Wednesday, August 9, 2017

The Big Bang Fable


The Big Bang is a sordid topic. Factually, no one knows, nor can they know, what was present at the universe's origin. No one can know if the universe “originated” at all. Despite no verifiable evidence, nor substantiated causality, nor any benchmark determined from the information and technology available; an analogous frame of reference - the universe was dated (more or less) 13+ billion years old. Some scientist received an award for that bit of speculation. Proving the universe older than seven thousand years - as a majority of Religious/Biblical scholars assert… was the totality of the deliberation. Or so science thought. 
The creation of the universe, if that is a reality, is unknown and I assert unknowable. The changes present in science’s 13 billion year old universe are considerable, but science presumes it static – one big bang - and except for expansion, everything else remained static. Hoofah!  The proper place to begin is the moment of creation. We know the Bible details one. Only the scope is not entirely clear. Comparing what is known and accepted by science when applied to the Big Bang theory is an exercise in futility, but it does expose science’s fealty to secular assumptions.
The “Uncaused First Cause” - and the origin of the matter resident in the Big Bang - are obstacles science blatantly ignores, or, Presumes into existence. Presumption…  That’s just like God creating the earth out of nothingness! Creating something from nothing is apparently A-Okay - if secular science is doing the creating. The God(s) aren’t something science will consider, let alone attribute causality in their efforts.

Going back to the first sentence - presumption and science are antithetical and off limits – UNLESS- Darwin's theory or God(s) are factors. Most of the conjecture on the Big Bang version of the universe’s creation presumes matter existed "In Situ" RE: matter was inexplicably present - and the matter underwent movement caused by forces unknown…  The reader needs be aware we don't even have gravity yet!  The Pre-Universe, or Proto-Universe, and any matter, energy, and/or physical rules therein - are unknown and undefined. Very importantly – they are undetermined!  What is present in the universe now is not reflexively distributive to the Pre or Proto - Universe. (Misapplying commutative and distributive math functions are how exclusive reliance upon mathematics can bleed into other areas and gum up the substance and accuracy of the theories proposed.) Any matter and energy present in the proto universe more than suggests the universe, or something like, was present before the alleged Big Bang. The theory gets confounding, then bizarre as you will read.
The Red-Shift is asserted as proof a Big Bang occurred. The red-shift is a term adopted to describe the light received on earth from very distant stars showing a red color tinge. Science asserts that color is a result of the sources of light (stars/universe) moving. “Expansion” is the term science applied to the speculated continuing movement of matter in the universe. The matter was set in motion by the Big Bang. Science backed into this assumption. Because there is movement of matter in the universe, (i.e. the universe is expanding) the universe was set in motion by some event – so says science. This again is preemptive. If the Red-Shift conclusion(s) are at all accurate, does not axiomatically infer expansion from an explosion, or Big Bang. Analogous findings, by interpreting what can be seen, actually reveal nothing about the matter, energy, and/or origin of the universe - save the assertions science makes. The interpretation offered - proves the theory offered!  A hypothesis and a hypothetical explanation that suits all the conditions of the hypothesis does not equate to fact or legitimate efvidence. The claim, the universe is expanding, is not provable with the tools currently available. The objects used in that red shift study, and their current state, used to develop the equations proving suggesting expansion, cannot be known. More importantly, even if objects in the universe are moving, uniformly, in no way means a Big Bang occurred. No one can know the velocity of the Big Bang, ergo; the speed of objects moving through the vacuum of space cannot be compared, nor verified, so they cannot be tied to the Big Bang.
Theoretically, since space is a vacuum, the object released at the Big Bang will continue to move at the same velocity, unless and until, the object strikes something that alters its trajectory and velocity – per Newton’s first law. This expansion theory cannot be known or proven. However, an unethical person can guess-timate, or analyze what they see and attempt to measure the current velocity of the object. Science may construct equations and back into these object’s velocity – and several other variables. THAT guesstimate is the process most commonly used by science. There are some benefits to this type of speculation. At least the scientific calculations provide work and mental stimulation. That is a better alternative to sitting around, staring at stars, and not being able to actually prove a thing.
The potential causal forces moving objects through the universe are many; gravity, solar explosions/Nova, solar wind, black holes, etc. and combinations of these forces. There probably are forces man has yet to identify. The Nova and Super Nova are what moved science to conclude something like them created the universe. Attributing the universe’s creation to an event similar to a nova is unmitigated conjecture!  It is Not Knowable!  It is one of innumerable, potential explanations…

Planets orbit stars. Stars orbit in galaxies. Gravity is causal for the orbits. Galaxies orbiting around each other is likely. The entire universe in motion is plausible. I agree. That gravitational motion does not mean the universe is expanding because of a Big Bang. Facts and evidence needed to substantiate the Big Bang using an appropriate comparative and time scale is not currently available. What is needed to prove the Big Bang is unavailable. What we are seeing is science agreeing to codify a guess - and then using the guess to make other guesses. Not scientific.

Per science, the Red-shift stars used in this Big Bang theory are billions of years away from earth. The light emitted from some distant star that arrives at earth in the red-shift termed condition, is light energy released from a sun billions or tens of billions of years past. For all we known, the stars may have reversed direction. They may have been swallowed by a black hole. If those stars exploded in a nova, the stars are no longer there. If the star no longer exists, the stars cannot move. If the star changed direction, they theory collapses. We have no way of knowing the status of those stars, save light released billions of years past. Moreover, the light those stars released eons ago is moving at light speed, and we know gravity can bend light. We have no way of knowing the number, or size, of the gravitational sources between us and the source of the light. Nor can we know the gravitational effects each planet, solar systems, or galaxy exerts upon the emitted light – making it appear to change color. More importantly, we cannot know, we will never know the status of those objects. We will not live long enough to know.
Undeterred = these FACTS do not sum as reason enough to modify or silence many scientists - whose short earthly lives predicate they will never have answers to the questions they ponder. It’s Sad. I appreciate they want to know, but they won’t and guessing makes their efforts “invalid”. Why do they do it? There is wealth and fame available for the taking. So few people can, or will, investigate what scientists claim, and other scientists are equally determined (willing to sacrifice their ethical credibility) to make a name for themselves, on a topic, in a discipline, where most recent discovery or theory cannot be proven or disproven. They may conspire to deceive for the purpose of self aggrandizement and reap the benefits of fortune and fame. Some scientists may not care - if century’s later, accurate evidence makes their work laughable. They’ll have spent the money and enjoyed the notoriety while alive. Since they believe no God exists, they won’t have to explain their actions and there is no hell to encounter for their deceptions.
“Incredible!”  Madness comes in many forms.

Since the universe moves on an eternal time scale, no one on earth will be alive in a billion(s) years to learn the actual fate of the stars in question. The state of the universe - as seen through telescopes examining light billions of years old – is… Unreliable. The telescopes are not an accurate measurement device for these purposes and they are suspect – again using science’s own standards.

Let’s examine a hypothetical. Suppose a fossil of a Stromatolite was ejected into space when a large asteroid struck earth a billion years past. Imagine that fossil travels through space and lands on an alien planet. Suppose an alien finds the fossil and concludes all live on earth is Stromatolite. The alien is using the same flawed logic as science uses inferring the Big Bang. Drawing conclusions from billion year old light, is no different than an extraterrestrial alien assuming life on earth is Stromatolite - because the alien studied a billion year old fossil from earth that landed on their planet.

The Big Bang is just another Chapter in Darwin or Nietzsche’s secular liturgy – its science’s version of Genesis. The theory is extremely problematic. The theory uses a premise science specifically created to avoid mentioning a higher power, a God; or that the God may have influenced the universe’s origin, or… to acknowledge the universe always existed as it does. The Big Bang theory is a mind boggling journey into infinite irrationality.

The theory gets more bizarre. Let’s examine what The Big Bang prescribes: All the matter and energy in the universe, before the universe was even a universe, was gathered together by some unknown, undetermined, “force” (remember gravity is not yet created). Amidst this nothingness, the undetermined force created a singularity. The singularity occurs when all the matter and energy in what would become the universe, are randomly gathered together and compressed – gravity is presumed the force. But, I’ll repeat, gravity is not yet a verifiable, legitimate force in the proto-universe. Somehow, the force compresses all the matter and energy in the proto-universe smaller than the size of one atom. The singularity is not the size of one atom – it is smaller!  You read that right – all the matter in the universe compressed to a size smaller than one atom…  Let’s also examine the matter  supposedly compressed, smaller than an atom. These are collections of masses so large it take hundreds of thousands of years to travel across them moving at the speed of light. Science speculates over two billion galaxies exist. The Big Bang asserts all the planetary and solar matter in the estimated two billion galaxies was compressed… to a size smaller than one atom.

 I’m getting redundant, but I want the reader to accurately consider the lunacy of this Big Bang theory. It is preposterous, and idiotic. Staring into the universe and trying to measure and comprehend the infinite scope and variety of events occurring is mind numbing. The universe is too immense for a mind to thoroughly grasp. It’s like wrapping the mind around eternity. Humans can’t do it. The Big Bang is want, hope, and need - unchecked. There is not a way to prove the existence of the objects used, or that a force existed, or that they were compressed – to a size smaller than one atom. The theory is hyper-ventilated wishful thinking and not very scientific despite the dubious measurements advanced to prove – WHAT – exactly?  A snapshot of light, billions of years old, reveals evidence of what?  That snapshot from the past proves nothing about now… exactly… precisely.

On its face, the Big Bang is a ridiculous proposition. All the matter in the universe compressed to sub-atomic size is gratuitous, unsubstantiated, all the physical laws surrounding us defying Nonsense! It is an impossibility, if what we currently know, and can prove, are considered for comparison. Undeterred, cosmologists plodded along and concocted the most outrageous origin for the universe possible – they had to concoct even more idiotic nonsense to validate the Big Bang. It is so beyond rationality, it cannot be properly challenged – and science knows this. The Big Bang is another blind faith tenet of the liturgy of Lucifer - Evolution.
These behaviors in science are noted because science is the primary resource used by secular interests to gather evidence that supposedly disproves God exists. Science replaced God in their minds when Darwin’s theory proposed evolution. Darwin’s theory gave science the information used to dissemble God and claim the authority of the holder and giver of information. They will not give it back and must be forced to relinquish it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment