Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Mystery Before The Big Bang Unfolded

  1. Mar 13, 2004 #1
    You know guys, the planets is composed mainly of two types of rock material, Fe-material( siderolites) and the stony element (aerolites), these are heavy elements and available in the apace, which formed planets and stars within 1-2 billion years just because there were two Big Bangs, one exploded 15 billion years ago and final burst occurred 14 billion years ago.

    These explosions carried different potencies, the first one had some material of light type and the second and final explosion produced the heavy material and this is the reason the aerolites and siderolites which are both light and heavy elements are very much available in the universe. These aspects disqualify the single BB theory and support the Two Big Bang Theory under TOPU. Ibid pp.185 Two Big Bangs Created The Universe in Eternal Space: Dr. Raj Baldev

    The first generation of stars could be formed only between 1 and 2 billion years from the first and second explosions, which occurred 15 and 14 billion years ago with a margin of 50 million to 1 billion years. Ibid pp.184 Two Big Bangs Created The Universe in Eternal Space: Dr. Raj Baldev.

    To know more in detail go through the book where all mysteries of the universe are unfolded in a very lucid style or simply log on www.twobigbangs.com.[/URL] Every debate is welcomed in the larger interest of scientific community.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The standard theory on the origin of these heavy planetary materials is that they were produced in a supernova. There is a detailed model of this, which would seem to account for the local abundance of iron and other second and third row elements.
  4. Mar 13, 2004 #3
    the big bang was not an explostion.

    the big bang was like a baloon filling with water.....it expanded.
  5. Mar 13, 2004 #4
    Correct me if I am wrong. I've checked the website and I read the "flaws" as it claims of the original BB model. Doesn't most of them explained with the iflation model?
  6. Mar 14, 2004 #5
    Mystery Before the Big Bang

    Member friends,
    Read your comments. Quite interesting and intelligent too. One of you said it all happened by supernova stars. It is correct. The theory of Two Big Bangs, if you have read or happen to read, gives a clear indication that the 2nd Big Bang produced small Supernovae, which the author termed as mini supernova balls or MSB, in this reference your reply implies a straight support to the theory of Two Big Bangs unfolded by Dr. Raj Baldev, Indian Scientist. Coming to the last honourable member.
    Last comments that inflating model containing all the flaws of the big bang. The author probably wanted to refresh the mind of the reader that the space is not produced by the big bang but it was then functioning being eternal yesterday, eternal today and eternal tomorrow and for ever. The biggest point is the eternal space in his genius theory that falsifies the theory of the big bang and if I am going correctly the new theory of Two Big Bangs may be assumed as the latest replacement of the big bang theory and its flaws that you have put under inflating model of the big bang strengthen the theory of Two Big Bangs.
    I pray excuse if I am wrong. I also seek forgiveness from the author for replying from his side simply basing on my knowledge that I gathered from the book reading and the new ideas that I got from his inspiration.
    In the last I should flash the originator of this title a credit for taking an initiative in this discipline.
  7. Mar 28, 2004 #6
    The big bang theory...there was nothing, that exploded.
  8. Mar 29, 2004 #7

    Maybe you would like to add what you think about what nothing is?

    From this position, the ideas of the Ekroptic Universe arise and the ideas of brane Collisions. Do you know these of Steinhardt and Turok?
  9. Apr 24, 2004 #8
    :rolleyes: Hello all.
    I've studied a lot on this "nothing" thing. It seems the most plausible way to start things out. However, I don't think there are any words to discribe a totally conceptual ideal of nothing.
    "Nothing" is an unstable state. We observe laws of conservation so this system seems entirely out of balence to me. If any of you subscribe to the idea that quantum fluxuations are a possibility then all that should be required is a long enough wait. There may not be time by any measure we know because there is no mass, so the wait may seem only a short while. "Humans" require four dimentions to thrive. To create mass we need energy. We have energy within the system, and all funtioning systems seek their lowest state of energy, I.E.: all things must "run down." Or in this case "Power Up" when your starting with "nothing." With the first particles of mass we have three dimentions followed immediatly with the forth,"time."
    I've read of the J/Psi particle. If I got this right, This theory involves two relitivisticly rotating particles. Both electrons; well, one a positron(an anti-electron) and the other an electron. If it proves out the the electron is not a point mass but simply a "charge" then it's virtual. This adds to the possibiltys. Two of these particles set rotating could reach astounding volocitys, increasing their energy mass along the way. their opposits, as their particle and anti-particle, so there would bu mutual attraction, yet their both electrons so they would seek opposing (repulsing) orbits. This leads to the thought that the pair could contain the "mass of the universe." Could the energy mass build up untill it converted to physical mass.
    I don't know,--- read you all later.
  10. Apr 24, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The J/Psi particle is like the positronium you describe (made of an an electron and its antiparticle, the positron), but in J/Psi the two components are a charm quark and its antiquark. It is sometimes called charmonium, in a comparison with positronium.

    In positronium the two component particles act under a completely attractive force - their electric charges, being opposite, attract.
  11. Apr 25, 2004 #10
    Either way this still doesnt really describe what happened before 'the' big bang. it just implies that another one occurred at some point in time. atleast with the multiverse theory they explain branes touching each other or what not as the cause of the bangs themselves.
  12. Apr 27, 2004 #11
    Thanks Selfadjoint, you've answered a question I've just posted to you elsewhere. I'll review the sections on charm and color and such soon.
    MythioS, I've read of the "two" big bang theory but I've not found enough to convince me yet. It seems the lightest elements were formed as energys fell below predetermined temps and allowed eletrons to bond to nuculi providing meterial for first generatiion stars to form and as their ashs were spread throughout the universe they provided the necessary elements to form heavier elements like carbon and silicon in newer generation stars which spread their respective ashs throught more of the expanding universe and provided the materieal to form solar systems and such. I hope I got that right by theory.
    This is, of course, just one theory. I subscribe to it untill developments indicate otherwise.
    The "Big Bang" term is only a description of the results of the inflationary epoch ending with the tunneling out of energys creating mass.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook