« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: What is Twistor Theory? | Roger Penrose AND What came before Big Bang? Why he changed his mind. 

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (1)
Mon, 09 Jun 25 2:44 AM | 14 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 09408 of 09425
(This msg. is a reply to 09407 by Fiz)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

fizzy:

Re: “Where, exactly, did the "SUPER massive black hole" come from? ”
Forgive me for responding - I know your question was directed to Zimbler - but I'm weak! I think the answer lies in one of the better known but now discounted theories of how the Universe will end called "The Big Crunch." In The Big Crunch scenario, there is enough matter in the universe's "center" for it to pull the universe back together, undoing the Big Bang. Taking the Big Crunch a bit further, as I think Zimbler has, when the matter and energy from the Big Bang has been re-collected, it can then explode again.

This isn't terribly different from Penrose's idea, imo, except that Penrose's theory has no need for everything to be gathered. He thinks that when everything is sufficiently spread apart, matter evaporates and the universe's state is identical to its state prior to the Big Bang.

I have to admit that it's simpler than the Big Crunch, and it is more compatible with newer calculations and observations showing that the universe will never fall back upon itself. Not because of its mass/gravity, anyway.






- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: What is Twistor Theory? | Roger Penrose AND What came before Big Bang? Why he changed his mind.
By: Fiz
in GRITZ
Mon, 09 Jun 25 2:16 AM
Msg. 09407 of 09425

Zim: "That a SUPER massive black hole ate one too many galaxies . . and blew up giving we pathetic humans the illusion that a 'Big Bang' created ALL the Universe."

Where, exactly, did the "SUPER massive black hole" come from? I'm sure you were already aware of the weakness in your logic, but I am curious as to what you will say.

What I always fall back on is that everything depends on there being a rational explanation for why the square root of -1 (which started as an "imaginary" number where imaginary meant "it doesn't really exist" , kind of like God), turns out to be more foundational than the number 1, itself.


« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next