Could this be told as a story instead of the big bang?

Question

*Not invented by me.

First was nothing.
A fold in the void separates fullness of nothing, and absence of fullness.
Which are the same in essence but opposed.
Thus the first pair of poles was made.
Fullness of nothing was on top,
Nothingness of something under.
By that occasion the void splits again.
It is at the same time definite
And not definite.
On one side goes definition and on the other, non definition.
This feeds again the opposition between fullness and nothingness, since we now have 4 parts in the void.
And, this indicates an evolution.
A change.
A flow.
The flow itself is an entity feeding the pole of fullness.
A succession of other folds are drawn in the void,
until the potential at the poles is big enough to shape a wave.
Which is not yet matter.
The wave is an entity and again feed the primal pole of fullness.
Many waves cumulate until they build a charge.
And light is made from that charge.
Again two new entities light and charge feed the poles.

Answer 1

This sounds like a bad version of Genesis (the Book, not the band). Can you tell this as a story? sure. Is it a rival theory to the Big Bang? Nope.

Why not? Because the Big Bang makes predictions that can be tested. The Big Bang predicts that the universe will be full of hydrogen and helium; the Big Bang predicts that there will be background radiation filling the universe. A theory makes predictions which can be tested; a theory uses language that everyone agrees on.

The poetry(?) you provide does none of that, so isn't science. No new knowledge could ever come from writing such as this; but a real theory, like the Big Bang, like the Steady State, motivate thought, experimentation, and comparison of observations to predictions. That's how knowledge progresses.

Answer 2

It's a little weird, and there's really not much scientific to it. It's more philosophical. If you're looking to displace the Big Bang as a theory, you'll need a lot of hard evidence and not some thoughtful ponderings.

So if you didn't write this, where DID it come from (if I might ask)?

Answer 3

properly, it starts off tremendously poetic, in spite of the shown fact that it starts getting somewhat too literal close to the middle, no rely what share adjectives-as-nouns that are used. in the author's protection, it rather is tremendously no longer uncomplicated to objective to describe a technical technique in a poetic way. Even describing it colloquially is rather no longer uncomplicated, as evidenced in Hawking's for-regularly occurring-public writings.

Answer 4

Well it's a nice short story - actually, more like a poem. Hypothesis it is not. Physics it is not. Science it is not. Literature, perhaps, but I don't know much about literature.

Science takes hard work, not just pretty thoughts..

Answer 5

The concept of creation is the most logical explanation of the design of this universe and all around it. Certianly, something can't be formed out of nothing except if there was an Intelligent Designer behind all these. Its simply the rule of cause and effect.

Answer 6

Is that what you think physics is? Just a bunch of made-up stories? If so, you're confusing it with religion.

Answer 7

Let there be light!

lol

Answer 8

maybe someone can explain me what you are trying to say

Answer 9

this does not sound like physics and now my head hurts thanks to it.

Answer 10

Definitely NOT............That's a big NO................