Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Iamcurioustoo's Idea - Alternative To Big Bang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9

    Question Iamcurioustoo's Idea - Alternative To Big Bang

    theory:the physical universe was created from an infinite field of energy, which still exists. Some of this energy, for unknown reasons (Divine creation?), dramatically reduced its vibrational speed to that of matter.

    This theory could possibly explain some phenomena more adequately that the Big Bang theory.

    Other suppositions: (1)The decrease in vibrational speed of energy to become matter is the reverse of the theory of relatively.
    (2) the physical universe is constantly releasing this energy as it reverts back from matter to energy (I. e. the continuous nuclear explosions on the sun, and I presume other similar suns)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Welcome to BAUT, iamcurioustoo!

    I've moved your post from the Q&A section to here, the Against the Mainstream (ATM) section.

    BAUT is avowedly scientific in its approach, and has good guidelines for how to post here. Please take the time to read through them, especially the one on ATM ideas (it's #13).

    I hope your stay with us is both enjoyable and rewarding.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,272
    Sound's quite close to M-Theory

    Have a look at this programme from the BBC Horizon series and see what you think

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    theory:the physical universe was created from an infinite field of energy, which still exists. Some of this energy, for unknown reasons (Divine creation?), dramatically reduced its vibrational speed to that of matter.

    This theory could possibly explain some phenomena more adequately that the Big Bang theory.

    Other suppositions: (1)The decrease in vibrational speed of energy to become matter is the reverse of the theory of relatively.
    (2) the physical universe is constantly releasing this energy as it reverts back from matter to energy (I. e. the continuous nuclear explosions on the sun, and I presume other similar suns)
    I can’t distinguish your brief version from the Big Bang theory. In the BB, the universe originated as a quantum fluctuation that included equal amounts of positive and negative energy. The positive energy is what we call ‘energy’ and the negative energy is what we call ‘gravity’. The net energy of the universe is zero and the source of zero energy is infinite. Expansion reduced the vibrational speed of the energy (cooled, in other words) and the formation of matter became possible.
    In relativity, matter and energy are interchangeable

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    (1)The decrease in vibrational speed of energy to become matter is the reverse of the theory of relatively.
    I have no idea what that means.

    (2) the physical universe is constantly releasing this energy as it reverts back from matter to energy (I. e. the continuous nuclear explosions on the sun, and I presume other similar suns)
    True. Stars continuously release energy. How is this an alternative to BBT?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    Matter is changed to energy through a nuclear exlosion. The formula E=MC2(i don't know how to write the symbol for square) measures the amount of energy released with the destruction of a certain mass of matter. Could not the reverse be true?

    If all there was originally was energy, could not some of that energy have slowed to the vibrational level of matter, creating matter. this would be the opposite of the big Bang theory.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    Obviously I am not a quantum physicist. Aren't the various energies measured as vibrations? Sound, radiation, light, etc all forms of energy vibrating at differing speeds. Is gravity a vibrational energy similar to these?I understand that matter broken into its most basic elements is not distinctly particle but is also wave energy.

    The BB theory seems to say that the expansion of matter from an infinitely small, dense "speck" expanded into this whose universe. My idea is that matter was created from energy which already existed.

    thanks for your interest and patience.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    actually from my understanding matter does not move, it is space its self that causes expansion. space drags matter along with it!!

    Hmmmmm.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    thanks Sticks for referring me to that interesting video about the M theory.
    Being more of a student of metaphysics than physics, it seemed to me that the M could almost be describing thoughts---which some consider the ultimate creative force.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    Obviously I am not a quantum physicist. Aren't the various energies measured as vibrations? Sound, radiation, light, etc all forms of energy vibrating at differing speeds. Is gravity a vibrational energy similar to these?I understand that matter broken into its most basic elements is not distinctly particle but is also wave energy.

    The BB theory seems to say that the expansion of matter from an infinitely small, dense "speck" expanded into this whose universe. My idea is that matter was created from energy which already existed.

    thanks for your interest and patience.
    It seems to me that the title of this thread is inaccurate - there is no 'theory'* being presented, nor (it seems) does iamcurioustoo have any theory developed but not yet presented. Unless you are prepared to state, unambiguously, that you do have a scientific theory to present, I will edit the title appropriately.

    A simple question about your 'theory', iamcurioustoo : is it compatible with General Relativity?

    *In the normal meaning of this word, in science. As BAUT is avowedly scientific in its approach, the expectation here is that 'theory' means 'scientific theory'.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    answer to Neried.

    I acceot the suggestion of your question: Is the idea I proposed compatible with General relativity?

    thanks

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,509
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    Matter is changed to energy through a nuclear exlosion. The formula E=MC2(i don't know how to write the symbol for square) measures the amount of energy released with the destruction of a certain mass of matter. Could not the reverse be true?

    If all there was originally was energy, could not some of that energy have slowed to the vibrational level of matter, creating matter. this would be the opposite of the big Bang theory.
    It's my understanding that E=MC2 is "reversable," yes.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    Thank you, Gillian. If the equasion is reversible then matter could have been created from energy. Perhaps scientists can work out the formulas, probabilities, etc.

    This speculation then gets into metaphysics---who was the Creator? Why? Is this source energy the Creator itself? I think these answers will come or have come from mystics, not pure scientists. I believe Einstein was both

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    Thank you, Gillian. If the equasion is reversible then matter could have been created from energy. Perhaps scientists can work out the formulas, probabilities, etc.

    This speculation then gets into metaphysics---who was the Creator? Why? Is this source energy the Creator itself? I think these answers will come or have come from mystics, not pure scientists. I believe Einstein was both
    As I mentioned in post #2 in this thread, where I welcomed you to BAUT, this is an internet discussion forum that is avowedly scientific in its approach.

    Further, we have a specific rule concerning Religion:
    Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

    However, the following exceptions apply:

    A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

    B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

    C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

    Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.
    I'm not sure we could continue any discussion of your ATM idea, if it is purely metaphysical; I am quite sure we can't if it is religious.

    Please clarify.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,272
    To me the OP sounded very close to what was proposed in M-theory, (M-Theory I assumed was mainstream)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    To me the OP sounded very close to what was proposed in M-theory, (M-Theory I assumed was mainstream)
    Indeed.

    However, in a later post, I thought that iamcurioustoo made it very clear that the idea, as presented, was not a (scientific) theory. I also got the impression that this idea has not been worked out, with maths, numbers, equations, and so on. If that is so, then surely there is no way to judge how close (or otherwise) it is to M-theory, or any mainstream theory (except at a handwaving, qualitative level).

    So, why not ask iamcurioustoo directly: have you developed this idea of yours, using math, equations, numbers and stuff?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    Thanks for your responses and direction. First, I am not aligned with any religion or promoting any religious belief system. However, I do not deny my own or other's spiritual nature and believe that this is where inspirational thoughts arise.

    In answer to your other question, I have not worked this out scientifically using math, equations, etc. and have no knowlege of how to go about that.

    We are all seeking answers to the basic questions about the "origins of it all"

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    OK, thanks for your clarifying posts, iamcurioustoo.

    In this idea of yours, what is 'energy'?

    In this idea of yours, do you seek to extend or replace General Relativity (GR)? I ask this partly because 'mass-energy' is already incorporated in GR, so if you are not extending or replacing GR, all you have done is restate the Big Bang theories, in your own words.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    What is energy? Good question. Do you have a concise answer?

    My definition would be Power in its many forms. Heat, light, electricity, radiation, infrared---these are measured and differentiated as vibrations of various frequencies and magnitudes, but what is the "thing" that is vibrating? Gravity is a source of power but is it in itself energy? Is thought a form of energy? Is love?

    Again I drift into metaphysics, but at some level are not physics and metaphysics finding common ground?

    Could you direct me to a definition of GR?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by iamcurioustoo View Post
    What is energy? Good question. Do you have a concise answer?

    My definition would be Power in its many forms. Heat, light, electricity, radiation, infrared---these are measured and differentiated as vibrations of various frequencies and magnitudes, but what is the "thing" that is vibrating? Gravity is a source of power but is it in itself energy? Is thought a form of energy? Is love?
    I gather, from this, that your idea is rather ill-formed in that a key concept in your idea ('energy') has no consistent, objective definition.

    How can we attack such an ill-formed idea?

    Or, putting this another way, what is it that could possibly, even in principle, show this idea to be wrong?
    Again I drift into metaphysics, but at some level are not physics and metaphysics finding common ground?

    Could you direct me to a definition of GR?
    BAUT has an excellent Q&A section - I suggest that, if you are really interested in understanding GR, you start a thread in that section, with just this question.

    For avoidance of doubt, this ATM section is not a healthy place to learn the basics of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science (why? read the rules).

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9
    As you suggest, I think I had best retire from this scientific forum. I googled GR and it is far too complex a subject for me to master this late in life.

    Adios. Maybe I will meet you on another chat site.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,939
    Perhaps it isn't necessary to retire from the forum, just this section of it. The other sections are packed with all sorts of useful information.

    Pete

Similar Threads

  1. New Theory on Big Bang alternative.
    By p9107 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 2020-Aug-20, 01:44 AM
  2. My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang
    By Aethelwulf in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 2012-May-08, 05:38 PM
  3. My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang
    By Aethelwulf in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-01, 05:24 PM
  4. Big Bang and the Alternative Cosmology Group
    By aloofcat in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-09, 04:38 PM
  5. Big Bang Alternative
    By StarLab in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-20, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •