It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Origin of the Universe - My Theory

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:28 PM
A few years ago, I submitted an essay to my General Sciences class, I believe my freshman year of High School. The Subject was "The Origin of the Universe." Well, I wrote about just that. In fact, I spent a great deal of time coming up with a theory which I thought was mildly viable. Upon receiving my grade, I noticed I had received an "F" for my efforts. I asked why, and I was told "You were supposed to discuss the Big Bang theory" which I did..I just added onto it a bit.

Well, I haven't that paper any longer, nor do I have the visual aids I used at the time. Regardless, I will attempt to recreate my essay, at least the most important issues I described. It was 4 pages, typed in MLA, 12 pt Times New Roman font or something along those lines. I can't recall all that was said, nor would I make you read that much. So for your own amusement as well as amazement, here I go.


When a large enough mass of matter is obliterated, it has the ability to become a black hole. It seems to be a rather trendy thing, Stars are doing it everywhere! But what is the main purpose of a black hole? Many will tell you that what it does best, is destroy. While I agree, it is a mighty and powerful destroyer of much, but of just as much, it is the creator, I believe.

You see, my take is there are over and underlapping universes to infinity. There always were and always will be. When a star explodes or whatever, it creates the outgoing black hole which pushes matter into an overlapping universe. The matter moves through this outgoing back hole from universe B, our universe, to universe C, the universe which overlaps our own. In doing so, it is causing our universe to decrease in mass, hence the "Red shift/Blue shift" conceptions.

Now, those of you who are informed when it comes to Red Shift/Blue Shift, you must be thinking "what? Our universe is expanding, Andromeda and the Milky way are moving away from one another as are all other galaxies." Yes, this also true. You see, we don't only have outgoing black holes. We have incoming black holes as well.

In universe A, out underlapping universe, before universe B was ever in existence, a star or another massive object exploded with such a force to create its first outgoing black hole. That outgoing n (to us, incoming) black hole brought the first bit of matter into universe B, thus creating universe B. In doing so, out universe began to grow, expand.

Eventually, we too were granted out first outgoing black hole and began shifting matter into universe C, so we are now giving just as we a receiving, however, as we are a young universe..we are still receiving more than we are giving. This is why we are expanding, because Universe A hasn't collapsed yet, leaving us with no more matter to take in.

Of course, Universe A will cease to exist and we will be stuck with no incoming and only outgoing thus causing us to decrease in size, and die off (universe B) at which point when we collapse, Universe C will be halfway through it's life.

So you see, if my theory is correct, based on Red Shift/Blue Shift data...the Big Bang itself, which still vibrates each bone in your body (so I have heard, somewhere or another) was actually the opening of our very first incoming black hole and the entrance into our emptiness of matter. That's where I think it all started (for us) ladies and gentlemen, that's how it all came to be. Any takers?

Hrmmm..guess it did still turn out quite long. Oh well, it's worth the read, right?

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:35 PM
I have actually heard something similar to this theory before. Don't have the gentlemans name handy right now but I will post it once I run across it.

Basically the other theory posed that BlackHoles were birthing grounds for new universes. Supposedly our universe was the ultimate example of universes capable of producing Black Holes. All the other universes had different laws of gravatation, speed of light, and time. With the different constants the alternate universes may or may not produce black holes and in turn new universes.

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 11:51 PM
What? Oh that's bull. I knew my science teacher went and cashed in on my idea. Bah!

But do find that link if you can, I'd like to see where my thought was taken...and see who came up with it first. No respect..if I hadn't been a Freshman in HS I woulda been famous for my findings.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:19 AM
I like that theory, I don't really believe it but it is another Theory on how this Universe was created.

My question is, wouldn't an Out-Going Black Hole in Universe A be a White Hole in Universe B? Also, what kind of magnitudes would be needed to rip a big enough slit to make another univrse?

Also, here's another one, while I'm at it. What happens to the White Hole in Universe B when A is almost all matter in A has disappeared, would it start sucking it back?

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:38 AM
A similar theory once was formulated to explain the distant quasars. But as for an explanation of Big Bang I can understand why you were given an F. The Big Bang was an isolated incident, not a constant feeding of matter from multiple Black Holes over an extended period of time. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this chain of thought. Perhaps you would have got an A if you wrote the paper in Philosophy class, but Science requires some logical thinking as well as substance, not just a wild idea.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by RabidGoose
I like that theory, I don't really believe it but it is another Theory on how this Universe was created.

It very well could be another theory out there. There are a multitude of theories on everything, but only a few are popular and well known. It doesn't entirely surprise me that someone has already came up with such a thought.

Originally posted by RabidGoose
My question is, wouldn't an Outgoing Black Hole in Universe A be a White Hole in Universe B? Also, what kind of magnitudes would be needed to rip a big enough slit to make another univrse?

White Hole: For what purpose would this link between the universes be white? Sure, black holes suck up light..and sure, an incoming black hole is the opposite of an outgoing back hole..but consider the
velocity in which a black hole in known to suck up matter. It takes it in at such a speed, that not even light escapes..and the matter can't be seen entering the event horizon, right? So, when that light or matter exits in the parallel universe, the matter (or light) should then be traveling at the same rate in which it entered. If this is so, wouldn't it cause one not to be able to see the dramatic exit which it makes?

Magnitude: The black hole itself doesn't create the universe, it simply assists in populating it with matter or energy. The universe was already there, it was simply void of matter. Anyways, strength of the explosion would have to be great, of course. How great...that's up to speculation by my guess is somewhere in the "star exploding into a black hole" range.

Originally posted by RabidGooseAlso, here's another one, while I'm at it. What happens to the White Hole in Universe B when A is almost all matter in A has disappeared, would it start sucking it back?

It would not, it's a one-way deal, the matter moves from A to B and may not return to A, however it may proceed to C. Like I said, when A is out of matter, it should collapse in a sense, while leaving just emptiness behind. See, I would say there could be an A and B without a C, where both A and B transfer back and fourth, but these universes are pressurized, eventually all transference should simply halt, I would think. But then again, maybe we are in the phase of equalizing A and B. It's probably one of those "We'll never know for sure" things, not unlike proving our own existence. We can't prove we exist, but we can sure speculate.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by SkyFox2..but consider the
velocity in which a black hole in known to suck up matter. It takes it in at such a speed, that not even light escapes..and the matter can't be seen entering the event horizon, right? So, when that light or matter exits in the parallel universe, the matter (or light) should then be traveling at the same rate in which it entered. If this is so, wouldn't it cause one not to be able to see the dramatic exit which it makes?

Speed has nothing to to with the fact that light "can't escape" a Black Hole. Gravity is the cause of this. You seem unaware of even the most basic concepts. Secondly the matter devoured by a Black Hole adds to it's own mass. The reason Black Holes doesn't expand infinitely is that they are "sweating" off mass in the form of radiation, som given enough time any black hole will finally vaporize completely.

Like I said, when A is out of matter, it should collapse in a sense, while leaving just emptiness behind.

1. Collapse in what sense?
2. Before matter are "transferred" from A to B what is B then? Just an empty void waiting for matter? And how then did this void came to be?

Your "theory" raises more questions than it answers. Occham cuts it to shreds I'm afraid.

[edit on 2004-10-26 by EyesOfTheFuture]

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:37 AM
Yes, gravity causes the matter to move towards the black hole at an increased rate as opposed to what it was origionally traveling. I never said otherwise.

In reference to the collapsing thing, maybe it doesn't colapse at all, maybe it's just empty. In reference to what was B, maybe B was just empty.

Keep in mind, I obviously haven't many answers for you, I am only posting my ideas as a possibility, and hopefully an intriguing thought. I do realise it poses more questions than answers, but it brings a person a little bit closer to discovering just where matter came from. Matter obviously wasn't "just there" at the time of the big bang. A black hole opening up in such a small area (I assume our universe would've been quite small at the time as it had no matter or energy) would be quite noisy..which is beyond the point of the Big Bang theory, but it fits the name.

Admittedly, it doesn't show where matter came from origionally, but I think it provides a thought if nothing more showing matter may not have come from out universe at all, but instead came from another universe entirely. What created it isn't touched. As rough as my thought may be, and as obsense as it must seem without any proof other than implied, I never intended to convince anyone, but instead to hear others thoughts. One reason is, to answer the questions in which I am being asked. Truths are realised through consideration and input, that's the philosophy behind this topic, not that I am right.

Sooo...if you see any answers or can add to it, I'm be much obliged.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:16 AM
[edit on 2004-10-26 by EyesOfTheFuture]

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:27 AM
But your "theory" does not explain how our Universe was created, neither how all the other universes were created, and it doesn't answer where and how matter is created. It answers nothing really.

To get it straight, you suggest that x (infinite?) numbers of universes are created somehow (A, B,C ... -> x) that are just empty voids. Matter are then created somewhere else in some unknown process. Then this matter somehow has to enter universe A in order for the transfer process to begin? Do you see that we are just returning to the original question? How is matter created in/transfered to this first universe unless you have the Big Bang - the creation of matter/space/time?

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:02 PM
The physicist who I referenced earlier was Lee Smolin.

His hypothesis is basically that black holes were birthplaces of offspring universes, with each offspring having slightly different physical constants than the parent universe.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:24 PM
I have also heard of the latest theories on parellel universi and multiple dimensions. Each one having a different set of physics to go w/ it.
Have you ever seen the spike emitted by a black hole?? It is amazing, to say the least.
From what I heard, there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy out there, and if you have seen one of the pictures Hubble took of a moderately small section of the sky - well, it is just unbelievable how many galaxies are out there. Saying that, then there are a helluva lot of black holes in our universe. Where do the super-massive black holes fall into the picture. I've heard little about them, only speculation; As most of the known universe it.
I would have to agree that the mass/matter/energy that is sucked into these black holes has to go somewhere. It just doesn't disappear. It's like squeezing goo...It goes everywhere else other than where it's squeezed. Maybe the energy is a form of quanta - jumping from one place to another.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:35 PM
maybe you should learn physics first before jumping to conclusions

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 01:41 PM
I would love to learn physics and am currently waiting for a friend to bring me a program called Mathematica so I can learn as much as possible. I have a sincere desire to learn, but information gets hard to understand when you're trying to learn so many things by yourself.
Also, by posting, I was hoping to get clarified and maybe taught a few things by those who know way more than I.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 08:22 PM
The creation of the universe i doubt will ever be answered, theres always the case of, yer ok, so what caused that precisely? same for god, what caused him? and u cant just say, oh he just 'is', there has to be something that creates him and then what created that etc So you see its just unanswerable.

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:13 PM
Jebus, you're absolutly right! Something had to start it all, but it doesn't seem possible for anything to come from nothing. It doesn't make seems as if it is impossible for us to exist at all! Or anything for that matter.

Oh my, something had to start it all, yet it is impossible for something to start it all, or for anything to start, or anything to be. How mind warping that is!

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:03 PM
Captain Physics & Logic to the rescue!

Er, yeah. Bust my ego down a notch before I continue. I'll make sure not to attack anyone, because we are all students, and we are all learning.

Now, SkyFox, yes, your idea has been thought of many times before - in fact it seems it is one of those "most smart people think of this at one point or another" things, like the "Different Colours" theory*, or the "We're in a video-game" theory, or the "Humans were seeded by aliens" theory. Whether something you saw as a child planted the idea, or you just came up with it, it's something that a striking number of people come up with given average circumstances and a general amount of knowledge.

Now, I've noticed 1 chief flaw in your theory. There are numerous minor flaws, such as the one pointed out first by yourself, then by an attacker, then again by yourself, that it does not actually give us a beginning, second that it falls apart if the mass in a underlapping universe ever manages to be less than the universe it feeds into, and so on. The chief problem is that you say we constantly hold _too much_ matter, and we build new black holes to expel this matter, but continue to have an overabundance, and continue to build black holes forever. I will now elabourate on why this is a problem.

Case A:

Universe A has 10 mass units. Universe B has dimensions of 0,0,0 in length, width, and height, and has 0 mass units. We're keeping this simple, no 11 dimensions and no superstrings for the time being. So, when Universe A gets an 11th mass unit, it opens a BH (appreviation for black hole, so I don't have to type that 30 times), and the BH runs that mass unit into Universe B. Universe B then gains 1 mass unit per time unit, through the first BH, for 10 time units, until it reaches breach, and has to create its own black hole on the 11th time unit, and start filling universe C.

There's logically no need to ever have more than one black hole at once. Case A cannot be correct, since we have billions of BH's.

Case B:

Universe A has X mass units. Universe B has 0 length, width, and height units, yadda yadda yadda. The Black hole, for the first time unit, deposits y mass units, for the 2nd, deposits 4, for the third, 9, 4th 16, th 25, etc... - Thus, there is a BH needed immediately, then very soon another, and another, etc... - but the problem is, an ever increasing number of black holes following the same rule as the single initial black hole will eventually cause a universe to outweigh its successor, and to collapse. The collapse would echo down so far so fast, that the process would have started and begun rather quickly.

There are many cases, and they all run into problems. You did some good thinking, and I recognise (as it seems few readers in this thread did) the chief point that was different from your theory as the usually heard one, is that yours takes care of itself. Yours feeds upon a number of thoughts, and strings them together nicely - but it encounters errors. Good thinking though. Get into string theory and wacko crap like Ekpyrotic universal models. I've got a theory of that that I have yet to be able to explain properly in person, let alone over the internet, that will have its insane flaws as well, but hopefully will add a new idea into the mix.

I had other things to note, but I'm running short on time. Woo Physics!

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:17 PM
I just saw a brief documentary on that concept. Now that's a theory I could believe in!
Everything having its own vibration/frequency doesn't seem very new, not to say that you said it was, but I remember reading about it in an astrology related book. Then again in meditations books - which make sense in how the sounds in chants work, but I'm always afraid of getting the vowels wrong.
Anyways, when trying to prove the theory, didn't they get past the Singular?

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:38 PM
I thought blackholes had whiteholes at the other end, and a wormhole in between? The whitehole is just the same as a blackhole, except it sheds tons of energy.


posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:27 AM
Let's see. From what I can remember, white holes are thought to be highly unstable and are incapable of being in contact with matter at any time. If this is the case, once matter is transmitted through the black hole, and ends up spewing out the anti black hole, the white hole would be destroyed. Because of this, I don't think a white hole really fits the description of an incoming black hole.

Moving right along, The Case A and Case B theories seem to imply a universe has a limit to the amount of matter it is allowed to contain at any point in time. I'm not sure this is likely, I think Universe B (or any other universe) could continue growing as long as it has incoming matter. Universe B, if it does not create any outgoing black holes, could end up holding all the matter which existed within the chain of universes, depriving all previous universes of any matter at all. Of course, at the point A is void of matter it will have collapsed and any incoming black holes located in Universe B will simply vanish, dispersing its energy throughout B.

So inevitably any universe with outgoing black holes will collapse, but not necessarily because it has less matter than the universe it created. Instead, it collapses because it has run out of matter...but seeing as I'm about 5 hours late for a meeting with my eyelids, I probably overlooked something.

Oh, and thanks for busting down your ego, as you put it, Veindin. Very kind.

<<   2 >>

log in