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

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

First, I don't pretend to know everything. But I do know something about black holes. I know that they come in many sizes. The black hole at the center of our galaxy is 2 million times the mass of our sun. As for an infinite number of black holes- astronomers have found over 100 black holes in our galaxy alone, so far. Given the sheer size of the universe and the number of galaxies, the number of black holes may not be infinite, but I bet we would have trouble counting that high.

I hope I'm not missing the point of all this, but thought I could shed some light on what I perceived to be a flaw in your basic premise.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
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)

I didn't say I didn't know how science worked I said "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" There is a big difference in what I said as related to his hypothesis and the knowledge I have about the Big Bang theory.

You can believe the Big Bang theory if you want, I will believe that we don't really know how the Universe was really formed. That is my right.

You are treating this theory as if it is a fact. It is just a theory. If you do not understand what theory means and the difference between a theory and a fact than maybe you should look up the definition. Even the people who wrote this theory understand that the definition of what a theory is. My complaint is people are trying to state that this theory is a fact and teachers are implying that it is fact when they teach it in schools.

Originally posted by rickymouse

You are treating this theory as if it is a fact. It is just a theory. If you do not understand what theory means and the difference between a theory and a fact than maybe you should look up the definition. Even the people who wrote this theory understand that the definition of what a theory is. My complaint is people are trying to state that this theory is a fact and teachers are implying that it is fact when they teach it in schools.

You may know what the common dictionary definition of "theory" is, but have no idea what "theory" means in scientific terms. Gravity afterall is "just a theory", but I bet you don't doubt you'll fall if you jump out a window.

In scientific terms the word "theory" does not imply doubt, it does not imply it is not a fact, and it does not imply any element of speculation. Gravity is both fact and theory, for instance.

A scientific theory is (from wiki): "...a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Notice that nothing in the above suggests that it is unproven, or mere speculation - in fact, quite the opposite. You are incorrectly using the non-scientific definition of the word which is: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.". The scientific definition is what we mean when we say The Big Bang is a "theory", not the one used in general conversation to imply something is conjecture.

reply to post by humphreysjim


It is possible that all the evidence that they use to show that the Big Bang theory is real could also be used on another theory that is completely different. It is also true that the Big Bang theory may possibly be real but I doubt it.

If someone told you that the world was flat and all evidence available and all the scientists substantiated that claim. would you believe that theory. Our perception is based on our knowledge and beliefs of the time. We have not the technology to properly make a theory of how the universe was formed.

If there were really aliens flying around this universe with a thousand times our knowledge and technology, and you asked them how the universe was really formed they would also have to say they don't know if they were honest. It is impractical to believe that how the universe was formed is necessary anyway. I would rather spend my time studying things that are more relevant to our continued existence here on earth.

How about there is only one Singularity that is engaged in infinite velocity and angular diversity. This produces the effect that there are an infinite number of single points (the infinite expanse) Where that one Singularity "is not" as an opposing reality of this "flight path", is the means by which the non-existence is produced and upheld.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


By Phages own admission; they aren't his theories so he isn't right about anything; he just parrots the accepted going theory...nothing more.

10 or 1,000,000 people echoing 1 theory still does not make the the 1 theory correct...science does and if it does it will become law. Otherwise it is 1 theory with a lot of fans that take it as truth. So excuse me for not being a fan; doesn't mean I can't appreciate it, I just see it for what it is a theory...postulating other theories do help advance the science around them like brain storming. Just becoming a fan and echoing theories, to others that have a pretty good grasp of the concepts adds NOTHING to the topic or discussion.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


The big bang is theorized as starting with a singularity and black holes have a singularity.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Are you sure you grasp the concept of theory?

There is an observed effect or a know effect that we do not know the cause of...THAT is the only fact; the rest are correlations, some of these correlations are observed in other similar phenomena; that support the first correlation etc etc. still it doesn't not make anything true; just the best educated guess. The fact that we do not know remains the same.

Universe; some current "accepted" theories:

It is flat
It is curved
it is round

Some postulated correlation fits better in one or all of these. If it fits one put a check mark next to that...etc etc etc. the more check marks the more accepted but still not equal to truth. Taking that as truth? Hey your choice...but some people are still putting check boxes in every column daily when new science and related phenomena are observed and applied to the working models. The verdict is still out but choosing the side prematurely still will not make any of them correct.

That's what I love about science...there are questions. It's not science if you don't have any then it's history.

reply to post by chrome413


Bad description on my part as number goes; but if the universe is infinite then it becomes more accurate and fitting description.

The universe expanding, growing will it ever end and start over? Some theory says start out and eventually you end up back where you started...that doesn't sound infinite unless you keep going around. But the universe is theorized to be expanding at an astounding theorized rate all galaxies moving away from each other for the most part...at least in theory.

Sort of like the infinite hallway in a horror movie; no matter how far and fast the person runs the end keeps accelerating away. But in the expanding universe model galaxies run from each other for the most part.

Fun stuff that's why I like it; if it were known why think about it? Unless it required attention or correlates to an unknown?

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
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.......

Correct me if im wrong but i dont think weve ever observed a galaxy 'dying'...

If black holes increasingly grow in mass (does that imply grow in energy?), as time goes on and stars burn out etc. wont there be left over by that time a massive black hole? can it possibly be that once the stars and planets start messing up the galaxy formations from the stars running out of energy to burn, that after all the stars are flung off into space, or engulfed into the black hole, there will be a new physical landscape in which because the mass of the stars are no longer existence spiraling around the center black hole the black hole itself will be the main force in that area and might do some funky things, like slow its rotation or its event horizon might start getting larger, and the mass within the black hole might begin to be decompressed, ....lol idk.... maybe 1% of what I just said has something of substance that can be discussed, i think at least... I dont see how a black holes humongous mass and density will just 'fizzle' out or be irrelevant... black holes could even break down atoms and particles into a simpler form, and then when the galaxy dies the black hole could eject its singularity and like the OP, maybe suggested the black hole singularity would be a seed for a new universe.

might be irrelevant but i think ive seen a video or lecture or two of this physicst Lee Smolin, and I think he seems to believe that black holes are the universes way of insuring new universes will exist in the future (or something... look him up)

www.edge.org...

I think the single most "universal" answer to the OP's question, "why not multiple black holes" is because of the direction space is expanding in.

If there were multiple big bangs, I think we would see a chaotic expansion of matter, whereas, we currently see a more uniformed expansion of the universe from the center of "The" big bang.

Actually reading other posts and taking more into consideration in the model...allow me to refine the model a tad.

The jet being seen from a black hole is the process of breaking down and recombining the contents that enter it. Some of these contents will eject and form the hard crust ring around it. When the black hole hits critical mass and starts the chain reaction it then blows forth into a big bang the heat and force generated by this "melts" and explodes this crust out with other material not consumed by the chain reaction...it would explain why there is left a black hole in the middle of a galaxy; and also why it has many varied shapes sizes and colors(colors the main type of element in that system) (shape the condition or age before it starts spiraling in or already is) with a slight ring before the main mass, the spiral of the galaxy is the spin caused by the material funneling back into the black hole to repeat the process again this also explains why there would be a bulge in the middle of a galaxy as material is being ejected from both sides of the nearly empty black hole. Eventually, the mass of the galaxy will get to the point where it is almost back into the black hole and the jets of them again observed, and the process begins again.

Each galaxy formed by a big bang that repeats the cycle. So perhaps the expansion of the universe is actually, caused by the potential for every sun to become a black hole and form a new galaxy. what we see when we look out in space is a snap shot of this whole process in action in various stages of formation.

A cycle of thermodynamic principles.

reply to post by phantomjack


Looking at space is almost like looking back in time and a snap shot; than an actual moving image because the masses are so large and far away.

The super-massive black hole is the driving force of a stable galaxy. Without it, the stars would drift about aimlessly. Sagittarius A at 4.3 million solar masses, would make an extermly large stargate. If black holes work like tornados, then the outer edges are the most violent. The center would be quiet, allowing safe passage. My theory is that the larger the black hole, the easier it is to utilize it.

reply to post by Oannes


Interesting; perhaps we could create a temporary artificial black hole to sling shot through or create a way to adjust the intensity of the black holes magnitude in ejecta going through it...trying to do something like that in one already occupied by innumerable amount of objects and dangerous amounts of radiation, would be really risky.

But the question is how fast would travel be out the other side? To travel between galaxies would be the only safe way to try this out without possibly hitting something...so I guess one better hope they are one the edge of a galaxy if they tried to get to it.

It would be a more logical assumption to think worm holes would be the best way to go about this given our current technology but then again; it wouldn't hurt to experiment if possible.

reply to post by Oannes


Even if you managed to bypass the violent outer edges, wouldn't you still be destroyed by the singularity? At least, in the conventional sense.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness


You definitely have an interesting line of thought and I say keep at it.

From my line of thinking though, the universe is not infinite. Sure, it's expanding, but for how long? I think it's a cycle of Bang, Expansion, Contraction, Bang. Of course I'm basing my ideas off of research done by main stream scientists, so who knows.

My head hurts now. I think I've expanded all my horizons and now my brain is contracting into a big crunch!

"The big bang theory" is nothing more than the modern day, fundamental flawed equivalent of the theory that the Earth was flat.

It is postulated using only the (detached) material consciousness, under its material conditions and is therefore subject to the limitations of a partial equation. A true understanding of the universe requires an understanding of physical/material consciousness, subconscious with its understanding of conscious forces that bind us, and the superconsciousness.

Firstly; a belief in an infinite model is ridiculous because it would entail that stars in an endless sequence of infinite positioning in the nightsky, would eventually fill it completely with light like dots on an LCD monitor. Therefore our sky at night would be white, not black.

But the main reason that I've always believed that 'The big bang' is completely wrong is because is because it centres around a spontaneous singularity.

All life, nature, matter, planets, everything within our illusion of reality; is a result of waves of motion. Frequency that is balanced by opposing, equal forces on either side of the 'zero point'. We must therefore also conclude that such a universal rule would be governed universally.

Further to this; chaos theory is flawed; as If the universe were chaos there would be no harmony but only degrees of chaos. All sound and vibration would be just plain noise. Noise, therefore is unorganized vibration, as music is harmonious vibration.

The only theory that gives a comprehensive explanation for the vast majority of scientifically known aspects of this universe, whilst addressing observation problem within quantum theory, is 'THE THEORY OF THE MUSICAL UNIVERSE'.

Most important thing to understand is; It is consciousness that binds the absolute. One, not many. Even though we are a globally detached species oblivious to our weight within the symmetry of this consciousness, we still exist within the one. And as such; we are affective and significant far beyond the limitations of our understanding. It is through an understanding of the true nature of the universe and our metaphysical abilities within this consciousness, that we as species will be able to unlock the secrets of the universe.

I urge all of you to take a few minutes to read through a comprehensive outline of the theory; which you can find using the link at the bottom of this post.

Although I will admit that I am bias a belief in this theory; as it was given to me through 5th kind communication with (what claim to be) non-human intelligences. It is the theory that prompted Nikola Tesla; upon reading his work; to urge Walter Russell to; "lock his knowledge up in a safe for 1,000 years until the world was ready for it."

Interestingly; Nikola Tesla also claimed that a vast number of his ideas were transmitted to him by an Alien race on mars.

Walter Russell: The most obvious fact of Nature is its repetition in reverse of every effect of motion in two-way pulsing cycles. It is unaccountably strange that science has never observed this most obvious of all of Nature’s characteristics. Every cycle in Nature is a two-way, equal interchange between pairs of opposite conditions. That interchange between the equally balanced anodes and cathodes of this electric wave universe constitute its pulsing heartbeat, which likewise is cyclic, otherwise it would not continue.

"The law which connects radiation with absorption, and at once enables us to read the riddle set by the sun and stars, is, then, simply the "Law of vibration".

Therefore the 'expanding' theory of the Big Bang is inherently flawed as it completely disregards the obvious encompassing equilibrium within nature telling us that; with expansion you will find contraction.

Further to that the 'Big Bounce' theory; although being closer to the mark, was also wrong as it failed to understand the fundamental forces at work driving the bounce.

OUTLINE OF THE BASIS OF 'SYMPATHETIC VIBRATORY PHYSICS'

ARTICLE ON THE BASIS OF 'UNIVERSAL MUSIC THEORY'

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Looking at space is almost like looking back in time and a snap shot; than an actual moving image because the masses are so large and far away.

Right. But there still is motion, which is outward, 360 degrees from the initial big bang. If you had numerous big bangs, you would have motion in a chaotic flow instead of a non-chaotic flow like it is currently.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Looking at space is almost like looking back in time and a snap shot; than an actual moving image because the masses are so large and far away.

Right. But there still is motion, which is outward, 360 degrees from the initial big bang. If you had numerous big bangs, you would have motion in a chaotic flow instead of a non-chaotic flow like it is currently.

Big bang theorists dont believe that there is outward motion of material 360 degrees from an initial starting point because that would cause create a weirdness to their theory and which they try to revise the thought that the universe 'exploded' which would be debris leaving in all directions from a common point, and in stead refer to it as homogenous spatial expansion.