This conversation is closed.

Universe is not expanding due to a big bang, it is in fact being pulled by gravity toward some unknown mass.

The big bang theory whereby matter was spewed out from nothing is the polar opposite of what actually happened 14 billion to the power of 2 years ago.A huge mass of matter encircling our particular empty universe collapsed/imploded after moving away from a. Neighbouring universe's gravitational pull' after receding toward the centre of our universe the gravitational pull from the neighbouring body took effect again.....use the ever changing surface of Saturn,s moon Io as a reference. simples.....needs no clever maths or equations.

  • thumb
    Feb 21 2013: Hi Joe.

    A couple of questions: What is this based on? Where do you get the number 14 billion squared from (especially when you're not using clever math)? What made all the mass move away from the gravitational pull of the "neighbouring universe"?

    What is your definition of a universe, since you claim that ours is encapsuled by another universe which interacts with ours gravitationally. Are you familiar with Newton's third law?

    By the way Io is one of Jupiter's moons not Saturn's.
  • Feb 21 2013: In other words, our universe is being stirred, spiral-like
    and it isn't a universe at all.
    It is simply a massive galaxy.
  • Feb 22 2013: Excellent points Barry, however we do accept concepts as fact within whatever time time we exist,, remember copernicus was ridicu
    Led for his belief that the world was round and was not in fact at the centre of the universe. I merely wanted to emphasise that as the only single reliable constant in our known universe, gravity must have a massive impact on all things historical and into the future.Light is not constant and yet until recently we thought that our universe was all about properties of light..but light can be affected/ altered/ obliterated.Gravity cannot.Our known universe is not all about light, it,s all about the hokey kokey which is gobbledegook for the unexplainable.Gravity is unexplainable as a force with a source. It's magical, like magnetism but of course you can actually see magnetism at source in a
    Lode stone. Where can you seethe source of gravity?Is this the original source of a godlike figure that the ancients ascribed to the sun,moon water, fire etc? To put it simply which idea holds more water... an explosion takes place as a result of nothing mixing with nothing which flings resultant matter out from its
    Epicentre, or matter that existed outside our known universe encroached into it and was then over time reattrcted back to a gravitational force of another encroaching universe.? Gravity is is God!,,,

    eepicentre at incredible velocities over mind boggling distances over aeons of time'...or...
  • Feb 21 2013: No CLEVER maths Faisel, 14billion years is the figure obtained by the Hubble telescope findings....multiply by itself to take account of a contraction and expansion on assumption that gravity is constant when supplied by a Singularity. All bodies struggle against the pull of gravity, we do it as hu,mans, occasionally a body might well escape the grip of their singularity.As far as defining a universe is concerned I would keep it within the cosmological parameters we understand as space.Before stars, galaxies, planets etc there was nothing therefore our universe consisted of.....nothing...not my finding ..this is now scientific fact..The idea that this nothing could produce something in the form of a big bang is also acceptable.However if we can believe that and there are an infinite number of galaxies then see can also assume there can be an infinite number of universes, if we believe that the universe is all of space!!!!!The configuration of these so called parallel universes is also infinite therefore we would be encapsu
    Lasted by infinite universes as well and encapsulating other universes ourselves!,,,,,,,Newtons third law does not take real account of infinity in the way that we must accept that everything becomes infinite, not just space and time but also all events.......give enough monkirs access yo enough typewriters and they will produce the complete works of Shakespeare.....given time.....Apologies for mixing up Saturn's moons with Jupiter, it was a late night.
    • Feb 22 2013: "Before stars, galaxies, planets etc there was nothing therefore our universe consisted of.....nothing...not my finding ..this is now scientific fact."

      I am not sure what you mean by "scientific fact". To me, facts are statements about observations, not conclusions. I am sure that no one observed the nothingness prior to the big bang. Science is a continuing process and the big bang is the best explanation that we currently have. Next year, someone might propose a better explanation and the year after that the big bang might be in the dust bin of scientific ideas.

      I think it is possible that the expansion of the universe could be caused by something other than the big bang, but it would be very difficult to get measurements accurate enough to confirm this idea.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: Hi Joe

      First of all, what is squared time? If it takes me 24 hours to get from point A to point B it will take me 24 h + 24 h (48 h) to get from A to B and back. According to your logic it would take 24 h x 24 h (576 h^2) or 1 day x 1 day = 1 day^2. It doesn't make any sense.

      Secondly, if one corrects your mix up between multiplication and addition you assume that where all the matter in the universe is right now was the starting point of the contraction. If that is the case how was it possible for all this matter to move away in the first place as your alleged gravitational pull from the neighbouring universe is accelerating the expansion at this point.

      There is no data supporting an infinite amount of galaxies. And even if there ware you cannot use this as an argument for the existence of infinite amount of universes.

      There are some theories but no evidence of parallel universes.

      I fail to see what Jupiter's moon has to do with this.

      If the universe isn't expanding, how would you account for the red shift of light from distant galaxies and the correlation between red shift and relative distance from us?
  • thumb
    Feb 21 2013: Are you referring to "Dark Flow"
  • Feb 21 2013: Why?