Is the Universe a Spiral Cone Leading to a New Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wonderballs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Wonderballs
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
So I stumbled upon a video on the internet which made an analogy of mass creating a curve in the blanket of spacetime in which objects of smaller mass rotated about it. Which lead me to believe this is gravity. But aren't there billions upon billions of things within the universe which have mass? The correct answer is yes. So it got me thinking that the whole universe is a downward cone towards it's center while the smaller masses create ripples along the sides of the cone while we are all spiraling towards its centre slowly and surely (over vast amounts of time... hence spacetime) and once all matter gets to the centre again, Big Bang again... now I'm not sure what would cause a "Big Bang" but this is what i trailed off towards when my proffesser started the lesson with "Work is equal the amo..." then i tuned out and started thinking of cooler things... I had to write that down somewhere.

Now I'm by no means master of math, but I think my theories are along the right lines.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's been thought of before. Observation disagrees.
 
Mkay,thanks i guess.
 
Wonderballs said:
So it got me thinking that the whole universe is a downward cone towards it's center
According to mainstream cosmological models and observations, the universe doesn't have a "center", at large scales the distribution of mass and energy is thought to be pretty uniform throughout space. Also, you shouldn't take the blanket analogy too literally, the analogy just represents the curvature of space but it's actually spacetime that's curved by mass/energy in general relativity (and it's just the curvature that determines the paths of objects, the fact that the curved region is represented as a depression that things fall 'down' into has nothing to do with the actual physics, you could represent the influence of gravity in terms of bumps rather than depressions and the analogy would be no less accurate).
 
Think in terms of a two dimensional universe - the surface of an expanding balloon - there is no center - so there is no reason for matter to collect at one place. Our three dimensional universe doesn't have a center either ...according to the cosmological principle it looks the same from any point
 
Thanks guys, I just call them as I see them.
 
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
Back
Top