Oddworld Forums - Theories about the Universe

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Theories about the Universe (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=21028)

Theories about the Universe

What are your theories about the universe? i'm interested.

for those a little rusty on the subject, here's a quick Wiki Answers quote:

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE THEORIES

There are several other origin of matter theories which are but variants of the Big Bang. Essentially the same problems apply to them:
· The Steady State Universe Theory Originated by *Fred Hoyle in 1948, this theory says that, in the space between galaxies, new matter is quietly but continually appearing out of nothing. In 1965, Hoyle publicly abandoned the theory as ridiculous.
· The Oscillating Universe Theory This is another idea by *George Gamow. It says that when the universe finally runs down, another Big Bang will start it going again. The main difference is that, while the first Bang occurred when nothing exploded into all the matter in the universe, the later ones would be the result of all the matter packing into a tiny point and then exploding again.
· The Nebular Hypothesis (also called the Planetesimal Theory) says that, as the gas swirled around, eddies of gas caused the sun and planets. All seven theories require circling gas which contracts into the sun. We have already disproved the basics underlying this concept. Many say that material from the sun made the planets and moons. But the elemental composition of each of the planets is different from the sun and from one another. One could not come from the other. In addition, the sun would have to rotate extremely fast to hurl off planets and moons, yet it rotates very slowly. More on this later.
· The Fision Theory says that our sun burst and sent out the planets and moons. But they would fly outward forever; they would not stop and begin circling the sun or one another.
· The Capture Theory says our planets and moons were wandering around and were captured by our sun. But they would then crash into the sun; they would not circle it or one another. We never see planets or moons flying by us today, yet we now know of at least 150 moons in our solar system (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2006).
· The Accretion Theory says that small chunks of material gradually got together and formed our planet. Then more chunks formed our moon, which began circling us. This idea is pretty far out also. The planets, moons, and asteroids are all in carefully arranged orbits. The meteors fly fast in linear motion. No chunks are just floating around, and those chunks would not stick together anyway.
· The Planetary Collision Theory says our world collided with a small planet, producing our moon. But such an impact would totally destroy our planet. How could such an impact produce a circling moon? This would have had to be repeated for all 150 moons in our solar system. The theory would require thousands of planets passing through our solar system, for enough direct hits to produce all our moons. Why are not such flybys occurring today?
· The Stellar Collision Theory says that two stars collided, and produced our planets and moons. But they would not then pause and circle one of the suns which was waiting placidly to receive them. They would either be hurled away from the sun or crash back into it.
· The Gas Cloud Theory says gas clouds were pulled in from outer space by our sun's gravity; then they paused, formed themselves into planets and moons, and began circling one another. But gas does not clump, and linear motion toward the sun would not change into circular motion around it.

The proportion theory, the universe is just small part of a chemical structure from another universe, what we called galaxies could be electrons orbiting protons that because they are so massive we can't see them because the light wont escape from them, one billion years in our universe could be a split second in that dimension we are a subatomic part of, the proportion is this what is takes an electron to orbit a proton one time, in the universe we perceive would be what the time that takes a galaxy to circle a nucleus of dark matter that we cant see, our universe could be just a second old looking at it from the outside.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...#ixzz25dkw7iK4

dunno if that's actually any good but it gives a basic run down of things. anyone can have a theory.

GO

MUSH

That's a mish-mash of theories about many different things, few of which the author even understood.

Is this a serious discussion or an invent-your-own-fairy-tale thread? We're not qualified to talk authoritatively on the subject, but I bet we all reckon something.

There's so much we don't know about the universe as it currently exists, but from what little evidence we've uncovered so far, the universe as we know it seems to have originated from a single point in space. Everything is moving away from each other (fact) which implies an explosion at some point in time, which would be the Big Bang.

What the state of our universe was before that bang, or how that bang came to be we will probably never know. But the big bang, while still a theory, is the beginning of time as we know it.

As for our own planet, I believe a widely accepted theory is that it was formed simply by space debris smashing into each other over time and forming our planet in the process. I suppose the moon would be created in a similar process. That our planet just happens to be at the exact right spot in the solar system for life to flourish is 100% coincidence.

()

Is this a serious discussion or an invent-your-own-fairy-tale thread? We're not qualified to talk authoritatively on the subject, but I bet we all reckon something.

well yeah, it's serious discussion but i'd like it to be a thread for both well-known and personal theories. i don't want people to be limited to the same old theories, but at the same time i'd like people to be intelligent about it and be open for criticism. if something isn't possible, wouldn't work or is just absurd, move on to the next one. let's crack this. if OWF can't work out the nature of the universe, no one can.

EDIT:

()

so you favour the Big Bang theory?

()

so you favour the Big Bang theory?

Pretty much. Modern society has been studying space in detail for over 100 years. I see very little reason to tell them they are wrong about everything.

()

Pretty much. Modern society has been studying space in detail for over 100 years. I see very little reason to tell them they are wrong about everything.

But that's incorrect. Modern society was studying space wrong until the 50s/60s and it was Hawking telling them they were wrong about everything that forced them to rethink their shit.

I don't believe in big bang.

I think the universe is a giant tomato.

I think we all simply live on a giant crouton in a big bowl of salad that is the universe.

Take that as you will.

KHWEEEEEW-PBOOOOMM!!! WHOOOOOSH!

That's how I think the universe started.

There wasn't any air then, and so there wasn't any boom sounds. I'm sorry, MM, your theory's wrong :(

..... .... ....!

And that's how the universe began.

()

KHWEEEEEW-PBOOOOMM!!! WHOOOOOSH!

That's how I think the universe started.

That can't possibly be how it started because there is no sound in space! :tard:

But that's incorrect. Modern society was studying space wrong until the 50s/60s and it was Hawking telling them they were wrong about everything that forced them to rethink their shit.

Yes, but they were at least trying and gladly altered their theories when Hawking and Hubble presented evidence for their theories. We could still have it wrong today for all we know and in a 100 years the big bang theory might be some joke. But for now it's a widely accepted theory that, for now, is backed by plenty of evidence.

Our universe is really a snow globe sitting on God's mantlepiece.

Is there a small house inside?

There's lots of little tiny houses. We live in these little tiny houses.

Seems like it takes more than tiny houses to impress OANST

()

There wasn't any air then, and so there wasn't any boom sounds. I'm sorry, MM, your theory's wrong :(

()

That can't possibly be how it started because there is no sound in space! :tard:

I am, perhaps ill-advisedly, going to assume Havoc's joking.

But fifty thousand kaboongatons of exploding white hot gas ARE going to be carrying audible vibrations. What you should have pointed out is that my ears would be instantly vaporised and so incapable of hearing them.

But there is nothing to vibrate in space.

Is there a name for 'Our universe is the result of another universe expanding so far and with so much space between things that it just pushed beyond physical fathomability and 'popped' into the big bang?' Or is that the actual big bang theory? Not a fan of the show, I must say. It's good, but not great, you know?

Unrelated, but I read a hypothesis for the origin of life that said a pile of extraterrestrial garbage (Space Burger King wrapper or possibly xenoffal) started it all. I like that.

Panspermia isn't hypothesis of the origin of life, just of how it got to Earth. It gives you more time for life to get started (you aren't limited by the age of the Earth) but provides no insight to its actual beginnings.

()

See, this is what years of Hollywood stupidity gets you. There is no sound in space because there is no air in space. Sound travels by making air molecules vibrate. No air molecules, no sound. But that would make Star Wars very very boring.

NO, NO, NO. Do not treat me like some common idiot. *Snaps fingers in "Z" formation* I'm not BM, but I know fucking elementary science.

You don't need air for sound, any gas would suffice. And what would be exploding out of the universal origin point? Shitloads of plasma and gas. That gas would be capable of filling ear canals, capable of carrying vibrations, and given the incalculable force with which they were colliding with other gasclouds, they would be. You don't even need gas, liquids (and possibly plasma, though I won't stick my neck out on that one) carry sound too.

Good God, I'm being patronised by Havoc. I don't think anyone deserves that.

gise i think ridley scoots 'Promiscuous' is a vurry significunt and comperhensive exampination of are origins. we cum from giant white space ppl who killed themselfs so that earth could exist. its in the bible.

Big Bang.

Planetary Accretion.

God.

Who knows?

Among these three, I bet the God is the one who knows

You'd think I did. But having existed for such a long time I've gone a bit senile. Omniscient my buttox.

()

You'd think I did. But having existed for such a long time I've gone a bit senile. Omniscient my buttox.

woah

Don't go all His Dark Materials on us now.

Was that STM impersonating the God?

()

So what you are saying is that would be able to hear a star exploding a milisecond before the explosion hits you? Well... I suppose. But you won't be able to hear it if you are at any sort of safe distance, even if the sound would normally reach that far.

Put it differently, you can fire a cannon in space without hearing it, even if you are right next to it.

So, in essence, you're agreeing with MM?

Just to clarify, sound travels through the vibration of atoms and molecules in a medium. In space there is no medium for sound to travel through. I don't know whose side I'm on because I didn't read your arguments. I'm simply clarifying scientific fact for you.

STM, I'm arguing that the explosive debris of the Big Bang was not a vacuum i.e. it was "stuff" and was therefore capable of acting as a medium for soundwaves.

()

Havoc. This is hypothetical. I'm not actually going to stand in front of an exploding universe.

You can hear explosions that are around you. Vibrations don't form one infinitismally thin layer that passes by like a bubble, things keep vibrating for a while after the force passes. And considering the Big Bang was a superdense explosion, all stuff and no space, that would certainly be the case there.

Also, considering the explosive radius of the Big Bang occupied all space in the universe, so far as to say that the explosion was the rapidly expanding universe, I highly doubt there's any kind of "safe distance" to be had.

Ah I didn't realize you meant the big bang specifically. I thought big (star) explosions in general. Ok then I agree.

()

KHWEEEEEW-PBOOOOMM!!! WHOOOOOSH!

That's how I think the universe started.

HAHAHA ISN'T THAT JUST FUKKIN' 'ILARIOUS AND ALSO SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE

The term "Horrendous Space Kablooie," is gaining some currency in the scientific community.

I wonder if we'll ever invent some crazy wormhole-making engine thingy.

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey.

()

Pretty much. Modern society has been studying space in detail for over 100 years. I see very little reason to tell them they are wrong about everything.

They may not be wrong but they could lie