Ok so this came to me today. Basically, i think the big bang was created by a black hole in another universe got so dense it blasted a hole in the fabric of time and space sucking it through a wormhole and blasting the extremely dense mass through the wormhole and out the other end into "our universe". And because the density of the mass was so great, it could only blast the extreme energy out causing the big bang. I think that life on Earth is actually because as the mass of the black hole was so great it compressed different molecules together, and by chance created life.

Any thoughts?

 

By Morgan McCallum Bailey.

Edited October 14, 201114 yr by morgsboi

That's pretty far out there. I think your model needs a little polishing.

I think you can start with laying out a bit of a more structured explanation. How is this new theory explain things the current theory cannot? What evidence do you think support your theory?

In many ways, the big bang, the idea matter is being spat out of a singularity is in fact the same as having a time-reversed black hole, which is a white hole.

Yeah, white holes, that's the ticket! However, since black holes really aren't holes and just dense conglomerations of matter, I have a really hard time seeing it through. Where is this other place, dimension, universe, etc?

Yeah, white holes, that's the ticket! However, since black holes really aren't holes and just dense conglomerations of matter, I have a really hard time seeing it through. Where is this other place, dimension, universe, etc?

Well the other universe and dimension would be through and on the other side of the wormhole. The other universe would be impossible to reach from our universe without going through a wormhole because it's like another section of infinity.

Ok, so was this like a parallel universe, which isn't very logical, or part of a bubble verse, which is seemingly too far away spatially to be reasonable?

Edited October 15, 201114 yr by Realitycheck

Ok, so was this like a parallel universe, which isn't very logical, or part of a bubble verse, which is seemingly too far away spatially to be reasonable?

 

Well I can't answer that because its impossible to know. My theory is very basically a big pile of dense mass was dumped out from a white hole and exploded.

Well I can't answer that because its impossible to know. My theory is very basically a big pile of dense mass was dumped out from a white hole and exploded.

Can you gather evidence that supports your idea? Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence that says it wasn't a blast or an explosion, it was an expansion. And abiogenesis theory has fossil evidence of microbe-like objects a billion years after the earth was formed, which was 10 billion years after the Big Bang, so pressure from the mass of a black hole pushing molecules together to form life seems improbable. Abiogenesis also has evidence of a chemical reaction creating life, not pressure. Present day life is evidence that massive pressure isn't required.

 

If your theory is "impossible to know", then it really can't be scientific. Science needs evidence for support, testable ideas that make predictions. A theory is only a theory when it's the best current explanation. As mooeypoo pointed out, what does your idea explain better than current theory does?

Yeah, white holes, that's the ticket! However, since black holes really aren't holes and just dense conglomerations of matter, I have a really hard time seeing it through. Where is this other place, dimension, universe, etc?

 

They are topological openings which are analogous to coming across let us say, a dented hole in the road.

Can you gather evidence that supports your idea? Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence that says it wasn't a blast or an explosion, it was an expansion. And abiogenesis theory has fossil evidence of microbe-like objects a billion years after the earth was formed, which was 10 billion years after the Big Bang, so pressure from the mass of a black hole pushing molecules together to form life seems improbable. Abiogenesis also has evidence of a chemical reaction creating life, not pressure. Present day life is evidence that massive pressure isn't required.

 

If your theory is "impossible to know", then it really can't be scientific. Science needs evidence for support, testable ideas that make predictions. A theory is only a theory when it's the best current explanation. As mooeypoo pointed out, what does your idea explain better than current theory does?

 

Well have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? He uses water (H₂O), methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃), and hydrogen (H₂)to form 20 different amino acids. Heres the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment