We could say that any theory of the universe must also match an ability for a wider, less esoteric audience to understand it.

To simplify matters, we might argue, that any theory is only as good as the amount of people who may comprehend it. For if it fails at that early stage, no doubt it would be resigned to oblivion forever. In writing this book I had to make some clinical decisions. For years I have suppressed the thesis not wishing to publish because of the hostile backlash that will follow. Whereas I think of myself doing the decent thing, others will not. Even when writing this introduction, I can almost sense the hostility building.

I said previously that reputations can be resigned to the dustbin over night when someone breaks the rules; nasty name calling becomes apparent from an academic world, and it's not unheard of for well respected people to suddenly be accused of insanity. Even ordinary members of the public who seek no more than the most basic of human rights 'freedom of speech' might find themselves ridiculed to a point of embarrassment. And this is something I, like other people have to accept in accrediting my name to this work.

In advancing a theory, even when it's written for fun, in an experimental way, as this is, we should all assume an element of bigotry will enter the equation.

I said a moment ago there are certain fundamental questions that provoke us all, and it's these questions we should concern ourselves with.

That very same eminent scientist who said all universal work should meet a specific set of established criteria is also accredited with another famous phrase: And that is, "Time had a start point known as a big bang singularity, and all events before this event should be struck from the equation, and say time started at that point known to science as a big bang singularity." (That is a point in space time where space time curvature becomes infinite).

But we might be forgiven for asking how any Time actually manages to exist, unless of course we first compose time?

We could facilitate his statement by saying, it becomes similar to winding-up a clock! Yet even that assumption might be ahead of what should become our initial concern.

Because although most academics would wish to start the universe at a specific jump-off point, a lot of people, those of a religious persuasion might conclude this as cheating: To them, it becomes no more than a selected start point which deliberately excludes their beliefs, for any member of any religious group believing categorically in God will tell you, 3rd century religious text predicts God entered the universe from a definitive substance known as a Nothingness.

And while science contests this biblical event ever took place, do we really have the right to just exclude those people, and religious groups? Rights can be a contentious issue at the best of times, so perhaps we should concentrate ourselves more on responsibility and rephrase that question: Do we have a responsibility to answer questions with no perceivable explanation to them, even if they directly conflict with a scientific evaluation?