Had this thought the other day.

I've heard it said that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

So if the action is the Big bang we must logically infer that the reaction will be the Big crunch?

Or is there something I am not aware of?

Originally posted by scratchmane
Had this thought the other day.

I've heard it said that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

So if the action is the Big bang we must logically infer that the reaction will be the Big crunch?

Or is there something I am not aware of?

The theory that there was a never a big bang...that the universe began as a massive sprawl of energy, and the energy became conscious. This energy became like a God-consciousness (because if energy is intelligent, it can do anything), and it all went from there.

And before you debunk that theory, remember that we barely know a foot out of a whole mile of science regarding the universe and metaphysics. We don't know enough to say "No, that isn't right" to ANYTHING. We're still an infant race; we don't know NEARLY as much as we like to pretend to.

Hence, my usage of the word 'theory'.

You asked, I answered.

Originally posted by scratchmane
Had this thought the other day.

I've heard it said that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

So if the action is the Big bang we must logically infer that the reaction will be the Big crunch?

Or is there something I am not aware of?

There's one other theory you forgot.

It's called the big RIP.

What makes you think you've identified the correct reaction? If I fire a gun, the bullet goes out for a way then falls to the ground and sits there.

Aren't reactions almost immediately after the action? Perhaps not in all cases, but it seems like it would be in this case.

Yes, there are some scientists who believe in the cyclical nature of the universe, but many don't. Even those who do wouldn't claim it's an action-reaction issue.

Sorry for sounding harsh, another crabby day.

For this to be true there would need to be some outside force to stop the expansion of the universe, and then push it back together. I don't find this theory plausible.

My theory.......
Our Universe is a bubble, expanding and rising thru another medium. Our bubble is one of a multitude.
We will eventually reach a "surface", pop and join all the other universes that have popped before ours, bringing us into a super universe.

I call it the "fart in the bathtub" theory....

The true question is this. If it is a fart....then who let it go?????

Anyone else have a pet theory???

Originally posted by vanillaMinus
For this to be true there would need to be some outside force to stop the expansion of the universe, and then push it back together. I don't find this theory plausible.

No external force is needed. If enough matter is in the universe, eventually gravity would stop expansion, and cause it to start compressing again.

Originally posted by charles1952
What makes you think you've identified the correct reaction? If I fire a gun, the bullet goes out for a way then falls to the ground and sits there.

Aren't reactions almost immediately after the action? Perhaps not in all cases, but it seems like it would be in this case.

Yes, there are some scientists who believe in the cyclical nature of the universe, but many don't. Even those who do wouldn't claim it's an action-reaction issue.

Sorry for sounding harsh, another crabby day.

Recoil is the reaction
As for the creation of the universe I tend to be agnostic about it.
We just don't know yet, I don't think we will ever know unless we leave our precious blue marble.

There is an opposite reaction to everything.
Since energy or matter cannot be created according to our current understanding of the universe, there would need to be a large amount of energy before the big bang,

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by vanillaMinus
For this to be true there would need to be some outside force to stop the expansion of the universe, and then push it back together. I don't find this theory plausible.

No external force is needed. If enough matter is in the universe, eventually gravity would stop expansion, and cause it to start compressing again.

edit on 4/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

There are too many "ifs" for that to be the case, regarding expansion rate/escape velocity and the cosmological principle

There is not enough mass / gravity in the universe to cause a big crunch. that has already been worked out by the scientists. The universe will just keep expanding and growing.

Originally posted by scratchmane
Had this thought the other day.

I've heard it said that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

So if the action is the Big bang we must logically infer that the reaction will be the Big crunch?

Or is there something I am not aware of?

that is how existence breathes...it's like a heart valve or a lung.....

It expands and then contracts...over and again..forever and ever...as if it is breathing...The circle of life....is the breath of life. a repeating cycle that always had been and always will be and also somehow never was....

Why would there need to be a big bang at all? Reality only exists in the non space of an observer.Maybe we are still in the singularity.

Originally posted by scratchmane
Had this thought the other day.

I've heard it said that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.

So if the action is the Big bang we must logically infer that the reaction will be the Big crunch?

Or is there something I am not aware of?

While I understand why you would think that, logically we do not infer that.

The action is the bang.

The reaction is the Universe spreading out to what we have today.

The rate of the Universe spreading out would be directly proportionate to the force of the bang.