Starship Asterisk*

The Vortex in the Creation of Galaxies

When you were a little child playing in the bathtub with your toy boats and the Drain plug was pulled, the boats would be pulled towards the vortex.

Current theory establishes parallel realities or universes. It is quite conceivable that in the process of creation That each galaxy individually entered our universe through a vortex from a parallel universe or dimension. The rotating and spiral nature of most galaxies shows this.

Science believes that space itself is expanding, I submit that this expansion is happening because of many such vortexes throughout the universe with the galaxies being carried along on this flood. This is reputedly apparent due to the red shift of their light.

Our galaxy may be carried along on this flood toward a vortex empting back into that other parallel universe thus devouring our galaxy in fire

Lewis Brackett October 11th, 2006

lewishb wrote:The Vortex in the Creation of Galaxies

When you were a little child playing in the bathtub with your toy boats and the Drain plug was pulled, the boats would be pulled towards the vortex.

Current theory establishes parallel realities or universes. It is quite conceivable that in the process of creation That each galaxy individually entered our universe through a vortex from a parallel universe or dimension. The rotating and spiral nature of most galaxies shows this.

Science believes that space itself is expanding, I submit that this expansion is happening because of many such vortexes throughout the universe with the galaxies being carried along on this flood. This is reputedly apparent due to the red shift of their light.

Our galaxy may be carried along on this flood toward a vortex empting back into that other parallel universe thus devouring our galaxy in fire

Lewis Brackett October 11th, 2006

Is this idea of yours published in any astronomical journal?

I presume this is a wind up

I am not important enough to publish anything but this makes a lot more sence to me than big bangism.....

the simplest obvious theories are sometimes the most accurate........
big bangism does not seem to be supported by the observable universe...

this is not a pitch but an observation.....

lewishb wrote:I am not important enough to publish anything

Thanks for the clarification.

but this makes a lot more sence to me than big bangism.....

So it is just your own, pet idea?

the simplest obvious theories are sometimes the most accurate........

As you no doubt know, "theory" has a particular meaning in science, quite unlike its meaning in everyday speech.

Do you mean "theory" as in a scientific theory (in the field of cosmology), or do you mean "guess", or "idea"?

If the former, where has this "simplest obvious theory" been published?

big bangism does not seem to be supported by the observable universe...

Really? What observations, specifically, do you think are 'not supported'?

this is not a pitch but an observation.....

I'm sure you will be able to back up your observation, with details ...

cosmo_uk wrote:I presume this is a wind up

Not at all.

In this thread, here in the Cafe, I noted that:

And last, once again, this is a scientific forum, devoted to discussing astronomy.

As a scientific forum, this Cafe is not the place to present, and discuss, "pet theories" - there are likely hundreds of internet discussion fora where you could do that, and even one or two where you can expect your pet theory to be examined, in detail, by folk quite knowledgeable in astronomy.

There are at least two problems with the big bang theory.....

first when you have an explosion as observed in a supernova, all the ejected material exhists as an ever expanding egg shell surrounding the explosion point...... we do not see this in our universe.......

seccondly, the galexies seem to be going in many different directions as if from many different points of origion.... so we either had many big bangs OR the galexies slipped into our reality or universe from elsewhere.....

a long time ago i read of a published theory that there are BOTH white holes and black holes.....

white holes that matter enters our reality/dimention and black holes where matter exits our reality/ dimension
.and this person did have a PHD...... I only recently had the revelation that maybe this is how it all fits together

lewishb wrote:There are at least two problems with the big bang theory.....

first when you have an explosion as observed in a supernova, all the ejected material exhists as an ever expanding egg shell surrounding the explosion point...... we do not see this in our universe.......

Indeed, we don't.

However, the mistake isn't in the cosmology concordance model, it's in the misunderstanding which "big bang" creates (and which is not helped by the huge numbers of popsci articles which describe this cosmological model as 'an explosion').

If you're interested, I could point you to some discussion threads where these misunderstandings (and others) are addressed.

Or, if you prefer, I could point you to some semi-technical websites which explain the cosmology model, as it really is.

Or, if you prefer, to websites where the full glory of the models are detailed, equation by equation.

seccondly, the galexies seem to be going in many different directions as if from many different points of origion.... so we either had many big bangs OR the galexies slipped into our reality or universe from elsewhere.....

I'm not even sure where you got this idea from ... galaxies 'going every which way' applies to only quite trivially small regions of the universe, and such motion is well understood - the motions of stars in globular clusters is a reasonable analogue.

Perhaps you could point to something you read, on the internet, on this? Then we could go over it, in terms of how it is accounted for in modern astronomy.

a long time ago i read of a published theory that there are BOTH white holes and black holes.....

white holes that matter enters our reality/dimention and black holes where matter exits our reality/ dimension
.and this person did have a PHD...... I only recently had the revelation that maybe this is how it all fits together

There's a lot of theoretical work on white holes (and even more on black holes). So far, as far as I know, there are no observations which are consistent with any white holes of any theory.

But a bigger problem is just how consistent any theory which allows white holes really is with either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics (or both). It's a fascinating topic - would you be interested in learning more?

I'm sure many people includeing myself are interested in more info on this white hole --black hole theory...... as i said its been awile since i ran across it ,, at least 10 years.....

The appearance of space-time-energy- at a single point from nowhere then this space and energy expanding at a "speed" infinately greater than lightspeed, then abruptly stopping with this newly created matter; then accumilateing into galexies does seem unlikely....... and as i said before, no center of the expansion is observable....... it is far more logical to assume many points of origion than merely one,,,, all coming from ""X""

galexies are mere specks of something in oceans of nothing

lewishb,
As there is no concrete evidence yet of anything concerning BB or Black Holes, or Origins, everything that cannot be directly prooved has to remain in the realm of theory and conjecture. Most observable data points to BB as the best current model (maybe to be confirmed, dispelled, or replaced at a later date with better observations).

If Black Holes consume visible energy and matter then it stands to reason that there must be an opposite somewhere, i.e. White Holes that would spew out non-visible energy and matter (dark energy and matter). These could possibly exist in the large voids that exist between the galactic superclusters and be the driving force for expansion.

(Or god could have had a bad case of gas after eating a bean and cheese burrito)

the assumed exhistance of white holes would remove the need for dark matter.... with every galexy created by a white hole no big bang is needed
... white holes constantly createing spacetime can move along galexies instead of only by gravity attraction--reaction.......

I must point out that as far as we can see, (back in time) galexies seem to be the same age as our own galexy, suggesting they were all created at the same time .....

lewishb wrote:the assumed exhistance of white holes would remove the need for dark matter.... with every galexy created by a white hole no big bang is needed
... white holes constantly createing spacetime can move along galexies instead of only by gravity attraction--reaction.......

I don't see how - DM is needed to explain a whole lot of astronomical observations, many of which have nothing (directly) to do with cosmology.

So is this just your guess, or do you have some maths (etc) to back it up?

I must point out that as far as we can see, (back in time) galexies seem to be the same age as our own galexy, suggesting they were all created at the same time .....

Nonsense ... the study of galaxy evolution is right at the forefront of astronomy today, and the evidence that galaxies long ago are different than the ones nearby (today) is overwhelming.

From where did you get the idea that distant galaxies seem to be the same age as our own (if you don't mind me asking)?

It seems that you have somehow picked up rather a lot of misinformation ...