Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
Well I'm not a major in Math or Physics so I probably wouldn't even know where to begin with finding formulae to describe my through so I guess it'll never be credible.
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions! After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Theory of how our universe was created.
This is basically built off The Big Bang, just with some additions
Rate Topic:
#22
7 September 2011 - 08:09 PM
DevilSolution 
Meson
KUKTLE, on 15 August 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:
#1 - The Creation of Our Universe
I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today. How this molecule was arranged and what it made leaves every man clueless. For know I'm just going to refer to it as an atom. So at one time our universe was an atom, something extremely dense (like an atom), something with the strongest force known that pulled in to keep itself together (like an atom).
This atom was split, then then created our universe and changing the physics all around it. From such the strongest force that mankind has ever made to happen, think of what would be going on at the atomic level within the area. For this to happen it would itself stretch time and space and continue to do so until the force from the explosion died off. This would create the vaccum of space. The immense pressure would also massively puncture time space and create massive black holes then form galaxies. "But how did it explode?" No one is entirely sure, but an atom is such a stable object that it is against the laws of physics for it to split on its own. There MUST be another force to act upon it in order for a split to occur. Think of it, our universe is an atom to an entirely different universe and the scale repeats and continues, its infinite. This scale goes infinitely bigger and infinitely smaller. So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom.
#2 - Time
You might have thought, "well if an atom explodes then it would just explode and massively separate too quickly for any life to exist. Because if i were to split an atom then everything it was made of would just transform energies or perish" Right? This is how it works. Here's an example if you were to spit an atom then you would create a universe that lived and died within less then a second of your life, but if you were to be living inside of that universe you created then it would take probly several billions of years for it to live and die for you. "How is that possible for time to move so fast for the person who split the atom but for you time goes massively slower?" Well let me explain this, Time is actually something that surrounds and takes up space and is intertwined with space very well.
Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion. Our galaxy, our solar sytem and our planet is constantly in motion. Meaning that it is nearly impossible to stop the clock of time. The faster you run the faster you go through time. Also the bigger you are the more you go through time because your covering more space, which makes you cover more time. So if you were in the universe that is above us you would be in a completely different Time Dimension (This is the only term I can think to call it but I don't find it to be an accurate name). Time would flow extremely different for the universe that created our universe. There's higher Time dimensions and lower Time dimensions. In the smaller Time dimension time flows alot slower then our time and in a higher Time dimension time would flow alot faster then ours. And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split.
I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today. How this molecule was arranged and what it made leaves every man clueless. For know I'm just going to refer to it as an atom. So at one time our universe was an atom, something extremely dense (like an atom), something with the strongest force known that pulled in to keep itself together (like an atom).
This atom was split, then then created our universe and changing the physics all around it. From such the strongest force that mankind has ever made to happen, think of what would be going on at the atomic level within the area. For this to happen it would itself stretch time and space and continue to do so until the force from the explosion died off. This would create the vaccum of space. The immense pressure would also massively puncture time space and create massive black holes then form galaxies. "But how did it explode?" No one is entirely sure, but an atom is such a stable object that it is against the laws of physics for it to split on its own. There MUST be another force to act upon it in order for a split to occur. Think of it, our universe is an atom to an entirely different universe and the scale repeats and continues, its infinite. This scale goes infinitely bigger and infinitely smaller. So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom.
#2 - Time
You might have thought, "well if an atom explodes then it would just explode and massively separate too quickly for any life to exist. Because if i were to split an atom then everything it was made of would just transform energies or perish" Right? This is how it works. Here's an example if you were to spit an atom then you would create a universe that lived and died within less then a second of your life, but if you were to be living inside of that universe you created then it would take probly several billions of years for it to live and die for you. "How is that possible for time to move so fast for the person who split the atom but for you time goes massively slower?" Well let me explain this, Time is actually something that surrounds and takes up space and is intertwined with space very well.
Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion. Our galaxy, our solar sytem and our planet is constantly in motion. Meaning that it is nearly impossible to stop the clock of time. The faster you run the faster you go through time. Also the bigger you are the more you go through time because your covering more space, which makes you cover more time. So if you were in the universe that is above us you would be in a completely different Time Dimension (This is the only term I can think to call it but I don't find it to be an accurate name). Time would flow extremely different for the universe that created our universe. There's higher Time dimensions and lower Time dimensions. In the smaller Time dimension time flows alot slower then our time and in a higher Time dimension time would flow alot faster then ours. And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split.
"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then.....
HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.
" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.
"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?
KUKTLE, on 7 September 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:
Well I'm not a major in Math or Physics so I probably wouldn't even know where to begin with finding formulae to describe my through so I guess it'll never be credible.
Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.
Praise the lord
- Posts: 95 | Joined: 10-May 11
Reply
#23
8 September 2011 - 01:21 AM
csmyth3025
Atom
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
(ref. http://en.wikipedia....ical_definition )
I think under the present circumstances that your theory has to be considered speculation - or, at best, a hypothesis - until such time that you can develop it enough to match the descriptive and predictive power of existing theories.
I would urge you to study some of these existing theories to see how they were developed and the exactness with which they're presented. A good place to start would be the Wikipedia article "Introduction to Special Relativity", here:
http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity
Chris
Quote
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
(ref. http://en.wikipedia....ical_definition )
I think under the present circumstances that your theory has to be considered speculation - or, at best, a hypothesis - until such time that you can develop it enough to match the descriptive and predictive power of existing theories.
I would urge you to study some of these existing theories to see how they were developed and the exactness with which they're presented. A good place to start would be the Wikipedia article "Introduction to Special Relativity", here:
http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity
Chris
"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow." (Robert Goddard - from his high school graduation oration, "On Taking Things for Granted", June 1904)
- Posts: 309 | Joined: 24-March 11
- Reply
#24
9 September 2011 - 05:55 PM
Mystery111
Atom
DevilSolution, on 7 September 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:
"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then.....
HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.
" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.
"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?
Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.
HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.
" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.
"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?
Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.
The universe does not have an exact defined energy. For that to be so, someone would need to be sitting outside of the universe to measure the energy.
- Posts: 349 | Joined: 29-August 11
- Reply
#25
10 September 2011 - 02:16 AM
khaled
Meson
Mystery111, on 9 September 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:
The universe does not have an exact defined energy. For that to be so, someone would need to be sitting outside of the universe to measure the energy.
In theoretical physics, you can know the total energy in the universe .. The zero energy theory, since we have symmetries that cancel each others,
we get a total energy of Zero .. when we say the total energy is Zero, some people think it's wrong, but the expansion for one
to understand this is that there are amounts of positive and negative energies, NOT that it means there is no energy in the universe!
Also, scientists found clever methods to calculate things that are difficult to think about, such as total energy in the universe,
total matter in the universe, and even the energy of nothing! they didn't have to go measure it, they took the other way in ...
- Posts: 568 | Joined: 21-April 10
- Reply
#26
11 September 2011 - 12:27 AM
IM Egdall
Molecule
khaled, on 10 September 2011 - 02:16 AM, said:
In theoretical physics, you can know the total energy in the universe .. The zero energy theory, since we have symmetries that cancel each others,
we get a total energy of Zero .. when we say the total energy is Zero, some people think it's wrong, but the expansion for one
to understand this is that there are amounts of positive and negative energies, NOT that it means there is no energy in the universe!
we get a total energy of Zero .. when we say the total energy is Zero, some people think it's wrong, but the expansion for one
to understand this is that there are amounts of positive and negative energies, NOT that it means there is no energy in the universe!
This net zero energy idea refers to a "flat" universe - that is one in which the overall spacetime curvature is zero. And yes, our observtions say the universe is "Flat". But this applies only to the so-called "observable universe', the part of the universe we can see.
The observable universe is, to quote Wikipedia, "the galaxies and other matter that we can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion."
Is the rest of the universe we cannot see also "flat"? From what I read, this is a matter of debate amongst the experts.
Comments?
- Posts: 468 | Joined: 20-July 10
- Reply
#27
24 September 2011 - 01:06 AM
Big Nerd
Lepton
weird.. i dont get some of what you people say. i guess a smart sixth grader isnt enough. see you in 10 years. if we survive 2012. which we will, by my caculations. explained-
-ITS NOT POSSIBLE
the other thing i dont get. if the world is round why do we feel it as flat. if it was gravity, theres no way it just happened to even it out just to the be flat.' and i know, my grammer sucks
-ITS NOT POSSIBLE
the other thing i dont get. if the world is round why do we feel it as flat. if it was gravity, theres no way it just happened to even it out just to the be flat.' and i know, my grammer sucks
- Posts: 5 | Joined: 24-September 11
- Reply
#28
24 September 2011 - 06:04 PM
IM Egdall
Molecule
Big Nerd, on 24 September 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:
weird.. i dont get some of what you people say. i guess a smart sixth grader isnt enough. see you in 10 years. if we survive 2012. which we will, by my caculations. explained-
-ITS NOT POSSIBLE
the other thing i dont get. if the world is round why do we feel it as flat. if it was gravity, theres no way it just happened to even it out just to the be flat.' and i know, my grammer sucks
-ITS NOT POSSIBLE
the other thing i dont get. if the world is round why do we feel it as flat. if it was gravity, theres no way it just happened to even it out just to the be flat.' and i know, my grammer sucks
Imagine a tiny ant on the surface of a big ball. To that ant, the very small part of the surface he can see looks pretty flat.
On the surface of the huge Earth, we are like that ant.
The Earth is round. It is just that up close on the surface, us tiny humans see only a very small part of it, so it appears pretty flat.
If you could rise up into the air and look back at the Earth, you'd see more and more of it as you go up. It looks pretty flat at first. But as you go up higher and higher, you start to notice it curves. And even higher. you start to see it is really the shape of a ball.
Keep searching and learning -- good luck.
This post has been edited by IM Egdall: 24 September 2011 - 06:07 PM
- Posts: 468 | Joined: 20-July 10
- Reply
