| |
| Mass |  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 rather 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.
Anthology forward one page back one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
