Archive for big bang

Big Bang = Science Fiction

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, culture, environment, life, nature, random, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 22, 2009 by chouck017894

The biblical version of “beginning,” creation ex nihilo (Latin, “out of nothing”), has a strange counterpoint with the so-called Big Bang theory that has been clutched to the breasts of cosmologists and cosmogonists as virtually sacrosanct since around the 1920s.  That similarity of concept—a material universe out of nothing—has its link in Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, mathematician and astronomer who proposed a theory that came to be known, sarcastically at first, as the Big Bang.  Lemaitre’s idea of the origin of the universe was that it was from a “primeval atom” or “Cosmic Egg.”  The myths of numerous prehistory cultures had similar ideas of everything being brought forth from an “egg,” but Lemaitre explained the Cosmic Egg as “…exploding at the moment of the creation.”

Basically, the big bang and black holes and all the interlocking theories are closer to metaphysics or science fiction than documented science, but the media eats it up.   Totally ignored is the fact that the theory defies known physics principles and requires a belief in invisible and unproven “dark matter” and “dark energy” to shore up the theory.  Granted, there is much in the universe that mortal eyes cannot perceive, but space is not exactly a material object that can be warped as in Einstein’s geometric theory.  The universe, most likely, did not find it necessary to unfold through such a needlessly complicated indulgence as the bangers like to imagine.

Around the “science” of the bangers there hovers a shocking lack of explanation for the simplest phenomena associated with matter.  They remain totally mystified by such phenomena as mass, gravity, magnetism and light.  They can and do summon up complex mathematical descriptions to make a fit for any observable things, but mathematical exercises do not constitute an explanation of what we see as physical reality or how they were made manifest.  As with radical religionists, the mystery is their selling point, and it is their showmanship at telescopes and blackboards that brings the money into their coffers while those with more tangible answers have been effectively muzzled.

 There has long been a strange avoidance by the cosmology crowd against considering any other studies that could prove pertinent to their own field of interest.  They patently ignore, for example, high-energy experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratories and Sandia Laboratories in which have been observed results that show striking parallels with astronomical phenomena.  To the Big Bang advocates, those observable experiments show the heresy that suggests that the universe was initiated and shaped by electrical transference!  Worse for the bangers, there have been high-energy experiments that have reproduced the features of aurorae, sunspots, comets and similar mysteries that have constantly left cosmologists stymied.  But bangers loath the fact that the theory of a kind of cosmic circuitry better explains creative activity in the universe than does the esoteric theories of a big bang and galaxy-gobbling black holes.

Studying the behavior of electricity in gases may seem a long way from the sciences of astronomy-cosmology-cosmogony, but to watch the writhing life-like filaments in a container of plasma bears an uncanny likeness to the universal energies and their inclination for responsible life that we so yearn to understand.

  • Recommended reading: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe by Eric J. Lerner.

Time and Nothingness

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, logic, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2009 by chouck017894

Many people in what we regard to be prehistory were knowledgeable of the atomic structure of the universe.  Symbols of atomic energy have been found the world over dating from what we regard as prehistory.  Also there are passages from the Vedas, for example, the most ancient sacred writings of Hinduism, that allude to beings with such understanding.  And in cultures such as the Celts, Gauls, Mayans, and others there were what we might term “initiates” who demonstrated their comprehension of atomic structure.

As late as the fifth century before our Common Era (CE), the Greek philosopher Leucippus spoke of the atom and the “corpuscular universe.”  So too did the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher Democritus, whose name is associated with the  first exposition of the atomic theory of matter according to which all matter is composed of single, indivisible atoms.  His theory was that the atoms, the space within which they move, and their motions within that space, are eternal.  This would mean that there is no point at which it can be said to have served as a “beginning.”

Both religion and science pursue the theory that if the fundamental “law” of the universe can be discerned, and the initial condition of the universe could be discovered, then all purpose for Creation would be known to man.  What is steadfastly ignored is the fact that neither time nor space function as a principle of  Creation: they are effects, and the fundamental “law” and initial condition they seek is to be found in the eternal now.  Because the potentiality for everything has always existed within the primal energies we think of as Source, and which religion insists upon personifying as “God,” it is only the  fundamental energy particle active as Source that could ever authoritatively announced “I Am.”

In other words, Creation’s energies could never have evolved ex nihilo, out of nothing. Energy can exist without manifesting as form, but energy cannot be generated out of a state of non-existence.  As Stephen Hawking has proposed, much to the dismay of cosmologists and religionists, there really could never have been a point “t=O” to mark a “beginning.” 

A “Big Bang” does not explain the beginning  of Creation: the only thing that theory can be said to demonstrate is that energy is creative.  Energy has to be active in some capacity if anything like a “big bang”  could be initiated; it simply could not explode unless there was activity present to fuel it.  Religionists, of course, will say that it was “god” who stirred up the whole mess.  But any pre-schooler has common sense enough to ask, “Then who created god?”

We are faced with the reality that is always up to each individual pattern of energy as to where it wants to begin to measure the timely circle experienced as Creation.  To define Creation in terms of a time when everything “began” is an attempt to impose limitation upon that which is without limits.  That has left science in the awkward position of never having been able to explain what it is that we experience as time.  Indeed, science and religion simply accept that time just emerged ex nihilo, out of nothing.  That idea got kicked in the head when Albert Einstein introduced to the world the theory of relativity.  The paradoxes of special relativity was that time can be measured at a different rate by two clocks in different situations.  A clock moving in outer space, as compared to a stationary one on Earth, will measure involvement with Creation  forces differently.  That little discovery changed forever man’s concept that time was something constant, unalterable, and observed identically everywhere in the universe.  The indistinct qualifications of what constitutes “time” therefore casts serious doubts on any timescale that religionists claim from “revealed wisdom,” and even clouds the timescale that cosmologists theorize in an attempt to deduce the exact “time” of the imagined “big bang.”

Maybe we should rethink our concept of time.  Age-old concepts of  “time” did not regard time as a linear measure as we have been conditioned to regard it, but thought of it as a broadly arked, ever-shifting energy flow in which we each reflect our relationship with quantum activity.