Hi , Im new here, and would appreciate any comments about this . If it doesnt get slagged off totally as rubbish , I'll add the simplifications to the theory .
I'm not a physicist , nor a mathematician , merely a humble chem eng guy ...
Yes , Im aware that current theories state that time was zero befor e big bang and before that was just quantum gravity
As no-one was there , maybe it wasn't ?
Premise : nature is primarily simple , but complicates things remarkably quickly .
Premise : [ ignoring the blane and any other ideas ?] where did all the mass of the universe come from ?
Assumptions: the Universe started , and that mass/energy cannot be destroyed or created .
Ergo , the mass of the universe has to be zero at present from the above assumptions .
There must thus be an equal amount of negative mass in the Universe . With negative gravity [ to please another poster]
Thus there must be a maelstrom of creation/destruction of the equal and oposite particles . [ I know quanatum mechanics states this also - I found out when I started to look for what other guys had found/postulated]
If there exists a stable geometry when a particle is formed , the other quantum particles flying off , we have a mechanism to create matter/antimatter .
From gravity , with time , these will come together a long way apart , and form very large chunks and be drawn towards each other and finally create Big Bang when they collide ...
The centre of the Universe is a huge White hole [ full of antimatter] forced there from the initial explosion outwards forcing stuff inwards .
The universe will be lumpy [ its an explosion after all even if its the biggest collision ever ] .
There's probably more than 1 Universe .... Outside it is a negative one ....
The nett mass of the Universe is still zero , but 'normal' mass of the Universe is growing .
If that's all possible ,then I'll simplify my assumptions for part II