Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jaycee on 28/02/2008 09:56:58
-
Good day to one and all.
As my first post I have had an idea about how the universe is formed.
I cannot subscribe to the big bang it just does not gel with me, although it is possible that this was the way the Universe formed the very first time.
I suspect that our Universe has expanded and contracted many times since then if that was the case.
I do not believe there was a bang for our current Universe.
I believe our current universe was formed from an expansion of compacted matter and energy.
I believe that a Universe expands and contracts much in the way that a spring does except at a quantum level
A Compacted Universe has the potential energy equal to the energy that was required to compact it.
An expanding Universe has this Energy stored in the overall mass and as the Universe expands this energy is present initially in the form of kinetic energy.
I believe that space is always in a state of positive mass or negative mass or when these states are in balance neutral mass
I believe that a Universe is either in a state of expansion or contraction and because of this energy is always conserved
I believe that positive mass has positive gravity.
I believe that negative mass has negative gravity (not antigravity)
I believe that neutral mass has neutral gravity.
I believe that positive mass is attracted to negative mass.
I suspect that when a contracted universe reaches a certain point of density there is a change of temperature. It may well be this that triggers expansion.
It is possible that it is also a change of Universal temperature that causes the universe to contract.
However, I suspect that it is a drop in kinetic energy that causes this and that the universe contracts under the influence of gravity.
This may seem like an odd hypothesis, I do not have the resources or the skills with mathematics to prove this.
However, there are those amongst you that have.
Do not dismiss this out of hand, please think about it.
-
Perhaps you are utilising the wrong sort of gel.....
-
Unfortunately being somewhat receding in the Hair department, it is not Hair Gel.
Angst is a treatable condition.
Would you like to book an appointment?
-
Sorry, I was being sardonic. You say that you don't believe that it was a bang, but I think that you may be taking this a little too literally, for what you later describe could be seen as a description of the concept of the big bang. It was clearly not a bang, in the sense that such is a sound and would have no medium by which to carry.
-
Sardonism? As in derision or contempt?
I was led to believe that the Universe simply exploded into existence from an infinitely small point in space and then proceeded to expand, perhaps I have misunderstood?
Also I did not coin the term Big Bang, but I believe Stephen Hawkings theory is publically known by this euphemism.
-
Sardonism? As in derision or contempt?
Apologies (again), sardonic was a poor choice of words. Facetious would be better.
I was led to believe that the Universe simply exploded into existence from an infinitely small point in space and then proceeded to expand, perhaps I have misunderstood?
But isn't this pretty much exactly what you suggest here;
I believe our current universe was formed from an expansion of compacted matter and energy.?
-
My apologies, [:I]
I have just down some very rapid reading, I had never read in detail the theory behind the inflationary principle.
However I still suspect that if you apply the math that relates to compression and expansion of a spring to the Universe it fits quite nicely
-
The problem I have is with infinitely small.
You see current science tells us that small particles are common, is each of these a potential universe?
If gravity is related to mass and this particle was infinitely small and infinitely dense then the power it took to compress it to this state must have been phenomenal.
Was it gravity that caused this to occur?
So why did it not stay compressed.
If an infinitely small infinitely dense particle were to interact with space time it would not just curve it, it may create an infinitely deep gravity well and if this were the case nothing would escape.
Now the spring compression principle seems to work and does not seem to require any fudges.
Now I am a layman and do not have an education in physics,and of course I will bow to someone who has greater knowledge of this subject than mine.
However I still want to know why the universe does what it does.
-
There was never a big bang! You can't get Owt From Nowt!
There is no black hole either other than the one in S. Hawkings Head !
Andrew K Fletcher
-
what do you believe happened, Andrew?
-
There was never a big bang! You can't get Owt From Nowt!
There is no black hole either other than the one in S. Hawkings Head !
Andrew K Fletcher
to the first comment, of course you can! just add N [;)]
which acutally leads to my little point... assuming that the universe has always been an infinitely dense clump of... stuff (mattergy?). perhaps what caused this mattergy to expand was the addition of "N". which leads to the question: what added, or cause the addition of, "N"?
edit: oops, you said get owt from nowt... [:I]
-
honestly, how can we prove it one way or another? (speaking of S. Hawking, I just saw him speak at Caltech...)
-
Cooliorob search my recent posts as I have been airing my views on this in 2 threads relating to the big bang.
-
Don't go looking for conclusive proof. It's all based on the balance of probabilities between the various alternatives.
At the present, the evidence being what it is, there are a lot of clever people who reckon that the probability is in favour of a big bang as the start. Until some new evidence turns up it is the best bet.
When I was at Uni. 'they' reckoned on a Steady State Universe. It was a very convincing argument but other evidence came up and 'they' changed their view.
The gold standard of proof is whether the numbers add up - not that one theory 'appeals' more than another.