Lets assume we are standing on an asteroid, which is approximately one mile in diameter, and this asteroid is made of iron.  Now lets assume we want to launch a one pound object from the surface of that asteroid and we want that object to reach escape velocity for the asteroid.   Lets assign some imaginary amount of force needed to launch the one pound object and accelerate it to escape velocity as Force "F". Next lets assume we have the same one pound ball, but we are now standing on an asteroid made of the same iron, with the same density, but this asteroid is 2 miles in diameter.  Obviously this will require more force to launch the same one pound ball to escape velocity because the gravity is greater.  We calculate that the force required is NF  or  F (Force) times N. In other words the increase in diameter has necessitated that we increase the amount of force required by a factor of N.  This is actually due not so much from the increase in diameter as to the increase in mass of the asteroid since an asteroid 2 miles in diameter but made entirely of hydrogen would not have nearly as much mass and therefore not require nearly as much force to accelerate the one pound object to escape velocity from its surface. Now lets assume we are standing on the surface of the moon, and attempt to launch the same one pound ball.  The force required to accelerate that one pound ball is much more than was required on either of the asteroids since the mass of the moon is much greater than the mass of either of the asteroids. Now lets assume we are located on the surface of the Earth and try to launce the same one pound ball. (For this example we will disregard the friction of the atmosphere on the ball as it travels through the atmosphere.)  We find that the force required to reach escape velocity is greater still.  The reason, again, is because the mass of the earth is greater than the mass of the moon and hence requires a greater force to overcome the increased gravity and to accelerate an object to escape velocity.  If you don't believe this, then just ask any NASA scientist involved the moon landing program of the 1970's. Looking at the previous examples, one would conclude that the force to accelerate an object to escape velocity has a direct correlation to the mass from which that object is launched.  As the mass increases, the force required increases as well.  The reason is because any increase in mass of an object increases the gravitational pull that object exerts upon other objects. Now lets assume that we are on the surface of the smallest black hole in the universe.  A black hole for this example is defined as an object that has sufficient mass so that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull.    But lets assume that we want to launch the same one pound ball from the surface of that black hole and accelerate it to escape velocity.  Physicists will tell us that to do this is an impossibility.  We simply cannot impart enough energy to the ball so that it accelerates to a velocity sufficient to escape from the black hole's gravitational pull. Einstein's E=Mc² dictates that no amount of energy will accelerate that ball to a sufficient speed to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole.  If we could impart that amount of energy to the ball, then we could accelerate it to a speed faster than the speed of light, and according to Einstein's E=Mc²  this is impossible.   Now lets assume that we are standing on a much larger black hole, one which is 10 times more massive than the previous example.  And lets assume that we can cut that black hole in half.  Now we have 2 halves, each of approximately equal mass.  Now lets try to visualize the amount of energy it would require to drive these two halves apart permanently.  In other words, we are going to accelerate one (or both) to the other half's escape velocity.  Again Mr. Einstein's formula steps in and declares that this is another impossibility.  There simply isn't enough energy to drive these 2 halves apart.  The gravitational attraction is simply too great. Now lets assume that we are standing on the surface of a super black hole, much larger than an ordinary black hole.  Again we cut the black hole into two halves and attempt to separate the two halves permanently, both of which are several hundred or several thousand times more massive than the black hole in the preceding example?  Logic would dictate that this, too is impossible. Now lets gather together all of the black holes in the entire universe, all the millions upon millions of black holes that science tells us are out there.  And lets add all of the stars to that mix. And all of the planets, and all of the asteroids, and all of the space dust too.  We are starting to create something that is truly massive.  More massive that almost anyone can imagine.  And once these billions of objects are collected together, their combined gravity is so strong, that they compress themselves into a super dense and super massive ball.  Now lets try to get them to separate, lets make each of the stars and each of the black holes fly off in a different direction and reach escape velocity. Again E=Mc² dictates that this is impossible. Well guess what?  Scientists are continually trying to explain the creation of the universe with just such an impossibility.  They call it the Big Bang Theory.  But it overlooks one very important and fundamental fact.  It is simply impossible to accelerate objects to the escape velocity of objects,  whose mass exceeds a certain amount.  We now have a paradox.   Lets call it Dodd's Paradox.  Something that is obviously impossible is credited with the beginning of the universe.  Something that scientists say is impossible by its very definition.  So if the Big Bang Theory is impossible, how did the universe get its start? Lets go back and study Mr. Einstein's formula again E=Mc².  Where energy (E) = Mass (M) times the speed of light (C), which is viewed as a constant.   We know that mass (M) can be changed into energy (E), and we also know that energy can be changed into matter or mass (M).  The sum total of all matter/energy in the universe is a set amount.  It is constant and cannot be changed if one believes E=Mc². Lets look at an example of how we can change matter into energy.  The first Atomic bomb dropped on Japan caused approximately 6 tenths of a gram of matter to be converted into energy.  As you can see, matter is composed of huge amounts of energy.  Now if time truly was suspended at the time of the Big Bang, and nothing existed before that point, then where did all the matter in the entire universe come from?  And if the Hiroshima explosion represented the energy in just .6 gram of matter, then where did all the energy come from that is tied up in all of the matter making up the entire universe? No scientist who believes in the Big Bang Theory can give us even a faint idea of what the Universe looked like just 2 seconds before the Big Bang, or 10 minutes before, or 10 days before.  Scientists call the earliest moment "The Singularity" meaning the "One Point".  But how can we have something so massive, yet all of it goes flying off into space as scientists' have maintained?  The laws of physics would have to be suspended for this to occur.   Anyone can see that this idea is an impossibility given our current understanding of the relationship between matter (mass) , gravity, the speed of light, and energy. Of course theoretical physicists will attempt to set aside the rules and say that at the instant of the big bang, that time had not started, and that the laws of physics did not exist.  Or somehow the laws of physics were somehow placed into a state where they could be ignored or overcome.  If that is the case, then what triggered the situation in which the laws of physics began to have effect and consequences. Or perhaps they will try to set aside the rules by saying that at the instant of the big bang either gravity did not exist, or it was somehow toggled off as a result of a special set of circumstances.  If that is truly the case, then what triggered gravity to suddenly start working?   The fact of the matter is that the amount of mass gathered together at the instant of the big bang was so enormous, and that given the fact that gravity acts upon objects even at a distance then gravity would have to have been suspended for some enormous amount of time or the whole mass would be so close in proximity, and the massive attraction would be so great as to cause the entire mass to collapse upon itself again.  Obviously this did not occur!   In fact quite the opposite is the case.  Astronomers tell us that the universe is in fact expanding and there is some evidence to suggest that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate!  In other words, we do not exist at a moment in time prior to an impending collapse of the universe.   In order for this to have happened, gravity would have to have been turned off for perhaps thousands of years, then suddenly toggled on.  Or are we to believe that in our frame of reference gravity doesn't even exist? Again, if the big bang theory is to be believed, then what triggered gravity to suddenly start working years or even tens of years or perhaps tens of thousands of years AFTER the big bang occurred?  As previously pointed out, this would be necessary to allow enough distance between the expanding objects to develop, so that their gravity would not be able to cause a collapse.  And as stated before, that obviously did not occur.  What toggles gravity on and off under this set of assumptions?  And more importantly how can that same trigger work across the millions of miles necessary to allow the expansion to happen in the first place?  What caused the abatement of gravity to end, and to end all across the universe? Some will claim that at the instant of the big bang that since matter was not completely composed in the state we find it in today, that it did not have mass.  Lets examine that claim.  If that unique form was something similar to plasma, or a state in which protons exist without orbiting electrons, then it is interesting to point out that most stars are composed primarily of plasma, and obviously matter in a state of plasma still has mass and it still exerts gravitational attraction, otherwise the earth would not orbit the sun. Still others will claim that at the time of the big bang, matter had not been fully composed, that somehow long after the big bang matter came into being.  Again, according to Einstein's E=Mc² this is an impossibility.  Matter can only be created if energy is depleted, in other words matter can only be created FROM energy.  In other words, if matter had not been formed at the instant of the big bang and it wasn't created until much later, then where did the tremendous amounts of energy necessary to create the mass of the universe originate?  And again, what triggered that conversion to start at some point in time following the big bang?  Remember that matter could not have been created 2 seconds after the big bang because the resulting mass and gravity would have simply caused everything to collapse upon itself.  That delay, as pointed out earlier would have needed to be years if not tens of thousands of years or perhaps even longer.  Again, how did this mysterious trigger accomplish such a feat and what triggered it, and more importantly how was it triggered in regions that would necessarily be thousands of light years away?  What could account for such an omnipotent triggering mechanism? So lets assume that at the instant of the Big Bang that time had indeed not started yet.  Does that mean that nothing existed 10 seconds prior to the Big Bang? This brings up another interesting facet to the paradox. If there was nothing prior to the Big Bang, in other words if time had not actually started yet, then how did all of the mass which makes up the entire universe get its start?  If the mass that makes up the universe existed before the big bang, then the very use of the word "before" implies time.  How could matter have existed BEFORE the big bang if time did not exist?  If time did not exist, then BEFORE the big bang did not exist, and therefore the matter that makes up our universe did not exist.  Another interesting angle to the paradox. Obviously all the matter which makes up the universe as we know it came from somewhere.  If it did not come from somewhere, then E=Mc² is simply wrong!  Because E=Mc² implies that the sum total of matter / energy in the universe is constant and cannot be changed.  We can change energy into matter, and we can change matter into energy, but we cannot simply destroy matter without increasing energy and vice versa.   The notion that all matter in the universe simply appeared without a source of energy simply flies in the face of Einstein's theory. If that is the case then E ≠ Mc² and Einstein was wrong. Now lets look at another aspect of the Big Bang Theory which raises more questions. The age of the Universe has been calculated to be approximately 13.73 billion years.  In other words, according to the scientists who believe that the Big Bang started it all, that the Big Bang occurred about 13.73 billion years ago.  According to their theory, all matter just "Exploded" from a single point and began a journey outward from that point.  After 13.73 billion years, how far away would you suppose that matter has traveled?   Well lets look at Mr. Einstein's theory and estimate how fast that matter was traveling.  His theory tells us that it is impossible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light.  In fact, speeds even approaching the speed of light are, for all practical purposes, impossible according to Mr. Einstein ( recent developments cast doubt upon the veracity of his assertion).  But lets just assume that at the moment of the Big Bang, that matter traveled outward from the Singularity at speeds approaching the speed of light.  In 13.73 Billion years, at the speed of light, some matter would have traveled 13.73 billion light years away.   Well scientists recently discovered a galaxy which is measured to be 13.23 billion light years away. Now that means that it took 13.23 billion years for the light from that distant galaxy to reach us.  The light we observe today left that galaxy only about 500 million years AFTER the big bang occurred. (13.73 Billion Light years minus 13.23 Billion Light years)      But that means that if that galaxy started its travels at the instant of the big bang, then that galaxy and our galaxy, traveled apart at a speed which took us to a pair of points which are some 26 times farther than light could have  traveled in the first 500 million years to reach a point where it is observed to be today.   Of course this assumes that we are in the same position as we were 13.23 Billion light years away.  If we make an assumption that we are traveling directly away from the farthest observed galaxy, then it is safe to assume that at the time the light we observe today left that farthest galaxy, we could have been much closer than we are today.  Assume that we were only 1 Billion light years away, it is still easy to see that after only 12.23 billion light years we would be moving apart at something approaching the speed of light.  An observation called the "Red Shift" easily disproves that theory, making such an assumption an impossibility.  According to measuring the Red Shift, these two galaxies are actually moving apart at some fraction of the speed of light.  We can easily compute the speed at which that far away galaxy is moving away from us and it is certainly much less than the speed of light. So lets review, according to the Big bang Theory, some matter exploded from the point of the Big Bang, traveled at 26 times FASTER than the speed of light to a point some 13.23 Billion light years away, then decelerated to a much slower speed as observed today to some speed which is some fractional amount of the speed of light.  And we now observe and measure the light which left that galaxy some 13.23 Billion years ago, I'd say that is quite impossible if Mr. Einstein's speed limit is to be adhered to. An explosion which was impossible to begin with when gravity is taken into consideration caused matter to travel at 26 times the speed of light (WARP FACTOR 26 for all you Star Trek Fans out there) for at least 500 million years then that matter somehow put on the brakes and slowed by a factor in excess of 99%.  Quite the paradox if you ask me. But recent observations point to an interesting fact, and that is that the universe is not only expanding BUT IT IS EXPANDING AT AN INCREASING RATE.  So lets get this straight.  We are expected to believe that matter somehow slowed by a factor of 99% around 13 billion years ago, but now it is accelerating again?  Where is the source of the energy that is causing that acceleration? My idea of the Big Bang is quite different.  My idea of the Singularity that led up to the creation of the Universe is quite different.  My name for "The Singularity" is God.  "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."  In the beginning "The Singularity" created the heaven and the earth.  God created the universe as we know it, and set gravity to working as we know it.  God created time as we know it.  "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Science has no better understanding; no better explanation; nothing that does not raise serious questions concerning the way the universe was created.  Science is at odds with itself over how the universe was created.  Science simply can't explain it. Science can't even explain magnetism nor can it explain gravity.  No scientist to date has brought forth any type of theory that even remotely explains the creation.  The Big Bang is a Paradox, when gravity is taken into consideration.  Dodd's Paradox.  It could not have happened the way scientists explain.  It is impossible.  Simple science tells us that the big bang is impossible given our current understanding of time, matter, energy, and gravity.  It simply could not have happened that way. Not if E=Mc² is true.  Now either E=Mc² is true, or E=Mc² is not true.  There are simply no other possibilities. Take your pick, yes or no.  So how did it happen?  God spoke and Bang, it happened!  How he accomplished it is beyond our comprehension.  But simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it did not happen.  The best minds in science are at a loss to explain it.  Every scientific explanation requires suspension of the rules as we know them.  Every scientific attempt requires some unknown force to suspend time or switch off the forces of gravity or cause Einstein's formula to appear false.  Why is it so difficult for people to assign that unknown force a name and attribute it to God? Gerald Dodd