Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Paul Gamble on 11/09/2016 11:07:40
-
I have always asked this question and never thought it to be true. For one my logic tells me one of the two statements would have to be correct. Either the universe is expanding at infinity any units of measurement per second because any unit at infinity per sec is infinity.
Or the next which would almost seem too good to be true for someone like me trying to prove it is not infinite. If it is expanding any slower than the above statement, how could it be infinite if an infinite amount of time has not passed yet. It is much easier for me to believe the first statement then second statement and I am truly stuck in this paradox.
I have some mathematics that would seem to prove this in a way. Because when I initially wrote my paper, I was trying to prove we could travel faster than the speed of light and that the universe couldn't be infinite if nothing could go faster than that. So I just decided for the fun of it to assume the true speed limit was the speed of light squared and the universe has expanded by that speed for it entire life of 14 billion years. I am going to copy and paste these numbers real quick because I was able to do the calculation.
8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2 x 14,000,000,000 years
Distance equals speed multiplied by time. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year roughly. I do not have the math skills to calculate what this equation means. Basically you would have to multiply 31 million by 14 billion to figure out how many seconds and then calculate that it has expanded at a rate of 287 million times 287 million miles per second every second of that 14 billion years. Anyway with this calculation we may be able to guess about how big the universe is. Every second it gets bigger though.
Figure 2
357,481,460,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles
Figure 3
3843886666666666666666666666.6666666666666667 astronomical units
These are the calculations I drew, a mind boggling calculation of 357,381,360 miles x 10 to the twenty seventh power. To get the second figure I converted the first figure into astronomical units, 1 astronomical unit is 93 million miles. Of course upon further speculation the actual length would be hard to calculate because there are still unanswered questions remaining.
Figure 4
7687773333333333333333333333.3333333333333334 astronomical units
Conclusion
What was the initial size? Did it expand faster at first with the initial blast? Or did it accelerate afterwards reminiscent to an aftershock and then slow down? All valid points one might add into consideration of such a calculation. Figure 4 is more guess work, but I’m thinking now that the initial explosion and expansion could equal the sum of its 14 billion year expansion so I simply multiplied figure 3 times two. Still not infinite but definitely gigantic, I read somewhere that it is expanding by like 93 miles a second due to something called dark energy. Definitely a lot slower than I am theorizing
One way to dismiss this slower calculation or account for it in my theory is only the space directly behind where it has just expanded would you be able to detect the actual speed. Dark energy very well could be adding to the expansion also. I think in order to get the reading of speed of light squared we would first need to invent more precise instruments that could detect the “Edge” of the universe.
I believe that it is expanding like a sphere in three dimensional space time and that it would be possible for the space that has already expanded to expand further more by something like dark energy. Only at the edge of creation would you be able to detect the true speed of expansion. You would have to have something like a warp drive to detect the edge of the expansion. I believe that around this edge you would be able to detect the true speed but since the space time they tested is no longer expanding at that rate they got the reading they got. It’s hard to wrap your head around but that surging expansion and aftershock has already passed this part of space time, rendering it undetectable. Conclusion
There is a lot of guess work that goes into theorizing things such as this. I know it is hard to say what a singularity is comprised of but this “raw” matter is a mysterious form of matter that has the theoretic properties of keeping anti-matter from touching regular matter and dark matter. Is there possibly anti-dark matter? This paper seems to lead to more questions than answers as do most things scientifically speaking. Is the universe really infinite?
Has it expanded slower than that rate of speed making it smaller than the above figures? Or did it expand faster than that rate making it even bigger than my calculations? Was the initial size really smaller than a grain of sand? If so I think I think this needs to be researched more so I will continue my own independent research. I think the only argument could be that this is not how a singularity is. I feel the arithmetic for calculating the above figures are correct. I just hope someone says the universe can’t expand faster than the speed of light. So I can tell them that would almost mean the universe was not infinite
One way to sum up my theory on expansion, think in your head if you will a magic rubber ball that no matter how much air you pump into it the ball it will keep getting bigger and not explode. Say we pump enough air into it that the ball is the size of the moon. Since it is expanding like a sphere if we keep pumping and make it bigger the 360 degree surface area of the ball where you touch it and hold on to it will also get bigger and bigger as we pump it thus making the surface area and “Edges” of the ball bigger and bigger and more farther apart the more air we put into the ball.
Now imagine if we did this on an what they would call an “infinite” scale, now the surface area is so big that it can contain all of creation, but all the sides of the ball are as far away from the center of the ball as they can be, same thing with the other sides of the ball, relative to each other, they are as far away from each other as they can be. This is one way I think of “Universal Expansion”
Another revision to my Chapter 1 conclusion, we do know for sure an infinite amount of time has not yet passed. This Idea, when it came to me it was beautiful; I realized I had done it. No matter how fast the universe is expanding, until an infinite amount of time has passed there is no possible way it could be infinite at this point in time, unless it is expanding at infinity miles per second, or I guess infinity any type of unit of measurement per second.
Is it real? Am I really this close to proving it is not infinite? I just have to prove that you can’t expand a universe faster than infinity units per second?
Doesn’t everyone believe that anyway already besides me? How has no one ever been able to explain that with words, and with just basic knowledge of science that I learned in the public school system and watching a lot of science stuff, and reading lots of science stuff? I realize this to me is more of a philosophical paper than it is a scientific one, but I wish someone would send this to the write person I do not know who to send it to.
I am so conflicted because I don't think anything can go faster than the speed of light squared, and I don't think an infinite amount of time has passed. It would seem more like that the infinite amount of time passing statement would be the false, but I can't believe the other statement either, but for now I choose to believe an infinite amount of time hasn't passed yet.
Thoughts anyone?
-
1. The speed of light squared is the amount of energy you get when you push two sub-atomic particles together. That's how the sun makes its light and energy. The sub-atomic particles are spinning at the speed of light and they create 2 neutrons, plus heat and light as a bi-product.
2. The universe has no other option but to be infinite.
-
I don't think anything can go faster than the speed of light squared
"Faster" implies a velocity. The units of velocity are meters per second.
- "The speed of light" is a velocity, with units of meters per second.
- "The speed of light squared" has units meters2 per second2. It is not a velocity.
- So deciding if something is "faster than the speed of light squared" does not make sense - it is like comparing apples and oranges.
I don't think an infinite amount of time has passed
In 1927, Edwin Hubble found that the farther away in space you look, the faster objects are traveling away from us.
If you consider this to be a movie, and run it backwards, in the past things get closer and closer together, until at some finite time in the past, everything was incredibly close together - perhaps a single point.
Using modern measurements from space telescopes, this finite age is thought to be around 14 billion years.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
the universe is expanding at infinity [any units of measurement] per second
Astronomers disagree.
By current measures, the universe is expanding at around (70 km/sec) per megaparsec, with a likely range of 64-76.
The fact that we can see very distant galaxies shows that the rate of expansion of the universe is less than infinite. It is thought that some galaxies may be traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light, and so are invisible to us.
It is hoped that the upcoming James Webb Space telescope will allow us to peer farther back at galaxies that have been red-shifted into the infra-red.
-
- "The speed of light squared" has units meters2 per second2. It is not a velocity.
Can you explain how the speed of light squared is not a velocity?
If it is not a velocity, then what is it then?
-
- "The speed of light squared" has units meters2 per second2. It is not a velocity.
Can you explain how the speed of light squared is not a velocity?
If it is not a velocity, then what is it then?
If you think in terms of distance a length is defined in metres. An area is defined in metres squared. An area is not a length. It is two dimensional rather than one. So in terms of velocity c squared has the wrong dimensions. I hope this helps.
-
You can't square time. Velocity is displacement over time. Not just distance by itself. Therein lies the stupidity of Einstein's so called equation E =MC squared.
-
You can't square time. Velocity is displacement over time. Not just distance by itself. Therein lies the stupidity of Einstein's so called equation E =MC squared.
Of course you can square time.
Acceleration has units containing time squared.
If you want to continue posting in the main sections of this forum you need to learn some basic science.
-
You can't square time. Velocity is displacement over time. Not just distance by itself. Therein lies the stupidity of Einstein's so called equation E =MC squared.
Of course you can square time.
Acceleration has units containing time squared.
If you want to continue posting in the main sections of this forum you need to learn some basic science.
To square something means to turn it from a straight line into a square with 4 sides and then to measure the area inside the square. Time is just an intellectual device to measure spin rotations of clocks, sun's and planets. The two items are totally incompatible and can't be united into a single unit of anything. Therein lies the stupidity of every scientist and physicist who has ever entertained the concept of squaring the speed of light.
There is a distinct difference between mathematics and physics. Maybe you can square time mathematically if you treat time as a number but not when you add energy and mass to it.
So, what does the speed of light mean anyway? How can you convert the speed of light into matter and energy? Answer - you can't. Unless you are one of the many brain washed nincompoops that have recently graduated from a university where believing such nonsense is a forced prerequisite in becoming a confirmed member of the secret society of science morons. I hope I never become a member! lol!
-
The light coming from the most distant galaxies is not real time light. It reflects what these distant galaxies were doing billions of years ago. We don't have any hard evidence for what they are doing today. What they are doing today will not reach us for billions of years. If we assume a galaxy is 10 billion light years away, by its light, this light tells us what the galaxy did 10 billion years ago, not today.By the red shift it was going very fast 10 billion years ago.
If we think of BB and the distant galaxies, in terms of time, instead of speed (which can ignore time sequence) one would conclude that galaxies moved the fastest, the farther back in to time we go. The data we have in time, suggests a big boom; a long time ago, and then a slow down; more recent time. There appears to be a mistake in terms of transposing time; past=present, due to speed.
As an analogy, say we have a photo journal of a child growing up; His name is Galaxy. At the end of the book, are his most recent pictures as a young man. While at the beginning of the book are his baby pictures and his ultrasound pictures. As we flip the pages from back to front; present to the past, we notice him shrinking. The evolution of telescopes has resulted in us having to look at the photo book of the universe, from back to front, but not all at once; slowly going further and further toward the first pages in their book of Galaxy.
If we assume a big boom, like any bomb, the matter moves faster the closer we are to t=0. If we make a film of the boom, from boom time to the present when the debris is settling, but we can only play it backwards by evolving better rewind tools, we may forget the proper sequence of time and assume the boom came last.
What confuses the issue is as we go back into time, we are surrounded by distant light on all sides and not from a common center as would be assumed by the big bang. What we may have forgotten is light will bend due to gravity, with the most bending done at the beginning of the universe when density was highest. Below is light bending.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2Fd7xYp.jpg&hash=0fa14619638fdafef55832ced0884f0f)
-
The speed of light squared is the amount of energy you get when you push two sub-atomic particles together. That's how the sun makes its light and energy.
It seems that you are talking about Einstein's iconic E=MC2.
Interestingly, it's not the mass of the starting particles that represents this energy, or the mass of the ending particles, but the difference between these figures (the "missing mass") that represent the energy released.
The sub-atomic particles ...create 2 neutrons, plus heat and light as a bi-product.
The atomic reaction* with the greatest "missing mass" is to take 4 Hydrogen atoms (ie 4 protons + 4 electrons) to produce 1 Helium atom (ie 2 protons + 2 neutrons + 2 electrons) plus some neutrinos and gamma rays (representing about 0.1% missing mass).
Some variant of this reaction is what heats the Sun, and powers Hydrogen bombs.
Neutrons by themselves are unstable, and decay in about 12 minutes. It requires a proton to stabilize the neutron.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
* I mean reactions with matter; if you allow reactions with antimatter, you could in theory have 100% missing mass. That's why antimatter was so popular on Star Trek.
-
To reiterate Evan's post see the first two answers here on the missing mass.
https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48l6x7/why_c_squared/ (https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48l6x7/why_c_squared/)
-
The speed of light squared is the amount of energy you get when you push two sub-atomic particles together. That's how the sun makes its light and energy.
It seems that you are talking about Einstein's iconic E=MC2.
Interestingly, it's not the mass of the starting particles that represents this energy, or the mass of the ending particles, but the difference between these figures (the "missing mass") that represent the energy released.
Modern physics is just a magicians trick of disappearing mass and magic formulas which cover over areas which are unknown. Mass is only present when you have a neutron which creates an attraction which we call 'gravity'. Thus, If mass disappears, it is only because the neutrons have been divided or they have lost their orbiting protons and electrons.
The sub-atomic particles ...create 2 neutrons, plus heat and light as a bi-product.
The atomic reaction* with the greatest "missing mass" is to take 4 Hydrogen atoms (ie 4 protons + 4 electrons) to produce 1 Helium atom (ie 2 protons + 2 neutrons + 2 electrons) plus some neutrinos and gamma rays (representing about 0.1% missing mass).
Hydrogen is the first element that the sun creates. Thus, some isotopes which don't have a neutron could be said to be only half-matter. This is why hydrogen is so light. It only has half spin and is in the process of becoming a full atom.
Some variant of this reaction is what heats the Sun, and powers Hydrogen bombs.
Neutrons by themselves are unstable, and decay in about 12 minutes. It requires a proton to stabilize the neutron.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
The sun is primarily powered by unattached protons and electrons. In their unattached state, they are not detectable in our dimension. The sun's gravity pushes them together and creates light and heat, plus neutrons. This is the beginning of the first rudimentary form of matter. (hydrogen) This is why hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
-
To square something means to turn it from a straight line into a square with 4 sides and then to measure the area inside the square.
It is if your thinking is limited to primary school maths. However, most people have moved on and can use concepts like acceleration and kinetic energy, both of which require an understanding of the reality of using time squared.
PS Your language and tone are more troll like than seeker of truth. Please comply with forum acceptable usage policy if you wish to remain a participant.
-
You can't square time. Velocity is displacement over time. Not just distance by itself. Therein lies the stupidity of Einstein's so called equation E =MC squared.
If you studied basic high-school physics, you would be aware that the units of Energy are Mass times Velocity2.
You learned it in the form of kinetic energy: E=1/2 mv2
So if you have a proton in the LHC, it's velocity is almost the speed of light (c), so you could say it's kinetic energy is effectively E=1/2 mc2, so basic high-school physics can get you half way to Einstein's iconic formula.
What Einstein showed is that if you slow down an object to stationary (zero kinetic energy), it still represents an enormous amount of energy, which is demonstrated in antimatter annihilation.
When Einstein added up all the components of energy (including kinetic energy), he arrived at E=mc2
What they didn't mention in basic physics is that m is the relativistic mass, and it isn't a constant - although that's not really noticeable until the object is traveling at close to the speed of light.
It's a brave man who would call Einstein's work "stupid" (unless you are Einstein - he felt that about his gravitational constant, which now appears not so stupid, after all!).
-
If you studied basic high-school physics, you would be aware that the units of Energy are Mass times Velocity2.
You leaned it in the form of kinetic energy: E=1/2 mv2
What they didn't mention in basic physics is that m is the relativistic mass, and it isn't a constant - although that's not really noticeable until the object is traveling at close to the speed of light.
So if you have a proton in the LHC, it's velocity is almost the speed of light (c), so you could say it's kinetic energy is effectively E=1/2 mc2, so basic high-school physics can get you half way to Einstein's iconic formula.
What Einstein showed is that if you slow down an object to stationary, it still represents an enormous amount of energy, which is demonstrated in antimatter annihilation.
When Einstein added up all the components of energy (including kinetic energy), he arrived at E=mc2
It's a brave man who would call Einstein's work "stupid" (unless you are Einstein - he felt that about his gravitational constant, which now appears not so stupid, after all!).
To see the stupidity of E=MC squared, just use both kilometres per hour and miles per hour in your calculations and you will get two different answers for the same equation.
The speed of light 1,079,252,848.8 kph or 670,616,629.3844 mph Thus, energy can have two different values depending on whether you use either kilometres per hour or miles per hour. Therein lies the stupidity of E= MC squared!
-
To see the stupidity of E=MC squared, just use both kilometres per hour and miles per hour in your calculations and you will get two different answers for the same equation.
You must always use consistent units in your calculations.
- Kilograms, miles and hours are not consistent units
- They do not give any recognizable unit of energy as the answer
- It's about as useful as measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight - possible, but not very practical!
The measurement system most used by scientists is called SI (International System, in French). It uses meters for Length, seconds for Time, kilogram for Mass and Joules for Energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
If you change the units of Length from meters to kilometers, you must change the units of Energy from Joules to MegaJoules (...if I have done the mental conversion correctly!).
If you change units to the Imperial system, using the foot for length and pound for mass (even though the pound is really a measure of weight), then you must change the unit of energy to foot-pounds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_(energy)
-
To see the stupidity of E=MC squared, just use both kilometres per hour and miles per hour in your calculations and you will get two different answers for the same equation.
You must always use consistent units in your calculations.
- Kilograms, miles and hours are not consistent units
- They do not give any recognizable unit of energy as the answer
- It's about as useful as measuring velocity in furlongs per fortnight - possible, but not very practical!
The measurement system most used by scientists is called SI (International System, in French). It uses meters for Length, seconds for Time, kilogram for Mass and Joules for Energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
If you change the units of Length from meters to kilometers, you must change the units of Energy from Joules to MegaJoules (...if I have done the mental conversion correctly!).
If you change units to the Imperial system, using the foot for length and pound for mass (even though the pound is really a measure of weight), then you must change the unit of energy to foot-pounds.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_(energy)
Well, Einstein was still wrong on many other counts.
http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html
-
wow. I did say that before that I multiplied 287 million miles per second times 287 million miles per second. I realize know what you are saying but right there is how fast I meant. I was thinking squared as in a number times itself. I am a believer in an infinite universe after all this thinking I did. It just took me a lot of time to understand. I had a clever analogy about the magic rubber ball which I think to me sums up how I imagine it expanding or what ever. It seems I have inspired debate, although, I didn't mean to offend anyone if I did, lol don't let my stupidity offend you. I have learned a lot from reading this discussion. For instance, that sometimes you have to ask questions to learn. I just wanted to see what people would think. I don't think I am Einstein or anything. Just wanted to join in a discussion. Thank you all for reading. I am more a writer than a scientist. I plan on getting a botany degree so I may post stuff in that section one day. I just wanted to see what people smarter than me thought. LOL have a good one
-
Consider infinity in the reverse, instead of how big, how small, how often can you cut whatever in half, and will there be a point you can cut it in half no more?
-
Consider infinity in the reverse, instead of how big, how small, how often can you cut whatever in half, and will there be a point you can cut it in half no more?
Logic dictates that there is no point where you can't cut something in half. Thus, the universe must be infinitely small as well as being infinitely big.
-
I was taught no light comes from the edges of the universe so we do not know how big the universe is. Many years ago they did some tests of particles that we do not detect without instruments. They found that our solar system, may as well be in the center of the universe, as far as how particles and the angles of those particles are moving through matter and our solar system.
So they left it as the universe is infinitely large. We can look at some relatively close galaxies and perhaps tell if they are moving closer together or further apart, however that would just be a tiny local event compared to the size of the universe.
Light can relay information instantaneously across the universe, once a light beam is initiated. The rays that create light are almost instantaneous, the beam of light takes time to be created though.
The theory is that at the edges of the universe no matter exists, just particles of electricity, rather far from one another. Without matter, light (particles of electricity) has no highway to travel on.
All of this was once taught in American schools mine for sure.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
Postulate 1 The universe is infinite.
So we can set d equal to the diameter of the observable universe. If we say e is the multiplier for expansion then D = d * e. So if it expands forever then D will approach infinity over an infinite time period. Therefore the universe can expand when embedded in an infinite space.
Whether or not this will happen is another matter entirely and beyond the scope of this forum.
Additional to the above. In the case of a contracting universe the function cannot be unbounded as the limit should be the Planck scale. I can't say for certain if this is actually true.
-
I have always asked this question and never thought it to be true. For one my logic tells me one of the two statements would have to be correct. Either the universe is expanding at infinity any units of measurement per second because any unit at infinity per sec is infinity.
Or the next which would almost seem too good to be true for someone like me trying to prove it is not infinite. If it is expanding any slower than the above statement, how could it be infinite if an infinite amount of time has not passed yet. It is much easier for me to believe the first statement then second statement and I am truly stuck in this paradox.
I have some mathematics that would seem to prove this in a way. Because when I initially wrote my paper, I was trying to prove we could travel faster than the speed of light and that the universe couldn't be infinite if nothing could go faster than that. So I just decided for the fun of it to assume the true speed limit was the speed of light squared and the universe has expanded by that speed for it entire life of 14 billion years. I am going to copy and paste these numbers real quick because I was able to do the calculation.
8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2 x 14,000,000,000 years
Distance equals speed multiplied by time. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year roughly. I do not have the math skills to calculate what this equation means. Basically you would have to multiply 31 million by 14 billion to figure out how many seconds and then calculate that it has expanded at a rate of 287 million times 287 million miles per second every second of that 14 billion years. Anyway with this calculation we may be able to guess about how big the universe is. Every second it gets bigger though.
Figure 2
357,481,460,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles
Figure 3
3843886666666666666666666666.6666666666666667 astronomical units
These are the calculations I drew, a mind boggling calculation of 357,381,360 miles x 10 to the twenty seventh power. To get the second figure I converted the first figure into astronomical units, 1 astronomical unit is 93 million miles. Of course upon further speculation the actual length would be hard to calculate because there are still unanswered questions remaining.
Figure 4
7687773333333333333333333333.3333333333333334 astronomical units
Conclusion
What was the initial size? Did it expand faster at first with the initial blast? Or did it accelerate afterwards reminiscent to an aftershock and then slow down? All valid points one might add into consideration of such a calculation. Figure 4 is more guess work, but I’m thinking now that the initial explosion and expansion could equal the sum of its 14 billion year expansion so I simply multiplied figure 3 times two. Still not infinite but definitely gigantic, I read somewhere that it is expanding by like 93 miles a second due to something called dark energy. Definitely a lot slower than I am theorizing
One way to dismiss this slower calculation or account for it in my theory is only the space directly behind where it has just expanded would you be able to detect the actual speed. Dark energy very well could be adding to the expansion also. I think in order to get the reading of speed of light squared we would first need to invent more precise instruments that could detect the “Edge” of the universe.
I believe that it is expanding like a sphere in three dimensional space time and that it would be possible for the space that has already expanded to expand further more by something like dark energy. Only at the edge of creation would you be able to detect the true speed of expansion. You would have to have something like a warp drive to detect the edge of the expansion. I believe that around this edge you would be able to detect the true speed but since the space time they tested is no longer expanding at that rate they got the reading they got. It’s hard to wrap your head around but that surging expansion and aftershock has already passed this part of space time, rendering it undetectable. Conclusion
There is a lot of guess work that goes into theorizing things such as this. I know it is hard to say what a singularity is comprised of but this “raw” matter is a mysterious form of matter that has the theoretic properties of keeping anti-matter from touching regular matter and dark matter. Is there possibly anti-dark matter? This paper seems to lead to more questions than answers as do most things scientifically speaking. Is the universe really infinite?
Has it expanded slower than that rate of speed making it smaller than the above figures? Or did it expand faster than that rate making it even bigger than my calculations? Was the initial size really smaller than a grain of sand? If so I think I think this needs to be researched more so I will continue my own independent research. I think the only argument could be that this is not how a singularity is. I feel the arithmetic for calculating the above figures are correct. I just hope someone says the universe can’t expand faster than the speed of light. So I can tell them that would almost mean the universe was not infinite
One way to sum up my theory on expansion, think in your head if you will a magic rubber ball that no matter how much air you pump into it the ball it will keep getting bigger and not explode. Say we pump enough air into it that the ball is the size of the moon. Since it is expanding like a sphere if we keep pumping and make it bigger the 360 degree surface area of the ball where you touch it and hold on to it will also get bigger and bigger as we pump it thus making the surface area and “Edges” of the ball bigger and bigger and more farther apart the more air we put into the ball.
Now imagine if we did this on an what they would call an “infinite” scale, now the surface area is so big that it can contain all of creation, but all the sides of the ball are as far away from the center of the ball as they can be, same thing with the other sides of the ball, relative to each other, they are as far away from each other as they can be. This is one way I think of “Universal Expansion”
Another revision to my Chapter 1 conclusion, we do know for sure an infinite amount of time has not yet passed. This Idea, when it came to me it was beautiful; I realized I had done it. No matter how fast the universe is expanding, until an infinite amount of time has passed there is no possible way it could be infinite at this point in time, unless it is expanding at infinity miles per second, or I guess infinity any type of unit of measurement per second.
Is it real? Am I really this close to proving it is not infinite? I just have to prove that you can’t expand a universe faster than infinity units per second?
Doesn’t everyone believe that anyway already besides me? How has no one ever been able to explain that with words, and with just basic knowledge of science that I learned in the public school system and watching a lot of science stuff, and reading lots of science stuff? I realize this to me is more of a philosophical paper than it is a scientific one, but I wish someone would send this to the write person I do not know who to send it to.
I am so conflicted because I don't think anything can go faster than the speed of light squared, and I don't think an infinite amount of time has passed. It would seem more like that the infinite amount of time passing statement would be the false, but I can't believe the other statement either, but for now I choose to believe an infinite amount of time hasn't passed yet.
Thoughts anyone?
Well been so long since this post. Figured I would add a few things on this name. 10^(10^(10^3*1000(10*100) = Δ
Δ2= ΔΔ
Δ=?
There is a thin line between genius and krazy....a thin white line. Math makes you krazy enough.
each delta equals 16 variables this is not how I would choose to express the syntax or math problem at all. I would like some opinions from people here on it. It goes with the original paper and I never released more than 3 pages of it. it was at one time 12 pages. I believe I know the answer and what it means for us all....but I won't tell without help from everyone here. It is something good to know but cancels out a lot of clever math. You know how people take their reputation and lifes work. If they were never wrong I could never be right. The only thing is what this truly means to me is not important. I am willing to be wrong; people like m-theory, and this doesn't prove it wrong. It only proves it incomplete. Tell me what this means to you and I will tell you what it means to me.
-
Well been so long since this post.
Possibly a thread that contains posts like:-
So, what does the speed of light mean anyway? How can you convert the speed of light into matter and energy? Answer - you can't. Unless you are one of the many brain washed nincompoops that have recently graduated from a university where believing such nonsense is a forced prerequisite in becoming a confirmed member of the secret society of science morons. I hope I never become a member! lol!
is best left to die quietly. Shame, really, because it contains come good information.
There is a distinct difference between mathematics and physics
If this were the only post by Atkhenaken I had seen, I might think I’d found a kindred spirit, but if experts link this to the above quote; I begin to understand why some of my questions remain unanswered.