Big bang just two rocks colliding. Maybr just a side glace why diffrent rotashion

Ive always wondered about the big bang and its just a theory always thought maybe it was just two big rocks collided and debris spreading out. Then tonight looking at a star thought if this were so stars would not all be spreading same speed or derecthion. Not done much on my phone but all i could find was. A link stateing the expanshion and its not uniform. Also not strait lines or spoke like expanshion like it should be. Lost link ill find it and more thoughts but want to here more please even if wrong.

a reply to: slayerfanwww.google.com...://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/does-distribution-of- galaxies-negate-big-bang.html&ved=0ahUKEwjIw43ru4rLAhUJKx4KHY9dBXwQFgg3MAk&usg=AFQjCNEHW9pdSvwMBZR3UqJPEHSNOx1X-Q&sig2=CQ7UqW-6ZLzN7kasNb-x_A

If you're suggesting all of the mass in the universe was in two 'rocks'- it doesn't work that way.
Once something gets enough mass, it has enough gravity that its insides are under significant pressure- which creates heat... aka, stars.

There's a lot of interesting information about what happens to stars when they get too big- or get old, and what they turn into ...

blogstronomy.blogspot.com...

a reply to: lordcomac

That is vary interesting. Thank you for your reply much.is it possible mass without gravity would act the same? Going back to read your link now

a reply to: slayerfan

in not a physicist but just right off the bat, the reason the apparent universe is structured the way it is, is a somewhat of a mystery. although a lot of the scientific community explain this with dark matter. a hidden variable we haven't discovered yet that may behave like gravity, thus clumping galaxies together.

we cant really know the complete shape of the universe because we can only see so far. there may be more universes, we dont know. what we do know is everything is moving away from itself and recently found out the rate of expansion is increasing, proving to some extent the big bang did happen at least to some degree.

to try and answer your latter question, there is no such thing as weightless matter. maybe light may not weigh anything but im not sure.

originally posted by: slayerfan
Ive always wondered about the big bang and its just a theory always thought maybe it was just two big rocks collided and debris spreading out. Then tonight looking at a star thought if this were so stars would not all be spreading same speed or derecthion. Not done much on my phone but all i could find was. A link stateing the expanshion and its not uniform. Also not strait lines or spoke like expanshion like it should be. Lost link ill find it and more thoughts but want to here more please even if wrong.

The Big Bang is an attempt to explain where matter came from.

Rocks are matter, so there were none before the Big Bang.

As lordcomac suggested, something with incredible mass like half the universe would not be a rock.

Anything with more than 300 times the mass of our Sun is likely to collapse into a Black Hole, unless there is incredible force keeping it 'apart' (in stars this force is the power of stellar fusion, it's like billions of H-bombs going off. When the star goes 'cold' atomically, it collapses).

originally posted by: slayerfan
a reply to: lordcomac

That is vary interesting. Thank you for your reply much.is it possible mass without gravity would act the same? Going back to read your link now

Mass causes deformity of the underlying structure of space-time. We interpret the changes in angular momentum of objects in relative motion to each other as the 'force' of gravity.

As far as we know, you can't have mass without having gravity.

a reply to: lordcomac

Good link and read.. it states. What happens from now on depends on how big, or rather how massive* the star is that you're looking at.. could two rock huge thow in mass not be stars just rocks then colliding creat the condishions to become stars? The heat, dust, kenetic energy. The colliding of planets could thay creat there own gravity frome mass coliding?

originally posted by: chr0naut
unless there is incredible force keeping it 'apart'

There is strong potential for another theory right there.

The Big Bang alludes to an internal explosive type event. What if the Big Bang was an external event that pulled the singularity (which you don't really need now) outwards into every direction (space being created) at once? Imagine holding a quantity of water in your hands and then pulling them rapidly apart. Leaves behind filaments of water when you do.

Some older reporting of high energy events at the edge of space left me wondering if the Big Bang was ever really over with.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut
unless there is incredible force keeping it 'apart'

There is strong potential for another theory right there.

The Big Bang alludes to an internal explosive type event. What if the Big Bang was an external event that pulled the singularity (which you don't really need now) outwards into every direction (space being created) at once? Imagine holding a quantity of water in your hands and then pulling them rapidly apart. Leaves behind filaments of water when you do.

Some older reporting of high energy events at the edge of space left me wondering if the Big Bang was ever really over with.

As I may have mentioned before, I propose that the Higgs field established slowly (well, slower than spacetime itself) causing a boundary condition on the proto-universe, where, without the limitation of a mechanism of mass, the universe could expand superluminally.

This would put the outer boundary of the universe far beyond our light cone and therefore undetectable, but it should still be expanding, in theory.

The establishment of the Higgs, of course, freezes the movement of matter in place leading to an essentially static (or only slightly expanding universe compliant to the Hubble constant) that appears to have expanded superluminally.

a reply to: slayerfan

All mass has some degree of gravity.

a reply to: vjr1113

Even light has some weight. I know right...

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not trying to be rude but faster than light speed is impossible, in nature, as far as I've read. (the subject is very interesting and the link is great and informative)
www.preposterousuniverse.com...
Not to derail this well thought out thread but just fealt you should know

a reply to: Sillyolme

Just for sake say there was no gravity with mass before big collision. No boss higons no nothing the strike of two so huge objects created that.

Does not all. But most planets rotate. Cloxk wise but a few? Do galaxy's. Rotate the same way? A not head on colishion would creat this just some spine the wrong way. Little peples huge planents spinging the wrong direction

a reply to: slayerfan

In the link big bang should sprout out like spokes on a bike all directions same speed but it does not its diffrent directions at diffrent speeds to my question maybe a collision?????

a reply to: slayerfan

I just wrote this on some thread so I put here also, I don't know if this help anything, but is a bit related;

I understand it that cosmic consciousness released some energy like etheric, which then solidified a bit into luminous, then luminous to airial, then airial to liquid then liquid to solid, from that different materials started to appear, then finally human being.

When human beings do meditation or otherwise become more spiritual, their need for physical existence is no more, they will die and give up their body, but the spirit will not die, but will merge back into cosmic consciousness. This I believe is englightment.

If the person in physical body is not ready for enlightment, but dies, then she needs to take a new body that's how reincarnation happens. What comes to rocks and other non-living materials actully they have like dormant mind, connected to consciousness and eventually even rock dies, but the spirit never die. Anyhow difficult to explain as I don't claim to understand it fully also, just my thoughts.

a reply to: slayerfan

for who's sake are we rewriting the laws of physics?

to understand the correlation between mass and gravity :
Take a mattress.(the mattress will represent space/time fabric) Drop a golf ball on it. Notice the depression it causes ? Now remove the golf ball and drop a baseball on it. There is a change in the depression . However , not much.That is because even though the baseball is heavier , it covers more area than the golf ball. These depressions represent the gravitational effect of mass.Now remove the baseball and use a bowling ball . Notice the depression. It is a larger depression , but not as deep as you would think . Now imagine the original golf ball that now weighs as much as a bowling ball.

This is a partial reason why the expansion of matter in the universe is not a perfect radial or spiraling expansion.

And the big bang was not an explosion as the name suggests . You were correct in calling it the great expansion.That theoretically began when the elusive Higgs-Boson particle was was born and gave mass to the original "singularity"

a reply to: slayerfan

A theory I've always had was somewhere along the lines of a big crunch, black holes ate the last universe, and they all collided with one another at some point and exploded somewhere in the empty space.
But with recent discoveries the universe might be multiple ones connected with black holes leading into one another, I guess that theory would be vindicated if we found a place in our universe spewing out energy in massive amounts.