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

Pet Theory of Cosmology

  1. Sep 7, 2007 #1
    Ok. I've got to know what you guys think of my pet theory.

    << URL snipped >>

    There are some things I'll never understand, like quantum gravity, and the like. But I'm an engineer so I can piece some things together. What I want to know is, what is wrong with my pet theory? There's GOT to be something wrong with it. After all, I'm not a cosmologist. Fire away!

    For those who don't want to read the long version, basically I think the whole universe is the inside of a gigantic black hole. There is enough apparent mass in the universe to create an event horizon roughly 170 billion lightyears in diameter. I suggest that the universe has no beginning or end, but has a recycling process (rapid growth of smaller black holes) that keeps it from decaying. The expansion of the universe might be an optical effect arising from this process, making objects appear closer than they really are.

    The alternative I have, but still in line with most of the above reasoning, is that the expanding cloud of matter that makes up our universe came from a particle shower rather than a singularity (since I argued that singularities effectively don't exist). The problem with this idea is that it would require some extraordinary collision to cause so much matter to "flash into existence".

    I'm assuming my pet theory is so poorly contrived as to shortly become roadkill. So what do you buzzards think of my ideas?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 7, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Note that personal theories are not allowed here. Check up on the PF guidelines that you agreed to when you joined. (You can submit it to the IR forum)
  4. Sep 7, 2007 #3
    From the forum rules you linked to:

    ""Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.""

    I don't think my theory is poorly formulated. And I think it is in line with mainstream science, rather than a challenge to it. I just want to know if there IS anything obviously wrong with it. In fact I would appreciate it if you were specific with your feedback/criticisms.
  5. Sep 7, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I've not read your theory, and so cannot comment on it. However, let me draw your attention to the following, taken from the PF guidelines:

    Like I said above, you can post to the Independent Research forum, where new theories can be discussed.
  6. Sep 7, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And with Cristo's excellent summary of our policy, I will close this thread.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook