IZZITME?                                                                                        ^ Click above to comment

Having been a student of physics for many years, specifically in the arena of sub atomic particles, I find the big bang theory absurd. For this event to have occurred, the sheer mass of the ‘exploding’ particle(s) would have to be so large even Galileo would have been able to look back through time and see it in his crude lens. Granted, the actions of black holes and collapsed stars can reduce the mass of matter – to an extent. But I cannot logically take the existing big bang theory at face value due to the sheer volume of matter and energy  (visible and dark) calculated to exist in this universe.

I am postulating a more realistic theory. Nearly anyone with an average intellect understands the equation E=mc2. Simply enough, the equation of energy to matter. But what if the process were reversed? The slowing down of energy perhaps through distance traveled or another effect would begin the creation of matter. At first the particles would be as small as or smaller than perhaps a muon. Over time, through accretion, particles would begin to amass, eventually creating the diversity in the universe as we witness it.

Did It Really Happen?

I seriously propose that the beginning of our world is not a particle explosion but is an ongoing, continuous, stream of energy being fed into this void from another source, perhaps a grander universe, or perhaps from the flip side of a giant black hole. The source of this energy is not the point of this speculation but fodder for additional thought.

One of the proven facts is that the universe is continuously expanding based on verification of studies of the red Doppler shift. This continuous expansion can be easily compared to the filling of a balloon with a contaminated hydrogen tank. As the hydrogen entering the balloon continues, the particles would continue to expand and the particles would forcefully move further apart from each other. The breakdown of this stream and the constant production of matter would most certainly become complicated with time to create the chaos of the universe as we see it today. This line of thought might also explain the fact of this being an expanding universe. In addition, there is no reason to believe this energy stream flows at a constant speed – it could possibly be fluctuating. Like the helium balloon which if overfilled will eventually pop, is this our universe’s destiny? Who knows?

Please think this out and reply with constructive criticism. Our universe is being constantly fed, not from a single ‘bang’ point but from a pressurized stream of energy either from a master universe, a giant dimensional black hole or perhaps some yet unimagined source. So absolutely do not buy the big bang at face value. The current belief is in egregious error. I believe Mr. Hubble’s theory will eventually be replaced with a more logical explanation. Quite frankly I’m surprised Mr Hawkins hasn’t tackled this anomoly as well.

Tell me what you think! IZZITME?

Don Holsten