You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

My Theory's on The Big bang (and gravity)

These theorys are....
 0%  [ 0 ]
 0%  [ 0 ]
Most Probably
 0%  [ 0 ]
Not Probable
 0%  [ 0 ]
 0%  [ 0 ]
 100%  [ 2 ]
Big Bang - Likely, Gravity - Not
 0%  [ 0 ]
Big Bang - Not, Gravity - Likely
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 2

Hey well here's my theory approximately 13.75 billion years ago when the big bang happened what it actually was, not actually a heap of energy as thought to be by 99% of the scientists but it was an atom with every nuclei and electron in the universe that's existent now (almost like a neutron star). well what i think may have happened is that like many of the larger atoms of today's time (e.g. einsteinium) they are too unstable to stay in one point and disintegrate <- but of course the electrons and nuclei have to go somewhere, well in the "large" atoms we have now, they just dissipate into the cracks and holes between the smaller atoms when they disintegrate.

now say what i have said is true every electron, proton & neutron compacted into one massive atom not only would it have a MASS amount of gravity (which will push me onto my theory on gravity later) then as it disintegrates the electrons, protons & neutrons are running around like crazy lunatics then collide with each other creating the very first atoms which as everyone knows was (mightn't have been but 99% possible) Hydrogen. who knows the first atom could have been "Anti-Matter" in which if it was Anti-Matter hydrogen then technically we are anti-matter and what we call anti-matter is actually matter. (blah blah blah) for all anti-matter is is when the electrons are acting as protons and the protons are acting as electrons. with the disintegration of "super-Atom" the protons & electrons would have been free going out their random ways and been able to team up with what ever that wanted.

okay now my theory on gravity is not nearly as long and probably boring as my theory on the big bang.
my theory is that their is no graviton partial but all gravity is, is as simple as, atoms are attracted to each other. so when you have something that's larger there is more gravity because their is more atoms drawing in the other atoms of the other object in. simple as that.
It is an interesting theory but there are some major problems with it.
If we move back to just after the Big Bang then the energy density is such that no atoms actually existed. What we had was a plasma (mainly hydrogen ions). At such extreme energies no nucleus could 'hold on' to electrons and what you get is a quark-gluon 'soup'.

The problem with the 'electrostatic' theory of gravity is that we know the mechanisms by which atomic particles attract each other. The attraction produced by charge (say between an electron and a proton) is much larger (about 40 orders of magnitude) than the gravitational attraction between the two. If you want to posit that gravity is a result of this then you have major problems explaining why gravitational attraction is so tiny...
Gagnar The Unruly
Bikerman wrote:
If you want to posit that gravity is a result of this then you have major problems explaining why gravitational attraction is so tiny...

And also that it operates over such large distances.
Related topics
Gravity waves? Big Bang?
WILL universe ever end?
The big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory: didn't happen!
The Universe Big Bang is wrong
The Big Bang - an introduction
The big bang theory season 5
Did the Big Bang just happen or did God make it happen?
Can you be psychic?
what happened before the big bang?
Atheist Big Bang. Quick question for Atheists.
Why did God create humans?
'Before' the Big Bang
science vs. religion
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.