1. Okay. I am a mere high school student, but i understand the basics of the universe. Well here is my theory, entitled the universal pulse

i am going to make it easy to understand, since i don't have the ability to make it sound very intelligent :P

basically the universe, at the point right before the big bang, was a tiny particle with an infinite amount of spaced compacted into a single particle, and then the pressure was released at a single moment. blah blah blah. then at a certain time it expands to a point where it cannot expand any further, there are only two logical predictions of what will occur next. Either it will contact or it will rip. If the fabric of space and time was destroyed, based on my knowledge we would not exist right now.

Thus it must contact, which it does. Back into a ball of infinite mass, due to newtons law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

My belief is this has been happening forever. Sorry if i sound like an idiot. I really do not have a clue what i'm talking about but i'd like to see what the PhD's would say ;D

2.

3. Sorry, no PhD, I'm a school student too. I'm not sure that it has to get to a point where it can't expand any more. Apparently gravity and dark energy are in a sort of equilibrium, so the universe can expand, but gravity's not so weak that planets can't form.

4. Forget the Higg's boson nonsense. The real god particle is the original singularity because like god it can do whatever it's believers want of it. It can ignore gravity, have not just all the matter in the universe inside it but all the space too and similar garbage.

IF the universe is expanding, then 12 billion years ago it was very tiny compared to today's size, and with everything so much closer, gravity did not stop it expanding, so it is not going to collapse now with everything much further apart so the force of gravity is weaker over the much bigger universe.

Some months back, someone thought that gravity may vanish at some 10^92 tons per cubic meter as the universe collapsed so it could rebound but as soon as the density goes below that figure, gravity is back and the universe starts collapsing again, so a yoyo universe.

Gravity does not have an opposite reaction.

No you don't sound like an idiot. You sound like someone who is trying to work things out for yourself. There is nothing wrong with thinking, though some wiki-for-brains on science forums say there is. Personal theories should be flexible so that as you learn more, or as someone shows something wrong, you can adjust your theory accordingly.

5. since the big bang is an unproven THEORY I cant really comment on your theory, but i commend your efforts adn yes thinking for your self IS the greatest thing.

personally i find the big bang hard to swallow but thats just me!!

6. Originally Posted by Zenithar
since the big bang is an unproven THEORY I cant really comment on your theory, but i commend your efforts adn yes thinking for your self IS the greatest thing.

personally i find the big bang hard to swallow but thats just me!!
Frankly, it's NOT just you ..........

7. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Originally Posted by Zenithar
personally i find the big bang hard to swallow but thats just me!!
Frankly, it's NOT just you ..........
That's true. It seems that almost anyone without an education in physics, astronomy, or cosmology has the same feeling about the Big Bang.

That can't be coincidence! The majority must be on to something. Right?

Clearly these pesky scientists think it worthwhile to waste their entire lives promoting a concept they know to be fatally flawed, just to mislead Mr. Joe Average. You have to admire such dedication. If you could just condense it and bottle it, you could sell it for \$99.50 a jar.

Robert,
nice bit of imagination, but don't call it a theory. Theories have a hallowed place in science. Things don't get any more established and accepted than a theory. What you have is a speculation. You can't describe it mathematically. It doesn't offer an imporved understanding of the universe. You apparently have no way of testing it. For these and other reasons it is not a theory, but - as I said - it is a nice speculation.
Cheers
John

8. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Originally Posted by Zenithar
personally i find the big bang hard to swallow but thats just me!!
Frankly, it's NOT just you ..........
That's true. It seems that almost anyone without an education in physics, astronomy, or cosmology has the same feeling about the Big Bang.

That can't be coincidence! The majority must be on to something. Right?

Clearly these pesky scientists think it worthwhile to waste their entire lives promoting a concept they know to be fatally flawed, just to mislead Mr. Joe Average. You have to admire such dedication. If you could just condense it and bottle it, you could sell it for \$99.50 a jar.

Robert,
nice bit of imagination, but don't call it a theory. Theories have a hallowed place in science. Things don't get any more established and accepted than a theory. What you have is a speculation. You can't describe it mathematically. It doesn't offer an imporved understanding of the universe. You apparently have no way of testing it. For these and other reasons it is not a theory, but - as I said - it is a nice speculation.
Cheers
John
Wowsers, and I thought I was the eternal cynic around here.

This will clearly come as a major surprise to some, but scientists have indeed made the odd miscalculation in the past - not that this observation has anything to do with the current discussion, of course.

Furthermore; I expect that I am on reasonably safe (if not hallowed) ground, to make note that NOT all 'educated in physics, astronomy, or cosmology' scientists, accept what your dedicated 'pesky scientists' might sell at a lovingly discounted price of just \$99.00 per jar - being yet; an unproven theory.

Cheers
A.R

9. I offer a million dollars to any man who can teach the unwilling.

10. Originally Posted by Darius
I offer a million dollars to any man who can teach the unwilling.
I do believe that (above) are the exact words used by the Pope of Rome, when brooding over a man named Galileo.

11. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Furthermore; I expect that I am on reasonably safe (if not hallowed) ground, to make note that NOT all 'educated in physics, astronomy, or cosmology' scientists, accept what your dedicated 'pesky scientists' might sell at a lovingly discounted price of just \$99.00 per jar - being yet; an unproven theory.

Cheers
A.R
I'm quite indifferent to being booted off the forum for rude behaviour, but you seem big enough and ugly enough to take some straight talking.

Describing something as an unproven theory displays a fundamental and troubling ignorance of the principles of science and the scientific method.
1. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are never proven. Only the uneducated and the ignorant believe that theories can be proven. I'm offering you release from your ignorance and a slice of an education.
2. You can disprove a theory. This is one of the things scientists try to do. They set up experiments with, lets say, two expected results. If one occurs in agreement with the theory, great. If the other occurs the theory is disproved. End of theory, at least in its original form.
3. You can confirm a theory. If in the example above the experiment produces a result that matches expectation this tends to confirm the theory. If ten thousand experiments, by a thousand researchers, investigating the theory from scores of perspectives all produce consistent results, then we have confirmed the theory.
4. The Big Bang theory is one of the most confirmed theories around.
5. You emboldened the word theory, suggesting it was somehow less secure than say a fact, or a Law. It was almost as if you had said "It is only a theory." The only people I know who use that terminology consistently are ignorant and uneducated creationists. I don't think you are one of them, so I hope you won't be using the emboldening again.

12. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Originally Posted by Darius
I offer a million dollars to any man who can teach the unwilling.
I do believe that (above) are the exact words used by the Pope of Rome, when brooding over a man named Galileo.
Only when Galileo took it upon himself to argue the doctrines of Christianity, which was definitely outside his realm of expertise (and authority). You show ignorance of history, as well as science.

13. Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!

14. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Furthermore; I expect that I am on reasonably safe (if not hallowed) ground, to make note that NOT all 'educated in physics, astronomy, or cosmology' scientists, accept what your dedicated 'pesky scientists' might sell at a lovingly discounted price of just \$99.00 per jar - being yet; an unproven theory.

Cheers
A.R
I'm quite indifferent to being booted off the forum for rude behaviour, but you seem big enough and ugly enough to take some straight talking.

Describing something as an unproven theory displays a fundamental and troubling ignorance of the principles of science and the scientific method.
1. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are never proven. Only the uneducated and the ignorant believe that theories can be proven. I'm offering you release from your ignorance and a slice of an education.
2. You can disprove a theory. This is one of the things scientists try to do. They set up experiments with, lets say, two expected results. If one occurs in agreement with the theory, great. If the other occurs the theory is disproved. End of theory, at least in its original form.
3. You can confirm a theory. If in the example above the experiment produces a result that matches expectation this tends to confirm the theory. If ten thousand experiments, by a thousand researchers, investigating the theory from scores of perspectives all produce consistent results, then we have confirmed the theory.
4. The Big Bang theory is one of the most confirmed theories around.
5. You emboldened the word theory, suggesting it was somehow less secure than say a fact, or a Law. It was almost as if you had said "It is only a theory." The only people I know who use that terminology consistently are ignorant and uneducated creationists. I don't think you are one of them, so I hope you won't be using the emboldening again.
I must firstly note that I have truly missed the spice you add to the forum discussions, for it would seem you have been 'away' for some time. Welcome back - provided an uneducated Reject may make such concessions to a professor. AND provided he doesn't object the emboldening effect, just this once.

You are absolutely correct that I am no 'creationist' - or anything close to the general understanding of the term, and I will take your advice on board regarding the 'emboldening', even though your generous and fruity slice of 'education' pie, sadly did little for my hunger or my 'ignorance'.

Perhaps next time, you might work at educating a big and ugly enough Reject from a table set with delicious savory comestibles that service the barren areas of his Rejected dietary needs, for (almost) everything according your above fruity concourse on scientific 'theory', was reasonably well tasted, chewed, swallowed and assimilated prior to the dinner bell.

As for the BB theory; it may well be 'one of the most confirmed theories around', and is clearly one which you willingly and unreservedly embrace, yet I have to note that (whichever version now is applicable), still leaves a Reject with a whole bunch of unanswered questions. It may well be the very best explanation that you and others can see, yet (perhaps) unfortunately; I will necessarily reserve my embrace for such time there are sufficient answers to the many outstanding questions, or a new explanation - whichever come first. I hope this doesn’t offend my worthy friend too greatly.

If all the above makes me an ‘ignorant’ Reject to such as your good and honorable self, then that will unfortunately be a label I will need to deal with. In any case, thank you for your 'straight talking', and you are correct I am not ‘one of them’, yet rest assured; even if I were to tell you who I was, you wouldn’t believe me for a second.

15. Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!
Ahhhhhhh, why can't they be subject to a vote? I Vote we rewrite Gravity so that it doesn't hurt so bad when I fall down! That way perhaps the people who have an aversion to the science that takes place in response to observation can get their way for once!

16. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!
Ahhhhhhh, why can't they be subject to a vote? I Vote we rewrite Gravity so that it doesn't hurt so bad when I fall down!
Fall down you say??? Like some kind of benign happenstance after your supports are removed? Hasn't anyone learnt ya good - that gravity 'pulls' you down (I mean 'in') - kinda like ....... ummmm - maybe think what it would be like if there was some kind of magnet below drawing you in towards it. I expect you can manage such a hypothetical - for a little extra mirth, right?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
That way perhaps the people who have an aversion to the science that takes place in response to observation can get their way for once!
Good point. Almost as good an observation as perhaps the aversion some have for alternative concepts, which they perhaps have not previously noticed from their lofty and starchy pulpits, for once!

I certainly do NOT have any aversion whatsoever to science or the vast majority of principles and understandings it has managed to unearth for our appreciation in such short time; as long as it is (and they are) presenting me with a clearly defined explanation for the existence I witness. On the other hand, if the questions from my keyboard of admittedly unconventional reasoning, are a little too risqué for your dyed-in-the-wool dogmatism, I can surely appreciate your aversion and reticence – with decided sadness.

17. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
[ As for the BB theory; it may well be 'one of the most confirmed theories around', and is clearly one which you willingly and unreservedly embrace, yet I have to note that (whichever version now is applicable), still leaves a Reject with a whole bunch of unanswered questions. .
I am wholly opposed to the Big Bang theory from the very depths of my soul. I object to it on philosphical grounds and upon the grounds of artistic elegance(or rather the lack of the same). Nothing I have seen, read, or heard in over four decades has dented that opposition by even the width of a midge's testicle.

However, the objections that I see on a scientific basis are ill conceived, poorly argued, inadequately researched and quite unsubstantiated. In the worst instances they represent knee-jerk reactions, by would-be revolutionaries who know only how to oppose, not to think; only to decry, not to construct; and who lack any kind of education in the sciences that they need to be able to make pronouncements as they do.

One day I hope to be able to applaud the Galileo, the Newton, or the team of eighty three contributing authors who actually deliver a knock out blow to an unattractive idea. Until then I shall condemn such expressions of pseudo-intellectual vomit, challenge its perpetrators and demand scientific justification for what has all the appearance of mindless claptrap.

18. Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!
So you must be one of those that 'know' what you are talking about, right?

Laws of physics, huh?

A most worthy contributor to this current attack on every piece of 'concept' from a Reject's keyboard, who I will not mention by identification; recently enlightened me on a scientific fact -
"1. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are never proven. Only the uneducated and the ignorant believe that theories can be proven."
yet he must be wrong, because now you explain it as being a 'law' we are discussing, therefore cannot be a (without offensive emboldening) 'theory'.

Some of you lofty guys really need to get your story straight, before facing the judge.

19. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!
So you must be one of those that 'know' what you are talking about, right?

Laws of physics, huh?

A most worthy contributor to this current attack on every piece of 'concept' from a Reject's keyboard, who I will not mention by identification; recently enlightened me on a scientific fact -
"1. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are never proven. Only the uneducated and the ignorant believe that theories can be proven."
yet he must be wrong, because now you explain it as being a 'law' we are discussing, therefore cannot be a (without offensive emboldening) 'theory'.
Really A.R., I do expect you to use your brain at least some of the time.

Laws of physics are not subject to a vote. They are subject to analysis of the data and matching those data against one hypothesis/theory or another. Fizzlooney is making the perfectly accurate observation that decisions on the rightness or worngness of a theory is not determined by some democratic process, but by a consideration of the evidence for and against. It is wholly in synch with my own pronouncements on the subject. I have no idea how you have managed to see a dichotomy that does not exist.

20. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Laws of physics are not subject to a vote!
So you must be one of those that 'know' what you are talking about, right?

Laws of physics, huh?

A most worthy contributor to this current attack on every piece of 'concept' from a Reject's keyboard, who I will not mention by identification; recently enlightened me on a scientific fact -
"1. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are never proven. Only the uneducated and the ignorant believe that theories can be proven."
yet he must be wrong, because now you explain it as being a 'law' we are discussing, therefore cannot be a (without offensive emboldening) 'theory'.
Really A.R., I do expect you to use your brain at least some of the time.

Laws of physics are not subject to a vote. They are subject to analysis of the data and matching those data against one hypothesis/theory or another. Fizzlooney is making the perfectly accurate observation that decisions on the rightness or worngness of a theory is not determined by some democratic process, but by a consideration of the evidence for and against. It is wholly in synch with my own pronouncements on the subject. I have no idea how you have managed to see a dichotomy that does not exist.
Really J.G., I do expect you to understand with a little less emotion, at least some of the time.

If you were to, perhaps you would see that glaring dichotomy. In any case, as soon as y'all decide which are 'laws', and which are 'theories', you can find me associating in the democratic process of being magnetically attracted to the planet earth, while selfishy lapping up too little snooze.

21. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
Really J.G., I do expect you to understand with a little less emotion, at least some of the time..
No emotion. I reserve my emotions for my work and for idiots. You are neither.

The notion of scientific Laws with a capital L is passé. I wouldn't entertain the word except for historical consistency. They either equate to observations or to well founded theories. To call them Laws is just misleading and you have been mislead.

Now the laws of physics are yet another thing. The laws of physics are what govern how thing occur. We don't know what they are. Our theories are our best approximation to what we think they are.

Does that help?

22. Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

If you were to, perhaps you would see that glaring dichotomy. In any case, as soon as y'all decide which are 'laws', and which are 'theories', you can find me associating in the democratic process of being magnetically attracted to the planet earth, while selfishy lapping up too little snooze.
You are suffering from the misconception the there is a hierarchy between "theories" and "laws". There isn't, they are just different names for how we describe the operation of the universe. One does not supercede the other, and there is some cross-over between them. Generally, laws are more simplistic expressions of observed relationships, while theories tend to be more complex expressions.

An example would be Kepler's Laws of planetary motion and Newton's theory of gravitation. Kepler's laws were simple expressions describing pure observation, and that's as far as they go. Newton's theory however goes deeper into the subject and shows how these laws can be derived from basic principles.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement