Pros and Cons button white

Ground Zero button white

best advice button white

pointer left

My Theories
Last edited on: Monday,  September 04,   2006,  10:40 AM,  Central Daylight Savings Time

This is page 1 of My Theories.

My Theories

Monday,  March 27,  2006
,  10:06 AM,
Central Daylight Time
entry no. 0001

There Was No Big Bang!

The idea of everything in the cosmos coming from a big bang that took one trillionth of a trillionth of a second to happen sounds beyond absurd.  The idea of the universe once being the size of a child's marble to the size it is now is a flight of fantasy.

But science has held to this theory for a long long time.  The reason is,  nothing better has come to anyone's attention and so far nobody has dared challenge the big bang theory.

Do I have to be an Einstein to even question the validity of such a thing?

It's a very big thing to question.

Well,  I may not be as high as Einstein and I may not always win at chess,  but my IQ is not the issue.  Theories are just that.  I have not told you my theory yet.  All I've done is argue against the theory that the universe came from nothing and turned into everything except for a mass trillions of times more dense than matter today in a size not larger than a child's glass marble.

My theory is as follows:

By the time a planet formed to harbor intelligent life,  too many eons had passed for that intelligent life form to even begin to understand what caused it all.

The first time anyone on this world paused to ask where did it all begin that question was in and of itself limited to it's narrow point of view.  There were multiple births of stars and galaxies,  not just one simple explosion.  The idea of a big bang is a much too oversimplified version of a puff of smoke and from that came everything.  It's no question that stellar matter is in a constant state of birth and death and of fluctuation from one form of molecular dominant form like Hydrogen and Helium to all the other known elements based on their original order of creation since the theoretical big bang or beginning.

I also dispute that there ever was a singularly instantaneous beginning of the universe.
The idea of Universe is singular,  as it clumps together all that is perceptible to exist to the awareness of us humans who have evolved into thinking beings.

I believe that there have been multiple instances of creation and destruction of all things that exist in a way that suggests to me that you have everything that is here right now and it takes up a finite amount of space and that ever since the beginning of time the ratio between matter and energy has always been the same,  that is, the exact proportions.

If this were not so,  the universe would eventually cease to exit.

The so called big bang theory suggests one of two possible things,  that a power greater than the object that became the universe today was controlling what took place.  As if by the very argument in favor of God,  The grand master of all things past, present and future was in control of the very forces of nature that would expand outward in a design of God's choosing.

This is not the only theory.

There is a strong possibility that  the Universe may have been through many big bang phases!

If the Universe we live in now had not in fact expanded forever,  but expanded until it began to contract backwards into a black hole then the theory of the big bang would be a false theory but rather part of a bigger picture.

The growing outwards into the vastness of space and then reversing until all matter and energy fell in on itself until it became the size of,  just for an example,  not to be taken literally,  the  size of a child's marble,  then what would cause it to once again regain the energy to reverse backwards and then explode and expand once again?

The only way this could happen,  perhaps billions of times throughout eternity,  is that there has to be a force that is capable of perpetual sustained energy.

Back to the argument that the Universe might have a finite amount of mass and energy but that the Universe is also in a constant state of change yet at the same time,  there is no lessening of matter but only convergence and divergence of matter composition throughout time and space,  then the Universe may not have a center,  but rather parts of the Universe could have been created at times that suggest that geographical areas of the universe might have specific times of birth and central points of origin even if the bigger Universe,  the one that we can not see,  the one that is beyond our current technology to behold,  is full of island Universes that we call the Universe.

The Milky Way Galaxy is an island Universe,  but hardly a Universe.

The Universe is a singular concept that but for human intelligence lends itself to a finite shape,  that occupies a finite space and that has existed for a finite time.

The wonderful thing I like about science in it's quest for knowledge is that science does not rely on any one single person's point of view to get at the truth.  Rather it is the vast wealth of perspectives at this time on our planet and the hundreds of years of scientific information accumulated over time that lend themselves to science as a bigger picture,  not singularly absolute or overly simplistic in the way many forms of human philosophy and theology have been in the history of mankind.

The computer as it is today,  with it's microprocessors and Terabytes of storage capacity and the many organizations of a scientific nature who are probing the questions of life elsewhere in the Universe there is an unprecedented wealth of potential to get at the truth of the origin of the Universe yet,  nobody will begin to challenge Big Bang.

I challenge it because to me the Big Bang rules out the possibility of the following:

A much larger Universe than the one man thinks exists.
The possibility of multiple instances of birth and death of sub universes within the Universe as a whole.
and over simplifies things in the same way that theology says God created everything.

I however confess,  I believe this is so,  that God did create everything.

But even God knew there were rules that had to be obeyed to make this possible.

Like planting a tree,  God knew that from all things that human beings would come into either direct or indirect contact with in his long lineage of life on the planet Earth he would eventually ask the question,  Who is God?  Where did we come from?

God knew that a tree had to exist on a planet circling a star of the right design and size and age and so forth and that Earth had to have a moon and so many perfect things had to happen to make it possible to plant a tree so that it would become a forest and that many many forests would come to being from this once single seed of a particular tree.

God also knew that man would destroy much of his surroundings because of the
following reasons:
* Greed, 
* Necessity, 
* The wish to become powerful, 
* The wish to dominate his own kind and so on.

In my theory of a Universe that did not start with a big bang but rather a Universe that is both infinitely large and infinitely small,  that goes on forever both ways and that is all the home of God,  who used many parts of this Universe to create a solar system that housed a planet that enabled God to create Man and Woman so that they could replenish the Earth is very much in keeping with Creationism.

On the other hand,  the idea of the Universe being of random chance is absurd in that everything happens for a reason and if you look at the perfect flowers and realize life from the microscopic up to the size of the massive 3,000 year old Sequoia red woods you must indeed accept that before anything we know came to exist there was an intelligent form of life behind all of it. 

The argument comes to well,  If God made everything then where did God come from?
God is the intelligence within the Universe,  so that everything we accept as the
Universe,  and all that we as humans understand and accept as truth is part of God's existential thinking.

We are essentially more important than the Universe.

The Universe needs us and we need it.  There is much destruction of things by man
and there is also much creativity.  The Universe holds new born stars and there are stars about to die but in the grand scheme of everything all that is and all that will ever be is
God,  and is the Universe,  but they are not one and the same thing.

The bad thing about science is that it dispels God.  The good thing is I am not a scientist.
I am a philosopher.  I can challenge things but only in a way that supports my own
personal belief system. 

In my Universe,  the one I believe in,  the one I think everyone is living in is a good Universe,  created by God,  but  that God himself comes from a bigger Universe,  one
that is so much larger than ours that it is not only infinitely more vast but infinitely more complex.  The Universe that God exists in has to be of such a magnitude that it contains trillions to the trillionth power times the number of elements that we are aware of and
must be ever evolving to the effect that whatever happens in this Universe,  the one
we live in the one that contains billions of galaxies,  that whatever goes wrong in this Universe can be made not go go wrong in the next one as God likes things to go right
and God likes it when his creations are perfect. 

The idea of a perfect life form is perhaps as difficult to justify or prove in a world like ours.
The evolution of every species that reflects that even given a single species, 
for example man,  there are no two exact people alive on the Earth at any given time, 
not even identical twins when you get down to a molecular level,  so why is this? 
Who is perfect and who isn't?

Are we all perfect?  Living in a perfect world doing our perfect things, living our
perfect life in a perfect solar system?


My theory.  I think,  therefore I know I am thinking and my thoughts are not entirely my one,  but the thoughts of my education, my upbringing, my society, my language and my mind's eye having processed all this information over a life time.

The Universe may never be understood,  but man will because of his ego,  always keep trying to find out is there something more to learn and is it only part or all of the truth?


My Theories

Tuesday,  March 28,  2006,  12:15 PM,
Central Daylight Time
entry no. 0002

The possibility of ELE occurring several hundreds of times is an interesting theory.

The likelihood  that ELE events have occurred dozens of times is an amazing thing for me to imagine.  The probability of multiple ELE events is said to be a fact,  that is,  as far as science has been able to draw conclusions from fossil records and carbon dating and geological events over time.

If and this is a big if,  there was a  large time period that between the extinction of the dinosaur and the arrival of man then a time in which life as we know it and life as the dinosaur knew it could not survive,  neither the dinosaur nor human existed.  It had to be a time of extreme heat or of extreme cold,  a transitional period between the end of the dinosaur and the dawn of man. During this time many life forms that existed during this transition had to compete for their survival on a global level.

The possibility of there being not just one single event from which all life sprang and evolved,  but rather several points in time,  between ELE events,  that life started again and again and evolved over and over and each time with an almost entirely new group of species as the outcome and because in each possible transition between ELE there must have been profound differences between the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature both in atmosphere and deep beneath it's surface and the volcanic geography of the earth that caused the continents to split apart over billions of years  causing extreme diversity of life.

Even as much as the tilt of the Earth's axis,  the speed of the Earth's rotation,  the relative distance from the Sun,  the relationship between the Earth and the Moon and the angle of the Earth towards the sun and the distance between the Earth and the Moon and even  the impact of a massive body that added substance of an extra terrestrial nature like a comet,  there might be many such ELE extinction level events that caused long periods of time to be when life had to essentially start from the very nearly beginning stages in order to repopulate the planet and to adapt to the ever changing conditions.  Extra terrestrial bodies bring the star stuff to us.  It is the nature of all planets and stars and galaxies to evolve and to be the partial  result of collisions of bodies in space.

It comes to mind to that the Moon may have not existed around the Earth but possibly caught in the gravity of Earth when the planets were first forming, before the remaining debris became what is known as the ORT cloud.

Perhaps during one of these transitional phases of life between an ELE I entertain the idea of the possibility that there may have been two moons around the Earth and a second moon for the sake of argument,  fell into the Earth and perhaps caused the disappearance of the dinosaur then,  instead of a comet or an asteroid or a meteor.

Finally we all think in terms of simplicity.  We assume there may have been one Meteor or Comet fall into the Earth at the location South of Texas in the Yucatan Peninsula but what if there was a shower of large meteorites rather than just one single body that hit the Earth, and over a period of several days rather than in one single instant?

It is supposed that many volumes of water on the Earth today did not originate here on our beloved planet,  but came later on with the collisions of several frozen comets consistent mainly of water,  but also the building blocks for life on Earth as we know know it.   living things on a microscopic level,  that adapt to and thus offset the direction of current life to a point that makes extreme diversity of life a possibility and in just a very short time.


Life is a wonderful thing but from man's perspective life is too short. 
Does man deserve a longer life span?
Will the life expectancy of the human race increase one day?
Without any more information to go on than what we already know,
the average life span of man is around 76 years but the life span of a human can
potentially be longer.

If there was a way to hunt for and capture the death gene or the age gene in human beings maybe there would be a way to stop the aging process and therefore provide for the remote chance of making it possible for man to live long enough to travel to the stars without worrying about being dead before getting back home or worse,  finding that speed of light travel caused them to age much slower and to discover that everyone on the planet had died thousands of years ago and the only life form left was an evolved reptilian life that had advanced to having human like intelligence but not having any compassion for the returning space explorers,  the last 100 humans from the Earth,  some 50,000 years in the future?

This is pure fiction and has no real basis for truth,  but it is this force of the human mind that amazes me.  The ability to let the mind imagine impossible possibilities and not to be burdened by or compelled to be true only to scientific principles and the scientific method.

I like science,  but science doesn't think outside the box like many a writer.

If we depend on science but not religion,  then we are said to be one sided,  but I think it is the very spirit of man,  the soul of his passion for the quest of knowledge of the unknown and the mystery of what lies beyond the present day that lends itself to science,  in that passion for knowledge,  the emotional part of the human species,  led to the eventual birth of science.  The thing is,  in my estimation,  we are all in God's mind,  as thoughts become solid ideas and then take form into substance and shape and functionality and so on,  the birth of the stars,  like an emotional impulse from God gave birth to all that we know and love and expect out of life today.

I definitely believe in cause and effect but the effect can cause more causes and therefore more effects and so on and so on.

My Theories

Monday,  September 04,  2006,  10:44 AM,
Central Daylight Savings Time
entry no. 0003

Mars and Venus are the same age as us,  and the same can be said for all the planets of our solar system but they all may have formed and cooled off at different rates depending on their size and distance from the sun and the sun itself may have been hotter then than it is now.  But the thing Earth may have in common with the planets Mars and Venus is that they too may have been suitable for life.  Sometime in our own future our planet could become very uninhabitable,  so far in the near future that it would put Earth on the same plane as Mars and Venus in that once before mankind on Earth had a glimpse of the moon as a big night sun and before the dinosaur was anywhere near extinction,  when there were perhaps many more asteroids,  meteorites and such floating around in eccentric elliptical orbits about the sun,  the planets Mars and Venus may have had Earth like or nearly Earth like atmospheres and water and so forth. 

The main thing that effects the ability of life to form and develop over a long period of geologic time is water but more so the ability to produce a breathable atmosphere of oxygen-nitrogen-carbon dioxide,  instead of methane and ammonia.  Hydrochloric gas is a product of volcanic activities that bring out trillions of tons of molten substances from deep beneath the planet's crust and any time you have an overwhelming amount of volcanic activity you destroy the breathable atmosphere for tens of thousands of years or greater,  so if the planet Mars once had an Earth like atmosphere and plenty of liquid water and even a substantial variety of life forms on the surface,  all it would take to destroy this would be the impact of a large celestial body that would create a massive wave of volcanic eruptions that would send gasses up into the atmosphere and contaminate it and also cause a rapid planetary cool down.  The lack of an atmosphere on Mars compared to the heavy atmosphere on Venus of hydrochloric acid gas and other terrible substances suggests two different extinction level events that transformed perhaps,  transformed an Earth like planet into a completely uninhabitable world.  The idea I have behind the fact that Venus has a thick atmosphere suggests that instead of a wave of celestial bodies impacting the planet and sending the atmosphere  out into space,  as a result of tens of thousands of years of volatile atmospheric gases and evaporation into space due to a weakened gravity because of having it's very core compromised,  but Venus has a greater mass and also has a thick atmosphere but it is not like Earth's atmosphere.

What makes Venus' atmosphere so terrible?  Besides the fact that it is deadly and no life could ever form on such a world with such an atmosphere but there may be some rare exceptions as yet unknown to man for lack of any evidence whatsoever.  The atmosphere must have been the same as Earth's and at some time or other the atmosphere must have gotten more and more like Earth but at some time later on,  things changed.
What can take a planet like Earth and turn it into a planet like Venus over several thousands of years or perhaps sooner?  Could it be that one element or more existed on Venus in greater proportion than did Earth?  Could it be that Venus did not get as lucky as Earth in that Venus did not get hit as often as we did with huge balls of ice,  that is,  comets?  The Earth is lucky in that it became able to support life after many instances of cometary impact provided us with plenty of water.  Maybe Venus was unfortunate in that it never got the water it needed and therefore the idea that it was once like Earth is perhaps not likely?

I think there may have been a time when Venus was just like Earth,  with plenty of ice on the poles and plenty of oceans full of water.  Maybe the real reason for Venus having an atmosphere that is deadly poisonous is because some kind of life form created the environment in which this took place inadvertently or maybe there are several types of meteor impacts that can disrupt an entire planet and cause the atmosphere to change.

As with Mars,  it's atmosphere is all but gone,  so was it because of the mass of Mars?
Too little mass to contain a constant atmosphere like we have on our planet?

As with Venus,  it's atmosphere is there,  but it contains many poisonous substances.
Was this because,  unlike Mars, when the large bodies hit it and caused the inner most gasses and liquids to flow up in bursts up into it's atmosphere the atmosphere simply was transformed,  instead of diminished,  sustained with a completely new chemistry instead of vanishing and vaporizing out into space?

The water factor may be the key factor that made Earth able to survive the comets and asteroids that collided or maybe it was the order and the degree and the volume over time of over all impacts to the planets Earth,  Mars,  and Venus that had a lot to do with the ability to sustain life over millions of years?  If that is all there is  then Mars and Venus never had life,  but if they did,  maybe these three planets,  although existing at the same time,  developed at different rates and life came and went on Venus and came and went on Mars,  perhaps even naturally,  not necessarily corresponding to an Extinction Level Event.  ELE's don't have to take place during a planetary life form phase,  but can take place before or after an entire group of species has spawned,  evolved,  and finally vanished into extinction naturally and if this is possible then we on Earth may see our own future as a species coming to an end and perhaps the planet Earth itself spawning hundreds more of completely new life forms in phases of life and death over the span of the planet's life of 4 billion years. 

During that long time period,  the entire atmosphere could be changed  hundreds of times and each time a new life form takes place it would take millions of years to evolve so really,  in the vast scheme of things,  to call Mars or Venus dead planets is pretty silly don't you think?

One interesting exercise of reason would be to place a second planet,  exactly the same mass and size as the Earth is and place it on the exact opposite of the sun.
Call this planet ERT.  After all that has happened to every planet we know about in the solar system today has taken place,  what do you think are the chances that ERT would have about  or exactly the same environment and same kind of life forms on it?

Another similar exercise of thought would be to place a planet just like our Earth but place it in a different orbit,  perhaps that of Venus and call it VEN and another Earth like planet in the orbit of Mars and call it MAR and remove Venus and Mars just to see what  VEN and MAR would turn out like today. 

I bet Earth would still be the only planet with life and  an atmosphere to support life.
But,  I could be wrong,  perhaps ERT,  VEN and MAR would all have life and all be at the same exact level of technological development as we are but there are so many things that go into making  these theories even doable,  for one,  the location of Earth today is such that it is just right for life,  not too close and not too far,  and it has a companion moon that lies close enough to the planet to be seen by the unaided eye.

Would it then be necessary to produce replica moons for ERT,  VEN and MAR to get to where we are now?  Definitely all four planets would have been visited by one or more of the other planets and the concept of being alone in the universe would be completely gone by this but this goes way beyond the initial  idea that placing an Earth in the orbital path of a planet that currently has no life on it and placing an Earth in the exact orbital plane of the Earth but on the opposite end and even placing an Earth in a closer orbital plane or further away orbital plane to see just how far in or how far out from the sun an Earth like ours could have formed and develloped and supported life and what the variations of the Earth could be for exploration if the distances were too close and too far for life but not too far away to explore and still have benefitial information for space faring nations of other worlds to learn from is taking this exercise beyond the box to put it lightly.

No doubt replacing Mars and Venus with Earths and also having a second Earth on the opposite side of the Sun in the exact same orbit would change the effects of free moving comets and asteroids and meteorites and perhaps an Earth like Mars and an Earth like Venus in close proximity of our own Earth would cause gravitational forces from their greater mass to effect some changes in our own rotation speed.  Also  to have a parallel Earth on the opposite side of the sun would either double the chances of two advanced civilizations of humans or a greater probability of one of these Earths being hit more or less often from celestial bodies and nobody knows what life forms would evolve on a parallel Earth,  maybe the dinosaur would not die on the parallel Earth or maybe humans would evolve along with the dinosaur and form a civilzation based on domesticating dinosaurs and humans may even look different on the second Earth.  Maybe they would be harry people with twice the brain capacity as we have but with no idea of radio communications or computer like us.

How many planets in our solar system exists within the range from the sun to support life based soley on distance and orbit?

What separates the inner planets from the outer planets?

Why are the outer planets so darn big?
Does the sun have an influence on the thickness of our atmosphere based on our distance from it and is Jupiter so huge because 99 percent of it is pure atmosphere?

Is Jupiter 99 percent pure atmosphere?
Is Jupiter so far away that the solar winds could not blow it away?
I need to study up on Jupiter don't I ?  Any way it was fun to do this.
I was told once that our sun was a second generation star because it is made up of the elements of other different stars that collided with one another and the remaining mass that cooled down after the smoke cleared and this caused the formation of our sun along with the planets that formed from the remaining elements that floated about the sun as it cooled down after the other two stars that originally collided had died into oblivion.

It also had been suggested to me that Earth once was tilted differntly than it is today.
What would do that?  Impact from a space body large enough to tilt a planet.
That would  really cause a mass extinction would it not?

I may be wrong about this but it is an interresting thing to think about.
I have more questions than answers. One thing leads to another and another and another and so on.

More later. :)


My web site consists
of the following pages:

My Theories page 1

lookat desktop magazine pencil banner clear
lookat desktop magazine
My Theories Page 1


Get Firefox!