Big Bang, Black Holes & Expanding Universe - SINGLE THEORY

[mars_or_die]

Okay I have thought about this long and hard and I think I can prove the Big Bang happened and how/why the Universe is expanding with a SINGLE THEORY. Furthermore, this theory may well prove the existense of multiple universes. Remember, this is just a theory, but I think it is a dang good one.<br /><br />WORD OF CAUTION: Sadly, this is an extremely complex and mind-blowing theory that will likely be beyond comprehension to some of you. If you wind up with a severe headache or are just down right confused silly, well I'M SORRY!<br /><br />UNIVERSAL THEORY OF EXISTENCE<br /><br />Before time began there was a single point that contained infinite energy. This point eventually exploded, spewing energy in all directions at incredible speeds. As this energy slowed it formed Matter, Dark Matter, light, etc. Thus the birth of the universe. As the universe formed solar systems began to form, then stars, suns, etc. At some point the "single point" spewed out all its energy. However, black holes soon formed.<br /><br />These black holes suck in everything, converting it to energy and feeding it back to that "single point". Allowing that single point to continue to spew out energy. This continuous spewing pushes the universe farther apart and causes it to continuously change, expand, reshape.<br /><br />These black holes, may well feed the captured energy to "single points" in numerous universes. We have already discovered several black holes in our universe and there are probably thousands or even millions more that we have yet to discover. If all these black holes fed the same "single point" at the center of our universe we would be expanding at a drastically greater speed than we are. That is not the case, in fact our expansion is believed to be slowing.<br /><br />I believe that each black hole feeds a different "single point" in a different universe. Possibly even in a different dimension.

 

[siarad]

To be a theory requires proof which I don't see, this is conjecture.<br />A conjecture leads to proof creating a theory.

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">WORD OF CAUTION: Sadly, this is an extremely complex and mind-blowing theory that will likely be beyond comprehension to some of you. If you wind up with a severe headache or are just down right confused silly, well I'M SORRY!</font><br /><br />Mind blowing indeed.<br /><br /><font color="orange">As the universe formed solar systems began to form, then stars, suns, etc.</font><br /><br />This sentence, alone, gave me a migraine. My head hurt so bad, I couldn't handle reading the rest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>This point eventually exploded</i><br /><br />Well, it wasn't precisely an explosion, but we'll let that slide.<br /><br /><i>spewing energy in all directions at incredible speeds.</i><br /><br />Spacetime itself expanded. Energy (subsequently cooling enough for matter to coalesce and remain stable came a bit later) went along for the ride.<br /><br /><i>As this energy slowed it formed Matter, Dark Matter, light, etc.</i><br /><br />The cooling off was what allowed the formation of matter, not acceleration. Although I'll grant you that the expansion due to Inflation allowed this cooling to occur in the timeframe it did.<br /><br /><i>However, black holes soon formed.</i><br /><br />Not certain what the point of mentioning this is. I suppose I'll find out later.<br /><br /><i>These black holes suck in everything, converting it to energy and feeding it back to that "single point".</i><br /><br />Ahhh, no. There is no "center" to our universe, nor is there some remnant of the primordial Monobloc continuing to "spew" energy. We know this as if this were so, everything would be expanding away from that central point. That isn't the case.<br /><br /><i>This continuous spewing pushes the universe farther apart and causes it to continuously change, expand, reshape.</i><br /><br />As spacetime is still expanding, this is not neccessary, nor correct (for reasons already explained above).<br /><br /><i>These black holes, may well feed the captured energy to "single points" in numerous universes.</i><br /><br />Possibly so. One hypothesis is that Singularities connect to some other point in spacetime, not neccessarily our own universe.<br /><br /><i>If all these black holes fed the same "single point" at the center of our universe we would be expanding at a drastically greater speed than we are. That is not the case, in fact our expansion is believed to be slowing.</i><br /><br />Well first, as stated, there is no "central point" that "spews" energy. Further, the rate of expansion has recently be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

You have vague notion of white hole ,undigested.

 

[why06]

How do you know that a center to ae universe does not exist. Like I said before "everything has a center. No matter how many dimensions you give an object it has a center or it couldn't exist mathematically. Even that baloon thing you were talking about is a two-dimensional objects with three dimensional like qualities. but if time existed even there it would have a center. If you can't draw an object with a center in this dimension without a center than in this dimension it can not be done. the only things I know without a center are a point (because i is its own center), aline and a ray.<br /><font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

In the balloon analogy, there is no center, because everything is expanding. For there to be a center, it implies one portion that does not expand, but remains static, while everything else expands away from it.<br /><br />And, as I'd said, we'd have noticed by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

the balloon it self does not have a center but if you took a long exposure of the baloon filling up you mould see that a center does exist. also like I said ... before any air was added to the ballon it had a real center. It is more than plausible that a center could exist. realistically and back in time <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Perhaps with a balloon, yes. That's why analogy is usually suspect. In this case, as it was space itself expanding in all directions. No region was preferred to another. E.g., no center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[why06]

There is no center because there is one dimension of time. but a soon as matter was formed bounderies were created. As far as the center of space time itself- that is tough no one can really say anyting to if there is a center or not because it would need to be compared to some other back ground. This steps on many toes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Actually, the universe is considered a "no boundary" condition. There is no "center" and there is no "edge." <br /><br /><i>"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."<br /><br />-Stephen Hawking</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

As the universe formed solar systems began to form, then stars, suns, etc. <br /><br />This sentence, alone, gave me a migraine. My head hurt so bad, I couldn't handle reading the rest. <br /><br />ROFLMAO! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

As the universe formed, black holes soon formed.<br /><br />This is already a theory of galaxy formation. Blackholes are the seeds of galaxies, which grow in size. Sorry, I took your words out of context.<br /><br />We have already discovered several black holes in our universe and there are probably thousands or even millions more that we have yet to discover. <br /><br />Already have discovered thousands of blackholes in our galaxy alone. Most X-ray sources. <br /><br />I believe that each black hole feeds a different "single point" in a different universe. Possibly even in a different dimension. <br /><br />Your "idea" does have merit, and shows imagination, but is not new. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[thepiper]

<font color="orange">Before time began there was a single point that contained infinite energy. This point eventually exploded, spewing energy in all directions at incredible speeds.</font><br /><br />This seems too much like a "creation" to me and skips a huge part. You fail to show how this single point could possibly contain everything we see today. You also don't explain what mechanism could cause it to explode if it is only a point with nothing outside of it, and you take this unproven (and unprovable) assumption as a jumping point to start your theory.<br /><br /><font color="orange">These black holes suck in everything, converting it to energy and feeding it back to that "single point". Allowing that single point to continue to spew out energy.</font><br /><br />This could easily be reversed. If you consider the jets of matter being spewed out of the centers of galaxies (as well as newborn star nebulae) it would seem that this is where the energy spews out , not where it goes in. In this way you avoid the requirement for a center point of the universe since the matter is coming from the center of most (if not all) galaxies.<br /><br /><font color="orange">This continuous spewing pushes the universe farther apart and causes it to continuously change, expand, reshape.</font><br /><br />I don't know if it's being pushed apart as much as we think, but I agree that there is matter constantly being created and that the universe is constantly being reshaped.<br /><br /><font color="orange">I believe that each black hole feeds a different "single point" in a different universe. Possibly even in a different dimension</font><br /><br />Again the reverse could also be possible. Each "white hole" at the center of a galaxy could be fed by a point in another universe or possibly even in a different dimension.

 

[why06]

Mars_or_Die<br />You really need to stop just throwing out a bunch of theories without researching them. Yevaud compared to all matter in the universe.. if you played connect-the-dots with every atom in the universe there would be a center. Like I said... As for space time I don't believe the creation of a demension should be confused with the creation of a universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[phobophile]

If theories on how to disprove conventional scientific thinking about "new physics" or how "einstein and newton were wrong" on internet blogs or message boards were a single watt of energy then with the power of all of them we could solve the worlds coming energy crunch and use the rest to power a hundred tevatron particle accelerators!<br /><br />Of course being that these theories would be accepted as fact the particle accelerators would be unneccary as science would then become mysticysm and myth and any idiot with a mouse can write an illedgable paper to be published in peer reviewed journals...<br /><br />Shudder!

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Actually, the universe is considered a "no boundary" condition. There is no "center" and there is no "edge." <br /></font><br /><br />this implies an open universe, then. not closed.

 

[yevaud]

No it doesn't. You're not understanding what's meant by "open" and "closed." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

depens on what theory you subscribe to... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

True, but he was misunderstanding the terminology in Physics. If he wants to argue whether it's an open universe or not is another matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

agreed <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[mikelawre]

In a universe with total energy equal to zero, all points are centres of equal validity, regardless of 'where' they may be situated. You only have to start with zero energy and keep it that way! My own TOE is a bit more developed, but I'll keep it short! The universe is unitised as zero mass black holes, no total energy. The zero mass black holes can be (how - one or more rips in space?) split into two equal and opposite black/white holes. They chase each other, forming chains, loops (time starts here) and rings (quarks and leptons) Photons are ring and anti-ring rotating the same way, frequency=energy, spin =1, effectively six zmbhs rotating as they travel. Inflation is the rapid expansion of size of the rings from initial formation at Planck energy (freq = highest poss, size = Planck length radius) to current sizes via three different rates in the three different orientations. Symmetric isomers of the only 8 possible rings are 'normal matter' and the asymmetric are dark matter. Dark energy not required because universal vicosity provides both drag to keep max speed of any particle to light speed and causes photon energy loss proportional to distance travelled, so universe is smaller than expected. There's lots more, but I don't want to bore you. There is a diagram of the formation steps etc at www.pbtsm.co.uk (physics beyond the standard model). Mike

 

[bonzelite]

^^^very much a mouthfull. but highly interesting. you've thrown out a lot in a very dense space. i must re-read what you posted a few times <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> keep them coming. i'm interested.