Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Chasteen02's Achievements


Lepton (1/13)



  1. I agree with this statement 100%. It does however leave a window open. As I have stated many times, I am not trying to present this to be fact. It was merely an idea that I had that I thought I would throw out there and see what some other people thought of it. I may have went a little far to go ahead and assert the universe is alive, but I do really like my two theories on black holes and dark energy. After I thought of these two ideas I thought to myself "Hey, if the universe is consuming food to help itself grow and is reproducing, Is it possible the universe could be a living organism?" That was basically my thought process behind this post. I know that we will probably never have a way to prove any of this but understanding must start somewhere. Yes, After starting this post I read where someone pointed out that there is an episode of "Through the Wormhole" that runs along the same lines as my post. I have since found the episode and watched it. One Physicist on the show had basically the same exact idea on black holes. Except the way they presented it seemed like they were saying each black hole was capable of spawning multiple new universes. I believe each black hole would be capable of spawning only one new universe. That is the only difference. Aside from that it did make me very happy to know someone alot smarter than myself had the same kind of thought that I had. It atleast lets me know that my thoughts may not be that crazy.
  2. I understand what you are saying. Yes we cannot prove that the universe can reproduce, but it has not been proven to be false either. That is the basis for my argument. As I have said this is a pretty far-fetched idea but I believe it is good to think outside the box every now and then. As for the other characteristics of life that I have listed, looking at them in the way we know them I understand how you can say that it is evident that they do not apply to the universe. If you start to look at them in a more abstract way then I believe you can start to apply them.
  3. Well as I've said nothing that I am saying is fact by any means, but it is my opinion that the universe is capable reproducing itself, which would also lead to adapatation. Thats 2 that you just crossed off. If you don't believe it then thats cool, but I was asking if you could definatly say that any of these just purely cannot apply.
  4. Of these prerequisites for life, Which ones can you say definatly doesn't apply to the universe? Maybe it is in a more abstract/complex way than our undertanding allows us to think, but I cannot say that these in no way could apply to the universe.
  5. Yes, you are right that the black hole spits out most of what it comes into contact with. My wording may have been a little off but I was just trying to say that the black hole is constantly consuming matter. As for the "Infinite mass and density" I could be wrong here but if something is infinitly dense, would that not mean that within it's confines it has infinite mass or atleast the most mass that it could possibly have?
  6. Well life is one of those words that is rather hard to define, but the best that I can do is give the characteristics that living organisms share. 1.Homeostatsis 2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells 3.Metabolism 4.Growth 5.Adaptation 6.Response to stimuli 7.Reproduction
  7. I want to start by saying that there is little to no scientific backing for what I'm about to say. I am no physist and I have no ways to prove these theories, This is just some things that I have thought of and seems like it could be viable, atleast to me. My hope is that someone on these boards will either rip my theory to shreds and show me why it is not possible or that someone will give me some kind of scientific backing. Basically I think it is possible that the universe itself is a living organism. I have heard many theories on what a black hole is and what happens inside of one. One thing we do know is that a black hole sucks in all the matter than comes into contact with it. Now if the black hole sucks in all this matter and keeps crushing it, then it seems at the center would be the makings of a big bang. A commonly accepted theory on how the universe came to be is the big bang, which was a singularity of infinite mass and density. This sounds alot like what I would picture the center of a black hole to look like. Once the black hole sucks in so much that it can not consume any more it would have the same singularity at the center of it. To put it simply I think that a black hole could be the umbilical chord going from one universe to it's offspring. Another part of this theory is dark energy. I've heard alot of people say that they think dark energy is killing the universe by causing it to expand. Could it be that rather than killing the universe the dark energy is actually feeding the universe and keeping it alive? Could the dark energy be the 'food' that the universe needs to grow just like any other living organism? Now if both of these theories were true than the universe would posses two qualities of a living organism: reproduction, and the capacity to grow. I know this is pretty far-fetched but it is just a thought.
  8. Thanks for the feedback. I like the thought that in the early stages of expansion the universe did not operate under the current laws of physics. I am going to look into this more, but it is something that I could see as being a possibility.
  9. Hello everyone, I am new to this forum and honestly I have just began to study Physics. I had never really found it interesting until recently. So I am really new to all of this stuff. I hope I do not sound like a complete idiot, but if I do feel free to tell me. I am just here to learn. My question is this, I have been led to believe that the universe started as a singularity. After the big bang the universe started expanding rapidly. I have also learned that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore the universe should not have been able to expand faster than the speed of light. It has been said that the universe is about 14.6 Billion years old. Now to me this means that the radius of the universe should be 14.6 Billion light years. As I looked into this I found that scientist believe the radius of just the observable universe is about 45.7 billion light years. Something doesn't add up here to me. How could the universe have expanded faster than the speed of light? To go a little deeper, Einstein's theory of relativity, consist of spacetime. Stars, planets, etc. could not exist without spacetime. Now, to have spacetime, Time must have been able to reach that part of space. If the speed of light travels father than time, How could time have reached an area of space that is 45.7 Billion light years away? Does this mean that time has been since before the big bang? Please someone help me out with understanding these things.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.