The Creation Theory My standpoint

[Laos 0]

( so noone steals my theroy dated 11/26/07 I THOUGHT THIS UP, at least i am sure i have)*religious fanatics, GO AWAY! I don't want flaming for my idea*Dunno if i heard this anywhere or parts, but this is how i believe the universe works1. Everything started and ended with a Black Hole. As the Universe Expands, its held together by a Inter-Galactic Black Hole ( The size of a galaxy) and when it begins to contract, it merely means the Inter-Galactic Black Hole has overpowered the universe2. Black Holes Keep all things together, like the Inter-Galactic Black Hole, Galactic Black Holes, hold Galaxies together, some are only strong enough to hold the galaxy together, while others suck parts of it within itself3. Everything ends and starts over from this Black HoleAs the Blackhole begins to contract the Universe, Galaxies, dust, nebulas, etc are sucked in, and because by the laws of physics, being that no matter is created or destroyed, the Matter in the galaxies/nebulas etc is compressed and is teleported like a wormhole to the end of the contracting galaxy, just to be pushed back in line,As the Universe gets smaller and smaller, literally the matter is flying in and out beyond the speed of light, this could go on for eons in our time. This phase is a lot like the Big Crunch, where everything is a massive looping black holeUntil, well, what happens when you mix hydrogen, Oxygen, and a electrical spark? A massive explosion, and water,Look at it this way, one small conversion of Bonds in the matter, a massive explosion, and the Universe once more All wiped out, ready to restart.

[salamangkero 0]

It's hardly unique, I'd say 'twas a variation of the Infinite Big Crunch Theory, where the universe alternates between expansion and contraction. Perhaps the only difference is the key role blackholes play in this... universe.

 

True, scientists have been able to detect blackholes through their effect on surrounding matter. However, it can be disputed that matter sucked into a blackhole is teleported elsewhere. For now, blackholes are not, repeat, not portals to another part of the universe, entrances to a wormhole or doors to another world/dimension.

 

However, I do think that blackholes have this ability to shred matter into its most primitive components. A heavy element, like a gold atom, for example, might have its electrons stripped and its nucleus shredded into alpha particles. These two particles of matter would then escape only through the twin outflow jets perpendicular to the blackhole's accretion disk, hence the radiation. I know it's kinda dubious, since the radiation we actually get here on earth are the EM waves and not alpha and beta particles but it's just a thought. Maybe the particles are, later on, incorporated into other stars or galaxies.

 

About mixing hydrogen, oxygen and an electric spark, I doubt oxygen atoms themselves exist per se inside a blackhole. Allow me to digress a bit. Deep in the sun's core run the process of fusion. The pressure is so great that subatomic particles exist singly. Protons themselves collide to form deuterium, then tritium and finally helium, absorbing and firing singular protons all the time. Inside a blackhole, the pressure of all the matter sucked in would be too great for electrons to remain in their orbits or for nuclei to stay intact. So I doubt it'd be like that but sure, I do concede that an explosion, in my opinion, is inevitable.

 

But see here, the books of Genesis and Revelations in the Bible say... oh, never mind. Enough of that preposterous crap

[Zues 0]

I remember somewhere that galaxies are moving away from each other, one side of the milky way faster then the other, therefore wouldn't that sugest we could figure out the direction of the explosion by reversing the direction galaxies are moving away from the center. Can't we just look there and see if a giant black hole exists.On another note, black hole jets aren't particles escaping from inside the black hole but in fact are particles carying energy from the enormously energetic particles colliding into the black hole. Also in a black hole gravity breaks down everything into quarks. Those make up protons and nucleus so you won't even have hydrogen.But there could be something galaxy size black hole likish, because right now no one can explain the amount of matter needed to hold the universe's curve near it's current mathematical level of almost 1, where less then one is the universe curving like a sphere, colapsing in the future. And above 1, the universe is like a saddle, expanding forever.Something uneveplainable, dubbed "dark energy", is holding it at almsot 1(too close to see which way but definatly not 1). That dark energy could be anything.

[Forbez 0]

I see where your coming from. But one, its not that orginal. And two, to much about Black holes. A Blak Hole is a dead star. Although it is massive for us, it is not that big compared to rest of the universe.

[osknockout 0]

Alright, it may not be the most original theory in the world, but it makes sense.Although I have a dying question or so: how are you getting matter to go faster than the speed of light?You might be referencing tachyons, but I'm assuming you're talking about ordinary matter.Haha, reminds me of K-PAX actually.Oh, one more thing: are you considering dark matter, or do black holes constitute dark matter?

[thejestergl 0]

Although I have a dying question or so: how are you getting matter to go faster than the speed of light?

Well supposidly (what I have heard maybe someone else can explain better) is that a blackhole, if any matter is sucked in, will go faster than the speed of light. Now this can't be proven obviously, but judging by studies that scientists have made this is a theory that is pretty solid. The amount of force that a blackhole has is tremendous and uncomprehendable. The theory, as many of you say is not original, is a good one in my opinion. Constant contractions and expasions eventually causing a "big bang".

Blackholes are extremely hard to spot, and occur much farther out in space then we would normally travel, actually never travel. If I remember correctly don't they actually surround us? The pulls are also very specific, the force at which the blackhole can pull is limited to its outer boundary (I think! Not sure). So the idea of something eventually touching the boundary and bouncing back etc. etc. is believable, especially something like an atom. Good theory whether orginal or not.

[JeremyServ 0]

I love how you bash religion immediately. As if because someone believes in God they must be nuts right off the bat.

 

Doesn't really matter what you believe about God, Creation, or anything else for that matter if when it comes down to facing destiny you realize you've been wrong about it all. What if there is absolute truth?

 

Part of faith is believing in the face of uncertainty. Just like bravery isn't a lack of fear, but facing it. So you yourself have a religion of sorts. You believe in something you cannot KNOW. You cannot know, because despite all interpretations of evidence, we cannot know if GOD created the universe just as we cannot know random chance produced it. So you take your faith in random chance and the interpretations of evidence (Dogma and Doctrine) you've been given by certain scientists (your Priests, and you have the Religion of evolution (your church).

 

I admire your faith! I don't admire the object of your faith however. Because if you're right, you won't have to face your god or any other in any type of after-life. But if you're wrong, you just may have to face my God and wonder why He isn't your God!

 

"Seek the truth, not ideas" ~ Veritas *person*

 

Oh, and lest you think that I intended "flaming your idea" please realize that my comments are in no way critical of the underlying science and concepts you've promoted here. Can't all of this be happening more or less, and God be in absolute control of it all? Since there are billions of people in the world who do believe in a god of some sorts, that means being religious is actually normal. Just please don't "flame" what I believe?

I am very interested in scientific theory. It can be very tiring to see and hear people discount the validity of anyone's argument who speaks the word "god" in less than condescending tones. It is important to see and hear more than one side of scientific arguments. Please consider examining some of the scientific articles you can find archived at https://answersingenesis.org/. Even if you disregard some of the "fluff" of the site, check out some of their concepts of black holes, light travel, etc., and see what you think. Don't forget that there are scientists who do have different viewpoints.

 

Notice from KuBi:

Merged duplicate posts

[biscuitrat 0]

The idea of a god stems from the realization that we're very tiny insignificant things; we're not any specific milestone. We were an accident. Of course, people don't like thinking that. Look, it's fire! It must have been a spirit watching over us! OH SWEET, THE WHEEL! Stop messing with the natural forces!The creation theory has several gaps. 1) Time: The earth is not only a few thousand years old. We wouldn't have dinosaurs then. But of course, if you don't believe in radiocarbon dating, that's...peachy.2) "Necessity" for morality: Religions enforce morality, but they don't create it. Little kids learn from their parents and people around them. The pack mentality. 3) The "guardian spirit": So you think there's someone who, while playing dollhouse with the human race (and the ANIMALS and the PLANTS and the BACTERIA - we're talking quadrillions or more), can spend time with each individual person? By that theory, murderers should be struck down for even thinking of committing a crime. We wouldn't need law enforcement - we'd have a spirit watching over us, of course!I'm not an atheist, but I'm very liberal in my beliefs. What I do is what I do by myself. My gods didn't do it for me, like some people want to think. I have a religion still because I feel there's an optimism in religion, a hope, and miracles do happen that you just can't explain. But for practical reasons, no, it's not a viable source of history, science, or anything but the growth of civilizations. As if that's not significant!Evolution, on the other hand, can be backed up in numerous ways. Evolution has more than just written evidence - it had physical evidence. The theory of Pangaea is extremely strong - species on some continents are the same as species on other continents with the same climate, and an interlocking coastline? To everyone who wants to disprove evolution, please have some evidence first. Belief is not physical evidence.As for the creation of the world...there's the Law Of Conservation of Mass, so I'm guessing whirly particles from a black hole became stuck in some planet's orbit and whirled into a molten rock. Over time, life, water, everything came about. Creation can't explain that or the presence of other planets without invoking a deus ex machina (literally) to jump that hurdle for it. In essence, there is fact and then there is religion.

[adriantc 0]

Your creation theory seems possible (although I'm sure that someone has thought about it before), but still doesn't answer the big question.Your Creation Theory isn't much of a creation, but of development. It does not answer how the Universe was created, but it explains how it works. Your theory does not explain how matter came to be and there isn't any easy way out of this problem... matter didn't just appear out of nothing.I don't believe in God or in the classical creation theory (God made all things out of thin air). I do believe in evolution, I believe that humans weren't created, but evolved from something else.Science pretty much explained more or less everything until it comes to the birth of the Universe. The problem is that you can't say... "The Universe has always been there!"... Where did matter came from? We know, maybe not in detail, but at least the basics of the way the Universe works. What we don't know is how it came to be...But I'm sure that someday mankind will have enough knowledge to explain the birth of the Universe. That day may not come soon, but will surely come. 100 years ago we were only wondering what is space, what is the Universe. Knowledge, in my opinion, is just like the Universe...infinite. We will always learn, but we will never know everything!

[heavensounds 0]

There is one thing people easy forget...WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO FOR YOU IF YOU SOMEDAY UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS BEGAN AND HOW THEY ARE GOING TO END??? The thing is, that one should not think about stuff that does not lead to eternal happiness in the sense of unattachment and pure compassion! If there was a black hole or a white hole? Where is the difference? How will it help you become a better person and become less attached to this transitory material world?Best whishes

[JeremyServ 0]

biscuitrat, what makes you feel that creationists don't believe in Pangaea? Most believe that there is biblical support for that theory. Yes, perhaps a different timescale. Did you know that the majority of scientists agree in a global "noachic flood" (named after noah and the ark) that occurred on Mars? Mars has zero visible water (except in icecaps) yet could have a global flood? Yet the earth which is 75% water could not. How's this relate to Creation? You mentioned Pangaea, and most creationists theorize catastrophic tectonic forces broke it up during the flood period.

 

As for whether or not one must have either a science or religion viewpoint, that's a rather tired argument don't you think? It doesn't address the facts. evolutionaty "Scientists" and creation "scientists" have and believe in the same set of facts and evidence. It drops down to a matter of interpretation. I believe there is a scientific method known as radiocarbon dating. Does it mean that scientists cannot misinterpret their data? Did you even know that organic material dated using carbon 14 methods, also known as radiometric dating or radioisotope dating is not effective for anything over 50,000 years old? After 50,000 years, according to radioactive theory, all C14 should have decayed out of any organic samples, yet if tested the organic materials inquestion reveal the presence of C14. It's considered unreliable, because the bacteria, etc, must be contaminating it in order to produce the C14. So the methods scientists have to use are to "date" the rocks which encase, or cover etc, the organic material in question. Wouldn't you think that dating methods used on things of known ages would be reliable? When "new" rock from volcanic activity is dated, often the date that is revealed is older than the bedrock underneath it! How does this happen?

 

Oh, and yes, creationists do believe in dinosaurs (you asked how they are accounted for). Creationists believe in extinction of creatures just like anyone else. Again it is interpretation of evidence.

 

 

And in case you missed my whole point by getting angry at all that I have written above, I believe that we cannot definitively know Creation's cause, date, etc., simply because while often times both of our methods of determination are more than sheer speculation, and may follow the scientific method, they might be wrong! The point is, it comes down to who you want to believe. And it doesn't matter who you believe in the end, because it doesn't change truth. I've been trying all day to believe that my bank account has 4.6 billion dollars in my checking, but it's not there! In the end, if we are wrong about God's existence it will only matter if He does in fact truly exist! I don't want to face God and try to explain to him why I believe in evolution is true if it isn't, or that He isn't real if He is. Does that make sense?

[Matrixdudej 0]

well personally i am religious but im not here to flam so dont worry i kinda like your theory i can see it looks like alot of thought interesting really because normally i only think of the two theorys of big bang and god theories so its kinda nice to here a different theory but like i said earlier, im religious so i dont bilieve in this theory but i like the thought

[Maou_Tsaou 0]

There is one thing people easily forget...WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO FOR YOU IF YOU SOMEDAY UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS BEGAN AND HOW THEY ARE GOING TO END???
The thing is, that one should not think about stuff that does not lead to eternal happiness in the sense of unattachment and pure compassion!

If there was a black hole or a white hole? Where is the difference? How will it help you become a better person and become less attached to this transitory material world?

Best whishes

There are plenty of traditions that espouse a view that whatever this experience is, it might have something to do with "the Universe discovering itself".
Viewed in this manner such a "transitory material world" captures moments of beauty and light that are "Soully" for your experience and yours alone.
IMHO this makes this "transitory material world" striking beautiful to me.
When one questions one, I must ask "What is one?"
Why can not my contomplation of the Universe find the same destination as the contomplation of my navel?


Some thoughts.

[dre 0]

1) Time: The earth is not only a few thousand years old. We wouldn't have dinosaurs then. But of course, if you don't believe in radiocarbon dating, that's...peachy.

I've actually read a book where the information regarding carbon dating stated that it is used to date objects 35,000 years or less. I can go dig it out and tell you the name if anybody wants to know more, but this book does seem to have legitimate sources and wasn't written by psychos.

[djstarskream 1]

( so noone steals my theroy dated 11/26/07 I THOUGHT THIS UP, at least i am sure i have)
*religious fanatics, GO AWAY! I don't want flaming for m.........

ok fair enough everyone is entitled to there own theory but some being better or worse than outhers unless there is substantial evidence to support the theory
then it canot be verify in the least to say the theory stands to reason .

you contredict yourself

there is not just one galexy there is an uncountable amount of them the galexy to knolage is greatly infact unmesurably smaller than the universe the unseverse is a term used to sum up space and everything in it thus being that the universe is significantly larger than a galaxy.

black holes although proven to colaps in on itself and proven to sustaine itself with the amased amount swallowd for lack of a better word everything around them.canot sustaine a galaxy and never could because they are known to be a void in space containing nothing but more space.

now eventhogh your theory is to some length belevable i would myself test that theory of yours with a grave lack of proof wich could never be shown.
as it can ever be proven that black holes sustaine our galaxy because our galaxy is in space which is in the universe which sustaines the orch cloud if our galaxy
was to be susstaind by a black hole we could never see it as we cant see that far out.

but as i canot prove your theory to be radcle and unsubstantial nor can you prove that my theory to be true so inturn neither of us can be rite as neither of us can be wrong its up to the general public to decide.