 |
|
|
|
| The Tiny Object At The Beginning Of The Big Bang Could Have Been A Black Hole |
| **ASSUME THAT THE BIG BANG THEORY IS REAL. THIS IS NOT A CREATION DEBATE** We know that there is no way of destroying a black hole, nor of decreasing its size. So, if they continue to suck up stars and everything else, as the one at the center of our galaxy is doing, could they not eventually, through their ever-increasing gravity, suck up everything? The massive size and therefore gravity of the ball could compress it to roughly the size of what we say the universe began as. Just food for thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assume? The Big Bang is both theory and fact.
If the Sun were in its first iteration, the star and the Earth would consist solely of hydrogen.
All other elements are produced by nuclear fusion, so there had to be at least one sun previous to
ours that was part of another star and a supernova. Who is to say that this doesn't also apply to
the universe, that much of the material is a result of nuclear fusion in a previous Big Crunch?
Think of it as a set of sine waves that begin at zero and have different amplitude and frequency.
At some point, if you wait long enough, all those different sine waves will eventually cross at
zero, as in the picture below.
Www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/10428d1247557285-canopus-sol-relation-six-months-ov
erlay-annual-fractional-sine-waves.jpg
But if they meet at zero, then maybe they didn't start at zero. They're actually continuations of
sine waves from the previous cycle, which means they're repeating from the past and will repeat
sometime in the future.
The zeros where the lines meet are the points of nothingness. The lines meeting at zero are like
the Big Crunch, and the lines coming out are like the Big Bang, a repetitive cycle of contraction
and explosion of matter and time. |
| |
 K9  30 Oct 2009 17:25
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yup, it could be, but you never know. Humans are not THAT advanced. These theories would continue
for centuries.... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This could very well be possible. I was watching the Science Channel and there are theories that
state black holes could have created the stars due to some process and become inactive over time
because there is nothing in the general vecinity for the black hole to suck in. I'm not sure if the
universe could constrict like it expanded, but it would make for an interesting theory. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think so too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Inside a black hole is what’s known as a singularity. The universe, at it’s earliest known
stages of development, is thought to have been a singularity itself. Keep in mind though that black
holes do lose energy over time (though at an extremely slow rate) if they have nothing to "eat" so
to speak. So they can decrease in size and mass. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
