i prove the big bang theory wrong because, in your laws of space and time etc, dosent it say that an object travelling in space will continuiosly move at that speed it started, unless intercepted in some way or form ie, colliding with something or gravity etc, but in space there is no resistance for an object so everything that came out of the "big bang" is what we see today as the universe, so all of it must be traveling at the speed it was when the epic proportioned explosion began and in the same direction, this means there must infact be a central point still in the universe, wich there isnt. if the big bang theory is correct everything should have come from a central point, and continue moving at the speed of the big bang the earth should be moving faster and the stars should be moving aswell at that same speed. i have been meditating it might have done me good or bad go on kill me shoot me down but do it gracefully, and with honor.
Gravity acts continuously on all objects in the universe, which means that, in general, they don't travel at constant speed.
yes but as gravity came from the big bang as you say, it to would be traveling at the same speed wich infact wouldent stop everything as a whole to still expand at that constent speed.
because if gravity did indeed come from the big bang at the moment of the explosion gravity would had held everything in place therefore resulting with no expansion atall just the largest thing bieng orbited with trillions of satalites.
can we do this one without someone having to quote famous proffessors theories, as its my thread i ask you to say anything you like aslong as its not an actual copy and paste quote, saying things that geniouses have stated in different words as such is fine. calm and productive please
if there was a big bang then, everything the "universe" must be some kind of huge spirally shaped ultra sized galaxy type thing. with some kind of central piece that everything else revolves around because "things" revolve around the largest "things" closest at the time they are "created" things
Why? But things were far too hot at the big bang for gravity to hold everything in place. You mean, you prefer to have a conversation with people who don't refer to any actual science. Not surprising. But the big bang happened everywhere at once. It wasn't an explosion in space; it was an explosion of space.
first of all what does heat have to do with gravity, secondly i didnt say dont refer to someone else i said dont copy and paste it type it with your own hands from your own train of thought was implied i did say and i quote "without someone having to quote famous proffessors theories, as its my thread i ask you to say anything you like aslong as its not an actual copy and paste quote, saying things that geniouses have stated in different words as such is fine." thirdly where is your evidence to say there wasnt something else much larger that the explotion spread out into? and the big bang actually wasnt the creation of all existance but was just something that happend because of an action in a much larger scale of things, in the real plain of existance outside this thing we know as all time and space aka the "universe"
yes quintuple posts now are you going to say anything about my actual theory or say pointless things wich everyone can see if they have eyes? no dissrespect.
dont just say there was a big bang and state the obvious i want reasons as to why im actually wrong and evidence to show im wrong. if i am wrong then ile take defeat graciously but i dont see anyone actually showing me evidence of this so as of now my theory stands up there with the big bang theory that "started" everything in existance.
Listen, i'm not too fond of the Big Bang Theory, but as i've read more about it, it made some good points. When the big bang first happened it sent specs of 'lava' so to say, all around. Now, as the small balls/specs began to cool, the larger ones obtained a gravitational pull of their own. The gravity enabled more and more objects to collide together, making a greater gravity. The pull from these newly formed masses enabled the particles to be pulled within itself, which means 'something is colliding with its gravity' which means it has changed the way/direction/speed these particles were firstly travelling at. This proves that indeed, not all the materials that were sent out by the Big Bang maintained their original speed. Sorry, but your theory is wrong.
yes something is colliding with gravity everything in this universe has an opposite, but no that could not change the immense trajectory speed and innevitable directions things have been prepelled into an already existing free space, that was there prior to the explosion, i am not saying there wasnt a bang i beleive there have been many explosions in the universe but not a big bang that created everything in existance you cannot create time, it has no beggining therefore has no end. how can you possible expand into something that isnt already there?
and again that is not proof my friend that is someone elses theory why do you think its called the big bang theory, and not the big bang fact.
also some of these lava particals as you call them, wouldent they have been traveling so fast that everything was so far away from each other that a gravitational pull wouldent be felt at that distance?. as you said it took a long time to aquire a gravitational pull because you do know the magnitude of such a bang right.
and all of these "specs" of lava by a spec you mean small right, i thought something that small produces no gravitational pull or wouldent things be floating around tiny rocks in space and on planets?