Good people,
the essence of the Big Bang infers that, as its name suggests, an explosive action took place as a result of interactions that contexted the creation process. But from experience, an explosion, though we might try to contain it, we can only do so by limiting its intensity, and thereby also its area, and not the dynamism inherent in the said process. As an example, if we were to take a pressure vessel and pressurize it till it explodes, we can’t say exactly where pieces of it’re to fall after the explosion, even if a certain portion of the vessel were given some kind of identification marking pre-explosion. The foregoing therefore means disorder in the nature of the final product.
But when observing the Universe, or the Natural processes, one sees order from the micro to the macro level. The spirit of it defeats that which the Big Bang Theorem seeks to expound: that a Bang couldn’t have occurred. Creation Was, Is and Will be orderly overall, as connotative of Nature’s Integrative tendencies, but discrete, as connotative of Its Differentiation tendencies. This is because the Fundamental Principles that underlie all processes inasmuch as they seem to ‘break down’ at the micro level, this can be explained by the fact that they appear to do so as Functions of the Differentiations of the myriad discrete energy forces involved at that micro level, but whose per ambience Integrative nett result as the order starts to assume a macro scale, is to’ve a semblance of ‘constantness’. This situation, ‘contantness’, arises because the said discrete energy forms’ll tend to combine and integrate forces to give us the ‘realm of the observable’ that matter is as we know it, sensuously and tactually speaking. Separative forces’re weaker, and tend to be pronounced as mass assumes larger proportions, than the binding forces. The overall result’s to give the forces that tend to separate ‘negligible’ attributes. The point’s that the Hoyle-Bondi-Gold “Steady State” Theory’s right in principle. The point of contention in their concept arises of the “Out of nothing” proposal. What’s “Nothing”, it could be asked; the more micro we tend to get is the more we tend to find that energy ‘assumes negligible’ properties, or, in other words, tends to be infinitely small. So, by intrapolation, it can be said that inherent in “Nothingness” is/are energies at discrete infinite levels, and happen to’ve [an] discrete inherent dynamic attributes, symbolized by the essence of Planck’s constant’s characteristics per given conditions.
Nyankami.