7
   

Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

 
 
Reply 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,
Matthew Slepitza
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 10,547 • Replies: 255

 
matthewslepitza
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 01:10 pm
@matthewslepitza,
Upon re-reading this, i see endless grammar and spelling mistakes! please over look these! this was written very quickly without review. sorry!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 07:51 pm
@matthewslepitza,
matthewslepitza wrote:
if i understand correctly, the big bang was a result of pure matter colliding with anti-matter.

Incorrect.

Would you like to start again?
matthewslepitza
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 08:16 pm
@rosborne979,
would you propose to me the correct explanation?
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 06:55 pm
@matthewslepitza,
matthewslepitza wrote:
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.
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:51 pm
@matthewslepitza,
Here, take as many of these as you like:

http://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpghttp://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/images/2008/04/06/pilcrow.jpg
matthewslepitza
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 08:43 pm
@hingehead,
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?
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 08:59 pm
@matthewslepitza,
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.
0 Replies
 
Uncanny
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2014 02:28 am
@matthewslepitza,
Well if your theory is correct, then Einstien was wrong.
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2014 02:35 am
Matt, the Universe evolves much like how ignorance involves into intelligence. Man's "Ignorance", is the Universe's "Dark Matter".

There's no reason for your word salad.
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 01:02 am
@matthewslepitza,
matthewslepitza wrote:
if i understand correctly, the big bang was a result of pure matter colliding with anti-matter.
     If the matter and the anti-matter have existed before the Big Bang, this means that Time has existed before the Big Bang as well, and that the Universe in some form has existed before the Big Bang from where automatically follows that the Big Bang in this form could not have created anything, whatsoever (for these things have existed before the Big Bang), and that the BBT is an absolute hoax, as it actually is in its alternative original form of 'explaining the creation' of the Universe out of a Singularity that has had appeared 'all of a sudden and out of nowhere ... and without any causality'.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 01:12 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
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 is an ugly caricature of a theory and a negative mutation of a natural scientific formal model, which is presenting itself as a 'standard explanation' of the world.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 04:53 am
@Herald,
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. It is an extremely accurate fit to empirical evidence. When someone comes up with a better theory, then we'll go with that. But so far nobody has.
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 07:04 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
     The case is just the opposite - I like it for it is a masterpiece of forgery, but nevertheless it isn't true and that can be verified and validated in many ways.
rosborne979 wrote:
It is an extremely accurate fit to empirical evidence.
     Seriously. It doesn't have any empirical evidence at all - everything is sewed by glowing threads. Take for example the expansion of the Universe. Even the red shift does not match that hypothesis. If the red shift is equal in all directions this means that the Telescope is into the centre of the Universe - which is at least very suspicious. The CMB is not 'another' evidence - it is microwaves, which are EM waves (just like the light beam), and besides that there exist also other explanations of the CMB (except for the Big Bang having left it as a trace of its activities when designing the Universe). BTW, from where has the Big Bang taken all that information for the structuring of the Universe, for example ... and how does that happen?
rosborne979 wrote:
When someone comes up with a better theory.
     First of all it is not a scientific theory, notwithstanding to what it is presenting itself to be. By Definition (from Wikipaedia); A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
     In brief the scientific method comprises:
     1. Observation of the natural world;
     2. Analysis and generalisation of the acquired data;
     3. Developing hypothesis for the explanations;
     4. Verification and validation of the hypothesis in any other way.
     Where do you have with the Big Bang 'theory' direct observations of its major claims: the Singularity appearing out of Nowhere and out of Nothing; Infinite Gravity without force carrier; Infinite Temperature appearing/existing without any material carrier; Launching of the Time out of Nowhere; creating 3-D space out of zero-D space by 'reverse collapse of the matter' (whatever that is supposed to mean). Can you name a lab that has confirmed any of these processes.
     What are the observations:
     1. We have red shift of light ... that could be a lot of other things except for expansion of the Universe;
     2. We have CMB that could be other things as well, except for traces left from the operations of the Big Bang
     3. We have a Singularity ... but not operating in reverse. The observations are that when the matter of the Neutron Star collapses it may form a Black Hole ending up in a Singularity, but this is the forward process. No-one has ever observed any Singularity appearing out of Nowhere and out of Nothing, and forming matter by reverse collapse of the matter (perhaps). Nobody has ever proved that this process can operate in reverse. Nobody has ever seen this process operating in reverse - what evidences are we talking about?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 01:08 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Even the red shift does not match that hypothesis. If the red shift is equal in all directions this means that the Telescope is into the centre of the Universe

That is nonsense and has been explained to you. Red shift does not require that one be the center to see a red shift in all directions.

Let me explain it again...

If we start with:
A.B.C.D


A......B......................C..........D
A sees BCD moving away.
B sees ACD moving away
C sees ABD moving away
D sees ABC moving away.
None of them need to be in the center. This works equally well in 3 dimensions. Your center claim is complete nonsense. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by repeating it.
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 01:35 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
That is nonsense and has been explained to you. Red shift does not require that one be the center to see a red shift in all directions.
     You are missing a keyword here: equal (actually proportional) in all directions. There is no way to fix an intermediate point along one of the axes on all the axes ... that are actually infinite in number.
parados wrote:
Let me explain it again ...
     It is not exactly so. Anyway.
     Do you deny that there may exist other explanations of the red shift ... no matter whether based or non-based on your fake 'explanation' model.
     Do you know why your model is fake - because it is missing the physical interpretation in the real world. If the Universe is really expanding it should be something like that:
   DCBABCD
   D...C..B.A.B..C...D
   D......C....B..A..B....C......D
... in all directions.
   1. The expansion (if exists) should be observed in all directions. There is no way to construct in the physical world a floating point floating along all directions.
   2. The expansion should be into something (hyperspace, 4D space, 11D space) - it cannot be just so, out of Nowhere and into Nothing.
   3. If you are observing something else - it definitely is something else and is not expansion of the 3D space into Nothing.

   If you haven't paid attention the Universe is 3D and it has never been 1D as you are trying to present it, and all directions is not the 3 orthogonal axes of the 3D space but rather infinite in number axes passing through the 'epicentre' of the Big Bang 'theory'.
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 04:27 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Stop making yourself look like an idiot by repeating it.


Yeah, what Parados said, give one of your many other techniques a run.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2015 05:43 pm
@matthewslepitza,
matthewslepitza wrote:
if i understand correctly, the big bang was a result of pure matter colliding with anti-matter.

Matter and anti-matter did not even exist until after the big bang.


matthewslepitza wrote:
I believe that as the anti-matter (the vacuum of space) and matter (Elements) disperse; but mostly the anti matter, that

Anti-matter is not the vacuum of space.

Anti-matter is a form of matter with the electrical charges reversed.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 01:13 am
@One Eyed Mind,
One Eyed Mind wrote:
the Universe evolves much like how ignorance involves into intelligence.
     Ignorance can neither be involved, nor can ever evolve into any intelligence. The ignorance is missing the inference engine for the reasoning in order to become intelligence, and that inference engine cannot evolve out of ignorance, besides that the ignorance is taking up all the precaution and security measures against being influenced by any intelligence - it is simply keeping itself away from any information, any justification, and any common sense, by denying access of any information to its virgin standing of zero knowledge casual existence.
     Besides that no Intelligence in the Universe is evolving. The second law of thermodynamics claims that the entropy of the Universe is increasing. The increase in the chaos means losing information all the time, and losing information means losing the ability to acquire information and to process and keep it, in order words results in absolute lost of intelligence, from where automatically follows that with every day and in any way the Universe is not only not becoming more intelligent, but it is becoming more stupid. Does the irretrievable lost of over 96.5 % of the species ever existed on the Earth seem to you like 'evolution of intelligence'? Or perhaps the sending of the climate of the planet in the Dimension X by a one-way ticket is the 'evolution of the intelligence'?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:55 am
@Herald,
Equal as a qualifier means nothing. It still doesn't require that an observer be the center to see redshift.

Quote:
Do you deny that there may exist other explanations of the red shift
Of course that is possible. It is also possible you keep pink unicorns up your butt. But without evidence to support it, I will stick with the theory that has evidence.


Quote:
Do you know why your model is fake - because it is missing the physical interpretation in the real world.
OMG. Did you really just say that? A model isn't the physical thing it represents. How odd to even think that. </sarcasm>

My model works just fine to show that in expansion all points would see everything moving away and there is no need to be the center to observe that particular event. Perhaps you can give us a model that shows red shift wouldn't occur. That might be evidence. But I don't expect you will do anything of the sort.

Quote:
If you haven't paid attention the Universe is 3D and it has never been 1D as you are trying to present it,
3D geometry would show the same thing as my model. If you feel it wouldn't then give us your math that proves that objects moving in 3 dimensions that are moving away from each other would actually be getting closer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 12:38:05