1

New Theories / An Argument for an Infinite Universe

« on: 26/12/2018 20:02:01 »

The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning, not just mathematical sense, because the universe is following the laws of math, precisely.  However, mathematics can be manipulated to support any false human reasoning, which can make it exponentially more difficult to make sense of the universe.  And the deeper we go down that rabbit hole the harder it becomes to climb out.  Opinions become solidified, and the science turns into belief.  And then we just keep piling on the nonsense in support of faulty human reasoning.   I’m sure mathematically most of it checks out.  And I stress the word, most.  That doesn’t make it right.

I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang.   

In order to have a “big bang”, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy that’s void of all physics.  Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it.  It’s just a clump of energy, where e=e, in which energy is completely void of an actual physical definition, even with our current understanding.  e=c^2, or e=mc^2, so without C, E=0.  This imaginary state of energy is so far removed from physics, that even the notion of density becomes meaningless.  Its value can only be described as 1 mathematically, because it is only equal to itself in this state.  None of it means anything.   

Isn’t this the exact definition of pseudoscience?  We’ve eliminated physical properties of the universe, and then piled on more theory to answer a question in support of a theory.  Enter intelligent design.  It’s no different really.  The big bang is baseless, hinging on a single observation, the redshift.  And no, the CMB only takes us to hot.  That doesn’t imply a big bang.       

The big bang also posits the condition of nothing, which again contradicts our own more realistic understanding of physical laws.  Theoretically, nothing as a state, or absolute 0, is physically impossible.  So, when we claim nothing came before the big bang, or nothing lies beyond the universe, we’re disagreeing with our own scientific reasoning.  We’re saying, nothing, as a condition or state, can coexist with something.  I don’t know, but it sounds a lot like 0=1 to me.   

Can you really argue this rationally?  I don’t think so.  Something is fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang concept, and I don’t see any fix.  I think the most obvious answer is the truth.  It’s wrong.

I think this begs to question, can you really compress the genie back into the bottle?

I don’t think you can, because there probably is no beginning point.  Makes far more logical sense, doesn’t it?  The universe is a continuous state, and we jumped in somewhere along the way.  The laws of physics are the only true constants in the universe.  Without the laws of physics, a universe wouldn’t be here, ever.

Now you can claim I’m not a physicist, and that I don’t understand the math.  I would have to agree on both, and confess, I’m not a physicist, and I do not understand the math.  In my defense though, I seriously doubt any else does either.  The reasoning makes no sense. I look for simple answers to complex problems.  The truth is, I think the real answer has been in front of us all along.  It’s not really a complex mathematical problem as much as it is a deeper understanding of the fundamental mathematical logic and human reasoning defining the universe.  It’s a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute.  I don’t think we were ever done asking the most profound question in science.   

How do you get something from nothing?   

When you remove all the complexities of energy that we’re immersed in, and view space from a standpoint of a continuous empty void, that’s what the universe should be.  There is no other ingredient available.  That’s the underlying reality of the universe, period. Really think about that potential state.   

So, how do we go from that potential state, to us?

With Big Bang reasoning, we take the sum total of the entire universe, hit rewind, and package it into a condensed ball of energy, and claim it’s the beginning.  Right from the start you can see a flaw in this reasoning.  There is no physical substance called energy.  Unless of course, someone has a bottle of this raw material labeled “Pure Energy” sitting on a shelf somewhere that they want to submit as evidence.  Anyone?  I’d like to see someone dispute this rationally.  You can’t, because there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest energy is a physical element in our makeup.  I know, it sounds nuts, but it is an undeniable fact.  There is no physical definition for energy.  We don’t know what it is.   

Let’s break this down rationally, starting with nothing.

Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0.  Mathematically, 0=0, always.  0 is a natural absolute value.  0 is also finite.  Our universe obviously, is not 0.  We are the empirical evidence, which becomes self-evident to that fact.  And I would agree with physics that this state is theoretically impossible to achieve, ever.  0 is a real value, or real number, when looking at it in the context of the whole of the universe.  Our universe could potentially be 0, but it’s not.  Only the potential exists.  And I would also argue this potential as infinite, because it is theoretically impossible to achieve.  If in fact, 0, ever became the state of the universe, our universe would be nothing forever and always, because 0 is a finite value.  0 can never be anything else but 0.  The universe would be in a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always.  Spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 0=0, and nothing else.   

So, when I hear someone claim nothing lies beyond the universe, or suggests nothing came before the big bang, I have to say, nonsense.  Nothing, as a condition of the universe, cannot coexist with something. 0=0.  Can anyone really dispute this reasoning in a rational manner?  No.

So, to answer the first question, “how do you get something from nothing?”  You don’t. 0=0.  0≠1. 

Our universe is, >|0|.

This brings us to another potential state of the universe, 1, which is a little discussed possibility, if at all.  We tend to think of nothing and then the universe.  This is the “something” state of the universe, but in the context of describing the whole of the universe in this manner, 1 is an absolute value.  Meaning simply, it’s not 0.  This is the potential continuous void state of the universe I mentioned earlier.  It’s not nothing, but it’s a lot like nothing in that our universe would be an empty sea of darkness forever and always.  This too is also a theoretically impossible state, similar to 0.  Like 0, its potential is also infinite, because the universe can never be in this state either.  1=1.  It is the only other true real number to describe the entirety of the universe mathematically.  The universe has the potential to be 0 or 1, but it is neither, because both states represent a finite value.   If the universe achieved this state of 1 in the absolute sense, it would suffer the same fate as 0.  Something more would never happen forever and always, and that would be that.  The universe would achieve a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always.  Once again, spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 1=1, and nothing else.

Our universe is, <|1|. 

Clearly, these states have never occurred, because we’re here.  We are the empirical evidence, which again becomes self-evident to the answer.  I think we get the two values confused when describing the universe, because they are inversely equivalent to each other.  Something is the antonym to nothing, but similar in effect because we wouldn’t exist in either state.  They are exponentially different, but inversely equivalent.   

Here’s where things start to get a little more difficult to grasp or accept.  If you follow basic math, I think the answer becomes self-evident.   

Are we infinite, or finite?

What becomes clear to me, is that finite is a theoretically impossible state for describing anything in the universe.  We would not be here if the whole of the universe represented a finite value in any manner.  There are only 3 logical answers when describing the whole of the universe, 0, |1|, and infinite, because no other values make logical sense.  None of these values can coexist.  0 ≠ |1|, 0 ≠ ∞, and |1| ≠ ∞.  0 = 0, |1|=|1|, and ∞=∞.

I suppose you could argue I am being too rigid mathematically, and that the universe doesn’t have to follow our mathematics.  I would argue, it clearly does.  If it didn’t, e=mc^2 would be meaningless.  If there’s one thing we’ve learned in all of physics, our universe is following mathematical logic, precisely.  In math, 0≠1, and it will never spontaneously change to 0=1.   Math would make no sense if the rules of equality spontaneously changed.  More importantly, our universe wouldn’t make any sense.

This is exactly what the big bang attempts to do.  It starts with 1, represented as e=e, wraps it in 0, and then spontaneously changes 1 to some other random finite value, which becomes e=c^2.  In addition, we’re apparently still shrouded in 0, because there is “nothing” beyond the universe.  Does this really make sense?  No.  Of course not.  Still, there’s a comfort level in suggesting it does, and it’s baffling.     

Think of our universe as you would a simple bi-directional light switch.

In the off position, this represents the universe in a state of absolute nothingness.  Its numeric value would be 0.  This state could not spontaneously change to any other value, because 0=0.  It would be a finite position of the universe.  The universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always.  The total universe would be completely finite.  Clearly our universe is not in the off position, so its numeric value is >0.

So, let’s switch it to the on position, but in the context of defining the universe, this on position is absolute.  Its numeric value would be |1|.  It would be a finite position like 0, but only in the sense of forever and always, because 1≠0.  Like 0, our universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always.  The total universe would be completely finite, because |1|=|1|.  Clearly our universe is not in the on position, so its numeric value is <|1|.   

That leaves us with only one other possibility for that switch, which is somewhere in between 0 and |1|.  That position is not a finite value, it is infinite.  Not just infinite though, it is infinitely variable.  You cannot say where that switch is, at any given moment, but you can know where it isn’t.  It is not 0 or |1|.  This is the only other choice we have in describing the universe, which is infinitely variable, or more to the point, analog.  Our universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, not finite.   

The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position.  It doesn’t make sense.  It is an invalid theory.  The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning.  The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.   

Again, how could anyone argue this rationally?  You just can’t, unless you want to abandon all human reasoning and simultaneously abandon mathematical logic.  Or possibly, wave a magic wand.   

Our universe is infinite, not finite.  More profoundly, it can never possess a finite value, ever, so it is in an infinite state of change.  There is no beginning, and there is no end.   

My empirical evidence is us, or existence itself.  That’s my observation.   

My mathematical proof is basic fundamental equalities.

0=0

|1|=|1|

∞=∞

Only one of these equalities when applied to the whole of the universe is capable of variability.  No other value makes rational sense, because X=X.  And clearly, through decades of observation, our universe is analog.  Sound, light, matter, gravity, etc., can all be described in wave format.  Waves are infinitely variable analogs.  Even we can’t consider our own lives as finite, because our own existence is the essence of continual change and evolution.  We’re born, we peak, and then fade out, just like a wave.  Yes, our total life could be described as finite, but our journey through time is anything but finite.

Following this reasoning, I could go on to dispel the myth of Dark Energy.  It’s not real.  I could also explain how expansion is not real.  However, I think it’s prudent to leave this stet at the moment.

My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly.  It’s a wild goose chase.

I will make a secondary less certain prediction.  Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail.  I suspect a deeper understanding will adjust the math in spiral galaxies.  As I confessed earlier though, I do not fully understand the math, so I’m not sure how we arrived at the theory.  I get it, so it’s possible.  It feels suspect to me though, but I could be wrong here.  Not sure.   

I think if we embrace the reality of an infinite universe, science will come to the same conclusions as I did, naturally.  It forces you down a logical path, that makes rational sense.   

The Big Bang theory was based on a preconceived notion that the universe was created, from a beginning.  It assumed a beginning.  Hubble’s observation was purely coincidental, in my view.  The universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, always has been, and always will be.  There was never a singular beginning event.  It takes the laws of physics to make things happen.  You can’t remove or disregard the laws of physics to satisfy an answer.  The big bang does this in spades, with a singularity sitting in nothing, which is void of all physics by default. 

So, seeing as how I'm killing off the Big Bang, I suppose I need to speculate a new replacement.

The universe is a wave of infinite height and infinite length, with an ongoing frequency of 1. 

That's my best guess...

And if anyone is interested, I will elaborate further. 

2

New Theories / Where do the laws of physics come from?

« on: 23/03/2018 14:25:00 »

It's a deep question, and one that can only be answered through human logic and consensus.  Or to be fair, intelligent life, if it exists elsewhere in the universe.  I think most people would agree that the odds are pretty good it does, but consensus eludes the scientific process. In some way's though, the whole point of physics is reaching consensus, isn't it?  I think we rely a little too much on mathematical logic and hard evidence at times, rejecting the human element in the process.  There is an answer for everything, and of that I have 0 doubts.  From our perspective, we may not know that answer with absolute certainty, but there's always an answer.  There are no gray areas in reality, just things we can or cannot obtain with absolute certainty using mathematical logic, or through observations.

The laws of physics is one of those things.  We can only reach consensus on its origin through human reasoning, because the laws of physics are a derivative of the infinite, but they're certainly not infinite in nature.  We have physical limitations.  Life and death, for example.

I think the root of physics is pretty simple, personally. It comes down to the age old question of, something versus nothing.  We've all pondered this same exact question many times in our lives.  At least, I'm fairly certain anyone reading this thread has.  Call it a logical deduction with a high degree of certainty, given we're all on this forum asking stupid questions like this.   

What is something logically?

1

What is nothing logically?

0

It is these two numbers that forms the basis for all reasoning and logic, and all of physics.  This is our natural base binary mathematical logic for all that was, is, and all that will ever be.

What can we say about these two numbers? 

We consider 1 real, and 0 imaginary.  I'm not really convinced imaginary properly describes 0 to me, personally. Nothing seems pretty real to me, or at least the potential in 0.  0 is the absence of 1, and inversely, 1 is the absence of 0.  0 works pretty well in a computer too.  Some people describe 0 as an infinite number, but I don't see this either, really.  To me, 1 and 0 describe opposing states.  So, the best we can say about either number logically is,

1≠0

The above statement is true.  It is a self evident fact of nature.  Anyone care to debate?

Above all other logic, this simple mathematical statement is the base for all reasoning, physics, and mathematical logic.  It is from this basic natural inequality that we can deduce equality.  It is what allows us to exist, and the laws of physics to exist.  A lot can be said from this base inequality.

1=1, 0=0, 1-1=0, 1>0, 0<1, 1+0=1, 0+0=0, etc, etc.

All the complexities in the universe arise from this simple inequality, which is neither infinite, nor static.  It just hangs out there, daring us to question its meaning.  And we do, all the time, never arriving at an ultimate conclusion, or more importantly, consensus.  It means something different to everyone asking the question.  It spawns debate, religion, and science.

Religion answers the statement with brute force, where science attempts to define it, either mathematically, or physically, dancing around the answer timidly while never reaching a conclusion.  The true answer is out of reach for either group, so the best we can hope for is a mutual consensus on the problem.  I think that's physics ultimate end game.  To know the answer we're all asking, but to answer the above, consensus is the only tool available.  It's why we're here on this forum, isn't it?  Am I right, or am I wrong?  Do you agree with my hypothesis?  That's what it's all going to come down to in the end. Do we agree on a solution.

My hypothesis is infinity.  It is the engine of creation.  It is > 1, and < 0, and we are the finite result that lies in the middle.  Space keeps steadily moving outwards trying to find it's furthest most limits, which is a place with no destination, while the potential for nothing always exists in the wake left behind, forever defining a potentially smaller point of nothing.  Our universe is carved from the energy of these opposing states, so we are =<1 and =>0.  We possess elements of both halves of infinity, but are not infinite ourselves.  We are finite. 

Then again, I may just be running off the rails right now... 

I do know one thing for certain.  Most physicists hate infinity.  It's a concept, not a reality, so I've been told countless times in my life.

I disagree with that guess.  Infinity is a state, alive and kicking, which lies outside our perception of reality.  It's not about quantities, or unresolved formulas like pi, or infinite number sets.  It's a physical state driving creation.  Infinity is the engine of creation.  It's where all the energy propagates, and cascades down into the universe(s) we understand.   

3

New Theories / Is the Earth flat?

« on: 15/03/2018 19:13:15 »

Our first thoughts of the world around us was a flat Earth.  Given our understanding back then it was considered very logical, and everyone in the world pretty much considered it a fact.  Sail a ship too far, an you might fall off. 

Then we moved past that, to a geocentric interpretation.  This made better sense, given the sun and moon appeared to be rotating around Earth on a regular predictable basis.  It was a logical conclusion, and everyone pretty much considered this as the new fact.   

Then we move on to our Heliocentric view and beyond, as our understanding broadened and our technology advanced.  Now, everyone pretty much considers this as fact, complete with a big bang that started the ball rolling. 

One thing is clear between all these new levels of understanding.  Extreme resistance was the response.  Galileo was nearly executed for going against common consensus.  With each evolution of our understanding, disproving old dogma becomes ever more difficult.  It's an extreme opposition to new ideas, because the old idea's feel safe, I suppose.  Nobody wants their sense of reality shook.

Another thing is also clear to me.  Our understanding is based on material observations in each case.  And in each case, it made perfect sense given our current understanding of the world around us.  We weren't wrong, we simply didn't have all the facts in each case.   

Clearly we are expanding now, and our expansion appears to be accelerating, right?  And clearly, we started with a bang, and a damn big one at that, right?

Like I said, we observe the universe through material, or matter.  That is our perspective, and always has been throughout the history of discovery.  And one by one, what we thought was real came crashing down, and we had to accept a new sense of reality. 

Let's use our imagination for a moment, and consider we are some sort of space-based creature.  Everything about our makeup is pure space, including the instruments we use to detect the universe around us.  We even have a space-based measuring system, derived from some sort of space derivative.  Similar to a meter based on matter, but not the same substance.  In this state, we know our space-meter is a static unit of measure.  We also can't see matter, and have no clue what a photon is.

Somehow we've created a technology to observe matter.  We start to notice clumps of matter scattered across the entire universe (galaxies).  We would not see expansion.  What we would see is matter condensing to an ever smaller state, or dissipating.  Remember, our space meter would be static from our perspective.  We could deduce matter was attracted to one another, as these clumps of matter slowly moved towards each other.  We could see that, but expansion, and acceleration of that expansion, would not be observed from our perspective.  We would see matter contracting inward at an accelerated rate, and that would be it.  If we hit the rewind button, we would conclude that the entire universe was once filled with matter.  We wouldn't know how or why, but we would know.  We would probably deduce that matter loses energy over time, and contracts inwards in the process, probably at the inverse square we might guess.  Dark energy wouldn't even be on the table.  Inflation wouldn't be on the table.  A big bang wouldn't be on the table.  This matter popped into existence all at once, and then like a dense fog in the sunrise, slowly dissipated in place.

The simple fact is, if matter was indeed contracting inward uniformly, we wouldn't know it by any of our current methods of detection, because the effect would be uniform.  X would always equal X at any level of contraction.

It does start to explain things in a much simpler light.  If you really give it some deep thought.

I think this is a 50/50 deal.  It could be either way, depending on ones perspective.  One is right though, and the other wrong.  But no one is asking the question.  I admit, it's hard to accept, given what we know.  One thing is fairly certain in my mind though, either way, all the discoveries we've made over the years fit both possible answers.  The only major deviation is a big bang.  But even here, it still parallels what we hypothesize as the beginning.  A universe filled with primordial particles.  We're just missing the little understood singularity part, maybe.  Still could have been a single quantum fluctuation that caused a universe.
 
Which perspective do you believe?

Please think carefully before you reply...