TsukasaZX wrote:
I do believe there has been a model posited about multiple big bangs and cyclical universes. Furthermore, I recall a once announced idea that physics may not be constant everywhere in the cosmos. Moreover, although I'm not sure if this was misnomer or actual fact, I do remember reading that red-shifted galaxies are actually moving away at an increasing rate rather than a constant or decreasing one.
My problem is not with accepting theoretical cosmologies, my problem is with stitching them together on philosophical grounds without understanding any of the physical consequences of those idea.
Quote:
I used this as a basis for my "big collision" idea. If 'C' (speed of light) is the practical particle speed limit (nothing goes faster than light)
It isn't a practical limit, it is an hard barrier which can only be approached asymptotically. This is the Lorentz factor:
It shows up in all sorts of relativistic equations, and makes sure that v != c.
Quote:
what happens when these galaxies speed up faster and faster?
They asymptotically approach c.
Quote:
What happens if something more complex than light attempts to go that fast?
It can't.
Quote:
Like a poorly designed rocket, wouldn't the stress of the velocity tear the structure apart?
No, uniform velocity isn't stressful. What would probably tear the rocket apart would be the particles ripping through it in the opposite direction.
Quote:
Ergo the big rip of matter. However, given that most all matter has mass and mass is a factor of gravity, then even if everything is ripped apart and even if the three other fundamental forces are nullified, gravity should remain.
You seem to be inappropriately conflating mass and spacetime.
Quote:
So, at this point there's at least some scientific basis, however given the fact that I'm not a physicist and never will be, I don't put my idea in a position of anything more than a hypothesis or perhaps not even that, rather just an idea.
I'll say the same thing I said to bspymaster. We shouldn't believe things because they are nice ideas, we should believe them because they reflect reality.
Quote:
On the other hand, given that we're pretty much debating over an omnipresent and omnipotent deity that we can't prove or disprove the existence of, I hardly think one silly half-baked science idea is misplaced

God's existence isn't (dis)provable. One the other hand, your idea is. My real purpose in this thread is not to try and reach some conclusion or another, but to beat the sloppy thinking out of everyone (and hopefully myself in the process).