Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
worldwide creative inspiration  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Join Ovi in Facebook
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
Stop violence against women
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
The real big bang theory The real big bang theory
by Joseph Gatt
2020-12-15 11:10:36
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Physicists tend to agree that the universe was born out of a massive explosion that led to the proliferation of chemicals and stars and rocks around the universe. And those chemicals spread around the universe.

But then, when I ask astrophysicists to explain to me what caused the nuclear-like event, they tell me something like “the explosion came out of nothing” and they usually assume I'm some Evangelical Christian who is trying to argue with them that God created the universe in six days. But that's not what it is.

I am something of a Jew who believes that the creation stories in the book of Genesis in the Bible contain more historical analogy and metaphors than scientific fact.

univ0001_400To the point.

What is my creation story? How was the universe created?

In the beginning, there was nothing. But that was trillions or quadrillions years ago. The most likely thing that emerged out of nothingness was some kind of wave. There was the inception of a micro wave, the waves expanded into several waves, and the waves gave birth to winds.

We can probably not know what chemical components the winds were made out of, but probably something resembling hydrogen or oxygen, that kind of chemical composition.

The winds expanded and mixed, got together. And at some point, when the winds mixed, a chemical reaction led to the creation of dust particles.

The dust spread around, brushed together, and that caused “mini-fires” or small fires. The fires grew larger and larger and became big stars, bigger stars, even bigger stars.

The stars cooled down and became rocks. The rocks fell at different speeds, brushed against each other, gave birth to more stars. Rocks fell off and collided with other rocks, or collided with stars. Some rocks fell off despite being ignited, and there you have comets.

Some stars trapped rocks, the rocks developed atmosphere from the star's gasses, and the rocks evolved to developing different shapes and colors.

Some rocks flew around, and trapped by the speed of other rocks falling around, either revolved around the rocks, or followed the rocks, and there you have satellites.

For a big bang to take place, you would need a massive concentration of hydrogen or radiation. I'm not denying the existence of big bangs; there are areas around the universe where there are such huge concentrations of stars that the excess radiations cause massive explosions which cause rocks to fly around and stars to fly off and so on.

But you can't have explosions out of nothing. So in the beginning it was probably waves, then winds, then dust, then small fires, then bigger fires, then rocks, then the rest.

I'll finish with a question I got the other day: how come meteorites hit the earth? Why aren't meteorites trapped by the Sun's radiation and float around the Sun?

That's because the speed at which the meteorites fly around are solar system surpasses the waves at which the Sun traps its rocks. That is, to put things simply, the meteorite was propelled at such high speed that the Sun can't trap it, so it flies around the solar system.

Why did physicists before me come up with the big bang theory in the first place?

I think it was some complicated calculations that led them to believe that it was a massive concentration of energy that was “trapped” and that eventually blew up and gave birth to the universe.

I've said it in the past. I always disagreed with the big bang theory (which is why I failed all my elementary, middle school and high school physics tests) because the way I see the universe is a place where things evolve very gradually, slowly and naturally, not a place where revolutions take place.

What does religion have to do with all this? As an amateur physicist, every time I mention the universe, the question of religion and God arises.

You have the Atheists trying to prove that there is not God and that's why the study the universe. And the religious ones trying to prove there is a God and they try to find God's perfect laws of the universe.

But I study the universe differently. When I go to China or Italy on vacation, I don't go there trying to reinforce my faith in God, I go there to have a good time, drink some local beers, eat some decent food, and observe what there is, visit the places and look at them for what they are.

I place my trust and faith in God but I don't let that invade my every move or my every thought. So just like when I visit France I look at the Champs Elysées for what they are, a nice place to take a stroll, at times dangerous, not too romantic, lots of expensive stores, and everything's closed on Sunday. I try to leave religion out of those observations.

Same thing for when I study the universe. I try to leave religion out of those observations, and study it for exactly what I think it is or what I observe it is.


  
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(0)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi