While Astronomers and Existing Scientific Observations Seem to Support
the Notion of "Big Bang" Origin with Authoritative Confidence, Certain
Aspects of It Continue to Bother MeWhile mainstream science's
interpretations of today's observations seem to be creating a more and
more elaborate and precise "Big Bang" picture of creation with everything
instantly expanding from a tiny point the size of a proton, there still
seem to be some glaring contradictions and growing problems with such a
massive universe having been so infinitesimally small. For instance, how
can so many structures, elements, all the systems, creations and laws of
nature, the nearly infinite amounts of space/time, and over 100 billion
galaxies, etc., come out of just one, single, tiny dot less than the size
of an atom?If the universe really came from an infinitesimal point and
was indeed much smaller at one time than it is now, then, as mentioned
earlier, wouldn't the most distant galaxies at least start to look more
magnified and appear more crowded together? If the universe really were
expanding from a smaller size, the further out in space (and therefore
back in time) one looks, less and less space would be available for the
largest known structures to exist in, meaning that their appearance and
composition would have to change rather drastically. After studying many
deep-space photographs, I have yet to see any such crowding and/or
magnification or change in the composition of the overall structure near
the edges of the visible universe closest to the so-called point of
origin. I guess one has to be a very skilled mathematician and/or
astronomer to find ways to detect something that really should be quite
obvious. Well, never mind, if they sound authoritative enough, we will
simply accept their word for it!Any Slight Changes in Appearance of
Distant Galaxies Compared to Nearer Galaxies May be Caused by the Red-
ShiftSome astronomers say the most red-shifted galaxies tend to look less
orderly in their structure than the ones seen nearer to Earth thus
indicating the universe is indeed going through some form of evolution
from "Big Bang" to very old spiral galaxies. Naturally, everything
material in the universe is constantly being created, evolving and
dissolving anyway. Like everything else such as stars and planets,
galaxies are also naturally evolving over the course of their vast
existence; however, in what way does the fact that galaxies are evolving
prove they also must be coming out from a single point? This fact could
mean only that many galaxies may have formed near the same point in time
as many other galaxies, indicating a possible "wave" of galaxy creation
during a period in the universe when conditions for galactic formation
was much more favorable. Some of these differences in shape and size
could also be created by the red shift itself (caused by the dark energy
expanding the space around galaxies, not necessarily from an explosion),
forcing one to see them in a different color or spectrum of light. In
other words, what was once x-ray or ultraviolet light might now be seen
as visible light.Some stars have been found to appear much older than the
estimated 13.7 billion years of the universe, up to 18 billion years.
Astronomers had to adjust the date of the "Big Bang" ever further back in
time to compensate for these ancient stars. Is it possible that even
older stars might exist, yet may not be visible because they could be
hidden behind vast clouds of dust and gas and/or could be receding away
from us faster than the speed of light? There may be much more that
exists far beyond what can actually be seen.Light from the Early Universe
would have to be Greatly Distorted by the Time It Reaches UsWhile trying
to get information regarding the very edges of the visible universe using
telescopes for any frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum, how is one
to distinguish the cosmic background radiation from other sources? And
what sort of radiation must be coming from the countless galaxies
recently discovered to exist in even the most distant and "emptiest"
known reaches of space? There must be extremely vast and extremely
distant clouds of hot hydrogen and helium plasmas in every direction of
space emitting much of this radiation, especially if there was a so-
called "dark age" of the universe when galaxies had not yet completely
formed. And what about all that radiation that must be emitting from the
vast amounts of dark energy throughout the universe, black holes, Hawking
radiation and other unknown and miscellaneous sources?According to
Einstein's theory of relativity, the factor of time is not an absolute
value throughout the universe, it is a changeable value relative to the
velocity of the observer and gravitational effects on the observer and on
what is being observed. How does one compensate for all the distortions
of time and radiation where accumulating gravitational and other effects
add up to an "Alice in Wonderland" of smoke, lenses and distorted mirrors
as one tries to peer through all the vast distances of space back to the
earliest times of the universe? One must sort through all the "muck" and
confusion of dark matter gravity lenses, nebulae, vast seas of cosmic
particles, colossal galactic clusters, and the bizarre effects of massive
black holes! There is so much out there that could play havoc with
delicate red-shift measurements of light arriving from the most distant
reaches of deep space, how can one be sure of their accuracy?If the
extremely ancient universe was much more compact than it is now, time may
have been quite different (running much slower) due to the massive
concentration of matter and energy that would have been present near the
theorized beginning of the universe. Any observer viewing the event of
the "Big Bang" would have to experience it far differently than from one
viewing it from the distant future when time and light is much less
distorted and influenced by all the overwhelming concentrations of energy
and matter that had to have been present just after the singularity
explosion. So how would one correctly measure the exact age and map the
exact shape of such an event with time and light being distorted the way
it had to have been? The cosmic background radiation would have to be one
of the most distorted sources of information ever used in science to
confirm any such creation theories of the universe.If the Universe
Somehow Originated from a "Big Bang" Singularity, that Singularity would
Have to Contain Infinite Amounts of Energy Packed into a Huge Number of
DimensionsIt may be that the "seed" universe, if there was one, existed
in an infinite number or almost infinite number of dimensions, which
collapsed with the force of the "Big Bang" under its own weight. The
chances of such an extraordinary particle of this sort ever being created
(and by what?) are absolutely astronomical, and then the means by which
it "explodes" are only highly speculative and/or theoretical.Another
problem is the immense inefficiency or loss of energy that must have
happened to create such an explosion intended or needed to provide all
the energy of the universe in the first place. What should be at the
lowest point of entropy ends up having the highest output of entropy,
because the vaster the explosion, the vaster the amount of energy used
up. Something more like an ultra-super colossal, 100% natural, multi-
directional particle beam accelerator would be needed for creating the
effect of such an "explosion" without all the entropy--still a very
unlikely scenario; what in the world or universe would or could act in
that way?Such a bizarre thing as a singularity containing all the energy
of the universe would indeed be extremely, extremely unlikely, if not
impossible, to exist. Nevertheless, could the original "cause" of this
universe be a highly concentrated event or "spark" of quantum energy from
within a higher dimensional reality where space and time had not yet
"unfolded" out of a five-dimensional state or "super particle" of
timeless and spaceless eternity? The only way I could imagine all the
space, energy and matter in the universe packed into one single point
would be to conceive of it as a "Oneness" or "God" particle of many, many
dimensions that instantly and with inconceivable violence and velocity
collapses or "flattens out" into the lower dimensions of time and space
simply because such a theory cannot hold up under its own weight!An
object that is "solid" in four dimensions might weigh infinitely less
than one that is "solid" in five dimensions, which in turn is far less
heavy than one that is "solid" in six. Just a single proton "solid" in
hundreds of dimensions is likely to have almost infinite weight and might
(theoretically) collapse into four dimensional space-time instantly and
with inconceivable force if such a particle ever existed. Matter is made
of energy (E=MC2) in that it had to have been created from highly
concentrated photons of light caught within a web of higher dimensions at
subatomic levels.Even though the universe may always appear to be
expanding from some infinitesimal point, an actual "Big Bang" may never
have happened, because the further one goes back in time, one may only
find one's self peering back into previous cycles or "waves" of creation.
Ever-expanding "bubbles" of time and space may in fact be replaced by
even older and larger "bubbles" of creation that existed before this one.
If creation is indeed endless, which it seems to be, the "Big Bang"
theory could end up being one of the biggest "boo-boos" in human history,
or at least requiring great modification or adaptation to harmonize with
a much vaster and far more multidimensional creation.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Could-the-Big-Bang-Actually-Be-a-Big-Boo-
Boo?&id=3514885