Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness

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



The Big Bang was not an explosion "in" space; it was an explosion "of" space.

Truthfully, I don't know what there was before the Big Bang. Maybe there WAS another universe before ours banged into existence -- than again, maybe there wasn't. The bottom line is that space itself was thought to be born out of the Big Bang -- not just that matter than fills space.

Before that, there may have been nothing (and "nothing" is not the same as "space").
...Or maybe there was some universe that collapsed into nothingness long before "our" Big Bang
...Or perhaps a universe from a different dimension leaked into our dimension, causing "our" Big Bang.

However, it's not as if space was already here, and the Big Bang just filled it with matter.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




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.


Thermodynamics



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.


I am not asking these questions; I am provoking thought in others with the questions I have already thought about; and put forth as the topic you see before you. Not much of a surprise given the lack of comprehension that I did not mean empty space...if I may quote myself back into context, perhaps the word seemingly will take on meaning for you this time.



If there was one big bang? Why is there specs of huddled masses called galaxies...with seemly nothing but empty space in between?



seem·ing [see-ming]
1.
apparent; appearing, whether truly or falsely, to be as specified: a seeming advantage.
noun
2.
appearance, especially outward or deceptive appearance.

I hope you enjoyed the fish; because this is the last I am feeding the resident troll.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


If you accept it it may very well be called yours...



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


More evidence that this is taken as fact and a real belief by yourself. Why bother echoing theories others are aware of? So boring lemme grab the text book...oh wait I don't need to here comes the authority on all things thanks to google and "trusted" sources of the most factual theories to date.

I am sorry all your theoretical heroes are dead; and nothing can be said in a manner that might question them...without you echoing them all so well.

So yes, this is my theory; not one big bang but many of them take it or leave it.

Good day to you.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness

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



The Big Bang was not an explosion "in" space; it was an explosion "of" space.

Truthfully, I don't know what there was before the Big Bang. Maybe there WAS another universe before ours banged into existence -- than again, maybe there wasn't. The bottom line is that space itself was thought to be born out of the Big Bang -- not just that matter than fills space.

Before that, there may have been nothing (and "nothing" is not the same as "space").
...Or maybe there was some universe that collapsed into nothingness long before "our" Big Bang
...Or perhaps a universe from a different dimension leaked into our dimension, causing "our" Big Bang.

However, it's not as if space was already here, and the Big Bang just filled it with matter.



Space begetting space? Then where did the matter arise? See, when you start thinking about it and asking these questions to yourself...and the whole of your knowledge on the subject can come to a loss. Keep at it for years and years put forth a logical assumption...get trolled by one of the resident masters of trolling fun stuff.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


We don't have adequate equipment to make anything other than a logical guess at the creation of the universe.

You can put big words, facts and figures, and a lot of influential names behind speculation but it doesn't mean it is true.

I would rather say the truth. "The Universe seems to exist and we don't really know why or how it was formed" I remember when they thought up that theory and I laughed at it then as I do now. We do not have the resources to know how the universe was formed. It doesn't matter if we don't know anyway. Have we even got a satellite out of this solar system yet to find out what interstellar space is like?

You can't compare the big bang theory to Newtons theories, his theories were rational.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by Phage
 




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.


Thermodynamics



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.


I am not asking these questions; I am provoking thought in others with the questions I have already thought about; and put forth as the topic you see before you. Not much of a surprise given the lack of comprehension that I did not mean empty space...if I may quote myself back into context, perhaps the word seemingly will take on meaning for you this time.



If there was one big bang? Why is there specs of huddled masses called galaxies...with seemly nothing but empty space in between?



seem·ing [see-ming]
1.
apparent; appearing, whether truly or falsely, to be as specified: a seeming advantage.
noun
2.
appearance, especially outward or deceptive appearance.

I hope you enjoyed the fish; because this is the last I am feeding the resident troll.


Oh no you didn't! Did you just call Phage a Troll?

LOL



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


I moderate a really large forum where anything goes except threats of violence; so I know them when I see them.


I really wanted nothing more for this thread than to provoke some thought, and get some fun discussion going on with the topic. I wasn't posting as; here's how it is! I have solved the mystery of all mysteries bow to my feet ya heathens...I enjoy science and I enjoy all the theories; some their logical assumption is as good as mine...and this is happens to be one of those. Do I claim it as fact no; is theirs?

No. They both share the same ground of evidence; or else I'd have said something like: The big bang started by a noise and the sound waves traveling out created the universe and we have yet to hear the answer...or something long the same lines; that have nothing to do the the tons of research on the topic other than sharing terms like "big bang."

I know Phage has his place here; I really appreciate how he really pulls against the delusional no any scientific evidence to back it up threads when clearly the posters are coming from only beliefs, and straightens them out.

But jumping to a conclusion that this post was to be taken any other way than a speculative discussion, in the very first post trying to shut it down...left me thinking really? So I gave him a fun chore to do, while I explained this is not to be taken as truth just a discussion of the topic to illicit thought.

But it comes back as all serious again...so yeah, my thread don't derail it by getting all nutter over some fun postulates that might get a fun and interesting discussion going on. It's was really clear to not be taken serious in the very first post by the last line of jest...maybe people might like to have fun with the...if that mass ejection happened in 2012 thing oooooh but it also happened 4 million years ago...aaaaaah discussion going I dunno two times existing at once based on perception or relativity of the viewer.

But nah it couldn't be that; it had to get trolled and hijacked in another direction repeatedly. As said my thread I will try and pull it back to it's original purpose of a fun thing to think about. I didn't mean to come off harsh but man relax pull it back a little bit, loosen the tie and have some fun with a topic for once.

It even made me tough on some other posters; people I would have like to have had a dialogue with...and could have. If the thread wouldn't have been twisted away from it's intent. So my apologies for any one that I insulted...including Phage. But seriously stop being serious all the time; if people wants facts and theories they can google up some very good solid sources too, most don't need that ALL THE TIME is all I am saying.

Give a thread a chance jeeze.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Our entire universe might already be inside a black hole.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Well to answer the title of your thread; what do you think black holes are?

and are you proposing/supposing that the true reality, or primal setting of reality is infinite black holes?

do you think this universe as a whole is a product of one of the infinite black holes?

or are you suggesting this universe is composed of infinite black holes, and that all that exists is this universe of black holes? Never 'banged', never began?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Ah, in reality I don't know anyone's guess is good fun to think about. But in the suggested model; given...

Black hole? A singularity that has become so dense with all sorts of particles and matter; they compress and since some of those particles will join through ionic bonds forming up different elements by atomic particle swaps....eventually this material so compressed a lot of it is not going to play well, a giant shard of flint scrapes a giant ball of magnesium, the hydrogen gases etc. ignites and boom there's a galaxy a violent explosion across the apparent darkness of space. I used an old flint lock rifle as the metaphorical basis for the interactions in this model. Gravity of the singularity the ram rod, the singularity and in coming particles forming the ball, the big bang the explosion, and the whole black hole the barrel, the galaxy the muzzle flash in the dark.

In the model, there are all shapes and sizes of black holes, some the size of the one at the center of most galaxies to some smaller than a head of a pin on a needle. In this model of mechanics it seems to fit sort of like the actual bang is a chain reaction of nuclear fission that achieves so much energy that it can over come the gravity and "burp" the back ground cosmological radiation is from that nuclear chain reaction. It doesn't necessarily have to just vanish as matter; the lighter near particles will be pulled in repeating the process, sort of like a lung breathing in the interstellar medium and then breathing out; depending on the size of the black hole...the slower or faster this may occur. The potential to pull gold atoms out of the air and form them into a larger mass theory exists...so why not infinitesimally small black holes doing the same with other particles too?

Always banging(ending), Always forming(beginning)

Well, that's the partial theory of what I have in mind for this fun little model; fun questions, hypothetical answers, mixing data and seeing what happens. Is there a to way to really know? I seriously doubt it, so it's another grain of salt in the ocean of complication to ponder...nothing more nothing less, especially nothing to get all serious about and worked up over.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Well one of the theories is that there isn't one Big Bang.

wiki: BIG Crunch

In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another big bang.


It could be that the physical Universe is eternal and goes through endless cycles of Big Bangs.

edit on 27-2-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:49 AM
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.


Theoretically though, wouldn't a black hole eventually explode? If they keep drawing in all known matter and building up more and more pressure, wouldn't there be a point where they would reach some kind of critical state? Isn't that essentially what the "big bang" is?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   
when stuff goes into a black hole....where does it go....it's all "stuff", it just cant become "no stuff". and what way does a black hole spin..clock wise or counter clock wise...or is there no spin, just suction...

Yours sincerely..perplexed



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Nonsense. The theory made remarkably accurate predictions about reality that were not confirmed until the technology was available. That is not possible for something that is mere speculation.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


You are displaying ignorance. Your view in a nutshell is "I don't really understand how science works, I haven't researched the Big Bang theory, or indeed, know much at all about it, I just know it's impossible for us to know anything about the beginning of our Universe, and the science is just speculation and guessing. If you need me, my head will be buried in some sand over here".
edit on 27-2-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:10 AM
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.



Really? Where does it all go ? Black hols confuse me greatly lol



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Wow.

Well, phage is kinda wrong, but also right. No "material" is ejected from a blackhole, but radiation apparently is. But anyways, nothing forms around a black hole. A black hole gives birth to nothing, anything within the gravitational pull of a blackhole eventually gets sucked in. Gases spin around the blackhole in somewhat of an accretion disk, as the gas gets compressed it heats up and in some cases, glows.

That's about the extent of a blackholes ability to create ANYTHING.

That said, the big bang has nothing to do with a blackhole, yes, some theories suggest that our universe is on the other end of a blackhole in some other universe. A black hole didn't create the big bang, a blackhole is created when a star of sufficient mass dies in a specific way. The big bang created the universe and all matter in it, which later formed stars.

Grade 6 astrophysics.......



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wewillnotcomply666
 





Really? Where does it all go ? Black hols confuse me greatly lol


Material that gets pulled into a blackhole is crushed down to an infinitesimal singularity at the heart of the blackhole, some radiation is apparenty (theory) ejected from the blackhole during this process. I think it was Hawking who proposed that to solve the whole "information can not be lost" dilemma.

A rock, pulled into a black hole, is broken down to the very essence of material relativity, every molecule, all of it, is stripped down to, well what the hell is the smallest particle now, quarks? Whatever the hell quarks are made of? Then, because of the force of gravity, it's all smashed up into basically nothing.

A black hole is a misnomer, there IS a solid core in there somewhere, some bigger than others, it's merely the fact that the mass is so compressed, not even light can escape it's pull, hence the name blackhole. It's not really a hole at all. it's a solid, lets say iron, why not iron, core so heavy nothing, not even light, can escape it's pull.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


This is how i understand the process..it may be wrong.

Radiation thats ejected from a black hole does not come from inside the event horizon but on the very edge of it. Simply because nothing can escape the pull of a black hole. When i say pull what i mean is that a black hole warps space time in such a way that once you cross over the event horizon the only direction that exists in 3d space leads directly to the center of the black hole. It would take more energy than the energy required to accelerate to the speed of light to break free of that. That's why light can not escape.

I think the radiation ejection is caused by the sub atomic particles that get created and destroyed all the time in space (there is energy in a vacuum) . They pop into existence in pairs , exist for a moment and then destroy each other. But some ones that are on the edge of a black hole can get separated when one crosses the event horizon but the other does not. This causes an ejection of radiation.

As for the matter that enters a back hole in theory it never reaches the center. As it gets closer and closer to the center time slows down more and more. So it takes longer and longer to get to where its going. Most of the mass of a black hole is hovering very very very close to the center but is moving so slow it might never even get there before the black hole dies.

edit on 27-2-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join