Astronomy which is among the oldest subjects in human thought and at the same time crucial to discover the secret behind the universe failed for building its frame work with assumptions that basically subject to refutable. Astronomy deals with the universe as wholeness, since the originality is from the heavens, and the universe we mean all existence "To the best of our knowledge it includes uncountable stars and galaxies ”. Nonetheless, the phrase "all existence" is an equivocal when viewed the universe from the contrary aspects of the science and the religion as well as the philosophy. For the time being our present context, the astronomy retains the corresponding definition.

The search for ultimate truth driven by human curiosity through whole the times focuses on the surrounding problems discovers knowledge and embraces its ideals. The powerful cognition faculty of this mind finds solution to the arisen needs, not to mention that some are transcendental to be achieved. Among them is our present theme that lacked a sufficient answer through whole epochs of human history. How the universe was created? Is there a catastrophe crunch that will end the universe and puts it into ashes? Why the universe is in a certain order? These fundamental questions capture the image of the mankind all the times, at least once to every human soul and after all scientist devoted in every endeavor to get an appropriate explanation. Such inquiries are much easier to deal with them to day than a century ago. However, an absolute answer has yet to be waited to soothe our curiosity. If we review these answers historically, they are different in the depth of their truth and the nature of their frame.

Whatever the answer would be one thing is so eminent, human intuition guided us instead of reason, the full proof of later argument is the presence of answers in all periods that in sequences of history one question possess dozens of parallel and contradictory answers. Whenever a new phenomenon is put forward we admire it and shrug off all previous ones. If this is true in the candle of history, what is the possibility that origin of the universe is a transcendental subject and the force that acted upon it was a mysterious? After all, let us review some fundamental aspects of the astronomy until we come to the point of reality, those natural laws though they exist, some fundamental events about the universe are independent from them and cannot be explained in the light of science. Cosmology is a subject that has been assigned to study on how the universe came into being. Since then the combination of scientists, mainly physicists, astronomers and geologist proposed different theories; here we may call them conflicting theories.

Conflicting Theories

It's a chain of creations that evolved because of internal and external forces acted upon each other. Starting from our familiar planet, the earth was created from particle orbiting around the sun, that conclusion was inferred from astronomical and geological evidence, as it was described. The reference period is about 4.6 billion (4.6x109) years ago; an amount of matter went into an evolutionary process, caused by natural forces .

The earth is a tiny part of the universe, which on the perspective of cosmology lies between the two arguments of catastrophic and evolutionary theories. The former as­sumes that things happen in more speedy and catastrophic. While the later emphasises on a span of time formation that all things came into being by evolving. Both theories should have explained in a genuinely manner through all existence in the universe. For instance, the catastrophic theory puts forward that "Origin of mountains, life, biological species, in the universe as the results of extra ordinary conditions; evolutionary theory has ex­plained these phenomena as result of earlier conditions ".

Scientists more or less are not happy with the collision that was proposed by catastrophic theory, since its explanation on how the planets were formed has a lower probability. The theory suggests that the sun and another passing star collided. Then the force of gravity made huge hollows that emitted a flaming gas. Some of that gas was at­tached in the orbit of the sun by its gravitation, after condensing; it gave birth to our earth. The collision is assumed in lower probability because the sun is 24 trillion miles far from its nearest star . Mainly scientists accepted the theory called the condensation theory. It simply ex­plains the birth of the universe in the similar way that a single star is formed. Whenever gas cloud contracts by its gravity, some particles are supposed to be formed at edges like our planet.

Cosmologists turned in the last resort to three different theories to explain the origin of the universe. The first theory is Big-Bang universe, Steady-State universe and finally the Oscillating universe. Scientists in general and astronomers in particular engaged their time to scruti­nize exploration that led the profound thought, because of modern technology they claim to have capability of reading and decoding cosmic messages from the deepest spaces. In such assertions took place the first quarter of the 1997, fortunately, they termed that those messages left their sources a billion years before the birth of our planet .

Resting on the Big-Bang theory, the speeding away galaxies were inferred from the presence of expanding universe and it means there was particular point where the cosmic journey had commenced. Doing this so long it was driven that at the beginning an explo­sion had taken place and expansion ensuing. The main theme of this theory is that the universe had a beginning and finally will come into an end simply by dispersing.

By imagination let us observe at the moment of the explosion and after math. The theory accepts the force that propels receding galaxies, as the result of the explosion. After billions of years the momentum of the force is still so huge to carry away such heavy bodies, that force is beyond imagination. Secondly, a question arises from the effect of the explosion on the subject itself, because the consequences would be in two-way reactions, either total destruction that it sends dusts into the air, typically like when asteroids hit on our ground, in this way nothing stays in order. Like a bomb explosion placed under a clay tear down it into pieces. The other reaction is sending huge bodies into space as the Big-Bang theory proposes. In the real world this is the farthest to believe.

Since the momentum of the explosion, which took place billions of years ago is still propelling the receding galaxies and the higher magnitude that force possessed the more probable was total destruction than sending away the objects. Principle lies in third law of Newton that every force has an equal and opposite force. In the same way the force generated by the explosion was facing the opponent one, the force of existence. The material, whose stuff retained the most extreme or simply unimaginative condensed matter, resisted that force. Therefore, applying this argument to the Big-Bang theory puts forward the presence of mysterious hard objects before explosion which the huge force that still possess the higher magnitude failed to tear down. Absolutely, it was not true, on the first hand the miniature was new, and its contents almost were a gas. As we will see in the Oscillating theory whenever the universe is in the process, the new-birth, the condensing state, all heavier elements are converted into hydrogen, therefore, if such explosion had taken place the universe would never retain its present state, simply, the hydrogen atoms should have dispersed.

On the second point, by assuming the presence of hard objects that had been subject of the huge force, what the result would be? In the reality, force like this has never existed in the realm of science. Besides that, the magnitude of any great force will last a very limited period than the theory suggested. The law of diminishing returns could be applied on any released object. For instance, if you throw a ball upward again and again applying with increasing magnitude of different forces, you find a particular point where increased magnitude brings no change in previous covered distance.

A simpler example is throwing a 1.5kg stone horizontally, by decreasing the weight and using the same force, gradually it will be obvious that magnitude of force applied on stone having with particular mass will cover the furthest distance. Surprisingly, any mass that bigger or smaller than the furthest covered-distance one, has a mass that posses an indirect proportional to its covered-distance on the premise of uniform force. That is the reason we couldn't throw away a lamp of sand or sugar where a bigger stone might be placed 20m. And this is not the reason of air resistance or gravitation; both of which work vice versa. Gravitation pulls down more the heavy stone than the lamp, where resistance of air appropriately fits the bigger volume object that displaces more air, the bigger volume the more air resistance. We conclude this experiment the stated law: - A constant force applied on any uniform density material by throwing it particular weight of it will cover the furthest distance, and all other weights have direct proportional to their covered distance. Applying this law to the Big-Bang the mysterious objects would have covered a certain distance that their departure would not take even a few days. Fundamentally, the theory lacks an adequate explanation on how the universe started into being. Therefore, if the observation built in the theory is true it merely stands the behaviour of present universe and its future course of action.

On the third point which is the most interesting aspect of the theory is the increasing velocity of receding galaxies, because, it doesn't comply with natural laws of physics like, the law of conservation of energy. It states that the energy is never destroyed but two phases of energy can be interchangeable, so when the explosion had taken place, the speeding materials have been acted upon them, therefore, part of the energy is consumed by doing that work. When a body is moved into distance energy is used (Work = force x distance -moved in the direction of the force). In the similar way the energy of the explosion would have been used through the billion years of the travel, hence retardation must have been the result.

Nonetheless, the observation made by Slipper and Hubble is contrary to that law. It says the more distant the galaxy, the more its velocity increases. For instance, the Virgo galaxies that lies in a distance of 43 million light years is receding 750 ml/sec, where more for Hydra galaxies in a distance of 1,960 million light years receding 38,000 ml/sec . The eminent question is the source that generating the new force, which gives the new accelera­tion?

On the fourth, since accelerating only could yield an increase of velocity in the presence of force the receding galaxies also violate the second law of motion, by an omitting of that force. Otherwise if there is any such observation, we witness origin of this force is a mysterious, therefore, the increasing velocity of galaxies if any is irrelevant to the explosion, and thus tells nothing in the origin of the universe. By observing the high velocity of receding away galaxies the theory puts forward a gloomy future of the universe that finally will disappear in the infinite space and many scientists worried about this. How­ever, New Scientist in its edition 11 April 1998 tells us what it termed good news of the long life of the universe. It was March 5th 1997 when inter-American observatory in chilly received in an information that has departed from its centre before creation of the Earth. This massage was later translated that "the universe will never end." Mr. Saul Perlmutter of the Law­rence Berkeley laboratory in California and his colleagues agreed with the other two groups. One in Australia led by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stramlo and other team led by chris-kochanek and his colleges at the Harvatrd-Smithsonian centre for astrophysics in Cambridge are all agreed in harmony expansion of the universe.

The fate of the universe as the leading scientist agreed relates to the density of its matter. Scientist accepted Omega, which might be assigned to three different values. Omega abbreviated W is equal ei­ther to one, bigger or less than one. If W = l the universe moderately expands forever, and when W + A = 1 the expansion is continuous with an increasing rate, and finally when W < 1 the expansion will end and the gravity will pull back until the big crunch take place.

The Big-Bang theory got into a new shape when evaluated from the new parameters, which was improvement of astronomical instrumentation though the shadow looms on the horizon; in one way there are no definite values that were assigned to the chosen parame­ters. For instance, the Omega and cosmological constant and more unknown parameters made complications over the calculation that puts the theory as hitting a moving target . The calculation of the matter in the universe is not so easy to figure out and astronomers have yet to come up with an accurate point. The crux of the problem is not how to add up the visible matter in the universe, but much more lies the invisible dark matter, which is ten times heavier than the visible . It creates hindrance. Because of high ve­locity around the galaxies convinced scientists to accept the presence of large quantities of cold dark matter . These later discovers put more ambiguity on the old model of the universe, therefore, the Big-Bang theory not only lacks the proper measurement of its parameters, which may stand present model of the universe, but lies much worse. It doesn't have any explanation that suits what was before the Big Bang.

Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold proposed Steady-State universe. They aimed a world of recycling, old stars die and new once are created, then there is nothing to worry, particularly the emptiness proposed by the Big-Bang theory. The theory, Steady-State universe supported by two English astronomers puts forward a principle that is known the perfect cosmological principle. It states "Minor small-scale irregularities apart the universe by and large presents the same aspect to all observers from every space location at any time". Such postulation has a grand exception over evolution in the universe. The interaction of the two theories, the Big-Bang and the Steady-State universe must suit the same thing, the object they are referring to, the universe itself. And “That is why Bondi and Gold are obliged to postulate that the matter is being continually created in the universe from nothing appears everywhere from nowhere to provide the basic materials from which to rear new galaxies to replace those which disappear ”.

Again to put the argument of cosmological principle on the right track scientists assumed the amount of matter created from nothing to compensate the disappearing galaxies is infinitesimal small that cannot be detected in experiments. This has only the validity of surveillance to undetectable creation, but only and if the creation is such a small negligible quantity. In priory, two things must be accounted before accepting such a great postulation; the first is an absolute underestimation of the material needed for newly-creation. For example, speeding away galaxies are so colossal that if one disappears in each year, the amount of matter needed for recreation is much more than estimated and the action of creating is palpable to the astronomers for observing the newly birth of stars. Secondly, if the amount needed in re-creation is one atom of hydrogen per litter of volume per billions of years as they said; even this rises on how from nothing gives birth to something. Without accepting its theological point of view that the presence of supremacy; the omnipotence of God can match such creation.

When the two previous theories failed to make a point, a third theory was formulated. It is the Oscillating theory and aims to accomplish a unique picture that stands the fate of the universe in the early periods as well as its future. The advantage of this theory is its explanation of what was before explosion, a point that the Big-Bang theory failed to comment. It was in a state of accumulating density and temperature, until it reached the final point of the extreme of hotness and density. At that state, all elements, which had been established during the expansion of the preceding cycle, were transformed into hydrogen . The compressed state is followed an expansion that finally will reverse its direction of motion. And this is the third phase of the universe, a state of contracting, until it reaches a geometrical point where it rests, and starts the regeneration of the birth of the New World .

The first weakness of this theory is omitting the most palpable and latest discovery of star formation. Now stars take positions of old ones that grow into white-dwarf stars, a point assumed to be the last stage of stellar evolution .

All these three theories failed to pronounce exactly how the universe came into being. For instance, the first two theories the Big-Bang and Steady-State universe gave no comments before explosion as we already noted it down. Then the Oscillating theory en­gaged to rest on the point of explanation, but itself touched part of the story on how the universe was at the eve of the explosion. In the domain of cosmology hydrogen is accepted to be pre-ordained and other universe was created from it. Therefore, the primordial gas is the origin of the universe. Although it seems a simple and acceptable theory, the question still rests on the complex­ity of the present universe from such simpler matter. It proposes the presence of evolution from simpler forms into complex structure. Even if scientists accepted this postulation, it should be asked to which way and order it was assembled.

The reason that cosmologists came to believe hydrogen as the original mater is the assumption that all elements were given into existence by its nuclei fusion. Secondly, the heat and light that stars emit may inspired as the result of converting hydrogen into heavier elements. The first complication of this theory is violating one of the principles that were univer­sally accepted, the conservation of matter that states, "The total quantity of matter in the universe is fixed and can not be increased or decreased." It may be said that organic sub­stance evolves, because of absorbing the energy and nourishing their cells that augmented into millions more. What we observe is growing rather than evolving, but the effect of billions of years it self is a matter of lower probability. On the other side of the story inor­ganic substance has no any trace of either evolving or growing and this exactly is con­firmed that law. Let us take an example; at the beginning of the creation assume the pres­ence of a cloud. That cloud composed some amount of hydrogen in terms of a matter, by accepting hydrogen conversion into other heavier elements, only the amount of hydrogen is divided among numerous elements. Therefore, instead of our gigantic universe, it should have been very tiny miniature because of the condensation theory supposition that the cloud contracted. Further, the stars like our sun emit huge energy that nothing exists to compensate; therefore, instead of evolving into gigantic bodies, they must shrink.

The other reason that compels us not to believe the cloud condensation is the ten­ants of matter that relates to contraction. In the essence of matter contraction takes place in two phases, the first is the presence of external pressure, though its effect depends on the nature of the matter that is under influences. For instance there was not such force since emptiness filled the space, and thus cloud to expand was more probable than to contract. The other phase relates temperature. Whenever the temperature of a matter de­creases the result is a contraction and vice versa. Nonetheless, temperature to speak is a matter of climate. To that period no changing climate, since no sun and we could imagine state of coolness that any gaseous or liquid matter had condensed. But it worked in oppo­site way, after condensation the temperature shot up to ten million degrees .

We inferred from this explanation that the contraction was caused by inward gravity followed by internal heating. If this was the case the more temperature rises up the more the cloud split. Because hydrogen molecules should have speeded in different di­rections, in the same way the molecules of hot air trapped in a container hit the walls. It means, the two forces generated by falling and raising temperature were fighting inside the miniature. Then the results of expansion and contraction were balancing to each other, thus hard objects never had existed.

ORIGINALITY FROM GOD

To ask the question of the origin of the universe in the present framework of science is pushing it into crossing its boundaries and searching the nature of the creation. So it seems as though scientists have accepted the presence of creator who changing the fate of the universe collectively at any moment. Absolutely, many prominent scientists have admired the intricate work that beyond any reason came into being, something that has left a profound thought in human mind, we always refer to nature and it is the work of God, who deserves a lot of thanks from us.

Many times in the past and to wait in future mankind explored the ways to communicate our surroundings not only as far as beyond galaxies, but as near as ourselves, though we understand little. In the Koran, God promised human to reveal on his signs in the remote directions as well as their souls . After many centuries of scientific advancement, still it lacks the accomplishment to fulfil the commitment of scientists. And this will prevail until it embraces the God's revelations that made an history. The view that the Koran holds in the sense of universe creation is palpable in the verse . Its translation abstracted from the message of the Qur'an by Muhammad Asad states "ARE THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which we then parted a sunder? And [that] we made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?"

Here God made it clear how the universe was once in the passage of time. Of course, the verse and the Big-Bang theory have a congruity on this point. But subsequent events are not the concern of the verse, particularly on how the creator parted the earth from heavens or the vice versa.

Beyond that any explanation that was postulated by the theory must be a matter of science, something that appeals to our logic. Hence, the only way we draw the right conclusion is accepting the God not only his presence but also his intervention in the universe from its beginning up to the end. That means, human can play his role with his intelligence to reason, but must bow in the front of God, whenever he meets transcendence that he can't envisage. For instance, God created the universe from nothing and it will come to the end with or without reason. Between these events, natural laws, which themselves God invented play a vital role. However, we must not overlook at the times that these laws fail to come up with any explanation to the certain areas, which do not comply with the framework of science. I have to rest on the point that human can follow in the direction of search toward little more than the quantitative knowledge, where the creator put his entity of knowledge the qualitative as same as the quantitative.

In the same way, God emphasized to display the nature of the universe, particularly how it is a transcendental subject to human scope. In that verse he made a point that still valid and will be for ever by inviting human to experience through their senses, the secret behind the universe. He says, "The God is one who created the seven heavens built upon each other you will never find the God's work in any conflicts; look again if you could find any. Gaze further more, your sight will return with a gloomy and tiredness. " That revelation was fifteen centuries ago, where the prophet had never attended to any educational institution. Besides the naked eye's desperation, in later centuries when modern telescopes have been shot in all direc­tions still no way to escape the transcendence.

The infinity of space and time puts frames on the work that science should have achieved and trying to overcome such obstacle is like calculating the last real number in the arithmetic. Because the divinity him self wanted to have something that unshared with human. Hence, the nature of truth of such circumstances is based the omniscient of God. For instance, the God's words in the Koran he says, they are asking you concerning about the spirit. Say: The sprit is by command of Lord and the in realm of knowledge, you have not been given apart from a little ”. In this infinitesimal consciousness is enough as guidance for human survival as well as protecting his dignity.

The knowledge we gained through experience and to our total intelligence is maximizing our expediency by making efficiency and dividing the secret knowledge implied in the universe into two segments that each in service to our betterment. One segment is material development such as technology; it enhanced our life style in manner we feel in every day life. The other segment is in service to enrich the spiritual aspect of human con­sciousness. Understanding the later is looking something through a hole and capturing a small part of the wholeness. It gives us an image of strangeness by limiting our approach to the universe.

Such bafflement must lead human to fulfil the God's aim as a mirror that was given to a beautiful girl, admiring her exotic beauty; she puts her memory in two oppos­ing directions. One in the chains of creations until she comes her forefather, Adam and from this cause, a profound thought rests on her mind to which reason all those have been done. Again she pictures on her future to which she will take as a bridegroom, the day will come and goes, and the final question appears on the horizon, where does her journey end!

Observing the present universe it could be classified into three categories. The first is God's creation, the originality to all beings including the arguable man. In essence of creation as he termed in the Koran, "The originator of the heavens and the earth, when he concludes, only he says, be and it is " On this point the Almighty aimed a meaningful performance, first he created the earth and the heavens in a few days, enrich­ing all materials that would made all new birth like threes and animals. When the universe was in complete, he created man and delegated to govern and lead the universe, not only on his intellectual faculty of his mind, but God's guidance as well. Therefore, man en­gaged his own task and contributed by making discoveries. His tasks include constructing colossal ships, airplanes, etc. He managed even to collect cruel beasts to add up his charming. In this regard, participation of man in this universe is a construction, but not creation that only God deserves.

The last category itself is a kind of construction though it seems irregular and aimless. It augmented the effect of natural forces like climate and wind effects. For in­stance, the long years of requiring the heat of the sun in the case of earth, many sub­stances have changed their appearance as well as their shape. However, the natural forces have no any consequences on natural creation. They work in the same way that hammer striking on metal changes its appearances, the natural forces themselves inspire in a chemical process that changes a lot but orderliness. The direction of changes depends on the magnitude of the forces as well as the nature of the material. Hence, God created the universe directly and indirectly since he endowed the accurate forecasting in the early epochs of human mankind with brilliant mind and in the same way as the functions of natural forces.

Written by: Yousuf Godir Mohammed

Ygoodir2008@hotmail.com

Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey p.3

Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey p.55

Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey p.200

Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers p.262

New Scientist 11 April 1998 p.27

Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers p.249

Nature \ vol. 393\ 25 June 1998 p.741

New Scientist 11 April 1998 p.28

Nature \ vol.393\ 25 June 1998 p.743

Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology p. 136

Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers p.247

Nature \ vol.\394\ 27 August 1998 p.860

An Introduction to Astronomy p.263

41:53

21:30

67:2-4

17: 85

2:117

Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search