0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
energy is limitless.
I have a “New Theories” submission about space, time, and energy (The Three Infinities).Space is boundless, time is eternal, and energy is limitless. Consistent with those Infinities, the universe has always existed, and the portion that is observable to us is expanding, as evidenced by the Red Shift data. The observed Red Shift is the result of a local big bang event billions of years ago. The greater universe features recurring big bangs here and there, supporting the theory that gravity on a grand scale causes the accumulation of matter and energy into local big crunches that grow until the Crunch reaches a critical capacity, which results in a gravitational collapse/bang. Our observable expanding universe is the expanding big bang arena associated with the such a collapse/bang.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 06/08/2019 18:09:45 energy is limitless.Really?
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.
... 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.
Yes, in my theoretical rant, the boundless universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy.
That's good, because waves are all we have to work with, but what waves are you referring to exactly?
The problem I've run into imagining a multi-bang universe is that we would have to exist in a cascade of big bangs. We would exist within a larger big bang, and big bangs would exist below our perception. They would stretch out infinitely in both directions. If any one of those experienced a "crunch", it would wipe out the cascading effect below it.
The universe would be analogous to a Russian nesting egg doll. Destroy any of those eggs, and that destruction would cascade inwards. The rate of creation would have to be equal to the rate of destruction, essentially cancelling out the entire universe. They couldn't occur adjacent to one another, because as you state, "The universe is filled with a limitless amount of wave energy." How do you account for this paradox in your view?
As I see it, matter is composed of gravitational wave energy (like that predicted by Einstein and discovered by the LIGO interferometer). But the necessary caveat is that matter continually absorbs and emits gravitational wave energy, and all space is therefore filled with gravitational waves emitted from the surrounding massive object in space.
I tend to prefer one single 3-dimensional infinite universe, and that's it. Much simpler to imagine. But I certainly don't want to hi-jack your thread with my thoughts. I've been down all these roads before, and they all lead me back to one conclusion. One single eternal universe, with no definable beginning or end.
I completely accept your view of one single 3-dimensional infinite, eternal universe with no beginning. I hope I didn’t say anything that is inconsistent with that view.
The way you're describing the multi-bang scenario, each big bang would occupy it's own hidden, or isolated 3-dimensional space, so we'd end up with infinite dimension.
Periodically they may interact with one another, but they would all appear to be independent universes. Those are by definition, hidden dimensions separated by space.
Space being composed of gravitational waves. So these universes would also behave more like matter relative to each other. And to be clear, I do not consider this idea over the top weird. I've personally toyed with the idea of matter being unique universes, and black holes being unique universes. I've simply concluded that everything we see is a duplication, or copy, of the greater process, but they are less than the greater process. Matter is a reflection of the process. In other words, a copy cannot become a whole. Everything is part of the whole.However, I do consider mass dimension. I also consider mass a contraction wave, and gravity an expansion wave, which is essentially the ether. I consider both waves dimension, and both waves with mass. Matter has a negative mass value, and ether a positive wave value. Matter gains energy in its motion over time, while losing mass, and ether gains mass over time, while losing energy. This missing mass is the positive wave energy in the ether. The point being, physical dimension is defined by wave properties, and waves either accelerate in one direction, or decelerate in the opposing direction. Deceleration being an increase in dimension/mass, and acceleration being a decrease in dimension/mass. The universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves within it are.
I understand and agree with most of your thinking on that. We’ll have to consider getting further into each other’s views on the details.
Yes we will for certain. I don't see big bangs, but my theory could support multi-universes. I don't like to go there because I think we're having enough difficulty figuring out our own universe. I would consider additional universes as superfluous information and unnecessary to consider. And if they did exist, they wouldn't go bang. It would be a sweeping wave leaving a cloud of matter gracefully behind in its wake. That wave would still be traveling well beyond our range of observation.I'll guess I'll start this extended discussion off on my next post.
Okay then. I'll guess I'll start with the beginning.First thing to do is throw out all arbitrary measurements, like the speed of light, and replace it with 0 and 1. It simplifies everything. The max speed is 1, and the lowest 0, and neither can be achieved physically. Although there is no way to prove this with absolute certainty, our universe is infinite in both the microscopic and macroscopic directions. As I discussed before on this forum;|0| < ∞ < |1|Infinity = Constant of Change Definitely not going long on that again, so I'll just say, it is what is, and it is correct.
I think what's happening is that the universe tries to oscillate back and forth, which creates a universal vibration. This sends waves out in opposite directions from the opposite extremes and in inverse wave form. These waves propagate spherically, and they are defined by two basic types. Expansion wave (Ew) - These comes from the microscopic side of the universe and decelerate as they expand.Contraction wave (Cw) - These come from the macroscopic side of the universe and accelerate as they contract.
All motion occurs 3-dimensionally in 3-dimensional space, with the direction of motion being 1-dimensional. To imagine 3-dimensional motion with a 1-dimensional direction of motion is pretty straight forward. Draw a big circle and place a dot anywhere within the circle. That dot represents matter. No matter which direction you move the dot, it heads outward. Draw arrows if you prefer. They all point outward. Now imagine this 3-dimensionally. To move fully inward, stop moving the dot. To move less inward, move the dot. That's the two directions of motion, in or out, and that's it.
You begin to see some pretty interesting things that fit the observations, better than current explanations. It's just hard to accept given our bias towards our relative view of nature.Mass = dimension. No mass, no dimension.
the beginning step is to acknowledge “infinity” so maybe my “Three Infinities” isn’t a bad starting place .
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 can picture that.
I’ll give you that for talking purposes, but I would state it differently so as not to confuse two useful words that aren’t equal. Would you accept me restating the Mass = dimension equality with Mass must have volume relative to No mass which has no volume? My statement isn't perfect, but does the point come across?If so, we can get into your terms Ew and Cw for further discussion.
The difference between you and I might be in the concept of infinity. I see it as a singular state, driven by the potential to be absolute in either direction. Infinity is opposing motion. It's not things, or quantities … Infinity is a work in progress.… It's very important though, because it says there is no beginning or end, which negates a catalyst as was attempted with this dubious quantum fluctuation.… Infinity is infinite motion in two directions. It is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature.… Mass according to science is the resistance to motion. I would modify the scientific term to, mass is the resistance to a change in the direction of motion.…A photons resistance to the idealization of motion is 0, so it gets pushed by the ether. While in motion, its ether, not a photon.