The Big Bang...Questions

[Chavic]

I don't understand why there are no other mainstream theories on the creation of the known Universe.

For the Big Bang to have occurred, the laws of physics would have to be violated. As far as we have observed, they cannot be broken.
To fill the inconsistencies, we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Force.

I'm not saying God/Muhammad/A Wizard did it, nor am I saying the Big Bang theory is false. I'm merely asking why there are no well known alternatives?

[simple-but-sandy]

At 11/10/09 12:14 PM, Chavic wrote: I'm merely asking why there are no well known alternatives?

Because scientists cannot open their mind to other possibilities, even if they make much more sense.

[Hellraiser]

MY THEORY.

I was watching "Steven Hawking: The Theory of Everything" and it explained how the Big Bang is in relation to black holes. He states something along the lines of how prior to the big bang, the Universe was smaller than the size of an atom.

From the documentary, he explains his theory of how once a star dies, it continues to shrink into a black hole where gravity reaches (ignorantly) infinite where not even light itself could escape. He then states that througout space, there is Negative and Positive mass particles which (within nanoseconds) splits, collides, disapears, and repeats. When one comes in contact with a black hole, and the the negative particle gets trapped into the black hole and the positive particle has enough energy to escape, the positive particle will continue to roam through space as the negative particle greatly affects the black hole.

Since it's a negative mass particle, it will cause the black hole to shrink and due to the positive mass particle drifting away, the black hole will then release radiation towards the positive. As the black hole releases radiation and shrinks, it will continue to heat up to the point where it is microscoptic and at very high temperation. At this point, the black hole with EXPLODE and all the debris will be released out into space.

Now if you think of this in a cycle, it may be the the answer to the the mysteries held prior to the Big Bang theory.

So my theory:

What if the universe has really lived on infinatley. Considering how scientists are predicting that universe is expanding and the big bang is was the beggining of time. In many many years, all these planets are bound to come back in contact with eachothother. What if our big bang, was just part of a cycle. How what if our universe had already existed many times before. And how life had grown to fully advance itself and at the dawn of time everyone had gone extinct due to the recycling of the universe. Where the universe expands; life grows, then constacts; where life dies. And everything starts over again from scratch.

Maybe there has been multiple "cycles" the universe had experienced. And how it could happen again over and over again in the future.

[hdxmike]

God and father time were fucking mother nature when they came simultaniuosly causing the universe to be created

- the big GANG bang

[Evark]

Hellraiser: your theory is known as the "Big Bounce" which is a modification of the Big Bang theory that states that the big bang must have occurred multiple times, that in fact our existence in this universe follow more of a wave-like pattern rippling through something far greater, each meeting with 0 coinciding with a 'big bang'. (if this were a sine wave)

According to Scientific American, the Big Bounce theory is gaining much more steam, it's just that mainstream is far behind ACTUAL scientists and their general agreement.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/10/09 12:14 PM, Chavic wrote: I'm merely asking why there are no well known alternatives?

Well, there ARE plenty of alternatives. Basically, how well something is known is (for better or worse) independent of whether that something is actually correct or not. To put it another way, the truthfulness of a proposition doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how fast and how far that proposition actually spreads.

At 11/10/09 12:34 PM, Evark wrote: Hellraiser: your theory is known as the "Big Bounce" which is a modification of the Big Bang theory that states that the big bang must have occurred multiple times, that in fact our existence in this universe follow more of a wave-like pattern rippling through something far greater, each meeting with 0 coinciding with a 'big bang'. (if this were a sine wave)

I don't recall hearing it referred to as the 'Big Bounce' beforehand, but looking at the wiki page I see the phrases I'm more accustomed-to ("cyclic model / oscillatory universe") right there in the second sentence anyway.

I'm interested in what the evidence is for the cyclic model because it seems to coincide more with ancient philosophy and our common sense notions about how things work more than it actually coincides with scientific data and theories.

[JohnnyWang]

At 11/10/09 12:14 PM, Chavic wrote: For the Big Bang to have occurred, the laws of physics would have to be violated. As far as we have observed, they cannot be broken.
To fill the inconsistencies, we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Force.

May not seem intuitive, but it's how shit went down

[pr0ded]

At 11/10/09 02:27 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

yep, all atheists are aware of that and have a degree in * to actually understand it

anomalies , holes in the theory and unexplained shit went down

[Elfer]

At 11/10/09 12:15 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Because scientists cannot open their mind to other possibilities, even if they make much more sense.

Are you shitting me? That is the entire job of a scientist. Well, that and to explore those possibilities.

The reason that there's no other mainstream theories is that there's really really good evidence that roughly 13.7 billion years ago, everything was really close together but moving away from a single point really really fast.

[ScytheCutter]

At 11/10/09 12:14 PM, Chavic wrote: I don't understand why there are no other mainstream theories on the creation of the known Universe.

For the Big Bang to have occurred, the laws of physics would have to be violated. As far as we have observed, they cannot be broken.
To fill the inconsistencies, we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Force.

Actually, the laws of physics are dependant upon your frame of reference, which is why Newtownian mechanics break down as you approach the speed of light, since the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference
</science>

[hdxmike]

Dem sky went boom den i wuz ere

- the best explanation yet

[Rohedin]

At 11/10/09 12:16 PM, Hellraiser wrote: a bit of text

Yeah, this seems fairly likely to me. It's known as the Big Bounce theory.
If anybody is really interested in this sort of thing A Brief(er) History of Time by Stephen Hawking is a good read.

[Fleuve]

At 11/10/09 02:58 PM, Rohedin wrote:

At 11/10/09 12:16 PM, Hellraiser wrote: a bit of text

Yeah, this seems fairly likely to me. It's known as the Big Bounce theory.
If anybody is really interested in this sort of thing A Brief(er) History of Time by Stephen Hawking is a good read.

I was going to buy it, but bought Cosmos instead.

[Evark]

At 11/10/09 02:23 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I'm interested in what the evidence is for the cyclic model because it seems to coincide more with ancient philosophy and our common sense notions about how things work more than it actually coincides with scientific data and theories.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/search /index.cfm?q=Big+Bounce&submit.x=0&submi t.y=0&submit=submit

I believe math was the basis for the theory's superiority over Big Bang. It's been a while since I read the article though, and I don't have interest at the moment to re-read the few provided there.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl e.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce Hmm, seems they don't give the full article. The magazine was great though, that was on the cover of the issue so it had several pages dedicated to it along with relatively easy to understand diagrams and illustrations to explain the concept.

[Ejit]

Dark energy and matter as far as I know account for gravity and Newton's laws. How are you relating them to the big bang?

[Jackho]

God did it.

[GiantDouche]

The Big Bang does not violate the laws of physics. It is perfectly explained with the use of quantum physics.

[bman200]

Heres the big bang theory... God said let it happen and BANG! It happened.

[chainsawmurderer53]

The laws of physics were created once the big had happened, the laws of physics can't exist if there is nothing for them to govern.

[SpiderTaco]

At 11/10/09 04:10 PM, Jackho wrote: God did it.

No I didn't.

[Tribalfusion-X]

Why would it be impossible for the big bang to have occurred without the appliance of the laws of physics?

[chainsawmurderer53]

At 11/10/09 12:16 PM, Hellraiser wrote: MY THEORY.

Your theory has been done before, sorry. It's called the big crunch.

[Im-A-Pirate]

At 11/10/09 02:27 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

May not seem intuitive, but it's how shit went down

Yeah, but here's what we believe:

Also, that entire thing was just big words to make it sound incredibly complicated.

[GiantDouche]

At 11/10/09 02:27 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: May not seem intuitive, but it's how shit went down

The Big Bang and evolution have nothing to do with disproving the existence of a god. Maybe the Christian god but definitely not a god in general.

[chainsawmurderer53]

At 11/10/09 04:22 PM, chainsawmurderer53 wrote:

At 11/10/09 12:16 PM, Hellraiser wrote: MY THEORY.

Your theory has been done before, sorry. It's called the big crunch.

Or the big bounce, they're similar.

[Hellraiser]

It still does not fully make sense though (Big Bounce). Could it be possible that our "Universe" is nothing more than just another atom in a much more complicated cycle? Apperently, an atom with a nucleus the size of, lets say, a marble would have it's electron be many miles apart. Maybe there are other "Universes" distant from ours. But they're location is so far away, that their light (speed?) has not yet reached us.

[FaGTaSTiC]

At 11/10/09 04:28 PM, Hellraiser wrote: It still does not fully make sense though (Big Bounce). Could it be possible that our "Universe" is nothing more than just another atom in a much more complicated cycle? Apperently, an atom with a nucleus the size of, lets say, a marble would have it's electron be many miles apart. Maybe there are other "Universes" distant from ours. But they're location is so far away, that their light (speed?) has not yet reached us.

I saw a theory that suggested that we are simply a dimension in an entire plethora of domino-like dimensions that sometimes collide

[Chavic]

At 11/10/09 04:04 PM, Ejit wrote: Dark energy and matter as far as I know account for gravity and Newton's laws. How are you relating them to the big bang?

Ummm...mass accounts for gravity. Dark matter is used to explain how galaxies hold together when there isn't enough visible material to do so. Also plays into the Big Bang Theory.

Dark Energy accounts for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe in the absence of other obvious cause.

I've read a Brief(er) History of Time, Michio Kaku's Hyperspace, etc, etc,etc. I've seen shows on it and listened to lectures. I get all the science up to the actual Big Bang.

It doesn't make sense that the Big Bang just happened out of nothing and created the Universe (and the so far unbreakable laws of physics), and when I say so I get the causality explanation. What came before it?

To say that a supreme being did it is just as inconceivable.

[NGManiac203]

I had a HUGE big bang last night.
There's your theory.

[ryanson209]

Because most of "science" is a crock.