Questions about a "new" (?) big bang idea

I found this site while doing a search for info on this idea, to see if it could work out, but had trouble finding anything on it.First of all, please forgive me if my knowledge of physics and such is not up to par with the rest of the forum members! I have trouble with following things like formulas and remembering statistical things; my mind works better if I can put things into "pictures" in my head.Anyway, moving on...First of all, I believe that if you broke down everything that exists into the smallest possible particles, they would all be the same, and that things are different because these particles are combined in different ways. Kind of like simple vs. complex carbohydrates; our body can break down the larger carb molecules into simpler sugars and then form larger, more complex ones. Our bodies kind of mimic the earth that way, how she is able to break things down and "regenerate" them into other things.So, in the "beginning" there was nothing but these particles... except there must have also been some space between the particles in order for the particles to move around.Somehow (don't ask me) gravity was there too. Maybe this is like that "spark of life" that existed among all that nothingness.So, "gravity" cause the particles to pull toward each other. Eventually, most likely in more places than one, little "bubbles" of space were formed as the particles pulled together, trapping the space inside.The more particles that pulled together, the stronger the bond, and the stronger the pull toward the center...Okay, now imagine that each "particle" of space and "particle" of matter is exactly the same size. In order for the "matter particle" to cross through space, it needed at least two "space particles" or it wouldn't fit. ? (You with me here?)So what happened, in my head here, is that two space particles got trapped together inside the "matter bubble" and then a "matter particle" crossed through it, creating motion/light. (I'm still kind of working on this part!)What it comes down to is this: All those particles become denser and denser until they are packed so tightly that they become reflective. Inside of this "matter bubble" becomes a hollow, spherical mirror.Now, if you light a spark on the inside of this spherical mirror, the light will reflect off of every point, right? Does the light double in intensity each time; does it increase infinitely? Wouldn't this eventually cause the matter inside to burst out, creating a "big bang" of sorts?What do you guys think? Again, I apologize for the things I couldn't quite think through here, but that's why I'm here, so you can help me!Thanks,
ashes[This message has been edited by Ashes, 02-18-2003]

Wouldn't it be better to learn about what the professionals are doing in this field ?One good book to start with is Alan Guth's _The Inflationary Universe_

Paulk,Interesting response...Are you suggesting that I must prove my worthiness to pursue individual ideas by backing them up with literature, written by "professionals"? Can we not think for ourselves?However, if you must require credentials, well then yes, I have done extensive personal research on the ideas of creation. However, I am more interested in the pursuit of such knowledge for spiritual reasons. My reading has mainly focused on the teachings of famous "thinkers" including the great Buddhist teachers, and more recently toward the ideas of nonduality and universal consciousness. And, as I have previously stated, I did look for information on this particular subject matter, but did not find anything.The inspiration for this particular (spherical mirror) thought came as the result of my reading "Stalking the Wild Pendulum" by Itzhak Bentov. (I highly recommend this book to everyone.)But I'm taking a break from reading in order to work stuff over in my own head. (You'll never get anywhere trying to use someone else's all the time.)But since you like to reference others, here is a quote that might interest you:"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."
- Albert Einstein

No, it's just being suggested that you inform and base your thinking on what people have already found out. It's called standing on the shoulders of giants. It's also called not reinventing the wheel.

Uh, yeah, that's what I did. Aren't we supposed to then, like, add on to what other people have already found out?

I get the impression that you want your conjecture to be true (which is fair enough) but unless you can provide any evidence for it, or at the very least the thought patterns which led you to your discovery, its about the same as somebody telling someone else what they dreamt last night.After all, we get plenty of cranks on this forum, how are we to tell you're any different?The very first bit:

quote:

---

First of all, I believe that if you broke down everything that exists into the smallest possible particles, they would all be the same, and that things are different because these particles are combined in different ways.

---

...I like. The remainder descends into wibble, as far as I can tell.PE

The thing is to build on what is known, rather than ignoring it in favour of your own flights of fancy - at least if you are trying to do anything resembling scientific speculation. If that gets in the way of your thinking then perhaps you should try a more artistic field of endeavour.For instance the Big Bang as currnetly understood was an expansion of space (likely at FTL speed - inflation), and energy which only later condensed into matter. And the forces we knowAs for the internal logic even if space somehow consisted of "particles" how could they move relative to each other ? And a spherical mirror only concentrates energy - it does not create it so what can the mirror add to the scenario ? And how does this mysterious matter happen to have a mirror surface in the first place ?Oh well at least your idea isn;t as nutty as "Messenger" and his "Moland Theory".[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-19-2003]

quote:

---

I have trouble with following things like formulas and remembering statistical things; my mind works better if I can put things into "pictures" in my head.

---

Er.. well in that case, physics ain't your thing. it would be better to stick to philosophy.

Hi Ashes,I don't want to answer your ideas with another book, but try "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra. It's not a physics book in the traditional sense, but combines modern thought in Relativity with Eastern Mysticism. Your ideas come across as classic Newtonian Physics. That is, there is "absolute stuff in absolute space". And that's absolutely wrong, relatively speaking.

Yes, that's the idea, but what you described not only appears uninformed by what we already know, but even shows no awareness of layman level particle phsyics. If you were building upon the base of current knowledge you would have at least mentioned some of the sub-atomic particles and quarks. For example, these particles that you mention, are they protons, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, or something completely new? If you're not inventing a new particle, then what type of particle was it? If you *are* inventing a new particle then is it still comprised of quarks, like all other matter, or is it something different?There were only two other things worth commenting on: Gravity is a property of matter. If you have matter then you also have gravity. PaulK already commented on this, but no, light does not double in intensity when reflected off a mirror. One fundamental law of our universe is that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, you can only convert back and forth between the two. Mirrors do not create energy.--Percy

percipientthe fundamental laws of physics may not be written in stone as many mey think.small variations have been found in the fine structure constant,this is the physical constant on which all others, including einstein’s own "c," (the speed of light) are built.the head of the science team that found it is dr. john k. webb of the university of new south wales.they found it by viewing the way gas clouds absorb light from quarsars and what they saw was patterns of absorption that couldn’t be explain in any other way except to say that the alpha may not be so constant after all..so these laws may not be as fixed as we think they are..just think...if this is true...everything else will fall like a house of cards..

The problem is a little more subtle than you seem to think. The fact is that there is no reason to suppose that the "spherical mirror" wil make any difference. Now your argument would mean appealing to some unknown effect that JUST HAPPENS to make the mirror do something after all - but if you are proposing that sort of thing then why not propose an unknown effect that would do the trick WITHOUT the mirror ? And if you do that then you get rid of the problems of explaining the mirror.So it is not a "your idea is absolutely impossible", it is "your idea has implausible assumptions which explain nothing".

Gravity is most certainly not a property of matter. Light is not matter, yet curves space in the same way that matter does. So it would be accurate to say gravity is a result of the geometry of matter/energy.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 02-21-2003]

Oh, good grief...Obviously (I thought) I was over-simplifying that whole first part, in order to get to my real question (which everyone then ignored because I didn't realize I was required to explain every little obvious detail.)YES, I know that gravity is a property of matter, but WHY is it a property of matter? This I do not know, and that is what I was implying by that. That’s also kind of the point... How can you know what anything is unless you break it down enough to understand each part that makes it up?If I could draw in front of you I could show you what I mean. I already have pages of "notes"... Down to what they should look like and why they are magnetic/contain gravity...Oh, but I guess you wouldn't be able to understand them because you have not studied the properties of Art...Frustrated,
ashes

WHAT ON EARTH DOES ART HAVE TO DO WITH THIS!!!!!!!