Crazyhorse said:Anyone for T?
Always got Time for T...1xCnH2nOn plz.
Actually havn't read any Einstein...must have been channeling the mustachioed master...
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The "Dark Energy" Problem.
- Thread starter Crazyhorse
- Start date
Always got Time for T...1xCnH2nOn plz.
Actually havn't read any Einstein...must have been channeling the mustachioed master...
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
I propose that that next 3 spatial dimensions after X,Y,Z should be called P,D,Q.
Crazyhorse said:I propose that that next 3 spatial dimensions after X,Y,Z should be called P,D,Q.
That would make getting into Hyperspace Pretty Damn Quick...
Mr.Peabody
Rising Star
Crazyhorse said:
Yay! Someone remembers! I thought it was appropriate because Mr. Peabody was always taking the boy on trips to different places and times. I guess it would make more sense if I was Sherman (the kid) and DMT is Mr. Peabody!
Crazyhorse said:
Nope, as far as I understand this is correct. The space itself is bent by the presence of matter.
Crazyhorse said:I know that spherical and donut shaped universes have been proposed before and rejected, but I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe they were only being considered in 3 dimensions, but that would seem very narrow minded. THIS video explains why it's currently believed to be mostly flat, but since I THINK we wouldn't be able to percieve the 4th dimensional curve anyway, I'm not sure it actually disproves the idea. For the same reason, I'm not sure whether objects actually would appear to accelerate in such a universe, since it appears to us to be flat(ish). So would moving around a 4th dimensional curve make a difference to an objects apparent speed? I don't know, but it seems like something pretty juicy to chew on for a bit.
That video was very interesting. I understand what they mean, but I wonder if they can measure an angle with respect to fourth dimensional curve.... Their conclusion rests on that fact, but it seems to me that someone would have to be out of this dimensional plane, and in the higher one to know for sure.
I think one of the reasons for the general rejection of a spherical/toroidal universe is the amount of matter in existence. The basis is that there needs to be enough matter to close the space in on itself. As far as I know, they have always come up short, and that includes dark matter as well.
But I still like the idea! I like it too, because if the space is curve to the point of being bounded, the universe as a whole shares a similar mathematical principles to that of a black hole. If the universe was actually located within a black hole, and black holes in our universe contained universes, then the overall form from a macro perspective is that of a branching fractal type structure!
Crazyhorse said:
My thinking on this is that the third dimensional space we know and love called our universe is indeed created within a larger, pre-existing space. This is how a two dimensional object can be created within a three dimensional space.
Crazyhorse said:Ok then, all ponder circuits set to maximum. Begin countdown to overload!
I know the feel! These theories are what I've always held, but have been shaken by your time-warp theory, and I must chew on your ponderings!
Crazyhorse said:
This thread may prove to be infinitely long! Thanks for humoring my theories!
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
Mr.Peabody said:
That's right, it was Sherman! I was having a hell of a time trying to remember his name.
Woo gold star for me. :d That really seems to be the only logical way it could work. But you'd think that's important enough to be worth putting in there somewhere when they show these simplified graphics of it.
Right that's what I'm saying, I think even if there was a curve of that kind, it would still appear to us as being flat using measurements like those, or even looking at it visually. But then wouldn't an object's speed also still appear normal from our perspective even going around the curve? That seems right to me, but if so then it still wouldn't account for the apparent acceleration.
Well if there was an "other end" to space-time that were moving along with everything else, there wouldn't need to be enough matter to cover the whole sphere. From our usual "flat", disk-shaped picture, it would be like a hole opening up in the center once the expansion got to a certain distance, and everything spreading out in a ring to the maximum diameter of the 4-d sphere, then closing up again as it wraps around the other side. That would also take care of the other problem I mentioned about re-expanding into an existing 3D space, which would seem to make another big bang impossible.
Makes sense to me. Also, if all the matter that falls into a black hole stays there, rather than going out a white hole into a whole seperate universe or something, we still end up with the same amount of mass at the end that we had in the beginning, so a "big bounce" is possible. If all the matter that falls into black holes was actually gone forever, each bounce would result in a universe with less mass than the one before and it would run out of steam pretty quick.
Of course I guess that means all our sub-universes would get wiped out along with everything else in the next big crunch, but screw em what did those guys ever do for us?
I see what you mean and if it's a 4th dimensional shape we're expanding into/around, that's how it would have to be. But that still doesn't solve the problem I was raising, because if the current universe expands over the whole 4D shape, the next big bang would be expanding BACK into the *3* dimensional space left behind by the prior universe, right? And that just doesn't make sense in all kinds of ways. What else but the contraction of space-time itself could compress all the matter in the universe back into a singularity?
But if our 3D space doesn't need to cover the whole 4D structure, and there's actually another void following space-time on the other end like I mentioned before, that would let our entire universe "Crunch" into a new singularity then expand a new 3d space-time just like before. So the large-scale history of our universe would look like a ring of 3D space-time expanding around a 4D hypersphere to it's widest point, then contracting again on the other side, then bouncing back. Unless it's a torus then I'm not sure how it would look. A sphere is easier to imagine.
And that DOES seem to be the universe's favorite shape. Please do! If there's some reason that the expansion of space-time shouldn't be subject to special relativity just like any other kind of motion, I'm not seeing it. And if it is, I think that drastically changes the big picture.
The point I'm trying to make is that T is very much a spatial dimension, but due to the way we are made we interpret it as temporal. My description of a human lifetime as a flesh colored snake is a visualization of a human as a spatially 4D object.
I know this may sound unsatisfying, but we are hopelessly 3D in our wiring, and with the exception of moments on certain substances, we can only visualize higher dimensions via story, metaphor and mental trickery.
I know this may sound unsatisfying, but we are hopelessly 3D in our wiring, and with the exception of moments on certain substances, we can only visualize higher dimensions via story, metaphor and mental trickery.
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
Guy,
If you haven't already, you should check out the second of those 3 videos I posted earlier. It's all about how X,Y, and Z combine with T. It's interesting stuff you might like it. :d
If you haven't already, you should check out the second of those 3 videos I posted earlier. It's all about how X,Y, and Z combine with T. It's interesting stuff you might like it. :d
Mr.Peabody
Rising Star
I know my theory has its inherent flaws. It's lazy to just assume there's a preexisting ball for our universe to ride on. It's about as lazy as "dark energy"! But I'll think on it a bit... In some states such things can become so clear, and seemingly evaporate away on the way back.
Your idea Crazyhorse is a good example of the challenges of figuring out how things work. I always wonder how far we can go with somethings, as our ability to witness certain things seems so limited given our position. Such as how they say that we can never see before the big bang. But then, I think about how challenging it was for humanity to figure out the Earth is round, and it spins while going around the Sun.
Great minds figured that out, so what's to stop us?
Your idea Crazyhorse is a good example of the challenges of figuring out how things work. I always wonder how far we can go with somethings, as our ability to witness certain things seems so limited given our position. Such as how they say that we can never see before the big bang. But then, I think about how challenging it was for humanity to figure out the Earth is round, and it spins while going around the Sun.
Great minds figured that out, so what's to stop us?
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
Mr.Peabody said:
I don't think it's a bad idea at all. It works really well with the idea of a universe that expands and contracts, just adds an extra dimension to the picture. :d
The "particle horizon" (edge of the visible universe) is a really severely limiting barrier to our understanding. We can't ever see more than about 13 billion light years around us, no matter how advanced our technology gets, and that's bound to be just a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the whole thing. And with expansion there's less and less things to look at within that range all the time. So the only way we're ever likely to get the big picture right is to stretch our imaginations. Maybe with the help of the right chemical allies... :thumb_up:
Hello dear members,
It's my first time here today I just stumbled on this page while trying to find out if there were any decent articles that discussed a recycling universe.
I don't know if you guys have discussed this fully or not before but I had an idea, mind you that I don't fully grasp many of the concepts that go with my idea and the mathematical part of it escapes me almost completely since it involves many different aspects of the workings of the universe, its expansion movements, black holes, the theory of white holes, subspace (or some other form of something like subspace), gravity and finally the question that this started in the first place... Does the universe have a centre?
I had always been of the idea that the universe has a centre, until I came to find out that someone had compared the universe to a balloon or rather the surface of a balloon, its outer layer blah blah and it seems like there isn’t a centre to it. If you want more on that google it there are tons of articles and youtube videos on the subject.
The one thing that we all seem to agree on is that the universe is expanding, rather we assume that it’s expanding since most other galaxies are moving away from us. A lot of people tend to think that the reason there is no centre to the universe is just because everything should be moving away from the centre yet no matter where in the universe you are everything is moving away from you.
I think many relate the idea of movement with the idea of speed more than the idea of acceleration.
2 objects travelling in the same direction with the same acceleration that share the same initial point of departure but do not share the same moment of departure will find the distance between them increasing as time passes by.
Now just for argument sakes lets add an infinite or at least very large number of objects to which the same applies.
The distance between these objects will increase no matter which object you compare to which other one, so while we know that the objects are travelling in the same direction looking at the whole picture, if we were to take the view point of any of those objects it would seem as it was the centre or initial point of the action given that everything is moving away from it.
The only way we could for certain say that as that object we aren’t the initial point or centre is if we also had an infinite or very large amount of objects that initiated from the same point as we did but travelled in the opposite direction.
If our field of vision was smaller than the distance from our current position to the centre then we wouldn’t know neither where the centre is nor if it exists in the first place.
Going back to the universe now if there was a big bang in the form of a giant explosion that set objects in motion, it could very well be that we are soo far from it that it is outside our field of vision and we are just unable to see anything close to centre let alone things travelling in a different direction.
Now the question in my mind is whether or not the big bang was in fact a one time anomaly or not. Here is where my wild theories about black holes actually comes into play.
For those that aren’t familiar with the concept of white holes as I understand it they are the complete opposite from black holes (again this is just another theory that is floating out there) some even say that the big bang was in fact a white hole.
If we take the concept of a white hole to mean just that and we also take for valid the idea that the big bang was in fact a white hole then could it be possible that a white hole is also timeless and as violent as a black hole? If so could there be one still pumping out matter and energy that will form new galaxies in time?
As far as I understand it, nothing disappears things are simple transformed into different things the only exception is anything that passes through the event horizon of a black hole, after something goes in, it ceases to exist.
What if it didn’t though? What if it worked like a fountain where water goes into a drain and seems to disappear from the fountain only to be expelled again from a different position? Would it be any different if the fountain had more than one drain? I think not, water would still “vanish” into the drain and it would be expelled again from the top.
What if however, we were in the fountain, away from the top, and our field of vision was limited?
What if we could only see the drains but not the top of the fountain?
Wouldn’t we assume that water simply “vanishes”?
Maybe the universe is like a fountain where black holes all absorb matter into an intergalactic pipe system that leads straight into a white hole in the centre of the universe.
Call me crazy if you will :thumb_up:
Thoughts?
It's my first time here today I just stumbled on this page while trying to find out if there were any decent articles that discussed a recycling universe.
I don't know if you guys have discussed this fully or not before but I had an idea, mind you that I don't fully grasp many of the concepts that go with my idea and the mathematical part of it escapes me almost completely since it involves many different aspects of the workings of the universe, its expansion movements, black holes, the theory of white holes, subspace (or some other form of something like subspace), gravity and finally the question that this started in the first place... Does the universe have a centre?
I had always been of the idea that the universe has a centre, until I came to find out that someone had compared the universe to a balloon or rather the surface of a balloon, its outer layer blah blah and it seems like there isn’t a centre to it. If you want more on that google it there are tons of articles and youtube videos on the subject.
The one thing that we all seem to agree on is that the universe is expanding, rather we assume that it’s expanding since most other galaxies are moving away from us. A lot of people tend to think that the reason there is no centre to the universe is just because everything should be moving away from the centre yet no matter where in the universe you are everything is moving away from you.
I think many relate the idea of movement with the idea of speed more than the idea of acceleration.
2 objects travelling in the same direction with the same acceleration that share the same initial point of departure but do not share the same moment of departure will find the distance between them increasing as time passes by.
Now just for argument sakes lets add an infinite or at least very large number of objects to which the same applies.
The distance between these objects will increase no matter which object you compare to which other one, so while we know that the objects are travelling in the same direction looking at the whole picture, if we were to take the view point of any of those objects it would seem as it was the centre or initial point of the action given that everything is moving away from it.
The only way we could for certain say that as that object we aren’t the initial point or centre is if we also had an infinite or very large amount of objects that initiated from the same point as we did but travelled in the opposite direction.
If our field of vision was smaller than the distance from our current position to the centre then we wouldn’t know neither where the centre is nor if it exists in the first place.
Going back to the universe now if there was a big bang in the form of a giant explosion that set objects in motion, it could very well be that we are soo far from it that it is outside our field of vision and we are just unable to see anything close to centre let alone things travelling in a different direction.
Now the question in my mind is whether or not the big bang was in fact a one time anomaly or not. Here is where my wild theories about black holes actually comes into play.
For those that aren’t familiar with the concept of white holes as I understand it they are the complete opposite from black holes (again this is just another theory that is floating out there) some even say that the big bang was in fact a white hole.
If we take the concept of a white hole to mean just that and we also take for valid the idea that the big bang was in fact a white hole then could it be possible that a white hole is also timeless and as violent as a black hole? If so could there be one still pumping out matter and energy that will form new galaxies in time?
As far as I understand it, nothing disappears things are simple transformed into different things the only exception is anything that passes through the event horizon of a black hole, after something goes in, it ceases to exist.
What if it didn’t though? What if it worked like a fountain where water goes into a drain and seems to disappear from the fountain only to be expelled again from a different position? Would it be any different if the fountain had more than one drain? I think not, water would still “vanish” into the drain and it would be expelled again from the top.
What if however, we were in the fountain, away from the top, and our field of vision was limited?
What if we could only see the drains but not the top of the fountain?
Wouldn’t we assume that water simply “vanishes”?
Maybe the universe is like a fountain where black holes all absorb matter into an intergalactic pipe system that leads straight into a white hole in the centre of the universe.
Call me crazy if you will :thumb_up:
Thoughts?
Argnzil said:
Not crazy...just as inquisitive as the rest of us...:d
Very similar idea to the one I wrote in post *16.
I like the whole 'white hole' idea...seems to have a ring of plausibility about it...
Your self sustaining fountain idea is a nice twist...:thumb_up:
I'd like to see the RedShift data on the acceleration of matter as it approaches the event horizon....pegged waaay of the scale...
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
Argnzil said:
Hi Argnzil! Welcome to the Nexus.
Thanks for sharing your idea with us! Ok, so, first of all it's probably best to get the picture of a "Balloon" universe out of your head. It's a classic way of explaining expansion (and I've used it myself in this discussion) and makes it easier to imagine but it doesn't seem to be literally true. For a long time it was assumed that the universe must be spherical, but our most recent measurements say no, it appears to be more of a flat disk shape.
I know it's quickly becoming pretty epic, but it might be worthwhile to read back over what we've talked about so far since it touches on several aspects of what you're asking about. In particular, there's a video that I linked to HERE that talks about the overall shape of the universe, and why it's not considered to be a sphere anymore.
This is correct according to our current understanding, and in fact our field of vision IS and always will be less than the distance from us to the center. In my last post I mentioned the "particle horizon" or edge of the visible universe, and how it limits our understanding. The farthest away we can see is about 13-14 billion light years, which is about the number of years since the big bang. The reason for this is actually pretty straightforward. In a nutshell, it's because of the speed of light.
Since light takes a certain amount of time to travel to us, the farther away the object is from us, the longer ago the light that is reaching us now left that object. If you've looked into astronomy much at all you probably understand this already, but in case you don't quite grasp it yet it's also touched on in one of the videos I put up earlier in the thread.
So following this logic, the big bang sort of puts a limit on how far away (and therefore, how far back in time) we can see. The most distant galaxy we've currently got a picture of is 13 point something billion light years away, which was back when galaxies first began to form, and we're never going to see very far beyond that. Beyond this range, no matter what direction we look, things actually appear to be moving away from us FASTER Than the speed of light (although they're not really.) About the oldest and best image we currently have is the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is a microwave afterimage of the big bang that shows the very early universe, when light actually appeared for the first time, when it was only 380 thousand years old or so IIRC and much much smaller.
Well, saying it ceases to exist has to be a bit of an exaggeration. Matter can't be destroyed, it can only be transformed, as it is a form of energy and MADE of energy, and energy can't be destroyed. Not even by a black hole. It's better to say that once it goes into a black hole, it is torn apart and reduced to it's most basic form, which can only be a form of energy. Possibly cosmic "strings". It's just out of our reach at that point, and we're not sure what happens to it then. It may just stay there, right ont he edge of the singularity, slowly giving the black hole more and more mass. It may form whole new universes INSIDE the black hole like we talked about earlier. Or it may emerge somewhere else through a white hole like you and Cyb have suggested, but nobody has ever detected one so far. Unless there's only one, at the center of the universe as you've said, it seems like we'd have seen evidence of one by now.
I'm not inclined to call you crazy at all. At least, not any crazier than me.
And I think it's great that you're interested in this stuff and put your thought towards understanding it. I can actually imagine a scenario where what you're saying wouldn't be far off, and we wouldn't need to argue with Hawking and all the other scientists about whether matter can make it through a black hole intact. It's related to an idea I'd never considered before the recent conversation with Mr. Peabody, concerning the possibility of a void in space-time opening at the center of the universe in the wake of the big bang. But I'm getting ahead of myself, first let me try to explain why I think that if what you're talking about is possible, it would probably have to be a little different than the way you imagine it now.Black holes are a really deep subject (pardon the pun), and I'd highly recommend reading Stephen Hawking's book "A brief history of time". It's really pretty easy for the layman to read and understand, he doesn't get excessively technical and talks a lot about both black holes, and the big bang. Black holes are his specialty and he probably understands them better than anyone. There are also a lot of videos on youtube that can probably explain both these things better than I can. THIS looks like a good one on the big bang, and HERE's one on black holes.
Long story shortish, for the big bang idea to work it seems to require a phase where the entire mass of the universe is compressed to a single point, then released in several stages over a short period of time. This process seems to be how energy becomes matter, and then almost all of that matter, is turned back to energy through matter-antimatter collisions. Also space itself was inflated as part of the process and this can't be repeated inside of a pre-existing 3 dimensional space, you need a non-dimensional or higher dimensional void like the one we're expanding "into". Energy spewing out of a white hole into an existing universe wouldn't behave anything like it does during the big bang. for one thing, there's not enough antimatter left in the universe for it to interact with, it was all destroyed during the original big bang.
So, if you can get your head around all that, let me propose a modification to your idea that might make it possible without changing the currently accepted parameters of the big bang or black holes. How about if, instead of a continuous "fountain", we were to imagine it as something that happens intermittently. Let's say I'm more or less correct with what I suggested earlier about a void opening within space-time itself at the center of the universe, which grows as the universe expands. And let's imagine that all the black holes in the universe lead straight to the same singularity, right in the middle of that void. As they devour matter, its energy gets broken down and packed more and more densely inside that singularity. Eventually, when that density gets high enough, we could get a whole new big bang.
BUT, based on what happened in the previous big bang, we already know how much matter and density a singularity can contain before it goes bang. Which could only be, all the matter in the universe. So, if the whole idea of a big crunch turns out to be wrong, I think this is another way that the universe might be able to recycle itself instead of just fizzling out. All the matter and energy in the universe would have to eventually be devoured by black holes and compressed into a singularity in the void at the center of the universe, which would then explode again once it reached critical mass.
Just speculating of course, but I hope this makes some sort of sense. Please give it some thought!
Whatever is really going on in the universe i'm still not convinced that time is sewn into the fabric of space. If times seems to slow down in some areas of the universe i think that it's actually matter that is slowing down or speeding up. Time is a unit of measurement invented by man and it cant speed up or slow down.
If a clock out in space goes out of sync with a clock on earth i think its the timepiece itself that has slowed down and not actually time. Am i wrong?
If a clock out in space goes out of sync with a clock on earth i think its the timepiece itself that has slowed down and not actually time. Am i wrong?
Crazyhorse
Wide eyed and hopeful
The way we MEASURE time is indeed an invention of man, and arbitrary. But time itself is the thing that seperates us from the time when there were dinosaurs stomping around. If there were only now, they would EXIST now, not THEN. There couldn't even BE a then, for us to know they existed in. Nonlinear reality (Where everything exists independently of time) is something that exists OUTSIDE all the dimensions of space-time. In our world past, present, and future are all equally real, and all exist, but they exist seperately, not all at once. And WHEN they exist is relative to the motion of the observer. We just don't normally experience it in our everyday lives, because we are ALL the observer, and on our dinky little planet we all share the same large-scale motions. Did you know that astronauts whizzing around the earth actually age just a tiny bit slower than those of us on the ground, because of how fast they're moving? This can be proven, if they're up there long enough, through the division of their cells. And if they were moving even faster, they would age even slower. Just like atomic clocks in orbit tick at a slightly different rate, even though atomic decay is one of the most precise and consistent things in physics (which is why it is used for our most advanced clocks, and how we know how long ago the dinosaurs lived.) It's not that there's something wrong with them, or that the physics of atomic decay work differently in space than it does on the ground, it's that time is actually moving differently for them, because of their relative speed.
According to Einstein and special relativity (which has basically been proven correct in the real world, although it may be incomplete), yes that's wrong. That is the common sense understanding because of the way time is perceived, but as crazy as it sounds it does seem to be completely wrong. This can be demonstrated through some fairly simple experiments, and in fact your GPS wouldn't even work without the people who designed it taking relativity into account. E=Mc2 didn't become the most famous equation in the world for nothing, it actually means something important. It's just really hard to grasp because it's so counterintuitive. Check out the videos on the previous page (or others on youtube, search relativity) for more details on why this is so strongly believed to be the case. I know it's weird, but is it really that much weirder than the existence of hyperspace?
Please don't feel like I'm belittling you for thinking otherwise, it took me a long time to fully understand and accept this idea too. But once you do, you can see even though it sounds bizarre it really just can't be any other way. This is just a truly bizarre place we're living in.
DeMenTed said:
According to Einstein and special relativity (which has basically been proven correct in the real world, although it may be incomplete), yes that's wrong. That is the common sense understanding because of the way time is perceived, but as crazy as it sounds it does seem to be completely wrong. This can be demonstrated through some fairly simple experiments, and in fact your GPS wouldn't even work without the people who designed it taking relativity into account. E=Mc2 didn't become the most famous equation in the world for nothing, it actually means something important. It's just really hard to grasp because it's so counterintuitive. Check out the videos on the previous page (or others on youtube, search relativity) for more details on why this is so strongly believed to be the case. I know it's weird, but is it really that much weirder than the existence of hyperspace?
Please don't feel like I'm belittling you for thinking otherwise, it took me a long time to fully understand and accept this idea too. But once you do, you can see even though it sounds bizarre it really just can't be any other way. This is just a truly bizarre place we're living in.
Interesting...
www.usatoday.com
Einstein faces super-massive black hole challenge
Discovery of a star orbiting the jumbo black hole at the galaxy's center offers the sternest test yet to Einstein.
www.usatoday.com
AfroHorror
Paradox Entity
Great Stuff.
I recently watched the what is nothing episode of into the wormhole not to long ago.
Towards the end of the episode they talk about how the universe could be a big waste of space by what we call "nothingness". I decided to revisit the episode to collect my thoughts now...
The guy who talks about the fish that perceives the water (space) around it as a form of "nothingness" My point is the perception of and what the fish can comprehend are the limits to it's own universe and exploration like a fish jumping out of water are the only ways to find truth about its universe.
I think we think to small when we say universe. Why don't we believe it just keeps going? How can we even guess at how old it is?
To relate this to what it seems this conversation was and is "What if" the universe has no shape and is truly Limitless in all directions. What we perceive as shape are only the larger splotches of nothingness between matter like fractals. we are extremely limited by what our technology and our math can tell us about our physical universe.
I can't pretend to comprehend where "Nothingness" came from just as much as anyone else can. We can only theorize until more advancements in technology to detect what truly builds up this empty space we exist in. i guess we just have fun theorizing.
I'm not extremely educated. That's just what i could input.
I feel like i'm off topic because i don't really mention any theories mentioned in the post. So help me relate im new to the conversation and the forum.
I recently watched the what is nothing episode of into the wormhole not to long ago.
Towards the end of the episode they talk about how the universe could be a big waste of space by what we call "nothingness". I decided to revisit the episode to collect my thoughts now...
I think we think to small when we say universe. Why don't we believe it just keeps going? How can we even guess at how old it is?
To relate this to what it seems this conversation was and is "What if" the universe has no shape and is truly Limitless in all directions. What we perceive as shape are only the larger splotches of nothingness between matter like fractals. we are extremely limited by what our technology and our math can tell us about our physical universe.
I can't pretend to comprehend where "Nothingness" came from just as much as anyone else can. We can only theorize until more advancements in technology to detect what truly builds up this empty space we exist in. i guess we just have fun theorizing.
I'm not extremely educated. That's just what i could input.
I feel like i'm off topic because i don't really mention any theories mentioned in the post. So help me relate im new to the conversation and the forum.
Mr.Peabody
Rising Star
Well put Crazyhorse! I just wanted to add, that gravity also affects the pace of time. The higher the gravity, the slower the speed of time. It's a consequence of the bending of spacetime. So if we had Moon people, they would age slightly faster than Earth people.
Afrohorror:
One thing you mentioned is the age of the universe. The way we know the age is by retracing the paths of the matter in the universe. They found the average speed everything is racing away from everything else, and reversed it to the point everything is in one point. Not only did this give us the age of the universe, it is also the basis of the theory of the big bang.
Until the big bang theory, there were many theories floating around. One of these from Einstein was that the universe was static. To explain why everything was not falling towards each other because of gravity, he supposed there was an unseen force pushing everything apart. When it was discovered the universe was expanding, he admitted his original theory was one of his biggest blunders. The funny thing now, is there actually is and unseen force pushing everything apart! It's dark energy, and it's the original topic of this thread.
New question (which can wait until we get other things sorted out, if need be) !!
So do the latest figures of the age of the universe take into account the acceleration? If not, it seems the age of the universe could be even older than they say.
Another idea:
Matter antimatter annihilation at the beginning of the 'verse (street slang for universe). They say the amount of matter just barely exceeded the amount of antimatter at the very beginning, which is why we have anything at all. I know they have a fairly firm understanding of how antimatter behaves, but I had an idea to explain this. Suppose antimatter is repelled by other antimatter (like reverse gravity). I'm making a leap here and assuming it repels itself because that is the opposite behavior of regular matter. If this was the case, maybe this repulsion accelerated some of the antimatter into space during the big bang. Thus allowing for matter to exist.
Just a thought.
I'll let others chime in before I bring up my ideas about neutrinos and conscious energy....
Afrohorror:
One thing you mentioned is the age of the universe. The way we know the age is by retracing the paths of the matter in the universe. They found the average speed everything is racing away from everything else, and reversed it to the point everything is in one point. Not only did this give us the age of the universe, it is also the basis of the theory of the big bang.
Until the big bang theory, there were many theories floating around. One of these from Einstein was that the universe was static. To explain why everything was not falling towards each other because of gravity, he supposed there was an unseen force pushing everything apart. When it was discovered the universe was expanding, he admitted his original theory was one of his biggest blunders. The funny thing now, is there actually is and unseen force pushing everything apart! It's dark energy, and it's the original topic of this thread.
New question (which can wait until we get other things sorted out, if need be) !!
So do the latest figures of the age of the universe take into account the acceleration? If not, it seems the age of the universe could be even older than they say.
Another idea:
Matter antimatter annihilation at the beginning of the 'verse (street slang for universe). They say the amount of matter just barely exceeded the amount of antimatter at the very beginning, which is why we have anything at all. I know they have a fairly firm understanding of how antimatter behaves, but I had an idea to explain this. Suppose antimatter is repelled by other antimatter (like reverse gravity). I'm making a leap here and assuming it repels itself because that is the opposite behavior of regular matter. If this was the case, maybe this repulsion accelerated some of the antimatter into space during the big bang. Thus allowing for matter to exist.
Just a thought.
I'll let others chime in before I bring up my ideas about neutrinos and conscious energy....
JourneyToJah
Free Spirit
Sorry I didn't get to read all posts but this is a hell of an interesting talk. Im no scientist myself, I just go with my own understanding over things.
For once, time is just something we all agreed over at some time in history. Thats why our calendar ( Gregorian - issued by Pope Gregory ) counts time different than the ones before it - those being called "incorrect".
That brings me to the second thing in my mind... everything about the universe is about the point of view we have. We can only experience this universe from our points of view and the furthest one we have is barely going out of the solar system. That being said we can only guess as far as how is it out there.
To make it more clear - we only look from the inside out, we dont have the outside in point of view that I think we need to observe the movement in the universe.
We can only theorize from the inside out for now.... and as far as we know, there is a universe out there that has a movement that cant be related to anything yet. For example if we could see another universe we would have a reference point that we could related our universes movement to.
What I think is that it can go on forever and ever, there will always be something bigger to contain everything else.
Sorry if it has little to no sense, just trying to bring my two cents.
Blesses !
For once, time is just something we all agreed over at some time in history. Thats why our calendar ( Gregorian - issued by Pope Gregory ) counts time different than the ones before it - those being called "incorrect".
That brings me to the second thing in my mind... everything about the universe is about the point of view we have. We can only experience this universe from our points of view and the furthest one we have is barely going out of the solar system. That being said we can only guess as far as how is it out there.
To make it more clear - we only look from the inside out, we dont have the outside in point of view that I think we need to observe the movement in the universe.
We can only theorize from the inside out for now.... and as far as we know, there is a universe out there that has a movement that cant be related to anything yet. For example if we could see another universe we would have a reference point that we could related our universes movement to.
What I think is that it can go on forever and ever, there will always be something bigger to contain everything else.
Sorry if it has little to no sense, just trying to bring my two cents.
Blesses !
JourneyToJah said:
There are some philosophical ideas about how large the universe (not the observable universe) actually is. Some astronomers believe that it is so big, that if you were able to look in one direction for a certain distance, you would end up looking back through the other end of the universe.
Similar threads
