solar system of universes

This Message Board is exclusively for science, not personal belief systems. Every single scientific thought or claim that is not self-evident or widely known must be backed up by observation, experiment, argumentation, or citation. A stream of wild, unjustified ideas is of no possible interest anywhere in science, although it might find an audience among science fiction readers. -|Tom|-

Some once thought the world was flat. Bruno was burned at the stake and conprinicus was made to recant. This is a theory so why don't you prove me wrong and measure this so called non-fiction like we still argue that there was never a big bang I have a place here

ryan Henningsgaard

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ryan2006</i>
<br />This is a theory<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is just a personal belief system, not a scientific theory, until you provide justification for every step that is not already self-evident or well-known. The world is full of personal belief systems, everybody has them, and no one (except maybe a close relative) has the time to critique them. Most people go through life deluding themselves in this very way.

In science, you must have a good reason for each idea, state it, then defend it against criticisms. Otherwise, your ideas seem strange and alien and don't communicate to others. You risk being judged eccentric if you don't justify and defend your ideas rationally. -|Tom|-

Ryan2006:

Replying to the email notification you get about new messages does not result in a post on this Message Board. You must login and post your messages here. Your emails go only to the webmaster, not to the person you tried to reply to.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The big bang is just a theory but people talk about it cause people like to debate it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have failed to understand what a "theory" is. The Big Bang is a scientific theory because it is based on observations, such as the redhsift of galaxies, which seem to indicate an expanding universe, and the cosmic microwave background radiation, which seems to indicate a fireball.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have a theory it is justified and hypothezized that nature follows an order.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In science, you can't just claim something is justified. You must present an argument or evidence for the claim.

There is obviously some order in nature, but mostly nature is chaotic and fractal. On what do you base your personal belief that nature follows an order? Your religion, perhaps? It is difficult to see how you might justify this claim except on blind faith. And people's personal religious beliefs that cannot be justified scientifically are of no interest here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">An electron orbits around a nucleus, the earth around the sun,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But electrons jump orbitals or escape altogether, and so do planets occasionally. There is a lot of interstellar gas and dust left over from supernova explosions. Mostly, the nebulas are pretty chaotic, as are the locations of stars within the Galaxy's spiral arms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">therefore I hypothesize that our universe orbits around a more massive energy source.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is why you were asked in another thread to define "universe". Our definition is "everything that exists". Obviously, everything that exists cannot be orbiting around something else because there is no such thing as something else.

Moreover, electrons only stay in orbit as long as they do because of the electric force. Planets stay in orbit for long periods because of gravitational force. What force might exist that could move an entire universe?

I suggest that you read and study a lot more, find out what it takes to make a theory instead of just an idea, read about the standard models and their basis, see how others develop their theories, then focus on what aspect does not seem properly justified to you. Only then will you be ready to develop a hypothesis that might work better, and be able to justify and defend it to others.

The burden to justify a hypothesis is always on you. No one else has any obligation to pay any attention to what you say. So you would be well advised to read everything you can find on the subject and be familair with all the ideas that have already been tried before formulating your own ideas and exposing them to criticism. You only get a limited number of opportunities to request the attention of others; and if you squander those opportunities with immature ideas, you will simply be ignored thereafter. -|Tom|-

The theory is simple and is based on basic observations: 1) the electron orbits around a nucleus 2) the earth rotates around the sun 3)temperature is greater on the edges of the universe and 4)our universe is expanding at an accelerated rate possibly meaning there is more mass outside our known universe. It all works like a clock a finite sphere in an infinite world of timekeeping.

ryan Henningsgaard

Ok christianity a personal belief by many correct? The book of genesis we all know it. What if two parallel universes collided. My definition of a universe is wide and I am saying that yes the steady state theory could possibly allow for an electron to jump out of orbit and dissappear into another place wether that is a new universe or a new dimension

ryan Henningsgaard