MrImpossible Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) If I have your attention know please keep reading, I simply can't do this alone. A bit about my self, I'm not a scientist or a science studnet. This past semester I was a Game Programming Student and that created a new thought pattern in my head. A pattern of Logic. After watching a Program on Sci-Fi Discovery about Black Holes a thought crossed my mnd. Following Logic I've come up with a new "theroy". However, I don't have any resources to investigate my "therory" on Not only What the Big Bang was but also on What kind of event had to happen to cause it. All I need is two things, 1. Peek someone's curiosity, who has the capablitiy to get my second need. 2. I also need a specific set of Data on stars. This data needs Three things on it. 1. The estimated Size of the star. 2. The Primary Componnets/Materials/Matter of those stars. 3. The Flashpoint of Those Componnets/Materials/Matter. You will have to analyze I'd say about 20 of each catagory of star(s). Shouldn't take more than that to start seeing what I suspect you will find. If I'm right you will find in this data a Coralation. I'm not saying what kind of coralation, only because anyone who actually looks into this will find a small portion of my "theroy". Also if I'm right I can answer Three Questions (to an extent, after all I'm no scientist and you will need a bit of imagination to fully understand my "theory"), What Was the Big Bang?, How Did it Happen?, and What is a Black Hole? However, if I'm wrong you will find no Coralation within this data. I'll be hearing from you soon. Edited December 22, 2013 by MrImpossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 ! Moderator Note Yeah, that's not how this works. If you say you have a 'theroy' (sic), then it is up to you to demonstrate it and provide evidence. At the very least, you need to provide some detail about what your hypothesis actually is, evidence for why you believe it to be a better description of our current model and what it predicts. If not, this will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrImpossible Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 Very good point, quoted straight from the rules of the forum, though to be expected of a staff member. Question, how do you attact big fish??? You start by attacting the little fish, bait. How do you attact the little fish... bait. Get the idea? I planted bait, you nibbled. Re-read my inital post. Though I didn't flat out say it, I did plant two seeds in there. The data and the word "Coralation". You should find something very odd about the data once gathered... or very similar in other words. "Ask me a question I'll tell you no lie." - Unknown to me. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 ! Moderator Note These festively coloured notes mean that I am not here to debate the content, I am here to tell you to start following the rules. Last chance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I can't directly help you with answers to your questions, but I can give some advice. First, a meta-comment on your approach. You will find that the reaction to posts like yours on a science forum will be two-fold: 1. Explain that if you don't have any evidence to support you idea then it is not a theory in the scientific sense. (And related points like, it is up to you to support the idea not others). 2. Point out the flaws in your idea (if it is developed enough). Note that an idea proposed by someone with little background knowledge and with no theoretical/evidential support will almost certainly be wrong. As such, you might find it more productive to just start by asking where you can find the information, without raising hackles by raising the spectre of "personal theory". You have to realise that people on forums like this are sick to death of the following dialog: Newcomer: I have a theory .... Assembled Members: No you don't. You have an idea. And it is obviously wrong. N: .... closed minded ... imagination ... new ideas ... book learning ... scared ... AM: sigh, here we go again ... Second, on your idea. Data on the mass and composition of stars should be readily available. Thousands, perhaps millions, have been analysed in this way. I can't tell you much about that, except that: 1. The main element is hydrogen, typically 70 to 90%. 2. The second element is helium, making up almost the remaining mass. 3. There are two types of stars: Population I stars contain more of the elements above helium that Population II stars. Because Population I stars were formed from the material ejected by the supernovae of old Pop II stars. 4. The composition of a star changes over its lifetime as hydrogen is turned to helium and then, towards the end of its life, hevier elements are formed. I don't know how 4 affects your idea. 3. The Flashpoint of Those Componnets/Materials/Matter Flash point refers to combustion of materials. I don't see how that relates to stars so you need to work out what you are really asking there. (Otherwise you will attract even more criticism.) I get the impression that you might be thinking of the big bang as some sort of explosion like a supernova. If so, then you can just drop the whole idea now, as it bears no relation to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrImpossible Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) A valid point hypervalent_iodine, Strange you are correct, but you miss understand to a point. Mainly because I haven't come out said what I'm thinking and you nearly hit the nailed on the head. However, an explosion is "the sudden, loud, and violent release of energy that happens when something (such as a bomb) breaks apart in a way that sends parts flying outward". But just like an explosion a star needs an event, a spark. We can all agree that fusion on the scale(s) of a star doesn't just happen, you need some kind of event... a chain reaction, an explosion, a spark. I used "Flashpoint" because as I stated I'm not a scientist, I have no idea what term would be better suited for what I am suggesting. Though to me it seems to fit my "model/theory". Getting to a point, here's your homework. What I believe you will find is that the smaller the star, the lower the flashpoint of the primary materials/matter/componets of those stars. The bigger the star the higher the flashpoint. And thereby also find a difference in temprature, however, that is unimportant to what I'm slowly suggesting. "Ok, that's interesting in all, but what's it got to do with the big bang and black holes???" - you Patience, I'll get there. Once I have "sparked" enough intrige. Edited December 22, 2013 by MrImpossible -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 ! Moderator Note No. You were asked to elaborate, you didn't, thread closed. Do not reopen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts