My theory on big bang theory

asymmetrical · Sep 14, 2005

Concerning the big bang theory, and the now colliding galaxies that seem to be underway. Oxymorons. With the Big Bang, I've been led to believe everything started at same point (call it x ) and was expelled outward violently. Thus Galaxies moving away from each other all at/near same rate-no colliding would be feasible, right ? Well maybe there are thousands of x's- but instead of "Big Bangs". They are matter being expelled from the other end of a black hole ? A lot of black holes out there, and spitting matter out in diff. directions eventually, something's bound to cross paths right ? It would explain colliding galaxies, um, in theory

spaceinvador_old · Sep 14, 2005

I agree, that there must be places or a place in space that spews out material. Since galaxies collect each other, the bigger one always sucking up the smaller one in that order, there must be a place where stuff is being expelled and a place where its sucked up. I hope I made sense. If we can locate the largest galaxy and then the smallest, we'ld probably have a map of the universe. But since we can't see the now light years away, we will never know...

nexium · Sep 14, 2005

Your hypothesis of many centers for the big bang is as good as any, except some other variations have advanced math advantages. A popular version has the galaxies like rasins in expanding bread dough instead of shrapenel from from a bomb exploding in air. Most big bang hypothesis have little or no expansion inside galaxies, but galactic groups seem to be moving away from each other, more often than not. Many of our tentative conclusions depend strongly on red shift being entirely caused by doupler speed differences, but some very smart people think doupler red shift may be a flawed tool. We may never know (much of anything) for sure, as most explanations are subject to unreasonable doubt. Neil

newtonian · Sep 14, 2005

Assymmetrical - Thinking outside the box, I see. That's OK. The observed expansion, based on red shift and blue shift observations, is accelerating. Consider the model of Isaiah 40:22, the universe being like an expanding fine gauze that is being stretched out. In that model, the universe would have a gauze-like, or fabric, appearance - with threads and filaments. That is the observed appearance of our universe. In that model all points would expand from each other, and more distant points would expand faster. Again, that is what is generally observed. However, for closer locations other factors become more influential. Job 38:31 indicates, for example, that some stellar bonds will hold fast while others will be loosened. We now know some of these bonds, notably gravity, magnetism vs. dark energy which is part of the cause and effect of acceleration of expansion. This also applies to closer galaxies, such as Andromeda - we will merge with Andromeda. Many local galaxies are not red shifted, but blue shifted. and the local area of the fabric of space is being drawn towards a great attractor. Will we end up permanently bonded to the great attractor? I don't know, btw. There may have been other big bangs in other universes which we may one day interact with. In fact, we may already be expanding into contact witb another universe - but simply do not see it yet! I.e. - it is beyond our visibility horizon,, i.e. our light cone.

rickychuck · Sep 14, 2005

Nexium, I can see the potential for conjecture in this place is going to be limitless, and before I can answer my questions in the Dumb Question thread, I must first come to terms with what actually happened with regard to the BB. Gonna be a long year!

alkalin · Sep 14, 2005

Hi Newtonian, You live near NO, do you not? How was Katrina for you? Is harvest season now over? (Not intended as a joke. I was a farmer once too many years ago.) How do you interpret Isaiah? Does it mean that gauze or threads connect things, and possibly there is a view of it? Of coarse there is. (Some interpret this as tent. I would advise for you not to give any ultimate truth to it, it will not matter much to me as to how you might interpret ancient tale and fable, which actually has some truth to it, but still is subject to interpretational error) But it could also imply further growth of the universe based on the further points of development, and not on fictional inflation. Look further into Hannse Alfven (a Noble Lauriat) for further insight. For those starting this thread, what about the recent Johns Hopkins studies, based on spectrographic data, that clearly show that the universe up to about eleven billion years ago has large galaxies, a feature that is totally unexpected, and is not predicted by BB. The science of large galaxy formation implies very strongly that these objects are not instantly formed; it takes many billions of years for them to form. So assuming that the large galaxy out there eleven billion years in the past is at least ten billion years old, far under actual, it tells me that that part of the universe is at least twenty one billion years old. Yet still being published by current cosmology is that the universe is thirteen point seven billion years old. I do not trust anyone that cannot add simple numbers together.

rickychuck · Sep 15, 2005

Makes sense when you accept that these light-emitting astronomical events did not just switch on like a flashlight, so if the light took 13 billion years to get to us at this moment in the timeline of the universe, and it took how many million/billions of years for the astronomical events to evolve to the moment when they started creating light, then it does seem like adding up some simple numbers...the wildcard here knowing how long it took to go from gases clumping together to a star switching on, for example. Good stuff. I've also wondered how long it took for a black hole to form, and THEN for a galaxy to evolve around it, because isn't a black hole the final identity of a star that has progressed through its life to the final configuration? That would take a few days, too. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

nexium · Sep 16, 2005

You may be thinking a billion is a little more than a million. Not so. If the universe became transparent 0.01 billion years = 10 million years after the big bang and the proto-galaxies clumped ten million years after that; the first O class = most massive stars may have been main sequence 0.02 billion years after the big bang and about to super nova. By 0.03 billion years after the big bang, some of these black holes may have swallowed a million solar mass. That puts us at 13.67 billion years ago. Perhaps someone can refine these numbers I picked as an explanation. Neil

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

There are two forces in play in colliding galaxies. You have expansion of the universe, which will drawn them appart (if unopposed) and gravity, which will draw them together (if unopposed). Expansion gets stronger the further away you are (and weaker the closer you are). Gravity works the other way around. As such, if two galaxies are close enough, their mutual gravity is enough to overcome expansion, and allow them to merge. If they are not close enough, expansion overpowers gravity, and they are carried apart. No need for multiple centers of expansion. Just a recognition that there are multiple forces in play here, not just expansion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

alkalin - Hi! Yes, Katrina did indeed harvest many trees here - sadly it seems Fema rules makes it financially advantageous to let them rot rather than do the right thing - which would, of course, be to harvest them - i.e. truck them to mills and turn them to lumber to rebuild destroyed homes. We are about 100 miles north of New Orleans - but what saved our trailer was that the track was East of us and a woods about 100 yards north of us and slightly higher elevation than us shielded our trailer. However, it also gave us a false sense of security and we almost evacuated too late: 5:30 AM CST Monday, 8/29/05. We were blocked by a fallen tree on State Line Road, had to drive into and out of a ditch to get around it. And when we entered I-55 North at Osyka, Mississippi, there was no other vehicle travelling either north or south! The wind was so strong it was hard to control our Toyota - and the Corolla handles extremely well. About 15 miles north we finally caught up to a speeding tractor trailer and followed it North until we outdistanced the hurricane force squalls near Brookhaven. Well, I hope to tell more in Free Space. To Segway back to thread theme -it is truly awesome what happens when heat energy gets concentrated in a vortex! Which brings up an old question - was the singularity at the origin of our universe spinning? On Isaiah - Yes, I left out trying to interpret tent. Tents were various shapes back then - the tabernacle was a rectangular prism. Does the illustration imply other universes like tentcloths (with their own space-time fabrics) intersecting our expanding space-time fabric at some distance beyond our visibility horizon? Yes, human interpretations both in science and Scripture are indeed fallible. we are encouraged in Romans 1:20 to study the things made to learn God's power and wisdom, etc. The various fields o

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

alkalin and saiph - If you consider the simple illustration of an expanding gauze (Is.40:22) with some bonds loosening and others holding fast (Job), then you end up, not with multiple centers of origin, but with multiple centers of attraction to contraction within an overall expansion. to wit: Expand a flexible gauze with threads and filaments. The stretching will eventually break some of the bonds. As a result, some sections will actually recoil as the bonds break around them and the bonds within them hold fast. Again, this is in harmony with scientific observation - as our local section recoils towards a great attractor. There may be multiple great attractors in our universe - in fact there is another one in the opposite direction - there is an old thread on this, I will try to resurect it as it had great detail. My main point is that while the evidence is for one center of origin in our 4-D space time fabric, there are apparently a number of 3-d centers of attraction in the process of developing within the overall expanding universe.

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Assymmetrical - Please consider my above post. Then consider, your multiple x's as containing supermassive black hole(s) at various point of great attraction in our universe at this time. Yes, not everything would stay bonded to these attractors - as you note, matter spews out (and energy) from black holes. The question logically follows, will Milky Way remain gravitationally bonded to the Great Attractor? Or, trillions of years from now, will we be catipulted to some other great attractor on some awesome journey quadrillions of years future?

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - good concise post.

asymmetrical · Sep 17, 2005

Newt. Maybe we still are attached ? My meaning is this. Everything has ebb and flow. The very pulse of life itself. civilizations have it, oceans have it, are veins and arteries have it. Maybe our expansion is finite-- I think of a yo-yo. We're speeding along all happy and content--when we reach our limit. Gravity will eventually overcome our expansion speed. ah, won't it ? Only to pull us back ever faster to our attractor---only to be re-spewed back out into space with, well, not quite new matter, but duely changed matter (pretty hot I would think). and have the whole cycle repeat over and over again ? I used black holes as my example only, because I lacked any better terms or names at that moment I described my idea. Insert whatever might work for black holes.

asymmetrical · Sep 17, 2005

but Saiph ? If the galaxies were close enough for thier gravatational forces to be strong enough to bind them--that would mean they are still relatively close to thier x-point, for lack of better words, I apologize to all. Meaning thier speed is still very great in thier young journey. Thier gravity would have to overcome thier speed away from each other. In my yo-yo scenario, or rift in space time continueum even in the re-coil phase things wouldn't intersect each other--unless of course we passed through something coming from the other side of our x-point ? Right ?

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

Galaxies have a minor random motion component to their trajectories. Normally only a few hundred, maybe a thousand km/s. The further away the galaxy, the faster it goes, due to expansion. So if it's close, expansion is minor, and the only real motion is the relatively minor "proper" motion. gravity can easily mess with this, and allow for mergers and collisions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Assymmetrical - Saiph's post is correct, to the best of our current knowledge. I will respond better later tonight. Meanwhile: It is difficult to determine Milky Way's distant future course, assuming God does not fine tune it further in some way. The angular momentum after repeated cycles in the merger with Andromeda is hard enough to model on a computer, let alone the many other mergers or near mergers Milky Way will go through on the way to the Great Attractor. While I research this further: Anyone - How far distant has computer modeling gone for the future track, trajectory, of Milky Way?

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Asymmetrical - We are still attached, but the graviational tug of war with another attractor is leading to our being loosened from the latter attractor. In a future post I will docurment detail on this, when I get time. On that point about the x-point (e.g. the Great Attractor) being a source for heat: That is one reason why the oversimplified and over publicized heat death scenario for our universe is oversimplified. Our local section of universe will not undergo heat death for a very extended period of time, much longer than most heat death predictions. And this involves thousands of galaxies, btw. Far from our night sky being boring and back in future quadrillions of years, our night sky will be awesome in ways we can barely imagine! I might add that there is also much matter currently dark which may light up in future mergers. One of the more dramatic future events for our earth and heavens is described as follows: (Hebrews 1:10-12) . . .: “You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. 11 They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.” Footnote on perish: Lit., “will destroy themselves.” Yet this does not contradict other statements that the heavens and earth will remain forever. The change will be so drastic that the former state will perish. The key phrase: they will be changed. I do not know what future event this refers to, but there are some good contenders: A. Armageddon 1. Earth and sun when sun enters red giant phase. 2. Earth, sun and local section of the heavens during the Milky Way - Andromeda merger.

asymmetrical · Sep 29, 2005

Gentlemen. Ladies ? I would hope so, anyways. I appreciate any and all comments made concerning a question of mine--or more likely then not my never ending hypothesis' or "Theory's" as I like to call them. I love that word theory. So protective when one likes to delve into certain areas that he knows, is usually surrounded by individuals much more intelligent than he. But that is how I learn, and I am not above changing my point of view- if given statements seem logical. Thanks Saiph, Newt., Nexium and everyone else for thier honest opinions/theory's to my ever inquisitive, although lacking the needed math skills, mind. And not making me afraid to post my ideas. As I see it. I might be slightly off base on something, but the discussion that arises from my post might well indeed lead a brighter mind down the right path somehow ? I can dream. Now here it goes. Early on in a reply to my theory I think it was Newt ? That said something to the affect "higher math supports other likely scenario's." Gulp. Does not the math used in most of our Astronomical calculations contain a "fudge factor "component within it to make it work ? Ex. Dark matter. Or any other plausible variable to make it work ? If so, in "theory" again. I'm going to be eternally banned from this site I'm afraid. If so, then there's a "fudge factor" out there, that when inserted, might make my calculation look like it would work Or any other calc. work ? P.S. I think it was Nexium that mentioned the advanced math supports reply.

newtonian · Sep 30, 2005

Asymmetrical - I am the former paulharth6 (SDC before the crash), my real name (without the 6, a symbol for imperfection which I did not choose but which nonetheless fits). I.e.,. I am male. Yes, in view of astonomers appealing to dark matter and dark energy, current models are indeed theory. For example, I have considered that acceleration of expansion may be, in part at least, due to a domino effect involving ordinary gravity from mass beyond our visibility horizon. For example, there may be universal mass which is expanding FTL and which is therefore beyond our light cone, aka visiblity horizon, and which cannot therefore directly pull us by gravity. This mass, however, would be within the light cone of portions of our universe near our visibility horizon and therefore pulling that section of universe by gravity to try to catch up to the more distant FTL expanding universal matter! And so on in a domino effect to some unknown vast distance away - perhaps to an expanding universal edge of the limits of the influence of universal gravitation. BTW - FTL = faster than light. Or, acceleration of expansion could simply be due to gravitational influence of a much larger universe which we are expanding within. In the latter case our universe would not be a closed system thermodynamcially speaking but rather: be being acted on by outside force or energy.

asymmetrical · Oct 2, 2005

Saiph. One question regarding the expanding/gravity thingy. I agree that if close enough, gravity can overcome expansion if criteria are met. A also agree with the reversal-expansion at a certain distance will gain the advantage and so on. This is my point tho. If there is thought to be 1 point of origin ( the big bang ), which is still one of the most accepted theories. My contention is this. a) every piece of matter is exploded away from this point in linear fashion. Not at degrees which if continued outward would intersect, therefore colliding galaxies. b) the galaxies were/still are traveling at such speeds (and now created such distances between them now) that expansion is still winning out over gravity. c) when the galaxies were close enough together for gravitional forces to work thier magic, they weren't even big enough pieces of matter to have such an effect and they were still traveling way to fast at this point to have any cohesiveness overcome the speed hurtling them away from each other. d) one exception tho, would be if there were more than 1 starting point--maybe even the same singularity, with multiple explosions, and each explosion displaced/moved the position of the singularity a fraction in space so the next outburst of material were at differant projections, creating intersecting paths of galaxies. No ? I like Newtonian's theory. Something greater and furthur then us is reeling us in (like a black hole's gravity. but we still shouldn't cross each other's paths) I think.

My theory on big bang theory

asymmetrical

Guest

spaceinvador_old

Guest

nexium

Guest

newtonian

Guest

rickychuck

Guest

alkalin

Guest

rickychuck

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

asymmetrical

Guest

asymmetrical

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

asymmetrical

Guest

newtonian

Guest

asymmetrical

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page