Thread: keeping with the laws of physics to explain all things

I have never been a believer in the big bang theory. If there was a singularity that exploded, what force would have caused it to explode? Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star? As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy. It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.

The Big Bang theory is the best idea we've got so far, based on the observable evidence.

If it was against the laws of physics, we'd be using a different theory.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.

What arrant nonsense: they are explained by using the known laws of physics.

On the other hand, as an example of something "explained by abandoning known laws" try this:

As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy.

I just got your name. It's the Hyrulian version of Batman, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Daecon

I just got your name. It's the Hyrulian version of Batman, isn't it?

Whut?
I had to Google "Hyrulian", apparently something to do with Legend of Zelda: never played it it, never seen it, wouldn't recognise it if I tripped over it.
FYI "Dywyddyr" predates Zelda by at least 10 years.
Although the Batman connection is flattering...

I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning. Perhaps it is like the world around us, always evolving. Death and rebirth. If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?

I do believe Einstein believed in a cyclical universe. Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning.

Why?
What evidence leads you to this belief?

If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?

What?
What "debris" would you get from a singularity?

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I do believe Einstein believed in a cyclical universe.

No: he considered it.
Slight difference.
oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch
Note that the Big Bang is still in there.

Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.

Um, doesn't a "birth" mean that there's a beginning? (Even if it's only at the start of each cycle).

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I have never been a believer in the big bang theory.

And we should care because ?

If there was a singularity that exploded,

That isn't what the big bang theory says, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star?

There is a big difference between red-shift and filtering. (And it isn't the Doppler effect.)

If you shift the frequencies then the distinctive patterns of lines and frequencies in the spectrum will all be moved. If you filter the light, then some frequencies will be removed and others will be there unchanged.

As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy.

Sorry, I can't make any sense of that.

It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.

Perhaps if you knew what the big bang theory was about, what the evidence for it is, and a little bit of basic physics, then you might not have so many problems with it.

Member keeseguy, it should be noted that an introduction containing speculations that go against modern cosmology are not well received.
Make no mistake, we are certainly open to new ideas (that may or may not challenge previous ideas). However, it should be noted that the Big Bang theory, as any other scientific theory, has heaps of empirical and theoretical support and it takes more than speculations to challenge it.

It is advisable to read this thread: The basis of modern cosmology
I hope it enriches your knowledge.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I lean more towards the concept that the universe had no beginning.

Quite possibly.

Perhaps it is like the world around us, always evolving.

And the big bang model describes the evolution of the universe.

If a black hole was a singularity, could it be destroyed and leave behind debris we would have encountered?

No.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.

That is a complete non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by keeseguy

Because death and rebirth are observable truths, big bang just sounds like rubbish every time I hear it.

That is a complete non-sequitur.

Pfft. Leaves turn brown in the Autumn.
That surely proves the BB.

Our galaxie is scheduled to collide with Andromeda, no? What will happen when the super massive blackholes merge? Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it? What will happen to the surrounding gallaxies?

What does this have to do with your other unsupported claims and assertions?

Here we go,
Step 1) Post nonsense and deride science.
Step 2) Ignore replies and post more.
Step 3) Persist in ignoring replies and simply add more questions.
Above all else don't provide ANY support for the initial (or subsequent) claims.

I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own. That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body. Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own. That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body. Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?

If I am not mistaken, the space itself between the galaxies is stretching, rather than galaxies rushing away from one another due to expansion.
The collapse of the universe does not occur due to dark energy that 'overrides' the force of gravity on large scales^{[verification needed]}.
About the alleged collision between our own Galaxy and Andromeda, I cannot state something meaningful.

Wikipedia should have some articles that might answer your questions.
In the meantime, could you please elucidate the link between posts #15 and #18 and your O.P.?

Originally Posted by keeseguy

Our galaxie is scheduled to collide with Andromeda, no? What will happen when the super massive blackholes merge?

It is very unlikely that any stars will directly collide and extremely unlikely that the black holes will come close enough to merge.

Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it?

They merged black hole would (obviously) have the sum of the masses of the two black holes and, therefore, the sum of the gravitational effects.

What will happen to the surrounding gallaxies?

This would be a very dramatic even releasing large amounts of energy so the nearby galaxies would see something almost unique.

But what does any of this have to do with your original point?

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I just don't understand how I can see galaxies that are hundreds of time more massive then our own.

Why not? (Actually, I have no idea if there are galaxies hundreds of time more massive than ours. But if there are, I can't see any obvious problem with that.)

That are supposidly moving away from eachother, yet we as small as we are are going to crash into another meager body.

The galaxies in our local cluster are all orbiting around one another. This means they travel in complicated (chaotic) paths which leads to occasional collisions.

Other clusters are far enough away that they are receding due to cosmological expansion.

Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?

Because it is expanding?

Originally Posted by keeseguy

I have never been a believer in the big bang theory. If there was a singularity that exploded, what force would have caused it to explode? Using the Doppler effect to prove an expanding universe might not be effective because the light traversing inter-galactic space my have the blue end of the spectrum filtered by debris, gravity and even the light emitted from our own star? As for black holes, could be a large mass of only the heaviest of elements, spinning so fast that the lighter elements get thrown out to the edge of it's gravity well creating a friction filled boundary which transmits it rotation outward through the galaxy. It just seems to me that too many of these phenomena are explained by abandoning the known laws of physics.

You're busy demonstrating that you don't know what the known laws of physics are.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

Why hasn't the universe devoured itself by now?

Because it had a mid-morning snack and isn't hungry yet.
Are you intending to keep trolling?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by keeseguy

Will they (it) double it's gravitational effect on the space around it?

They merged black hole would (obviously) have the sum of the masses of the two black holes and, therefore, the sum of the gravitational effects.

... but far from the collision, the gravitation will be more-or-less the same after the collision as before the collision.

MODERATOR ACTION : I think this is much more suitable for the "Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas" section than it is for "Introductions". Moved.