Why just one big bang and not infinite black holes of many sizes?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
My logical assumptions and observations; have led me to think there was more than one big bang.

At the center of almost every galaxy there is a massive black hole; in which the whole galaxy spins around. The star at the center that created the black hole…is just the origin of one of these big bangs. Recently, there was a black hole that belched out a good amount of material.

How far, how long and how fast...will that ejection of mass travel before cooling forming planetary sphere’s around the black hole that birthed it out? How many of these collided to form asteroids? How many if these planetoids got trapped in orbit by larger bodies? How many suns will form from the gas cloud nebula’s? How many solar systems were born from it?

I think what we were fortunate enough to witness in 2012…was a big bang; and the scientific community has yet to recognize it...the icing on the cake? It happened in 2012 to stick some true ATS style flavor in there; and then to debunk it with; it happened 4 billion years ago as a rebuttal


Mods; this post is more fit for science discussion for theory than here...it would be nice if you could see it in your hearts to move it...
edit on 26-2-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Recently, there was a black hole that belched out a good amount of material.

Your premise is off to a bad start. No material is ejected from a black hole.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 
milliions of galaxies =millions of blackholes=millioms of big bangs not just one big one......i thinks,,,,




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Your premise is off to a bad start. No material is ejected from a black hole.


X-ray emissions are observable particles ejected from a black hole. Grant it, they do not originate from within the core, but from the event horizon.

Black Holes are a paradox and I do not believe we can definitely say they would not eject matter for the entirety of their lifespan. Further, the interior of a black hole cannot be understood currently, everything is just theory. So I would say that the OP’s theory, regardless of its probability, could be possible.

ETA,

To address OP's theory. The issue with it is, the Universe is expanding at a calculable rate from a center point. Numerous progenitor "Big Bangs" would mean the universe would be expanding at different rates in different areas.

It actually hurts my head to think about the possibility of that
edit on 26-2-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Recently, there was a black hole that belched out a good amount of material.

Your premise is off to a bad start. No material is ejected from a black hole.


Hi Phage thanks for showing up...lil off your game today.

Black Hole ejects great balls of fire

Biggest black hole blast ever could solve cosmological mystery



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 

Yeah. I know about the jets.

They don't come from inside the black hole. It is material from outside it. Once anything falls beyond the event horizon (and enters the black hole) it doesn't come back out.


Scientists think somehow galaxies are ridding themselves of much of the mass that would have ended up falling into their central black holes. However, until now researchers have been at a lack for an explanation of how this might happen.
www.scientificamerican.com...


Based on these observations, astronomers believe that a blob of hot gas formed in the accretion disk around the black hole.
news.discovery.com...


edit on 2/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Scientist's think; Scientists believe...sounds like the same thing to me; they postulate theories and I do too. However; I think this theory is worth discussion here; I do not like some scientists; believe their own theories. Mine is a logical given all the data involved.

Theirs and mine not a proven fact; and discussion worthy
edit on 26-2-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: to add the magical word "own"



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
your not even close to understanding chaos theory, the one correct theory ever offered. But by saying that chaos theory is slightly changed, which is the whole point.

Really , the only correct way to describe God's universerse is through Siddhartha's way. Why do you think Ang Lee wins the prize?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Speckle
 


I should have known better than to post this in the 3/4 nutter category instead of the science forum where I rarely see any of you guys...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


After the jets occur the black hole is still there. Not so with the big bang.

The jets are directional. Not so with the big bang.

A black hole is a singularity, just as the universe is thought to have been before the big bang. Not exactly the same, but close enough. One big difference is that space (as we know it) exists outside a black hole. Space did not exist before the big bang. Another is that all of the energy (and soon to be matter) of the universe was contained in the big bang singularity.
edit on 2/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Indeed so goes another theory; to wince did this big bang go to? From where did this big bang arise? It's about as bad as creationism...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


to wince did this big bang go to?
To everywhere. It's the universe.


From where did this big bang arise?
From a singularity which no longer exists.


It's about as bad as creationism...
Bad? There actually is plenty of evidence that the big bang occured and inflation is ongoing.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The big bang theory is just a theory and although it is accepted by a bunch in science, it is just speculation that is accepted. The evidence used to form this theory could also be used as evidence for other theories that emerge over time. I can't say whether the hypothesis that is given by the OP is anywhere near feasible because I do not have enough knowledge about this subject. Consensus of the time forms the acceptability of these theories, if enough scientists back it it then becomes part of our reality. In a hundred years I expect everyone to be laughing at the Big Bang Theory, just as they do the tv show.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So a singularity can just vanish into nothingness? Spectacular theory you have there Phage; maybe you should start a thread on it



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


The big bang theory is just a theory and although it is accepted by a bunch in science, it is just speculation that is accepted.
You don't understand what a scientific theory is. It is not "just speculation".



In a hundred years I expect everyone to be laughing at the Big Bang Theory, just as they do the tv show.
Yeah. Like we all laugh at Galileo and Newton. Funny.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 




So a singularity can just vanish into nothingness?

No. It "vanished" into everythingness.
And it isn't my theory.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 



Your idea of what the Big Bang was supposed to be is off...

As the theory goes, The Big Bang did not fill space with material (spewing material into space). The Big Bang actually created that space to begin with. There was no "empty space" before the Big Bang, because there was no space at all -- empty or otherwise.

Empty space is not nothing. It is something, and that something was (theoretically) created by the Big Bang.

edit on 2/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So the big bang disappears as cosmic back ground radiation...and the singularity is all of the universe left behind? How is that any different than what I postulate? Except the number of them...so what is between the galaxies? If there was one big bang? Why is there specs of huddled masses called galaxies...with seemly nothing but empty space in between? If there was one big bang why the separation? Sorry but that logic of one does not hold in my opinion, hence why I am still looking for answers myself, instead of just accepting other theories as a belief.

Are so certain in these theories that you just believe them? I suppose that's makes the world a safe and comfy place to live...why even bother with theories to begin with, if one is apt to blind belief? I know you believe them because you state them with such a clear, determined and factual authority of "No this is the way it is" that you have to believe them.

Sorry but I can't live in that box with you.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Not sure exactly why you're trying to educate me on a theory that I am obviously; very well aware of...of course I would not put the theoretical description of the big bang in such a manner as yourself. But it worked to some extent.

So please remind me exactly, how there was no such thing as space before "the" big bang?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


So the big bang disappears as cosmic back ground radiation...and the singularity is all of the universe left behind?
The CMB and all other forms of matter and energy as well as space time.


How is that any different than what I postulate?
What you postulate is a redistribution of matter and energy created by the big bang, not the creation of all matter, energy, and space time.


so what is between the galaxies?
Space time and electromagnetic energy mostly but some gas, some dust, some dark matter.


Why is there specs of huddled masses called galaxies...with seemly nothing but empty space in between? If there was one big bang why the separation? Sorry but that logic of one does not hold in my opinion, hence why I am still looking for answers myself, instead of just accepting other theories as a belief.
Maybe because you haven't bothered to look at the theory in any depth. The questions you're asking are among the simplest and there are explanations. You also don't seem to consider the fact that "empty space" actually is something. Something measurable.


Sorry but that logic of one does not hold in my opinion, hence why I am still looking for answers myself, instead of just accepting other theories as a belief.
Scientific theories are not "beliefs". They are based on evidence. What do you base your opinions on? Do you know much about astrophysics or are you just shooting from the hip?


Are so certain in these theories that you just believe them? I suppose that's makes the world a safe and comfy place to live...why even bother with theories to begin with, if one is apt to blind belief?
It makes sense for me but it certain doesn't make the world safe. There are a lot of scary things out there. Why even bother with your opinions if they are based on nothing but your opinion? Cosmologists don't claim to know everything but that doesn't mean they know nothing. They base their ideas on something other than opinion. It should also be pointed out that they do not all agree on everything.


Sorry but I can't live in that box with you.
The universe is a very large box there's plenty of room. But I know what you meant. Before thinking "outside the box", it's helpful to have some understanding of what is "inside the box."
edit on 2/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join