« on: 18/10/2019 02:43:34 »
Assertion never equals science. Our business is all about doubt.I don't doubt you, but can you explain?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Assertion never equals science. Our business is all about doubt.I don't doubt you, but can you explain?
Static lies outside the universe.
Interesting that you call it illogical not to set a limit on what is infinite, because the space occupied by the universe, to me is limitless, and that is just a way of saying infinite.
If we don't set a limit on what infinity represents at any given moment in time, ironically, we make it finite, because we end up with a static, or finite infinity. That's illogical.
The difference between you and I might be in the concept of infinity. I see it as a singular state, driven by the potential to be absolute in either direction. Infinity is opposing motion. It's not things, or quantities … Infinity is a work in progress.Referring to some of the points in your last post, instead of infinity being a work in progress, I maintain that the infinite universe already fully exists, has always existed, and has always been infinite, so in the spatial sense the definition of infinite includes infinite in all directions from all points. An infinite universe is not expanding or contracting because it is already everywhere. The expansion going on in the observable universe is local action that is the result of prior local actions, i.e., the larger scale actions that cause what we see locally.
… It's very important though, because it says there is no beginning or end, which negates a catalyst as was attempted with this dubious quantum fluctuation.
… Infinity is infinite motion in two directions. It is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature.
… Mass according to science is the resistance to motion. I would modify the scientific term to, mass is the resistance to a change in the direction of motion.
…A photons resistance to the idealization of motion is 0, so it gets pushed by the ether. While in motion, its ether, not a photon.
Okay then. I'll guess I'll start with the beginning.I’m OK with starting at the beginning as you see it, for discussion purposes. If I take your point properly, when discussing the nature of the universe, the beginning step is to acknowledge “infinity” so maybe my “Three Infinities” isn’t a bad starting place .
First thing to do is throw out all arbitrary measurements, like the speed of light, and replace it with 0 and 1. It simplifies everything. The max speed is 1, and the lowest 0, and neither can be achieved physically.
Although there is no way to prove this with absolute certainty, our universe is infinite in both the microscopic and macroscopic directions. As I discussed before on this forum;
|0| < ∞ < |1|
Infinity = Constant of Change
Definitely not going long on that again, so I'll just say, it is what is, and it is correct.
Sorry, I don’t get that yet. If the universe is infinite, I don’t see how it can oscillate and create a vibration across the whole universe. That concept doesn’t make sense to me and seems to be a perfect oxymoron, i.e. a figure of speech that contradicts itself. My reasoning is that if the “whole” is infinite, there isn’t any edge or boundary, and so there isn’t anything that can cause the whole universe to oscillate. Do you see my point, or can you give me something better to go on?
I think what's happening is that the universe tries to oscillate back and forth, which creates a universal vibration. This sends waves out in opposite directions from the opposite extremes and in inverse wave form. These waves propagate spherically, and they are defined by two basic types.
Expansion wave (Ew) - These comes from the microscopic side of the universe and decelerate as they expand.
Contraction wave (Cw) - These come from the macroscopic side of the universe and accelerate as they contract.
All motion occurs 3-dimensionally in 3-dimensional space, with the direction of motion being 1-dimensional.I can picture that.
To imagine 3-dimensional motion with a 1-dimensional direction of motion is pretty straight forward. Draw a big circle and place a dot anywhere within the circle. That dot represents matter. No matter which direction you move the dot, it heads outward. Draw arrows if you prefer. They all point outward. Now imagine this 3-dimensionally. To move fully inward, stop moving the dot. To move less inward, move the dot.
That's the two directions of motion, in or out, and that's it.
You begin to see some pretty interesting things that fit the observations, better than current explanations. It's just hard to accept given our bias towards our relative view of nature.I’ll give you that for talking purposes, but I would state it differently so as not to confuse two useful words that aren’t equal. Would you accept me restating the Mass = dimension equality with Mass must have volume relative to No mass which has no volume? My statement isn't perfect, but does the point come across?
Mass = dimension. No mass, no dimension.
Good , because we have some reconciling to do. My theory of one and only one infinite and eternal multiple big bang arena universe is orchestrated by a set of invariant natural laws that assure multiple big bang action going on perpetually across infinite space as those physical, expanding, crunching and collapse/banging big bang arenas continually form, intersect, overlap, crunch/bang and play out on a perpetual basis.
Yes we will for certain. I don't see big bangs, but my theory could support multi-universes. I don't like to go there because I think we're having enough difficulty figuring out our own universe. I would consider additional universes as superfluous information and unnecessary to consider. And if they did exist, they wouldn't go bang. It would be a sweeping wave leaving a cloud of matter gracefully behind in its wake. That wave would still be traveling well beyond our range of observation.
I'll guess I'll start this extended discussion off on my next post.
My view is that big bangs happen now and then, here and there, within infinite pre-existing space. When I describe the landscape of the greater universe as a multiple big bang arena landscape, each big bang arena is not a universe, because all space is connected in one grand infinite eternal universe, so for context, there is only one universe.
The way you're describing the multi-bang scenario, each big bang would occupy it's own hidden, or isolated 3-dimensional space, so we'd end up with infinite dimension.
Periodically they may interact with one another, but they would all appear to be independent universes. Those are by definition, hidden dimensions separated by space.So for comparison, and to clarify my view, expanding big bang arenas are not independent universes, but instead, they are the finite product of the intersection, overlap, crunch and “bang” of separate finite but expanding “parent” big bang arenas. When two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas intersect and overlap, they are expanding into the space occupied by each other. There is a swirling rendezvous of each parent's galactic matter and energy, starting at the point of intersection, and increasing from that point to occupy a growing volume of space as the overlap progresses. To be clear, I am not suggesting that new space is created by the convergence of two parent arenas, because I see that type of physical event happening within pre-existing space that has always existed.
Space being composed of gravitational waves. So these universes would also behave more like matter relative to each other.I understand and agree with most of your thinking on that. We’ll have to consider getting further into each other’s views on the details.
And to be clear, I do not consider this idea over the top weird. I've personally toyed with the idea of matter being unique universes, and black holes being unique universes. I've simply concluded that everything we see is a duplication, or copy, of the greater process, but they are less than the greater process. Matter is a reflection of the process. In other words, a copy cannot become a whole. Everything is part of the whole.
However, I do consider mass dimension. I also consider mass a contraction wave, and gravity an expansion wave, which is essentially the ether. I consider both waves dimension, and both waves with mass. Matter has a negative mass value, and ether a positive wave value. Matter gains energy in its motion over time, while losing mass, and ether gains mass over time, while losing energy. This missing mass is the positive wave energy in the ether.
The point being, physical dimension is defined by wave properties, and waves either accelerate in one direction, or decelerate in the opposing direction. Deceleration being an increase in dimension/mass, and acceleration being a decrease in dimension/mass. The universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves within it are.
I tend to prefer one single 3-dimensional infinite universe, and that's it. Much simpler to imagine. But I certainly don't want to hi-jack your thread with my thoughts.I completely accept your view of one single 3-dimensional infinite, eternal universe with no beginning. I hope I didn’t say anything that is inconsistent with that view.
I've been down all these roads before, and they all lead me back to one conclusion. One single eternal universe, with no definable beginning or end.
That's good, because waves are all we have to work with, but what waves are you referring to exactly?Thank you for the reply. We agree that wave energy is all there is, and so then everything is composed of wave energy.
The problem I've run into imagining a multi-bang universe is that we would have to exist in a cascade of big bangs. We would exist within a larger big bang, and big bangs would exist below our perception. They would stretch out infinitely in both directions. If any one of those experienced a "crunch", it would wipe out the cascading effect below it.“Cascade” is not the word I would use; I would say that expanding big bang arenas intersect and overlap with each other all the time, but the size and time scales are sooo great that we can’t detect just how numerous and common they are on a grand scale over eternal time; our observable view is limit to our own expanding big bang arena. The intersections and overlaps result in crunches composed of galactic matter and energy contributed by "parent" arenas and those crunches collapse/bang into new expanding arenas that then expand and intersect with other expanding arenas in a perpetual process throughout the universe.
The universe would be analogous to a Russian nesting egg doll. Destroy any of those eggs, and that destruction would cascade inwards. The rate of creation would have to be equal to the rate of destruction, essentially cancelling out the entire universe.I would agree with the thinking that our big bang event probably occurred maybe 17 billion years ago, and it, like all big bang events, had preconditions. A big bang is not the beginning of anything other than an expanding local big bang arena within a greater universe. In each arena like ours, over billions of years, stars and galaxies form out of the expansion and decay of a big crunch which “banged”. In the expanding arena, life is generated and evolves when and where hospitable conditions on planets around stars permit. A big bang causes expanding wave energy from a super massive, super dense black hole to expand and decay into an extensive galactic structure like we observe around us in all directions within the observable part of the greater universe. Everything we can observe out there is causally connected to a single big bang event, but in terms of infinity, I like to say, “Anything finite is almost nowhere, almost never, almost nothing, relative to the three infinities of space, time, and energy”.
They couldn't occur adjacent to one another, because as you state, "The universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy."
How do you account for this paradox in your view?
I am definitely not a physicist or astronomer by any means but I have a theory. What if the Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe but just an event in the universe? …As an elder member but with no administrative or operating connection to the Naked Scientists, welcome. I too love contemplating the nature of the universe and theorizing “what ifs” so I hope that you plan to engage in discussion at TNS.
I love thinking about the universe and what is out there. Thanks for your time …
My multiple big bang theory invokes an infinite and eternal universe beyond our observable arena. A universe that perpetually recycles itself by converting old cold matter and energy within it, into hot, dense crunches that collapse/bang into expanding big bang arenas like our own observable universe.
... My theory is a multiple big bang theory, and so while our observable expanding Big Bang arena is finite, it is hosted within an infinite and eternal greater universe.
Holding such a perspective stimulates ideas about the mechanics of a greater universe, and one that by definition is not expanding since it is posited to already be spatially infinite. That differentiates my multiple big bang arena view of cosmology from the standard Big Bang Theory.
Quite right. You might note the added details about my theoretical view that I mentioned in my reply to Bored Chemist.
I think someone already got there a few years ago.
The expansion of the universe between galaxies appears to be accelerating possibly headed for another inflationary phase and big bang repeating the formation of more galaxies etc. A never ending process. If you google de Sitter universe, you will get a few interesting hits, it does away with a beginning of time and nonsensical singularities. There are tons of theories already existing very loosely based on your basic idea.
energy is limitless.