Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: suhail jalbout on 12/01/2020 07:10:27
-
Origin of Our Universe
By Suhail Jalbout
The greatest mystery that provokes thought in mankind is the origin of our universe. For thousands of years philosophers and scientists have tried to find an answer to this conundrum but without unanimity of opinions. The most prevailing cosmological description for the origin of our universe is the Big Bang theory. However, it not clear as to how the Big Bang black hole (BBBH) came about initially nor the origin of its contents. Matter and energy must have existed prior to the formation of the BBBH otherwise it could not exist.
I believe that the initial step to understanding the origin of our universe commences by answering this question: does void exist? The answer is mandatory to figure out what existed before the universe was there. If space (where a universe forms) was empty, then where did matter and energy come from? How can nothingness produce a universe? On the other hand, if matter and energy existed in the space, then it is possible for a universe to be created.
Man created vacuum. This was performed in laboratories, in the production of equipment used in different applications, and in manufactured consumable items such as incandescent light bulbs. He was able to perform these tasks only because matter (material) existed. However, he is unable to reverse the process and create matter from void. Thus, we conclude that the application of matter can produce void but void cannot produce matter.
Since void is the absence of matter and energy, we cannot study void but we can study matter and energy. There is no available method by which we can measure how much void is in a certain space, while we can perform all the possible calculations on matter and energy. Consequently, void is only a term coined by man to describe what happens when there is no matter and energy present in space. Since void does not exist without the presence of matter, this implies that matter and energy always existed; it exists at the present time, and will continue to exist for ever.
From this line of logic, it is possible to understand how our universe or any other universe was formed. Interaction between the elements of matter can create galaxies, stars, and planets simply by application of the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, gravitational forces etc. They are the “universe DNA” which performs the process of creating a universe.
It seems everything that exists in our universe has a life span. It ranges from few seconds to billions of years. Man experiences the birth and death of living forms on Earth every day. He also has evidence from satellites revealing the death of stars and galaxies and the birth of new stars and galaxies. This is taking place while our universe is still in existence. The first thinking man appeared on planet Earth after the solar system was in existence for 4.6 billion years. When our Sun dies and disintegrates, modern man will no longer exist on planet Earth. It is quite possible that a new star will be born with intelligent life on one of its planets who will wonder where this universe came from. This may happen while our universe is still in existence.
If we assume that whatever applies at the micro level also applies at the macro, then our universe itself has a limited life span. As matter and energy always existed in the infinite spaces, these spaces contain billions of universes. Some are disintegrating while others are born (why our universe should be a special case?) As energy connects everything that exists in our universe (stars to stars, stars to galactic cores, galaxies to galaxies, and black holes to black holes), logic dictates that all exiting universes are also interconnected by energy. If a universe supplies more energy to neighboring universes than it receives, this universe will expand and ultimately it will join other universes overloading them with energy. I believe this is what is happening to our present universe because it is expanding. This does not mean that an expanding universe will not receive within its boundaries stars from other neighboring expanding universes.
However, if a universe receives more energy from neighboring universes than it transmits, this universe will be overloaded beyond its physical limits and it will close on itself. Black holes will start the process of consuming their respective galaxy and then consuming each other until all the matter of the universe will end up in either one or many unstable huge black holes with gigantic amounts of energy and matter. These Big Bang black holes, because they cannot maintain their equilibrium and stability, will explode releasing matter and energy back into their space. The released elements will recombine to form new universes and the cycle goes on. This process constitutes a complete closed loop. It is to be noted that when a Big Bang black hole explodes, it will create its own space to form its own universe. This implies that the space which a universe occupies is finite while the void in which all the universes exist is infinite.
In conclusion, I believe that our universe was created from the matter and energy that always existed in space. It is possible that this hypothesis may unify different opinions with regards to the origin of our universe especially if there are stars older than our own Big Bang universe.1 Their origin could be from an older neighboring expanding universe.
REFERENCE
1.Google: “The greatest cosmic puzzle: astronomers find stars that appear older than the universe.” Ethan Siegel senior contributor
-
In conclusion, I believe that our universe was created from the matter and energy that always existed in space.
To be useful, your explanation needs to say where that "matter and energy that always existed in space" came from- or it simply isn't an explanation of the origin of the Universe.
What you have posted is a long winded way of saying "it was always here".
-
I think the post is good, it has merit. Pls allow me to maybe chip in an idea or two. Maybe point in the right direction of the big bang and the creation of the universe.
The thing I do not know, and probably which none of use does, Is where matter comes from to begin with.
First off, I would think of the splitting of atoms and what happens when they do split, the residual radiation of the cosmos.
That being said, using your imagination and putting all the matter in the universe back to where it started. In which I am guessing it would be in sphere in the center.
With the heavier elements being in the center of the sphere, specifically the radioactive ones. With all the gravity pushing in. Splits an atom causing a chain reaction and thus you have a big bang.
This seems very logical and makes sense.
Ghost
-
That being said, using your imagination and putting all the matter in the universe back to where it started. In which I am guessing it would be in sphere in the center.
As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.
With the heavier elements being in the center of the sphere, specifically the radioactive ones. With all the gravity pushing in. Splits an atom causing a chain reaction and thus you have a big bang.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Cramming that much mass into one place would heat the center up so much that nuclei would no longer be stable. Even protons and neutrons would break down into a "quark-gluon plasma". There would no longer be any elements at all. You would just have a soup of ultra-hot, fundamental particles. At least you would until the whole thing collapsed into a black hole, that is.
-
One conceptual way to create the universe, from nothing, is to start before the existence of space-time. In this scenario, space and time existence, but not in a way that is connected into what we know as space-time. If space and time were not connected, this would be a point in the origin of the universe before even energy, since space and time are connected as wavelength(space) and frequency (time) within photons. Energy, as we know it, would not exist if space and time were separated. .
Theoretically, in a universe where space and time are not connected as space-time, one could move in space without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space. There would be potential in distance that existed apart from time, and potential in time that would exist apart from distance.
In traditional terms being able to move in space without the constraint of time is called omnipresence. This is scenario is not about God. I used a common and useful term that describes the type of affect. While being able to move in time apart from the constraints of space is traditionally called omniscience, since all the universe variables, at any give instant of time would be known, since there is no distance variable to add any time delay. A worm hole can move in time, apart from space, and exit anywhere in space.
These two origin variable still appear to be in affect, in our universe, where space and time have combined as space-time. For example, the probability functions, such as wave functions, used to describe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for the moving of electrons in an atom; orbitals, describe a tiny thing occupying a volume. This could only occur apart from time. If time was in strict affect, it could only be in one place, its size, at a time. However, if we overlapped distance potential from the origin reference, onto space-time (d,t,D), we would get a miniature omnipresent affect that we call a probability function.
Theoretically, if separated distance and time potential were to overlap, the universe would come to a focus in space and time. Omnipresence and Omniscience would come to a focus. Omega would become contained within alpha; singularity that is all encompassing. While the formation of a finite universe implies that the origin reference remains, adding separated potentials in space and time to the universe via spacetime.
In terms of time potential apart from space-time, spiral galaxies can be a half million light years across. If we assume the speed of light is a limitation in space-time, the question is how do spiral galaxies remain integrated for so long considering the time delay? All you need to add is some time potential so things can coordinate in time independent of distance.
-
one could move in space without the constraint of time
Speed is defined as distance divided by time. Without time, there is no speed and therefore no movement.
-
As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center.
It had to start somewhere. So the start would be the center, as it is spiraling away from it.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Cramming that much mass into one place would heat the center up so much that nuclei would no longer be stable.
yea and unstable explosion. It does work, You just refuse to see it.
-
It had to start somewhere.
Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).
it is spiraling away from it.
Evidence?
yea and unstable explosion. It does work, You just refuse to see it.
So what's causing it to explode? What prevents it from collapsing into a black hole like physicists would expect it to (it's inside of its own Schwarzschild radius)?
-
Not everyone see's your universe Krypt. Just because you say doesn't mean its true or correct.
Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).
Yea lets see the proof.
Evidence?
Try looking through a telescope. Everything seems to be moving away from the "center" or where whatever it is that happend. SO maybe not a spiral but were surely traveling through space. But sure looks like a spiral in some photographs from hubble.
So what's causing it to explode?
Atoms being splitt. Alot of them with that much matter. IF you look at the detonator for the original H-Bomb its a sphere.
Charges are set all around the sphere and its imploded from explosives to split 1 atom..
For the big bang and we're talking big. The same effect could be achieved possibly by the pressure of matter. But just one to go off with that much matter would cause a chain reaction and you get. a really. Big bang.
Ghost
-
Well since we cant see the entire universe. Have to use galaxy as a template instead. But who's to say it isn't a spiral.
Cant post external links. You'll have to work for it.
//www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2019/hubble-spots-a-stunning-spiral
here is something else everyone should be aware of. of course you'll have to work for it again.
add the h t t p : to the beginning of the links.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Spirals and vortex
Ghost
If you could, please re-post those in working links after you check them. Thx
-
Not everyone see's your universe Krypt.
My Universe? It isn't "my" Universe.
Just because you say doesn't mean its true or correct.
Of course not. It's the evidence that says so. At least so far as we can currently tell.
Yea lets see the proof.
Science is not about proof. It is about evidence. There may not have been a true singularity (quantum physics suggests there wasn't), but the observable evidence does support the notion of all matter and energy having been squeezed together into a tiny speck just before the Big Bang happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Everything seems to be moving away from the "center"
This, in particular, is the claim that I was asking you to support. In general, everything is moving away from everything else. There is no one particular, unique location that all objects are receding away from that could be called a center.
Atoms being splitt. Alot of them with that much matter. IF you look at the detonator for the original H-Bomb its a sphere
The amount of fissile material in the Universe is massively dwarfed by the non-fissile material. Have you done the math that demonstrates that the total fissile material in the Universe can provide enough energy to make a sphere that is overwhelmingly non-fissile explode? More importantly, you didn't answer my question about what's keeping this enormous sphere from collapsing into a black hole. It's inside of its own Schwarzschild radius. No explosion can be large enough to make matter travel out of an event horizon.
-
The amount of fissile material in the Universe is massively dwarfed by the non-fissile material.
This is true.
Are you going by atomic weights? seems there would be heavier elements in the center according to their weight, and the material would not have to be be fissile possibly for the atoms to be split if it was all the matter in the entire universe. The background radiation has to come from somewhere. So hypothetically if it were all the matter in the universe there would be fissile material present.
Good stuff
Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).
So are you saying it's a singularity and not a big bang? Or a singularity that exploded to a big bang? I am not sure a singularity produces background radiation, which support's the big bang theory.
Everything seems to be moving away from the "center"
This, in particular, is the claim that I was asking you to support.
The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.
In general, everything is moving away from everything else. There is no one particular, unique location that all objects are receding away from that could be called a center.
That would be the starting point, yes, everything is moving away from each other. So if everything is moving away from each other. My next question would be is everything going away in the same direction. For instance, is it possible of multiple big bangs from different points? or is it from one point that everything is moving away from?
Great post Suhail Jalbout. ty
Ghost
-
Are you going by atomic weights?
I'm going by fissile vs. non-fissile. Fissile materials are not always heavier than non-fissile. Uranium-238 is heavier than uranium-235. 235 is fissile, but 238 is not.
the material would not have to be be fissile
It would if you wanted a chain reaction that could support an explosion. Which is irrelevant because no explosion could get out of the black hole produced by clumping so much matter in one spot in the first place.
The background radiation has to come from somewhere.
Yes, and the Big Bang theory explains where it came from (no nuclear fission needed).
Or a singularity that exploded to a big bang?
No. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
I am not sure a singularity produces background radiation, which support's the big bang theory.
The singularity itself isn't what made the radiation. It was the sufficient cooling of the matter in the early Universe that allowed electrons to be captured by protons. That act caused photons to be released, which were then redshifted by the metric expansion of the Universe to the microwaves we see today.
The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.
I said that there is no center.
My next question would be is everything going away in the same direction.
Nope.
For instance, is it possible of multiple big bangs from different points?
No need for multiple Big Bangs. One will do.
or is it from one point that everything is moving away from?
Nope.
-
Thank you Ghost. I am humbled by your kind words
-
one could move in space without the constraint of time
Speed is defined as distance divided by time. Without time, there is no speed and therefore no movement.
If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.
As proof that the speed of light reference is the grind state, matter and antimatter only appear at the upper limits of energy. Photons will split into these particle pairs. Matter is at higher potential end of energy, and since matter is connected to inertial reference, inertial reference is at higher potential than the speed of light reference. The traditions do this backwards since backwards makes more sense at Newtonian conditions.
Inertial reference and the concept of space-time, both end when V=C, since division by zero in SR, creates a mathematical discontinuity, relative to inertial reference. I am approaching the creation of the universe before space-time, or at the discontinuity in space time, where space time no longer applies; discontinuous, and the universal potential is lowest. The speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe. Inertial sets a potential with this ground state.
-
If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.
What I said is still true. To a photon, neither time nor movement exist. It does not "move in space without the constraint of time" because it doesn't even move.
-
The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.
You keep talking about this nonexistent center. If there is a center it would be easy to detect, we would see all observable galaxies moving away from that center point, which we do not see.
-
If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.
What I said is still true. To a photon, neither time nor movement exist. It does not "move in space without the constraint of time" because it doesn't even move.
There is a work around for this. Say we were traveling at the speed of light and the universe appears as a point-instant. This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.
What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.
My microscope is not changing the point-instant affect that took a lot of propulsion energy to achieve. All the microscope is doing is giving me a different view of the point-instant in terms of distance, Microscopes do not impact time, and therefore has no impact on the instant.
The affect is similar to looking through a telescope outward toward distance galaxies. On the one hand, we see things that are very far away. But on the other hand, what we really are seeing is energy, that is up close, that once came from far away. We can imagine being there, a million light years away, while never leaving here, so only an instant passes.
This is different than if we apply the brakes to our space-ship and cause our velocity to decrease to below C. Besides the brake heat, that meter size universe is now attached to a finite amount of time. Now space-time is in affect.
-
What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?
-
This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.
That's not true. The Universe's length according to that particular axis may be zero, but its other dimensions will still be non-zero. A photon travelling from the Sun to Vega isn't going to be at Alpha Centauri. Not even in its own reference frame.
What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.
That makes no mathematical sense. Magnifying a point of zero size will never give you an object 1 meter across. Zero is zero regardless of the magnification.
What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?
That has indeed been proposed before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
-
This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.
That's not true. The Universe's length according to that particular axis may be zero, but its other dimensions will still be non-zero. A photon travelling from the Sun to Vega isn't going to be at Alpha Centauri. Not even in its own reference frame.
What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.
That makes no mathematical sense. Magnifying a point of zero size will never give you an object 1 meter across. Zero is zero regardless of the magnification.
What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?
That has indeed been proposed before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
I used the linear movement for simplicity. To get the affect I speak of would require a spherical orbit at the speed of light, similar to the 1S orbital of the hydrogen atom. Just as the Uncertainty Principle places the electron into a volume; omnidirectional vector, this would have the affect of everything being pulled into a point-instant at C.
The magnification of the point reference, to say one meter, is possible because the point is a reference illusion and not a state of nature. If we slowed from C, we would notice the point is now spread out over distance and time. Magnification does the same thing to reference, however, since this does not leave the C reference, time remains frozen at an instant; omnipresent.
In terms of moving in time independent of distance, this can be modeled as slowing down a movie using super slow motion. The slowing down of the movie, does not impact the size of the movie in space. This is independent of spatial characteristics.
For example, if there is a close play in sports, we might use super slow motion so we can see more details, within the same space and time frame. Slow motion allows more details to be seen in the same space, so we get a more accurate universal picture; omniscience.
This super slow motion mechanism has the opposite affect in inertial reference. If we slow the action of a movie, then faster objects become more conscious. Slowing in the C reference is allowing perception of faster objects in inertial. The singularity of the BB, which was a very fast event, would require nearly complete slow motion to be made conscious; manifest, in real time.
Photons are interesting in that they have two legs, one leg is in the speed of light reference and the other leg is in inertial reference. They do not fully express the C reference. In other words, things moving at the speed of light should create a reference that is very uniform; all will head to the point-instant. As such, if photons were only in the speed of light reference, we would not see variations in wavelength and frequency. Rather all photos would become homogenize. The fact that photons can travel at C, yet maintain unique and distinct inertial scale characteristics, in space and time; wavelength and frequency, implies photons are partly in inertial reference; two legs connecting the discontinuity between C and inertial. Photons do not exactly express a pure C reference. Photons cannot be used to explain the speed of light reference, but rather are an inertial artifact connected to the C reference.
As an experiment, if I shined a light at a distant test object, I can get a photoelectric affect to characterize the wavelength of my light. If the object was to reflect some of the light back, the exact same potential affect will occur on my end.
If we do the same thing, but have one or both of the references in motion, the wavelength will change due to the Doppler shift, but the speed of light remains constant even if we appear to add or subtract velocity to or from C. The speed of light aspects does not change. That affect we see is connected to the inertial leg of the photon.
This inertial leg is generated at the junction between omnipresence and omniscience; magnification and super slow mo. The speed of the light reference, sees this as two disconnected affects that are independent of each other. The inertial reference sees it as a combination of distance and time potential; photon.
If we go back to the speed of light reference if one could move in time without the constraint of distance and in distance without the constraint of time, you would exist in a state of maximum entropy. Any and all form of complexity would be possible without the limits impose by space time. This would be similar to using the imagination to make connections, that may not be practical in reality, but which if attempt will add to universal complexity; chaos.
If you were in the C reference and came to focus, and thereby limit yourself, via magnification and slow motion, this will lower local entropy, with a lowering of entropy giving off energy. This topic is about creation of the universe. I start at a speed of light reference and maximum entropy. We lower entropy and release energy, by coming to a focus. The singular of the BB, needs super slow motion cranked up so we can see a very fast event. Distance magnification does not have to be very much; small size. The lowering of entropy releases energy.
-
Does anyone have a translation into plain English for all of that?
-
@ Daxiazun
Sorry for interrupting your interesting and educational debate to answer Daxiazun.
The main question is: from where mater and energy came in the first place? This question is legitimate because we believe that everything that exist in our universe should have an origin. So it is in the human nature to ask this question. I think there are the following possibilities:
1. Matter and energy were created from nothing. This is not possible. Nothing cannot produce something because nothing does not exist.
2. Matter and energy were created from other forms of matter and energy that can create but are not created. Since there is no evidence to the existence of such type of matter and energy, this possibility is also not valid.
3. Matter and energy always existed. This possibility has evidence. They exist in two cyclic forms: either in the form of a BBBH or in the form of a universe. BBBHs produce universes and collapsed universe produce BBBHs. A complete closed loop. I do realize the difficulty in accepting this possibility but there is always a special case to the norm. I am looking forward for our scientists to create special “Strong AI” robots with huge “brain plasticity” and consciousness geared to answer debatable human questions.
I believe it will follow the same course over and over again because the creation of the BBBH and the universe follow the same repeated process. The process of manufacturing say chemical plants is the same no matter where it is erected. The only difference between older and new ones is in the development of the process control systems so as to attain optimal conditions in time and productivity
-
Matter and energy were created from nothing. This is not possible.
Except it is known to actually happen.
So, you writing it off as "impossible" just shows that you need to learn more science before you criticise it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
-
Does anyone have a translation into plain English for all of that?
At the speed of light the integration of space-time breaks down. This can be inferred by plugging in the speed of light C in the equations of special relativity. Both time and distance become mathematical discontinuities. This creates a discontinuity in space-time, allowing space to act independent of time and time to act independent of space.
This discontinuity of space-time at the speed of light reference, is the ground state of the universe. Energy, as photons, although traveling at the speed of light is not entirely in the ground state of the speed of light reference. This can be inferred from the observation, photons has finite components; wavelength and frequency, where space and time are integrated. Doppler shift of energy, for example, due to relative motion in space-time, is an inertial feature, that is not found in the ground state. Photons have two legs with one in the ground state and the in inertial.
The speed of light ground state, where time and space can act independently, is a state of maximized entropy. It is the source of the second law. If one could move in time without the constraint of distance and/or move in distance without the constraint of time, then all states of complexity are possible, simultaneously. The ground state does not have the same physical limits as the inertial universe. If you plug extreme entropy into the Free Energy Equation G=H-TS, maximized entropy of the ground state is a state of infinite negative energy. It is the ground state from which inertial energy can appear, if the potential is able to increase.
If we were to lower entropy, within the ground state, such as by simulating the space-time, where space and time pseudo-connect as pseudo space*****time, the loss of local entropy would release free energy, that has been tied up as entropy. Now we have energy, but not yet space-time, since as it was shown, photons have one leg in the ground state; C, and another leg in inertial, with this new state at higher potential than the ground state at C.
If we wanted to make matter and antimatter in the lab, we need to use very high energy photons. These extreme energy photons will split with the result being matter and antimatter particle pairs. This tells us that matter (and anti-matter) are at the upper limits of energy and therefore matter has even more potential than does energy.
If matter was at lower potential than energy, matter would only appear from the weakest energy photons and not the highest energy photons. That being said, if we created energy from the ground state, we need to add more potential to form matter. Matter and mass is at the highest potential in the universe relative to the ground state.
When matter and antimatter form, these quickly lower potential and reform energy. Somehow, we ended up with only matter. This created a situation where that was no direct way to lower potential back to energy, as had been the case for matter and anti-matter.
Matter cannot travel at C and therefore matter defines and maintains a discontinuity with the ground state at C, that we call space-time. However, since the ground state is the big dog of the universe, it has an impact on energy, space-time and matter. Universal Entropy has to increase, driven by the extreme entropy of the ground state. Matter will find ways to convert to the bridge state called energy; forces of nature, while energy needs to lose its inertial leg (potential) such as via a red shift and expansion.
Also, since since the ground state is at infinite entropy and inertial has practical physical limits in terms of possible physical states for entropy, due to matter and space-time, the entropic potential creates an affect that we attribute to chaos and randomness.
As an analogy for this entropy-chaos affect, say we imagine something in our mind, where the laws of physics can be broken, but only in our mind. For example, I can image a glass caviler beam, that is 1 meter thick and can span 1 mile without central supports. This can be imagined, but it is not practical in hard reality. It is state of entropy; complexity, in terms of my mind. However, if I attempted to build this, the practical limitations of inertial and space-time will not allow this to occur. Instead I would increase entropy as a pile of rubble; chaos. The ground state has this impact on matter, albeit smaller in scale.
The living state is interesting since it is a state of perpetual entropy increase. Metabolism, for example, is constantly increasing universal entropy. Entropy is also the drive behind evolution val the DNA. More of this another time.
-
That was rather like asking someone to translate Spanish to English for me, and then giving me the Spanish again. I think you are using a bunch of words in ways that don't make sense together.
-
That was rather like asking someone to translate Spanish to English for me, and then giving me the Spanish again. I think you are using a bunch of words in ways that don't make sense together.
I think the problem is that gibberish can't be translated to any language and make sense. :)
-
Let me talk slower, since Spanish is often a fast sounding language. If you look at the equations for Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and plug in V=C in the Lorenz factor, you end up dividing the equations for relativistic mass, distance and time by zero. Below is the equation for time dilation as an example.
(https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/timedilationequation.png)
Division by zero, implies these functions become discontinuous at the speed of light. Space-Time cannot not maintain its continuity, when composed of two discontinuous functions. At the speed of light space-time breaks down.
One way to model this discontinuity is to assume that space and time at C, separate into space that is independent of time and time that is independent of space. Such a state would be fully discontinuous with a state where the two are connected.
Mass according to the SR equations also cannot go the speed of light or relativistic mass becomes infinite, which would take infinite energy. Mass/matter is also discontinuous at C. Mass/matter can only exist in inertial references below C, where space-time is connected thereby placing practical limits on matter. There are no practical limits when space and time act independently without matter to drag around.
The discontinuous state where time and space are disconnected represents a state of maximum entropy. Unlike space-time that has constraints, based on the limitations of matter and space-time all having to work together, the discontinuous state does not have these same limitations.
The discontinuity state define a state of minimal potential in term of the second law. This state at C of maximum entropy is the ground state of the universe, while the limitation of inertial and space-time sets potentials with the ground state. All that occurs in space-time and the inertial universe can be explained by this potential, including the living state.
-
The discontinuous state where time and space are disconnected represents a state of maximum entropy.
There goes your Spanish again. Space and time don't have entropy.
The discontinuity state define a state of minimal potential in term of the second law.
Minimum potential... of what? What definition of the word "potential" are you using here?
This state at C of maximum entropy is the ground state of the universe, while the limitation of inertial and space-time sets potentials with the ground state.
No habla español. Make sure you know what words mean before you assemble them together in a sentence.
-
The main source of mass in the universe is connected to the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is composed of a proton and an election.The election and proton are the big dogs of the universe. In that sense, they as a whole, set the highest potential with the ground state. Lowering this potential, moves the universe forward; fusion and mass burn.
If we look at electrons and protons, these entities are indistinquishable from each other, yet they are all over the place. It reminds me of the ground state, where one can be in many places at the same time, while also being a center of reference at each place; omnipresence. This abundance in space is an entropic impact from the ground state.
If we extrapolate the hydrogen atom forward into chemistry, there is a state in chemistry called hydrogen bonding. A hydrogen bond is a hydrogen proton, that is covalently bonded to another atom forming a secondary and weaker bond, called the hydrogen bond. The big dog of the universe, has the maximum potential with the ground state, even in this case. This is important to life.
What is interesting about the hydrogen bond is it has both polar and covalent character. The significance of this the hydrogen bond is similar to a binary switch, that has two settings each of which slants the electromagnetic force toward the electrostatic or the magnetic side.
The polar aspect of hydrogen bonding lowers potential by getting charges as close as possible. This is an example of an electrostatic affect. The covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding has to align atomic orbitals even when this means moving away for proper alignment. In this case, the magnetic aspect of the EM force dominates the electrostatic aspect. This little binary switch is key to life and is light years ahead of semiconductor switches.
The polar side of the binary switch has higher entropy, while the covalent side has lower entropy due to the needed orbital overlap into precise patterns. The ground state at C prefers the polar side of the switch, which is the most common in water and nature. The living state can flip the switch away from the ground state, more often, thereby creating potential for other things.
There is thing called cooperative hydrogen bonding. This where many hydrogen bonds form in a cluster. For example, water or H2O, can form four hydrogen bonds, two donor and two receiver. This allows water to form extended structures in 3-D. similar to carbon, with the entire thing held together by hydrogen bonds. In cooperative hydrogen bonds, not only is everything connected by hydrogen bonds, but electron will delocalize and move around the cluster. Cooperation is way to increase election entropy; ground state. Water and the molecules of life form cooperative hydrogen bonds and then extract energy by breaking the cooperative; lowered entropy releases energy. .
Let me change direction slightly and look at the atom, oxygen, which plays a role in these affects in water. Oxygen, as oxide or O-2, is stable with two more electrons than protons. This is another example of the electromagnetic force shifted to the magnetic side. If electrostatic was more balance and less skewed, O-2 would need to shed two electrons for charge balance. Instead oxygen aggressively yanks electrons off nearly all atoms to create the charge imbalance. Oxygen has a very strong slant to the magnetic side of the EM force, driven by enhanced electron stability and entropy; filled p-orbitals.
When Oxygen and Hydrogen combine as water, H2O, we have a central oxygen atoms with high magnetic potential slant, bonded to hydrogen (the big dog), which can then form hydrogen bonds with another Oxygen, that are a binary switch between polar and covalent, or between electrostatic and magnetic slants. This situation appears to be very receptive to the ground state, as reflected by water being the most analogous substance in nature with over 70 anomalies; able to maximize entropy better that any other state of matter.
-
There goes your Spanish again. Space and time don't have entropy.
In SR, velocity is the working variable. Velocity takes energy; velocity implies momentum and kinetic energy. This kinetic energy, near C, becomes expressed as potentials in space, time and mass governed by the SR equations. Without some form of energy, as motion, even relative motion, you will not see any of these affects. There is no red shift without some kinetic energy in one of the frames. In the twin paradox, these potentials can even leave a lasting affect on matter. This was demonstrated with radioactive decay. Potential is involved.
At C we have infinite relativistic potential in mass, time and space, but mass/matter cannot move at the speed of light. The Infinite potential can only exist for space and time at C, while the discontinuity means space and time are not connected as space-time. This potential is not energy or photons, since these are connected in space and time; wavelength and frequency. The potential is an another state. Maybe information entropy is a better term. Entropy absorbs energy as it increases. At infinite entropy, there is no useable free energy potential left; ground state. The ground state has infinite entropy. Forming the universe requires lowering entropy to release the potential hidden in entropy.
One of the big problems is you in general, instinctively want to maintain a relative earth reference in your mind to view a universal ground state that is not relative since space-time does not apply, If the speed of light is the same in all references, whatever this C reference looks like, will also be the same for all. When I say ground state of the universe, this is universal and not relative. What that unique reference may look like to an observer, is subject to discussion.
The paradox is how do you have a ground state that the math says has infinite potential? Well you let the second law absorb the energy potential to zero, by going all the way to infinite entropy. This entropy, without matter is information entropy. It is something like omnipresence and omniscience, or moving in time without the restriction of space and moving space without the restrictions of time.
Entropy has to increase, according to the second law, which means more and more entropy means smaller potential remaining; ground state. Inertial references are all at higher potential than the ground state and are all heading there, little by little.
We need to lower the entropy, from maximum, to release the hidden potential, to form the universe. After that, this potential in inertial space, slowly goes back to the ground state.
-
One of the big problems is you in general, instinctively want to maintain a relative earth reference in your mind to view a universal ground state that is not relative since space-time does not apply
My "problem" is that I want to read sentences that make sense. The way you use words like "entropy", "potential" and "ground state" don't. Look up their definitions before making your next post.
-
That was rather like asking someone to translate Spanish to English
It's not Spanish
It's not English
It's rubbish (or, if you prefer, gibberish)
-
This is another example of the electromagnetic force shifted to the magnetic side.
No
It's due to lattice energy- which is electrostatic.
Have you considered not posting stuff that's obviously wrong?
-
Hi
I hear what you are saying OP, but I do not quite get how we can just state that matter has always been there. Kind of seems like the generic or default answer, because it cannot be answered. Sorry to those I mind f*** with the following. I also like to think about the origins of the universe, well really the origin of everything. Even a funny thought. The problem is that when you overanalyze everything it starts messing with your belief system. Anyway.
The way to realize something is to break it down by the number of layers that exist. Let me make an example of this. There is a hair on the table in front of you. The hair came from you, you came from your parents, your parents from theirs, etc. Humans came from animals walking on land, Animals walking on land came from animals in the ocean, animals in the ocean came from plants in the ocean, etc etc etc. When we get to the single cell which you can kind of call God, you are still left with the main question. What created the first thing? If it was nothingness, who created the nothingness.
How can something create itself? Look at your hands... and realize you are this organized energy form. Now answer me this... How are you here? How is it possible for anything around you to exist in the first place? How does consciousness exist in the first place? Even if aliens created us, or we are trapped in a Matrix, it does not matter. Those are all post theories, because I would just continue with who created the aliens, etc.
Now if we look at the general mindsets of people, we find the people are in denial, we thrive to forget some truth hidden in the background, that we exist as one entity (God) that divided itself up so many times it forgot it was one being. Today it lives in total insanity as us... you and me, lol.
My main point remains, how is it possible for anything to exist? For us to exist?
For consciousness to exist, without ever being created?
Who are we? Where did we come from?
-
This is another example of the electromagnetic force shifted to the magnetic side.
No
It's due to lattice energy- which is electrostatic.
Have you considered not posting stuff that's obviously wrong?
A charge in motion will create a magnetic field. If the charge was to stop, the magnetic field we be at a minimum. Electron sharing via covalent bonding orbitals, causes electron delocaton, which implies enhance motion of the electrons for enhanced magnetic affects, using the same number of electrons.
In the case of oxygen and oxide, O-2, it can accept two extra electrons, so it can fills the 2P orbitals, which are show below. The lobes of the p-orbitals are orientated perpendicular to each other; x.y.z axis. This configuration will optimize all the electrons in motion, via the right hand rule. This will optimize the magnetic force vector addition in 3-D space, as the electrons circulate around the oxygen nucleus. This magnetic addition stabilizes the electrostatic repulsion caused by having two extra negative charges. I call it slanted to the M side because that is what it is. Just the shape of the p-orbitlas and 3-D magnetic addition gives it away.
The strongest hydrogen bonds occur with the most electronegative atoms, like oxygen. Highly electronegative atoms, like oxygen, chlorine, etc., all have the magnetic slant in common, since they can accept extra electrons. This host atom, like oxygen, allows the hydrogen bond to act like a binary EM switch; mostly E, but some M induction.
In the case of water, the hydrogen bond between an oxygen and hydrogen can transition from a polar hydrogen bond to a hydrogen bond with covalent character; flip the switch, and then go even further all the way to a full scale covalent bond to oxygen. Another covalent bond between oxygen and hydrogen, will shift into a hydrogen bond with covalent character, then to polar if need be; pH affect. This is a more complex switch with a wider bandwidth.
(https://revisionscience.com/sites/revisionscience.com/files/imce/RS_Pxyz_Atom-Orbitals.gif)
-
One of the big problems is you in general, instinctively want to maintain a relative earth reference in your mind to view a universal ground state that is not relative since space-time does not apply
My "problem" is that I want to read sentences that make sense. The way you use words like "entropy", "potential" and "ground state" don't. Look up their definitions before making your next post.
Let me use some existing physics data and observation to explain these terms. Matter and anti-matter can form from high energy photons. Matter and antimatter pairs do not form from low energy photons like radio waves or visible light. You need to crank up the energy potential much higher to make matter (and antimatter).
Wha that tells me is matter (and antimatter) begins at higher potential than energy begins. Matter is like the celling, while energy is like the floor in terms of their relative spectrum of potential. If we plotted energy and then matter as a function of E=MC2, matter only appears high up the y-axis. I would express this by saying that matter is at higher potential than energy, The direction of a universal ground state, would be below the floor. The red shift of all energy in the expanding universe, is heading this energy toward the floor, lowering potential by increasing wavelengh. You guys make it too complicated.
By ground state, I am not talking of a relative state. I am speaking of an absolute state of lowest potential, relative to any potential you can name. This entire discussion has been about the speed of light reference. Einstein said the speed of light is the same in all references. One could extrapolate this to also mean, that the speed of light reference will also be the same in all references. This is universal reference common to all.
My esoteric analysis was trying to show that the speed of light reference is the universal ground state, and exists below matter and energy in terms of potential. Matter is the celling, energy is the floor and C is in the basement. I am having a problem explaining infinite time and infinite space that are discontinuous with space-time, allowing minimal potential; universal ground state.
You are thinking in relative terms, but I am expressing absolute terms. Your are trying to pin point potential to a unique relative situation, which is how an engineer will deal with the task at hand. But I am defining potential and ground state in terms of something universal, applicable to all reference and all situations in those references.
-
Wha that tells me is matter (and antimatter) begins at higher potential than energy begins.
Thank you for identifying the root of your misunderstanding.
-
Matter is like the celling, while energy is like the floor in terms of their relative spectrum of potential. If we plotted energy and then matter as a function of E=MC2, matter only appears high up the y-axis.
Energy and matter are not things to be compared and contrasted with each other. Matter has energy. Light has energy. Photons and electrons have energy. It is incorrect to say that light or photons are energy. Photons have energy as a property. Unlike matter or light, energy is not some independent physical entity. There is no such thing as "pure" energy. Trying to put matter and energy on a single axis is therefore nonsensical. The reason that photons have to be of such high (gamma ray) energies to form particles like electron-positron pairs is because electrons and positrons have a minimum mass-energy. Photons do not, and can have a mass-energy that is arbitrarily low.
-
It was god
-
Matter is like the celling, while energy is like the floor in terms of their relative spectrum of potential. If we plotted energy and then matter as a function of E=MC2, matter only appears high up the y-axis.
Energy and matter are not things to be compared and contrasted with each other. Matter has energy. Light has energy. Photons and electrons have energy. It is incorrect to say that light or photons are energy. Photons have energy as a property. Unlike matter or light, energy is not some independent physical entity. There is no such thing as "pure" energy. Trying to put matter and energy on a single axis is therefore nonsensical. The reason that photons have to be of such high (gamma ray) energies to form particles like electron-positron pairs is because electrons and positrons have a minimum mass-energy. Photons do not, and can have a mass-energy that is arbitrarily low.
To solve the origin of the universe problem, I had to think outside the box of convention. I agree that it is unconventional to plot photons and matter(mass) on the same graph, using the equivalency formula E=MC2 and experimental data. In this plot various types of matter and all the various wavelengths of photons are plotted along the x-axis, and their E equivalence is plotted on the Y-axis.
If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph. Photons start at the floor Y=0+, and reach toward the ceiling. This simple plot established the hierarchy of energy potential; all forms of energy (potential) with matter at the ceiling.
Mass cannot move at the speed of light. Whereas, photons can move at the speed of light. There is a discontinuity between mass particles and C, which the plot shows and which was also suggested by SR.
Theoretically, there is a pure C reference, below the largest wavelength photons, which define the largest discontinuity with mass; slightly below the energy(photon) floor. Since C is the same in all inertial references, this speed of light reference, is also the same in all references and would appear to exist at Y=0, on the graph. Infinite wavelength energy with zero frequency is an example of a discontinuity of time and distance, using SR where V=C. I call this the ground state.
This is reasonable so far, albeit unconventional. The question is how can you form a universe, from such a universal ground state of zero potential energy,and still form a universe with lots of mass that exists at higher potential, relative to the ground state, while also being discontinuous with it?
What came to mind was the concept of entropy. The term entropy was invented by scientists who were developing the early steam engines in the 19th century. When they ran experiments and did an energy balance, they constantly found that there was missing energy. This missing energy was measurable. They defined the lost energy as entropy. This loss of energy is how I solved the ground state problem, relative to mass.
Entropy, according to the second law has to increase. As entropy increases we will get an affect that looks like an energy sink, and missing energy. At infinite entropy, the energy sink will tie up all the energy,.so there is none left. At the ground state, the energy is conserved but it s the form of entropy, and is not useable, and therefore appears not to exist if we run an experiment. Energy that is not available for use, does not leave a measurable affect. However, energy is conserved in the entropy but can only be make available, if we use more energy than we expect to get. This type of experiment can make the ground state appear as negative energy.
If the infinite entropy can be lowered, somehow to a finite level, energy can be released. We can move between ice and water and cause the entropy to decrease or increase, with the affect being an energy release, or an energy sink. The next challenge was to somehow explain how the discontinuity in time and distance at C, translates to infinite entropy and its manipulation.
If we assumed the ground state was discontinuous in terms of space-time that would logically imply space and time are no longer connected. It does not necessarily means time and space do not exist, but they themselves would have to exist in a way, that was discontinuous with traditional properties of time and space found in space-time. For this to all work, the new properties need to be able to able to express infinite entropy, so all the ends are tied.
Moving in time without the constraint of distance and moving in space without the constraint of time, makes provisions for the two discontinuities; space-time and space and time, while theoretically allowing infinite entropy. It was the simplest solution.
-
I had to think outside the box of convention.
It's not "convention" that's the problem.
You are thinking outside the box of "things that work".This is reasonable so far
If it is "reasonable" then you should be able to show the reason for it.
Please do so.
They defined the lost energy as entropy.
Energy and entropy do not even have the same units.
They are different things.
Entropy, according to the second law has to increase.
Only for an isolated system and the things you have talked about so far may not be isolated.
At infinite entropy,
That's not possible, mathematically, or physically.If the infinite entropy can be lowered, somehow to a finite level,
Do you propose to change the impossible thing by using magic?
You certainly cant use science.
We can move between ice and water and cause the entropy to decrease or increase,
Entropy, according to the second law has to increase.
Make up your mind.
If we assumed the ground state was discontinuous in terms of space-time that would
Word salad.
-
If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph
That depends on how you make the graph. If you plot from no energy (0 eV) to the Planck energy (1.22 x 1028 eV), then every particle in the Universe that has been observed so far will be extraordinarily close to the bottom of the graph. The most energetic particle detected so far was a cosmic ray particle with an energy of 3.2 x 1020 eV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle This is less than even one-millionth of the Planck energy.
moving in space without the constraint of time
This would only work if you could travel at infinite speed.
-
If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph
That depends on how you make the graph. If you plot from no energy (0 eV) to the Planck energy (1.22 x 1028 eV), then every particle in the Universe that has been observed so far will be extraordinarily close to the bottom of the graph. The most energetic particle detected so far was a cosmic ray particle with an energy of 3.2 x 1020 eV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle This is less than even one-millionth of the Planck energy.
moving in space without the constraint of time
This would only work if you could travel at infinite speed.
I found this quote below from the internet:
Galactic cosmic rays are atom fragments such as protons (positively charged particles), electrons (negatively charged particles) and atomic nuclei. ... Roughly 90 percent of cosmic ray nuclei are hydrogen (protons) and 9 percent are helium (alpha particles).May 11, 2018
You helped to make my point that matter is at the top of the graph, albeit, the experimental data is not at the theoretical limit of the Planck energy. The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.
I have used the term potential and not potential energy, since not all potential has to do with energy. Potential can also exist in time or distance. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies extra distance potential added to space-time. Distance potential allows the electron, for example, to occupy a volume instead of being traceable as a point. A space-time calculation has uncertainty in position and/or momentum that can be simply explained with some added distance potential. This extra distance potential comes from the interaction of matter with the ground state, where distance is independent of time.
Time potential be experimentally explained with a simple thought experiment. Probability is time dependent. If I had a six sided dice and all the time in the world to throw it again and again the odds of each side will be the same. Say I lowered the allotted time to 1 second to throw the dice and calculate the odds. You may get one throw. The odds change for the dice, with that one side looking causal and the other sides unlikely. If in need another side I add time. By controlling time potential you can control the odds.
You said that moving in space without the constraint of time would take infinite speed. This may be true relative to a relative inertial reference. However, this is not true for the ground state reference.
If you traveled at the speed of light, the finite universe would appear as a point-instant. It is not compressed, but rather all appears to overlap as a point in this reference. This allows you to be everything, at the same time due to the point overlap. If I had a microscope and magnified the point, since the microscope does not change time, but only deals with distances. I can be anywhere in the magnified universe point, in an instant; omnipresent.
When we look at the edge of the universe with a telescope, we see the edge, but via energy that has traveled for eons, that is now nearby. This nearby energy takes an instant to reach our eyes even though it represents something very far away. We do not have to wait for real time energy with eons of time delay. This is a rough analogy of the magnification of the point-instant universe, allowing real time omnipresence in detail.
-
The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.
Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?
-
As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.
Dear Krptid
What kind of a real 3D universe can meet your following description?
" the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center"."
If the universe was limited or finite, than by definition at some point you must get to its edge.
Therefore, theoretically if it has a ball shape, this finite universe should have a clear center.
However, as there is no edge to our universe than it is a clear indication that our Universe is unlimited. In other words - it is infinite.
At any spot in that infinite universe, the distance to any direction is infinite.
Therefore, only infinite Universe doesn't have a center or alternatively, you could argue that every point in that universe is the "center"."
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to admit that our Universe must be infinite???
-
Dave, I'm not debating with you any longer on any subject matter. You are impervious to reasoning and evidence.
-
The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.
Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?
I was talking about the preponderance of the physical data of the universe, with electrons and protons; hydrogen proton, the majority of matter and mass. The black body radiation of space is the preponderance of photon data. There are exceptions on both ends of the scale. A high energy cosmic ray proton is just an extreme proton. It is not a new state of matter other than in terms of cataloging. The main point was matter is at higher potential than energy. If the speed of light is the ground state we would expect to see both matter and energy showing signs of moving down the y-axis toward the universe ground state.
1. Matter lowers potential via the forces of nature and gives off energy at C. This is matter lowering potential, piecemeal, by giving off lower potential energy at C. The C reference of the energy output brings matter closer to the ground state.
2. Universal energy also appears to be lowering potential, as evident in the universal red shift. Hydrogen emissions, for example, are heading in the direction of the ground state; lower and lower energy value for photons.
3. Gravity causes mass to clump, which according to General Relativity causes space-time to curve, The accumulative mass reference due to gravity and GR moves toward the C reference, This is approximated by the black hole.
One last observation is the theory predicts the existence of a quantum universe. We currently know that the universe is quantized but existing theory cannot explain why. That is a huge soft spot in existing theory since that has an impact of other things.
In terms of this model, the quantum affects are connected to time potential. If the universe was governed by a continuos model, where the hydrogen atom, for example, had infinite energy levels, instead of a small set of quantized energy levels, the progression of the universe would take longer. For A to go to B, having infinite options, would take longer than A to B with limited options. A quantum universe saves time, getting to the ground state.
This is an application go the example of rolling a six sided dice. If we have the time for infinite rolls of the dice, all sides will come up the same ratio; equal odds. If I limit the dice rolling to only one second, there is only time for one roll of the dice. In this case, only one side will come up with a probability of 1.0. Quantum loads the dice of the universe in time (potential). The universe was not designed to be permanent, which is why it loses potential at all ends at the same time.
As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.
The data we collect from space does appear to suggest this model. However, there is a practical problem with this connected to the conservation of energy. A Relative reference approach does not allow everyone, in all relative references, to do the exact same energy balance for the universe.
As a simple example, say a train was in motion, due to the burning of diesel fuel, and a second person was at the station sitting on a bench on a diet. We know the train has the energy. If the man on the bench is deaf and he did no know the train had burned diesel, but pretends he using this eyes and assumers he the moving frame and the train is stationary, the math comes out the same for relative velocity and motion, but his energy balance will be all wrong.
Relative reference gives us no way to do an universal energy balance. However, it does allow us to use the old tradition that the earth is the center of the universe, since the model says all point are a center. That allows the earth-centric approach that is psychologically pleasing.
If we could do an energy balance, then we could calculate a center of energy and a center of mass. However, since existing theory cannot start before the BB, it has an origin (0,0,0,0) problem and we do not know how model this gap. I'm trying to fill in that gap.
-
The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.
Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?
I was talking about the preponderance of the physical data of the universe, with electrons and protons; hydrogen proton, the majority of matter and mass. The black body radiation of space is the preponderance of photon data. There are exceptions on both ends of the scale. A high energy cosmic ray proton is just an extreme proton. It is not a new state of matter other than in terms of cataloging. The main point was matter is at higher potential than energy. If the speed of light is the ground state we would expect to see both matter and energy showing signs of moving down the y-axis toward the universe ground state.
1. Matter lowers potential via the forces of nature and gives off energy at C. This is matter lowering potential, piecemeal, by giving off lower potential energy at C. The C reference of the energy output brings matter closer to the ground state.
2. Universal energy also appears to be lowering potential, as evident in the universal red shift. Hydrogen emissions, for example, are heading in the direction of the ground state; lower and lower energy value for photons.
3. Gravity causes mass to clump, which according to General Relativity causes space-time to curve, The accumulative mass reference due to gravity and GR moves toward the C reference, This is approximated by the black hole.
One last observation is the theory predicts the existence of a quantum universe. We currently know that the universe is quantized but existing theory cannot explain why. That is a huge soft spot in existing theory since that has an impact of other things.
In terms of this model, the quantum affects are connected to time potential. If the universe was governed by a continuos model, where the hydrogen atom, for example, had infinite energy levels, instead of a small set of quantized energy levels, the progression of the universe would take longer. For A to go to B, having infinite options, would take longer than A to B with limited options. A quantum universe saves time, getting to the ground state.
This is an application go the example of rolling a six sided dice. If we have the time for infinite rolls of the dice, all sides will come up the same ratio; equal odds. If I limit the dice rolling to only one second, there is only time for one roll of the dice. In this case, only one side will come up with a probability of 1.0. Quantum loads the dice of the universe in time (potential). The universe was not designed to be permanent, which is why it loses potential at all ends at the same time.
As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.
The data we collect from space does appear to suggest this model. However, there is a practical problem with this connected to the conservation of energy. A Relative reference approach does not allow everyone, in all relative references, to do the exact same energy balance for the universe.
As a simple example, say a train was in motion, due to the burning of diesel fuel, and a second person was at the station sitting on a bench on a diet. We know the train has the energy. If the man on the bench is deaf and he did no know the train had burned diesel, but pretends he using this eyes and assumers he the moving frame and the train is stationary, the math comes out the same for relative velocity and motion, but his energy balance will be all wrong.
Relative reference gives us no way to do an universal energy balance. However, it does allow us to use the old tradition that the earth is the center of the universe, since the model says all point are a center. That allows the earth-centric approach that is psychologically pleasing.
If we could do an energy balance, then we could calculate a center of energy and a center of mass. However, since existing theory cannot start before the BB, it has an origin (0,0,0,0) problem and we do not know how model this gap. I'm trying to fill in that gap.
Making up silly stuff is not science. Most of your posts sound like something I would expect to hear from college freshman sitting around a dorm room and smoking a bong.
-
Let me ask a few questions concerning main stream theory. How does main stream theory explain the basis for our quantum universe? How does main stream theory explain the basis for the Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle? You guys have had a hundred years to do this, so you must have tied this loose ends, by now?
How far back can existing theory go in terms of the formation of the universe. Does it still have to start with a singularity event that magically appears without any explanation? How does current theory explain the observed superstructures of the universe, if space-time expanded at all points at the same time? How did galaxies and star form so fast in early creation if space was expanding and making it harder?
Why do we use the concepts of dark energy and dark matter if they cannot be proven to exist in the lab? Why not use unicorns since legion has it that unicorns can fart dark energy? Are we putting the cart; conclusions, before the horse; proof" ?Is this slight of hand and violation of science protocol an artifact of the relative reference assumptions, unable to close the universal energy balance,
If these questions cannot be answered, should existing theory be banished to alternate theory until remediation is over? Or does the subjectivity of prestige and tradition, give it a pass, even though science is supposed to be objective?
If a new theory can deal with these things and standard cannot, which is better?
-
If a new theory can deal with these things and standard cannot, which is better?
The new theory (if it is actually a scientific theory and not just speculation) would be better. The problem is, what you have isn't a scientific theory.
-
I see some great stuff here guys. keep it up. However for those of you with degree's. (obviously you have them because your replies are governed by strict guidelines from a textbook)
The books and even the instructors you learned from at school where ever you learned it, are all approved by the United states Gov board of education (or where ever you got them from)
The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth. If you believe that wholeheartedly and are insistent that the whole universe is what they say it is in a textbook. Or from a instructor that learned it from a textbook. And argue it to the point of nonsense.
Then there would be no reason for this discussion board. pretty cut and dry. If you actually believe 100% of what they say there is no hope. Don't be so hard on peoples ideas. Anyone can be a copy and paste expert and sound smart when they are really not. Quoting textbooks is not the purpose of this message board. We all share hypothesis and ideas here.
Anyways should be an eye opener. even to the experienced educated person cannot deny the Governments agenda of education.
Ghost
-
The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth.
Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? In particular, that scientific knowledge is censored in textbooks?
-
I see some great stuff here guys. keep it up. However for those of you with degree's. (obviously you have them because your replies are governed by strict guidelines from a textbook)
The books and even the instructors you learned from at school where ever you learned it, are all approved by the United states Gov board of education (or where ever you got them from)
The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth. If you believe that wholeheartedly and are insistent that the whole universe is what they say it is in a textbook. Or from a instructor that learned it from a textbook. And argue it to the point of nonsense.
Then there would be no reason for this discussion board. pretty cut and dry. If you actually believe 100% of what they say there is no hope. Don't be so hard on peoples ideas. Anyone can be a copy and paste expert and sound smart when they are really not. Quoting textbooks is not the purpose of this message board. We all share hypothesis and ideas here.
Anyways should be an eye opener. even to the experienced educated person cannot deny the Governments agenda of education.
Ghost
What utter idiotic crap.
-
ADDENDUM TO OP
There are many cosmological theories through history. It started with Brahmanda “Cosmic Egg” Universe around 15th-12th Century B.C, and then followed by Anaxagorian Universe in the 5th Century B.C. and so on until our present day theories such as the BBBH Universe, Multiverse, and Quantum Virtual Particles Universe. These theories are an outstanding mosaic of human brain analysis. Every time a cosmological theory hits the scientific world, questions pop up: what was before or from where it came?
All the cosmological theories admit that our universe and all its contents exist. Let us observe the space in which our universe exists when we strip it from its contents and send them to a BBBH. The anticipated results are as follows:
1. Remove everything that the naked eye can see. When an observer looks at the space with his naked eye he will find it very dark and void. Well this is not true. It is a “false void” No 1.
2. Remove all what we can see through a telescope. When an observer looks at the space using a telescope he will find the space is void. This is not true. It is a “false void” No 2.
3. Remove all what we can see under a microscope with magnification 1,000,000 times. When an observer looks at the space using a microscope he will find the space is void. This is not true. It is a “false void” No 3.
4. Remove all what we cannot see, due to limitations in manufacturing very powerful microscopes, but we can envisage their existence by theoretical microscopes (referring to quantum foam virtual particles that appear and disappear after infinitesimal fractions of a second and are quadrillions of times smaller than atomic nuclei). To an observer, the space is now completely void and it does not exist anymore, “real void”.
What about the BBBH that was created? There are two possibilities:
1. Assume the contents of item 4 mentioned above remained in space and were not transferred to the BBBH. In this case the BBBH exists in “false void” No 3. Before the BBBH explodes or (have a massive expansion or evaporates) it is quite possible that “false void” No 3 creates its own universe in accordance with Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing, 2012). But this should have happened eons ago assuming that “false void” No 3 can “stand alone”. In other words if “false void” No 3 can create a universe, then it should have been created from eternity with infinite age. This is not the case because the age of the oldest stars in our universe is only 13.8 b.y. while there are few which are older but not exceeding 14.5 b.y. This may indicate that “false void” No 3 is an integral part of existing universes and does not exist “standing alone”. Most probably quantum foam is an essential component needed to form a universe. Without its presence a universe cannot form.
2. Assume it was possible to transfer all the contents of item 4 mentioned above. This means the BBBH exists in “real void” that does not create matter and energy from nothing because it does not exist. When the BBBH explodes, it creates its own space. One second later, the space will be filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-matter, photons, neutrinos, and quantum foam. The space between these particles is “false void” No 3 while the space that contains the real and virtual particles is “false void” No 2. The process will then continue to form a complete universe. In conclusion, BBBHs form universes and universes form BBBHs.
-
There are many cosmological theories through history. It started with Brahmanda “Cosmic Egg” Universe around 15th-12th Century B.C, and then followed by Anaxagorian Universe in the 5th Century B.C
Those are not theories in the scientific sense
-
In response to SJ:
Your write up is very good. Energy always existed. There is no such thing as time. So the question of when the energy came to be is meaningless. There was no before or after. All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.
-
There is no such thing as time.
Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on. All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.
Hogwash.
-
Kryptoid said:
Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? In particular, that scientific knowledge is censored in textbooks?
Did you know that there are secret libraries such as the one I used to study in Defense companies. Sadly scientific information is often branded secret or top secret in the study papers by MIT and other universities. Some things must be kept secret for sure such as the submarine frequencies. Yet ordinary studies of Einstein's work do not appear to have much security problems. Yet once they are declared secret or higher they are locked away.
-
In response to SJ:
Your write up is very good. Energy always existed. There is no such thing as time. So the question of when the energy came to be is meaningless. There was no before or after. All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.
If you look at time, time spontaneously moves in one direction, which is to the future. Yet we; science and culture, model/measure time using clocks, which cycle like energy and waves. Clock do not move in one direction and therefore do not behave the same way as time.The concept of Reincarnation, models time as a cyclic event. However, although science does not observe time repeating itself, it still uses the model to measure time; midnight each day.
Clocks do not behave in the same way as the time. This appears to be creating a system side distortion and error in judgement. This is like using a meter stick to measure temperature. The result will be a round about approximation method, that gives practical results, but nevertheless misrepresents the phenomena in question. I would like to hear the justification for this, knowing that we know, that time does not cycle; blind leading the blind.
A better way to represent time, is the concept of entropy, instead of cyclic energy. According to the second law, the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy moves in one direction. Entropy is not a cyclic phenomena, like reincarnation, energy and waves. Rather entropy moves in one direction over time. Each time entropy moves forward or increases, it absorbs energy making that energy unusable. In this respect, if you use two references to explain time, then time would be connected to the entropic potential between the two references.
As an example of an entropy clock, consider the dead fish clock. With this clock, you go to the fish market and buy a fresh but dead fish. You place the fish on the counter, at room temperature and wait until it starts to stink. This is our unit of time. This entropy clock does not cycle, since we cannot un-stink the decaying dead fish. Like time, this clock moves in one direction. Interestingly, if we increase the temperature, time speeds up; the fish decays faster. Of we place it in the fridge, time slows. The dead fish clock behaves similar to the way energy clocks behave with relativity, with temperature taking the place of velocity for the dead fish clock.
A dead fish clock would be hard to use to get to the work on time each day. It is not cyclic nor is exactly repeatable. The next dead fish will be different. The system will be slightly different each time, due to entropy and random events working on the fish. This type of clock makes time itself subject to change, as time moves forward. The expanding universe, by expanding space-time, is causing reference time to change with time.
The second law, and its parallel to time, tells us something about the alpha and omega of the universe. Since the second law says the entropy of the universe has to increase, it stands to reason, that entropy within the earliest universe was less than it is today. This extrapolates to a time of near zero entropy; primordial atom. While if we extrapolate this to the future of time, we would head to a state of infinite entropy.
If we ignore the cyclic nature of time, as modeled with cyclic clocks, we get a situation where the universe ends at infinite entropy. For it to begin again we need to reach a state of zero entropy. There is a discontinuous function; new dead fish clock. This new universe will not exactly be the same. It may last longer or shorter.
-
Bored Chemist says
Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on.
GG: What we call time is meters/ meters per second.= Distance / light speed. Since there is no time, there was no time when the universe was created and no creator was necessary. A clock is just a clock. But it is far easier to explain things in terms of a clock.
-
Puppypower says: As above
GG: Your dead fish clock is interesting. The same is true of the universe. It came alive about 13.78 billion years ago and has been dying ever since. Is that really true? Yes and no. This light speed Co dimension is dying but the energy of life is moving into the Cs dimension. In the future no more Co energy will be left. Everything will be gone from this dimension. Then the Cs dimension will shrink and low and behold a new big bang will happen and our universe will be back fresh and new.
-
Yet once they are declared secret or higher they are locked away.
OK that would happen if, and only if they met the criteria here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/715778/May-2018_Government-Security-Classifications-2.pdf
"SECRET
Very sensitive information that justifies heightened
protective measures to defend against determined
and highly capable threat actors. For example, where
compromise could seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the
investigation of serious organised crime.
"
Or
"TOP SECRET
HMG’s most sensitive information requiring the
highest levels of protection from the most serious
threats. For example, where compromise could cause
widespread loss of life or else threaten the security or
economic wellbeing of the country or friendly nations."
Now, just how do you think that some research paper on relativity would meet those specifications?
Because, I assure you the government doesn't like to classify stuff higher than "Official Sensitive" because it makes it much more expensive to work with.
Of course, just because something is secret (or top secret) doesn't mean that it's locked away.
The people with a legitimate need to access it are still allowed to.
So, as was asked earlier... do you actually have any evidence to support your claims?
-
Bored Chemist says:
Because, I assure you the government doesn't like to classify stuff higher than "Official Sensitive" because it makes it much more expensive to work with.
Of course, just because something is secret (or top secret) doesn't mean that it's locked away.
The people with a legitimate need to access it are still allowed to.
So, as was asked earlier... do you actually have any evidence to support your claims?
GG: Do you really know what you say. At Sperry Rand formerly Gyro they had a guarded library. You needed a secret clearance to get in which I had. Some of the relativity studies in that library were stamped secret. My boss had a top secret clearance. He had a lock on his desk and he would give me the submarine codes so I could design test equipment to test the Polaris system. Then I was supposed to forget the codes after I finished the job. And that was easy because I do not have a great memory.
In any event it always bothered me that general scientific radar information was locked away. Who were they hiding it from?
-
Bored Chemist says
Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on.
GG: What we call time is meters/ meters per second.= Distance / light speed. Since there is no time, there was no time when the universe was created and no creator was necessary. A clock is just a clock. But it is far easier to explain things in terms of a clock.
Clocks and other cyclic time keeper were invented before modern science. The were invented back in the days of mythology. A clock cycles like a wave, while time does not behave as a wave. Time moves in one direction and the past does not repeat. The movie Groundhog Day, was an example of an energy/wave model of time. It was fictional and not based on science, yet this is how time is applied in science theory.
I can see how the ancient people decided to model time as a cyclic wave or event. They saw the daily cycle of night and day, the annual cycle as the earth moves around the sun, and even the longer cycles as the stars and constellations moved. These all appeared to repeat themselves, and the concept of cyclic or wave time was born. This convention was in operation way before modern science. Science still uses a concept of time that was developed during the age of mythology; Oops!
The concert of entropy did not appear until the Industrial Revolution, after the modern age of science and the age of enlightenment was up and running. Scientists developing steam engines, noticed they could not close an energy balance. There was always missing energy between steam engine input and output. The machines did not behave in closed cyclic loops, with respect to an energy balance. They noticed missing energy, that had been absorbed into and rendered unusable by what they would call entropy.
The irony is science still uses a pre-science concept of time; cyclic waves, while and I try to use a modern science concept for time that is consistent with our modern descriptions of time only moving forward. Yet science, using the mythology of time, asserts this ancient way is dogma; case closed. The system needs an overhaul. I am showing how this can be done. You start at the beginning of time and adjust while things are still simple.
If science is correct, and the entropy of the universe is increasing; 2nd law, this entropy increase is absorbing energy, making it unavailable to the inertial universe, similar to the 18th century mystery of the lost energy of the steam engine. In the limit, entropy will become maximize and all/most of the useable energy of the universe will be zero. The energy is there and conserved, but not in a form that can be used, in terms of future inertial universal dynamics.
The red shift of energy, due to the expansion of the universe, increases energy wavelength; microwaves background radiation. For example, the background microwaves of the universe have less functionality compared to the original energy of the BB; gamma and nuclear actions. Time moves forward, never to the repeat, wth less and less energy available.
In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state there is a standard amount of entropy, that is always the same for that state, no matter how you get there. This is measurable and repeatable; water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has an entropy of 188.8 joules/(mole K). The question is how would you describe a state of maximum entropy, that in essence has absorbed all the energy of the universe and has rendered it unusable to inertial reference, if the inertial universe still existed? Energy would be red shifted to infinite wavelength and all the waves cancel, so there is no noticeable impact. Doesn't the black hole create this state of energy?
The simplest way to model this state, using existing theory is for inertial based space-time to dissociate into separated time and space, so one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in distance without the constraint of time. This allows infinite combinations and an entropy state that has maximum simultaneous energy containment.
The concept of consciousness begins to emerge from this state of being without outward form. For example, President Trump in his 2020 State of the Union Address suggested an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees around the world for CO2 absorption. This is now only an idea, but once implement will make a lot of energy available in a useable form. When it is only an idea, it has potential, but in an unusable form. Something needs to happen to bridge the gap and release the energy.
A place of infinite entropy has infinite potential, but this potential is locked in a way and that potential is not useable. Something needs to happen to change that. Once that change happens lots of energy appears out of the void; thought into physical action in time. This start to get metaphysical but this is a useful conceptual backdrop since in the end consciousness is what makes these connections.; energy comes to a focus and is made available in time; 4 year budget for its time potential using the dead fish clock,
-
Clocks and other cyclic time keeper were invented before modern science. The were invented back in the days of mythology. A clock cycles like a wave, while time does not behave as a wave. Time moves in one direction and the past does not repeat. The movie Groundhog Day, was an example of an energy/wave model of time. It was fictional and not based on science, yet this is how time is applied in science theory.
I can see how the ancient people decided to model time as a cyclic wave or event. They saw the daily cycle of night and day, the annual cycle as the earth moves around the sun, and even the longer cycles as the stars and constellations moved. These all appeared to repeat themselves, and the concept of cyclic or wave time was born. This convention was in operation way before modern science. Science still uses a concept of time that was developed during the age of mythology; Oops!
The concert of entropy did not appear until the Industrial Revolution, after the modern age of science and the age of enlightenment was up and running. Scientists developing steam engines, noticed they could not close an energy balance. There was always missing energy between steam engine input and output. The machines did not behave in closed cyclic loops, with respect to an energy balance. They noticed missing energy, that had been absorbed into and rendered unusable by what they would call entropy.
The irony is science still uses a pre-science concept of time; cyclic waves, while and I try to use a modern science concept for time that is consistent with our modern descriptions of time only moving forward. Yet science, using the mythology of time, asserts this ancient way is dogma; case closed. The system needs an overhaul. I am showing how this can be done. You start at the beginning of time and adjust while things are still simple.
If science is correct, and the entropy of the universe is increasing; 2nd law, this entropy increase is absorbing energy, making it unavailable to the inertial universe, similar to the 18th century mystery of the lost energy of the steam engine. In the limit, entropy will become maximize and all/most of the useable energy of the universe will be zero. The energy is there and conserved, but not in a form that can be used, in terms of future inertial universal dynamics.
The red shift of energy, due to the expansion of the universe, increases energy wavelength; microwaves background radiation. For example, the background microwaves of the universe have less functionality compared to the original energy of the BB; gamma and nuclear actions. Time moves forward, never to the repeat, wth less and less energy available.
In chemistry, entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state there is a standard amount of entropy, that is always the same for that state, no matter how you get there. This is measurable and repeatable; water at 25C and 1 atmosphere has an entropy of 188.8 joules/(mole K). The question is how would you describe a state of maximum entropy, that in essence has absorbed all the energy of the universe and has rendered it unusable to inertial reference, if the inertial universe still existed? Energy would be red shifted to infinite wavelength and all the waves cancel, so there is no noticeable impact. Doesn't the black hole create this state of energy?
The simplest way to model this state, using existing theory is for inertial based space-time to dissociate into separated time and space, so one can move in time without the constraints of space and move in distance without the constraint of time. This allows infinite combinations and an entropy state that has maximum simultaneous energy containment.
The concept of consciousness begins to emerge from this state of being without outward form. For example, President Trump in his 2020 State of the Union Address suggested an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees around the world for CO2 absorption. This is now only an idea, but once implement will make a lot of energy available in a useable form. When it is only an idea, it has potential, but in an unusable form. Something needs to happen to bridge the gap and release the energy.
A place of infinite entropy has infinite potential, but this potential is locked in a way and that potential is not useable. Something needs to happen to change that. Once that change happens lots of energy appears out of the void; thought into physical action in time. This start to get metaphysical but this is a useful conceptual backdrop since in the end consciousness is what makes these connections.; energy comes to a focus and is made available in time; 4 year budget for its time potential using the dead fish clock,
Your posts IMO drag down this entire forum into muddled pseudoscience. I visit several other forums and they all have banned you due to your pseudoscience and your inability to coherently engage other members about your conjectures, hopefully this site will follow suit before too long.
-
The point is valid, that time moves in one direction, to the future. We do not age backwards, after we reach a certain point in time. Although we get a second childhood when we get older. However, that is in the brain/imagination, but not in physical reality. Nor do we wake up each day the exact same way as yesterday at midnight. Time is not a cyclic phenomena, except in many religions. Reincarnation allows you to start again in time. Heaven allows you to start again, at the best time of your life. They could use the clock to model that. Science still uses a conceptual basis for time that came from religion. Does that make religion right or science wrong? You cannot have it both ways!
Prove to me and everyone else that time cycles like a clock. If not you, are defending pseudo-science disguised in tradition. Science is not based on the amount of resources used or the consensus of a tradition, that is allowed to conflict with basic observations. I get in trouble for pointing this out to those people who self appoint, as the guardians and defenders of the traditions.
Another conceptual time problem, that science has created for itself, is connected to the concept of space-time. If space and time are integrated as space-time, and cyclic clocks are used to isolate time, does that mean it is possible to separate space-time into separated space and time? Or do clocks actually measure space-time or time-space and not just time?
I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.
I am sorry, but all the Math the uses cyclic time as a variable, has to be done over, if truth in nature matters to science. Applied science is about practical results and may not have to do anything other than realize what they are doing is empirical. While the math rehab is being done, may I suggest a simpler alternative using entropy? If nothing is done, than modern science is not what it claims to be. The golden age ended, then its was the silver age, then bronze age, now it would bt the rusted iron fist age of science.
-
Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether. (The smallest quantal units, electrons, were creationally projected toward a "virgin" ether region, which chain-reactionally produced larger units like protons, neutrons, and atoms.) Our universe isn't "expanding" and the apparent expansion of its outermost bodies isn't due to "dark energy." They are being pulled on by the ever-closer approach of another, younger, more energetic universe, creationally emplaced so as to collide with and re-energize the "tired" (our) universe. (It's known that galaxies collide with each other.) -Black holes are not related to some kind of "Big Bang." They are creationally-directed repositories of the antimatter which has had to be shunted away from interfering with new quantal matter.-
-
Black holes are not related to some kind of "Big Bang." They are creationally-directed repositories of the antimatter which has had to be shunted away from interfering with new quantal matter.-
That is very interesting.
What kind of source are you using to protect this statement?
P.S
I fully agree with you.
However, I'm not sure that our science community accepts this approach.
They are being pulled on by the ever-closer approach of another, younger, more energetic universe, creationally emplaced so as to collide with and re-energize the "tired" (our) universe.
What do you mean by "another, younger, more energetic universe"
Do you mean that our Universe is not there by itself?
Our universe isn't "expanding" and the apparent expansion of its outermost bodies isn't due to "dark energy.
Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.
However, how do you explain that all far away galaxies in all directions are drifting away from us at almost the speed of light?
How ""another, younger, more energetic universe" can affect this process.
-
I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.
Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether.
Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.
There sure is a lot of pseudoscience on this site!
-
I think I just figured out how you guys screwed up. Space-time is a 2-D concept; (space=x, time=y) like a simple cyclic wave; x=amplitude and y=frequency. If we move the clock to another reference or location in space; Boston to LA, it will adjust itself. An entropy foundation for time is more flexible at any point in space.
Our universe, or macrocosm, is creational, having been creationally quantized from a pre existing etheric world, or macrocosm, which had had to be quantized for better magnetic stability for more microcosmic entity(ies) who had arisen from intense fluxes of energy of the ether.
Yes. I fully agree that our Universe isn't expanding.
There sure is a lot of pseudoscience on this site!
Again, time moves to the future in one direction. Time does not cycle like a clock or a wave. The clock is the wrong analogy for time, thereby creating conceptual problems in terms of pure science. I agree about pseudo science impacting the mainstream of science.
Practical science and engineering, on the other hand, isn't as fussy about conceptual purity, since it is more about practical results, You can still tell time, using the position of the sun, whether you assume Helios is riding his chariot, or the earth rotates on its axis. Each can still lead to the same practical results, such as telling when the sun rises and sets. But to the pure scientist, only one is conceptually consistent with all known observations,
Since most of science is not self sufficient in terms of resources, but rather is beholden to others for funding; Government, Business, Universities and Private Donations, results geared to the whims and need of the donors, often require that applied science, using alternate conceptual framework, be the law of the land. For example, if the donors want to hear 100 genders, you cannot point out X and Y chromosomes and the need for conceptual consistency with the rest of generic theory. Rather you need to come up with a Helios framework to get the applied results that are being paid for. Then you feed this to the herd for profit.
Clock time can be blindly or dutifully accepted as the standard of time, even though it has conceptual flaws in terms of time observed to move in only one direction. I get the pressures, but I am trying to be pure, instead of tainted, since I am not beholden. (Naked instead covered in flash)
Let me do an intellectual exercise to show one pitfall connected to the force compliance to clock time, due to the needs of money donors and practical science. Say I am in Boston, and I go to MIT to be fitted for a revolutionary new watch that is extremely accurate. The experiment requires me wear the watch and then travel westward, to California, to test the watch's accuracy, using a standard they have developed at Cal Tech.
I am do this trip several different ways. The first is a direct flight, the second is by train, the third is by car, taking a less direct route down the East coat and then along the southern Gulf coast and along the Mexican border, then northward to Cal Tech.
When I get there, in all three cases, my watch, although accurate to the nanosecond, is nevertheless always three hours fast. This experimental result occurs regardless of the route or my average velocity of travel. Was some form of Relativity in affect?
After pondering this, we figure out this was due to changing time zones. Time zones are not a measure of time, but a measure of distance, that impacts clock time. This adjustment is needed because the earth is rotating; has angular velocity, on its axis, thereby altering the position of the sun. The position of the sun is being used as the reference standard for time. We are not really measuring time, but space-time; time as a function of position and velocity.
The entropy clock does not have the same constraints. Time is not dependent or defined as a function of the position of the sun, the rotational speed of the earth, and/or the location on the earth. In space, we us light year to define distance. This is not needed for the entropy clock since it is conceptually consistent with the nature of time. The dead fish clock walks to the beat of its own drum, moving to the future, independent of what the sun or earth or universe is doing in space, based on relative motion and velocity in space-time. It simplifies.
We run a second experiment, where we clone a fish and make a dozen genetically similar fish. These will be use as standard clocks for entropic time. Half the live fish will go to MIT and the other half will go to Cal Tech. We set the dead fish clocks all at the same time, via teleconference and calculate the time delay.
I take six dead fish clocks, two each on a plane, two on a train and two by car, and head westward to compare the time on the dead fish clocks. It turns out, we do not have to adjust for time zones, the rotation of the earth or the position of the sun. All the experiments are within a tighter margin of time error, compared to the advanced watch. Low tech can be simpler, if the conceptual framework is better.
When is science going to get out of the mythological age of magical boot licking, and smell the coffee? Or is science too beholden to the donors and not in a position to make such as change? Do the donors need to game the applied science system, with a hidden conceptual flaws? The Helios sun time model may appeal to the donors, since it has hidden psychological charm, that can be used to move the herd to the feeding holes of big business and politics.
-
Naked 2.8.20 8AM
Puppypower says
After pondering this, we figure out this was due to changing time zones. Time zones are not a measure of time, but a measure of distance, that impacts clock time. This adjustment is needed because the earth is rotating; has angular velocity, on its axis, thereby altering the position of the sun. The position of the sun is being used as the reference standard for time. We are not really measuring time, but space-time; time as a function of position and velocity.
GG: Firstly you say that time always moves forward. Yes and no. When I worked for Sperry the Engineers union would go on strike at various times. Then I became a handyman and earned my take home pay that way. One job I had was an old oven/stove. It had a clock. You would think that the clock would always run clockwise. However for some strange reason the clock suddenly ran counterclockwise. Thus time can go backwards. It is funny but time can run backwards. I fixed it by rewiring one set of coils in the motor. Why did it happen? Perhaps it is probability. Sometimes a clock will run backwards.
Funny story but true. Anyway I gained a customer that I serviced even after I return to my job at Sperry.
You are absolutely correct that we do not measure time but
Time = distance / velocity = meters/ meters per second = seconds.
The calculation for the position of a shell fired from the 5 inch Navy guns requires the rotational speed of the Earth and the location of the ship with respect to the equator. It requires one hundred simultaneous equations. So the time to hit a target is really quite complicated.
Since time is not a dimension space time is not really true. We get space and velocity or X, Y, Z, and C. However in order to get Einstein’s equations we need two light speeds Co and Cs. This is equivalent to two time dimensions of R/Co and R/Cs.
Entropy sounds good but we cannot end up with a dead dimension of the universe. In the end we end up with dimension Co being erased. Then in the far future as the dimension Cs shrinks and a new big bang occurs, here we are again forever. Since time does not exist the universe always existed and someday in the far future another engineer will be asked to fix a clock that runs backwards.
-
Say I am in Boston, and I go to MIT to be fitted for a revolutionary new watch that is extremely accurate. The experiment requires me wear the watch and then travel westward, to California, to test the watch's accuracy, using a standard they have developed at Cal Tech.
I am do this trip several different ways. The first is a direct flight, the second is by train, the third is by car, taking a less direct route down the East coat and then along the southern Gulf coast and along the Mexican border, then northward to Cal Tech.
When I get there, in all three cases, my watch, although accurate to the nanosecond, is nevertheless always three hours fast. This experimental result occurs regardless of the route or my average velocity of travel. Was some form of Relativity in affect?
That's not just stupid, it isn't even true.
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity
-
Bored Chemist says
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity
GG: If the watch was super accurate it would vary depending upon the speed and also the variations in the Earths gravitational field as per Einstein.
-
Bored Chemist says
The MIT and Caltec clocks will both be set to UTC.
So, what you would actually see (given a good enough watch) would be the variations due to relativity
GG: If the watch was super accurate it would vary depending upon the speed and also the variations in the Earths gravitational field as per Einstein.
That's just about the first time you have said anything that's correct.
Given that you were repeating what I said, it's not very useful, but at least it's right.
-
BC says
That's just about the first time you have said anything that's correct.
Given that you were repeating what I said, it's not very useful, but at least it's right.
GG: I wasn't doing it for your benefit. I like what Puppypower has to say about time. Yet the physical clock does vary as per Einstein but time is not a dimension. So Einstein is both correct mathematically and wrong theoretically.
-
time is not a dimension.
Do you have evidence for this claim?
-
Dear Dave,
As to "Expansion of our universe" and how to interpret the evidence that was based on, namely the astronomical observation that the outermost bodies of the universe are accelerating outwards. - The way consensus quantum physics interprets this is by hypothesizing that an unknown energy ("Dark Energy") is acting on those bodies, as part of the "expansion" of the universe.
From my coded source, the correct interpretation is that there were a certain number of universes created and emplaced such that when bone universe (here, ours) has radiated off a lot of its internal energy, and cosmic chaotic cosmic events start happening, such as quasars appearing, then the tired universe starts to "feel" the pull of another, younger, more energized, universe, and the two approach each other. That's why the outermost bodies of our universe are accelerating away - not because there is some sort of "Dark Energy." The younger universe and the older universe start resonating through space, and a gravity "pull" between them begins to pull them toward each other. -Note that galaxies have been observed colliding with each other. -It's the same principle.
Dear MichaelMD
Thanks for the explanation.
So, theoretically, if there were infinite universes around us, and we are located just at the center, than this could be a nice solution.
However, what is the chance for that?
It is quite clear that if we won't be at the center, or even at one of the nearby universes, we might see different space view.
If there are other universes around us, than by definition our universe is finite.
If it is finite than what kind of space view we would see at the edge of our finite universe?
This by itself is quite problematic.
Therefore, we must first understand the real size of our Universe. We also must assume that we can be at any spot at this universe.
Based on that data we can search for an answer.
So, what do you think? Is our universe finite or infinite?
-
GG said : Time is not a dimension
Kyptoid says
Do you have evidence for this claim?
GG: My evidence is quite subjective. I have encountered higher light speed energy with the ability to appear before me like a hologram. I could put my hand through it and not effect it but it could control me. I could speak to it and it could speak to me. Truth or hallucination? It could put me in a trance and take me on a tour of the universe. No evidence for sure but I encountered something quite freaky. So I try to understand our multi-light-speed universe.
Einsteins equations are q
-
(continued)
Einstein's equations are quite good but with a multi-light-speed universe other explanations are quite possible. So the time dimension is not necessary. It would be okay is the other light speed dimensions were wrong. Yet then it makes it difficult for me to explain what I have observed.
-
GG said : Time is not a dimension
Kyptoid says
Do you have evidence for this claim?
GG: My evidence is quite subjective. I have encountered higher light speed energy with the ability to appear before me like a hologram. I could put my hand through it and not effect it but it could control me. I could speak to it and it could speak to me. Truth or hallucination? It could put me in a trance and take me on a tour of the universe. No evidence for sure but I encountered something quite freaky. So I try to understand our multi-light-speed universe.
Einsteins equations are q
So, that's a "no"
you don't have any evidence.
-
GG: My evidence is quite subjective. I have encountered higher light speed energy with the ability to appear before me like a hologram. I could put my hand through it and not effect it but it could control me. I could speak to it and it could speak to me. Truth or hallucination? It could put me in a trance and take me on a tour of the universe. No evidence for sure but I encountered something quite freaky.
I would recommend that you speak to health professional about this ability to communicate with light and it's ability to transport you through the universe.
Good luck!
-
Origin says
I would recommend that you speak to health professional about this ability to communicate with light and it's ability to transport you through the universe.
Good luck!
GG: They forced me to go to psychiatrists to keep my job since I could hardly function from 1981-3. The Engineers union protected me. The union VP said
"Jerry is crazy like a fox". So I spent two years in a hypomanic state. My boss liked me because I was still able to solve complex problems for him. Yet I could not do a simple checkbook. So I was mentally handicapped. Yet it was an exciting time. Delusion or truth? Anyway I never took medicine for my hypomanic mind and over time the communication became dreams and occasionally verbal when I called out for help such as when I was dying with double pneumonia and the universe radiated me with healing energy and I was cured.
-
GG: They forced me to go to psychiatrists to keep my job since I could hardly function from 1981-3. The Engineers union protected me. The union VP said
"Jerry is crazy like a fox". So I spent two years in a hypomanic state. My boss liked me because I was still able to solve complex problems for him. Yet I could not do a simple checkbook. So I was mentally handicapped. Yet it was an exciting time. Delusion or truth? Anyway I never took medicine for my hypomanic mind and over time the communication became dreams and occasionally verbal when I called out for help such as when I was dying with double pneumonia and the universe radiated me with healing energy and I was cured.
Well good for the union, it looks like because of them you were able to continue to contribute to the company, so everybody won. I 'm happy to hear that it also sounds like you are doing better now.
Take care.
-
One theory I had for the early expansion of the universe, was the primordial atom did not big bang in an instant, to release the matter/energy of the universe. Rather, the primordial atom began as the mother of all black holes, It divided into as smaller and smaller black holes, as space-time expanded. This model has the universe more spread out before matter/energy appear. This model can explain the superstructures of the universe, as well as the observation that the universe is expanding relative to the galaxies, which themselves formed very early in the universe.
The main justification is connected to entropy and energy. If the primordial atom expanded like the current model suggest, there would be a very rapid increase in entropy. Since an entropy increase will absorb energy and make it unusable, this model would require a lot of energy upfront to feed entropy, and do all the rest of the tricks.
On the other hand, if we had a mother of all black holes; primordial atom, divide into two daughter cell black holes, the change of state is simpler and will absorb less energy into entropy. In other words, since there is less energy wasted into entropy, is more likely to happen with a smaller initial energy boost. At the same smaller energy, the current model of the primordial atom would reverse.
With this model less energy is needed, up front, with the added energy causing more and more division into the smaller and smaller black holes. These black hole daughter cells will control space-time expansion, since they are the only show in town. Dark energy is going into the black holes causing father division and subsequent space-time expansion. At a critical size; galaxy level?, we get a mini big bang phase, where matter-energy appear from all the daughter cells. The power energy waves, from all the expanding galaxy centers, flowing toward the other expanding galaxies, adds turbulent and compression. This is more energy efficient.
-
Origin says
Well good for the union, it looks like because of them you were able to continue to contribute to the company, so everybody won. I 'm happy to hear that it also sounds like you are doing better now.
Take care.
GG: Thanks for the comments. This month will be rough as I have cataract surgery on the 28th. Not fun but every years it seems the doctors have to repair me. My boss loved me because I could solve all his problems. The higher boss did not like me because I spoke honestly to the government. He did not like that and threatened to fire me if I did it again. Then one day I called the government official at home because we needed an answer right away. This made the higher boss look stupid but the union protected me.
There were quite a few people at Sperry with similar problems to mine. The most creative people tend to be manic depressives but I am only hypo manic as I never get depressed. Now I am too old to reach the super high manic levels.