1
Hey everyone, first off I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war. I have a simple question, that has been confusing me about the big bang theory.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
118
It's not that two atoms collided. The universe was once extremely small and dense, but for some reason started expanding. We don't know why it started expanding or why it was there in the first place.
basically this is what most evolutionists believe unless they're idiots, so, thereya go.
Interesting topic. It'd be nice to have a good, in depth answer from the community.
Also, because when it hits the fan:
Thought I'd re-iterate that for the people who thing they're smart by bashing on opinions.
Also, because when it hits the fan:
mcjared...I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war...
...Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
Thought I'd re-iterate that for the people who thing they're smart by bashing on opinions.
I will post the same question in a different context:
How did elbow macaroni become the beaver of the planet's spine?
There is no answer.
How did elbow macaroni become the beaver of the planet's spine?
There is no answer.
mcjaredHey everyone, first off I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war. I have a simple question, that has been confusing me about the big bang theory.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
Simple, everything is made from everything.
--Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. You can have creationists that believe in evolution--
The truth this- nobody knows. We can't say for certain, but a popular hypothesis is that they are remnants from the last iteration of this universe, per the Big Crunch.
Again, nobody knows.
The truth this- nobody knows. We can't say for certain, but a popular hypothesis is that they are remnants from the last iteration of this universe, per the Big Crunch.
Again, nobody knows.
I have the exact same question as you on this matter.
But why did it start expanding? What caused it to do that?
I call upon the almighty Snowy and her sense of wicked fun to keep an eye on this thread. Debates are fantastic but only if kept civil. Thanks OP for expressing that at the outset.
craftykidsWe don't know why it started expanding or why it was there in the first place.
But why did it start expanding? What caused it to do that?
I call upon the almighty Snowy and her sense of wicked fun to keep an eye on this thread. Debates are fantastic but only if kept civil. Thanks OP for expressing that at the outset.
Greybolt--Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. You can have creationists that believe in evolution--
^
I'm not sure what I believe about the beginning of the universe, but this pretty much sums up what I was thinking.
That's just it - The "Big Bang THEORY". There's no hard information that this is how the universe became what it is today. It is a well.known theory that is often assumed as "known", however we know just as little about it as we do about the stories of the Bible. Everything's a theory until we get solid proof, and we have none. The beginning of the universe is a question that will confuse humans until the end of time, and to be honest, I doubt either of these theories is true, simply statistically looking at the topic (Creation or the Big Bang) and so I believe it's best to understand that the Big Bang Theory involves a rapid expansion of a compact universe, but still remember there's only a very small chance that's true.
Also, I like beavers.
Also, I like beavers.
I think you're confusing a scientific "theory" with a scientific hypothesis. In everyday language a "theory" is the same thing as a hypothesis, and this sometimes confuses people. One reason we think the universe was smaller and denser is because all the stars and galaxies are getting farther and farther away from each other. Therefore, they must have all begun expanding from a single point.
(Oh, and evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory)
(Oh, and evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory)
A theory doesn't have to be a guess that is left unproven. Evolution and gravity are both still theories. (the former is backed up with scientific evidence)
(at the risk of screwing something up and sounding like an idiot on something since I've only briefly been introduced to this subject as of writing this...)
On the topic on how something like the big bang occurred, there's an interesting thing called String Theory. Takes too long to explain here but it is an interesting idea. Of course it's impossible to prove at this point in time but it establishes that it is
"possibly possible" for the universe as we know it to have come into existence on its own without the help of a higher power.
Personally I'm a Christian and I believe in creation but that doesn't stop ideas like these from being interesting to learn about.
On the topic on how something like the big bang occurred, there's an interesting thing called String Theory. Takes too long to explain here but it is an interesting idea. Of course it's impossible to prove at this point in time but it establishes that it is
"possibly possible" for the universe as we know it to have come into existence on its own without the help of a higher power.
Personally I'm a Christian and I believe in creation but that doesn't stop ideas like these from being interesting to learn about.
mcjaredHey everyone, first off I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war. I have a simple question, that has been confusing me about the big bang theory.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
I'll give you what I think
I believe in two things equally. Cyclical universe theory. That's the theory that there was no big bang, it was just a big crunch. So there was a universe before, but then it closed in and opened back up again. Like a refresh.
For the big bang aspect. It must be understood this was the BEGINNING of our universe. There were no atoms to start it, because it just happened. No one knows exactly why and when and this is because:
A) It happened before there was spacetime
B) It happened before a lot of the laws we're familiar with took place
C) To figure out these things we'd have to learn new laws and work out how the laws of our current stated universe occurred and how to reverse it.
Sometimes we can bother ourselves and be in depth about this. But a lot of science isn't known, and if all science was known, it'd cease to exist.
Note: This is all gathered opinion and some fact from knowledge picked up throughout a lot of talks with my science buddies consisting of some cambridge students.
-Hk
mcjaredI have a simple question
Alas, you've actually picked up on one of the shortcomings of the Big Bang theory. It is just a theory despite what scientists might tell you, it's just the theory that is the most convincing given the evidence. It's not perfect.
As it's a theory it will not necessarily explain everything. The theory suggests that the universe came into being when a singularity, an infinitely dense point containing all the matter in the universe, suddenly expanded at close to the speed of light in every direction. Where this singularity came from or specifically what caused it to expand cannot be explicitly covered by the theory. We weren't there to see what happened so it's unlikely we're going to know for sure.
However, since we don't know then religion and science could come together to explain the Big Bang. Maybe the Big Bang created the universe, but did the singularity and the cause of the Big Bang come from God?
the simple answer is that we don't know, but we are trying to find the answers, and by creating other model of origins we are simply hindering progress to find that answer.
HappyKeysTVmcjaredHey everyone, first off I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war. I have a simple question, that has been confusing me about the big bang theory.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
I'll give you what I think
I believe in two things equally. Cyclical universe theory. That's the theory that there was no big bang, it was just a big crunch. So there was a universe before, but then it closed in and opened back up again. Like a refresh.
For the big bang aspect. It must be understood this was the BEGINNING of our universe. There were no atoms to start it, because it just happened. No one knows exactly why and when and this is because:
A) It happened before there was spacetime
B) It happened before a lot of the laws we're familiar with took place
C) To figure out these things we'd have to learn new laws and work out how the laws of our current stated universe occurred and how to reverse it.
Sometimes we can bother ourselves and be in depth about this. But a lot of science isn't known, and if all science was known, it'd cease to exist.
Note: This is all gathered opinion and some fact from knowledge picked up throughout a lot of talks with my science buddies consisting of some cambridge students.
-Hk
Like a refresh? Yes, but this may not be the last refresh. Like the Tormentor said, when the universe spontaneously expanded the rate of it's expansion is roughly the speed of 300,000,000 m/s. But as the universe expands it's rate of expansion slows down. This is because the edge's of the universe are being pulled back by it's own gravity. Eventually the expansion of the universe will stop and then pulled back into the a single point. This is the end of everything. But then what happens next? Well a new Big Bang of course!
Maybe a little off topic but there is just one of my theories.
Very interesting topic,
I recently researched alot about this, If anyone is familiar with string theory, where scientists discovered at the basis of everything in existence there are vibrating strings of energy.
though what I believe everyone has so far stated, are the laws of what has happened after the universe formed. If we can reverse engineer the very fabric of our universe I think we can then understand how it all started. but till then, they are yet to discover the answer.
Though I think quantum physicists are very close to the answer.
I recently researched alot about this, If anyone is familiar with string theory, where scientists discovered at the basis of everything in existence there are vibrating strings of energy.
though what I believe everyone has so far stated, are the laws of what has happened after the universe formed. If we can reverse engineer the very fabric of our universe I think we can then understand how it all started. but till then, they are yet to discover the answer.
Though I think quantum physicists are very close to the answer.
"Evolutionist" is a made up term used by people who want creationism taught in schools. I do not know for sure why they want this, but I think it has to do with sea-monsters.
Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, "theory" has a very particular definition. Here is a short article which should explain that.
HERE
It should also be noted that there is no "Evolution Debate". There is not a single scientific fact that conflicts with the Theory of Evolution as an explanation of the origin of the variety of Earth life.
The theory of evolution does not address the origin of the universe, or the origins of life. The "Big Bang Theory" is based on the observation that the universe is expanding. It would thus follow that it should have started expanding at some point. Exactly how it expanded is still being worked out, but the math implies some interesting phenomena must have occurred. While still scientific, the Big Bang and the theory's consequences are the domain of Cosmology, Astronomy, as well as both Theoretical and Experimental Physics. The Theory of Evolution is a key part of modern Biology, Medicine, and even Geology, though is largely unrelated to the previously listed disciplines.
The argument for the existence of god, which you have probably heard, is a flawed one. If one proposes a creator god as the the so-called "cause" of the Big Bang, one can simply ask where the creator god came from. If the creator god doesn't have to "come from" anywhere, neither does the singularity which was the theoretical beginning of our universe.
As for the origin of the universe, in short, we don't know. Anyone claiming to know for certain is being dishonest. A good scientist would never make that positive claim.
However, just because we don't know what knocked over the glass on the floor, we can still be pretty sure that at some point it must have fallen off the table.
Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, "theory" has a very particular definition. Here is a short article which should explain that.
HERE
It should also be noted that there is no "Evolution Debate". There is not a single scientific fact that conflicts with the Theory of Evolution as an explanation of the origin of the variety of Earth life.
The theory of evolution does not address the origin of the universe, or the origins of life. The "Big Bang Theory" is based on the observation that the universe is expanding. It would thus follow that it should have started expanding at some point. Exactly how it expanded is still being worked out, but the math implies some interesting phenomena must have occurred. While still scientific, the Big Bang and the theory's consequences are the domain of Cosmology, Astronomy, as well as both Theoretical and Experimental Physics. The Theory of Evolution is a key part of modern Biology, Medicine, and even Geology, though is largely unrelated to the previously listed disciplines.
The argument for the existence of god, which you have probably heard, is a flawed one. If one proposes a creator god as the the so-called "cause" of the Big Bang, one can simply ask where the creator god came from. If the creator god doesn't have to "come from" anywhere, neither does the singularity which was the theoretical beginning of our universe.
As for the origin of the universe, in short, we don't know. Anyone claiming to know for certain is being dishonest. A good scientist would never make that positive claim.
However, just because we don't know what knocked over the glass on the floor, we can still be pretty sure that at some point it must have fallen off the table.
LeafPMC However, just because we don't know what knocked over the glass on the floor, we can still be pretty sure that at some point it must have fallen off the table.
Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me... Someone had to have put that glass on the table, and equally, someone or something must have knocked that glass off the table..
Maybe I am over-thinking it but heck, it just doesn't seem right to ignore where it came from or how it got there.
I like to think of time as a circle so don't think of time as a line
so like...there was never a time when nothing existed it's just always been there just being reused in an endless cycle constantly changing so the big bang was just the expansion of everything in the universe that was compressed.
so like...there was never a time when nothing existed it's just always been there just being reused in an endless cycle constantly changing so the big bang was just the expansion of everything in the universe that was compressed.
Truth is nobody has a damn clue. And imo, it's not something we'll ever really know, or be able to find out.
The big bang theory is widely used because it's about the only thing we have evidence for (and even then, it's not much evidence seeing as we don't really understand it), in that we know the universe is expanding away from a single point (and also accelerating away... aka the bit we don't understand).
For all we know the universe came to be because some twit in an alternate reality divided by zero.
The big bang theory is widely used because it's about the only thing we have evidence for (and even then, it's not much evidence seeing as we don't really understand it), in that we know the universe is expanding away from a single point (and also accelerating away... aka the bit we don't understand).
For all we know the universe came to be because some twit in an alternate reality divided by zero.
ZitzabisI have the exact same question as you on this matter.craftykidsWe don't know why it started expanding or why it was there in the first place.
But why did it start expanding? What caused it to do that?
I call upon the almighty Snowy and her sense of wicked fun to keep an eye on this thread. Debates are fantastic but only if kept civil. Thanks OP for expressing that at the outset.
Np, Just have been curious about this matter. What better place to ask it than pmc! xD
mcjaredHey everyone, first off I'd like to not have this turn in to a religion war. I have a simple question, that has been confusing me about the big bang theory.
The earth and everything in it, the stars and the skies, and humans. Everything is created..but from what? Evolutionists talk about the big bang theory but they always fail to address the issue about what initiated the big bang. If two small atoms did collide to create everything...then were did those two atoms come from?
Again, please no arguments just help me understand this.
No one knows for sure, and we may never know. We are nearly certain the BB occured, but we don't know for sure what happened before. There are several theories, the Cosmological Argument (or First Cause), the theory that says the Universe is just cyclical, and many more. Hope to have helped.
I mean nothing really makes sense... Think about it do any of the creations stories make sense? No they dont... I don't believe in bashing beliefs, so i won't say anything else. So think what want about this. Nobody really knows, right? And no one can know, because we cant time travel back to the big bang or something, right? So just think about this.
I am roman catholic and always ask the same question. So yeah....
I am roman catholic and always ask the same question. So yeah....
Also i meant to say....
I am evolutionist.....
In PokeMon....
I am evolutionist.....
In PokeMon....
I thought this was about Pokemon.
The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.
I agree. Something triggered the Big Bang. It's a simple law of physics (I think it's one of Newton's laws). In theory, before the Big Bang happened, there was a tiny ball of all sub-atomic that make of the current universe. This tiny ball was incredibly dense (considering it was made of the entire mass of the universe). Some say the ball was so unstable, that it caused the Big Bang. This is plausible because we're talking about all the mass in the universe, so of course it would be unstable. The problem is, that fact that such an object came together says it is possible for such an object to exist. Assuming there was nothing else in the universe, no matter how unstable, there would be nothing to set it off. There is the possibility that just one more particle was added to make it explode. This is also plausible, but where did it come from? Also, if the universe is in a cycle of Big Bangs, and ours was just the beginning of another one, what started the cycles?
As of now, any way you slice it, it points to an external force. The most likely force is an intelligent being from outside our universe. That is simply because what other force would/could do that?
About evolution, I think the theory is plausible, again. It is proven that genes mutate at least once in the lifetime an organism. On Earth, the correct ingredients were I place to create life. It is not entirely impossible that life simply evolved on Earth, but there's a flaw I'd like to point out. There's a hole in the fossil records that are needed to confirm evolution. This could be for many reasons. One is that life was created a different way. Another is that the fossils were destroyed by natural forces (such as volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, etc.
As of now, any way you slice it, it points to an external force. The most likely force is an intelligent being from outside our universe. That is simply because what other force would/could do that?
About evolution, I think the theory is plausible, again. It is proven that genes mutate at least once in the lifetime an organism. On Earth, the correct ingredients were I place to create life. It is not entirely impossible that life simply evolved on Earth, but there's a flaw I'd like to point out. There's a hole in the fossil records that are needed to confirm evolution. This could be for many reasons. One is that life was created a different way. Another is that the fossils were destroyed by natural forces (such as volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, etc.
That's assuming laws of physics applied back then, if there was no universe laws of physics don't necessarily apply. Still relatively valid (I said before, on this topic there's not much in the way of a valid argument), seeing as the cause could be literally anything, it's about as likely as anyone else's idea.
Although there is an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record, it's actually extremely unlikely that something will be fossilized, not every species will be successfully fossilized, due the the pretty specific circumstances required. That and species have already been observed adapting to new environments (worms adapting to live in lead rich soil generated by mining).
If you want a flaw in the scientific ideas of how life came to be, try the idea of abiogenesis, in that complex organic molecules arose from mixing simple inorganic ones, eventually forming RNA. We know the process is possible, but RNA is still pretty complex, the odds of randomly forming it aren't very big, although it can be argued that on a large enough scale (i.e. early earth), it's not unlikely to form.
Although there is an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record, it's actually extremely unlikely that something will be fossilized, not every species will be successfully fossilized, due the the pretty specific circumstances required. That and species have already been observed adapting to new environments (worms adapting to live in lead rich soil generated by mining).
If you want a flaw in the scientific ideas of how life came to be, try the idea of abiogenesis, in that complex organic molecules arose from mixing simple inorganic ones, eventually forming RNA. We know the process is possible, but RNA is still pretty complex, the odds of randomly forming it aren't very big, although it can be argued that on a large enough scale (i.e. early earth), it's not unlikely to form.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Prof. Lawrence Krauss
[yt]sbsGYRArH_w[/yt]
[yt]sbsGYRArH_w[/yt]
"evolutionists explain the big bang"
uhhhh you realize evolution and the big bang are completely different and separate scientific theories. Evolution has to do with biology and the big bang has to do with cosmology. I could explain evolution pretty well, but not the big bang so much. You should change the title because it is very misleading. (I have no idea what an "evolutionist" is anyway lol)
The lack of understanding to basic scientific theories on pmc makes me sad, you guys should watch nova or something.
uhhhh you realize evolution and the big bang are completely different and separate scientific theories. Evolution has to do with biology and the big bang has to do with cosmology. I could explain evolution pretty well, but not the big bang so much. You should change the title because it is very misleading. (I have no idea what an "evolutionist" is anyway lol)
The lack of understanding to basic scientific theories on pmc makes me sad, you guys should watch nova or something.
ok lets get this strate. There is no possible way we can know for sure or have scientific evidence of what supposedly happened because to put it simple we were not there.
BTW. Im a Yong Earth Creationist
BTW. Im a Yong Earth Creationist
first of all, The Big Bang Theory was created by a Catholic priest. It is a very logical theory, however, new evidence supports that the Big Bang could have never happened, and it also proves that black holes can not exist, that evidence has literally torn apart the entire basics of science. However, even though it is supported by Stephen Hawking, it is still mostly ignored in the scientific society, because that would mean that everything they know about space and time is wrong. They just like to have something they think they know, so therefore it until somebody can find an answer for how the Big Bang I mean for what created the universe and how matter seems to be sucked into an endless void in space, this knowledge will be forgotten.
What is the new evidence that doesn't support it? That would be an interesting thing for this thread.
you have to look it up. They took it off of Yahoo News awhile ago.
I think the real problem is that humans cannot comprehend pre-existence- we simply are unable to fathom what it is like before life and after death. We are able to understand, unlike most animals, that we exist and that we run out of time- yet we do not have a solution to how our Universe began- or whether it simply, as always, just exsisted!
The BIg Bang is also not the only theory knocking around, I believe there are several all without an evidence based answer
The question is- how can we understand the Universe when we haven't even discovered everything about Earth yet! I get so excited about this,,, so thank you for reminding me why I studied astronomy and geography!
It's an interesting topic so I had to comment even though I left the forums ^^"
The BIg Bang is also not the only theory knocking around, I believe there are several all without an evidence based answer
The question is- how can we understand the Universe when we haven't even discovered everything about Earth yet! I get so excited about this,,, so thank you for reminding me why I studied astronomy and geography!
It's an interesting topic so I had to comment even though I left the forums ^^"
Click to reveal
42
Scientists have pointed to the theory that because matter can be converted into energy it was the opposite, where matter was created from energy. However this could be false, because it's only 1 scientific theory out there. Remember these theories have some science pointing towards them.
If they didn't, I would say ducks had a fight that caused a massive explosion that made the universe.
If they didn't, I would say ducks had a fight that caused a massive explosion that made the universe.
Your question shows that you know nothing about Evolutionism or the Big Bang. Evolution states that organisms adapt to their environment and evolve over time. It's pretty hard to deny this one. There's just so much evidence. One can certainly be a creationist and believe in Evolution. The Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolutionism. The Big Bang is merely this idea that 14 billion years ago the universe underwent massive expansion. It's stupid to call BS on it just because we don't know what came before. No one knows what came before. The Big Bang Theory is the best scientific explanation we have. I am not a creationist, but in your case who's to say God did not trigger the Big Bang?
Evolution is, by definition, change over time, whether or not it has to do with living organisms or not.
As with many things that depends on the context. The error made by many apologists is that they assume that all things that use the word "evolution" are therefore related theories.
-Biologists looked at organisms and saw that they changed over time, and they developed over centuries the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution.
-Likewise chemists and physicists described how elements decay and fuse to form new elements which they described as a chemical evolution.
-Cosmologists and astrophysicists studies the skies and how celestial bodies form and move in complex patterns and described cosmic evolution. And there are countless other examples from different scientific communities.
All of these models have nothing to do with one another but instead are different fields all describing how the things they study can change over time.
The problem is that apologists like to speak of "evolutionists" as if all of these models that were independently derived by thousands of researchers in completely separate fields spanning hundreds of years all worked on one theory. All because they can't understand that you aren't supposed to conflate the terminology from one field of science with that of another.
-Biologists looked at organisms and saw that they changed over time, and they developed over centuries the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution.
-Likewise chemists and physicists described how elements decay and fuse to form new elements which they described as a chemical evolution.
-Cosmologists and astrophysicists studies the skies and how celestial bodies form and move in complex patterns and described cosmic evolution. And there are countless other examples from different scientific communities.
All of these models have nothing to do with one another but instead are different fields all describing how the things they study can change over time.
The problem is that apologists like to speak of "evolutionists" as if all of these models that were independently derived by thousands of researchers in completely separate fields spanning hundreds of years all worked on one theory. All because they can't understand that you aren't supposed to conflate the terminology from one field of science with that of another.
I don't believe in creationism or the Big Bang and other scientific stuff like that, and we do not have a proven explanation of why the universe was created. I myself feel there is no way to find out how the universe was created.
The Big Bang Theory is when a single point started expanding, which created the universe. What created that point is like asking what created God.
If God created the universe, then why did he wait so long [10 billion years] before he started making Earth and even then he waited another 4 billion years before he created humans. Then a few hundred millions of years before he contacted Abraham?
If God created the universe, then why did he wait so long [10 billion years] before he started making Earth and even then he waited another 4 billion years before he created humans. Then a few hundred millions of years before he contacted Abraham?
There is no real way to know, you have to believe what you think is logical.
Keep in mind it is very possible there is a God, because science can create as many theories as they want about how the universe came to be, but they can't prove it.
Keep in mind it is very possible there is a God, because science can create as many theories as they want about how the universe came to be, but they can't prove it.
But a scientific theory uses previous proven science to point to the theories. They don't just randomly out of no where say that this is our theory.
And even then, no one can prove that gods exists.
And even then, no one can prove that gods exists.
It takes more faith to believe that it all came about by chance. While it's possible, that it wasn't created by a God, it must've had some sort of influence. My mind simply cannot fathom this all coming about by chance.
It's up to you to decide what you do or do not believe, but I don't have enough faith that it came about by chance to be an atheist.
It's up to you to decide what you do or do not believe, but I don't have enough faith that it came about by chance to be an atheist.
I have an interesting theory. The universe is constantly expanding, right? So, imagine a rubber band. It can't expand forever. When it gets to it's limit, it pings back together (or snaps). So, the previous universe pings back to it's un-stretched state leaving a tiny amount of space to begin expanding again (unless it follows the logic of a rubber band and the universe snaps into two new universes to begin expanding again. WOAAAAH INTENSE THINKING. EDIT: If this is correct, then there must be centillions of universes out there).
If the Universe is like an elastic band if must follow Hooke's law until it reaches its elastic limit - meaning the extension (in this case, expansion) is constant. The universe has been proven to have been expanding at an ever accelerating rate (red shift, for example), so this can't be true.
I'm probably over-thinking this analogy, but eh.
EDIT: just thought I'd add that this isn't a scientific theory as it is all guesses and has no evidence. It's a random guess.
People (not you in specific; people that dismiss anything that has scientific evidence because it's a 'theory') really need to understand what a theory is.
I'm probably over-thinking this analogy, but eh.
EDIT: just thought I'd add that this isn't a scientific theory as it is all guesses and has no evidence. It's a random guess.
People (not you in specific; people that dismiss anything that has scientific evidence because it's a 'theory') really need to understand what a theory is.
Floppypancake31I have an interesting theory. The universe is constantly expanding, right? So, imagine a rubber band. It can't expand forever. When it gets to it's limit, it pings back together (or snaps). So, the previous universe pings back to it's un-stretched state leaving a tiny amount of space to begin expanding again (unless it follows the logic of a rubber band and the universe snaps into two new universes to begin expanding again. WOAAAAH INTENSE THINKING).
I had this theory to! It could be a change in gravity when it reaches a certain point, which pulls everything back together. Maybe it's a cycle?
View 53 more replies
