Multiple Big Bang or single Big Bang

This topic comes from the other god thread .
What idea you subscribe more and why ?
Please this topic isn't about the existence of god or gods .
The topic of the thread is only about our cosmos .
I subscribe more to the multiple Big Bang idea because I think or believe that the chain of causation is infinite and matter can't be created and destroy it only changes .

What idea do you agree more. The Multiple Big Bang or single Big Bang and why ?
Please this thread isn't about god , is only about our cosmos .
I think or belief in the multiple Big Bang idea because I believe that the chain of causation is infinite and that matter can't be created or destroyed it only changes.

Sorry I originally intent this thread to be a poll one . My bad

I wish there was a 'don't know' option... I'd have to read a lot more on multiple big bang theories before my answer could be anything more than a damn near uneducated guess.

Perhaps some links, David?

David,

The question used to be answered by looking at the total mass of the universe and the velocity of deep space objects. Knowing those things, you can determine whether things are moving at below or above escape velocity. If they are above escape velocity, then the universe would expand forever. If they are below escape velocity, they will eventually slow down to a stop and then fall back towards the center of mass of the universe.


But since that time (the 1970s), there is more evidence that the universe is far more massive than what you get when you add up all the apparent observable mass. The extra unassigned mass is attributed to something called Dark Matter. It is a hot topic in astrophysics right now.

I think at the moment, the question is unanswerable. Your working premise that the chain of causation is infinite and matter can't be created or destroyed is interesting, but I don't think that accounts for "leaks" of energy into or out of the universe. I would have to say that your premise can only be speculative. But it is surely an interesting question.

I don't claim to have a new theory or anything . Some scientists belief in the single big bang idea and others belief the multiple big bang idea . Is a very interesting question and maybe is unanswerable like you said . I l would like to discuss it more with you and others members .

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Well I read about multiple Big Bang idea in science magazines . But I'm sure that you can find this info searches like yahoo and google .

That's why I try not to think about it much. I've read that if the universe continues to expand, everything will freeze. Obviously not likely to happen in our lifetimes but not a pleasant thought in general. "The Big Freeze" is what they're calling it, I believe. Aptly named. The only real way to answer the question is to learn what's beyond the expanding blackness. Cosmic radiation is evidence the universe is expanding, which suggests it's expanding into an already existent space. What lies in this space? Is it the source of the dark matter? etc etc.

Personally, I'm of the belief the universe has experienced multiple bangs throughout it's existence. Hah am I speaking about the universe as if it was alive? Perhaps. The current state of things is the result of one bang but whatever existed before was the result of another bang. I think eventually, the universe reaches a point in which everything stops expanding and starts to implode instead. Once the implosion is complete, another Big Bang occurs and the whole mess starts over. In this way, matter isn't being spontaneously created (through the bang) or destroyed but rather compressed and then exploded outward. Like a rubber band that keeps stretching to it's maximum distance and then shooting back inwards when it reaches that point. A perpetual rubber band, as it were. I'm not a physicist, just a theorist. Take my wacky ideas with a grain of salt...and a shot of tequila. No need to waste good salt.

Ralph haha

Oh I can - but you are the one who brought the topic up - to engage the membership a few article links might be helpful.

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe


In yahoo or google you can find more detailed info but I would prefer science books or magazines over internet info .

Actually, for me it is directly related to the existence of God. If God did not exist, then God would not have in a fit of rage, tossed a planet hurtling it through several galaxies. During its travels the planet bumped into several other planets and chipped off pieces which later became known as asteroids. The asteroids in turn have been sent hither and yon and at times have slammed into existing objects-some moons, some planets. This created more debris in the air which we refer to as outer space. This debris at times enters the atmosphere of a particular planet and sometimes travels into another solar sytem. All began because one God (and for the record, I truly believe that there are many and that they all depend on each other in order for continuing survival to be), sent one planet-or possibly a moon-on a wild trajectoy in a fit of rage. How do I know God gets mad? It says so in The Bible. Now, The Bible for some is fiction; however, it should be noted that even fiction is based upon truth. Therefore, there is truth in the Biblical words: "In the beginning, God created" It doesn't say where the materials came from, now perhaps we know.


(the above is my theory based on hours and hours of free time where I was able to create this hypothesis)

I am truly not qualified to judge one way or the other. I tend to believe in the multiple Big Bangs because there are multiple dimensions. If the theory that the new CERN collider could create a new universe, as I posted about earlier, proves true, then WE will be creating a Big Bang that will immediately pop into another universe of its own and become whatever it will become. It is entirely possible that our universe was created in a lab in another dimension somewhere by scientists looking for precisely what we are now. It may have happened billions of years ago or 10 seconds ago by their time.

The universe may well be, "alive." I am annoyed no end that biology is divorced from the other physical sciences when it must be acknowledged that life is ultimately a question of physics and chemistry. At some point in time, spontaneous generation must have taken place at least once. Because of this, I suspect, though I have no evidence of it, that life may not be confined to the biological realm.

Nay, nay, Hugo. This is a very good theory. It is called The Oscillating Universe Theory. I would drink more of that tequila if I were you.