>Do you agree with the Big Bang theory?
>The theory of the Big Bang is taken as an accepted fact by science. Yet despite the extravagant theories detailing all the events that happened after it occurred, no one has given any explanation as to what caused it.
The best they can do is keep regressing its after effects until the come to the smallest singularity they can think of, and then stop there.
They neither explain what caused the Big Bang, nor where this incredibly small but incredibly dense first speck of matter from which all others derive, came from.
Secondly, the shape of the universe is postulated to oval-like. But in a vacuum there is no resistance, so any explosion would have travelled outwards in a uniform manner. As such the shape that should be expected to be circular. It would only be oval if the horizontal plane had a magnetic pull or the vertical planes showed resistance in some form.
Do you believe in the Big Bang, and if so how do you reconcile the missing information?
Battison's Blog 
>Another question is why is the speed of light accepted as the fastest speed possible where nothing can go faster?My contention is based on the fact that nothing can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, not even light.Therefore, if a wave of light was travelling at 186,000 m/ps across a black hole, the black hole's gravity would reduce its speed to 0 and then change it's direction so that it was pulled into the black hole.Therefore the pull of the black hole must have been greater than 186,000 m/ps.If that is the case, then if a wave of light was travelling directly towards a black hole, then as it enters its gravitational pull, it should speed up beyond the 186,000 m/ps limit.Why would this not be the case?
>Ok this may not be an adequate answer because it's a huge question and I don't have that much time. But I'll address each one by one.Scientists are well aware of their inability to accurately predict what took place prior to the Big Bang. Theories have arisen, but without a great deal of focus because evidence of what happened before was obviously obliterated or obscured by the Big Bang. Religious people say that there was nothing before the Big Bang other than God and that He made it out of nothing. This is not as stupid as it sounds. It is possible to create +1 and -1 out of zero. Recent discoveries in quantum physics back this up. In fact many leading scientists (I think James Hartle and Stephen Hawking came up with one such idea) argue that there was no time before the Big Bang and that time literally folded out from a spatial dimension as the Big Bang occured. However I disagree with their definition of time. Change requires time. Hence the Big Bang could not have occured without time existing prior to the Big Bang (there is an alternative idea that says change could still occur because the laws of Pysics break down as you reach a singularity. However I would argue that even this equation (0 = -1 +1) requires something. Imagine you have a new word document open in front of you. As you can see there is nothing there on that page. But we would be wrong to think that, for in fact the computer hardware that allows you to type already exists behind the scenes. What if you press the spacebar? Then again we will see nothing. But you and I know that there is something there; it is merely present in the form of coding. Basically my point is that zero and nothing are not the same thing. Zero can exist, but nothing? I'm not so sure. The second point about the shape of the universe is as you say postulation. Some people assume this to be true based on the existence of certain theories. But they are theories nevertheless. We really don't know what shape the universe is or whether is does really have definite boundaries. In fact in 2005 cosmologists discovered a strange alignment in the cosmic microwave background pictures from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe indicating that in fact the Universe could after all have formed as a sphere. The Big Bang occured around 13 and a half billion years ago. There are many reasons why the shape could have altered in that time.
>The Special Theory of Relativity, made by Einstein in 1905 (I have no idea why I remember this stuff) explains why the speed of light cannot be exceeded. It uses the famous equation 'E=MC2' i.e. Energy = Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Using this equation Einstein explained that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases due to the ever increasing amounts of energy needed to speed up. Light has no mass, hence why it can travel at that speed. But as an object of mass increases in speed up to the speed of light its mass increases to an infinite amount. Read 'A Brief History of Time' for clarification. It's really good. The one flaw with this theory was gravity, hence why Einstein later made the General Theory of Relativity.The other outcome of the Special Theory of Relativity was that light always travels at a constant speed from whatever perpective, hence why it doesn't change speed as it enters a black hole. How is it sucked in? This is exactly what question plagued Einstein, and why he wrote the General Theory of Relativity. Light contains Photons, which do not actually have mass, but of course they do have momentum. Gravitational fields do not only pull objects of mass toward them. they also pull space-time toward them, hence why we have the Twins Paradox that says a Twin living at sea level (nearer to the source of gravity and hence changing slowly) will live longer than the other living on a mountain (further away from the source of gravity and changing more quickly). So light is not responding to gravity; it is responding to the curvature of space-time. The stronger the gravitational pull, the more space-time is curved, and the more light curves in turn. So eventually, when the gravitational pull becomes so strong, the path of light is so severely bent that it returns back to the Black Hole. Some people compare a Black Hole to a funnel, suggesting that just as a coin circles round in a charity box funnel, so too do other things, eventually entering a worm hole. If a photon does have mass it must be less than 4 * 10 to the power of 48 grams as tested so far. Though this is an amateur explanation so if anyone can do better feel free. Also, what I want to know is how is it that space and time are bent in when they are without mass?
>See this link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe