# Thread: Birth of the Universe from “Nothing”- Bigbang Simulation

1. Hello
I’m sorry. I can’t English well. My native language is not English.

[ Birth of the Universe from “Nothing” ] - Computer Simulation

[ Birth of the Universe from the Zero Energy State ]

1)There was a pair creation of positive and negative energy in the early universe.

2)The total energy of universe is 0.
Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth et al. argued that gravitational potential energy is negative energy, and that such gravitational potential energy can offset all positive mass energy during a period of inflation.

3) The acceleration in the expansion of the universe observed suggests the existence of positive energy out of mass energy, and alternatively, it corresponds to what the overall gravitational potential energy of the universe has positive value, indicating that gravitational potential energy will not able to offset positive energy.

4) Nothing but the gravitational potential energy doesn’t completely offset mass energy. And for the birth of the universe from “nothing” and energy conservation at the birth of the universe, “negative mass”, which corresponds to “negative energy”, is needed.

5)The basic principle of physics of “lower state of energy is stable!” is wrong. So it should be modified to “lower state of energy as far as positive mass is concerned and higher state of energy as far as negative mass is concerned is stable!”.

6)“Transition to the energy level of minus infinity”, which was used to deny the existence of negative mass, did not occur, whereas a. Relativistic energy eq., b. Dirac eq., c. field equation existed, suggesting the existence of negative mass.

[ Void Structure results from~ ]
1)The presence of primitive void due to a pair annihilation of positive mass and negative mass.
2)The presence of void due to gravitational contraction between positive mass and repulsive effect between negative mass.

[ Birth and Expansion of the Universe from singular point(or domain) ]

1)Even though all the mass of the universe come together in one small area on Big Bang, it does not have the same density as the black hole due to offsetting of density between positive mass and negative mass. Therefore it can be expandable.

2)The law of motion of positive mass and negative mass naturally explains that “expansion after birth” is the essential characteristics of the universe.

3)The expansion of the universe takes place in the state of total rest mass energy of “0” and, clusters of galaxies and the void structure can be achieved.

4)Energy conservation and momentum conservation exists without giving the initial velocity, and expansion of the universe occurs.

5)It does not require any other force except already known force, gravity.

---Icarus2

2.

3. The idea that the universe came from literally nothing has been around for a few decades now but with the BB, many refuse to even consider other possible ideas.

More realistic that an impossible singularity itself doing the impossible and inflating is that at some point and for some reason, nothing split into positive and negative (matter, energy, gravity, etc) and like a wildfire it spread (and may still be spreading for all we know). Once you have the building blocks for a universe, it is just a matter of time before you have one.

4. Originally Posted by Cyberia
The idea that the universe came from literally nothing has been around for a few decades now but with the BB, many refuse to even consider other possible ideas.

More realistic that an impossible singularity itself doing the impossible and inflating is that at some point and for some reason, nothing split into positive and negative (matter, energy, gravity, etc) and like a wildfire it spread (and may still be spreading for all we know). Once you have the building blocks for a universe, it is just a matter of time before you have one.
A complete misrepresentation of both the big bang and what nis understood about it.

You are criticizing a theory that you do not begin to understand.

5. Originally Posted by DrRocket
A complete misrepresentation of both the big bang and what nis understood about it.

You are criticizing a theory that you do not begin to understand.
Stop spamming trashy evidence free denials of what I post. You are cluttering up threads with your garbage.

6. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Originally Posted by DrRocket
A complete misrepresentation of both the big bang and what nis understood about it.

You are criticizing a theory that you do not begin to understand.
Stop spamming trashy evidence free denials of what I post. You are cluttering up threads with your garbage.
Go read a damn book and find out what the big bang theory actually says. Stop arguing against your own incorrect version of physics. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have no intention of trying to teach a fool the details of the big bang and physics in general. Go educate yourself.

7. Originally Posted by Cyberia
The idea that the universe came from literally nothing has been around for a few decades now but with the BB, many refuse to even consider other possible ideas.
How can you assume anything that you state about the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, when you admit that you are unable to access a proper physics book to actually learn what it is about? The only thing DrRocket constantly wants to make clear is that your preconceptions of what you think is the BigBang theory are wrong. For that reason, it is not surprising that you oppose it. I can very well understand his frustation about you. For the most part, you make up what you believe is the standard paradigm about cosmology, and in addition, you also make up new speculations to remedy them for which no evidence exists whatsoever. This is unscientific behaviour.

8. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Go read a damn book and find out what the big bang theory actually says. Stop arguing against your own incorrect version of physics. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have no intention of trying to teach a fool the details of the big bang and physics in general. Go educate yourself.
For those who could not understand it first time around:

Stop spamming trashy evidence free denials of what I post. You are cluttering up threads with your garbage.

9. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Go read a damn book and find out what the big bang theory actually says. Stop arguing against your own incorrect version of physics. You don't know what you are talking about.

I have no intention of trying to teach a fool the details of the big bang and physics in general. Go educate yourself.
For those who could not understand it first time around:

Stop spamming trashy evidence free denials of what I post. You are cluttering up threads with your garbage.
nope

Go read the damn references and quit spouting nonsense that any freshman physics student knows is ridiculous. Idiot.

10. Dishmaster. I have read some books and endless articles and news items on cosmology so I have some idea of what I am talking about.

It is so easy to pick holes in the big bang IDEA. DrRocket has no answer to these as he has shown so many times with his lack of answers so keeps on with denial, insults and his latest quackery about reading books, knowing that I have no access here.

What is unscientific behaviour is accepting the BB. It's no better than creationism where a christian says god did this, that and the other, and then you ask for evidence of god. The BB is EXACTLY the same in that how it started, it's cause, is pure fairy tales. It is anti-science.

Given a chance I could have showed this but DrRocket ruined the thread on the BB by filling it with his trashy spam.

11. Originally Posted by DrRocket
nope

Go read the damn references and quit spouting nonsense that any freshman physics student knows is ridiculous. Idiot.
As they said in Monty Python: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam and spam.

12. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Originally Posted by DrRocket
nope

Go read the damn references and quit spouting nonsense that any freshman physics student knows is ridiculous. Idiot.
As they said in Monty Python: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam and spam.
Apparently, along with knowing nothing about the physics of the big bang youm also do not know the definition of spam.

Your refusal to look at standard references and texts is testimony to your inability to understand the subject. Your failure to accurately describe the theory that you attempt to refute is the result of the ignorance of which you are so proud.

Go read a real book. Or at least look at the pictures if that is all you can do. Hiding behind claims of "spam" will nit cover your ignorance.

13. I have often thought about this and I always tend to draw the same conclusion (in my own mind) that.......

When a black hole collapses, we see it as getting smaller; however "inside" the singularity, another universe has just been created and even though its getting "smaller" in ours; "inside" its getting larger. ...this could explain gravity; and could also suggest that gravity is "polar", in that at "very long ranges" per se, it is repulsive (explaining why our universe appears to be expanding at an ever faster rate. - for our universe would be the product of BH creation in the "upper" universe.

black holes evaporation - perhaps this is what happens when all of the protons in this universe decay. then our universe (seen as a black hole in the "upper" universe) is seen to decay.

Of course. - this is merely a thought experiment I have run through my head a load of times and cannot provide any evidence other than drawing logical conclusions from mere observation. So - please feel free to rip my theory gently apart if you do have any evidence to the contrary which would prove this a load of old cobblers.

Ta

just another thought here......

perhaps our universe/black hole is getting closer and closer to another black hole in the same "upper" universe - perhaps this might explain dark flow?

14. I've tried to come to terms with that one too - it seems that there can only be a correlation between blackhole and universe if the former reduces itself to energy, and why would/should it if it has no reason to?

Spontaneous reduction doesn't make sense when there's so much available compression ratio

10 -29 (can't do algebraic equations on this keyboard) may approach singularity but not singularity itself. How miniscule particles of energy are able to be compressed beyond the atomic state is best explained by active and passive energies, with the components of an atom being passive

As for negative gravitation, nice idea, but bogus physics - were BHs able to push everything away from themselves then there'd be no galaxies to feed them - and forget the 'perfect suspension' concept because it doesn't wash

 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