Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Unimaginable Theory of Mine

  1. #1 Unimaginable Theory of Mine 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4
    The Universe didn't start, it always existed. That is what I believe, it may be impossible to imagine however, I don't believe that everything has to have a beginning.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    What you are describing is the steady state theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_universe
    It has fallen out of favor among mainstream cosmologists since the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which appeared to confirm the big bang.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The steady state theory is one of many possible versions. It's the only one that allows the universe to have always existed, and yet still be expanding. It just depends on how firmly you believe the universe is expanding.

    I can see 2 other possibilities:

    1) - Time slows down as we approach the start of the Big Bang (at least our perception of time), so if we were to travel backwards in time, we would find that the singularity actually happened infinity time ago.


    2) - Space isn't expanding. The redshift is caused by something else, and the CMBR is just a coincidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    KooKas; Generally speaking there are only two possibilities to the existence of the Universe. One, its has always existed (in some manner)or two, it somehow formed from a beginning. As mentioned, SSU has many versions and BBT depends on results of interpretation, however has had many versions through its history. In short there is nothing really new about either, other than science itself is really not that old...

    Your post at this forum, are interesting to me from another angle, I have preached for years. That the inquisitive mind, generally from young folks.
    It easy to understand; "My unimaginable theory"..."Always existed" from the educational standards set, giving a basically implausible, certainly illogical reasoning offered by BBT, the main focus in teaching Astronomy or Cosmology in schools today.

    Although my opinions lean toward SSU (not as offered by Hoyle and gang, in total), BBT does deserve study. If for no other reason than any creditability achieved through opinion or education, could be lost, as many would be contributors to science now drive trucks...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman IrishStu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    62
    The general belief is that if the universe had always exsisted (infinitly back in time) then it would have had reached thermal equilibrium an infinit time ago. The entire universe would be as hot as the hottest stars!
    Plus, if the universe was always here then night time on any planet would be as bright as daytime because everypoint in the sky would end at a star. The light from the most distant stars (even those at the other side of the universe) would have an infinite ammount of time to travel to earth so we would see all the light from all the stars in the universe. It would be like as if the earth was completly surrounded by Sun's.

    The fact that nither of the above is the case today is a contributing fact towards the theory that the universe must have had a begining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Unimaginable Theory of Mine 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KooKas
    The Universe didn't start, it always existed. That is what I believe, it may be impossible to imagine however, I don't believe that everything has to have a beginning.
    Right, because every beggining...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishStu
    The general belief is that if the universe had always exsisted (infinitly back in time) then it would have had reached thermal equilibrium an infinit time ago. The entire universe would be as hot as the hottest stars!
    Plus, if the universe was always here then night time on any planet would be as bright as daytime because everypoint in the sky would end at a star. The light from the most distant stars (even those at the other side of the universe) would have an infinite ammount of time to travel to earth so we would see all the light from all the stars in the universe. It would be like as if the earth was completly surrounded by Sun's.

    The fact that nither of the above is the case today is a contributing fact towards the theory that the universe must have had a begining.
    Energy effects nothing unless there is something to effect. It cannot warm empty space and matter only to a distance. Space in Galaxy would already be equalized if that were true, to say nothing of space between us and our sun.

    Light, or the energy that gives US light, already reached us from the billions of Milky way stars and the billions of stars in the billions of galaxy we see through Hubble, w/o effect. Again that spent energy from stars must have something close enough to effect. Our existence 4.5 Billion years, would be receiving light energy from at least two generation, probably three of stars, with the first one or two long gone under BBT. Put another way, every point in the sky, probably already had a star at some distance from earth. Remember galaxy are moving objects, each giving off energy as it moves. Add a few trillion generations of stars and the only visual conception would be taken from the mega second its in our range. Most we do see 8-10+ billion miles out are already long gone and many there, that energy has yet to reach us. Add as many generation you like the same would be true. Another minor point 99.9+% of the light energy that reaches the earth, we have no visual concept or do not see anyway...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 The universe had a beginning, and has an end.. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1
    I was thinking, after watching a show on the History Channel (The Universe: After the Big Bang), that the universe had to have had a start. Now I thought up of how come the universe hasn't, again, condensed into the immensely dense object it had been before the Big Bang. I thought up a solution. So we all agree the universe, at one point, was a very dense small hot object, no bigger than the smallest part of an atom. Now when it exploded, all it's contents were strewn from this immensely dense hot small object at speeds exceeding that of the speed of light. But if we look today at the universe, it is not expanding at speeds exceeding the speed of light, correct? Why? Because Gravity has finally caught up with the initial force of the explosion from the immensely dense object to start slowing all the objects down. This means that the force keeping all the universe from becoming another immensely dense object must be the force from the explosion of the Big Bang. If so, and now this is s theory of mine, and assuming Gravity is what slowed down the objects in the universe, at one point in time (remember the force of the explosion is at present time greater than the force of Gravity since everything is still expanding) Gravity and the force of the explosion will finally cancel each other out. Some more time after that, and Gravity will slowly take over. When this happens, the universe will once again shrink into another immensely dense hot small object...to once again explode due to some unknown force. If so, then this all must have happened before. This means that in a sense the universe is never ending, because this cycle will always repeat. Don't understand what I've said? Take a ball. Throw it up into the sky and it continues in the direction you've thrown it, right? Well when it continuing, the the force of the throw (same as the force of the explosion of the big bang for comparison sakes) is greater than the force of gravity. But at some point the ball will stop, even for a split second, that's when the force of the throw and the force of Gravity cancel each other out. After it stops, the ball falls back down, why? Because Gravity has overcome the force of the throw. The same can be said about the force of the explosion of the big bang, right now it's force is greater than gravity and so it continues expanding, but it is expanding slower (like the ball thrown into the air, before it stops it slows down). So at some point it will stop expanding, and again contract. So has it all happened before?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    At one point, the BBT did suggest an expansion followed by a contraction.
    I am not sure why that was dropped, but in contraction you would have a continuous star formation as matter tends to regenerate itself. As we see, anytime enough matter (particle, gas and debris) becomes sufficient it will start to implode on itself (star formation/nebula's). Gravity at the point of expansion is also questionable. If gravity does not exist or expansion to far ahead of matter to effect at increasing levels, the expansion should be undisturbed. You can google *BBT Nucleosynthisis* and get an idea of what the first conditions are thought to have been.

    The singularity you speak of, whatever its original size, did NOT explode.
    It simply began to expand at a rapid pace. Think those that say at C or the speed of energy in space, or at plus C, feel their choice is still going on.

    Those that did offer the expanding/contracting Universe, as I recall in the 50's-60's, offered no glue to how many times it could have happened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Unimaginable Theory of Mine 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KooKas
    The Universe didn't start, it always existed. That is what I believe, it may be impossible to imagine however, I don't believe that everything has to have a beginning.
    Well, at least you are using some practical common sense.

    I posted an article on the SSU that complies with all the law3s of physics , experiments and observations while the BBT does not supply one real reason for its existence. All evidence for its support is ad hoc.

    Yet most everyone accepts the BBT because of the existence of 'power science' that requires everyone to either accept it or you get 'no' diploma.
    So there is no free speech or opinions in this closed teaching system. So you either accept or get 'flunked' and cannot get your license to parrot what they taught you.

    Since I am a 'well' self educated amateur scientist, I do not have much cedibility.
    But even Halton Arp who went through this teaching system with a PhD (I believe) has been forced out of the US as far as telescope observinng time goes.
    His Anomalous Cosmological Redshift observations conflicted with the BBT. So he had to be censored. So he went to Germany where he has the freedom to pursue his work there.

    So our US Constitution gets no respect. Ha ha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishStu
    The general belief is that if the universe had always exsisted (infinitly back in time) then it would have had reached thermal equilibrium an infinit time ago. The entire universe would be as hot as the hottest stars!
    Plus, if the universe was always here then night time on any planet would be as bright as daytime because everypoint in the sky would end at a star. The light from the most distant stars (even those at the other side of the universe) would have an infinite ammount of time to travel to earth so we would see all the light from all the stars in the universe. It would be like as if the earth was completly surrounded by Sun's.

    The fact that nither of the above is the case today is a contributing fact towards the theory that the universe must have had a begining.

    This view just comes from misunderstanding infinity. Space reaches out just as much as stars do. Or rather, the stars begin to become infinitely small the further out you look. You can fit infinity stars in a single square inch of the sky, if they're infinity small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishStu
    The general belief is that if the universe had always exsisted (infinitly back in time) then it would have had reached thermal equilibrium an infinit time ago. The entire universe would be as hot as the hottest stars!
    Plus, if the universe was always here then night time on any planet would be as bright as daytime because everypoint in the sky would end at a star. The light from the most distant stars (even those at the other side of the universe) would have an infinite ammount of time to travel to earth so we would see all the light from all the stars in the universe. It would be like as if the earth was completly surrounded by Sun's.

    The fact that nither of the above is the case today is a contributing fact towards the theory that the universe must have had a begining.

    This view just comes from misunderstanding infinity. Space reaches out just as much as stars do. Or rather, the stars begin to become infinitely small the further out you look. You can fit infinity stars in a single square inch of the sky, if they're infinity small.
    I don't think so. In fact there were mathematical proofs in the 19th century that if the universe is infinite and there are infinite stars within it then, barring some other mechanism (like dark clouds absorbing radiation, or light losing energy over distance) then every single point in space would have a star in it and we would be burnt to a crisp.

    A simple way to visualise this would be to imagine a pice of paper with a random scattering of dots on it. Pick any point on the paper and, as long as the paper is infinitely large, and the dots are infinite in number, you will not be able to draw an infinitely long straight line on it from your point without intersecting at least one of those dots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishStu
    The general belief is that if the universe had always exsisted (infinitly back in time) then it would have had reached thermal equilibrium an infinit time ago. The entire universe would be as hot as the hottest stars!
    Plus, if the universe was always here then night time on any planet would be as bright as daytime because everypoint in the sky would end at a star. The light from the most distant stars (even those at the other side of the universe) would have an infinite ammount of time to travel to earth so we would see all the light from all the stars in the universe. It would be like as if the earth was completly surrounded by Sun's.

    The fact that nither of the above is the case today is a contributing fact towards the theory that the universe must have had a begining.
    This is a popular misconception.
    My version of a SSU is that the light waves are expanding rather than space.
    With this idea, the light expands to infinite widths until it is no longer an energy source of heat. It is then blended in with the EM Fields at those distant dimensions.
    Space is infinite but the SSU does have a limit to its matter content.
    So this energy spent is also replaced with new star formations to also prevent a cold death as well as a heat death.

    The SSU complies with all the laws of physics, experiments and
    observations.

    The BBT has no real evidence for its exsistence. All the evidence promoted on its behalf is 'ad hoc'.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    SSW; Those calculations (U heat death) though dating from the early 1800's were credited to William Thompson, who elaborated on them in 1851 and continued to write papers to 1865 or so. Its my understanding they are based on heat distribution, with in a closed or curved space system. That is energy emitted once spent, would go round and round the universe until finally being absorbed by some matter...


    Cosmo; Since this relates to SSW and your reply, am placing on the same post; You know I question expanding light waves in favor of lesser wave contact with matter, by distance. That is each wave and of any wave on the EMS has the same potential heating effect, but the numbers of waves from a source diminishes by normal distribution spreading of the waves.

    A nano meter is one billionth of a meter and a wave diameter is said to be about 1/10th of one NM. Accepting the idea no energy contains mass, its said to be limited in speed as mass is. Mass at near C will then begin to wave or oscillate, just as energy does. Potential effects on an absorbing matter (heating) is dependent on that oscillation. Radio waves peak very few times per NM, light waves we see by 400-800 times per NM and peaking in Gamma Rays at thousands of times per NM. The quicker the oscillation the hotter that wave could effect matter, when absorbed. I like to say the distance a gamma rays travels are thousands of time more than radio wave, but since not in a straight line, nearer to what radio waves do to get to the same place.

    Now if light rays or that we call light (4-800 peaks per NM) increased its diameter, the peaks would be reduced, but simply making it lesser heat producer, possibly not even light. Gamma, X-ray, ultraviolet and infrared, the real heating potentials, reduced but not dead entities. Think you have inferred a rather small increase in size over 5 billion years or so, which would make that potential loss, near nothing.

    My opinion, is in the units or waves which could get to an object. A near by comparison, our sun, heats Venus to 800 F, when hit directly and is minus 225 when not. Uranus, Saturn and Pluto are said to be 3-400 minus degree F. I realize these planets have their own heat and other factors are involved, but this is in a few light minutes range. This infers units of rays have already dispersed a great deal or about 1/2 of the units of potential heating rays hits these planets, yet in cosmology terms not that far away from the source. Now go on out and less and less units from that source could be from any one source. I could not find a formula, which gives the BTU of a single photon ray of any energy, much less taking the distance from source, but surely someone has one...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Like all things that exist ,the universe is a bundle of little particles that expand and contract .
    Where this particles come human mind can not get it , but i'll try to explain in my way.
    This particles define and support all type of energy.
    In their hunger for contraction and expantion the known universe was formed in this state that we see today.
    All energy and matter is acting as those particles are acting inside,
    because when they vibrate in same way(contracting and expending) they get more space, and geting more space to contract and expand is on of their goal.
    The purpose for this is to fuse together thru a difrent state of proceses that this particles have in their core .
    Their internal reactions are manifested externaly in the fuse process and percepted by our bodys as time and space and energy .
    All this particles are there and their congestion is the definition for the universe we talk about and the one that we are in.
    Some of this particles that fused spin to atract more particles in their fusing process .
    The numer of this paricles is more then human mind can handle so we call it infint.
    Is true that the fusing proces if not done right is revesible , but when is done in the right way it makes this particles have a pattern and from there life as we know it.
    This particles are the main core of all things and in their latent state do not care about nothing.
    When their are caught in the fusing proces all their internal patterns are brought to external so the particles start to care about contracting and expandig in their own rate and from this the struggle for space begin(more space to expand and contract more power the particle gets to do what is inside his main core).
    What space i am taling about?
    I am talking about the space that in our human minds makes them have a shape , and this shape is in the form of a spherical object , the space that is made of core particle elements that keeps them all together like glue as we say.
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    24
    To be honest I am not interested in what you believe but I would be very interested in what you know.

    Harry Schneider
    Harry Schneider
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman IrishStu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by harryschneider
    To be honest I am not interested in what you believe but I would be very interested in what you know.

    Harry Schneider
    Well, that's the problem mate. We only know a small amount of factors/variables and what we can see in the observable universe. That's why they are called theories. They remain theories untill proved through lab testing and/or observation or repeatable. BBT and SSU are theories for now, nither one being accepted by the entire scientific community.

    It's down to what you choose to know for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishStu
    Quote Originally Posted by harryschneider
    To be honest I am not interested in what you believe but I would be very interested in what you know.

    Harry Schneider
    Well, that's the problem mate. We only know a small amount of factors/variables and what we can see in the observable universe. That's why they are called theories. They remain theories until proved through lab testing and/or observation or repeatable. BBT and SSU are theories for now, neither one being accepted by the entire scientific community.

    It's down to what you choose to know for now.
    Oh dear. You just don't get it yet! One knows such a lot but one is free to 'take on board' what one chooses and that reeks of silly belief. But you can't un-know something. Whether it is correct or wrong is a separate matter to be discovered by scientific inquiry some other time as well you know!.

    Sorry to to come down hard on you but that's what you get for stating the bleeding obvious.
    Harry Schneider
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 everything in the universe has a life span 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    all matter has a life span. we see it, we predict it. in the universe we have matter, time and space. is it easier to understand that time had a beginning rather than that of matter?

    if we cannot experience it we don't look to understand it
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •