So do you think what you "see" and scientists "see" is the universe?
Do you think galaxies are in the center and dark matter is surrounding it and thats it?

Well then you are wrong as well as all the scientists around the world.


Ill tell you whats up:

In the center of every single blackhole theres a singularity which IMPLODES collapsing the blackhole which causes what? A BIGBANG.
This event literally pushes all the matter surrounding it away as the explosion increases its radius and all the matter is released.
Like a fountain of air in the center of a balloon.

The universe expands and will keep expanding as long as blackholes collapse (which will be forever because when they explode reaching the end of their lives they form galaxies with many stars which will be blackholes when they die)
The big bang (our "universe" bigbang) was just 1 singularity exploding.

Blackholes attract and suck up everything through the force of gravity due to their mass, they suck up other smaller blackholes too creating one big massive blackhole until it collapses and starts this process.

The universe is much much much bigger than what we call universe now.
The dark matter (as we call it) is just the space between singularity which imploded causing the collapse of the blackhole (which is what we call "our" bigbang) and others.

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Jan 15 2013 10:31am

while on a topic of postulated 'no-science' thread, i'll toss out my theory of universe colonization.

what if, we genetically engineered 'space-spores' and attached them to comets or meteors? All we would need is a spore which can survive in outer space, and the genetic engineering to implant a single cell of whatever dna (perhaps something more resilient than human dna?) onto a piece of space debris. it wouldn't be fast enough for us to profit off of, and that's why we may never do it.

soo...when did the implosion become an explosion?

You should go to the blog section and make a blog titled "Pseudoscience"

this isn't scientific. You didn't use the method. You base this on nothing. You're just guessing in the dark because well the pieces fit together nicely. The big bang starts at a singularity...A black hole ends at a singularity...Convenient! they're the same thing.

And for what it's worth since you're educated to the point where you know everything in science and therefore can dismiss all scientific claims as wrong, a physicist has published a paper detailing the idea that singularities in black holes contribute to universes amongst a multiverse.

What?? This is theophysics .. you dont even have to call it anything, thats what science is, from a theory comes testing, from testing results, from results there you got the conclusion and validity of the theory which becomes "law" after being proven right.

So please if you got ANYTHING at all to contradict it, or have ANYTHING at all to add to the equation or wanna share your input, please Id appreciate it.
But if all you got to say is "omfg wowow this is not science wowow sources?? no sources? ahaha so its not true" .. use the backdoor and leave.

Because Im not a physicist as you wanna call I cant come up with this idea.
But the other guy who is a physicist and came up with the same idea makes the idea valid?

So his idea (which is the same as mine) is valid and worth a read, but my idea doesnt because Im not a physicist.

fuckin el oh el

Guessing is the beginning of everything that you know.

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Jan 15 2013 02:19pm

Oops, that was my bad.. I had written an extensive text about this in some other forums and decided to shorten it out for d2jsp.
I meant the stars implode which forms a blackhole. Singularity is the center of a blackhole which explodes blowing away all the "concentrated" matter it has been accumulating over time.
A blackhole is the field of no return around the singularity (kind of like an atom and its core)

does not fit observation or theory
does not fit observation or theory
does not fit observation or theory

Do you have anything to say about my theory or are you just gonna tell me your definition of what a theory is?
I didnt know this thread had the title "The definition of theory".

The fact that your hypothesis does match the current well established mathematical theory is not a problem in of itself (current theories might be wrong, in fact they probably are wrong, but currently they do a very nice job of fitting observation). The real problem is your hypothesis don't match observation.

To paraphrase Feynman: "If your hypothesis disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

I tend not to believe people who claim to know better than thousands and thousands of educated people who've spent lifetimes researching these things.