My Universe Theory

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

My Universe Theory

Postby JohnD on February 23rd, 2017, 1:44 am 

Without going through and naming each theory and theorist, most of what I have written follows what many notable scientists have said previously. My only action has been to bring them together to form my own theory. This has been difficult for me to write and submit as I know I place myself in a position prone to ridicule. I realize my theory puts a very different perspective to present theories, please forgive my errors wherever they appear.
No matter how we view the universe one question always remains unanswered: “What was there before?” I wouldn’t pretend to be able to answer this eternal question, however, maybe the question should be “What is the normal state of the universe?”
In answering this question, it is noted that there are existing theories by many scientists that many have spent the last hundred or so years trying to prove. One of these is the Big Bang Theory which states that in the beginning there were one or more explosions that brought our universe into existence. My theory travels the same road however rather than the universe being created each galaxy is individually created. Also, instead of a giant explosion bringing about the existence of all stars, I look at the possibility that there is a central emergence of visible energy producing a reactive cloud that envelopes the local area and it is the reaction from this cloud on dark matter that produces individual stars and solar systems.
Dark matter occupies all the universe, it’s the normal state of the universe. Light matter is the result of dark matter collisions and could not exist without the pre-existence of dark matter. Dark matter is composed of sub-atomic particles that balance each other. Waves caused by these particles create a flow that travels the universe. On occasion, the flow backs up and form eddies and funnels which make dark matter unstable. When these sub-atomic particles collide, they form new combined particles, as the number of collisions increases the surrounding matter becomes unstable and begins to heat. Eventually, it becomes superheated and transforms into light matter. As matter gathers, it is more likely to form a sphere than any other shape as it will continuously be searching for balance.
Black holes appear after the dispersal of matter from the central sphere as in a galaxy formation. The effect of black holes (space funnels) is to stabilize light matter and revert it back to dark matter. In this way space isn’t expanding as much as the matter being used is already existing. However, in saying this everything within the universe is traveling in the direction of the local flow.
Galaxies including our own Milky Way are formed because of the concentration of dark matter and eventual conversion into light matter. The Milky Way galaxy formed in an eddy of dark matter flow. Fusion of dark matter would have started at the center of the eddy and cascaded outwards along the arms forming all the known stars and solar systems.
At first, there was a burst of activity with objects appearing at random consuming matter from the surrounding area. As they grew the larger objects stabilized as stars. While smaller spheres (planets) resisted being consumed, the gravitational pull forced them into an orbit around the stars. Even smaller spheres (moons) were attracted in the same manner around the planets. In the meantime, much smaller formations were consumed by all spheres. During this process, some spheres became overheated and exploded creating asteroids that added to the available matter however due to the advanced stage of the cooling process they weren’t consumed instead creating an asteroid belt in the outer reaches of the solar system. The creation process didn’t consume all dark matter it is still present within our system and is still flowing through it. Our Sun is consuming this dark matter thus making sure the creation process isn’t continuing within our solar system today.
Matter comprises all that exists, there is no empty space. Stars attract and assimilate dark matter from surrounding space to keep fusion going. If a star attracts too much dark matter the external temperature cools rapidly expanding the star into a red giant. The internal temperature remains the same, slowly drawing the outer layer inward. The star then contracts, compressing all matter until the force is far greater than what can be contained and the star explodes.
Meteors are remnants of past explosions of either old star systems or dark matter that converted but didn’t make the journey or two or more planets that converted too close to each other and collided.
Rotation of planets in the solar system, asteroids traveling through the system and stars rotating through the galaxy all are related to the polarity of the different objects and the flow of dark matter in the universe.
Gravity is a result of these radioactive particles hitting gas molecules. Ionization of the particles increases the pressure between the molecules forcing it towards the planet’s surface. At lower altitudes, there is a collision between the rising gasses and these ionized particles thus creating gravity. The strength of our gravity is dependent on how much gas there is in the atmosphere.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 654
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: My Universe Theory

Postby zetreque on February 23rd, 2017, 4:14 am 

It is interesting to see how you have interpreted stuff that is out there.
It certainly would make it easier to read this if you had used separated paragraphs to organize through thoughts and writing better.
I could get into many points you make but the part I have the most problem with is when you are talking about gravity so I'll just start there.
I wonder if it is because in your theory you are saying that there is no empty space and therefore gas particles causing gravity. The assumption you make about the proportionality between atmospheric gas of a planet and gravity doesn't make any sense (for fun giving you the benefit of playing around with your theory and putting aside the fact it's not what we understand in science).
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3125
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: My Universe Theory

Postby Eclogite on February 23rd, 2017, 10:12 am 

I am always emotionally torn when I read someone's new "theory". On the one hand I am delighted by the interest they have in such matters, impressed by their enthusiasm and pleased by their readiness to share their ideas. On the other hand I reflect sadly that in more than a decade of reading hundreds of such theories I have yet to see one that comes even close to being in anyway useful and very few that are even marginally scientific.

I hope you will understand JohnD that this leads me to focus on what I see as weaknesses in your thesis, rather than celebrating its strengths. I acknowledge that as a weakness on my part, but perhaps my criticism will help you refine and hone your ideas.

In sequence as they occurred to me and not in order of importance, here are my reservations:

1. A theory is a well structured body of knowledge that is supported and validated by many independent observations and by rigorous, well organised argument, that together provide a sound explanation for some observed phenomenon or phenomena. You do not have a theory. I don't think you even have a hypothesis. You have, instead, a rather general speculation. It could provide a basis from which to develop a hypothesis, but it needs a lot of work for that to happen.

2. Contrary to what you state, scientists to not attempt to prove theories. Proof is for mathematics, not science. Scientists seek to provide more evidence to support theories and develop their detail.

3. The Big Bang has nothing to do with explosions. That is a pop-science caricature of the maths describing the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state.

4.You do not seem to have any evidence whatsoever for the following assertions:
a) Dark matter is the normal state of the universe
b) Light matter arises from dark matter collisions
c) Dark matter is composed of sub-atomic particles

5. Your explanation for the formation of the solar system is soundly contradicted by a vast body of observation and theory.

6. Your assertion that stars attract dark matter to fuel their ongoing fusion is contradicted by a vast body of observation and theory.

7. Your comments on the rotation of the planets appear to be mumbo-jumbo.

8. Your suggestion that gravity is related to the amount of gas in the atmosphere is contradicted by a truly vast body of observation, experiment and theory conducted over hundreds of years by tens of thousands of scientists and published in hundreds of thousands of articles, summarised in thousands of text books and confirmed by millions of school pupils in their science classes. That is the clearest way I have of saying you are mistaken.

If you are willing to listen to me after that litany of criticism, may I encourage you to take your enthusiasm and use it to investigate properly the fields of science that interest you. There are many here who would be happy to help you in that task by answering questions you may have. However, for that to work you will need to abandon much that you apparently, currently hold to be true.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
Braininvat liked this post



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests