And this really becomes the crux of the problem. Initially, we quoted George Bernard Shaw, the writer, who said: "We appear to have lost the power of wisdom through knowledge." And the real magnitude of his words now become apparent. At school, we are taught sciences' theories, and very rarely are we allowed to challenge them, this permeates through into adult life, thus allowing their theory to roll-on unabated. Television stations pick-up the ideas for their own personal, economic motives. As do Hollywood movies.

To visualise on screen with an image, an event that looks spectacular, bodes extremely well for a profit based multi-media phenomena. But what it does not bode well for, is an established, un-partisan theory of existence.

A member of the Nazi propaganda machine, Joseph Geobbles, once wrote, "that if you repeat the lie often enough people will eventually perceive it as the truth."

And it's those frightening words that gives us an insight in to why so many people today assume a big bang singularity to be honest in its assessment.

For as we mature into adulthood, we're spoon-fed information, and witness not a truthful advance, but an industry intent on making huge volumes of money at the expense of what might inevitably become the truth. Debate has been stifled by over zealous reporting espoused with self interest. Anf for the scientific community, this is a scenario ease to accept, for a couple of different reasons. They can bathe in the kudos that surrounds them, satisfy an inquiring audience and lubricate the tax payers' pockets for more advanced technological hardware to prove themselves right.

There is a certain justification to what might be no more than a human fallacy designed to forbid our own achievements. This might sound as though I am disappointed, and in a way I am. And the reason for this is fundamental. If we continue with a big bang theory, then our understanding of cosmological belief becomes stunted. We must decide, and decide quickly whether we wish to continue with one line of investigation, or pursue more openly, without derision possible alternatives.

As we progress further in to this book, you will see why it becomes so crucial to offer differences of opinion, for not to do so will reduce our potential to move forwards. And although science might contest this belief, and remain convinced of an event that supposedly happened some 15 billion years ago, we must pose some tough questions for them, and their contemporary's who support the idea of a big bang.

We have deduced, from sciences' position, the big bang initially happened at the outset of our universe: A point known to them simply as a big bang singularity, that event which they insist happened initially.

However, the real flaw with their be lief is, it never allows for a constant production of matter: In other words, during its explosive period all universal matter (mass) was born.

We might like to term this, WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get. And this reaction denies any potential to permit a constant manufacture of new material to be formulated. Not that it denies new galaxies or stars, merely it prohibits any more matter being produced. And this is really why it excludes a steady-state theory: Universal density doesn't change over time. If a steady-state theory was to be applied to a big bang singularity it would have to contain a productive element to constantly produce new material.