Guest JoshIcy Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Here's a theory I came up with today. All on my own lol...Just yeah, kinda hit me. Lets say that nothing can create everything. This would solve the answer to many of the universes answers. But you're dealing with nothing' date=' so what is nothing? "Gravity". Gravity is basically, the very thing that ties us together, akin to those simple electrical impulses that hold Matter itself into a solid state. So what would gravity have to do with all this? Easy. Super Condensed (or for lack of a better term) can create matter, and elements. Including all that we know, like... Stars? By condensing gravity, it creates its own fuel source that eventually runs out. Not by burning it up, but by loosening it up. This period is known as the Super Giant. When it runs out completely, all that pressured gravity would end up imploding on itself as the already known "White Dwarf" and "Black Hole." But this same theory can also explain the Big Bang. Where, in nothingness gravity still exists naturally; That gravity was condensed so far, it formed said event.[/quote'] Mind you, this theory itself is incomplete. But I'd love to share it with you all. (And no this is not a debate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 FYI: Gravity is a force, nothing against the theory, but its just a force(of approximately 9.81 meters per second squared, on Earth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Everything can end up tangible if you look at it with the same principle. But thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 This theory may be true...but I think scientist would have already discovered it. But maybe...... What if, before the Big Bang, a giant amount of gravity with such a high mass was concentrated in a onedimensional point? Can you imagine, if gravity forces itself? After a while (some trillion years or whatever, I dunno), the center pressure was too high, and the onedimensional gravity zone imploded. Now, there was such an unbelievable high amount of gravity in the open space. But gravity needs a relation point to hold on to. So, some Quarks, positive and negative, formed the simplest atom: Hydrogen. And the rest we already know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
「tea.leaf」 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Gravity is a force; I don't really think your pondering can debase several concurring theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes, it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Assclown Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Gravity is a force; I don't really think your pondering can debase several concurring theories. ^^ This ^^ I learnt that Gravity is a force about a few weeks ago, so, go me ^-^ Rawesome theory though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] ^^THIS^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] Nothing can produce energy, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kefka Palazzo Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] Nothing can produce energy, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. This. /thread. Physics win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] Nothing can produce energy, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, and the gravity contains potential energy. So, energy is set free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] Nothing can produce energy, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, and the gravity contains potential energy. So, energy is set free. You worded it wrong. Energy can change it's form. You said produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucalion Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Gravity is forced generated by large amounts of matter with a recordable mass. You can't say gravity is matter, or gravity would create more matter, meaning the amount of gravity/,atter would increase on an exponential scale, causing the universe to collapse under its own gravitational pull. Ie, what you just posted makes no sense. I'd like to point out that the Law of Conservation of Energy is technically not absolute, you can in fact create new energy at a zero-point field, which is necessary for the expansion of the universe. Quantum physics ignores most laws though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes' date=' it's a force. Forces can produce energy, potential and kinetic. And there it goes.[/quote'] Nothing can produce energy, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Yes, and the gravity contains potential energy. So, energy is set free. You worded it wrong. Energy can change it's form. You said produce. yeah, my bad. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilhorus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I expected yet another ridiculous poem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 this is a giant exception...:/there are only 3 topics:-poetry-God/Big Bang/Religion-vacation/food/computerthats the current General section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I expected yet another ridiculous poem. Or some Physics rhyme. this is a giant exception...:/there are only 3 topics:-poetry-God/Big Bang/Religion-vacation/food/computerthats the current General section. If General includes Polls and crap, God and Big Bang would be correct. As that is all in Debates. General itself is just cluttered with poems and other misc. things. Matter must take up space and have a mass. We are dealing with a force, here. Even if we are talking about energies, that does not have a mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 And if it was all onedimensional? The whole Gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You seriously mean, 1-D? Like 2-D, 3-D? One dimension? Just lines? For some reason I cannot comprehend that. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 1-D. One expansion.Lines are twodimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raelen Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 At least he took the time to think up a theory in the first place. I wouldn't go to that trouble! I'm too lazy. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodrun Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Your direction for your sense of thought is off. Why? Because your definition of "nothing" is based off matter, on material.Which, in this one case, gravity would be nothing, because gravity has no mass, no matter, and no material to its name. But, to actually prove your theory right, you have to realize you are wrong.Because "nothing" in the case you want it to be, has to actually be "NOTHING" as in, no hope, no force, no action, no material, no anything to prove that its there.Thus proving that gravity is indeed something other than "nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Womi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 The "nothing" sure was black, right? So black, that nothing, no color and also no black could be seen, right? Because without light, there is nothing to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Sorry, Icy. Your theory isn't quite working for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.