[Fredrick]

I would like to know what you think of the idea that first materialization came into being and subsequently the Big Bang happened.

Everyone knows that matter in our universe is moving outwardly from one center, but when we are reading about the first moments our universe came into being, we are reading about extrapolated facts, not actual facts. The theory that everything came out of one center is not disputed, but when being told that everything came out of a center the size of a pea, then that is a theory I have to disagree with. Or at least, I have a different version that can be applied to the same set of facts as well.

There is no evidence that our universe started from a pea; it may have been the size of a football, the size of our planet, it may have started hundred thousands of miles and miles around and away from the 'center.' The center of the materialized area may have actually been empty.

Why have it all start at a center the size of a pea? I don't know. It is an easy answer, but it doesn't solve anything extra nor does it deliver less mystery then when it started to appear in a larger area. Yet by having it start at the site of a center the size of a pea, it is impossible to have a spatial segment in front of the Big Bang to which we can apply the theoretical parts of the laws of our universe. However, if materialization started in a larger area with an 'empty/unmaterialized' center then we will have a spatial segment in front of materialization to which we can apply theory.

What if the outward movement was ongoing already in the unmaterialized universe? Why not? In theory we can say whatever we like as long as it fits the facts. And this fits the facts as easily as the pea-pod. You may ask: where did the unmaterialized center come from, but you may as well ask where the pea-pod came from: different question, same answer. By creating space in front of the Big Bang we can at least use that space to theorize, while the pea-pod does not allow us to theorize.

By having the stage of materialization start after the outward movement began, we then also have a Big Bang that started after materialization took place. The matter enabled the Big Bang while this delivered an extra push outward to the already outwardly moving matter.

Let's look at the spatial - theoretical - stage before materialization. The outward movement already existed; this still means that a center spot is the point from which the movement started. Yet instead of having materialization be the driving force of our expanding universe, we may find another reason. What is needed is a catapult to explain the outward movement. Just like a balloon under high pressure, once you put a needle in the skin all compressed molecules want one thing only: out!

But there were no molecules before materialization. What did exist? Was it something or was it nothing? This theory needs the idea that what existed before materialization had to be something, but this something also needed to be a something where nothing did not yet exist. The premortal soup had everything in potential, but the full potential had not come out yet. The phenomenon of nothing had not come out either: everything was unified. The phenomenon of nothing - if it existed - was totally unimportant.

What is also needed is a pinned-up area of tension before materialization happened because a catapult means tension. Yet the moment of release can again be a simple one: letting go!

The phenomenon of nothing was not a part of the premortal soup, but when it was first created at the center of the already mentioned tension, we then have our source for releasing the catapult: the creation of nothing, which in ordinary words means: separation. Separation comes naturally - don't you agree - when under high tension.

The creation of separation would then have occured at the center of our universe. Then, the catapulting premortal soup had to incorporate this phenomenon of separation and this delivers materialization. While the premortal soup moves outwardly the tension becomes fixed because of the now existing separation.

The materialization then gets into conflict with... materialization itself: it is hard to incorporate separation and especially when not everything falls in place the same way... Kaboom: sparks fly.

So, what do you think? Are there any facts known that would obstruct this theory from being taken seriously? I do apologize if the story reminded you of your parents' worst days. I am truly sorry. But hey? What else is new?