May I Crush Your Science ?
Ok. Let’s take this to the smallest earliest point on record by all science and study.
We have a disprovable theory based on a theory that is based on a disprovable theory. Right?
And since we can not disprove these theories we call them facts. Right? Hope you do not mind me calling such “facts” theories.
In theory, some super small mass of matter, exploded and made everything. This theory says that we are constantly moving away from the center point of this explosion..cause all studies we provide, are based on a science, that is originally based on the theory that we are blowing away from a center where the explosion came from.
Question is, how long have these studies been going on? and What are we studying, and how old is this thing we are studying, and how long has it been moving.
As long as you base your answer on the original theory.
But. What if we just haven’t been studying long enough? What if we are actually revolving at a larger scale and just have not completed a full cycle within the time we have been studying? What if the circulation of one galaxy influences the circulation of other galaxies. What if the circulation of our group of galaxies is bigger than what we are currently capable of seeing? What if it is not a circular motion. What if this is another pattern, be it simi chaotic or spherical. or even a back and fourth motion.
If you have ever taken a small ball, and placed it inside of another ball, and shook the larger ball back and fourth vigorously, then you know what the smaller ball eventually begins to do. The smaller ball with in the larger ball will begin to spin around with in the larger ball. Sound familiar yet? What would happen if you had a smaller ball within the smaller ball. All logic would say the smallest ball would begin to spin the interior of the mid sized ball. I bet this even happens at zero gravity. I would like to bet this even continues for quite some time after you stop offering your motions, at zero gravity. I bet the rotation would even continue longer if the back and fourth motion had a consistent speed and trajectory.
I would like to also bet that the objects with in the original ball, begin to develop their own amount of gravity.
Sure you will get the same results if you did a rotating motion with the larger ball, but this is to show that you get the same results with an out of theory motion.
The reason for this theory I am presenting is to suggest that there might be an ebb. as if there is a matter or a mass or a refluxing gas that pulls us to the center, then pushes us away, this would continue our revolutions within each system. Let’s consider that maybe, from time to time, celestial bodies tend to fall in. This would of course be destruction. Let’s say this tends to happen much like undertow or small whirlpools we see in lakes and oceans, but based on the other theory, we call them black holes and suggest that we know their origin, without witnessing the event.
So, is the big bang a strong enough theory for us to base so much science on? Did we all start from a big bang or just an accumulation of junk?
May I Crush Your Science ?