Does this picture show the 'ghost' of a universe that existed before big bang

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





I wonder if the misunderstood dark energy is part of PAST recycled materials?


Great question! I wonder if this has ever been seriously thought out....




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
You see the arrow of time is outward in the direction of the expansion of the universe,


This is an interesting comment in relation to something I was just recently imaging in my minds eye, i.e., the concept of "waves of time" as spreading out in every direction from the event/source much in the same manner as I understand the behavior of waves of light - Gravity waves even. In fact they all three might just cooperate with one another - in unison - behaving in an inter-dependent manner in the form of a unified wave form - a Trinity wave if you will.

This would mean that the so-called "arrow of time" is not like this ---------> as most of us imagine it to be when confronted with the notion of an "arrow of time" - Time goes in and out as does light and gravity--------NOT up and down or side to side etc.
edit on 12-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: spelling error



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


It is a common one.

But:

1. It would be hard to prove the length of existence of those rings.

2. Although I expect a bunch of bandwagoning on this, I think that there's just as much chance of these things being from another phenomena, not yet recorded--or heck, from SuperNovas.

3. They still have to find a credible way around the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Until then, looking at this as credible proof is moot.

4. We tend to forget that we have things out there that have a lot of "the Big Bang" material starting to form together. We call them Black Holes. What we notice with Black holes is that as matter collapses, it burns off most, if not all of it's energy before becoming a black hole/before adding more energetic matter to itself. Considering that there is likely to be gargantuan black holes at the center of each Universe, why do we not see them exploding? How big does this mass have to be? I thought the Big Bang started out with about a basketball sized supercondensed mass? (Or was it teaspoon-sized? Depends on whom I quote on that, I guess.) How big are the black holes we have now? Seriously, something about our knowledge of this mess is off.


Interesting find, nonetheless. Let's see how long before it's swept under the carpet.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
My view has always been that the universe keeps reforming .. You have black holes all around the universe absorbing all energy into them and becoming more and more dense.. black holes absorb other black holes.. if that continues then eventually all mass will be concentrated into a single black hole which could then .. implode on itself? explode .. either way.. BANG .. all mass / energy is ejected from the singular black hole at a high rate of speed causing particles to collide and form stars and planets .. then the process repeats..

That's just my thought on what might be going on.. perhaps this process could leave some residual radiation/fingerprint behind..
edit on 6/12/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Fairly old news - the theory published in november 2010 - even that Daily Mail published it back then - so I don't know why they are recycling it 18 months later??


There have been a number of interesting articles published on the theory since - wired science
edit on 11-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Wish more people had taken the time to read what you have uncovered, as they would have learnt, Penrose's theory being brought into question.


our case we found that the rings are in all the simulations, so they’re just a feature of the standard model,” Wehus said. “It’s not a signature of new physics.”


Sure it doesn't de-bunk the concept of a cyclical universe, but does bring into question wether we have found evidence. It's the third article down. Although it does also state, the conditions of the simulation were brought into question.

Personally for me, this doesn't sit right, sure something was present before the big bang (well it had to be sat in something so to speak), but I do question the notion that we could see remnants of a universe, prior to this one, its like sitting a cat in a box, and expecting the cat to see what is outside through the wall of the box.....How ?

One other point, could these concentric circles be remainders of offshoots, where perhaps our universe collided with another (talking branes here), and actually be scars ?

edit on 12-6-2012 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I don't like to think of how the universe came to be. It makes my head hurt


Like, what created the very first thing.. Ever? And what created that? And so on lol



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Isn't this kind of old news (www.bbc.co.uk...)? The CCC hypothesis was originally published way back in November of 2010. And even that's derivative of Penrose's earlier 2005 work on the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis (WCH).

The idea certainly has its critics, but I think Penrose is onto something.

The fact that the universe is very small and hot at the beginning, and very large and cold in the far future isn't a problem in Penrose's model because both the early universe and far future universe contain only conformally invariant, massless particles. Without massive particles, there is no way of defining lengths or times, hence the only physically meaningful structure is the conformal or causal structure.

By compressing the conformal factor towards the far future, and expanding it towards the beginning, the geometry of the future conformal boundary can be joined seamlessly to the initial conformal boundary. In other words, the conformal factor omega must tend to zero as time t tends to infinity, to compress the infinite future into a finite conformal time, and omega must tend to infinity as t tends to omega, to stretch the metric as it tends towards the Big-Bang. The conformal metric then matches on the two boundary components, and the components can be identified. The Weyl curvature is zero on both the future boundary and past boundary, hence the Big Bang is still well-defined in the cyclic model as the unique hypersurface on which the Weyl curvature vanishes.

So, to simplify, this then means at some distant point in the future all matter radiates away and therefore since there's no more clock to measure things against time goes to infinity and disappears.

What I find interesting, that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet, is that there's been similar work done by other physicists like Bousso, Freivogel, Leichenauer, and Rosenhaus on eternal inflation to regulate infinities by imposing geometric cutoffs. In their 2010 paper they show some matter systems reach the cutoff in finite time. According to the abstract, "This implies a nonzero probability for a novel type of catastrophe. According to the most successful measure proposals our galaxy is likely to encounter the cutoff within the next 5 billion years." I think Penrose's WCH (as the nascent how) and SH (as the why) are basically the reason for the cutoff.
edit on 12-6-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The question is, Big RIP or Big Crunch?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but I thought the theory that the universe was exponentially expanding was widely accepted. If this is true Idk how this would cycle back.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I think we need to re-evaluate what we call the universe.

For all we know a galaxy is a universe and the multitude of galaxies constitute the multiverse (which we currently call the universe) or animated snapshots (bubbles of time) of epochs of our own galaxy.

I've often wondered when looking at a galaxy or nebula are we just looking at our former & future selves?

Wondering is a-ok until we know for sure what the bigger picture is.
edit on 12-6-2012 by Atlantican because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Looks like a concussion wave. String theory purposes that multiple universes exist next to one another and over time actually strike each other, hence the big bang and possibly this discovery as well?

Just an idea.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
I don't like to think of how the universe came to be. It makes my head hurt


Like, what created the very first thing.. Ever? And what created that? And so on lol


Haha, I was just sitting here having that brain battle with myself. Trying to put it into words is difficult.

I mean, even if there was some sort of creator, he/she/it had to originate and so on and so forth.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by solargeddon
 


Well, that's what happens when someone becomes a robotic-debunker/compulsive-naysayer... eventually people stop listening to what they have to say.

I, for one, have particularly enjoyed the direction this thread has taken thus far and, not to be rude, but I am greatly pleased to see that everybody ignored that particular member's particular comment and let this thread be an exploration of the mind and universe rather than an argument of whether or not such and such thing is true, or whether or not this is "news" or if its in the right forum, etc... The sooner we begin to ignore people like that, the sooner we can look forward to more enjoyable, cooperative threads like this one where each person can take their own journey of exploration of truth without having someone shove a stop sign in thier face and changing the entire structural dynamics of the thread into something more akin to a pissing contest.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
its 2012... just shut up and live. the universe will make more sense to humanity in a couple years


~ Love is an art



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
First the universe didn't start with a big bang. It started with a collision when this dimension collided with another dimension. I would guess what he is seeing is the ripple effect like when you skip a rock across water. The first skip is our universe the rest are small universes that just didn't have enough energy to get started.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Couldn't these concentric circles also be the left over marks of the impact between two universes. The Collision being The Big Bang




The physical universe began not with a primordial Big Bang but with a monumental collision with another universe, a bold new theory suggests. And unlike the older Big Bang cosmological model, the Big Collision surmises that time and space existed long before our universe exploded into physical reality. According to the scientists, the universe began as a three-dimensional void in a higher-dimensional space. Attracted to another such universe, the two lined up and bumped into each other along their surfaces.
Source
So the ghostly images could well be signs of this collision...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
For some reason Ive always thought the universe was like a plasma ball like cell part of a much larger organism, in this image imagine we are surrounding one of the static charges also known as white holes or black holes obviously our universe is on such a scale that we may one day discover that our boundaries are limited to a small layer like a cell wall that can only be entered or ejected via high concentrations of energy or mass, our sun acts like an antenna with a direct link to the source like (nucleus) of information via + & - holes or tears in cell that transport all energy and information in a cycle on a process that from our perspective takes billions of years but from the grand scale is almost as instantaneous as our own reactions in our body except on a much more grander scale.

we are all connected back to the big bang or as I call it the big division almost like what happens through the process of evolution, maybe our host is god or maybe we are just a reflection of ever repeating fractions forever playing out until it reaches its supreme state of balance equilibrium.

Our universe is like a Russian doll many layers or thats how I see it.
edit on 12-6-2012 by GreatScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
I think its crazy, at this point of time to say that you know how the universe started. There are so many different frequency spectrum that our 5 senses and equipment cannot pick on.

Kind of agree but I can say this, I don't have a physics background but I studied astronomy in college (nothing very in depth). The so called Big Bang Theory never sat well with me. It just doesnt seem possible that all matter should exist in so called singularity, then explode. I think the idea of several universes seems more plausible, and that they can cause each other grief, great explosions resulting in heat and change, if two universes get too close. Otherwise, we co-exist for ever. Always have, always will



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
My thought has always been that everything in the universe has an opposite. A yin always has a yang so to say. If there are black holes, there must be an opposite form, or a white hole. If a black hole sucks all light into it, then a white whole would have to do the exact opposite, or emit light. What if stars are the counterpart to black holes within the universe, and maybe whenever a supernova occurs and creates a black hole, somewhere else in the universe a star is born? I may be a long ways off, but food for thought.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
My thought has always been that everything in the universe has an opposite. A yin always has a yang so to say. If there are black holes, there must be an opposite form, or a white hole. If a black hole sucks all light into it, then a white whole would have to do the exact opposite, or emit light. What if stars are the counterpart to black holes within the universe, and maybe whenever a supernova occurs and creates a black hole, somewhere else in the universe a star is born? I may be a long ways off, but food for thought.





top topics
 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join