Wed 8 Jun, 2011 01:05 pm
if i understand correctly, the big bang was a result of pure matter colliding with anti-matter. Thus the explosion caused fusions which we see in super novas therefore creating the elements and time that we know. I theorize that the elements and the laws of space and time that we follow are only valid in the universes "present" day. If matter and anti-matter collided, the resulting explosion would eventually thin out due to the fact that the anti-matter and matter are composed of a finite amount. I dont see any evidence that would suggest that the anti matter and matter can keep growing and become infinite. So i believe that eventually our universe will start to thin. Our laws of space and time are relative to the density of our universe in this time fram, 1 billion-trillion years. I believe that as the anti-matter (the vacuum of space) and matter (Elements) disperse; but mostly the anti matter, that the laws of science will change. I believe that space is the form of anti matter that was created in the big bang, such as the elements are the visible form of matter. As space thins out due to the expansion of the universe, time will be increased allowing the forms of matter, "planets. etc." to travel at higher speeds, until space has thinned enough to where the laws of physics have been stretched to the point where the objects can go light speed. This in turns changes their molecular structure and the original for of matter is reborn, this will completely separate the objects within the universe from the anti-matter "space" and an oil and water effect will occur. All physical objects will be transformed back into the original state of matter and collect to for the single form of matter which began our universe. I believe space will, do the same. I actually believe that the original form of anti matter exists in our universe as black holes. Mini big bangs, hyper novas are the struggle of matter and anti matter where the result is anti matter winning. It is the big bang if anti matter had won. There fore, as the universe expands and thins, and begins to separate. The original forms of matter and anti matter have different amounts each time they collide. In turn, resulting in different populations, of future universes. 100 universes before the one we are in presently, could have been composed of much more. Black hole have slowly eaten away the amount of matter within the universe. I theorize that if the universe dose reoccur the way i propose, that eventually after millions and millions of big bangs, anti matter will eventually win until there is nothing, unless the forms of matter achieve massive size while they reach light speed upon the separation of our universe. The it could be a balancing act.
-I just want to state that i have not studied philosophy, not much science. This is just the theory i have created after watching endless into the universe, and universe specials on tv. I would love if some one would attempt to prove my theory or disprove it. I just know i lack the attention span and intellect to do all the math and research myself!haha. I dont think its to out there of a theory, it makes scene in my head. So if any one would like to try and calculate it or figure out if it is possible, i would like to know.
Thank you for your time,
Upon re-reading this, i see endless grammar and spelling mistakes! please over look these! this was written very quickly without review. sorry!
if i understand correctly, the big bang was a result of pure matter colliding with anti-matter.
Would you like to start again?
would you propose to me the correct explanation?
would you propose to me the correct explanation?
The "Big Bang" is a mathematical model which is intended to describe an initial set of conditions which would then result in a natural expression of the Universe which matches our observations. The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about conditions or events prior to, or outside of, the Big Bang model itself.
thank you for focusing on the important aspect that i was trying to make you see. my incorrect grammar was exactly the driving point i was getting at. i hope you feel much more high and mighty about yourself now that you have expressed your superior grammatical skills. maybe a way to boost yourself from feeling slighted when it comes deeper theories that you cannot grasp yourself. proof of this would be your lack of any thought to what i proposed. have fun attempting to make fun of people on a blog. life fulfilled hunh?
No one invited you to drop such a nearly unreadable tract into this forum.
If you want someone's honest academic opinion for free, you should at least accommodate them by making that herculean task somewhat accessible. It's the least you could do.
And Hingehead's implied criticism is fair. One way to bring a modicum of accessibility to your alleged theory is to format it into brief paragraphs.
If you ask for someone's free help, the worst thing you can do is spit in his or her face if they ask for minor concessions in order for them to more easily digest said work in order to process such help for you.