Last edited:
Gravity
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
There was no hydrogen until some time (3 minutes?) after the Big Bang.
Why ?
It doen't matter why there was no hydrogen. As long as there was no hydrogen to fuse you can't conclude that the Big Bang was "based on" hydrogen fusion.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
SSB, can you answer that question ?
No it doesn't. If it isn't there, it can't fuse. It makes no difference why it isn't there.
It doesn't matter. As long as there was no hydrogen, you're wrong about the Big Bamg being "based on" hydrogen.
So then what is the BB( big-bang theory of the existence Universe ) based on ?
More important, why do you think it's based on hydrogen fusion?
Because the centre of our galaxy is .
Galaxies didn't exist untill after the Big Bang.
You're not making any sense. Try thinking before you post.
Depth
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
THE BING BANG THEORY
1. All the energy of the universe was concentrated in a point smaller than the head of a pin. Time is stopped.
2. Part of the energy condenses and becomes mass. Particles arise.
3. Quarts, electrons and neutrinos arise.
4. Quarts are grouped forming nuclei.
5. The first atoms are formed.
6. Light appears.
7. Gravity appears.
8. The first stars appear.
9. Heavy elements arise.
1. All the energy of the universe was concentrated in a point smaller than the head of a pin. Time is stopped.
2. Part of the energy condenses and becomes mass. Particles arise.
3. Quarts, electrons and neutrinos arise.
4. Quarts are grouped forming nuclei.
5. The first atoms are formed.
6. Light appears.
7. Gravity appears.
8. The first stars appear.
9. Heavy elements arise.
This "Bing Bang" theory of yours is quite different than the "Big Bang Theory. I, personally, would have named your theory the Bing, Bang, Boom Theory. It sounds 'catchier'.
Last edited:
You mean like one light ray is moving at 180 degrees relative to the other light ray? Sure you can say that.
Elephant.