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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:11 AM
OK first off I'm way over my head even attempting to add to this discusion, haven't done any physics since secondary modern.
But I got foot-in-mouth desease and I can't help myself sooo...

Interesting theory, but what I don't understand where the matter is comming from in your theory.
Is there a fixed amount or is something producing/creating it somewhere?
Of course it must be an ever increasing amount or universe A wouldn't produce a BH to bleed matter into universe B.
For your theory to work wouldn't there have to have been matter "created"
before the BH process could work?
If that is the case then your theory doesn't really explain creation only maybe the nature of universes and black holes.
Tell me how the matter is created then maybe you will know the origin of the universe.
Am i missing something (other than brain cells)?
If this has been answered already just say DOH! and point it out to me.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:43 PM
Hm, maybe I didn't make it as clear as I meant to..

SkyFox, I wasn't proposing new and better forms of your theory, I was pointing out the ways that your theory must work - if there is no 'mass limit' then there is no need for there to be BH's at all, and your theory is completely void, since it depends on the creation of black holes.

What I meant to say, put much simpler and without cases, is that in your theory, the massive hole is that the universe feeding matter to the next universe will inevitably run itself out of matter - and since there is more than 1 black hole in every universe, then there is an ever-increasing number of black holes, and thus universes. Without an amount of matter that is ever-increasing, the amount of matter per universe will continuously fall, and there will at last, one day, be no universes with enough matter to sustain a single black hole, and the process will end.

The idea is that either physics is broken and there is infinite matter/energy being created at all times from somewhere in the multiverse, or that the process is self-terminating, which is something that just doesn't seem to happen. Processes don't just start and end themselves and never occur again, they loop. If matter were forced to move back through its holes and time to go backwards, it will loop, but you have directly denied this.

The point wasn't that there's a minor flaw in my own stream of thought, but a major flaw within your underlying concept. I don't say that as an attack, I don't doubt your intelligence, or your creativity, or wisdom. I say that simply as an objective observer - your theory is wrong.

Now, I had another thing to point out about your last message:

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

... Actually, no, white holes aren't 'thought to be' anything. They're a very rarely discussed fringe bit of science, only suggested by a few theorists and truly believed by far fewer. What you seem to describing is, in actuallity, antimatter. Antimatter undergoes annihalation whenever it comes into contact with matter, and annihalation is so violent a release of energy that a single gram of antimatter reacting with matter would be equivalent to 23 filled space shuttle fuel tanks igniting at once. Very volatile in the presence of real matter.

White Holes are thought, on the rare occasion physicists think of them at all, as the opposite ends of black holes, essentially, big bangs. The idea was that matter would 'fall' into a black hole, and travel through an Einstein/Rosen Bridge, which is a Wormhole, then shoot out through a White Hole, which would appear as a source of unbelievable brightness, viewable from pretty much everywhere. The problem is, that Stephen Hawking recently revised the mathematics describing Black Holes, and it now seems apparent that matter does not 'fall' anywhere, it is simply compressed and held deep within the singularity, and eventually ejected as radiation, as previously discussed.

This does not mean that occasionally, there are wormholes. The BH model that was revised was of the standard model, and does not cover the occasional exceptions that Einstein/Rosen bridges have been thought to be.

Still, I hold that I'm not making attacks, just helping the learning process. I have a lot to learn too.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:31 PM
You are right, for my theory to be correct, the definition of a black hole would have to be entirely revised, and a black hole would have to be more of a trans-universal worm hole than anything. Without considering anything else, that alone should put my theory to rest. That alone shows that, if the current understanding of black holes are correct, my thoughts must be entirely faulty.

However, before I allow my suggestion to become dead and buried, I would like to make one thing clear. When I say "overlapping universe" and "underlapping universe," I mean just that. This is where those illustrations I had would have come into use. See, universe A and C are separated by B, no direct travel from A to C is possible. If this is the case, then all outgoing black holes located in A move matter and energy into B, if that matter is to get to C, then it has to travel through any one of B's outgoing black holes, which would then take it there, to C. A covers its predecessor, just as B covers A and C covers B. The universes are spherical layers, none independent of the others.

This way, assuming there are no holes which can return matter to a previous universe, there will always be a universe populated by matter, and this would continue on for all time. Sure, each universe *should* eventually collapse, but a new younger, overlapping universe would always be there to take it's place. It's a re-birthing type deal.

Also, keep in mind, when I say "taking it's place," I mean that quite literally as well. When universe A collapses, universe B will have fallen down to the place A once was, and then being the core of this layered ball of universes.

Lastly, with the white hole thing..I could've sworn that was how white holes were proven to be inexistent. Their main purpose is to eject matter and energy, but if they were to eject matter, they would be committing suicide, and not just theoretical suicide either, but "I just blew myself up" suicide.

Right so, now that I have been reminded as to how a black hole actually functions, by sucking in matter and compressing it (which is why they're so powerful, because of the immense gravitational field let off by this HUGE amount of matter), I'll go ahead and step down from my soap box, and admit my defeat.

Oh, and by the way..I never did like the Boston Redsux.

[edit on 10/27/2004 by SkyFox2]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:42 PM
ok my good hell you have like expained what ive been trying to say for quite sometime now!!! thats insane thank you

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in