The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Is the Big Bang/Bit Bang a better description of the beginning of this Universe?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is the Big Bang/Bit Bang a better description of the beginning of this Universe?

  • 1 Replies
  • 1420 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad Watson (OP)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is the Big Bang/Bit Bang a better description of the beginning of this Universe?
« on: 16/12/2016 15:18:13 »
"The Big Bang/Bit Bang - a supermassive white hole: explosion of energy & information - 13.8 billion years ago was the result of a supermassive black hole in another universe. Our Universe & that SBH share the same event horizon. That SBH & SWH formed an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole). This duality combines these two singularities in a birth-life-death-transformation cycle in The Conglomerate of Universes (similar to multiverse). This 'simple' cause-and-effect explains both infinite space and eternity. Self-replication is the simplest plan for everything from a cell to a universe to a mind." - part of Seal #1 (of 7): The Conglomerate of Universes Theory (Universe Creation Theory) http://7seals.blogspot.com


"The very first information-processing revolution, from which all other revolution stem, began with the beginning of the universe itself. The big bang at the beginning of time consisted of huge numbers of elementary particles, colliding at temperatures of billions of degrees. Each of these particles carried with it bits of information, and every time two particles bounced off each other, those bits were transformed and processed. The big bang was a bit bang. Starting from its very earliest moments, every piece of the universe was processing information. The universe computes. It is this ongoing computation of the universe itself that gave rise naturally to subsequent information-processing revolutions such is life, sex, brains, language, and electronic computers." - Dr. Seth Lloyd, quantum computer scientist at MIT and author of 'Programming The Universe' (Vintage, 2006) http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/Lloyd-texts.html


An Einstein-Rosen bridge commonly referred to as a wormhole was first proposed in 1935 by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. In 1971, Robert Hjellming presented a model in which a black hole would draw matter in while being connected to a white hole in a distant location, which expels this same matter.


During inflation, everything was moving faster-than-light. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang/Bit Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continued to expand, but the speed-of-light at 182,282 mi/s in a vacuum became constant.


At the Big Bang/Bit Bang, the 4 forces of nature (electromagnetism, gravity, strong & weak nuclear) were joined and separated during inflation.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2016 15:24:40 by Brad Watson »
Logged
 



Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 921
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 82 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Big Bang/Bit Bang a better description of the beginning of this Universe?
« Reply #1 on: 17/12/2016 14:21:45 »

   From an early age I was told the more intelligent a person is the easier it is to fool them. I suspect also to fool themselves. This may be why I am a realest. You must have a very high intelligence as does most of the scientific community. I do not seem to have that degree of intelligence and I must ask is the BB even a real possibility? Astronomers peer back in time (by the amount of time it takes light to get here) and measure BH's with an astonishing 37,200 AU. Since our sun as a BH would stretch possibly 1.8 miles How many suns would it take to produce 37,200 AU? The milky way and Andromeda 4.5 million sol and 25 million sols will take 4 billion years to combine to 29 million sols. Our sun will last 10 billion years. The galactic scale is much longer than our 13.6 billion year BB. 37,200 times 93 million miles of BH combining. Which is more likely? Light image becomes indistinguishable at 13.6 billion light years by our technology or BH grew to 37,200 AU in 13.6 billion years?

Quote
An Einstein-Rosen bridge commonly referred to as a wormhole was first proposed in 1935 by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen. In 1971, Robert Hjellming presented a model in which a black hole would draw matter in while being connected to a white hole in a distant location, which expels this same matter.


A worm hole is needed to explain space once occupied and no longer exists. We are living on the surface of a balloon and need a worm hole to connect to any position on the balloon universe. This balloon analogy was needed to explain fully formed galaxies 13 billion years ago in the 1980's. Is it possible our technology to view images beyond 13 billion years is our own restriction?

Is the scientific community describing the BB king with more lavish clothing? Falling into a black hole to another universe reminds me of the old belief if you sail far enough you will fall off the earth.

Quote
At the Big Bang/Bit Bang, the 4 forces of nature (electromagnetism, gravity, strong & weak nuclear) were joined and separated during inflation.

While we know the effects of the four forces we do not even know the cause. How can you claim to combine forces when we do not even know what causes them.

I suspect your intelligence is much greater than my ability at first glance. Can you explain your claims through logic?
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.