Could the "Big Bang" have been an Enormous, if not, the ONLY star in the entire Universe, except the "Universe" didn't have anyother stars, and the BIg Bang Sun was getting old, until it exploded, forming galaxies, planets, smaller stars...And is it possible the Big band "star" (That is if it was a star) is re-forming again, and again Suck back all the gases, planets, galaxies, and regenerate the Big-Bang star and the whole cycle repeats?
2006-11-04 14:27:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
It's very possible, and has been speculated by many scientists. But the biggest negative arguement is: "Where did the first enormous star originate?"
This, however, could be the result of extremely concentrated mass, with no where to go but together.
2006-11-04 14:36:21 · answer #1 · answered by Drew 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Truthfully no one really knows what the beginning of the universe was, but in theory, it was created from the "Big Bang". The "Big Bang" is not and ENORMOUS star, but more or less a singularity of matter packed so tightly together, one can not fathom the density.
And for your other question, "And is it possible the Big band "star" (That is if it was a star) is re-forming again, and again Suck back all the gases, planets, galaxies, and regenerate the Big-Bang star and the whole cycle repeats?"
This is also another theory, if there is a "Big Bang" then there could be a "Big Crunch". This theorizes that the universe will expand until it can't expand any further, and slowly draw back into a singularity, just like the beginning. Like when you throw a ball straight up in the air. It accelerates to its highest point, then reverses and accelerates back to its starting position.
-Hope this helps :-)
2006-11-05 01:49:28 · answer #2 · answered by Aug 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, if you think one star can explode and become 100 billion galaxies with 500 billion stars in each one. Obviously one star 's worth of matter couldn't become a whole universe.
2006-11-05 00:57:21 · answer #3 · answered by Michael da Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. In the beginning, all of the mass in the universe was condensed into a small ball. It exploded outwards and that event is called the Big Bang.
2006-11-04 22:39:32 · answer #4 · answered by sleepin2703 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. A star maintains its size by a balance between nuclear fusion (heating and expanding) and gravity (heating and collapsing). This idea is not consistent with the best available information on the early universe. To be specific, a star of the size you suggest would not be stable and would collapse into a black hole allowing nothing to escape.
2006-11-04 22:41:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't be the Big Bang if it was a star because the Big Bang Theory encompased a singularity.
2006-11-05 00:22:23 · answer #6 · answered by futureastronaut1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Absolutely not. There was no hydrogen or any elements for that matter at the very beginning of the univerese, so there were no stars. Stars did not form for some few billion years.
2006-11-04 22:50:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
sure
i mean, its possible...
but there is no way to say for sure or not if it was
but it could have been
Do you see what im saying?
im not trying to dodge your question..
im just saying that the big bang in itself is something theyre not sure ever happened
it couldve definitely been an enormous star...
it couldve definitely been an enormous star...
you could say it was..
because no one knows
Sorry that this is all i can say but what is there to say to such an open question?
2006-11-04 23:30:47 · answer #8 · answered by C.J. W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean, like, BIGGER than Tom Cruise?
I'm sorry, I don't think I understood the question
2006-11-04 22:38:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋