The universe - Repeats again?! (Mind**** warning)

[Kittenpuncher]

Now, you may have reached the conclusion that the universe will eventually contract itself, in, say, 10 trillion years or whatever. All of the atoms and energy around us (as well as within us) will be gravitationally attracted to the center of the universe, and like before, form an omega black hole, until once again, the weight reaches critical mass, and it causes the ULTRANOVA (do you like my nomenclature? XD)

 

All of the atoms and energy - well, does it all explode out the same way? Does all of this happen again? Will your life repeat itself once more? And how many times has this all happened? Am I a bad person for freaking you the heck out?

 

Hit me with it, champs. Waiting to see what you've got to say.

Also, this is my first post. Hello! My name is Kittenpuncher. Pleased to meet you.

[Phi for All]

50 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

All of the atoms and energy around us (as well as within us) will be gravitationally attracted to the center of the universe, and like before, form an omega black hole, until once again, the weight reaches critical mass, and it causes the ULTRANOVA (do you like my nomenclature? XD)

You have evidence of a center of the universe? And that it has the mass to gravitationally attract all other matter?

[Kittenpuncher]

Well, rather than the center, the location of the original big bang

 

which, to have been there, would have to be able to attract all the other matter

as it slows, the natural gravity of atoms pulls it all back together

it stands to reason that it will all eventually return to the same spot

assuming it is the only place that a big bang has occurred

which is a foolish thing to assume, and yet that is what most scientists claim to assume

for example. the heavy matter would move slower

thus it would be closer to the original point where the big bang occurred

henceforth it's gravity would pull the lighter elements to it

and the even heavier matter would be even closer

it would likely play out like a chain reaction or a domino effect of sorts?

assuming the matter exploded out like a circle, eventually the superheavy and dense matter clumps would be pulling on each other from each of the 360 degrees

it would reform the black hole and eventually cause another big bang event

[Phi for All]

It's a common misconception that the BB was an explosion radiating outward into something, but it wasn't. It was a sudden expansion that happened everywhere at once, since it involved everything at once (the entirety of the universe). The model is very clear on this, and the theory explains the model.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Well, rather than the center, the location of the original big bang

 

which, to have been there, would have to be able to attract all the other matter

as it slows, the natural gravity of atoms pulls it all back together

it stands to reason that it will all eventually return to the same spot

assuming it is the only place that a big bang has occurred

which is a foolish thing to assume, and yet that is what most scientists claim to assume

for example. the heavy matter would move slower

thus it would be closer to the original point where the big bang occurred

henceforth it's gravity would pull the lighter elements to it

and the even heavier matter would be even closer

it would likely play out like a chain reaction or a domino effect of sorts?

assuming the matter exploded out like a circle, eventually the superheavy and dense matter clumps would be pulling on each other from each of the 360 degrees

it would reform the black hole and eventually cause another big bang event

The BB was an evolution of space and time. So it happened everywhere at the same time.  It was all there was and there was no outside or no centre.

The recent discovery of an acceleration in the expansion rate, makes any future collapse unlikely. Remembering of course this expansion is only observed over the larger scales. Over smaller scales like galactic groups, galaxies, solar systems etc, gravity due to densities overcomes that expansion rate, and such systems are bound. The other forces of Electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces also play a part on even smaller scales.

 

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

which is a foolish thing to assume, and yet that is what most scientists claim to assume

No, scientists don't 'claim to assume' anything.
Most scientists don't use assumptions as the foundation for their theories.
They start with observational evidence.

My advice to you is to do the same.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

assuming it is the only place that a big bang has occurred

which is a foolish thing to assume, and yet that is what most scientists claim to assume

Further to that, which MigL has commented on. A scientific theory does not mean what is sometimes meant as a theory in normal speak. A scientific theory is our best estimation at the time of formation, according to the observational and experimental evidence. It is always open for improvement, modification, and change, as observations and experiments dictate. A scientific theory is the best we have, and always grows in certainty, the longer it aligns with the evidence, and as predictions made by the theory are verified. eg: BH's and gravitational radiation in recent times.

7 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

it would reform the black hole and eventually cause another big bang event

That is speculation.

Edited March 28, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

My mind remains thoroughly unpenetrated. False advertisement! 

8 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Now, you may have reached the conclusion that the universe will eventually contract itself, in, say, 10 trillion years or whatever.

I thought the big freeze was the current best estimation, based on the evidence, of how the universe will end? 

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Hit me with it, champs. Waiting to see what you've got to say.

 

I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to "mindfuck" people with this kind of post. Perhaps a group of teenage stoners on TikTok might be so affected.

Welcome to the site though. Hope you stay! 😁

[Kittenpuncher]

On 3/27/2022 at 12:17 PM, Phi for All said:

It's a common misconception that the BB was an explosion radiating outward into something, but it wasn't. It was a sudden expansion that happened everywhere at once, since it involved everything at once (the entirety of the universe). The model is very clear on this, and the theory explains the model.

I guess what I'd like to see is some sort of documentation that states that this is really a theory

Another thing I'd like to see is someone acknowledge that this is a mindfuck you know

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I guess what I'd like to see is some sort of documentation that states that this is really a theory

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

32 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Another thing I'd like to see is someone acknowledge that this is a mindfuck you know

Give it a break.

[Kittenpuncher]

The way I'm looking at this is either I'm right or they're just trying to come up with an idea worse than like, the security holograms from dead money, or a touhou yokai, or thunder kiss '65

No offense 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I guess what I'd like to see is some sort of documentation that states that this is really a theory

If you don't understand the Big Bang Theory, how would you understand "documentation" regarding it? It has a LOT of evidence to support it, and where it's applicable it's shown to be remarkably accurate. Incredulity is a weak argument when it's clear you haven't really studied the science.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

No offense 

You are in way over your head here and looking rather foolish.

No offense.

[Kittenpuncher]

Did you not read what I just said

 

Enjoy

On 3/27/2022 at 6:38 PM, MSC said:

My mind remains thoroughly unpenetrated. False advertisement! 

I thought the big freeze was the current best estimation, based on the evidence, of how the universe will end? 

The big freeze? What about heat death of the universe? Anyway mind fuck is a slang term for like... Making your head explode trying to comprehend shit. That's kind of what i like scientific discussion for. Not that I got to explain this very thoroughly, I got into a flame war. But I'm glad I noticed your post 

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I guess what I'd like to see is some sort of documentation that states that this is really a theory

What do you mean by documentation? It is a scientific theory, as previously described for you, and supported by lines of evidence as such.....

(1) The observed redshift of galaxies and expansion if extrapolated backwards suggests a point of evolution.

(2) The CMBR AT 2.73K or left over heat from the BB.

(3) The abundance of the lighter elements and absence of heavy elements in the first stars.

(4) The very slight variation in the CMBR as seeds for galactic structure.

And to add more, the BB was not just some hairy fairy theory pulled out of someones rear end, it arose with the discovery of the universal expansion by Edwin Hubble in the mid/late 20's, but was still competing with two other theories re the origin of the universe. They were the Oscillating theory, and the Steady State theory. It rose to prominence in the 60's when serendiptiously, the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson. 

Here is a reasonable detailed account of the first moment of the BB until the preesnt time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Edited March 29, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

The big freeze? What about heat death of the universe?

What are the key differences you see between these two?

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Another thing I'd like to see is someone acknowledge that this is a mindfuck you know

It's more like this scene from Animal House

 

 

I mean, sure your mind is blown, and it's fine that you're blown away by an idea, but it's not based in much science. You have the opportunity to learn some really neat things, if you are so inclined.

[MSC]

On 3/28/2022 at 8:44 PM, Kittenpuncher said:

Anyway mind fuck is a slang term for like... Making your head explode trying to comprehend shit. That's kind of what i like scientific discussion for. Not that I got to explain this very thoroughly, I got into a flame war. But I'm glad I noticed your post 

Oh really? Is that what mind fuck means? Wow! Well, the more you know 🤣 

On 3/28/2022 at 7:55 PM, Kittenpuncher said:

The way I'm looking at this is either I'm right or they're just trying to come up with an idea worse than like, the security holograms from dead money, or a touhou yokai, or thunder kiss '65

No offense 

Who is they? 

On 3/28/2022 at 8:44 PM, Kittenpuncher said:

Did you not read what I just said

 

Enjoy

Trust me, we all have read what you have said. I may joke, but only to hide the amount of weeping for humanity this post has me doing.

On 3/29/2022 at 7:30 AM, iNow said:

What are the key differences you see between these two?

That I face palmed harder when I read the latter? Or about as much difference between oatmeal and porridge.

Edited March 30, 2022 by MSC

[Kittenpuncher]

On 3/29/2022 at 3:09 AM, beecee said:

What do you mean by documentation? It is a scientific theory, as previously described for you, and supported by lines of evidence as such.....

(1) The observed redshift of galaxies and expansion if extrapolated backwards suggests a point of evolution.

(2) The CMBR AT 2.73K or left over heat from the BB.

(3) The abundance of the lighter elements and absence of heavy elements in the first stars.

(4) The very slight variation in the CMBR as seeds for galactic structure.

And to add more, the BB was not just some hairy fairy theory pulled out of someones rear end, it arose with the discovery of the universal expansion by Edwin Hubble in the mid/late 20's, but was still competing with two other theories re the origin of the universe. They were the Oscillating theory, and the Steady State theory. It rose to prominence in the 60's when serendiptiously, the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson. 

Here is a reasonable detailed account of the first moment of the BB until the preesnt time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

I don't remember it happening "all at once" like you guys are saying

For years the system has instilled upon the youth that the big bang resulted from the universe's matter being packed together so densely that it reached a critical mass and exploded, sending all of the matter every which way and eventually resulting with the universe being how it supposedly is now, the universe constantly expanding in the sense that everything's yet still being rocketed outward from the origin

So for the record I didn't even hear about the universe beginning like this until just now

On 3/29/2022 at 10:30 AM, swansont said:

It's more like this scene from Animal House

 

 

I mean, sure your mind is blown, and it's fine that you're blown away by an idea, but it's not based in much science. You have the opportunity to learn some really neat things, if you are so inclined.

I thought it was... Dang

I came up with the idea I was trying to explain here on my own, which is to say, maybe what I can learn here will actually be of some benefit, so I appreciate the offer, and I must enquire re: what you would ask of me in return

On 3/29/2022 at 6:30 AM, iNow said:

What are the key differences you see between these two?

I guess deep freeze is so new that I haven't managed to learn almost anything about it; whereas heat death of the universe is a theory that has been ridiculed for some time, which I only offhandedly mentioned as an innocent lil joke

 

To MSC:
1. It is a common phrase, I wonder what sort of life you must lead, perhaps very different from my own?

2. "They" certainly are an enigma, who is it pulling all of these strings? Sometimes I can see the strings, even grasp them, and yet to boil it down to who or whatever operates them strikes me as the kind of surprise that will come later. I tend to feel as though worrying about it doesn't do much good for almost anyone

3. Ah well that is appropriate considering how I was lied to, what I thought was the big bang is taught to be so to many others, not just myself

4. Do you notice a pattern in these kinds of contrasting theories? It's as if the more we know, the less we know XD

 

I didn't mean to start off on the wrong foot with you guys, I want to apologize

Obviously I'm an uneducated new guy, I didn't mean to present myself as someone who doesn't live on the streets and squalor in poverty and filth

I mean I didn't even know that the whole big bang was completely different from what they teach the public. Given this version is what is on wikipedia I must be flat out ignorant. XC I mean it's ironic as hell

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I didn't mean to start off on the wrong foot with you guys, I want to apologize

Obviously I'm an uneducated new guy, I didn't mean to present myself as someone who doesn't live on the streets and squalor in poverty and filth

I mean I didn't even know that the whole big bang was completely different from what they teach the public. Given this version is what is on wikipedia I must be flat out ignorant. XC I mean it's ironic as hell

Perhaps if I inform you that I aint no scientist either, just a poor old retired maintenance fitter/machinist/welder, who has had an interest in evidenced backed mainstream science, most of his life, but was too dumb, and having too much fun when young to do anything about it. Also many aspects of certain cosmological scenarios like the BB, are simply simplified for lay people. If you or they are still interested, then you have the web and reputable sites to learn and gain more knowledge. We once thought in the early fifities that Mercury was the smallest planet...we now no that to be Pluto...except of course now Pluto has been down graded to a dwarf planet. We once thought that the Milky Way galaxy was it...were we bloody wrong on that score also, thanks to Edwin Hubble.

Here is a reasonable starting point if you are interested in learning.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

An important point! The BB is not a theory about the start of the universe; it is a theory of how it evolved from t+10-43 seconds or thereabouts....

 In other words, there is no empirical evidence indicating any singularity of  infinite density, but the CMBR, (cosmic microwave background radiation) is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.

Further to the best of our knowledge, at that time there was no matter, just space and time, and the superforce, which started to decouple as expansion took hold, gravity being first. Such decoupling created false vacuums  and phase transitions, (similar to water turning to ice) and the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, (quarks and electrons) As expansion continued, and temperatures and pressures dropped, quarks joined up, protons and neutrons were created, and our first atomic nuclei at the 3 minute mark. It took another 180,000 years before conditions were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei and our first light elements were formed. From there it was plain sailing.

Edited March 31, 2022 by beecee

[zapatos]

Popular science is generally simplified to make the concepts understandable to a non-scientific group of people. Often times it is simplified to the point where it is misleading, and given that popular science writers often don't understand the concepts well themselves, a lot of people end up with misconceptions.

Many of the people on this site work or teach in science on a daily basis and love to share what they know. Ask all the questions you wish and tell us what you think. If you think someone here is wrong, it is usually best to ask them for clarification before you suggest they are mistaken. If you do suggest they are mistaken, do so while linking to outside sources that support your position.

People here are never shy about telling each other when they've made a mistake. If it happens to you don't take it personally, as it is how people work to arrive at the best answer.

Welcome aboard! 😄

[Kittenpuncher]

Thank you sir or madam

One thing I've doing lately is trying to get back into studying wikipedia articles and stuff

I used to do that quite a bit when I was a teenager

Sadly everything I learned and even most of my memories were all washed away by the endless struggling with

well

you probably don't want to know

Studying wikipedia articles was much nicer though

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Popular science is generally simplified to make the concepts understandable to a non-scientific group of people. Often times it is simplified to the point where it is misleading, and given that popular science writers often don't understand the concepts well themselves, a lot of people end up with misconceptions.

Many of the people on this site work or teach in science on a daily basis and love to share what they know. Ask all the questions you wish and tell us what you think. If you think someone here is wrong, it is usually best to ask them for clarification before you suggest they are mistaken. If you do suggest they are mistaken, do so while linking to outside sources that support your position.

People here are never shy about telling each other when they've made a mistake. If it happens to you don't take it personally, as it is how people work to arrive at the best answer.

Welcome aboard! 😄

Oof. How could all of them have been so far off, though? XD life goes on

thank you for the welcome, I will try to make good contributions and be a positive addition to your community

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Thank you sir or madam

One thing I've doing lately is trying to get back into studying wikipedia articles and stuff

Studying wikipedia articles was much nicer though

Wikipedia is generally OK, but still there can be circumstances where even more exactness may wish to be known.

One of my favourite videos, that I have already posted once today to another will explain it far better then I....... 7.5 minutes long....

Oh and its Sir, or more appropriatley mate!!!!

Edited March 31, 2022 by beecee

[Kittenpuncher]

I will remember to watch it later, I am busy at the moment

On 3/27/2022 at 1:57 PM, beecee said:

The BB was an evolution of space and time. So it happened everywhere at the same time.  It was all there was and there was no outside or no centre.

The recent discovery of an acceleration in the expansion rate, makes any future collapse unlikely. Remembering of course this expansion is only observed over the larger scales. Over smaller scales like galactic groups, galaxies, solar systems etc, gravity due to densities overcomes that expansion rate, and such systems are bound. The other forces of Electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces also play a part on even smaller scales.

 

Question, if the gravity of some things overcomes the expansion rate, wouldn't that eventually lead to the universe contracting? Or at least; a great deal of matter contracting?