20 The Big Bang never happened!
(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment look me up on YouTube.)
Was the Universe created by God or did it explode into existence all alone from a mathematical singularity? The answer is that Science rejects Creation in all of its forms.
Imagine that there is no matter in the Universe, just empty space, vacuum, nothingness. Can you even conceive of an object creating itself from this void? Can length, width, and height spontaneously self-assemble out of nothing without an external influence?
Traditional religions and the contemporary religion known as General Relativity claim that this is indeed possible. Religions such as Christianity and Islam hypothesize that there is a human-like God that creates matter from empty space. Of course, the question of where God Himself came from is conveniently left unexplained.
Einstein's General Relativity religion is no better off, but it does its best to mislead you into believing that it has a scientific answer to this famous question. The contemporary mathematician has been brainwashed in college to visualize galaxies living closer together in the past. The farther we go back in time, the shorter the distance we would allegedly find between them. By rewinding the universal tape in such a way, the mathematicians arrive at a 'mathematical singularity', usually defined as a 'point of infinite density': all the matter compressed into an infinitesimal little ball known as a singularity.
What happened the day before?
The mathematical establishment has the same answer as the folks of Christianity and Islam: "If we knew where God came from, God wouldn't be so great, now would He?" The mathematicians just say the same thing in a 'scholarly' language to impress upon you that their reply has scientific backing:
"The laws of physics break down at the singularity."
No mathematician on planet Earth has any idea what that statement means, but everybody gawks when they hear it and repeats it. It certainly stops the reporter from asking more questions.
However, we're not concerned as much about time (i.e., what happened before the Big Bang) or about how the initial singularity came to be. The reason for this is that the mathematicians have developed a series of self-serving replies to this question that takes them off the hook. Some relativists claim that we cannot run an experiment to know what happened in earlier times and that, therefore, the question is unscientific. It belongs strictly within the field of Philosophy.
Others argue that time itself began with the Big Bang. This reply is no different than those given by Christians who argue that God is the ‘God of Time’ or that God is ‘outside’ of time.
Yet others venture a guess and say that maybe there was a Big Crunch which ended up in a singularity which then begins the process all over again. Thus, the Universe goes back and forth between Big Bang explosions and Big Crunch contractions.
So we don't want to get into such circular discussions with relativists because the conflicting replies take us nowhere. The only reason the mathematicians of Relativity concocted such replies is to prevent rational people from attacking the very source of the problem with Big Bang Theory: How did matter come into existence? Did the abstract concept energy morph into physical objects called atoms? Did love convert into a heart? Who created the concept energy? Will we live with this explanation until relativists find a way to 'test the hypothesis'?
No. What we're really interested in doing is ridiculing the mathematical establishment's proposal. We are interested in having people laugh at the bozos who graduate from Harvard and Cambridge 'physics' programs. We want to ask a patently obvious question that they have no answer for:
“What physical medium contours Big Bang, Spacetime, the Universe, or whatever relativists want to call their 3D balloon?”
If the 3D balloon that relativists claim we live within is comprised of matter AND space, what entity or medium is it that gives shape to the balloon? WHERE was the primordial singularity located? In what ocean was this infinitesimal mathematical ball floating?
If the mathematicians further allege that the singularity was zero-dimensional (0D), then the inquiries won't stop until kingdom come! Without an answer to these fundamental questions, the Big Bang proposal of this peculiar mathematical sect remains a surrealistic exercise outside the bounds of Science. No amount of math will get relativists through the impasse.
Let there be no doubt, whether proposed by traditional religions or by the contemporary religion of Mathematics, Science rejects creatio ex nihilo! In fact, in Science, the issue is actually resolved quite easily. As always, we begin by defining the crucial words of the dissertation, the ones that make or break a proponent's theory.
object: that which has shape (syn: something, thing, entity, medium, body, etc.)
space: that which doesn't have shape (quick and dirty version) (syn: nothing, vacuum)
Now it's a piece of cake. Space cannot spontaneously acquire length, width, and height and morph into an object. An object cannot surreptitiously, of its own volition, lose length, width, and height and convert into space. Likewise, no atom can leave ‘that which has no borders’ (i.e., space). Not even God can escape that which has no shape, surface, or frontiers! If God exists, He is just another prisoner trapped in here with the rest of us!
Conclusions: Matter was never created either by a deity or by itself. And certainly it is an order more difficult to create nothing (space) than it is to create something (atoms). The Universe did not spring into existence one fine, sunny day. Matter exists in present mode. In this sense, the Universe is definitely perpetual.
More by this Author
Proponents confess that they have no idea what a black hole is. The experts have never defined the term. Here we propose a different explanation for phenomena attributed to black holes.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is not about force. The gravity equation depicts a static scenario. Newton's equation has to do with weight and tension, both of which are conceptually static. Nevertheless, unlike...
General Relativity sweeps the troublesome Mach's Principle under the rug and has no explanation for the complex units of the gravitational constant G. On the other hand, the rope hypothesis justifies Mach's Principle...