It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Universe theory

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Hello, everyone. I tried this once before but I think I tried in the wrong forum, it fizzled fast and maybe the Gray area will have more folks who can provide insight and counterpoints for me to investigate and go off of.

I have an interesting thought, I didn't quite know where to post this. It's a little out there, and If I had a better grasp on physics as well as Graphic software I would propose a model, however given the nature it's also some what philosophical in nature. We are all aware that something can not be created from nothing, and yet regardless of our belief whether it be in religion, or science the universe began at some point. Well, as far as they can explain so far from nothing. Well, if this is true what if the universe goes through cycles, meaning it depletes, big bang, then depletes once more. Following me so far? Good. Okay, so through out the universe the most common shape is a sphere, and the energies within/around those objects are toroidal. So my thought, ureeka moment came to me while reading an article by Steven Hawking, the universe is a toroid. There is a positive, and negative side to this toroid, and at the center of the universe there is a large black hole. This black hole is the same on both parallels of the universe and acts to maintain balance between the two sides.

On the positive side of the universe we have stars of various types, as well as black holes of various types which we are only beginning to understand.

On the negative side of the universe everywhere there is a black hole there is a star, and everywhere there is a star, there is a black hole. Are you following me?

All matter absorbed by a black hole is passed to the other side of the universe, eventually matter collects and is compressed by both the gravity of the black hole as well as the collection of matter starting nuclear fusion and a star is born. When this star burns out if the conditions are correct it burns out in a massive explosion known as a supernova creating a collapse on one side of the universe to the other, which will in turn pull matter to the other side of the universe to recycle. An equilibrium of sorts, as long as both sides remain in balance all the universe remains in it's glory.

However, if at any time the universe become inbalanced a runaway effect will occur, keep in mind this could take an unfathomable amount of time. At this point the matter predominantly on one side of the universe will be so dense it will be more likely drawn the the Neutral( best way I can describe it) Black hole in the center of the universe. At this point matter will be compressed in to an infinitely small dense space as both sides press into the center. The massive amount of energy and matter compressed into such a small space would case an immense explosion greater than anything in the universe dispersing matter to all corners of both sides of our toroidal universe starting the process over once more.

If we are to believe that the big bang happened, and that something can not come from nothing, I feel this is a very plausible explanation and perhaps this process goes beyond two layers. With the theory of anti-matter becoming reality, and the theory stars and black holes could be used as gate ways through out the universe would this not make perfect sense? From a philosophical stand point the universe would be an infinite loop. Harmonic perfection. All things, create all things and are born of all things. If I had the knowledge to break this down scientifically, and produce a graphic model I would, but this is a rough theory at best. What do you all think? Am I completely insane? Or did I just have a stroke of genius? This breaks know laws of our current understanding of physics yet brings a whole new light to the universe.

I had a comment regarding black holes and black holes alone. Someone tried to tell me black holes are flat discs that spit matter out at near speed of light and this is what we observe at the center of galaxies. Though at the center of galaxies some proposed black holes release radiation, not all do this and it is only a theory in itself as to the source of the radiation.

"A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[2][3] Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass or greater."

en.wikipedia.org...

Just wanted to stop that one right now. We know very little about black holes, and really we know nothing we can only guess. How can you observe what you can not see? How can we study what we can not experience. In the same light I've proposed my own theory that blends a few other concepts. I feel my theory could very well address the concept of a parallel universe, and could perhaps explain as some of you in the gray area believe star-gates and wormholes. I am trying to read into information regarding black holes as well trying to see how this theory could fit. I know it can be hard to swallow given so much is written as fact when we can only state what we observe. I am aware how stars are born, and am looking for star formation that isn't theorized.

Most of this comes from the concept of black holes. Upon supernova of certain types of stars they become so dense the collapse through the fabric of space time. Where does it go? If a gravitational field is best represented as a toroid, or for that matter is a toroid, a black hole is only one side of that toroid.

Please discuss, this has been on my mind since it smacked me in the face in the shower earlier this week. I've added my additional thoughts, addressed my one comment from the philosphy forum(I don't know why I thought this would fit there.... ha ha, I was over tired and couldn't think of a place for a theory.) I suppose this may also have been better suited for a science based forum now that I think of it, but I've done a whole heck of a lot of writing here, and I don't feel it's right to go ahead and change it once more. If the mods feel this is out of place please feel free to move it. How ever, the gray area tends to be the forum we place what we can not sort on our own.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


My thought would be recycled matter through infinite "black holes"....hence perpetual motion on a grand scheme.Very hard to grasp the matter



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilyich
We are all aware that something can not be created from nothing...


Depends on your definition of "nothing"





Originally posted by Ilyich
what if the universe goes through cycles, meaning it depletes, big bang, then depletes once more.


Somewhat similar to the ideas thought of in the 1920's?



Originally posted by Ilyich
All matter absorbed by a black hole is passed to the other side of the universe..


But matter absorbed by a black hole stays in *this* universe. The black hole becomes heavier, and its Schwarzschild radius becomes larger.
Similarly, matter ejected from supernova also remain in this universe, and can go on to form new stars.



Originally posted by Ilyich
At this point the matter predominantly on one side of the universe will be so dense it will be more likely drawn the the Neutral( best way I can describe it) Black hole in the center of the universe. At this point matter will be compressed in to an infinitely small dense space as both sides press into the center.


Also known as the Big Crunch idea, in cosmology.

edit on 8-6-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Ilyich
We are all aware that something can not be created from nothing...



Depends on your definition of "nothing"




yeh, everything had to come from nothing and everything will return to nothing. it's just what is nothing? it can't be nothing in the way we think of it, it's really no thing. the intellect can not go there



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by biggmoneyme
 


Yes, but where did the energy for the big bang come from? All Matter, is energy. Protons, electrons, and nuetrons. All energy, and they compose all the elements which are matter. If we split an atom we get energy. So, you've used the current theory on the universe to try to " Debunk " my alternative explanation. Physics theories are proved, then disproved and sometimes proved again or altered based on new discoveries.

I'm going to explain this simply, as physics is math to explain the physical world much of which for things unseen to man's eyes. so when we explain the physical world, it's the answer side of a problem. Let's say 7. Now with physics we explain how we got the physical object or action with an equation. If this is something observable, like a car in motion we can calculate it's action, efficiency, even that it exists. How ever, when we go to a much smaller scale like atoms, subatomic particles, leptons; electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino bosons, these become increasingly difficult or impossible to observe with out technology, and much is based on theories, and assumptions because the math makes sense.

Well the same is 7, it can be 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, and it all equals 7. The equation can be different, and it's still seven. Why can't physics differ. If the answer is the same, and the equation still gives the answer is it wrong? Just because it's looked at different?

The universe is infinitely large and much in the same way difficult, or impossible to observe in entirety, and there is so much we have to explain with math. Planets, we can detect a vague presence of but can not see, and using math we define what that object should look like, because we make assumptions of how it could be composed. So why are you so sure?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilyich
Yes, but where did the energy for the big bang come from?


This question was asked as soon as the "Big Bang" was thought of in the 1940's.
Many people have since examined the question closely.
What difficulty do you have with the current standard answer for this question?




Originally posted by Ilyich
Physics theories are proved, then disproved and sometimes proved again or altered based on new discoveries.


And new theories only get accepted if they explain the observations better than the current theory.

How does your theory better explain the expansion rates?
How does your theory better explain the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background?
How does your theory better explain the relative abundances of light elements?
How does your theory better explain the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies?
How does your theory better explain dark matter?
How does your theory better explain dark energy?
How does your theory better explain baryon asymmetry?


You do have better explanations, dont you?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Good thoughts, we don't really know enough to draw a conclusion, but from what research says, i would imagine the black holes would not recycle matter to another universe, just because IF a black whole is what they say, and is very condensed matter with a strong gravitational pull, it would still be in this universe, and just abunch of stuff in one really small spot. I think of how they say space is like a fabric, and heavy objects pull it down, the black hole is like a marble on the fabric and its so heavy, it dips down the fabric very low, lower than any stars, and stuff just falls into it, so it would still be here, not in another universe.

Another thing to think about, which always got me wondering was, if we believe that our universe is quantum and every possibility exists somewhere, there could be a universe where there is nothing at all, no universe, suns, planets, blackholes. Now if that were true, that would mean there would be a universe that does not have nothing, and just has everything, being where we live. Think about it, we can't perceive what nothing is, so maybe nothing just doesn't exist in our universe.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


Lets take your theory even further...

What if the end of EVERY black hole, is simply the start of another Universe's Big Bang?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join