More than one Big Bang?

[DarkColoredLight]

Now I'm no scientist, but since I haven't found an answer to this dark energy question of what is it, I'll throw an answer out there. This is more or less a uneducated guess. This is my opinion, no facts behind it, so you can assume it's false if you'd like.

The dark energy is an expanding universe inside of our universe. You could say it's another universe of forms, supporting Platos idea. You could say it's heaven/hell where all the pure/lost souls are living now in their "reality." You could say it's god in the flesh, what ever you say it's probably just as good as my guess.

 

Does anyone have evidence disproving my theory?

 

Could we be dark energy inside a bigger universe, which our universe "big banged" into existance into said bigger universe?

 

 

Insane in the membrain,

DCL

[Freddy]

Years ago I read Hawking's book, A Brief History Of Time, where he said there may have been and continue to be a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Has Hawking modified that theory of the Universe?

[anglepose]

ok ill put a post up in the philosophy forums on this sorta idea

[firecracker]

:thumbs_up If the conditions could ever have set themselves up for a 'Big Bang', they could do so again. In fact, if the dimension of time is infinite, and I believe it is, 'Big Bangs' could occur an infinite number of times. And if you think about it, the elapsed time between occurrences is infinitely short!

[LJP07]

Surely there will not be another Big Bang. The statement that the Universe is expanding suggests it will always continue this way. I wonder what caused the increase in speed, or it increased from the very start I should say.

 

Jay said that if the mass reaches a pivotal point, gravitational attraction will cause all matter to go back to a Big Crunch. Why would it cause all mass to go back if all mass is separated vast distances from each other, surely the gravitational effect would be negligible in some areas?

[Mike C]

If the conditions could ever have set themselves up for a 'Big Bang', they could do so again. In fact, if the dimension of time is infinite, and I believe it is, 'Big Bangs' could occur an infinite number of times. And if you think about it, the elapsed time between occurrences is infinitely short!

 

For yor information, there was no BB the first time.

The BB'ers say that the BB was and is NOT an explosion but just an 'expansion of space' (EoS) that I consider to be false also.

 

Since the Doppler redshift observations were refuted (repeats geocentricity) and replaced with the EoS, this then is a 'subjective ' idea created by a catholic priest (Lemaitrae) that was adopted as a replacement for Doppler.

 

NS

[Titas Aduksus]

For yor information, there was no BB the first time.NS

I guess if you take literally the meaning of the word 'bang' ie a loud noise, and the fact that "In space no one can hear you scream" then you are probably right, other than that if you wish to impress anybody, please do not state it as a fact that the BB never occured, it is at best only your opinion.

[Mike C]

I guess if you take literally the meaning of the word 'bang' ie a loud noise, and the fact that "In space no one can hear you scream" then you are probably right, other than that if you wish to impress anybody, please do not state it as a fact that the BB never occured, it is at best only your opinion.

 

Tes, it is my opinion but there are many others that also refute the BBU.

 

Since Doppler was refuted and replaced with the EoS, I would like to know what is driving the expansion since it was not an explosion?

I believe in 'cause and effect'.

 

NS

[Titas Aduksus]

You believe in cause and effect ? What has that got to do with cosmology? - one thing you ought to understand very clearly is that the universe does not behave the way humans expect it to, where is the cause and effect of any of the four forces, or of particles popping in and out of existence ?

 

I'd scrap cause and effect, attempting to apply classical physics to the world of quanta or the super massive is like expecting a rock to behave like a living being. I think you'd do well to spend more of your time understanding the cosmos rather than try and overturn that which science currently considers the most probable [and best supported] theory of the early universe.

[Mike C]

You believe in cause and effect ? What has that got to do with cosmology? - one thing you ought to understand very clearly is that the universe does not behave the way humans expect it to, where is the cause and effect of any of the four forces, or of particles popping in and out of existence ?

 

I'd scrap cause and effect, attempting to apply classical physics to the world of quanta or the super massive is like expecting a rock to behave like a living being. I think you'd do well to spend more of your time understanding the cosmos rather than try and overturn that which science currently considers the most probable [and best supported] theory of the early universe.

 

What support?

As I said, there is no cause given for the 'expansion of space'

Those 'self anihilating virtual particles are nothing but mathematical curiousities and do NOT contribute to the EoS.

The dark energy problem is not the solution either.

 

The BB is nothing but a religion created in the mind of a priest (Lemaitrae).

For religion, you do not need a cause.

 

Science is based on the cause and effect concept because we see the effects and want to know the causes of these effects.

 

That is why experiments are performed as well as observations to learn these causes.

 

Regarding the forces, the EM force is very well studied and understood.

Gravity is a manisfestation of proton 'bipolar' MF alignments to attract only, IMO.

The strong and weak forces are questionable IMO because of their 'short ranges' that are 'unrealistic'.

 

NS

[Buffy]

The BB is nothing but a religion created in the mind of a priest (Lemaitrae).

For religion, you do not need a cause.

 

Science is based on the cause and effect concept because we see the effects and want to know the causes of these effects.

This is quite simply false. No scientific theory requires an explanation of the *cause* it simply requires that the theory correctly explain all *outcomes*.

 

When Newton defined his Law of Gravity, he made *no* attempt to explain or even *find* a cause.

 

You cannot simply redefine the word "Science" whenever you need to to make unsupported claims.

 

Definitions are important,

Buffy

[silverslith]

Theres theories out there that gravity repels at both extreme distances and very high densities. Discovery of x-ray heartbeats from the centre of ours and other galaxies is leading to speculation that the galactic core "black hole" may be mostly a dark matter mass. Apparently a supermassive dark matter mass can in theory resonate between contraction and expansion phases, giving the "heartbeat" phenomina where black holes of normal matter couldn't.

Comparing the escape velocity from all the universes mass with the universes diameter and the speed of light could lead to speculation that the edge of the universe is the event horizon of a black hole that we are in. If gravity does repel at great distance then this would be completely meaningless. So I'm not voting because too many questions still need answers.:)

[silverslith]

Further its been observed that galactic distances from the centre of the universe are quantized. While this is usually explained as a remnant of the quantized matter distribution at unbelievably short time periods after the big bang, its possible we may be seeing the results of quantum gravity phenomina at the universal scale. If this is possible then the apparent observation of increasing expansion may be a quantum result. Or possibly there is a dark matter mass at the universal fringe undergoing resonant behavior simular to the galactic core phenomenon and we are only observing an expansion phase that is limited timewise.

Food for thought.:)

[Mike C]

This is quite simply false. No scientific theory requires an explanation of the *cause* it simply requires that the theory correctly explain all *outcomes*.

 

When Newton defined his Law of Gravity, he made *no* attempt to explain or even *find* a cause.

 

You cannot simply redefine the word "Science" whenever you need to to make unsupported claims.

 

Definitions are important,

Buffy

 

I am trying to separate science from religion. Since the biblical religions are created in the minds of man without any real evidence for their existence (Genesis), I have reason to think otherwise.

 

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all relied on 'observations' to establish their theories regarding our solar system. It was eventually finalized that 'matter' is the cause of gravity with the Cavendish and Boys experiments that established the Gravitational Constant.

Plancks Quantum math also resulted from experiments with a

'radiation chamber' that finally enabled him to find the solution for the EM radiation curve (black body).

 

These scientists all sought 'causes' for the observed 'effects'.

 

The biblical book of genesis is nothing but a fantasy.

 

NS

[Buffy]

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all relied on 'observations' to establish their theories regarding our solar system....These scientists all sought 'causes' for the observed 'effects'.

"Sought causes" sure, but a cause is not a *prerequisite* to forming a scientific theory. By insisting on "finding a cause" is tantamount to saying Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were dealing in religious beliefs because they did not know the cause of gravity. Guess what: we *still* don't really know the *cause* of gravity!

 

Your modus operandi here seems to be that whenever you don't like a scientific theory, you simply point to the fact that it doesn't have a "cause" and you can call it a religion. That's a very interesting debating tactic, but it does not hold much water.

 

If you don't know why a tree falls, it doesn't make a sound,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Mind if I quote you on that? :)

[Buffy]

Mind if I quote you on that? ;)

You could, but it might be dangerous! It goes for you too! He doesn't use the word "cause" the same way you do! :)

 

Why != how,

Buffy