The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: From the singularity that never existed-to the end of the expanding universe  (Read 662 times)

Offline Davidlawrencekellam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Good morning:  Well, what was before the Big Bang? But first, we need to examine what happened prior to the Large Raipd Expansion which we call the Big Bang.  The singularity?  The singularity translated means "we don't know anything and we can't explain it" so we call it the singularity.  What existed prior to the big bang was what I label a "plasma" that consisted of anti-matter and was composed of massive amounts and had it's own particular characteristics which I will go into at a later time as I am under the gun this morning for time.  In order to be brief I will be explaining the following in subsequent posts.

1,  There was no singularity  2. The big bang was a rapid expansion/conversion of anti matter to matter, not all of which converted-this will be linked to the expanding universe. 3. The universe will not continue to expand as anti matter is a weaker (although more abundant) force than gravity and it has a shorter existence in its strongest form. 4. Not all anti matter was converted at the big bang event, which will explain why portions of the universe will be expanding at different rates. 5.Black holes do indeed allow for escape as we should all now know, and in the final stages of super massive black holes (well into the future as none exist currently) they create anti-matter. Think about it, we are trying to get anti-matter from matter now aren't we? 6. Nature and the natural order of things, once discovered, make logical sense.  Look at the mysteries of history and you will find that once they are discovered or understood, at the end of the day thay make perfect sense. There is much more to the above however  I am obligated to appear at another place.    Dave Lawrence Kellam


 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
David, I think that posting a brief "taster" like this is a good idea.  The very long posts that often introduce new ideas tend either to be skimmed, or even ignored. 

1.  No singularity.  No argument from me on that point.
2.  Conversion of anti matter to matter.  Are we looking at a one-off event, or matter<--> antimatter cycles?
3.  It will be interesting to see your thinking on that one.
4.  "...portions of the universe will be expanding at different rates."  You have evidence of this?
5.  Escape from black holes.  Do you mean matter/energy escaping; other than Hawking radiation? 
6.  One might be hard pressed to make sense of some aspects of QM :), but apart from that - no argument.

 

Offline Davidlawrencekellam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Thanks Bill: well, good to see we're in agreement on singularity.  I can only envision cyclical anti matter to matter, one offs in general do not normally find a pleasant home in my warped brain.  Bill, I wish to think anti matter as a weaker force, would you tend to lean in that direction? Weaker but more abundant.  If so possibly an analogy of why I can see expansion at differing rates. Picture an explosion, not necessarily the BB, say the famous nuclear test blasts. If this were even a remote analogy note that the greater percentage of the "material" is dispersed more distant from the centre with lesser material remaining at inner proximity. Now cut and paste this into your #4 you listed and work that around and interesting things present themselves.
Regarding beyond Hawking radiation, is that the end? What will be different when you have a cluster of galaxies whose black holes come together as one? Or 10,000 galaxies!! Or 100,000 and so on. Could that not result in creating anti matter itself? I do not know that answer with any certainty but it certainly opens up a great number of possibilities, and as I noted in my original post i find that it would make sense as well. Bill, I also need for anti matter to be shorter lived as well as I see it.  If you could be so kind as to share your thoughts, as I have issues if I am mistaken on that point. Also, my individual concepts in QM remain formative in relation and all above could become rubbish at any moment :-(
 

Offline Davidlawrencekellam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Bill, one other note in reading your kind response. Can we replace "escaping from black holes" with "produced BY black holes"???  It feels better. Lol
 

Offline Davidlawrencekellam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Original #5 is withdrawn for now in its current form as it is found to be flawed
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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