|Dec9-03, 05:08 AM||#1|
Creation, Re-Creation and re-Generation of The Universe
A Theory of The Maintenance, Re-Creation and Re-Generation of The Universe As We Know It
December 9, 2003
I am going to assume that this idea has already been submitted numerous times in scientific circles. I'll submit it anyhow based upon the experience I have gained which has shown me that just because I think something, does not necessarily mean others have already thought the same thought.
Perhaps this theory is more-than-likely well-known in scientific circles and perhaps even already discounted or accepted and, oh by the way, I still haven't solved the primary puzzle of, what STARTED it all.
I begin with the premise that there is One Universal Space but not one singular Big Bang to kick off the creation of The Universe.
We can postulate that prior to 'The Big Bang' there was one mass of matter, coalesced.
However, I submit that there are and have been many, and overlapping in time and dimension, big bangs. This does not explain the Creation of The Universe and may even serve to dispel the existing primary theory of The Big Bang as the initial creation of the Universe. We can't get off with the currently publicly known and widespread theory of The Creation of The Universe, that easily. It may be explained by a theory I am not familiar with in my lack of education.
Part of the theory or collection of theories is based upon the premise that, if, all matter prior to the Big Bang were contained in 'one massive blob', then all gravity would also be contained within this blob. Therefore, the massive gravity force would be pulling and keeping (and also for some time prior to the final formation of the blob) all light and free matter into it ( and doing so even as The Universe's matter and other black holes were being pulled toward “it”, the manifestation of the final PHASE of matter collection prior to when all matter was coalesced at the time and location of The Big Bang).
This Phase of The Big Bang Theory leaves little 'impetus' to cause the coalesced matter to react upon itself, to create a 'Big Bang'. It should, instead, have remained a comfortable, quiet, dense blob of matter floating in The Universal Space
I theorize that Big Bangs occur repeatedly in multiple locations and dimensions, when, as the final phase of the gathering together of clumps of matter in The Universal Space, they collide.
Perhaps then, these various black holes are and have been, drawn together, or in the processes of being drawn together separately, when black holes, which are the final state of portions of the Universe prior to a big bang, come together and react to, and/or upon, one another.
Therefore, there are and have been multiple and continuous and continual Big Bangs as our Universal Black Holes collide across the expanse of the universal space.
This is simply logical based upon the knowledge that all matter is not at equal distances and in equal portions from a central 'gathering spot' in 'The Universal Space' but is, as we know, disbursed throughout multiple dimensions and densities and masses in 'The Universal Space'.
Obviously, these multiple masses could not come together at exactly the same moment in time to produce a central location and time for one 'Big Bang' to occur.
In order for the ONE big bang to occur, some reaction would need to have taken place in the stationary lump of all matter. This is impossible since or highly unlikely since, theoretically, nothing could move to cause a reaction to take place – after the final movement and settling in of the collection of matter.
In other words, there are “Sub-Big Bangs” periodically in the Universal Space, in multiple dimensions of space, and time. These cause matter to coalesce later in other locations and dimensions and times and begin the cycle again.
If true, this theory should be proven by observing, in the universe, whether matter and light s all emanating from one singular location and therefore being directed outward from that location (all matter bursting outward and continuing on), or whether we observe that matter within this universal space is both emanating outward from multiple locations as well as toward other matter contained within the universal space.
If so, therefore, the Universe in constantly undergoing a continuous and continual dynamic cycle of expansion and contraction from various locations and times within the universal space.
Just a random thought that got me out of bed to write in my journal to my daughter, on the subject.
2403 Peru Road
Peru, Iowa 50222
physics news on PhysOrg.com
>> Promising doped zirconia
>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease
>> Bringing life into focus
|Dec9-03, 11:42 AM||#2|
No offense some but of the definitions you have for some of the words you use seem a bit invalid, or "misunderstood."
To begin with, "matter" is generally understood as that which is the opposite of "non-being." Because the ideas of void, of a null, of a "nothing" are virtually impossible to comprehend without first understanding the idea of a "something," it is imperative that you first understand the idea of being, the idea of a "thing" which possess some degree of breadth, a charactoristic that is in all in tense and purpose the very oppose of "nothingness." What this means is, that if the idea of nothingness is that which is beyond any real distinguishing aspects, marks, or distinctions, then the opposite of this would be "somethingness." You can only have an idea of a "nothing," when you first get an idea of a "something." How can you understand the idea of an empty glass, unless you have some idea of a full glass, or to be more grammatically correct, a glass that is full of something.
This is where the idea of "matter" comes into play. The term "matter" seems to be somewhat of a synonym for words like "substance, object, entity, thing," or even "tangiability." Hence when we speak of "matter," what is ( or ought to be) being implied is that the essential makeup of all raw material of all things existant are of a certain fundamental nature that is common to all things physical. You can not speak of a matter that has no form, no boundaries, no breadth, no dimension, no marks of tangiability.
In relation to the big bang, then, what is implied is, that all that is physical, i.e. "matter," must have been at some point concentrated, before it was broken up, and tossed about through out the void known as "space." Hence when you speak of many locations of concentrated particles of "substance," you seem to miss the point of the big bang, and the underlying premise that all those substances must have been at some point collected into a single local. This, is what makes the theory of the big bang, logically appealing: it accounts for the existance of all the distribution of the disconnected pieces of physical reality found throughout the vastness of space.
What this means is, that in theory, the earth, and the moon, prior to being the moon, and the earth, were once united into a single unit. This single unit is what is called the big blob of of matter, that somehow, just caved in on itself, and boom, exploded outward, and shattering itself into what is understood as the universe of "independant pieces." Think of this as a puzzle, that once had all the pieces united, until someone came along, and just knocked the table over until all the pieces where spread about.
This is a theory, a theory that is based on a inductive form of reasoning, that leads to its plausible validity. Hence, if you accept, that somehow beneath all the surface differences between one physical example of physical substance and another is a common element, like atoms, electrons, protons, and the what no, then you are lead logically to conclude, that maybe, at one point in time, all these pieces were really a whole, not the fragmented pieces that we understand as "solar systems, galaxies, planets" and the what not.
There is a point though that you ought to bear in mind. We determine what is real, and what is not real by whether or not we can actually detect it by our enfeebled senses, or tools. What this means is, that if we can not sensate it, that it therefor can not exist. This is where the Atheists comes in. To an individual of this conclusion/point of view, because GOD, or the soul of a human, can not be detected, because it can not be validated, it must therefore follow that GOD can not exist, for if he existed, he would be somehow observable, in the same way you can observe the sunset with the naked eye. But because you can not find a thing in the Universe that you can say, "This is GOD," an Atheist feels himself justified in saying, that GOD is a fictional thing, and not a thing of matter. Hence, the friction between philosophys of the world.
I personally have never seen a photon, but i am assured by many supposedly educated people that a photon exists in the same way a Table, or a chair exists. Maybe it does, and maybe, a photon is just another clever concept like the concept of a Superpowerful Being like a Deity. Who am i to say that an Atheist is right, or wrong? Maybe he is right, and maybe he is wrong. i have real way of knowing. I go to school, and they dish me books, with words to read, and memorise for some exam that somehow determines whether or not i will have a nice paying job, or be another member of the uneducated classes of humans beings who will never amount to anything worth writing home about. There are many ideas in my head that i can not grasp in the same way i can grasp a flower, but i am nontheless expected to accept, and believe in.
I think, that in many ways, Plato is right when he says, "In order to know "anything," one must first know "everything!"
This is my 2 cents worth on a war that will rage until a super mind comes along, and puts an end to all the bickering, and killing over the differences of opinion, on this or that concept.
|Dec9-03, 11:58 AM||#3|
ONE: I am not a scientist, so therefore, do not know all of the scientific jargon. However, my theory and concept should be easily understood by most of the users of these forums.
TWO: Okay, then let's change my term 'matter' to substance.
THREE: When I suggested that all substance may not have been collected into a single combined 'blob' whence The Big Bang' was born, I meant it. Let us say that all 'substance' was congealed and tightly packed to the maximum amount possible, and there was zero molecular movement remaining, all heaviest substance found it's way to the center of the 'glob', lighter to the exterior, etc. No catalyst existed because nothing could move. Weight could not break itself apart due to gravity or whatever. Hence, no big bang. (If the complete inventory of substance in existence WERE once in a singular 'glob', it never shall be again due to the randomness and varying distances involved in the present sepration of all 'substance'. It will simply 'black hole' in groups and then those black holes will collide, all across the universal space, in differing dimensions of time and place - and different directions for all time.
Four: Thanks for taking the time to respond :-)
|Dec9-03, 12:15 PM||#4|
Creation, Re-Creation and re-Generation of The Universe
Ok. Lets begin:
A]. I did not accuse you of being a scientists. I simply remarked that your understanding of certain words are a bit off.
B}. I understood your general proposition, hence my reply, or if you will "opinion" on the matter, no pun intended.
c]. You still have no accounted from whence anything given piece of physical substance came from. Hence, whether your starting premise is of a huge, single unit, or of many small units located, here, and there, you still have the problem of explaining why they exist at all.
D]. I am not sure if you are aware, but some supposedly Scientists claim that the universe itself is like a major lung, that breathes in, and out. Because of this, it is believed, that just as the pieces of matter are expanding, or to be more appropriate, spreading further apart from each other, they will somehow be pulled back into, so that it once more reunites, for another explosion, thus creating a perpetual lung like phenonemon that is eternal.
E]. I personally, dont really comprehend the idea of a blackhole other than, space is somehow inverted in which things are sucked into somekind of container that is a one way street. My main problem, with the idea of a black hole, is, that it involves a total destruction of the English language. To begin, a whole in the wall, is understood as a gap that allows for for the exposure of that which is on the otherside of the wall. In terms of the Universe, and the blackholes, i am assuming then, that there is some kind of surface that marks the very boundaries of the vacuum. This part has not be explained at all to my satisfaction. A hole must be created by something that makes the whole be a whole. In the case of a wall, a hole is the what is punctured through by a hammer, but without the wall, i am not sure you can determine that there is a whole, since the vary range of the "hole" is marked by the wall that allows for a whole to exist. In other words, context gives meaning to words. A hole is like one of those words that underless you understand what a solid is, you can not possibley comprehind the idea of a gap. I may cut hole into the ball, and i may put things into the ball, but the actual valume/area of the hole is determined by the surface of the ball, and the size of the ball.
|Dec9-03, 12:37 PM||#5|
c]. You still have no accounted from whence anything given piece of physical substance came from.
My RESPONSE: You are correct in this statement, as I am not attempting to explain - primarily - the beginnings of the universe and all substance in it, but simply how the Universe is maintained and renewed and flows.
D]. I am not sure if you are aware, but some supposedly Scientists claim that the universe itself is like a major lung, that breathes in, and out.
MY RESPONSE: No, I am not very aware at all of what science propses in this regard. My knowledge of the subject is pretty much limited to what I have heard about Big Bang and a few other ideas.
E]. I personally, dont really comprehend the idea of a blackhole other than, space is somehow inverted in which things are sucked into somekind of container that is a one way street.
MY RESPONSE: My concept of a black hole is another clump of densely packed substance, that is so powerful, that is attracts other substance inluding all light, within range, therby allowing no view of it - or maybe I should say only a 'dark' view of it. I do not see it as a 'negative space or actual hole, per se, in the universe. Simply a gravity of immense strength that only allows for one-way traffic. TO it.
|Dec9-03, 12:44 PM||#6|
|Dec9-03, 01:25 PM||#7|
Ok, then, could you please explain yur theory of how the universe "renews" itself? Please define what you mean by maintained, and renewal.
The universe renews itself by the substances spread through (planets, dust, comets, moons, bodies, etc) coming together through gravity. Eventually, through collision and accretion, these bodies grow to immense bodies of substance that become so powerful in their gravitational pull, that they become black holes. When they become black holes, eventually they become attracted to other black holes - which collide - creating cataclysmic 'big bangs;, thereby re-newing and maintaining the continuous cycle of developing dust, moon, asteroids, planets, galaxies, etc - all over again - across the great void. Hence, the widening and narrowing of substance - in relativity to one another.
Please explain to me what you mean by "clump." Why does it attract other objects? How does the blackhole differ from a solid, or a gap?
ANSWER: Gravity attracts. A blackhole is a solid body of densely packed substance with major mass, density, gravity.
|Dec9-03, 01:33 PM||#8|
You said in your original post, that the universe could not really reach a another state of reunification. Now you are saying that all black holes come togather again, for a new big bang.
Secondly, a densely packed substance sounds like the opposite of a hole. Insnt this kind like an oxymoron?
|Dec9-03, 01:55 PM||#9|
No, what I am sayig is that reunification in toto does not happen - it happens in smaller 'clumps' across the void. Those clumps form black holes over time. When there become adjacent black holes, they attract to collide. The entire universe of substance does not recombine in one place. Big difference.
As for oxymorons, I didn't coin the terminology :-) I would have called it something like - a black clump!
|Dec9-03, 02:02 PM||#10|
I would respond, but i am out of energy. All of this is really pointless. It doesnt solve real issues like, class struggle, poverty, and ignorant animals in power.
|Dec12-03, 02:58 AM||#11|
But i'm sure my theory is...
No one except me has stated that the ether is quantum, and that big bang is a jump from one energylevel and another. Not at the same time as stating that the energy dissepearing that Hawkings talk about actually exitates the ether, and that when almost all energy and mass has disappeared in the universe, the etherparticles will fall down to a lower energylevel, and a new big bang will ocurr. A new randomly distributed universe will form!
(The theory i published before here)
|Dec14-03, 11:10 AM||#12|
My own theory on this is that there is more than one universe.
If your theory is correct wouldn't our own universe look different than it does.
It appears from the alignment of the stars and galaxies that they originated from a central point and are expanding away from the center.
If your theory were correct would you not be able to observe individual speres composed of stars and galaxies within the observable universe?
|Dec15-03, 07:17 AM||#13|
Originally posted by Kanelous
1. My own theory on this is that there is more than one universe.
This theory is certainly not new.
2. If your theory is correct wouldn't our own universe look different than it does?
That the visible universe is expanding is not equall to that the whole universe is expanding. If you in the beginning were at the end of the universe (as all matter were in the beginning in the Big Bang theory), then you wouldn't be able to observe the beginning far away in space, since the beginning for the time-being did not exist there.
Can't you see that the Big Bang theory falls?
3. It appears from the alignment of the stars and galaxies that they originated from a central point and are expanding away from the center.
No. Absolutely not. There existed more energy in the beginning then now. You CAN not observe whether or not masses are moving away from eachother or not. Just that it disappeares. as in a black hole.
4. If your theory were correct would you not be able to observe individual spheares composed of stars and galaxies within the observable universe?
Lets say that two planets moved from eachother in 200000000 m/s
and that we are 1000 lightyears away from this object. We would not even see that the objekt moves.
If you are the inventor of the multiple universe theory, may I have your autograf?
Best wishes Erik-Olof Wallman
|Aug22-04, 07:09 PM||#14|
If this does not hold true, please explain.
(My first post here, and I am begginer with physics, and hope to learn more..
|Aug23-04, 12:58 AM||#15|
This subforum ("Theory Development") is where we send crackpots -- people with little or no scientific knowledge who try to push their own unsupported ideas. We do not allow this behavior on physicsforums.com, which is why you'll see most threads in the subforum locked.
Be very careful about believing what you read in this subforum; nearly all of it is bunk.
|Similar Threads for: Creation, Re-Creation and re-Generation of The Universe|
|Is Every Point in The Universe a Microcosm of the Whole of Creation?||General Discussion||17|
|New Theory of Universe Creation||General Physics||12|