|
You have quiet an intesresting point, my intellectual friend. Black holes are space's enigmas. The
topic is extremely unstable due to the fact that there is no current way to "probe" them and see
what exactly happens inside of one. However, you make an excellent point with the Big Bang Theory. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cosmologists are now having huge problems with the very point you raise Bugman. At the heart
singularity of the ''BIG BANG THEORY,'' is our old friend the ''BLACH HOLE.'' Now we have absolutely
no idea what ''BLACK HOLES,'' are made from, however they are believed to be the quantum core
mechanics spinning the whole ''BIG BANG THEORY,'' into existence. The one thing I have against this
is: ''BLACK HOLES are called BLACK HOLES simply because no light can come out of them.'' If this is
the case, then quantum gravity which gives birth to the whole ''BIG BANG THEORY,'' goes up in a puff
of smoke, unless some bright spark can enlighten us?...;-) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Some material, depending on weight or mass, might be going faster than others and might collide and
go off in myriad directions, like pool balls, but on a huge scale.
So your theory is full of "pockets". |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It proves that, like me, you don't have a full understanding of the topic. I hope, like me, you
have learned something from some well informed people here. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with Hizashi.
The supposition is simply not playing with a full deck.
When galaxies pass close to one another, the force of gravity they exert on one another can cause
both galaxies to bend out of shape. Both crashes and near misses between galaxies are referred to as
"interactions." |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What Grenache said. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You’re wrong on multiple accounts. The Big Bang theory doesn’t postulate that the universe came
into existence during an explosion. By definition, an explosion is an event that takes place within
a designated volume of space. So, if space began during the expansion of the universe, then the
expansion of the universe itself can’t possibly be considered an explosion of any kind. Also, the
theory doesn’t even mention the universe’s creation per se. It only speaks of its expansion. On
another note, I think you gravely underestimate gravitational strength when concerning massive
celestial bodies like galaxies. Galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda don’t fly away from each
other because they’re gravitationally bound. Gravity has them locked together so to speak. Your
notion that they should all be slipping away from one another is based on a false assumption about
the universe’s nature. The big bang was an expansion of space, not an explosion of a bomb casting
debris everywhere. The space between objects just got larger to put it in layman’s terms. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Perhaps assuming a completely homogenous event without the development of gravity or the strong and
weak nuclear forces you could expect matter and energy to not interact after said event. But at
least in the case of our little universe this was not how things shook out; whether a few atoms or a
couple of galaxies the same principles apply. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Einstein's theory of relativity explains the changes in trajectory because the mass of the various
stars and galaxies influence each other. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
16 Nov 2009 21:32
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
