Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Bogie_smiles on 06/08/2019 18:09:45
-
I have a “New Theories” submission about space, time, and energy (The Three Infinities).
Space is boundless, time is eternal, and energy is limitless. Consistent with those Infinities, the universe has always existed, and the portion that is observable to us is expanding, as evidenced by the Red Shift data. The observed Red Shift is the result of a local big bang event billions of years ago. The greater universe features recurring big bangs here and there, supporting the theory that gravity on a grand scale causes the accumulation of matter and energy into local big crunches that grow until the Crunch reaches a critical capacity, which results in a gravitational collapse/bang. Our observable expanding universe is the expanding big bang arena associated with such a collapse/bang.
-
energy is limitless.
Really?
-
I have a “New Theories” submission about space, time, and energy (The Three Infinities).
Space is boundless, time is eternal, and energy is limitless. Consistent with those Infinities, the universe has always existed, and the portion that is observable to us is expanding, as evidenced by the Red Shift data. The observed Red Shift is the result of a local big bang event billions of years ago.
The greater universe features recurring big bangs here and there, supporting the theory that gravity on a grand scale causes the accumulation of matter and energy into local big crunches that grow until the Crunch reaches a critical capacity, which results in a gravitational collapse/bang.
Our observable expanding universe is the expanding big bang arena associated with the such a collapse/bang.
I think someone already got there a few years ago. :)
The expansion of the universe between galaxies appears to be accelerating possibly headed for another inflationary phase and big bang repeating the formation of more galaxies etc. A never ending process. If you google de Sitter universe, you will get a few interesting hits, it does away with a beginning of time and nonsensical singularities. There are tons of theories already existing very loosely based on your basic idea.
-
energy is limitless.
Really?
Yes, in my theoretical rant, the boundless universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy.
I’m thinking that on a grand scale, in a universe that is homogeneous and isotropic, our observable universe is but a tiny segment of the infinite greater universe.
What we see in the small observable portion that I refer to as our expanding big bang arena, is that the galaxies are moving apart and moving away from our vantage point in all directions. But what we can see is only a part of a single expanding big bang arena which is finite within the infinite greater universe.
The theory is that the infinite greater universe is supposedly filled with a potentially infinite number of similar finite big bang arenas, some expanding, some intersecting with others, and some contracting under the influence of gravity into big crunches, which collapse/bang into new expanding arenas; it would be a perpetual process of crunch/bangs, going on all across the entire infinite universe.
My statement in the OP that energy is limitless supports that scenario in several ways:
Matter is composed of wave-particles which contain energy, and of course particles have mass. The presence of mass is sustained by a process of gravitational waves in that mass continually absorbs and emits wave energy in the form of those gravitational waves. The space between massive objects is filled with gravitational wave energy too, coming and going in all directions from the perpetual process of gravitational wave emissions from all existing mass.
That scenario makes for a limitless amount of gravitational wave energy in the infinite greater universe.
-
I think someone already got there a few years ago. :)
The expansion of the universe between galaxies appears to be accelerating possibly headed for another inflationary phase and big bang repeating the formation of more galaxies etc. A never ending process. If you google de Sitter universe, you will get a few interesting hits, it does away with a beginning of time and nonsensical singularities. There are tons of theories already existing very loosely based on your basic idea.
Quite right. You might note the added details about my theoretical view that I mentioned in my reply to Bored Chemist.
-
There are various views of the cosmology of the universe, but I think the generally accepted standard view would be that a very energetic singular event occurred perhaps 17 billion years ago. That event is referred to as the “Big Bang” and it represented the beginning of space and time.
The Big Bang doesn’t specifically address the nature of the beginning, but it generally references an initial event that set everything in motion. That leaves room for different explanations of the general cosmology of the universe, and various possible “beginnings” including 1) God did it, 2) something from nothing in a spontaneous beginning of space and time, and 3) my choice, a boundless, eternal universe that has always existed, which I briefly described in the opening post.
Each option has its own story, and in this thread I will endeavor to describe the story of the Three Infinities, my version of the cosmology of the universe, which addresses observational evidence, and posits an explanation for those observations that is internally consistent, and which I claim is not inconsistent with generally accepted science …
-
My preferred view of the cosmology of the universe is the one of a boundless, eternal universe that had no beginning because it has always existed. The main observational evidence to support that view is the scientific Redshift data, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift).
The Redshift refers to the light spectrum of distant galaxies, and red shift happens because the light we observe from those receding galaxies is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the light spectrum.
Scientists conclude, primarily from the Redshift data, that the observable portion of the universe is expanding, showing observable galaxies in all directions are moving away from us, and away from each other. The generally accepted view is that the expansion would be observed from any position within our observable arena, but there is a catch. My theory is a multiple big bang theory, and so while our observable expanding Big Bang arena is finite, it is hosted within an infinite and eternal greater universe.
Holding such a perspective stimulates ideas about the mechanics of a greater universe, and one that by definition is not expanding since it is posited to already be spatially infinite. That differentiates my multiple big bang arena view of cosmology from the standard Big Bang Theory.
-
... My theory is a multiple big bang theory, and so while our observable expanding Big Bang arena is finite, it is hosted within an infinite and eternal greater universe.
Holding such a perspective stimulates ideas about the mechanics of a greater universe, and one that by definition is not expanding since it is posited to already be spatially infinite. That differentiates my multiple big bang arena view of cosmology from the standard Big Bang Theory.
My multiple big bang theory invokes an infinite and eternal universe beyond our observable arena. A universe that perpetually recycles itself by converting old cold matter and energy within it, into hot, dense crunches that collapse/bang into expanding big bang arenas like our own observable universe.
The mechanics of perpetuation are expansion, overlap, crunch and bang.
-
Yes, in my theoretical rant, the boundless universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy.
That's good, because waves are all we have to work with, but what waves are you referring to exactly?
The problem I've run into imagining a multi-bang universe is that we would have to exist in a cascade of big bangs. We would exist within a larger big bang, and big bangs would exist below our perception. They would stretch out infinitely in both directions. If any one of those experienced a "crunch", it would wipe out the cascading effect below it.
The universe would be analogous to a Russian nesting egg doll. Destroy any of those eggs, and that destruction would cascade inwards. The rate of creation would have to be equal to the rate of destruction, essentially cancelling out the entire universe.
They couldn't occur adjacent to one another, because as you state, "the universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy."
How do you account for this paradox in your view?
-
That's good, because waves are all we have to work with, but what waves are you referring to exactly?
Thank you for the reply. We agree that wave energy is all there is, and so then everything is composed of wave energy.
My hypothesis includes the idea that all space is filled with gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions from a potentially infinite history of gravitational wave energy emissions from massive objects in space (massive objects meaning everything from the tiniest particle to the super massive black holes).
As I see it, matter is composed of gravitational wave energy (like that predicted by Einstein and discovered by the LIGO interferometer). But the necessary caveat is that matter continually absorbs and emits gravitational wave energy, and all space is therefore filled with gravitational waves emitted from the surrounding massive object in space.
The problem I've run into imagining a multi-bang universe is that we would have to exist in a cascade of big bangs. We would exist within a larger big bang, and big bangs would exist below our perception. They would stretch out infinitely in both directions. If any one of those experienced a "crunch", it would wipe out the cascading effect below it.
“Cascade” is not the word I would use; I would say that expanding big bang arenas intersect and overlap with each other all the time, but the size and time scales are sooo great that we can’t detect just how numerous and common they are on a grand scale over eternal time; our observable view is limit to our own expanding big bang arena. The intersections and overlaps result in crunches composed of galactic matter and energy contributed by "parent" arenas and those crunches collapse/bang into new expanding arenas that then expand and intersect with other expanding arenas in a perpetual process throughout the universe.
So yes, I like to envision the multiple big bang arena nature of the greater universe, and that means I support the idea that we live in, even evolved within one of those expanding big bang arenas.
The universe would be analogous to a Russian nesting egg doll. Destroy any of those eggs, and that destruction would cascade inwards. The rate of creation would have to be equal to the rate of destruction, essentially cancelling out the entire universe.
They couldn't occur adjacent to one another, because as you state, "The universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy."
How do you account for this paradox in your view?
I would agree with the thinking that our big bang event probably occurred maybe 17 billion years ago, and it, like all big bang events, had preconditions. A big bang is not the beginning of anything other than an expanding local big bang arena within a greater universe. In each arena like ours, over billions of years, stars and galaxies form out of the expansion and decay of a big crunch which “banged”. In the expanding arena, life is generated and evolves when and where hospitable conditions on planets around stars permit. A big bang causes expanding wave energy from a super massive, super dense black hole to expand and decay into an extensive galactic structure like we observe around us in all directions within the observable part of the greater universe. Everything we can observe out there is causally connected to a single big bang event, but in terms of infinity, I like to say, “Anything finite is almost nowhere, almost never, almost nothing, relative to the three infinities of space, time, and energy”.
So yes, we are in an expanding big bang arena, and it is just a common event, happens all the time here and there, now and then, across the infinite space of an eternal universe, on time and space scales that are almost unimaginable.
-
As I see it, matter is composed of gravitational wave energy (like that predicted by Einstein and discovered by the LIGO interferometer). But the necessary caveat is that matter continually absorbs and emits gravitational wave energy, and all space is therefore filled with gravitational waves emitted from the surrounding massive object in space.
I agree that something is fundamentally wrong with Big Bang, and a replacement is necessary. Not sure I can agree with a concurrent multi-bang/multi-crunch concept. I thought about this before, and in my imagination I saw this scenario arranging itself as grid matrix stretching out infinitely in all directions. I always came back to the space between them. Could never reconcile the thought, so I abandoned it.
Matter makes up 5% of the universe, so I would find it hard to fathom that 5% of the universe being responsible for the other 95% of the universe, and all the empty space between big bangs that lies outside the universes.
I'm not convinced gravity is even caused by matter honestly. It's effected by it, but not necessarily caused by it. That's why we haven't been able to figure it out in my opinion.
I tend to prefer one single 3-dimensional infinite universe, and that's it. Much simpler to imagine. But I certainly don't want to hi-jack your thread with my thoughts.
I've been down all these roads before, and they all lead me back to one conclusion. One single eternal universe, with no definable beginning or end.
But who knows, right?
-
Don’t get the wrong idea from my incoherent ramblings, lol.
I tend to prefer one single 3-dimensional infinite universe, and that's it. Much simpler to imagine. But I certainly don't want to hi-jack your thread with my thoughts.
I've been down all these roads before, and they all lead me back to one conclusion. One single eternal universe, with no definable beginning or end.
I completely accept your view of one single 3-dimensional infinite, eternal universe with no beginning. I hope I didn’t say anything that is inconsistent with that view.
-
I completely accept your view of one single 3-dimensional infinite, eternal universe with no beginning. I hope I didn’t say anything that is inconsistent with that view.
The way you're describing the multi-bang scenario, each big bang would occupy it's own hidden, or isolated 3-dimensional space, so we'd end up with infinite dimension. Periodically they may interact with one another, but they would all appear to be independent universes. Those are by definition, hidden dimensions separated by space. Space being composed of gravitational waves. So these universes would also behave more like matter relative to each other.
And to be clear, I do not consider this idea over the top weird. I've personally toyed with the idea of matter being unique universes, and black holes being unique universes. I've simply concluded that everything we see is a duplication, or copy, of the greater process, but they are less than the greater process. Matter is a reflection of the process. In other words, a copy cannot become a whole. Everything is part of the whole.
However, I do consider mass dimension. I also consider mass a contraction wave, and gravity an expansion wave, which is essentially the ether. I consider both waves dimension, and both waves with mass. Matter has a negative mass value, and ether a positive wave value. Matter gains energy in its motion over time, while losing mass, and ether gains mass over time, while losing energy. This missing mass is the positive wave energy in the ether.
The point being, physical dimension is defined by wave properties, and waves either accelerate in one direction, or decelerate in the opposing direction. Deceleration being an increase in dimension/mass, and acceleration being a decrease in dimension/mass. The universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves within it are.
-
The way you're describing the multi-bang scenario, each big bang would occupy it's own hidden, or isolated 3-dimensional space, so we'd end up with infinite dimension.
My view is that big bangs happen now and then, here and there, within infinite pre-existing space. When I describe the landscape of the greater universe as a multiple big bang arena landscape, each big bang arena is not a universe, because all space is connected in one grand infinite eternal universe, so for context, there is only one universe.
Periodically they may interact with one another, but they would all appear to be independent universes. Those are by definition, hidden dimensions separated by space.
So for comparison, and to clarify my view, expanding big bang arenas are not independent universes, but instead, they are the finite product of the intersection, overlap, crunch and “bang” of separate finite but expanding “parent” big bang arenas. When two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas intersect and overlap, they are expanding into the space occupied by each other. There is a swirling rendezvous of each parent's galactic matter and energy, starting at the point of intersection, and increasing from that point to occupy a growing volume of space as the overlap progresses. To be clear, I am not suggesting that new space is created by the convergence of two parent arenas, because I see that type of physical event happening within pre-existing space that has always existed.
Logically, and obviously, the rendezvous of two expanding big bang arenas is chaotic as the big bang arenas merge, and a big crunch forms out of the convergence. The crunch grows through gravitational accretion, heats up due to gravitational compression, and reaches what I call “critical capacity”.
When the crunch reaches this natural critical density limit, gravitational compression exceeds the strength of the bonds that hold atoms and molecules together in their own place in space, and the mature big crunch collapses on itself, in an in-falling cascade of matter which results in natures’ extreme highest matter density. That dense-state matter cannot collapse further, and so all the in-falling matter from the collapsing crunch “bounces” off of this natural maximum density limit and reverses into an expanding big bang arena. The arena is then expanding into the pre-existing space formerly occupied by the matter and energy of the individual expanding parent big bang arena.
Space being composed of gravitational waves. So these universes would also behave more like matter relative to each other.
And to be clear, I do not consider this idea over the top weird. I've personally toyed with the idea of matter being unique universes, and black holes being unique universes. I've simply concluded that everything we see is a duplication, or copy, of the greater process, but they are less than the greater process. Matter is a reflection of the process. In other words, a copy cannot become a whole. Everything is part of the whole.
However, I do consider mass dimension. I also consider mass a contraction wave, and gravity an expansion wave, which is essentially the ether. I consider both waves dimension, and both waves with mass. Matter has a negative mass value, and ether a positive wave value. Matter gains energy in its motion over time, while losing mass, and ether gains mass over time, while losing energy. This missing mass is the positive wave energy in the ether.
The point being, physical dimension is defined by wave properties, and waves either accelerate in one direction, or decelerate in the opposing direction. Deceleration being an increase in dimension/mass, and acceleration being a decrease in dimension/mass. The universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves within it are.
I understand and agree with most of your thinking on that. We’ll have to consider getting further into each other’s views on the details.
-
I understand and agree with most of your thinking on that. We’ll have to consider getting further into each other’s views on the details.
Yes we will for certain. I don't see big bangs, but my theory could support multi-universes. I don't like to go there because I think we're having enough difficulty figuring out our own universe. I would consider additional universes as superfluous information and unnecessary to consider. And if they did exist, they wouldn't go bang. It would be a sweeping wave leaving a cloud of matter gracefully behind in its wake. That wave would still be traveling well beyond our range of observation.
I'll guess I'll start this extended discussion off on my next post.
-
Yes we will for certain. I don't see big bangs, but my theory could support multi-universes. I don't like to go there because I think we're having enough difficulty figuring out our own universe. I would consider additional universes as superfluous information and unnecessary to consider. And if they did exist, they wouldn't go bang. It would be a sweeping wave leaving a cloud of matter gracefully behind in its wake. That wave would still be traveling well beyond our range of observation.
I'll guess I'll start this extended discussion off on my next post.
Good :) , because we have some reconciling to do. My theory of one and only one infinite and eternal multiple big bang arena universe is orchestrated by a set of invariant natural laws that assure multiple big bang action going on perpetually across infinite space as those physical, expanding, crunching and collapse/banging big bang arenas continually form, intersect, overlap, crunch/bang and play out on a perpetual basis.
-
Okay then. I'll guess I'll start with the beginning.
First thing to do is throw out all arbitrary measurements, like the speed of light, and replace it with 0 and 1. It simplifies everything. The max speed is 1, and the lowest 0, and neither can be achieved physically.
Although there is no way to prove this with absolute certainty, our universe is infinite in both the microscopic and macroscopic directions. As I discussed before on this forum;
|0| < ∞ < |1|
Infinity = Constant of Change
Definitely not going long on that again, so I'll just say, it is what is, and it is correct.
I think what's happening is that the universe tries to oscillate back and forth, which creates a universal vibration. This sends waves out in opposite directions from the opposite extremes and in inverse wave form. These waves propagate spherically, and they are defined by two basic types.
Expansion wave (Ew) - These comes from the microscopic side of the universe and decelerate as they expand.
Contraction wave (Cw) - These come from the macroscopic side of the universe and accelerate as they contract.
All motion occurs 3-dimensionally in 3-dimensional space, with the direction of motion being 1-dimensional.
To imagine 3-dimensional motion with a 1-dimensional direction of motion is pretty straight forward. Draw a big circle and place a dot anywhere within the circle. That dot represents matter. No matter which direction you move the dot, it heads outward. Draw arrows if you prefer. They all point outward. Now imagine this 3-dimensionally. To move fully inward, stop moving the dot. To move less inward, move the dot.
That's the two directions of motion, in or out, and that's it.
You begin to see some pretty interesting things that fit the observations, better than current explanations. It's just hard to accept given our bias towards our relative view of nature.
Mass = dimension. No mass, no dimension.
Ew is ether. It carries a positive mass value.
Cw is matter. It carries a negative mass value.
Both have mass.
The missing mass in the universe comes from ether.
Ew (positive) decelerates from a low mass high energy state, to a high mass low energy state.
Cw (negative) accelerates from a high mass low energy state, to a low mass high energy state.
energy = motion of mass
Everything is either accelerating inwards, or decelerating outwards.
Change in motion is constant.
There is no rest point.
Mass does not gain with acceleration, it expands with deceleration, and contracts with acceleration, while losing or gaining energy respectively.
Time is bound to motion, much like energy is bound to motion.
Time changes in the opposite direction of motion.
Direction of motion for Cw (or direction of time for Ew)
0-->.1-->.2-->.3-->.4-->.5-->.6-->.7-->.8-->.9-->1
Direction of time for Cw (or direction of motion for Ew)
1-->.9-->.8-->.7-->.6-->.5-->.4-->.3-->.2-->.1-->0
This follows basic human reasoning. The faster you move the faster time moves. Time expands with deceleration, and contracts with acceleration. Expanded time is slow, and contracted time fast. It is numerically opposite of our inward motion. There is no 4th dimension of space-time. That was mistakenly interpreted from our 1-dimensional direction of motion. And that really screwed everything up.
The LHC is not a particle accelerator, it's a particle decelerator. The speed limit for matter is a stop sign.
Light does not move like we think it does. What we're seeing is our motion relative to the ether. If you add up the two number lines from any point it's value is 1. That is our relative anchor point.
Acceleration is infinite, and deceleration is infinite.
C=0 ~ T=1
C=1 ~ T=0
As I said, nothing can physically stop on these values.
Light is a wave and a particle, or a Cw and an Ew. It is oscillating between wave states. It's more like a standing wave riding the change in direction for motion, similar to being caught in an eddy.
Lights observed motion is the sum of both waves, or, C=1 ~ T=1. This is what we observe.
C as a constant of motion is the point at which matter would flip from negative to positive. It's not really a constant, but a point that remains constant relative to acceleration and deceleration. Light speed is the motion of the ether, because C=1 comes from the positive nature of light. T=1 comes from the negative nature of light. We can't observe 0's.
A key piece of evidence lies in particle entanglement. When particles entangle, their motion becomes bound in an absolute state between those two points. Even though both particles are still contracting and accelerating, maximum motion between those two particles is always experienced at C=1 ~ T=0 because that motion is bound. Communication between those two points becomes instantaneous because T=0 in this bound state.
Think of these particles as you would a vortex. They stretch inwards 3-dimensionsally. The entanglement process binds them at the vertex or tips of their motion. Communication is inverted in a clockwise/counterclockwise manner.
This is exactly what we observe.
I think that's enough for now...
-
Okay then. I'll guess I'll start with the beginning.
First thing to do is throw out all arbitrary measurements, like the speed of light, and replace it with 0 and 1. It simplifies everything. The max speed is 1, and the lowest 0, and neither can be achieved physically.
Although there is no way to prove this with absolute certainty, our universe is infinite in both the microscopic and macroscopic directions. As I discussed before on this forum;
|0| < ∞ < |1|
Infinity = Constant of Change
Definitely not going long on that again, so I'll just say, it is what is, and it is correct.
I’m OK with starting at the beginning as you see it, for discussion purposes. If I take your point properly, when discussing the nature of the universe, the beginning step is to acknowledge “infinity” so maybe my “Three Infinities” isn’t a bad starting place :) .
I think what's happening is that the universe tries to oscillate back and forth, which creates a universal vibration. This sends waves out in opposite directions from the opposite extremes and in inverse wave form. These waves propagate spherically, and they are defined by two basic types.
Expansion wave (Ew) - These comes from the microscopic side of the universe and decelerate as they expand.
Contraction wave (Cw) - These come from the macroscopic side of the universe and accelerate as they contract.
Sorry, I don’t get that yet. If the universe is infinite, I don’t see how it can oscillate and create a vibration across the whole universe. That concept doesn’t make sense to me and seems to be a perfect oxymoron, i.e. a figure of speech that contradicts itself. My reasoning is that if the “whole” is infinite, there isn’t any edge or boundary, and so there isn’t anything that can cause the whole universe to oscillate. Do you see my point, or can you give me something better to go on?
All motion occurs 3-dimensionally in 3-dimensional space, with the direction of motion being 1-dimensional.
To imagine 3-dimensional motion with a 1-dimensional direction of motion is pretty straight forward. Draw a big circle and place a dot anywhere within the circle. That dot represents matter. No matter which direction you move the dot, it heads outward. Draw arrows if you prefer. They all point outward. Now imagine this 3-dimensionally. To move fully inward, stop moving the dot. To move less inward, move the dot.
That's the two directions of motion, in or out, and that's it.
I can picture that.
You begin to see some pretty interesting things that fit the observations, better than current explanations. It's just hard to accept given our bias towards our relative view of nature.
Mass = dimension. No mass, no dimension.
I’ll give you that for talking purposes, but I would state it differently so as not to confuse two useful words that aren’t equal. Would you accept me restating the Mass = dimension equality with Mass must have volume relative to No mass which has no volume? My statement isn't perfect, but does the point come across?
If so, we can get into your terms Ew and Cw for further discussion.
-
the beginning step is to acknowledge “infinity” so maybe my “Three Infinities” isn’t a bad starting place :) .
Exactly. The difference between you and I might be in the concept of infinity. I see it as a singular state, driven by the potential to be absolute in either direction. Infinity is opposing motion. It's not things, or quantities.
Sorry, I don’t get that yet. If the universe is infinite, I don’t see how it can oscillate and create a vibration across the whole universe. That concept doesn’t make sense to me and seems to be a perfect oxymoron, i.e. a figure of speech that contradicts itself. My reasoning is that if the “whole” is infinite, there isn’t any edge or boundary, and so there isn’t anything that can cause the whole universe to oscillate. Do you see my point, or can you give me something better to go on?
No, there isn't an edge, really. Think of it as an unstable solid state that collapses in opposite directions. You can never reach either edge of the universe, because it is infinite. We exist within dimension, which is never completely defined in the microscopic and macroscopic directions. If you tried to get to the outer edge of the universe, you would begin to slow down, never quite making it to the edge. You would almost stop, but not quite, because there's always a little more. If you tried to head inward, you would keep accelerating and accelerating and accelerating, never quite reaching the bottom. You can see where each edge might end, but it just keeps going. Infinity is a work in progress.
But I don't want to dwell too much on it, because no one can prove it conclusively. You just have to see it. It's very important though, because it says there is no beginning or end, which negates a catalyst as was attempted with this dubious quantum fluctuation. That's wrong.
Infinity is infinite motion in two directions. It is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature.
I can picture that.
I'm glad you can see that, because that is a crucial understanding. The linear motion that we observe in the relative sense is hard to detach from. We think we're throwing a fast ball, when in fact we're decelerating the balls natural inward motion. Or at least, we're impeding it's inward motion slightly. The inward motion of matter is a one way ticket. You can can never get back to a previous velocity. That's the arrow of time for matter more or less. Matter cannot exceed C because it would no longer be matter. It would convert to an expansion wave. It's also important to understand we are accelerating. I think the rate is insanely high honestly, but we will never know. We're bound to a relative view.
One easy way to think of the universe is like a bucket of sand and marbles. Imagine the sand expanding and the marbles contracting. The sand would represent Ew's, and the marbles would represent Cw's. As the sand expands beyond the size of the marbles, they head upward, while the contracting marbles would head downward. The universe sifts the waves, for a lack of a better analogy. The push each other in opposite directions. In infinity though, there is no bottom or top. The marbles and sand contract and expand without limits, but our view remains relative in the process. I think the sand pushes the marbles, and that's what motion may be all about. I think we're pushed.
Think of a particle accelerator. We raise the energy surrounding the particle to push it around the loop. I would argue we're slowing down the particle relative to the surrounding space by speeding it up.
Gravity is probably a push from the ether, not a pull from matter.
I've never had much luck posting graphics on here, but I may attempt it again. Seems like a pain.
I’ll give you that for talking purposes, but I would state it differently so as not to confuse two useful words that aren’t equal. Would you accept me restating the Mass = dimension equality with Mass must have volume relative to No mass which has no volume? My statement isn't perfect, but does the point come across?
If so, we can get into your terms Ew and Cw for further discussion.
Mass according to science is the resistance to motion. I would modify the scientific term to, mass is the resistance to a change in the direction of motion. Cw carries a negative mass value, meaning it contracts at an accelerated rate. Ew is the opposite, and carries a positive value. It expands and decelerates. Mass resists change in the natural direction of motion of either, and that's what it's all about. The term motion is an idealization of acceleration and deceleration. A photons resistance to the idealization of motion is 0, so it gets pushed by the ether. While in motion, it's ether, not a photon.
You and I both agree mass represents dimension. The ether is very large mass, which means every single point in space is defined by this dimension. These Ew waves overlap because they are very low energy. Dimension is unstable, and is either collapsing or expanding. Dimension cannot exist without motion. These waves (Ew & Cw) are what's defining dimension. They give definable volume to dimensionless space.
When I say unstable, what I mean is that there's nothing to prevent it from collapsing or expanding. The reason is infinity. The universe is like a funnel opened at the top and bottom. Ew overflows out the top, and Cw flows out the bottom. Almost anyway. The dimension of the funnel is defined by the mass contained within it at any given moment in time, so it perpetually stretches out in opposite directions. This opposite flow is eternal because of infinity. There is no limit to the scale of dimension in either direction. The bigger we get the smaller we get, with each direction of motion defining a new limit for each over time. We perpetually accelerate inward and decelerate outward.
I would agree with your statement. Anything to reduce confusion.
In general, our universe is pretty simple. As it should be.
-
The difference between you and I might be in the concept of infinity. I see it as a singular state, driven by the potential to be absolute in either direction. Infinity is opposing motion. It's not things, or quantities … Infinity is a work in progress.
… It's very important though, because it says there is no beginning or end, which negates a catalyst as was attempted with this dubious quantum fluctuation.
… Infinity is infinite motion in two directions. It is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature.
… Mass according to science is the resistance to motion. I would modify the scientific term to, mass is the resistance to a change in the direction of motion.
…A photons resistance to the idealization of motion is 0, so it gets pushed by the ether. While in motion, its ether, not a photon.
Referring to some of the points in your last post, instead of infinity being a work in progress, I maintain that the infinite universe already fully exists, has always existed, and has always been infinite, so in the spatial sense the definition of infinite includes infinite in all directions from all points. An infinite universe is not expanding or contracting because it is already everywhere. The expansion going on in the observable universe is local action that is the result of prior local actions, i.e., the larger scale actions that cause what we see locally.
I’m with you though in regard to taking exception to the idea that the universe might have begun with a quantum fluctuation. Infinity and eternity don’t seem to be things that fluctuate, lol.
Note, your terms Ew and Cw don’t work for me because I have to keep looking back to your earlier post to remember what they mean :( . There must be a way to say that without coining the terms Ew and Cw. They are fine when you are alone, because you are accustomed to them, but reading and adopting those terms, for me, doesn’t work at all. What could you use in a few word of English that conveys those terms?
Also, saying that infinity is infinite motion in two directions, or it is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature, … well it just seems hard to adopt that thinking; why not just go with … spatially infinite.
And I try to avoid changing well established definitions, but instead, I try to define in detailed common terms what my thinking is, no matter how much wind it takes, lol.
Note: this response my not have included the latest revisions to your last post.
-
Referring to some of the points in your last post, instead of infinity being a work in progress, I maintain that the infinite universe already fully exists, has always existed, and has always been infinite, so in the spatial sense the definition of infinite includes infinite in all directions from all points. An infinite universe is not expanding or contracting because it is already everywhere. The expansion going on in the observable universe is local action that is the result of prior local actions, i.e., the larger scale actions that cause what we see locally.
This is the heart of understanding what infinity means, and precisely where we differ. It's also where science fails to understand the meaning of infinity, and why the Olber paradox starts off with the flawed assumption of a static infinity. Static is a finite term which stands in direct conflict to an infinite universe. Infinity is not static. It cannot occupy all of existence at any given moment in time.
|0| < ∞ < |1|
Static lies outside the universe.
The comprehensible universe is not everywhere, it's anywhere dimension is, and mass=dimension. And no, it is not expanding or contracting, it is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves are. Infinite only looks finite. It looks like it had a beginning. It looks like it will have an end.
If the universe were ever to fill all of existence it would become static in nature, and it's value would be |1|. It would no longer be infinite, because motion would cease. We would transition to a finite universe, which is the absence of change.
Infinity = Constant of Change
Finite = Absence of Change
If we don't set a limit on what infinity represents at any given moment in time, ironically, we make it finite, because we end up with a static, or finite infinity. That's illogical.
I know this is hard to wrap your head around. We have a preconceived notion of endless lengths. And yes, we can sort of imagine it, but lengths are only infinite in motion.
There is no such thing as infinite length or dimension in the static sense, because they are limited by time. We move infinitely towards these finite lengths and dimension, but never quite reach the end. There is always more dimensionless space to be defined by mass.
Note, your terms Ew and Cw don’t work for me because I have to keep looking back to your earlier post to remember what they mean
Agreed. Always the problem when introducing new lingo. I get tired of typing out Contraction Wave and and Expansion Wave all the time. Maybe I should type them out for clarity sake.
Also, saying that infinity is infinite motion in two directions, or it is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature, … well it just seems hard to adopt that thinking; why not just go with … spatially infinite.
Yes it is hard to adopt that thinking, which is why it has taken me so long to understand it myself.
Spatially infinite is a meaningless term without motion. Mass and motion are inseparable, because E=Motion of Mass. Mass is either contracting while accelerating inwards, or expanding while decelerating outwards. Without motion there is no spatial to consider as infinite.
-
Static lies outside the universe.
I don’t think there is anything that lies outside the universe, by definition, so what meaning does it have to only use “static” as a strictly finite term, or to relegate it to “outside” the universe. If the universe is spatially infinite, there is no outside to it.
Additionally, I readily accept that an infinite universe does occupy all of existence at any given moment in time, and I think it is sufficient to use the term spatially infinite, which, by the way, is one the Three Infinities referenced in my thread title :) .
The universe that I contemplate is everywhere, and if you have to apply “dimension” as a qualifier for where the universe exists, then I wonder what physically exists without dimension, so why even qualify it like that?
If we don't set a limit on what infinity represents at any given moment in time, ironically, we make it finite, because we end up with a static, or finite infinity. That's illogical.
Interesting that you call it illogical not to set a limit on what is infinite, because the space occupied by the universe, to me is limitless, and that is just a way of saying infinite.
And also, I do think that typing “Contraction Wave and Expansion Wave” in your narrative would help convey the intent.
Now, as to saying that the universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, sorry. Those two actions seem separate and independent in their application, and further, an infinite universe can’t expand or contract unless you invoke a boundary to the universe, and when you do, it no longer can be called infinite. You might want to let go of the "simultaneity of expanding and contracting" idea.
-
You have had some time to contemplate my objection to the "simultaneity of expanding and contracting" idea; I hope I didn’t offend. There are some of you who would most likely take exception to my opinion that the universe can’t expand or contract.
I have often stipulated that the observable portion of the universe displays expansion based on the observations that light from the more distant galaxies in all directions is red shifted, indicating that distant observable galaxies are moving away from us.
It has also been speculated that what we observe out there is only a tiny puzzle piece in a great jigsaw puzzle of infinite space, time, and energy.
Am I promoting a contradiction when saying that our most distant observations support an expanding universe, while at the same time saying that the universe, with its infinite reach, can’t expand or contract because it is already everywhere? No, I’m not, because I explain the contradiction on the basis that the observable universe is a limited view of the greater universe, which in its entirety is infinite.
I will say that logic is on my side on this, because if you posit a finite expanding universe, you run into all kinds of logical problems. Mainly, backtracking the expansion of a finite expanding universe leads to the conclusion that it had to have had a beginning in space and time. A beginning requires somethings from nothing, like space and energy, coming into existence at a point back there in time.
The logical convolutions that you have to go through to posit an expanding universe that has always existed should call into doubt that notion, simply on the basis that a beginning associated with an infinite greater universe are logical incompatible. Agreed?
-
No, you haven't offended me at all. I've been a little side tracked.
Without a decent ability to post graphics on this site I feel very limited. I've been posting on another site that I tend to like better than this one.
My position is firm.
|0| < ∞ < |1|
This is the universe. The above statement is mathematically correct. Infinity is part of a single linear line segment, with absolute time and absolute motion separated by a universe.
C=0 < ∞ < C=1
T=1 > ∞ > T=0
And endless loop of time and motion forever expanding while simultaneously contracting.
The universe is open on both ends, negating the possibility of a big bang entirely, let alone multi big bangs.
(1D-Space)+(1D-Motion)+(1D-Time) = 3D
The only reason we even think about a big bang is that a theory was presented in 1927 from Georg Lamaitre, a Catholic Priest. The original theory has been kept alive on the threads of even more dubious theory which can never be proven, observed, or experimented on. All we've ever observed in dissipation of explosions, and when a large amount of matter condenses we find black holes, which theoretically dissipate. That original theory died a long time ago.
A wave of creation swept through the universe leaving behind a cloud of matter. We've been cooling and condensing ever since. That wave is still going, and never had a beginning.
-
Good, and taking a step back, when a person attempts to quantify the universe as a whole, they hopefully will include the concepts of "infinite and eternal". I think it is appropriate to include a sentence in our description that says that the universe, on a grand scale, is infinite and eternal. Do you agree that it is? Some people like to express it as "potentially" infinite, but to me, anything less than infinite begs the question how some boundary could be established, short of the creation scenario, which is not scientific.
Granted, by referring to anything less than the entire infinite and eternal universe, you would be referring to a portion that is in the process of expansion and/or contraction, but when taking a "less than the whole" perspective, you simply are not talking about the "all inclusive" universe.