson ‘God Particle,’ the very name of which, reveals the religious agenda that is behind what may be turn out to be the most expensive place of worship in human history.
At this point, it should be pointed out; “The LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, claims to have succeeded in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson. That does not prove such a particle ever existed before that very moment, nor does it prove the Big Bang happened.”
The scientists at the LHC will never be able to categorically prove that the particle they created, is not itself a product of the Collider rather than a creation of the natural atomic world.
Apparently, studying matter using colliders of this type, resembles smashing two mechanical clocks together with great force, and then trying to accurately guess what the clocks looked like, based on the springs, gears, cogs, screws and levers that flew out.
An Exact Science?
This could also be said of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the LHC, but we are still expected to accept, without question, what the collider produced as being the “God Particle.”
Couldn’t it simply be a product of the collision itself, and not of any natural processes?
As it was clearly stated at the time, the experiment was a ‘First’, so there was nothing to compare it against.
It also does not explain why astronomers keep discovering objects older than their own calculations, regarding the age of the Big Bang.
Rather than see this as evidence that makes the theory of the Big Bang, look a bit iffy, cosmologists simply push the date of the Big Bang back further.
Unless I am missing something, it’s a similar excuse used by Jehova’s Witness’ when their endless claims that the world will end on a certain date, pass without incident.
The LHC, by it’s very nature is an entirely artificial method used to prove the existence of something that cannot definitively be proved, and may not have even existed before the scientists tried to ‘re-create’ it.
Therefore, being not entirely naturally created, the ‘evidence’ found by the LHC is totally irrelevant to any discussion as to whether the universe did indeed, have a divine conception.
But it will not stop many people believing the so-called, ‘evidence’ presented by the scientists, which also conveniently backs up the doctrines emanating from deep within the Catholic Church.
The pretty diagrams, maths and calculations the scientists use to back up their theories are undeniably impressive, but are they really just saying, “The laws of Physics do not apply, when science and religion need them not to apply?”
*Adapted from various sources inc: documented data and the World Wide Web*