Big bang -> Big crunch -> Big bang -> Big ....

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.

that is called the "Oscillating Universe Theory". It was quite popular amongst cosmologists, and depended on the amount of matter in the universe. Nowadays, it seems as though this hypothesis doesn't hold that much water anymore.

www.universetoday.com...
physicsworld.com...

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,

reply to post by scratchmane

If it helps any, the last docu I saw featuring physicists from US educational institutions said they now think that the expansion of the universe or rather the speed of the expansion is in fact increasing. We apparently are in an ever expanding and speeding up universe. I forget the name of it but it contained good info on space not being empty at all, dark matter/energy and a few other things. I forget the name of it but it was quite interesting for a layman (me).

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

reply to post by scratchmane

weird, i had this idea yesterday. big bang, then expansion till it stops and the gravity pulls it back to another concentration of all matter. now the doubts: why should this concentrated mass explode again ? why not just stay a big clump of matter ? another point is the energy that was radiated in all directions, with no gravitational coming back. wouldnt that be missing in another "start" (big bang) ? the equasion would become thinner and thinner.

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.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

to make it expanding, wouldnt a force be necessary ? because the gravitational force is pulling it back together. if a force is working on expanding it, what force is this ?

reply to post by icepack


The big bang? The explosion that brought the universe into existence.

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....

reply to post by PhoenixOD

it was like a huge explosion, but the force is still working ? that would mean the expanding is still accelerating. and for that energy is needed.

it is not the force or energy of the big bang, i just found out on the internet. it is said to be some form of "dark energy, a mysterious force that repels gravity".

news.nationalgeographic.com...

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.

reply to post by icepack


If the outwards force created by the explosion is greater than the inwards force created by the gravity due to the mass of all matter in the universe then the universe just keeps expanding. If you throw a stone in space it doesn't keep accelerating forever , it travels at a fixed speed until influenced by something else.

But the 'acceleration' of the expanding universe is another matter and they are pinning that to the theoretical idea of some kind of dark energy which is an extra force applied to the expansion.

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.