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.


Big Bang or small whimper?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:24 AM
I know it is a hot debate, so I post this with no intentions of starting a new one.
I just had some thoughts I wanted to share regarding this subject.

The big bang theory relies on gases collecting and then exploding in a fusion type event.
It is my understanding that this is how stars are formed as well.

So how big was the big bang? People have made it out to be bigger than a birth of a star. Some suggest is was as big as the birth of millions of stars in sort of a popcorn effect.

The problem I see here is there is a point where a star must be formed. The amount of gas collecting in a mass should not be able to exceed critical mass. To suggest the big bang was larger than the birth of a single star does not make sense to me.

My feeling is the birth of stars in the universe is indeed the beginning and no more spectacular than star births are today.

I also feel it did not happen in 1 point in the universe but it happened slowly everywhere there was gas.

These star births continued to happen for billions of years slowly attracting each others gravity to form clusters of stars, which when these clusters got to close combined the gravity in to a shared super gravity center which would be a black hole.

Black holes then joined with more stars creating super massive black holes. These super massive black holes started sucking in material from 100's of thousands of light years away, swirling to create galaxies.

These things happened through out the universe and will continue to happen forever.

Thanks for reading.

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:31 AM
While I agree that these things happen now, there must have been a "first" one, to set in motion all the subsequent ones. And to have been of suffecient size to account for the expanding universe theory, which still holds place as the best explanation for the motion of all galaxies.

The "big bang" is the description of that singular event that was the catalyst for everything that follows.

Still, a good post, and very thought provoking.

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:15 PM
Thats a great compliment, thanks.

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 09:03 PM
That is a good thought rob. I tend to agree with NGC on this one though you have some good points. But all those stars, galaxies, supernova's, Quasars, plants, moons etc... And who knows if this is the only universe? But if it was a big bang then I know I wouldn't of wanted to be there in the mix. From my understanding the universe is exspanding out at all directions and don't know if a popcorn effect would do that in a vacuum?
There's also cosmic microwave background & radiation that glows and hints of a big bang. It strecthes from one end of the universe to the other and is consistant.
I've also read somewhere that the universe is flat( but a big flat) like our galaxy. Don't know if that's true or not. but if so, it makes me wonder about other universes floating around ours. And then, what's bigger than our universes? It's just so hard to imagine the real size of everything out there. We are just a pin hole in massive system of awe and beauty. Thanks for your theory rob.

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:00 PM
The big bang was a quantum level event at its instant of begining, a point of no size, erupting energy out into the "universe". It was a very hot(a billion deg K) sea of elemetary particles that expanded rapidly.At about .0000001 seconds after the initial event it cooled enough for protons and neutrons, to anhilate their anti-matter counterparts and condense out. After about a minute the electrons did the same thing. At about 400,000 years after the "big bang" the universe cooled enough for dueterium to form, then gas could start to condense, and stars and galaxies form. Think about the particle velocities required to fill the universe's early moments with particles. This time span, I believe, is why we cant see most of the matter in the universe. In the very early history of the universe it expanded so fast that, the light from most of the universe wont be able to reach us, its just to far away.
I think the "universe", is kind of like an expanding ballon. Where the "universe" as we experience it, all or our three dimensional space, is contained within the surface of the balloon. The expanding "volume", if you will, of the ballon is time. Since the ballon's surface is expanding, any point on the surface will apear to moving away from any other point on the surface. Just like what is observed in the real world.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by punkinworks

Damn! Four years of high school in twelve sentences. I wasted my time.

But I give you a star for being good at it.

Now wonder around all of this forum and straighten it out in those straight forward sentences. Just kidding, everybody would go home then.

Good job.

new topics

top topics

log in