Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
21 Comments - 38127 Views
My Hypothesis on the Big Bang
Submitted By Rswanson72 on 09/03/08
FreeHovind, Rswanson72, Creation and Evolution, Big Bang Theory 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

If true, there was not just one Big Bang, there were many Big Bang. Each Big Bang made each galaxy, as each galaxy has its own Black-hole. The size of the Black-hole now, was probably the size of the dot, before the Big Bang. So, it was a very large dot, and not a very small dot.

How did these Big-Bangs Happen? I think two Black-holes found each other and attracked each other, since they have great gravity forces. They crashed into each other so hard, that it exploaded there matter all over the place.

It has been said on the History Channel, that the Universe is Expanding. Correction. The Universe is not expanding. Only part of the Galaxies in the Universe is exspanding in the Universe, but not the Universe it self., while the center part is being eatten by the Black-hole. The Universe can't exspand, because I believe that the Universe is not measurable at this time. The Deep Hubble Telescope has only seen up to 47 billion light years, into the cosmos, but we are limited to see beyond that, due to todays technologies. If you can find a wall that say, "The End". Let me know.

In order for the Big-Bangs to happen, it has to have a Universe to take place in. In other words, these Big-Bangs did not make or create the Universe, but only the displacement of the junk and stuff that is with-in Universe.

» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 4:42 GMT
I not being critical, however this is not exactly accurate.  The universe is most definitely expanding.  This does not mean that the galaxies are simply moving away from us, but rather that space and time are themselves expanding.

You also seem to be implying that we know something about the actual "Bang" of the big bang...we do not.  There is a lot of scientific speculation but we just don't know enough about the nature of the universe to begin to make even an educated guess.

There is an "edge" to the universe.  As you look farther out into space, objects are found to be traveling ever faster.  In fact, much to our current astonishment, it seems to be ACCELERATING!  This behavior implies strongly that there is an "event horizon" associated with the universe as we can never observe any massive body traveling at the speed of light.

As for your last assertion...why does there have to be a universe for it to happen in?  Again, I do not believe we are even close to understanding enough about the universe we recently woke up in to make such an assertion.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 6:05 GMT
From my point of view, the Universe is not expanding. Just the junk or cosmos that is in it. As far as Space and time goes, it don't exist. Space is full, and Time is a measurment of distance, but not change. You'll have to read my other forum, called: "Swanson's Theories, Question and Answers" to understand some of this.

Note: There is a differents between Galaxies verses Universe. All together, the are called the "Cosmoes" Only Galaxies can expand in the Universe, but not the Universe it self.

I don't mean to sound like I'm implying that people know about the actual Big Bang" but when I listen to it on the History Channel, I have to make correction. If I don't, then it contradicts it self.

The Universe is infint mass, which can not exspand. The only way it can expand, is if we are in an egg and it is expanding into another universe that already exist. To me, it is all one Universe, that is not measurable. Only Galaxies in the Universe can expand

There is no edge to the universe, there is for Galaxies. So, you're trying to tell me, that you have found a wall that says, "THE END"? Only things near the Black-Hole travel faster then the outer parts of Galaxies.

To answer you last question, The Big Bangs could not take place, in a place, that don't exist. That is why the Universe already existed and always has. It was not made nor created. You can not put a time stamp to it, as it has always been here.

I recommend you to my YouTube Channel, lesson 1: Go this link---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9HFEpPegM

Lesson 2: ----->This will show you that the Universe is 47 billion light years old, but I know it infinit. We just don't have the technology to proove it, and never will, since it is infinit. LOL. The Deep Hubbble Field, will show you some neet stuff. Go to this link----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7oEFQpKgI ....... Enjoy!

Now, from what I understand, is that the Milky Way (Stars)is expanding. However, if the Galaxies are expanding from each other, does not mean that the Universe is expanding. In other words, if I seperated two objects in your bedroom, does that make your bedroom bigger? No, it will not.

Thanks for the good questions. If you have anymore, please stop by.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 6:41 GMT
Indeed Relativity is not an easy subject to grasp.  I do not claim to have a firm intuition regarding these things.  However, it does seem that relativistic theory stands exceedingly well verified.  If you deny the existence of space-time, how do you explain temporal dilatation?  Why do you think clocks on earth run slow?  You see I do not want to come across as belligerent.  You are asking questions and thinking…this is great.  I encourage you to keep it up.  And you should be careful not to blindly accept argument on authority.  It is a good idea, however, to learn what you can from the experts in the field.  We cannot progress if we all try to reinvent the wheel on our own.

I don’t know about a sign that says “THE END” however there is a restraint at the end of the universe.  I am supposed to meet Jesus there however he is always late.  As for the universe existing…again, I don’t think we have sufficient understanding yet to do more than blindly speculate.

Where do you get the number 47  billion years?  As for the bedroom question…no…however if the bedroom is the outer limit, and it is expanding in volume…then yes….it is getting bigger in some since.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 7:23 GMT
If you watch the link that I have provide you, you will see that the Deep Hubble Field telescope staired into the Cosmos for a little over 11 days. That is where I got the 47 billion light yrs, but I believe the Cosmos is infinit. Note, your room would not get bigger. You can not increase volume. You can increase wait, pressure or vaccume, based on the atomic wait and etc. Example: You can fill your room with gold, but it would require for your room to remove oxygen and other gases, or elements from your room, for the gold to fit. It's called, "Displacement". Volume is a measurement of properties in a container. With out the container, it all remain constant. Relativity is not easy - I agree.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 17:35 GMT
I will watch the vid.  I am quite aware of the hubble deep field images.  However I am also quite certain the accepted age of the universe based upon this data is aproxmimately 13 to 15 billion years.
 
Of course your room could get bigger....you silly goober.  Just push the walls out.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 3:37 GMT
I think the 13 billion is the size of our galaxy (The Milkey Way). The Hubble telescopes take you on a 47 billion journey into the cosmos, where thousands of more galaxies are discovered. As far as the Universe goes. That is not measurable yet.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 7:47 GMT
Nope...13 to 15 billion for the universe.  It has to be as this is the age at which things begin to aproach the light cone.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/19 - 3:30 GMT
Hmm? Not sure what you are talking about. The video, I sent you, shows 47 billion years into the Universe. How do you think the Universe ends? Do you see a big knot, tied into it, or is it a wall? Perhapes, it's all stitched-up, or squeezed, or twisted off. What ever that may be, there is always something after thet, or with-in it. If you think the Universe is a finite distance, please explain. In my book, it is not measurable, as-well-as, the Earth too. It sounds like you did not watch that video on the "Deep Hubble field telescope" link that I gave you.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/19 - 10:02 GMT
"If you think the Universe is a finite distance, please explain. In my book, it is not measurable, as-well-as, the Earth too"

well there is only so much energy, so technically the universe IS finity, abeit very large.
please explain how the earth is not measurable? i do'n't seem to understand that statement and i would like to see it argumented.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/22 - 15:59 GMT
"well there is only so much energy"
 
I'm not sure we know this to be true.  It seems, by all accounts, that our universe is CURRENTLY a closed system thus energy is not created nor destoyed...but how much of it exist is...hard to say.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/22 - 15:44 GMT
Yes...you actually raise an astute point however you are failing to take  the expansion of our universe into account.  I said something before that is not entirely accurate.  I stated that for something traveling at the speed of light, a light year represents both time and distance.  This is true only for a STATIC universe.  The universe is observed to be expanding.  The rate at which it is expanding is directly observed.  Even the acceleration of the expansion has now been well verified...and is a disturbing realization that is yet to be explained if the truth be told. 

From this rate of expansion we can extrapolate how far out the universe could extend without surpassing the speed of light.  This is assumed to be the edge of our universe.  It would not be "tied in a not” nor would it be a wall.  In one geometric model it would simply be an event horizon that is forever increasing in size but that could never be approached as it is traveling at the speed of light.

As for the 47 billion light years, the light you are receiving from the far reaches of the universe do not exceed 14 billion years in age.  However the distance between us and the source of this light has increased during the years this light has been traveling to us.  In a static universe one would expect that the distance to the farthest reaches would be 14 billion years (although in a static universe we would have a very hard time arriving at an age for the universe).  Our universe is not static...it is expanding.  Thus a correction factor for the current distances must be taken into account.  This is where your number of 47 billion light years comes from.
 
Rswanson,  Have you ever thought about pursuing a career in astronomy or astrophysics?  You seem to have the interest.  I am always trying to recruit people into our field and/or department.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/22 - 15:53 GMT
so w8 kevin,
 
you are saying the universe is around 14 billion years old, but it's 46+ billion lightyears across?
 
am i right?
 
if that were so, then the statement 47 billion year old universe, by Rswanson,  was  due to a honest misunderstanding of the use of lightyear as a measure of distance instead of time.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/22 - 15:55 GMT
Yes...that is what I am saying.  It is a mind trip I know, however, such is the queer nature of the universe we have awoken in.
 
And yes...it is an honest mistake...and frankly one I have made before.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/10 - 2:13 GMT
I don’t know about a sign that says “THE END” however there is a restraint at the end of the universe.
 
There is an interesting explanation in A Brief History of Time:
 
"A remarkable feature of [this] model is that in it the universe is not infinite in space, but neither does space have any boundary. Gravity is so strong that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth. If one keeps traveling in a certain directon on the surface of the earth, one never comes up against an impassable barrier or falls over the edge, but eventually comes back to where one started. [...] when one combines general relativity with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, it is possible for both space and time to be finite without any edges or boundaries."
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 15:13 GMT
i hope you haven't confused the big bagn theory with an actual explosion... imo the word "bang" IS HORRIBLY misleading.
the big bang theory simplified: or at least what i know about it, any1 plz correct me if i'm mistating it here.
 
all the nergy was containted in a singularity (not a dot or a point as that would require space. enerygy doesn't. mass does. and mass is concentrated matter.
(BEGINNING)
something caused this sigularity to become unstable and then expand. and when i say expand i mean in 23^-10 second for thousands of miles. as a start.
now the expansion, or "Bang" actually creates space. as it createted matter particles which have to fill a space, thus creating  "space".
that space this matter (concentrated energy) fills is what we call the universe.
(VERY SHORTLY AFTER)
now since the energy has just started to expand and hasn't yet had "time" enough to "condense" into matter, the universe was very "hot" that is to say all the matter that existed for a period of time consisted of the smallest subatomic particles which were moving at incredible speeds (heating something up, is simply adding energy so  particles accelarate, since the energy have little "space" to fill the perticles contain alot of energy and move very fast)
(LONGER AFTER)
as the universe contined to expand it cooled down, and the "protomatter" and enrgy condensed into larger particles, like proton's, neatrons and electrons.
(VERY LONG AFTER BIG BANG)
and then we start getting the nuclear forces. these subatomic particles of the first order start forming the most basic of element Hydrogen, (1 proton and 1 electron). because of the nuclearfoces the clump together, and as more clump together their attraction increases, accelarating the clumping.
pretty soon the first "protostars" form. and as we know stars are the places where fusion happens. fusion will generate the larger elements that comprise our universe today.
all the heavy elements we have now came from massive stars that exploded into supernova, blowing out the heavy element "dust" into space. where eventually....
 (all the while the universe continues to expand)
It formed planets. and that happens, in such a way.
 
a new star is born in a nebulae. in the outer reaches of the (stars)cloud small clumps of matter start forming, basic comets.
the star starts pulling these obejects around (im explaining the circular or eliptical pathes here) it self using the gravity it's mass provides.
as these clumps start to move in a same trajectory, collision starts occuring more and after a lot of time you start getting larger clumps, planets. (the planets will reach their "mature" size when they cleared out all the clumps in the "lane" around the sun).
 
and from there own you probably can guess and i don;'t know enough to describe.
 
but now for the future. if the universe continues ot expand, eventually the nuclear forces will no longer be sufficient enough to hold the subatomic partacles together, as they want to fill the ever increasing space the expansion generates. and so the larges partacles are ripped apart by this need and the entire universe turns into a cold (this time ther isn't so much excess energy to "heat" up the partacles) subatomic "soup". but that probably won't happen until....what like 400 billion years?!
 
however here something interesting pops up.
if the smallest particles themselves are ripped apart to raw energy, you suddenly have a space with only energy.
which leaves the question:
- would the universe suddenly "shrink" rapidly? as energy doesn't require space to exist. so are we going to get a rapid Big shrink followed by another big bang?
- would the energy suddenly revert a single point by default, without shrinking? (so more of a "reset" as the first question)
- Will the universe just consist of a cold place where energy it self is slowely degraded?
 
we can only gues
 
as for multiple universes, outside of our own or in another dimension.
who knows?
 
ANY1 PLZ CORRECT ME IF I MISTATED SOMETHING>
I HAVE JUST A HIGHSCHOOL SCIENCE EDUCATION SO I DON'T KNWO SQUAT ABOUT NUCLEAR PHYSICS OR HAVE  CONPREHENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE THEORY.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 2:20 GMT
How the Big Bang exactly happen, is beyond me. I also can not say, if a Big Bang did happen, but if one did, I can only speculate, or except someone else hypothesis. Your hypothesis is very close to my hypothesis.

I notice you used the word, "Create". Perhaps you mean "Displacement" of matter and energy. Because matter can not come from a place that don't exist. That would require some serious Magic. Also, Energy is matter and does occupy space. That is how a car gets down the road. Example: Electrons are matter that jump from atom to atom. We just call it energy or electicity, when matter is in motion.

I'm still speculating rather if "Time" or "Space" realy exist. "Space" to me, means absolute empty, as if it don't exist. "Time" is a funny thing. Because we can't see, hear, smell,tast, or touch it. I see "Time" as in the mind, as to Love is in the Heart. If I was to live on planet pluto, I would never have a birthday. To me "Time is a measure of distance, but not change. All the change that has taken place in the Universe is still day one and always will be.

I would have to guess that the Universe is infinit, in all directions and dementions. You got to ask your self what makes up electons, or protons, and so on and on. I look at the solar system, as if it is an Atom. I look at the Sun as a proton. I look at our galaxies, as a molecule and/or chemical. It's possible that there could be a membrane around our Universe, that seperates it from another Universe. We just might make up a cell or a wart that is on God's butt. LOL. Who knows.

I think the Black-hole that is in the center of our galaxy is eatting our galaxy away. Will it eat, all of it? Who knows? The gravity might be to weak to suck the outer stars into our Black-hole, since they are expanding. So, I think there is two parts that are going on here. The black hole is eatting our galaxy, while at the same time the outter parts are exscaping our galaxy. Hmm?

Will the Galaxy colapes again? I have a feeling that it will. I don't think that our Black-Hole's gavity is strong enough to pull the other galaxies that are 47 billion light yrs away from ours. They have there own Black-holes. That is why, I believe that there were many Big-Bangs and not just one. It seems like everything takes turn in a negative and positive way. Kind of like a pentulum, or what goes up, must come down. Perhaps what caused these Big Bangs, was two Black-hole hit each other like you would not believe.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 9:47 GMT
"Energy is matter and does occupy space. That is how a car gets down the road. Example: Electrons are matter that jump from atom to atom. We just call it energy or electicity, when matter is in motion. "


the electrons CARRY the energy, they aren't the actual energy.
that electron flow due to charge difference is what we call electricity.

as you know we have voltage and we have ampere.
voltage is the amount of electrons moving, and ampere is the amount of coulomb (energy) the electrons carry.

fotosythesis works in a similar way. the radiation from the sun (in the form of a proton) adds energy to a electron, causing it to accelarate into a further orbit from the nuclius. THAT energy is use to assimilate compounds.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/09 - 9:58 GMT
WHOOPS, i made a massive mistake.
"mass is concentrated matter"
that SHOULD read " matter is concentrated energy"

now rswanson,
what is SAID was that the big bang created space. now i explained it by the fact that matter metter needs space and energy doesn't, so when energy "condenses" into matter, it "creates" space.

now imo, the question of where did the energy come from, is pretty much the only "god (might have) dunnit." thing i wouldn't debate. since i don't think we will ever find our, short of smashing matter aparts and recreating a singularity. now i would like you to argue that time is a measure of distance. which just cannot be. if you werent moving for 5 hours, would you have traveled any further? the answer is no you wouldn't. see distance is measured in 3 dimensions. Breth length and hight. you can go any where from a single point in these three directions, or a combination of those three. like try fitting a shere in a cube, to better understand that. (don't say the shere has only 1 dimension, the radius) i would like to state that time is relative, especially in human society, since we measure our days and years by light (throught the position of our planet relative to the sun). i gtg now since i have class, but i'll write more soon.
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 21:35 GMT
I would highly recommend taking a read through Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's probably the most-accessible explanation of the ideas you're talking about (by "accessible," I mean that it doesn't require require a university-level understanding of mathematics to understand it).
 
There's also a good article specific to the Big Bang / expanding universe called "Why is the Sky Dark at Night?"
 
 
And an article from the Cornell U "Ask an Astronomer" website addressing related topics:
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 22:49 GMT
thank you for the info, when i have time i will certainly read it, but can you tell me offhand what I explained wrong?
» Reply to Comment
Re: My Theories on the Big Bang Theory
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/08 - 23:43 GMT
Sorry, I had actually been replying to RSwanson's post. I don't see anything wrong with your post - it's a nice, concise summary of current knowledge/opinions in the field of cosmology.
 
Not that I'm any sort of authority on the matter - my knowledge of the subject is from a purely amateur, personal-interest standpoint.


GenTime: 0.0483 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff