Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

I believe several big bangs occured in the vastness of space, and each one was like a synapse firing off similar too a mental network.  

The "big bang" by definition may not be a suitable term for your theory. But maybe it can be used if you're suggesting the multiverse theory. Please elaborate further

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well the big bang was a theory based on gravity that could not pull but push. A multiverse theory has nothing to do with this.
The curvature of space and uniform of motion would be relative to this reference. 

The thing about The/A Big bang is that it's only a theory based on one perspective in our galaxy. 
When Multiple of them could of occurred over a wide range of area and time.
Anything that could bend that much space would be similar to a black hole reaching another black hole. 
Pinching the space itself and propelling it outward at speeds enough to change the state of matter.
Similar how carbon can be created extremely dense on how the atoms are arranged.
What ever "Dark matter is; it would probably be most similar to something like a network of some sort."

Edited by Orion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the big bang was a theory based on gravity that could not pull but push. A multiverse theory has nothing to do with this.

The curvature of space and uniform of motion would be relative to this reference. 

 

The thing about The/A Big bang is that it's only a theory based on one perspective in our galaxy. 

When Multiple of them could of occurred over a wide range of area and time.

Anything that could bend that much space would be similar to a black hole reaching another black hole. 

Pinching the space itself and propelling it outward at speeds enough to change the state of matter.

Similar how carbon can be created extremely dense on how the atoms are arranged.

What ever "Dark matter is; it would probably be most similar to something like a network of some sort."

In my opinion you have either avoided my question or failed to understand it. Therefore I'll not comment on anything else you've said. Most of which has nothing to do with answering the question, in my opinion of course.

 

Excuse the term 'hocus-pocus' but that's what I'm trying to ferret out here on this forum. Can you kindly explain your theory of multiple big bangs? So far, my uneducated guess is that you're talking about several small bangs that wouldn't be anything near the equivalent of a 'big bang'.

 

Or 'big bangs' in different times and dimensions? So far at least it's my opinion that you're stuck with having to go with a multiverse.

Edited by montgomery
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wow not very bright are you. 
The "big bang" by definition may not be a suitable term for your theory. But maybe it can be used if you're suggesting the multiverse theory. Please elaborate further

Do you see a question in your statement?
Any punctuation that signifies a question?

 

Too anybody reading this is how you spot someone of fake intelligence.

Or 'big bangs' in different times and dimensions? So far at least it's my opinion that you're stuck with having to go with a multiverse.

You do realize that "Time." is a form of Dimension

enclosing either ‘mass M’ or ‘length L’ or ‘time T’ 

Edited by Orion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow not very bright are you. 

The "big bang" by definition may not be a suitable term for your theory. But maybe it can be used if you're suggesting the multiverse theory. Please elaborate further

 

Do you see a question in your statement?

Any punctuation that signifies a question?

 

Too anybody reading this is how you spot someone of fake intelligence.

 

Or 'big bangs' in different times and dimensions? So far at least it's my opinion that you're stuck with having to go with a multiverse.

 

You do realize that "Time." is a form of Dimension

enclosing either ‘mass M’ or ‘length L’ or ‘time T’ 

Well now, with your uncalled for rudeness I'm really suspicious of the hocus-pocus.

 But I'll defer to you for now and leave it to the experts and the self-procliamed experts to see this through.

 

You said:

You do realize that "Time." is a form of Dimension

 

Yes, of course, and so you do realize that you've just conceded that time is just one form of dimension.

Edited by montgomery
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna ignore your bullshit if that's okay, after looking at all the stuff you've posted I'd be surprised if you actually even finished school.

 

Well now, with your uncalled for rudeness I'm really suspicious of the hocus-pocus.

 But I'll defer to you for now and leave it to the experts and the self-procliamed experts to see this through.

 

Too anybody who's not bullshitting/trying to flex a low IQ.

Here's two visual examples.
Each circle would be the radius of a big bang relative to your perception.
One triggers the next and the distance between the two could be more then we are capable of viewing through our limited tech.

A super simple example is binary 
0101010101010101010101

0101010101010101010101  
 

post-95343-0-40634800-1595267660_thumb.png

post-95343-0-08181900-1595267702_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna ignore your bullshit if that's okay, after looking at all the stuff you've posted I'd be surprised if you actually even finished school.

 

 

Too anybody who's not bullshitting/trying to flex a low IQ.

 

Here's two visual examples.

Each circle would be the radius of a big bang relative to your perception.

One triggers the next and the distance between the two could be more then we are capable of viewing through our limited tech.

 

A super simple example is binary 

0101010101010101010101

0101010101010101010101  

 

I don't have a low IQ but you could say that my aptitude is low pertaining to astronomy and space in general.

 

And now you show me two binary numbers? I'm inclined to just say Duhhhhhh, but I think Dohhhhh is more appropriate. You've now shown me too many indications that you're just  a crackpot trying to pretend he's/she's somebody.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry I don't speak dumbass.

if you cant read 
Each circle would be the radius of a big bang relative to your perception

And then proceed too see a 0 and completely forget that's a sign of dementia.

 

If you're willing to say 

"
that my aptitude is low pertaining to astronomy and space in general."

Then maybe you shouldn't try and correct or teach people.

At least we know why no one ever responds to the topics you post now.
Because they think you're a dumbass talking about ham sandwiches.
 

Edited by Orion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow not very bright are you. 

The "big bang" by definition may not be a suitable term for your theory. But maybe it can be used if you're suggesting the multiverse theory. Please elaborate further

 

Do you see a question in your statement?

Any punctuation that signifies a question?

 

Too anybody reading this is how you spot someone of fake intelligence.

 

Or 'big bangs' in different times and dimensions? So far at least it's my opinion that you're stuck with having to go with a multiverse.

 

You do realize that "Time." is a form of Dimension

enclosing either ‘mass M’ or ‘length L’ or ‘time T’ 

Montgomery is definitely not the smartest tool in the shed. He is more like the troll Hoe. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe several big bangs occured in the vastness of space, and each one was like a synapse firing off similar too a mental network.  

 

Big Bang theory is just a theory, lots of variations exist. Inflation preceding one or more big bangs is standard theory at the moment, as far as I understand. What is different about your theory. ?

 

Trying to predict a beginning to the universe based around a big bang, might be a religious hangup that weaseled its way into cosmology  

 

Galaxies seem to form around black holes normally, is your multiple big bangs based in some way around black holes ?? 

 

Edit Big bang theory is like trying to analize a huge multiple car crash in fog 13.8 billion years ago. Its just a guess that gives some reasonable answers but is not definitive.

Edited by Flummoxed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Bang theory is just a theory, lots of variations exist. Inflation preceding one or more big bangs is standard theory at the moment, as far as I understand. What is different about your theory. ?

 

Trying to predict a beginning to the universe based around a big bang, might be a religious hangup that weaseled its way into cosmology  

 

Galaxies seem to form around black holes normally, is your multiple big bangs based in some way around black holes ?? 

 

Edit Big bang theory is like trying to analize a huge multiple car crash in fog 13.8 billion years ago. Its just a guess that gives some reasonable answers but is not definitive.

 

Exactly, the arguments for a big bang (in any model) are very few, and the arguments against the BB are many! (if you care to look). 

 

The problem with the evidence for the big bang is that the observed data that 'confirms' the big bang must be able to be  shown to be impossible to exist if not for the big bang, 

In other words it has to have falsifiable arguments that have not be falsified,  

 

But there is no silver bullet, nothing about redshift or the CMBR has been shown to could only possibly occur as a result of the big bang.. 

 

And to compound the problem for the Big Bangers, the reasonable causes for the CMB and Redshift in a non big bang universe can be explained by known and understood physics. 

However, the same cannot be said for the BB models, where you have to invent new physics to justify what we observe in terms of the big bang.

 

I do not thing we can even have an answer on what the Universe is or how it got here, or if it even did get here, I expect it is just something that exists and has always existed. 

 

It may have started in the past as well, but there is no evidence to support when or how. 

 

I actually like to think that galaxies are universes, making our universe a multiverse, they all have the same laws of physics, in that they all have space and time, and if you have space somewhere you have it everywhere. 

 

So you could consider galaxies like synapses connected by light and energy and sharing their existence in a common space and time.

 

 

Edit Big bang theory is like trying to analize a huge multiple car crash in fog 13.8 billion years ago. Its just a guess that gives some reasonable answers but is not definitive.

 

 

It's like trying to analyze a multiple car crash, where all the car have been melted down and turned in the beer cans and coat hangers, 10,000 years ago !!  (where the car crash didn't actually happened, someone just made up a story!!)..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the arguments for a big bang (in any model) are very few, and the arguments against the BB are many! (if you care to look). 

 

The problem with the evidence for the big bang is that the observed data that 'confirms' the big bang must be able to be  shown to be impossible to exist if not for the big bang, 

In other words it has to have falsifiable arguments that have not be falsified,  

 

But there is no silver bullet, nothing about redshift or the CMBR has been shown to could only possibly occur as a result of the big bang.. 

 

And to compound the problem for the Big Bangers, the reasonable causes for the CMB and Redshift in a non big bang universe can be explained by known and understood physics. 

However, the same cannot be said for the BB models, where you have to invent new physics to justify what we observe in terms of the big bang.

 

I do not thing we can even have an answer on what the Universe is or how it got here, or if it even did get here, I expect it is just something that exists and has always existed. 

 

It may have started in the past as well, but there is no evidence to support when or how. 

 

I actually like to think that galaxies are universes, making our universe a multiverse, they all have the same laws of physics, in that they all have space and time, and if you have space somewhere you have it everywhere. 

 

So you could consider galaxies like synapses connected by light and energy and sharing their existence in a common space and time.

 

 

It's like trying to analyze a multiple car crash, where all the car have been melted down and turned in the beer cans and coat hangers, 10,000 years ago !!  (where the car crash didn't actually happened, someone just made up a story!!)..

 

I have the opinion that all the various theories have some level of fact in them.

 

The big bang likely an over simplification, just to give a theoretical starting point for how the universe is as it is. 

 

The concept of a starting point in time, is a bit along religious grounds.

 

Inside Black holes, things are weird, theoretically :) Time stops, ie it doesnt exist. In theory according to Hawking BH's could evaporate revealing their insides perhaps a Boson star, which might result in lots of radiation escaping not unlike a big bang, creating a or multiple galaxies. Blackholes might actually be the origins of many big bangs :) Unlike supernovae of suns which convert lighter elements into heavy elements black holes likely convert matter down to bosons, which might explain the CBR seen almost ! uniformaly through out the universe. 

 

Another weird way of looking at the universe was put forward by Podolsky in that we are living inside a higher dimensional black hole, with collapsed dimensions.

 

The concept of space and how distance is measured, depends on how you model it. 

 

Your ideas on length contraction and expansion depending on location and movement are interesting.

 

For a photon, space and time dont exist according to relativity. Inside a  black hole there is no time. Your ideas if I understand you correctly is that lengths inside a BH are longer than outside the BH, PI doesnt apply! 

 

Im waffling so stopping 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the opinion that all the various theories have some level of fact in them.

 

The big bang likely an over simplification, just to give a theoretical starting point for how the universe is as it is. 

 

The concept of a starting point in time, is a bit along religious grounds.

 

Inside Black holes, things are weird, theoretically :) Time stops, ie it doesnt exist. In theory according to Hawking BH's could evaporate revealing their insides perhaps a Boson star, which might result in lots of radiation escaping not unlike a big bang, creating a or multiple galaxies. Blackholes might actually be the origins of many big bangs :) Unlike supernovae of suns which convert lighter elements into heavy elements black holes likely convert matter down to bosons, which might explain the CBR seen almost ! uniformaly through out the universe. 

 

Another weird way of looking at the universe was put forward by Podolsky in that we are living inside a higher dimensional black hole, with collapsed dimensions.

 

The concept of space and how distance is measured, depends on how you model it. 

 

Your ideas on length contraction and expansion depending on location and movement are interesting.

 

For a photon, space and time dont exist according to relativity. Inside a  black hole there is no time. Your ideas if I understand you correctly is that lengths inside a BH are longer than outside the BH, PI doesnt apply! 

 

Im waffling so stopping 

 

I think there are two separate questions, one is philosophical and historical, that is 'did the universe start, how and when, and can we find that out?"

 

and: How in fundamental terms does the universe work?

 

If you consider the Big Bang models you can only conclude that the Universe fundamentally does not 'work', it's not a functioning system, it started and it will run down and somehow die, or be radically different in the future, and was radically different in the past. 

 

I don't think we can make any claims of knowledge about how the universe 'works' in that case, so that is a philosophical and historical context.

 

But if you forget about past or future and just think about how the Universe might work as a system then you can start to see patterns and observations that make the Universe a functioning and dynamic (but static) system.

 

I had lots of problems with time and space and black holes (HAD !!), that time stops or does not exist is very confusing for me, trying to model that in my mind hurts!

 

Until I started to think about time as just the gap between events, which is a length of time, and space is just the gap between objects and is also a length.

So for time to 'stop' it would have an infinite length, but infinities are not really a thing. 

 

So a black hole having a large mass would create long time, and with it long space (speed of light is constant).

 

So it is the space and time itself that has a 'size', that size is emergent (created by) matter, because matter needs space to exist in, the more matter you have the more space you need (and the more you get). 

 

So in relative terms, the more matter you have the longer the space and the LESS dense the matter is in that space.

 

We see this in our own solar system, density reduces as the mass of planets (and the Sun) increases.

 

It's hard to think that matter changes size (and density) depending on the length of space that it is in, until you think about thermodynamics.

 

When you heat a solid you increase the lengths on the atoms and electrons, and the solid will expand (because less dense) as it tries to distribute that energy over a wider area, it will also radiate energy like mad into space to further distribute that energy.

 

With more heat the solid will turn to liquid as the bonding lengths get too great, now the atoms are loosely bound as a liquid. As you apply more heat the matter will become a gas as the lengths get too long for it to sustain a liquid form.

 

More heat, and the lengths get too great for the electrons to remain bound to the atom and we get a plasma, All that is based on the length of binding forces and the forces losing the fight.

 

So, the same effect applies because of space length, matter can only exist in solid form up to a certain space length, but put in more matter and space gets too long and you get liquid and gas 'giants', and more mass still and you get massive balls of plasma.

 

Black holes might be the next stage of that process, space might be long enough to break down nuclei.

 

In that case yes, black holes and probably quasars (probably powered by black holes) are mini big bangs, it is the process of turning matter + space and time length into energy, and back into simpler matter.

 

So that would give us a continuous balance of matter, energy and space length, get too much matter together the length of space strips that matter down, and that conversion reduces the length of space but in turn creates more matter (but fast high energy matter so further away).

 

M = E/C^2  matter is energy distributed over space and time.

 

 

 

The concept of space and how distance is measured, depends on how you model it. 

 

Distance is difficult with space length, because you have to think more in terms of 'length of distance', say you are 1000km away from me, I do not know the distance you are from me if the length of 1 meter is variable. 

And with space length you 1 meter is not the same as my 1 meter, however if I send you my 1 meter in your space it will be 1 meter, but if I measure it from my space length it will not be 1 meter!

 

If your space is twice as long as my space, I make a 1 meter ruler and send it to you, then I measure the length of that one meter ruler from my space I will measure it as 2 meters long, Now with matter we know about trying to double the volume of that rules would probably rip it apart. 

 

Same in reverse, you send me your 1 meter ruler and you measure it remotely from your space, it will measure 1/2 a meter, it will be twice as dense, and the light from it will be half the wavelength.

 

If your space is twice as long as mine (say on earth), you emit visible light, that light will not be visible to me at all, as it's frequency (wavelength) will be twice that on my visible light. 

You will be black! You will be black and you will have a lot of mass.

 

Could something massive possibly exist that does not emit visible light ? I am thinking "non-luminous massive objects" that that sounds a bit clunky!

The only thing correct about the term black hole is that they are black! 

 

 

 

 

For a photon, space and time dont exist according to relativity. Inside a  black hole there is no time. Your ideas if I understand you correctly is that lengths inside a BH are longer than outside the BH, PI doesnt apply! 

 

I agree for a photon space and time does not exist, I would say they are decoupled altogether with space and time, we only infer that light is present when it interacts with matter that is coupled and exists in space and time. 

 

But we cannot detect in any way, by any means that light exists at a point in space, unless we put some matter in that space. Light itself does not interact with space and time at all. Which seems odd because you know that light curves around massive objects, but that is a function of the length of space not an interaction with space and light.

 

The only 'interaction' light has with space is that it moves through it, and that times a period of time, so we get lensing because of the variation in the arrival time of the light through space that it more through but does not interact with. I really need to work out how to do good diagrams and make my own thread for a good debate about this.. 

 

Thanks for your post, now I'm waffling !! So stopping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had lots of problems with time and space and black holes (HAD !!), that time stops or does not exist is very confusing for me, trying to model that in my mind hurts!

 

Until I started to think about time as just the gap between events, which is a length of time, and space is just the gap between objects and is also a length.

So for time to 'stop' it would have an infinite length, but infinities are not really a thing. 

 

There in is an interesting thing.

 

I suspect another way of viewing this issue is at infinities and to have a membrane connecting all points in space and time with no dimensions.

 

Edit The only way of viewing this issue is at infinities is to have a membrane connecting all points in space and time with no dimensions. The space and time view is an incomplete blinkered view of what space really is.

Edited by Flummoxed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a hot big bang, a pre big bang state is a cold big bang all matter degenerate condensed phase.

 

What could cause all matter to degenerate, except a BH which would be v hot, would it not.

 

Starting a universe from nothing, in current models needs the inflationary stage, which might separate virtual particles allowing them time to become real, and likely unstable, resulting in a hot end to the inflationary stage. 

 

By @Mutex suggestion above, space gets longer inside a BH, is this not like a inflation stage. (a bit)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...