I had this idea when i was 7.

T

Tylor

ThereIsTwoSidesToEveryBla de...
Registered Member
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then, but I thought space as endlessness so the one big bang never made sense. So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
 
Here you go, one big bang, two universes, one running in the opposite direction in time relative to our own. This allows for a local beginning in an eternal universe.

attachment.php
 
Tylor said:
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then, but I thought space as endlessness so the one big bang never made sense. So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
Click to expand...

What out you might be crucified for saying how smart you are .
Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, has published a comment piece in the journal Nature, where he argues that it's unlikely mankind will ever produce another Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-expert-...tists.html#jCp
 
Tylor said:
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then, but I thought space as endlessness so the one big bang never made sense. So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
Click to expand...
This forum won't let me post my pic, but look into the inflationary bi-verse theory by victor stenger. I have a pic on my profile page. It describes a dual universe system that is both eternal relative to our perspective, and had a beginning in the big bang.
 
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fvuqPs4V8wOJduoWe2dDCuA&bvm=bv.41867550,d.eWU
 
Tylor said:
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then...
Click to expand...
This is a big pet peve of mine. The statement about the Big Bang indicates you still don't know the first thing about what science is. "Just a theory" is the best thing that can ever be said about an idea in science.
So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
Click to expand...
It isn't clear to me if you mean "Big Bounce"/oscillating universe or multiverse, but "Big Bounce" was one of the major universal lifecycle concepts, but current evidence indicates that the universe isn't dense enough to collapse again and will probably expand forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
 
Tylor said:
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then, but I thought space as endlessness so the one big bang never made sense. So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
Click to expand...

String theory predicts that there may be many universes.. parallel universes.. GO check out in Google... Or check out Michio Kaku videos on string theory.. He is the co-founder of this theory..
 
Buddha12 said:
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fvuqPs4V8wOJduoWe2dDCuA&bvm=bv.41867550,d.eWU
Click to expand...
I meant this one itself!!!
 
Or check out Michio Kaku videos on string theory.. He is the co-founder of this theory..
Click to expand...

It being Kaku is an excellent reason to ignore it. Kaku has had nothing to do with string theory.
 
Tylor said:
The big bang and all was still just a theory....
Click to expand...
Am I the only one who just wants to SHRIEK! when they hear phrases like "just a theory"? People who don't know what theories are shouldn't talk about them.
 
arauca said:
What out you might be crucified for saying how smart you are .
Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, has published a comment piece in the journal Nature, where he argues that it's unlikely mankind will ever produce another Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-expert-...tists.html#jCp
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the reason why. I think there are Einstein's and Newtons among us but most of humanity is too distracted, and in some cases, too ignorant to see them.

Plus consider the plight of someone intelligent enough to figure out the Universe before humanity was ready for it. Since they would inevitably have to know more than everyone around them, they would appear out of sync with everyone else and more suspicious than genius.

It takes a production of Einsteins to recognize an Einstein. Groups of people have to all becoming to the same general conclusions about the universe around the same time before an Einstein can be spotted amongst them.

My guess is there are geniuses out there but not enough supportive geniuses out there to nurture and spot the next Einstein.
 
cosmictotem said:
I don't think that is the reason why. I think there are Einstein's and Newtons among us but most of humanity is too distracted, and in some cases, too ignorant to see them.

Plus consider the plight of someone intelligent enough to figure out the Universe before humanity was ready for it. Since they would inevitably have to know more than everyone around them, they would appear out of sync with everyone else and more suspicious than genius.

It takes a production of Einsteins to recognize an Einstein. Groups of people have to all becoming to the same general conclusions about the universe around the same time before an Einstein can be spotted amongst them.

My guess is there are geniuses out there but not enough supportive geniuses out there to nurture and spot the next Einstein.
Click to expand...

Oh there are many geniuses out there

One , it seems to me is Paul A. LaViolette

He has a book out call " SubQuantum Kinetics " a systems approach to physics and cosmology
 
Tylor said:
I've always have loved space, and how it all works. The big bang and all was still just a theory then, but I thought space as endlessness so the one big bang never made sense. So I though what if there was many big bangs? Well we have no way to prove or not with today's technology anyway, but I haven't looked a lot into it, and was wondering if anyone else knows or thinks anything of this topic?
Thanks-Tylor
Click to expand...



There was a time when the BB was "just a theory" as commonly perceived by lay people....It was in competition with two other "just a theories" at that time [early fifties] Oscillating theory, and Steady State.
Recent discoveries, particularly the CMBR has lead to the demise of the latter two, and the now generally accepted BB.

You do know that when we do talk of scientific theories, it is far different that the general definition of the word theory?
Nothing is really 100% certain or accepted as gospel in science.....

A scientific theory is much different than a "theory" in common terms. While the word "theory" is generally used to mean a guess or an uncertainty, scientific theories are much more than that.

In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis, or an educated guess as to why or how something is happening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can become a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments and many different experimenters, the stronger the scientific theory. However, scientific theories can change as more data is collected.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. It began as a hypothesis that has been tested time after time and always supported. There is a plethora of data to back up the Theory of Evolution. Even though detractors say that it's just a "theory", the fact that it is a scientific theory means it is much closer to being a scientific truth than an educated guess.

The really well supported theories like say the BB and Evolution of life, will probably stand the test of time, and with just episodes of tinkering around the edges and tidying up somewhat.
The basic idea given by both should not change.
Even a future QGT will all most certainly entail the BB, and really just be extending the paramaters of the model.
 
arauca said:
What out you might be crucified for saying how smart you are .
Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, has published a comment piece in the journal Nature, where he argues that it's unlikely mankind will ever produce another Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge base.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-expert-...tists.html#jCp
Click to expand...



There was another expert and reputable scientist who forcasted in the late 1800's that we have learnt all there is to know, and that X-Rays were a joke [or words to that effect] and that man would never fly.
That was only a decade or so before the Wright brothers I might add.
That was Lord William Kelvin.......

We have much to learn and discover as yet. In my opinion anything allowed by the laws of physics and GR are probably possible. That includes wormholes, and the ability to manipulate and warp space/time.
We do not know the makeup yet of exotic DM.....we are still ignorant as to DE and whether it is the same as the CC.
There is much for us to do and learn yet, and although some of the things I have mentioned are well into the future [200 to 500 years or more ], they are things that mankind needs to achieve before he can explore the galaxy ala Star Trek style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top