I Have Figured It Out - Big Bang

[Dragongod]

If people would just accept my theory about "how it all happened" no one would have anymore questions. My theory is: if "nothing" can't exist than "something" always has to. That "something" would have to be matter and energy. That eliminates the possibility of people asking "well, where did that matter come from." You just respond it's not possible for something to come from nothing and therefore something(matter, energy) always had to be there. The problem is people keep thinking there was a begininng. It was always there, therefore its infinite. Then one day, due to the laws of attraction, particles came together and created an explosion. this fills in the gaps of the Big Bang theory. This theory explains the reasons for why matter is still expanding in the Universe and the problem with assuming that there was a begining. I can't find any flaws with it.

[russ_watters]

Tht's not a theory (though ironically, it contains some aspects of the bang-crunch oscillating universe big bang theory). You need to start at the beginning - buy yourself a high-school level physics and chemistry book and start learning some real science. Once you understand what existing theories say (and, even more basic, what a "theory" is), then you can go to college and get an advanced degree in a specific field. Then you can start rewriting existing physics. You have a long way to go before you're ready to start coming up with new ideas. Right now all you're writing is mental vomit. Its just a jumble of words stuck together in a meaningless form.

edit: one comment about your posture here: you are making no effort whatsoever to learn. That is why your threads are being closed. For example, after several corrections, you're still referring to the big bang as an explosion. You seem to be a fan of logic. Try some logic on these two questions:

-If you don't know what a theory says, how can you know that what it says is wrong?
-Is it possible for someone with very little knowledge of science to come up with a theory that is better than what people who have dedicated lifetimes to studying a single subject can think of?

[HallsofIvy]

If people would just accept my theory about "how it all happened" no one would have anymore questions. My theory is: if "nothing" can't exist than "something" always has to. That "something" would have to be matter and energy. That eliminates the possibility of people asking "well, where did that matter come from." You just respond it's not possible for something to come from nothing and therefore something(matter, energy) always had to be there. The problem is people keep thinking there was a begininng. It was always there, therefore its infinite. Then one day, due to the laws of attraction, particles came together and created an explosion. this fills in the gaps of the Big Bang theory. This theory explains the reasons for why matter is still expanding in the Universe and the problem with assuming that there was a begining. I can't find any flaws with it.

Are you saying that your whole purpose is to stop people asking questions? That seems to be what you are saying!

I can find a flaw, by the way: what is the physical evidence for your theory?

[Starship]

The problem is with gravity. Gravity is probably not a force. It's just part of a deeper reality we don't understand. Magnetic force is equally mysterious. The standard model cannot explain all these phenomena. I hope we'll have hints from the LHC.

If that's not strong enough, we'll need new technologies, 10,000 times more efficient and powerful than current circular & linear particle accelerators.

[Starship]

When hydrogen molecules in 'space dust' are attracted by a force presumed to be gravity and condensed to form stars, can it not be assumed that gravity operates at atomic levels? It is not a product of space-time or warped or twisted 'fabric of space.' It seems to be a property of the hydogen atoms themselves. Want proof? Sorry, don't have any, but it seems to make sense. What do you think?

I also think it's a manifestation of a deeper reality (maybe light?) but the phenomena itself is not a force. The standard model says that gravity is the weakest of all forces. I don't believe that's correct because general relativity clearly demonstrates that gravity is not weak and not strong. It's just not a force.

[chroot]

Since this "isn't even wrong," I'm moving it to TD.

- Warren

[Dragongod]

THEORY: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
-----therefor what i offered makes perfect sense. Also Russ Watters in response to your state about how a person can correct peopel who have studied things there whole life, the answer is yes. To prove this theory wrong you have to prove to me that its possible for something to exist from something that does not exist. That is how i define nothing. So when i say something can't come from nothing i am saying that "you can't exist if you came from something that never existed." This is all the logic behind my theory. To prove me wrong you have to prove that its possible to come from something that does not exist. If you can then i am wrong. If can't then i am right. This proves that universe is infinite and did not have a point of begining as the Big Bang so llikes to presume. IT WAS ALWAYS THERE-MATTER, ENERGY, all of it.

[chroot]

Wave bye-bye, Dragongod.

- Warren

[whozum]

THEORY: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
-----therefor what i offered makes perfect sense. Also Russ Watters in response to your state about how a person can correct peopel who have studied things there whole life, the answer is yes. To prove this theory wrong you have to prove to me that its possible for something to exist from something that does not exist. That is how i define nothing. So when i say something can't come from nothing i am saying that "you can't exist if you came from something that never existed." This is all the logic behind my theory. To prove me wrong you have to prove that its possible to come from something that does not exist. If you can then i am wrong. If can't then i am right. This proves that universe is infinite and did not have a point of begining as the Big Bang so llikes to presume. IT WAS ALWAYS THERE-MATTER, ENERGY, all of it.

1. To prove this theory wrong you have to prove to me that its possible for something to exist from something that does not exist.

Why don't you prove to us that its not possible?

2. That is how i define nothing.

Who are you to define things?

3. If you can then i am wrong. If can't then i am right.

Thats a terrible argument.

4. This proves that universe is infinite and did not have a point of begining as the Big Bang so llikes to presume.

Do you even know what the current theories are? Theres more than one you know.

5. IT WAS ALWAYS THERE-MATTER, ENERGY, all of it.

Do you even know what energy IS, for it to exist eternally?

[Starship]

DragongodX i like your theory but if the universe is the answer, what is the question? :biggrin:

These are some very difficult questions which probably will never be answered by humans (or maybe in 10 billion years, type IV civilizations). Check out the following works if you're interested:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4250
http://www.ians.org/big-bang-infinity-expanding-space.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/rpisaturo/Universe.htm

The expansion of space is a flawed explanation because:

a) space is almost empty. When a balloon on earth expands, not only is work done but the air pressure inside the ballon is growing. In space there is no such pressure.

b) nothing real can expand faster than the speed of light.

c) tachyons do not exist.

d) If space really expands then why do we have to look at very distant stars to know that?