StarStuff
The "star stuff", as Carl Sagan once put it, makes us up and assists in building other stars like our sun via shock waves during supernova explosion. These stars created the heavier elements like the iron in your blood. Without the stars there is no origin or evolution of life, only a Universe of hydrogen. I have discussed these topics a bit throughout this website as it is so important and fundamental to Science, to us. An excellent book, entitled Stardust Revolution: The New Story of Our Origin in the Stars details the scientific history behind bringing this knowledge to light (no pun intended :-).
Supernova 1987A (SN 1987A) - Source is ESO
This actual image of the SN 1987A supernova is a spectacular sight. This supernova was located in the night sky just outside of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud. SN 1987A was the first naked-eye supernova to be observed since 1604. The first wave of material that was ejected from the explosion traveled at an awesome 100 million km per hour (about a tenth of the speed of light). It is supernovae like this that is a stellar pollination which in time yields new suns, moons, planets, microorganisms, plants and animals in the Universe.
The Murchison meteorite that smashed into the Australian ground in 1969 contained millions of organic molecules in it. Amino acids and sugars were found in it. Who cares? You should. The very backbone of our DNA is based on repeated patterns of a sugar group and a phosphate group. "This discovery shows that it's highly likely organic synthesis critical to life has gone on throughout the universe," said Kenneth A. Souza, acting director of Astrobiology at the NASA Ames Space Research center. Mr. Souza is not alone in this view and it seems to be very apparent that the evidence is building up that the materials of life, organic molecules, are abundant in our Cosmos. With the right conditions life will sprout up in other places just like it did here on Earth.
In regards to the origin of the Universe, let's start by examining what Einstein called his Cosmological Constant and his greatest blunder. The Cosmological Constant was a modification of his original theory of general relativity stating that the Universe is either expanding or contracting. In 1998 we were able to observe something we totally did not expect, that the universe is not slowing down from the big bang but expanding at an accelerated rate. Einstein was right! Currently the big bang is the accepted theory that is taught to Astronomers. It was also those same Astronomers who learned this theory that were surprised when they found that the Universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Lesson to be learned here: Never think for a second that you completely know "what's out there" in the cosmos. Keep your mind open and aware!
The galaxy NGC 4319 and quasar Markarian 205 has been a subject of controversy in the Astronomical community. You see the observations of the red shifts (objects moving away from us in space, propelled by the original Big Bang) did not "fit" with what should have been observed as part of the Big Bang theory. Halton C. Arp who was Edwin Hubble's assistant oddly enough is at the heart of this controversy. Arp's hypothesis is that quasars are local objects ejected from the core of active galactic nuclei. This may reveal that galaxies could play a part in contributing to the infrastructure of our Universe. A film has been made about this entitled "Universe: The Cosmology Quest." I think it is good to brainstorm ideas about the cosmic origins of us. However, since we cannot rewind time and make an observation to witness the beginning of the Universe, we are left with using our tools for analysis such as the mind and scientific logic to figure out the mystery.
So I put the question to you, the reader: What is more likely, an omnipotent god(s) who created the Cosmos...a big bang from a cosmic egg smaller than an atom that contained an ancient energy that exploded and created the Universe...or perhaps the Universe exists on a time scale well beyond what we experience and that it is and always was (perhaps infinite and existing forever or close to it in its nature)? Myself, I tend to subscribe to the last option. To me the Cosmos is nature that is always in motion, changing and experimenting with the energies within it that over time can bring about the most amazing things, the most amazing creatures such as ourselves. Maybe it's none of the above and completely different.
John Dobson's thoughts on Cosmic Origins (From Sidewalk Astronomer video/Lectures): In the Steady State model the energy which drives the cosmic expansion is simply the energy of the radiation which is lost in the expansion. As the galaxies and stars condense, their gravitational energy is transformed to radiation and radiated away into the expanding spaces of the Universe. If the energy of the radiation is lost in the expansion, then it must drive the expansion. In this Steady State model it is the conditions at the border of the observable Universe imposed by the expansion that are the source of both the background radiation and the "new hydrogen" (atoms). As seen by us, the radiation from matter seen to be approaching the border is red-shifted approaching zero energy. When the Astronomers look out into space the further they look out the faster it appears that everything is moving away. And if we look too far out, beyond 15 billion light years away, everything is moving away at the speed of light - you cannot see anything visually when it's moving away at the speed of light. But, if the radiation energy approaches zero, so does the particle energy and the particle mass. Then, since the radiation is going through a field of low-mass particles that is now thermalized to 3° Kelvin it would appear to us as the background radiation. The amount of 3° Kelvin radiation predicted by this model matches what we measure. The amount predicted by the Big Bang model is at least one order of magnitude too high.
By using Dobson's model the Universe we live in has a design which recycles hydrogen and does not conflict with the current observations of the expanding Universe which do not fit into "The Big Bang model." This model is also congruent into what we observe in nature here on Earth where everything from weather systems to organic compounds are recycled in nature for re-use into maintaining the planet and molecular machines such as ourselves.
Physicist Andrei Linde's Wired Interview and view on the Big Bang Linde is another scientist who explores what John Dobson calls "magical solutions" for patching holes in the Big Bang Theory. Traditionally physicists would change their models to match the physics; these magical solutions do the reverse...which = bad science. Linde has some very interesting ideas about a multiverse model of the cosmos. In a very basic description, his Multiverse is like an apple tree with each apple representing a Universe like our own. If we are like a worm trapped inside an apple that could never reach the outside barrier of the apple's skin (too far away) to see yet another unimaginable existence outside of the one the worm had always known...then how would we know that it was there or not?