Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Science and Technology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
New theory needs opinions
    #7539095 -

Ok i have come up with a new theory for the universe and because i just came up with it i have no idea if it has been said before. This might be a bit confusing because im not sure how to word it.

The theory:

The the singularity of the big bang was not just a ball of infinitely hot and massive gas it was just the universe out of focus. And when it came into focus you have what we are living in.

It should be growing exponentially like it is. Getting faster because the bigger something gets the faster it goes and the smaller things get the slower they go.

The out of focus ball of heat and energy was just a another stage of energy. Just as matter is the current stage we see. And as the universe continues to expand and accelerate it transforms matter into something else. There would also be another form of energy before the singularity. The singularity is where relativity breaks down which is only because relativity was created by observing the current state of matter.

So this would mean that the universe would go on for infinite in both directions, small and large. There never was a beginning it just keeps going.


--------------------

"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #7539143 -

:getstoned:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: TheCow]
    #7546720 -

"my mind is blown" (dave matthews)


...referring to you, of course :jointsmile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: This guy]
    #7546765 -

he the singularity of the big bang was not just a ball of infinitely hot and massive gas it was just the universe out of focus.

"Out of focus" implies an observer...but we don't know of anything outside this universe. Anything inside would have been erased in the primordial energy (hmm, information erasure "between" universes?) and thus couldn't have been there to observe it.

And when it came into focus you have what we are living in.

What do you mean, "came into focus"?

It should be growing exponentially like it is. Getting faster because the bigger something gets the faster it goes and the smaller things get the slower they go.

That flies in the face of physics. Generally, the smaller things get (and the less massive) the faster they can move. Conversely, the larger things are, the slower they tend to move (note "slower" is a very relative term).

The rest of you post is rather a lot of nonsense. Actually it was up to this point, as well :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: trendal]
    #7547771 -

Trendal, i disagree with your post because this isn't a theory so much as a metaphor which attempts to explain the state of the universe. You're treating it as something completely different.

The slow/fast big/small had to do with levels of complexity, not speed or size. The poster didn't use the correct language but the point is valid.

The original "theory" is attempting to create a point of view for universe - not necessarily outside of it, but rather from the center of it. It's essentially making the entire universe into an eye/lens and flattening time into something constant.

Not to say I find this particular view to be very useful or developed, but it's an interesting interpretation of verticality in reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: vampirism]
    #7547892 -

Trendal, i disagree with your post because this isn't a theory so much as a metaphor which attempts to explain the state of the universe. You're treating it as something completely different.

The title of the thread is "New theory needs opinions". As well, it is posted in the Science forum...not the Philosophy forum.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: trendal]
    #7548534 -

yeah, so?

move it to S&P :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: vampirism]
    #7548551 -

Sooo..... if he was looking for responses like yours, he's in the wrong forum, but since he posted it here he obviously wanted scientific critique, which is what Trendal provided.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: ApJunkie]
    #7548574 -

:sigh:

you guys are no fun.

it wasn't a scientific theory at all, the dude was clearly tripping and shared an idea about the universe.

Ideas are ideas, and I decided to evaluate the idea for what it was.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: vampirism]
    #7548903 -

Quote:
vampirism said:move it to S&P :smile:

I agree.  Science deals with peer review and experiment/observation.  Id say this 'theroy' has neither of those.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: DieCommie]
    #7549033 -

Yeah i guess its not really testable so i would say move it to p&s.

But the point i was trying to get across was that the big bang could possibly not be the start of the universe. And that it just was infinite like

.<|

Period would be just the singularity but would go on infinitely small. Line would be us. < would be direction of expansion. After that the universe just keeps expanding out infinitely. And since we can only test between the singularity and our range of vision we come up with our current equations and such for physics.

Quote:
What do you mean, "came into focus"?


When we started taking measurements/observing.


--------------------

"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #7549183 -

its very likely that the big bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, but there is no way to be sure.

I always thought maybe it could be like a spring or something, spreading out then closing back in on itself...like the moon is a chunk of the earth that got blown off during the planetesimal impact, and now is getting gradually closer and closer, until they meet together.

maybe there have been a succession of 'big bangs' over history, and right now the universe is at an expanding point, and when it gets to the point of deceleration that it stops...its center of gravity starts bringing all the matter back to it, until it all gets combined and another 'big bang' happens...at least thats what i always imagined while on hallucinogenic substances and contemplating the universe.

peace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: supra]
    #7549425 -

Search for quantum loop gravity theory.

Also universe may contract due to the curvature of space...

Or something like that, I forgot.


--------------------
Be like water my friend!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: New theory needs opinions [Re: Salvia_Antics]
    #7549641 -

Quote:
The singularity is where relativity breaks down which is only because relativity was created by observing the current state of matter.



I thought that this was the only part of your post that really made sense.

Although what you say is, in my opinion, completely true.. It still doesnt really change the fact that the only basis for your arguement against current theories is the fact that we are limited in our perception of the universe.

The big bang theory has some scientific basis. Theres plenty of natural observable phenomena that work extremely well with it, it may not be absolute proof but its better than fiction.

Anyway, the first part of your post didnt make much sense to me either..

You're saying that the universe wasnt an extremely dense, hot mass but rather it was an out of focus dense, hot mass?


Quote:
The out of focus ball of heat and energy was just a another stage of energy.



I think all you're really doing is loosely explaining what we already know. Your definition of "another state of energy" could just translate to mean that the kinds of energy present in the matter at that time are unlike anything we see in our universe. Well, I think that was already obvious to physicists. They just define it as unpredictable whereas you're attempting to label it as something that just cannot be proven.

This is where occams razor would come in and cut your theory in half.

The simplest theory is always the best.


--------------------
:scrambled:

1 ,2

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

General Interest > Science and Technology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
( 1 2 all )		 FrankieJustTrypt 5,776 27 08/06/11 11:17 PM
by cortex
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )		 ergot 5,441 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* The Technological Singularity freddurgan 935 7 01/13/05 12:40 PM
by trendal
* If Cycorp is right -> AI Singularity within 10 years cybrbeast 1,796 19 04/29/05 11:11 AM
by ChuangTzu
* My theory on the speed of light.
( 1 2 all )		 poke smot! 3,647 21 06/20/06 01:53 PM
by pod3
* Satellite Launch to Test Theory of Relativity
( 1 2 3 all )		 Madtowntripper 4,669 42 12/16/05 06:14 PM
by zappaisgod
* moon observation archive? TODAY 448 0 04/19/05 10:54 PM
by TODAY
* Taking shots at Darwin's Theory of Evolution iamhimheisme 898 5 09/25/04 11:14 AM
by MXNR

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
999 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.