The universe is as a balloon once it grows to big it burst.
Therefore, when the universe grows too big it will explode, so there is the big bang. The big bang is the end of the universe and also the beginning.
All forms of life, because the universe is alive, only have a certain amount of growth, such as an ant colony or a rabbit warren. Once it grows too big, it has to self-destruct.
I hope that makes sence, it does in my head.
2007-06-12 06:58:30 · 17 answers · asked by ... 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I am talking about an explosion of space.
2007-06-12 07:05:41 · update #1
I also mean that it collapses in on itself, not like bang there it goes.
2007-06-12 07:08:19 · update #2
The air inside tha balloon is dark energy.
2007-06-12 08:09:33 · update #3
That's not true, because they can simulate a "big bang" in linear acellerators where matter and antimatter is created for a few seconds before it anhilates itself by smashing light particles travelling in opposite directions into each other. If this were true than it wouldn't be possible for us to emulate a big bang in this fashion.
A more suitable explanation would be that eventually the gravitational pull from the center of the universe slows the spreading of the universe down to the point to where everything starts to come back to the center. As it all begins coming back to center it gains velocity to the point that its travelling back to the center of the universe at the speed of light. When it collides it re-explodes back into a new universe.
2007-06-12 07:08:17 · answer #1 · answered by Jason S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's been put forward before as the "Big Rip."
Some problems with it.... once it grows too large it will explode in a BB? We've already placed the BB way back at the time the universe was at zero size - a singularity.
Also, what would it mean for it to explode? Are you imagining some region inside of it analagous to the air inside that balloon? What is that air, and what pressure does it exert on our universe?
Universes don't necessarily have to follow the same rules of life cycles that living things do. A student once asked me "does the nucleus of an atom have a nucleolus?" because the nucleus of a cell does. She was trying to use what she observed in one case in another case, which works sometimes (when the cases are directly related), but doesn't always have to.
You see, until we come to understand what is actually driving the expansion of the universe, all of that is just conjecture. Life forms may be limited by physical rules as far as how big or old they can get, but they die all the time. We have seen no evidence, as of yet, that universes can end at all. Perhaps they can, but we have no evidence pointing to that, and furthermore, it's hard to conceive of how we'd ever get any evidence like that.
Remember that theories are sets of related inferences, meant to explain observations. So, first we have to make some of those observations.
2007-06-12 14:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Seems logical, but i wouldnt side with it, it doesnt have to just blow up when it gets big but there is instability in everything as far as time goes. Just as radioactive isotopes have halflives so does everything else from stars to atoms to electrons to even quarks, they all after a certain time will expire. So you could argue the universal is unstable to a degree but i dont like the idea of just exploding because you've got to wonder where all that extra energy comes from? They had to come up with anti matter to explain why the universe is not shrinking.
2007-06-12 14:05:07 · answer #3 · answered by Flash 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your "theory" is trivially falsified by observation. The Big Bang was not an explosion *in* space, it was an explosion *of* space. All four(pi) steadians exactly point at the Big Bang. Every point in the universe is at its exact center.
Why don't you begin by learning some non-Euclidean geometry pertinent to the observed shape of reality?
2007-06-12 14:04:07 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Al 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That depends on which of 2 or three models of the universe
is ultimately the correct one in cosmology . Right now the evidence appears to support the inflationary universe model
but it is inconclusive .
2007-06-12 14:07:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As it stands, until you can figure out a way to test your idea, it is just an hypothesis, not a theory.
Your analogy between the expansion of space and the size of physical objects is flawed as one thing has nothing to do with the other.
2007-06-12 14:14:27 · answer #6 · answered by gebobs 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How did you come up with this theory? What observations did you make that led you to this conclusion? Does your theory make any predictions which can be tested experimentally? What is your background in cosmology?
2007-06-12 14:10:12 · answer #7 · answered by Nature Boy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting!
2007-06-12 14:02:11 · answer #8 · answered by Beatlemaniac 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
wouldnt there have to be a way for more dark matter to fill the universe? and wouldnt their be increasing pressure in the universe to make it expand?
2007-06-12 15:28:52 · answer #9 · answered by TrevaThaKilla 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who's got a mouth that can blow a balloon that big?
Or is it being inflated by helium tanks? If that's the case, why don't we talk funny?
2007-06-12 14:11:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋