There are a couple of schools of thought on this subject which initially tends to divide most universities, academic institutions and wider philosophical establishments. While some promote a more secular doctrine, bordering atheism, others seek a more conciliatory theologian approach. I firmly sit on the fence. And if ever in conversation with friends I would most likely back away and endorse current scientific thinking, probably because there is a welter of evidence to substantiate that belief: But not as much as you might think.

A lot of existing theory is touted round under the pretext it is fact, when it is actually so riddled in ambiguity the tax payer might simply stop funding scientific research if they knew the real truth. But nonetheless, that has not stopped the more conservative schools of thought from endorsing mainstream theory.

However, there is another, alternative school of thought rapidly gaining ground as we speak, a more liberal evaluation of our understanding. At the moment this is primarily taking place in the States. But personally I know from my own work of several people in the UK and a couple in Europe who do work diligently on more lateral solutions.

I was talking with some friends several years ago, about the differences in beliefs; most produced an established line of thought, when a few certain individuals, myself included broached the subject of how we might have made monumental mistakes. Our group dissipated. Suddenly people began to leave, and promised to have nothing further to do with any subject matter which might contradict well laid down thought. I remember quite clearly suggesting to a colleague, how we might view the universe from a duel prospective. What I said was, we might like to separate time and non-time. The postulate was based around an assumption of having time, but also, simultaneous, having no-time.

He said I was crackers, and in fairness, I originally reached the same conclusion. But then more soberly he suggested I should take timeout and explore the theory further if I thought I could make it work.

He asked me to outline for him what my intentions were, and when I suggested that if we could formulate time, and allow our universe to have finite boundaries, he viewed me dismissively. He insisted that would mean rewriting a big bang singularity. I explained that I knew those difficulties that presented themselves, but I also understood something far more reaching. I understood at that precise moment if I could manage to re-evaluate a big bang singularity, not only would it compose time on a universal scale, but it would also show definitive evidence that God could actually enter our universe from that illusive substance, known simply as, a Nothingness.

The reason for this thought is, a big bang singularity does not permit God to enter our universe from a nothingness, even if the church has attempted, in some cases laughably, to apply a singularity to a nothingness theory. The two, a big bang singularity and a nothingness are inconsistent with each other, and any attempt to espousa the two is ridiculous. You either have one, or the other.

But the moment I did understand how to identify a nothingness, to permit God's universal entry, as mentioned in religious text, another thought struck me. By composing universal time from an alternative big bang theory, we would be allowed to produce a very sought after event in cosmology. And that event is known by a simple term "Quantum Gravify".

To simplify things, this event is a process where general relativity, big gravity controls an entire universe, but inevitably allows it to decay as discrete quanta, small gravity. Yet to actually achieve this colossal situation we have to process our universe in to a time framework.

All the theories we discuss at the moment will be explained in easy detail as we progress, so don't worry too much if initially you find them a touch complex. Presently, its just to allow me to explain more rapidly what you will be reading and the reason why. So don't panic!