Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: My theory on the universe.

  1. #1 My theory on the universe. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2
    Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, I do not read other peoples theories. These are my own ideas based on my own reasoning and my general knowledge of the universe. If my ideas are close to anything written by any famous scientist it is purely a coincidence and I have no intention to try and steal others ideas and claim them as my own. Remember it is possible for more than one person to think the same way.

    My theory on understanding our universe.


    First of all my theory assumes that there are two fundamental rules that make our universe:

    Rule number 1:
    You cannot have something without nothing and you cannot have nothing without something, think of this as space and matter.

    Rule number 2:
    Time is an illusion. For the same reason that you can't have nothing without something there could never have been a beginning and there will never be an ending. The reason for this is because if you assume there is a beginning you are assuming that before the beginning there was nothing and if you assume there is an end you are assuming that after the end there would also be nothing. This would contradict the 1st rule since there cannot be nothing without something and therefore I belive the universe is constant and there was never a beginning and there wont ever be an end.

    The theory:

    So I have established my rules now I will explain my theory that is based on them.

    Without a beginning and end we have to assume that an event would cause a loop back to what we call the big bang at some point in the future.

    My theory is that in the same way matter is pulled by gravity into a black hole eventually all matter will be pulled back into a single point. As more black holes appear throughout space and consume more of there surrounding matter they will become much larger in size until all that is left for them to consume is each other. At that point all matter in the universe would be packed together and the huge amount of gravity produced by this giant mass of everything will attempt to condense itself even further until a supernova like event takes place and matter is exploded back out into space to start the cycle once again.


    This is the first time I have bothered to share my views with other people, the reason I wrote the disclaimer is because this seems so plausible to me that I would find it difficult to belive I was the first person to have this idea. Regardless please let me know what you think, thank you.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    There was a time when we all wondered whether there was enough gravity to pull it all back together and 'go round again' but the maths today contradicts that, it's gonna fly apart forever is the current thinking. The universe is thought to be a five state entity, the first, the birth, the second matter time and gravity (where we are now), the third all the lights go out leaving black holes, 4th the black holes and all matter decay, 5th only the photons survive and go on forever.

    So the big thinkers would say you are wrong but none of them (or you) will live long enough to find out!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2
    Ok while they may be right it is still theory so I feel like I have a chance to debate this here.

    That theory does not explain the start of existence, sure you can say that it all started with the big bang but you have to think of before that. Surely you can see that the big bang could not possibly be the definitive start since matter had to exist in some form for the big bang to take place.

    Sure my theory may not be correct either but I can't belive myself that there is a starting point and an ending point, I belive that is just something humans have used to help us understand the passage between life and death and we have very wrongly applied this concept to the life of the universe as well.

    Who knows perhaps both theories combine perhaps the stages you described do in fact happen but another massive event results in the big bang all over again. I just feel that if you accept the death of the universe then you accept perpetual nothing and if it where possible to have nothing the universe would never have existed in the first place.

    For this reason I firmly belive that at the end of the universe something must be triggered to send us back to the start.

    My key argument: If there could have been nothing before the big bang then there never would have been anything to cause the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    Choix....

    Your thinking is not new. Many people believe that the big bang was the beginning of space and time. Other people, like me, believe that time was always there and at some point in that time something caused a bang, or sudden expansion that gave birth to our universe. Did you see the "our" part?

    Our universe will surely die in the manner that most people accept -- ending in cold radiation. But, who is to say that that radiation couldn't contain some unseen or exotic particles that becomes the components needed for another universe to be born. Who is to say that ours is the only universe instead of being just one of an infinite amount constantly being born from the remnants of older ones.

    My mind is always open and everything I said is just speculation, but I don't believe our universe is unique.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    I can't see why people think there must always have been 'something' surely it too would have an origin, and before that?

    The thing is (as I see it) our poor tiny mind was built to work in the universe we have at present. What was before that? well we know it was not always 'matter' we know before 300,000 years(if I remember right) it was all 'energy'. We are unfamiliar with the form and laws of this energy. We know that it converted itself into space and matter. So think energy not matter at or around the time of the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,038
    Nothing wrong with theorizing. Surely not knowing is what drives us. This is where we are different than the other animals on our planet.

    Whether you believe that the whole thing is some natural occurence or just the whim of a supernatural being then let's get out there and find out how it happened or how it was done. There is an answer.

    They should have an 'outside the box' section for free thinkers on a science forum, don't you think? I wonder how many budding Einsteins or those with radical ideas are intimidated by the supposed preponderence of scientific knowledge contained herein. Any thought could trigger an new breakthrough and should be encouraged.

    I believe there is a difference between free thinkers and those who like to show off what they know. Plenty of people can absorb every bit of scientific information that's put forth but couldn't formulate a theory if they tried. Or perhaps they have more reason to be intimidated? Science needs questions, theories and out of the box thoughts just to stimulate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    I actually agree with your post, there is a place on the forum for your ideas, it's in the psuedoscience section. The best way to come up with your own ideas, is first to study what current thinking is. If you can find a 'crack' in it and exploit it so much the better, What I said in my previous post was to give you an idea of current thinking so if your theory fits in with this then you are on the first rung. For example you could say somrthing like "I think the big bang was an alien experiment that went wrong" - who can disagree? Another example is the death of black holes, if you look into the theory (Hawking Radiation) it's a complete theory, there is no evidence to support it, and it will happen only after everything else in the universe is stone cold dead. Another thing about having one's own theory, is to ask questions first, ie verify as many parts as possible before you write it all up, any small part that is easily 'shot down' will almost certainly ruin the whole thing.

    Mega.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    choix; taking your word "debate" and assuming your conclusions are based on personal opinion. I must ask, where did you pick up Big Bang and is your opinion that this is a must, in any theory.

    many do not accept BBT as the beginning of this universe and far fewer think BB was an alien experiment gone bad. most that do not, for the very reason you suggest and that something would have had to be before.
    that would imply over a trillion years or so we must have has many big bangs, the latest 15 bya or so.

    ask yourself, what is the age of our solar system- 5or6 BYO, what is the age of our known galaxy- 14 BYO, then our galaxy is at least this age. what we do know of it and how it may have formed indicate longer.

    now those that think the universe has always been there and should always be, are not bound by the assumptions required to involve the BB.
    our galaxy may be 100 BYO forming as we see others being formed and as some appeared several billion light years ago. (not much different than the milky way today) thru Hubble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Choix
    Ok while they may be right it is still theory so I feel like I have a chance to debate this here.

    That theory does not explain the start of existence, sure you can say that it all started with the big bang but you have to think of before that. Surely you can see that the big bang could not possibly be the definitive start since matter had to exist in some form for the big bang to take place.

    Sure my theory may not be correct either but I can't believe myself that there is a starting point and an ending point, I believe that is just something humans have used to help us understand the passage between life and death and we have very wrongly applied this concept to the life of the universe as well.

    Who knows perhaps both theories combine perhaps the stages you described do in fact happen but another massive event results in the big bang all over again. I just feel that if you accept the death of the universe then you accept perpetual nothing and if it where possible to have nothing the universe would never have existed in the first place.

    For this reason I firmly believe that at the end of the universe something must be triggered to send us back to the start.

    My key argument: If there could have been nothing before the big bang then there never would have been anything to cause the big bang.
    I agree with your logic, and your conclusion about no beginning and no end. Since this is a philosophy forum, and I don't usually post about philosophy, I will limit my reply to cosmology.

    Your view of a big bang, but not the beginning of space-time with that big bang, leaves open the beginning. Your conclusion that there was no beginning suggests that big bangs are not singularities, but have a basis in physics. You then imply the possibility of the crunch bang cycle that indicates that the crunch has the physics to cause it to bang. You then see the same kind of bang happening again and I think you are seeing everything from the previous bang coming back together to bang again.

    Your scenario of black holes combining eventually to form a grand black hole is nice. I used to call this an ultimate black hole but "black hole" has various connotations and there are various types, so now I just call them big crunches.

    At this point I would like to suggest that in a universe that has always existed and is infinite, big crunches and big bangs would be able to occur here and there, now and then, and it would not be necessary for each crunch bang to be made up of the same matter and energy repeatedly since it would be logical that a crunch would reach the point of a bang with a finite amount of constituent matter/energy. In an infinite universe there would be infinite matter/energy so big crunches and big bangs would be occurring all over the place, all of the time.

    Good thoughts and I agree with most of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Personaly, I think that the big bang was simply a universe that blew up. And that our universe will blow up aswell.

    If one universe blew up, then our will blow up.

    This would explain how the big bang could expand so fast. It didn't, everything just blew up.
    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
  •