COROLLARY THEOREMS

 
HOME PAGE
AMAZING ARTICLES
 
A1: BIG BANG VS. LITTLE . . .
 
GREEN LEAF R

AMAZING ARTICLES #1: BIG BANG VS. LITTLE POP


COROLLARY THEOREMS
: "sooner or later, any valid theorem is going to be invalidated."

GREN LEAVES L
Each government on our Planet today is desperate to get/grab anything that belongs to the "unexplained", to UFOs, or to any historical technology secrets. Fact is, "desperate" is not the right word; they are capable of ANYTHING to get their hands on those artifacts, secrets, whatever. The idea is, each country/nation strives to achieve "technological supremacy" and the "absolute domination". Now, considering the social-psychology point of view, that behavior is common and natural. Still, the troublesome aspect is the official propaganda: there are no unexplained things, there are no UFOs, and historical technological secrets do not exist; everything is just ordinary and normal--and most people believe in it.

Well, that "natural" social mentality is due to a state of very low, real, average social intelligence that exists today in our Human Society, everywhere. It is possible in about 100 years from this time one country on our dear Planet should achieve that "technological supremacy", therefore it may enslave all other nations. If such a dire perspective would become reality, people are going to discover that technological power is not sufficient; better said, technological power is far from anything. Should you have little patience, you may discover what is way, way more powerful and important than technology is, in these Amazing Articles--of our SF books.

As a note, we do not try to sell anything to anyone. If you want to learn, that is just perfect with us, and we can even help you. However, if you like to just "play" in/with your life, then our advice to you is, "play as hard as you can, bubba, forever!"

*


It is not easy to decide on the most interesting topic for a first article. Anyway, after many painful sacrifices, we settled for the birth of our Universe: the great Big Bang itself! Now, the Big-Bang theory started spreading among the scientists around the beginning of the twentieth century, after the English translation of the Sanskrit Veda poems was published in 1899. [So much for "scientific inspiration"; religious poems!]
 

 


The "Big Bang" theory says, "The Universe has a cyclic evolution. It starts with a single invisible point--named 'a singularity', by most scientists--which contains the entire mass of the Universe, including space and time. Next, the little invisible point explodes in a 'Big Bang', then matter, space, and time appear as we know them.

Of course, matter appears as the basic atomic particles/components at first, and they need to group themselves together to form atoms, molecules, stars, planetary systems, and in the end the Galaxies. The Universe continues to expand for billions of years, then it should stop its motion; next, it begins collapsing. The collapsing of our Universe continues until a new singularity point is formed, and a new cycle is 'bound' to start again."



RED LEAF RThe Big Bang theory was explained the first time after the Indian Veda poems were translated and published in 1899 [the Big Bang theory is graphically described in those religious poems estimated to be about 7000-10000 years old]. However, please note this: that exceptional translation was performed, at that time, according to our mechanical capacity of understanding the Universe. In other words, we understand the science of the Universe only if it is explained "mechanically".

This is our actual level of Civilization: mechanical! In reality, things are far from being mechanical in nature, and we have no doubt that this aspect is perfectly well documented in the original Veda poems. However, the problem is, we cannot understand whatever is not mechanical in nature. We are certain that the first translators have added a little "mechanical touch" to the entire picture, in order to make some sense out of those incredibly advanced ideas.

Note that the Big-Bang theory does not hold water, and many scientists know it very well. Today, when a new star is born, there is no Bang at all. Fact is, the wave sounds do not travel through vacuum--they cannot do it. Therefore, why should it be such a Big Bang the very first time when there was actually no space/vacuum at all?

Now, if it was a Big Bang or not, that is totally not important. However, this absurd naming used reflects perfectly clear our actual capacity of understanding reality. A "Big Bang" suggests a mechanical explosion, and this "mechanical picture" makes perfect sense to most of us--right? 
 


 



NOTE ADDED IN JANUARY 2015

In 2014 we noticed that National Geographic and Discovery have issued series of documentaries that seem to copy most of the topics presented in our Amazing Articles (first written between 2004-2007). Honestly, we freaked out at first thinking that our Amazing Articles had become obsolete. There was no way--we thought--we could compete with all those superb exquisite pictures and movies provided by NASA. They say an image is worth a thousand words/pages--remember?

Naturally, we decided to analyze those documentaries in some details; this is how we came up with a few . . . let's say, interesting conclusions. Now, since recent readers of our Amazing Articles may think that it is us (COROLLARY THEOREMS / COMPLEMENT CONTROL) who are copying the National Geographic & Discovery topics/ideas, we decided to publish our mentioned (personal) conclusions.

RED LEAF1. Fact is there is nothing to worry, for us. Although those documentaries are professionally made, and they are really interesting, they lack little "true substance"--they do not go for the jugular, as our Amazing Articles do it. All of them stop short from telling/describing "the entire picture"--most likely, they do not know the entire picture.

On the other hand, it is clear to us that all those great scientists (backed by very rich governments) who are presenting "advanced theories, bold hypotheses, and even absurd impossibilities" still have a lot to learn--sorry for this. To all of them, we recommend as a relaxed first lecture our SF books. Amazingly, it seems there is far more true science in our SF books, compared to their actual (heftily funded) scientific endeavors! As a corollary, their scientific theories contain way more irrational fantasy than our books do.

This is nobody's fault/blame. Since the scientists started discovering the (scientific) Universe, for about five decades by now, the ACT OF CREATION proved to be so extraordinary, that the scientists started believing that any SF story/legend can be perfectly true/real. Fact is they are right, except there are still some (troublesome) scientific limits to our fantastic reality--which lead to even more incredible scientific avenues.

2. Now, in addition to a stunningly limited scientific perspective (from our point of view only), we have clearly identified traces of PROPAGANDA! Yes, Sir, all those "advanced", "futuristic", "scientific"  documentaries are riddled with propaganda. Just a feeble example, they use exclusively the term "Moon", in order to name "a natural satellite". Why? Moon is the proper name of Ter-Ra's natural satellite only. Same thing for the noun Sun used to name in English our star Ra. There are no more Suns in the Universe: they all are just "stars". However, those subtle improperly used terms are meant to suggest the idea of "Earthly commonality within our close, ordinary, horizon"--not nice.

3. Anyway, note that the organizations and the Governs that have funded those very nice documentaries--we suspect, also fairly expensive--need to recover the costs, somehow, therefore things are pushed even further than Propaganda, into the very realm of "profitable Commercial!" You see dear readers, in order for commercial activities to continue uninterrupted, E-VERY-THING has been painted in "funny, nice, and pink!" THAT surely is some "lucrative science!"

To end this appropriately, no dear readers, an image is never worth a thousand words/pages. In fact, an image without THE proper words is frequently interpreted exactly in reverse! Unexplained or wrongly explained images are the very definition of Propaganda! In the other side, there are words that cannot be explained not even in one billion movies.

Consider the word "love" for example: for thousand of years countless books have been written trying to describe love. Recently, we made tens of thousand of movies about love; however, that word is still a mystery to many of us . . . On the other hand, there are many other words, even more important than "love" is.


Most of the scientists, today, agree with the Big Bang theory. Even more, famous ancient texts, as are Ramayana and Mahabharata, prove that our ancestors, fine Ladies and Gentlemen, were well familiar with the Big Bang theory 7000-10000 years ago! Now, the true beauty about this Big Bang theory is, it is not quite clear regarding particular aspects, and that is very good news, because it leaves plenty of room for further investigations. 

RED LEAF LOne thing is certain: there was one initial moment in time when our Universe appeared (this is the Big Bang moment itself), and we named it, Time Zero. Before Time Zero, some scientists consider there was NOTHING, meaning, no matter, no space, and no time. Other scientists say, the entire mass of the Universe was contracted in a single, invisible point named--poetically only, without any scientific fundament--"a singularity".

To us, the NOTHING hypothesis makes far more sense.

Further form Time Zero, there is a nice sequence of events dealing with the formation of the first quarks, the first atoms and, in the end, with the formation of the Galaxies themselves. That sequence of events is very . . . "scientific", except it doesn't work. A quick search on the Internet for "Universe, history" is going to reveal many thorny aspects regarding the moments before and after the Big Bang in general and, in particular, about the formation of Galaxies, Planetary Systems, etc.

It is very interesting to note that before Time Zero we had a big bunch of NOTHING which decided suddenly to explode in a Big Bang. We do not deny that there was absolutely NOTHING before Time Zero--that is, nothing from our Atomic Universe--but we are not quite certain it was such a Big Bang afterwards. Why not a first, tiny, Little Pop of a single quark, or even of one hydrogen proton? Of course, after that first, timid pop of matter, many others could be heard/seen popping/flourishing up like . . . popcorns!
 

TIME ZERO MINUS ONE


The most important aspect, however, is the initial state: the NOTHING itself. Yes, there was no matter, no space, and no time, but that is only from our point of view, from this side of the now existing Atomic Universe. In the other side, in the Subatomic Universe, time was, and it has always been, in its rightful place, and the Certitude Factors were preparing for that first Little Pop of matter. After Time Zero, our Atomic Universe came into existence with matter, space, and with its own time. Following the Little Pop of atomic matter, the Subatomic Primary Energies led to the formation and expansion of what would later became the "buds" of the incredibly beautiful Galaxies we have today.

In NASA's website you can discover a few pictures of Galaxies. No doubt about it, there is nothing more beautiful in the Universe than the image of some Galaxies and Nebulae; please take a look at the Sombrero Galaxy.
 

TIME ZERO


The Subatomic Universe
is the one responsible for many mysteries connected to the formation of Galaxies, of Planetary Systems, and of some strange astronomical objects as are pulsars, neutron stars, black holes, etc. Now, what is that intriguing Subatomic Universe? The most advanced theories officially accepted today regarding the Subatomic (this is the next level from quark further down) are the "String Theory" and the "M Theory". Sure, both theories are very interesting, developed from complex advanced mathematical models but, again, they are not quite consistent.

As a note only, Einstein didn't agree with the Big Bang Theory: he considered the Universe was a static system. Wow, A STATIC SYSTEM! That is stunningly perplexing since it came from someone who has postulated the Theory of Relativity! Anyway, there are many other theories regarding the birth of the Universe, although none is as popular as the Big Bang one.

The scenario presented graphically in this page (the two pictures above) is based on a few theories from MERCY, and THREE STORIES. Those theories are far more advanced than anything ever mentioned before, in the entire History of our Human Civilization. Hard to believe this, isn't it? Well . . .

***

First published on September 6, 2004
© SC COMPLEMENT CONTROL SRL. All rights reserved.

GREN LEAVES L


» LINK TO "LOGICALLY STRUCTURED ENGLISH GRAMMAR 4"
» LINK TO "LEARN HARDWARE FIRMWARE AND SOFTWARE DESIGN"
» BACK TO TOP

 
 
 
x
Send your comments regarding this page using support@corollarytheorems.com
Page last updated on: December 25, 2016
© SC Complement Control SRL. All rights reserved.
 

OUR CANADIAN FLAG

x
 

Valid HTML 4.01!

Site pages valid according to W3C

Valid CSS!

Stylesheets pages valid according to W3C
 
x