Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By AlexG

Thread: An Explanation of the Origins of Everything

  1. #1 An Explanation of the Origins of Everything 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Nottinghamshire, UK
    Posts
    2
    You will find my theory attached as a pdf file which also includes a small amount of text about me so readers can understand who came up with the theory. I have run it past a number of people who all think my theory has merrit but I wish to gain an insite from the wider community. I believe it explains a number of things but information about me may persuade people into thinking it is fantasy. This is not the case. My theory has taken time to create and to refine and after ammending some issues I found I shall post it and any replies would be welcome because I understand that every theory will have some flaw or problem in the beginning and not all theories are accepted or taken seriously. This is one I hope to be taken seriously and not disregarded as utter rubbish.

    "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." Dr. Albert Einstein (1931)
    Attached Files


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Hey there Cosmosbunchanumbers;

    I haven't read your .pdf yet. I glanced at it.

    I saw zero math.

    So, first things first- it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

    Now- to read...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Hi there, and welcome to the forum.

    The first thing I should point out is that the term "theory" has a very specific meaning in science - Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Unfortunately, what you have so far cannot be accurately described as a scientific theory. At the moment, it is just an idea.

    The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe started from a singularity, a point from nothing in which the Universe expanded with waves of energy. The singularity was smaller than an atom and within a trillionth of a nano-second it expanded to the size of an orange and within 100 seconds it was the size of our Solar system. The Big Bang generated waves of radiation echoing around the Universe that can be easily picked up with the static on a TV set or on a Radio.
    Actually, the Big-Bang theory breaks down at that singularity and as such it does not predict that the universe started as a "point from nothing" - the theory simply says nothing about where the universe came from. Big-Bang theory is actually only valid back to seconds after the Big-Bang! As such, the Big-Bang theory is a theory of the evolution of our universe rather than its origins.

    The radiation you refer to is the Cosmic Microwave Background, which was released something around 370,000 years after the Big-Bang. Our observable universe is defined by that radiation, and had a radius of ~42 million light-years at that time.

    Aero Theory coincides with the majority of the Big Bang Theory and also incorporates the Multi-verse Theory using the metaphor of an Aero chocolate bar. The Aero bar is constructed to have empty voids within the chocolate knowns as bubbles and the Universe system is much like this. The chocolate here represents the presence of Dark/Anti-matter in which Universes are encased like the bubbles encased in chocolate. Universes, in this theory, can be created in two different ways.
    You use the term Dark/Anti-matter, but we already have definitions for both Dark matter and Anti-matter, and they are not the same thing. They have very different properties. Dark matter has the property of gravitation, for instance, and around ~20% of the matter in the universe is thought to be dark matter. Dark matter is thought to be the cause of large scale structure formation in the universe and is responsible for the observed rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Are you referring to the same thing, or something else?

    The first is that Universes move slowly within the dark matter and over periods of billions and billions of years some move towards each other.
    Why do the Universes move within the "dark matter"? What is the nature/cause of that movement?

    Physics shows that when dark matter and matter touch each other they cancel each other out and explode but instead of leaving no trace of what was before I think there are effectively embers left that are sent away from the point of contact and fill the current void of nothingness and create a new Universe.
    No, physics shows that when anti-matter and matter touch they annihilate each other leaving no trace. You cannot start a sentence using "physics shows that" and then contradict what physics actually shows us.

    This process also releases a lot of the small particles called Neutrinos that travel through the dark matter and matter and travel away from the point of contact and may carry a trace of their origins.
    Matter and anti-matter coming into contact does not release neutrinos. How can neutrinos then travel through the "dark matter" and matter if they have already annihilated each other so there is nothing to travel through?

    The second is that Universes have a finite life time, much like any living organism or planet or star, but particularly with Universes they continue to grow up until the point where they are left unable to support themselves and collapse inwards. The speed at which the matter Universe collapses upon itself and the speed that the matter travels towards the centre will reverse what we refer to as the "singularity" or the Big Bang which recreates itself.
    How do you explain the observation that the expansion of the universe, rather than slowing towards a halt and ultimate collapse, is actually accelerating? Current observations give us absolutely no reason to assume that the universe will ever to reverse its expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    And now, to double post...Edit: Speedfreek beat me to it:P I've read the .pdf file and I have questions.

    A major fault here is in the comparison of a "foam" of Universes. You go on to explain how this can account for our observations but neglect the acceleration of expansion.
    Currently, it appears that our Universe is more likely to encounter a Big Freeze than a Big Crunch.

    You need to correct a part where you said "Dark matter and matter touch; they cancel each other out" - You meant to say 'anti-matter and matter.'

    Neutrinos have no bearing on this hypothesis- at all.

    We cannot observe outside of our Universe. Armchair speculation is enjoyable, but must also be taken with a grain of salt. Even if you attempted to support this hypothesis with any math, that would be a futile effort. We lack the mathematical ability to describe such events. It's being worked on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Nottinghamshire, UK
    Posts
    2
    I agree that there is no math to support it and I am rendered unable to support such with math as I lack the knowledge to do so. I agree in retrospect that Neutrinos have no bearing of my hypothesis and my use of dark matter instead of anti matter is a slip; of the tongue as it were as, to me, it has been referred to as both so I generally switch between the two terms and I apologise for this and will try not to do so further. Regarding the future of our universe collapsing or freezing, you claim that we are more likely to freeze than collapse in on ourselves however I have heard (I must admit I don't know how up to date my information is) that this is a debate with no yet certain answer which would mean your claim is an opinion which is fair enough for me as my hypothesis is not an exercise of math but of logic for me. I do not have or have ever claimed to have a vast knowledge in mathematics or physics but I do have a keen interest in both. I came up with this hypothesis and put it on this forum for people to read and contemplate. I wish to know the general concensus of whether it is likely and whether science can support it. Some of the technology needed to do so, I admit, is not fully developed yet but these things take time. If anyone wishes to aid me with my theory with any added thoughts/suggestions/opinions or equations I will be truly greatful. Neverfly, I had a vision of how the Universe worked and used the metaphor of an Aero bar but after your reply I concede that a Foam Universe or The Foam Hypothesis is a better title to use. For this thankyou and I will ammend my hypothesis in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Unfortunately, a theory depends upon tests. If you have no math, you have nothing to test. While an exercise in logic might be fun, it's just something to pass the time until you can deliver the numbers to back it up.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." Dr. Albert Einstein (1931)
    This quote might be the world's most frequently used excuse to remain ignorant.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmos8555 View Post
    I agree in retrospect that Neutrinos have no bearing of my hypothesis and my use of dark matter instead of anti matter is a slip; of the tongue as it were as, to me, it has been referred to as both
    Well I don't know where you heard those references, but perhaps you have inadvertently conflated the two terms in your own mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmos8555 View Post
    I came up with this hypothesis and put it on this forum for people to read and contemplate. I wish to know the general concensus of whether it is likely and whether science can support it.
    Here is the science that applies to your idea:
    Anti-matter and matter annihilate when they interact. This does not produce neutrinos.
    Dark matter gravitates.
    Relative motion needs a mechanism, even between universes.

    It is hard to imagine a bubble of universe surrounded by anti-matter, without some interaction between that anti-matter and the universe within it. Are there extra dimensions involved here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmos8555 View Post
    Regarding the future of our universe collapsing or freezing, you claim that we are more likely to freeze than collapse in on ourselves however I have heard (I must admit I don't know how up to date my information is) that this is a debate with no yet certain answer which would mean your claim is an opinion which is fair enough for me as my hypothesis is not an exercise of math but of logic for me.
    Opinion- no.
    Given our current acceleration of expansion, the big freeze is the likeliest outcome unless something changes that about the Universe.
    Because of unavailable information, we cannot say for certain. We are talking about time scales of trillions of years and this tiny little peep into the void we are making is just beginning.
    It's a bit like making a prediction that you will get into your car and drive to the store. You will.
    Unless some unknown factor interferes to alter that event from happening.
    Only at this scale- that unknown factor would have to be something very significant.
    That may be the uncertainty you refer to.

    Don't let any of it discourage your thoughts- Enjoy yourself and feel free to speculate. But you can speculate much more accurately with more knowledge at hand, so learn as much as you can as you go.
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmos8555 View Post
    Neverfly, I had a vision of how the Universe worked and used the metaphor of an Aero bar but after your reply I concede that a Foam Universe or The Foam Hypothesis is a better title to use. For this thankyou and I will ammend my hypothesis in time.
    Yeah cuz- I wanna eat the Universe, now.


    mmmm Universe...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Origins
    By Michael_Roberts in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  2. Origins of Easter
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: April 24th, 2009, 01:30 AM
  3. Humble Origins
    By gottspieler in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 11th, 2009, 03:50 PM
  4. The origins of this idea.......
    By remit in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 1st, 2007, 11:48 AM
  5. A question of Origins
    By cheakrisna in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 14th, 2006, 12:04 PM
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
  •