The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A new big bang theory.  (Read 1501 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
A new big bang theory.
« on: 13/06/2015 11:27:55 »
In the beginning there was an infinite void, that existed an infinite dark energy of a negative polarity without physical body but with physical presence in a dormant state.
The negative space was attracted to negative space and held together without body.
At the center of infinite space, any singular point of infinite space, a positive polarity point of space was statically made, (a spark in the dark), all of infinite negative space was instantaneously attracted to this positive polarity point of space, causing the ''spark'' to instantaneously compress, by the volume pressure of the negative polarity, resulting in a big bang......


added - an energy that was of a negative polarity would be undetectable by any observation means, hence ''dark energy'' not seen as light so undetected.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 11:39:30 by Thebox »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #1 on: 14/06/2015 06:49:04 »
Quote from: Thebox
In the beginning there was an infinite void, that existed an infinite dark energy of a negative polarity without physical body but with physical presence in a dormant state. The negative space was attracted to negative space and held together without body.
You're running at deep risk of getting into pseudoscience. Let me recall the crackpot index for you:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Quote
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
Here you used two terms without defining them; "negative polarity," "dormant state" and "negative space."

Quote
At the center of infinite space, ..
Such a thing is meaningless, almost by definition. The meaning of "at the center of" is defined to mean "at equal distance to boundaries. A box, a circle and a sphere all have centers. However Cartesian space (1D, 2D or 3D) has no center. Even in a bounded space there may not be a center. Suppose you had a colony of 2-dimensional people walking around the surface of a sphere. His and his community only exists o the surface of the sphere, i.e. their entire world is the surface of the sphere's surface. Nothing exists off the surface to them. The leader tells his community to follow him to the center of the surface.  No matter how hard they try they will not find a point on the surface which is in any way different than any other point. There is no center of their universe. Understand?


What exactly are you basing all of this on anyway? If and when physicists speculate they do so based only on the knowledge that they have. That's why the big bang theory only describes events only back to a certain time in the past and then no further. Here you're claiming to go beyond that. In fact your "void" makes no sense. Space was actually created at the moment of the Big Bang so there was no void before it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #2 on: 14/06/2015 10:38:51 »
Quote from: Thebox
In the beginning there was an infinite void, that existed an infinite dark energy of a negative polarity without physical body but with physical presence in a dormant state. The negative space was attracted to negative space and held together without body.
You're running at deep risk of getting into pseudoscience. Let me recall the crackpot index for you:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Quote
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
Here you used two terms without defining them; "negative polarity," "dormant state" and "negative space."

Quote
At the center of infinite space, ..
Such a thing is meaningless, almost by definition. The meaning of "at the center of" is defined to mean "at equal distance to boundaries. A box, a circle and a sphere all have centers. However Cartesian space (1D, 2D or 3D) has no center. Even in a bounded space there may not be a center. Suppose you had a colony of 2-dimensional people walking around the surface of a sphere. His and his community only exists o the surface of the sphere, i.e. their entire world is the surface of the sphere's surface. Nothing exists off the surface to them. The leader tells his community to follow him to the center of the surface.  No matter how hard they try they will not find a point on the surface which is in any way different than any other point. There is no center of their universe. Understand?


What exactly are you basing all of this on anyway? If and when physicists speculate they do so based only on the knowledge that they have. That's why the big bang theory only describes events only back to a certain time in the past and then no further. Here you're claiming to go beyond that. In fact your "void" makes no sense. Space was actually created at the moment of the Big Bang so there was no void before it.

Negative polarity- no net charge, opposite to positive, minus magnetic pole, minus anything positive

dormant state - inactive, no values, a nothing.

negative space-the two above.

''such a thing is meaningless, almost by definition. The meaning of "at the center of" is defined to mean "at equal distance to boundaries.''

Based on center is dependant to the observer, an observer being central of an infinite space and based on that the distance between observers is equal distance from observer to observer boundaries.


''What exactly are you basing all of this on anyway? If and when physicists speculate they do so based only on the knowledge that they have. That's why the big bang theory only describes events only back to a certain time in the past and then no further. Here you're claiming to go beyond that. In fact your "void" makes no sense. Space was actually created at the moment of the Big Bang so there was no void before it.''

I am basing my idea on the knowledge I already have and proven physical facts.
The big bang describes an ''expansion'', space itself expanding being created.  This is not what physical facts of observation we observe. Gas expansion, metal expansion, shows us that there has to be space for something to expand into, i.e a gas contained will expand its containment when the energy entropy is increased, unless we re-enforce the containment i.e denser containment.

We observe matter moving away from us increasing the distance between reference points, we also observe objects move through space-time whilst space is relatively stationary.
We have never observed space itself expanding, we observe things moving away.
So my idea is related to this, in the beginning there was nothing, nothing being an infinite void, an emptiness to fill.

added - and I believe , that nothing can exist without a space to exist in , including a big bang. I believe this is an axiom?

Option one - we are inside a real box, finite space,  inside of a solid

option two , a finite observation of infinite space

The only answer in either instance ,that outside of a solid would always be space.  Making space a fact as being infinite.

There is no 3rd options, there is only 2 options that lead to one answer with no possible paradox.

space and matter, we do not observe infinite matter.




« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 12:43:09 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #3 on: 14/06/2015 14:34:36 »

Negative polarity- no net charge, opposite to positive, minus magnetic pole, minus anything positive

dormant state - inactive, no values, a nothing.

negative space-the two above.

Negative polarity ≠ no net charge ≠ dormant state ≠ inactive ≠ no values ≠ a nothing.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #4 on: 14/06/2015 16:53:58 »
Thebox - I have no idea what caused the big bang. I would hazard a guess that no one else has a definitive theory either. The physicists that are interested in finding out have dedicated years to learning their profession. Then they have attempted to develop new theories from that grounding. It would take me years to get even close to their level of knowledge if I did nothing else but study the relevant material. If that is something you are interested in then go through the process of learning the maths and physics required. You never know, you might achieve something. Success doesn't come without effort.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #5 on: 17/06/2015 04:24:21 »
Quote from: Thebox
Negative polarity- no net charge, opposite to positive, minus magnetic pole, minus anything positive
I'm glad I asked because I had a sneaking suspicion that you defined this differently that physics does. In physics something with negative polarity would be something with either a negative charge or the negative terminal of a battery. Saying that it has no net charge means that the charge is zero, not negative. The opposite to positive is negative. The charge of an electron is opposite to positive charge. According to you this means no net charge but according to mainstream physics the electron has a definite negative charge which is non-zero in magnitude.

Quote from: Thebox
negative space-the two above.
Meaningless.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A new big bang theory.
« Reply #5 on: 17/06/2015 04:24:21 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums