David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
Did There Have to be a Beginning and Why?h
I'm asking this question because it should be the most important question in all of cosmology.
Any sort of beginning format stretches the laws of nature to breaking point, or even further, yet cosmologists appear to be obsessed with trying to support the notion of 'a beginning' as a necessity. Since time immemorial there have been many suggestions as to how it started, but none of them, including Big Bang, has started their epistle with, "The universe had to have a beginning because............?
The problems seem insurmountable because the universe is matter energy
and space, so to imagine that none of that existed is to beg the questions:-
1) What occupied the capacity that we see as being space? Answer - Nobody seems to know.
2) Where did the matter and energy come from? Answer - Nobody seems to know.
3) If nothing existed what switched matter into existence? Answer - Nobody seems to know.
4) Can the existence of a complete universe compressed into a singularity the size of a proton, be classified as the object of 'Beginning', where beginning should start from nothing? Answer - Somebody ought to know.
5) Does 'beginning', in this light satisfy the laws of conservation? Answer - Nobody seems to know.
However, even the theory of all theories, Big Bang, was forced to give us a continuum. It starts with a singularity, a vastly compressed but complete universe, waiting to be released into its expandable cocoon, like a tiny piece of dough in a bread tin waiting for the yeast to do it's thing and give it expansion. So, it was not a creation from nothing.
Now the question is, where did the singularity come from, and how long had it been waiting to suddenly expand? So instead of the question applying just to the Big Bang, it now refers to the singularity itself.
This approach is reinforced by some scientists, offering a yo-yo effect and they are saying that the universe pulsates from singularity to an extreme expansion, stops, and then contracts down to a singularity again; only to repeat the performance over and over again in perpetuity. I guess that should clear the matter up.
So Big Bang theory in its basic shape doesn't really offer a beginning, but instead a continuum.. Also, original singularity Big Bang proposes a central point from which expansion took place, and that was fine when observation technology, up until a few years ago, considered that the universe was all expanding away from that center outward. Now it is admitted that the universe is not expanding radially as it should under those circumstances, but is expanding in all directions. In other words, no matter where you are in the universe, the further away something is in any direction, the faster it is retreating from you.
That observation should put Big Bang Singularity theory straight into the rubbish bin, so why doesn't it?
The Establishment has answers, but they don't make sense. They would like us to believe that the singularity doesn't have a tiny center anymore and that it is now housed in the total capacity of the universe. A bit like filling a tank with water through a small diameter pipe and saying that the pipe has also expanded with the water containment. But that hypothesis is seriously flawed because, if the singularity was once the size of a proton, it had a location. The operative word is 'had'. i.e.. before the bang and not after.
All agree that the singularity underwent a massive transformation 13.7 billion years ago, meaning that it now no longer exists in its original state, and it is logical to assume that it contained then what it contains now, within the size of a proton, and it wouldn't matter if it were described as the size of a golf ball, this thing was so 'minimally tiny', compared with the massively large system it is now. Science has the figures for when it went bang, at what speed it expanded, temperature changes, and its magical history of galaxy building over the first billion years of its existence etc. etc.. So, I don't think that science can reasonably deny that it must have had location prior to ignition, and that is what is needed. What happened after ignition is not the point.
All this puts the establishment in a position as protector of Hubbell's theories concerning exponential expansion, redshift, the distances from here to almost anywhere out there, and at least as far as technology allows us to see which turns out to be the 13.? billion-light years edge of the universe. Besides all these imponderables, Science does not tell us how a galaxy 13 billion light-years away at the edge of space got there in 700 million years and is supposed to be 'still there'. Surely expansion theory should have taken it another 13 billion light-years into the great beyond. So why isn't the universe 26 to 27 billion years old? Search this site