The Big Eruption

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All humans everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Big Bang



I had an epiphany recently, and thought I would share it with the seven people who semi-regularly read my memos.
Actually, the idea came to me as I was working on my latest epic sci-fi novel, entitled Fusion, but I’ve been thinking about it and have decided it isn’t just a bunch of technical gibberish, but a viable theory concerning the origins of the universe. (And no, it isn’t 42).
A brief review of the Big Bang theory: According to cosmologists around the world, the original singularity was a point of infinite density and was infinitely small. This description is a literal one, rather than metaphoric, necessary in order to explain the existence of all this matter and energy. You, for example. At some point, this became too much for the singularity, and it exploded, releasing whatever was in there, which, as it expanded and cooled, became matter and energy. Or, as Douglas Adams put it; “first there was nothing; then even that exploded.” Here is my epiphany: If the singularity contained infinite density, how could it have stopped? In other words, once it began, in cannot end. It was (is) an eruption, not an explosion. It continues to this day. We have solved several thorny problems in one fell swoop. First, the inexplicable acceleration of the expansion of the universe, currently explained by “dark matter” of which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. More matter is no longer needed to explain the expansion. The continued eruption of the primordial plasma is pushing the universe further and further out at all times.
This explains the shape and rotation of galaxies as well. The continued eruption allows for infinitely more matter and energy than was previously calculated. We do away with the predicted heat death of the universe, which was always a kind of pessimistic prediction anyway.
“Well why can’t we see it if it’s still erupting?” You might ask. Excellent question. The universe is calculated to be around 15 billion years old (since the Big Eruption began.) As we know, light travels in a vacuum at 300,000 KPS. (186,000 MPS) This means the singularity, wherever it is, must be approximately 15 billion light years away. We do not have any instrumentation that is able to see, or sense, at such a distance.
Further, if the singularity still exists (which it does, spewing exotic plasma), then the universe has a center—something scientists have been denying for years. This is assuming the eruption was more or less equal at all points and formed a sphere as it expanded.
Another thought occurred to me as I was hallucinate—I mean pondering these things. There is quite a controversy over the shape of the universe. Some think this, some think that, Einstein thought it was saddle-shaped. I believer the universe can have no shape. Here’s why. As we all know, shape is “the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure”. But how do we perceive an external surface without referents? A positive shape must be perceived as the obverse of a negative shape. Space and time are created by the Big Eruption, which means there is nothing outside of it. No negative space. Consequently, there is no referent by which we would be able to determine a shape for the universe. It just is. Some will say “no, gravity pulls the mass of the universe into a definable shape.” But I will counter, compared to what? Where is the negative space by which the positive space of the universe can be recognized?
I’m sure that all of you are, as am I, greatly relieved to have all of this finally put to rest. I have run this by Mr. Sammons, who (surprisingly) gave it his stamp of approval as, and I quote; “as viable as any other theory”.
All of this is, of course, predicated on the belief that the Big Bang ever happened at all, which, as you know, I categorically reject as a possibility.