A logical way the Universe began, evolved, and will end.

[knowerastronomy]

For those of you that have unanswered questions about the Cosmos this is the Theory that will attempt to answer them. . . Its called The Logical Universe Theory E=MR. . . Only logic and science was used to come up with sometimes startling conclusions. . . Some things are very different than you thought and others are not. . .

Knowerastronomy is on YouTube and at, astronomy.netfirms.com

knowerastronomy@gmailcom

Thanks

[Walter L. Wagner]

For those of you that have unanswered questions about the Cosmos this is the Theory that will attempt to answer them. . . Its called The Logical Universe Theory E=MR. . . Only logic and science was used to come up with sometimes startling conclusions. . . Some things are very different than you thought and others are not. . .

Knowerastronomy is on YouTube and at, astronomy.netfirms.com

knowerastronomy@gmailcom

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsnNNvE4wio&feature=related

pure word salad that explains nothing.

welcome to sciforums.

[origin]

I found your site to be a bit tedious and simply a mish mash scientific terms mixed with fantasy.

Oh, and we have our own bubbles universe guy in the forum already.

[Dywyddyr]

Cesspool or Alternative Theories please.
This isn't science.

[Pincho Paxton]

For those of you that have unanswered questions about the Cosmos this is the Theory that will attempt to answer them. . . Its called The Logical Universe Theory E=MR. . . Only logic and science was used to come up with sometimes startling conclusions. . . Some things are very different than you thought and others are not. . .

Knowerastronomy is on YouTube and at, astronomy.netfirms.com

knowerastronomy@gmailcom

Thanks

I don't like physics applied to the beginning of the Universe. For example G is there, where did G come from? I don't even like movement, and spin added without an explanation. However, science will allow some of that.

[knowerastronomy]

Cesspool or Alternative Theories please.
This isn't science.

Cesspool is not science it is probably meant to be hurtful. . . These are only ideas based on logic and science and not meant to attack anyone. . .

[AlexG]

The cesspool is where silliness like this put, to fade away.

[knowerastronomy]

I don't like physics applied to the beginning of the Universe. For example G is there, where did G come from? I don't even like movement, and spin added without an explanation. However, science will allow some of that.

In the Logical Universe Gravity

G=ER

Gravity is Energy times Rotational speed. . . U1 particles only have energy if they are rotating. . . the faster they rotate the stronger the Gravity and visa versa. .
when they don't rotate there is no influence on other particles thus no gravity. .

[knowerastronomy]

I found your site to be a bit tedious and simply a mish mash scientific terms mixed with fantasy.

Oh, and we have our own bubbles universe guy in the forum already.

This reply is not Scientific and is meant only boost the ego of the sender. . .

[knowerastronomy]

The cesspool is where silliness like this put, to fade away.

you are obvious a deep thinker and know a lot about science. . .

[AlexG]

This reply is not Scientific

Neither is your video.

[AlexG]

you are obvious a deep thinker and know a lot about science. . .

If I had never seen a cow in my life, I'd still know stepping in bullshit is nasty.

[wlminex]

Knower:

Interesting to read your post and thanks for the link. . . . . although I'm sure that AlexG will lump us together . . . . your OOB thinking is what spawns new scientific ideas!

wlminex

[knowerastronomy]

Knower:

Interesting to read your post and thanks for the link. . . . . although I'm sure that AlexG will lump us together . . . . your OOB thinking is what spawns new scientific ideas!

wlminex

Thank you for your post

I love science. . . It is always on my mind and enjoy serious discussions. . Unfortunately the internet brings out the best and worst in people. . .

I think that 95% of the standard model is right but there is a fundamental flaw because multiple universes, worm holes, the same particles in two places at once is illogical and something is wrong. . .

[Pincho Paxton]

In the Logical Universe Gravity

G=ER

Gravity is Energy times Rotational speed. . . U1 particles only have energy if they are rotating. . . the faster they rotate the stronger the Gravity and visa versa. .
when they don't rotate there is no influence on other particles thus no gravity. .

Chicken, and egg.

G = ER
ER = G

It's not a solution, it's hypnotic. :D

[Dywyddyr]

Cesspool is not science
And neither are your claims.


it is probably meant to be hurtful.
I could see your "ideas" being harmful if anyone were to take them seriously.


These are only ideas based on logic and science
Logic and science. Hmm... let me see:

Assume this profile.........
followed by unsubstantiated drivel.

(Oh and PS, Kaku's forename is Michio, not Michia).

[wlminex]

. . . Knower: Above is just a preview of what the SM's (Standard Modelers' . . .or Sado-Masochists . . . pick one!)have in store for you!!

wlminex

[wlminex]

Knower:

BTW . . . . by what mechanism(s) does a rotating U1 empart gravity . . . just curious

wlminex

[knowerastronomy]

let me put it in another way, In the Logical Universe Gravity gravity is present when we have the energy of rotating matter. . . The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity. . In the Logical Universe there is no such thing as empty space so the more compressed the matter the more gravity you have per area. . . As things cool down in the cold universe you have less and less gravity per area. .

[Dywyddyr]

In the Logical Universe Gravity gravity is present when we have the energy of rotating matter. . . The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity.
And you claim this is logic?
How, exactly, does a faster rotation compress matter?

[cosmictraveler]

The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity

As we know spacetime allows for gravity to happen , not the weights of the mass. Bending spacetime is what gravity is about and that's already been shown as factual. So your assumption that a spinning mass will somehow make the spacetime become more wrinkled is not logical whatsoever to me.

[Electro522]

Knower, I respect you and I mean no harm to you, but this just doesnt make sense to me. If something is rotating, than centripetal forces would push the matter out, not in to condense. I dont know if you have ever seen the video of an astronaut who put salt in a bag and then just let it float. After a little time had passed, the salt had gathered into clumps inside the bag. The salt wasnt rotating and neither was the bag or the ISS (where it took place). There is eveidence all over our universe that contradicts your theory. Take Jupiter for example; it is spinning so fast, that it actually has a slight oval shape, and yet your theory states that it should collapse in on itslef. Im sorry, but there is just to much eveidence in our universe to even consider your theory.

[wellwisher]

The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity

Maybe he is thinking of a neutron star, which has considerable angular rotation and a very high gravity, with the formation of the neutron star sort of resulting in this combination extreme gravity and rotation.

There is also the core of the earth, which is denser than the surface, which rotates faster than the perimeter, according to NASA.

[wlminex]

let me put it in another way, In the Logical Universe Gravity gravity is present when we have the energy of rotating matter. . . The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity. . In the Logical Universe there is no such thing as empty space so the more compressed the matter the more gravity you have per area. . . As things cool down in the cold universe you have less and less gravity per area. .

Knower: I understand, but am still curious about the 'mechanism' that produces gravity from a rotating U1 mass. If I can understand the 'mechanism' by which this occurs, I could 'buy-off' on the proportionality of >>> spin rate => >> gravity. Do you envision a mechanism similar (analogous) to 'moving electrons inducing magnetic fields'? If so, then I suppose a moving mass (i.e., a composite of (charge-balanced) particles) might interact with the underlying non-vacuum fabric that pervades the universe.

[AlexG]

This thread belongs in Alternative Theories.

[James R]

In the Logical Universe Gravity

G=ER

Gravity is Energy times Rotational speed. .

Please explain what G is, and why its units (in standard SI units) would be kg m^2/s^3

Thanks.

[SciWriter]

I know how the universe will end: expansion into dispersion.

[wlminex]

I know how the universe will end: expansion into dispersion.

specifically define your use of the term dispersion . . . . diamonds exhibit dispersion . . . .

[SciWriter]

specifically define your use of the term dispersion . . . . diamonds exhibit dispersion . . . .

OK…

video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcy1Tx2U3mE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeypF0Bubek

words:

AFTER THE STARS HAVE GONE—
THE FINAL, SILENT DARK

THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (CASINO)

Entropy is always the winner in the end,
When there’s no more money left to lend;
Meanwhile we stabilize, in nature’s way,
Rearranging resources temporarily.


Prelude

Going beyond our very old obsession, so vast,
Of how it all began, back in the distant past,
Yet, retaining our search for meaning, from that,
We now turn to how will it all end, this and that,
Whether becoming collapsed, expended, or flat.

Is there is some deep meaning in all that?

Yes, for it is there in that future distance,
We’ll find, or not, the end of our persistence—
Whether or not we are at all forever resistant;
Whether all that was, and what was did and done
Will be of any long-lasting benefit to anyone,
Of what destiny awaits, if there ever was one.

Endings are important to us, for what we’re about,
Because we believe that how things turn out
Implies what the beginnings ultimately meant,
Of what, or not, is our place in the firmament.

As an ambitious species of nurture and nature,
We now and have always pointed toward the future,
For, of the three forms of the chimpanzee:
The common chimp, the bonobo, and us, we
Are the only chimp who went beyond the trees…

And, more importantly, ever out of Africa, freed,
By that exodus, which laid down, indeed,
From that experience, the urge and the need
To move on, exploring, ever planting another seed.

The horizons on Earth sufficed us, as through time,
For many millennia, but now the horizons’ climes
Have broadened, through cosmology and physics,
And so they can well inform us of our prospects.

The future matters to us, for very basic reasons:
We wish to offset our mortality, our pleasin’s,
To know if humanity’s works, for every season,
Will be remembered, or lost; all for nothing, even.


The Final, Silent Dark Marches On…

Time hurls a million waves of is displacement
At us, yet we are still here—the replacements:

Time, ever gray with age, hurls its changes, then,
‘Gainst existence’s rock, time and time again,
The entropic seas denuding the sands,
Yet, energy is preserved, via science’s wands.

Reminiscence has weathered, but could ne’er wither,
For, in the mists of time; yesteryear yet appeared.

Would the prospect of a “Big Crunch” bring on phobia,
Such as an ever more confining claustrophobia?

Seems a better thought, somehow, though no picnic,
But more pleasing, if the universe were also cyclic,
Although, then, all would still be really crushed,
And forever lost, gone headlong into the rush.


We expect cycles, for all the days and seasons
Embedded this in our ancestors, into our reasons,
Since, at least, the periodic supplies some rhythm,
A pattern—the rolling hills of lives onward driven.

As for the cyclic, endless repetitions, they, too,
Would seem to revolt more of us than just a few;
As, too, perhaps, would some infinite abyss of time,
Which, too, grants us neither reason nor rhyme.

Does the drama go on forever, or does it end?
What do the visions of the future portend?

Doesn’t it all have some purpose meant—
A goodly end of all of it to us might it present?

Is our higher mammal time, certainly,
But of such a short parentheses within eternity?

It’s only a finite time, then, which, too, tends
To horrify many, and more, as the universe ends,
Such as told by Robert Frost, a name of chill:
In heat or in cold, known as fire or ice, still.

Should we not believe in God since nothing lasts?
Well, if nothing lasts, then of what our purpose past?
Is a purpose really required, so constructive,
Or would that really be quite restrictive?

No realm could really be special or sent,
Its becoming being of some specific intent,
For, all has arrived here of causeless accident.

Is there anything wrong with the freedom to be,
Anywhere, any how, or any time during eternity?

No.

Should we rail against the law of entropy,
The “heat death” of thermodynamic energy,
The second of its final laws, we see,
Because it would destroy all of history?

Well, there are so many ways for disorder to be
Than any one ordered state specifically.

Would even a heaven on earth become a misery
If it, as it might, contain no more novelty?

Must there be an end to our revelry?
Can’t we, at least, hibernate eternally?
Won’t all matter, too, last eternally?

Will Shakespeare’s works live on, paternally?
Is this not a Wagnerian struggle for eternity?


Science Can Settle Whether a Last Day
Is Ever Going to Come this Way.

Only a decade or so ago, with some consternation,
We discovered the universe’s large acceleration,
This expansion even increasing, onto a thin disaster,
The galaxies getting further away, ever & ever faster…
Then, one last snapshot taken, for all to remember.

The accelerating expansion of the universe’s rafters
Means that the universe will cool even ever faster,
So, any rare forms of the future’s life prolongers
Will have to keep themselves ever more cooler,
Think more slowly, and hibernate ever-longer.

One day the protons will fade away,
Leaving but dark matter, electrons, and positrons.

THE WAVES OF THE ANCIENT SWELLS
OF TIME’S FORGETTING TIDES
SWEPT EVER ON…
*
As Time, now hoary with age,
Hurled forth its ashen change,
The charge ever san, pale and colorless,
That force born to summon decay, so endless,
‘Gainst Nature’s Universe each and every day.
*
Time and time again, Time fed all upon,
In its bloodless, white, and waxen way;
But, this everlasting rose would not fade,
Its luster even brightening by the day,
Ever unsuccumbing to the sickly, peakèd
State draining drawn the life away.
*
Entropic seas yet denude the mountains,
Yet, this enduring flower, never-endingly
Has cast Deathly Time aside, for now,
Ceaselessly somehow thriving on,
To that which was the near imperishable,
The flame of beauty still inextinguishable,
Forever celebrated as immutable,
Gaining its seemingly perpetual permanence
From the undying love of the glorious truth.

Yet, everything was moving apart, cooling off,
The big slowdown not really so very far off;
Ultimately, even the black holes of late
And the lightless planets would dissipate.

The primordial soup, once so rich and hearty
Was now a thin gruel that couldn’t serve the party.
One day, every particle would be moving away
From every other particle, so much out the way
That they won’t even be able to see one another;
Thus, for all intents, motion will have ceased forever.

Our spurt of life, followed by an infinite stretch
Of dark equilibrium, was but the briefest sketch—
A warm and fuzzy stage, so interestingly active,
Whose time, relatively, was but infinitesimive.

Yet, we were there, in all our glory,
For whenever else could we be?

In the future, uncounted societies of
Overlapping minds accumulate, with love,
In island redoubts, their preserved data burning
With a vital remembrance, in which, returning,
The past is the present and future, they all reliving
The data, even animating it, and ever altering.

Without any new enrichments, the present and future
Reprise the past, in this retreat from external nature.
Their candles would have been nearly invisible to us,
They enduring, by diminishing, so as not to exhaust.

They made few new memories, a kind of blind sight,
For whatever realities had ever existed out of sight
Of their own mental structures were now fractured,
And thus not so different from those manufactured.


The Penultimate Part of the Final Dark

AN ESCALATING ONE WAY TRIP
FROM A FLUKE TO OBLIVION

The majority of the energy
Of the universe is dark today,
Although everything else passes
Through it in every way.


It’s everywhere,
Having a component
That repels its own state,
Which cause the expansion of
The universe to much accelerate.

DARK ENERGY MATTERS: THE ESCALATION

We’re on a one way trip from the quantum fluke,
That maximal energy within old Planck’s nook—
Heading toward the oblivion of sparse expansion,
All that we ever loved and knew going to extinction.

They sent message of early warnings to some,
In those castles of illusion, yes, many a one,
That they would face the decay, not so far away,
Of the heavy particles, the “proton pause”, one day.

No self-assembled granularity can endure
Forever, but must return to the substructure,
And, so, the lives must all transition, it seems,
From heavier to much lighter regimes…

Although this, too, would not be permanent,
All destined to be swallowed by the firmament.
…

We have often asked why some space exists,
Why it permits the countless to briefly persist
On Mother Earth, nourished under Father Sky—
All of those finite sparks that light and die.

There were those who endlessly debated,
Whether to live in their virtuals unabated,
Or to press forwards and outwards, of delirium,
To seek out new localities in the mysterium;
But, the pauses of the heavy particles continued,
And so there was nowhere to go for the retinued.

It was much simpler once, in those days of old,
When we thought that universes didn’t go cold,
But that they expanded and collapsed,
Still destroying all, yet ever giving more to last.

And, well before that, once upon a storied time,
We simply made it all up, with tales and rhyme,
In place of any physical observations,
Or of all our revealing experimentations.
…

The past was now a reef of dead accumulations,
A graveyard of various useless informations,
Which, despite their splendorous beauty,
Could not provide a novel futurity.

…

The last one of us, born of the sparkness,
Kept a window to the outer darkness…

S/he looked out, from a once brightly
Colored and sparkling inner reality,
Into the dark abyss…

There was nothing out there,
All being so lonely and bare—
No more singing of life’s song;
For now everything was gone.


The Final Epilog

There could not have been any special time,
One that was privileged over any other chime,
Nor any special place, nor any specific form
Arising out of the necessarily causeless realm.

Even those locally specific dates and places past
Of the events’ novel memoirs could not ever last,
They being writ on water, with no meaning vast,
Disappearing in significance so very fast,
Since it’s only the universals that last.
…

The protons were all gone from the show,
Having decayed so very long ago,
Into positrons—ever canceling the electrons,
But emitting the fleeing light of photons;
There being, of course, an equal amount
Of protons and electrons in the count.

And, of course, along with all the protons,
Went all of the atomic elements, the end,
All of their forms becoming myth and legend—
As they were still dreamt in night dreams,
Those forms that we once had, so it seemed.

S/he, as many of a luckily adaptable kind,
Had long since lightened and lighted the mind
With the dwindling electrons, and precious photons—
That beginning light of ancient times, growing wan.

Ours had been the only line in the uni-verse,
One that had become sentient, with proto-man first,
The rest of the cosmos being but a colossal waste,
A foreboding, harsh, and very dangerous place.

S/he was now the only one left,
Having outlived all of the rest.

The universe was near crumbling away,
Having run out of space, time, and all its sway.
…


S/he was dispersing, melting, into the vacuum, lone,
But, s/he held on for another thousand years, alone,

…

And, then, s/he, too, was gone,
Being the last of the hominid’s song,
Of all that was sapient: the Magnificat,
The composition of Earth’s sweet plot,
The greatest symphony that was ever sown,
Now having faded into the unknown.

From near nothingness our forms became,
And into the same must go the remains.

If the unknown be such, ‘though it’s otherwise;
But, still, if it’s yet called unknown, then the reply
Is still, for sure, that we’re free to be, anywise.

If you’ve shed a tear, reading here,
For both the far, and the near and dear,
It won’t make their graves green again;
But, it’s possible that life could begin again…

Be of Good Cheer-—the sullen Month will die,
And a young Moon requite us by and by:
Look how the Old one meagre, bent, and wan
With Age and Fast, is fainting from the Sky!
(A Khayyam quatrain that’s not in the Rubaiyat)

Our fruits are of a universal seed,
Are yet another yield of All possibility treed,
For siblings elsewhere in the entropic sea
Are also born of such probability.

…


The Eternal Return

Behind the Veil, being that which ev’r thrives,
The Eternal Cycle has ever been alive.

Some time it needed to learn Everything for,
And now well knows how these bubbles to pour,
Of existence, in some meant universe,
Those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

So, as thus, thou lives on yester’s credit line,
In nowhere’s midst—now in this life of thine,
As of its bowl our cup of brew was mixed
Into this state of being that’s called “mine”.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has thus formed
Trillions of baubles like ours, and will form,
Forevermore—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So, fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Cycle from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When You and I behind the cloak are past,
But the long while the next universe shall last,
Which of one’s approach and departure it grasps
As might the sea’s self heed a pebble-cast.

[origin]

In science you are not allowed to just make stuff up. That seems to be exactly what you are doing here. I could of course be wrong - could you answer these questions and show me I am wrong


let me put it in another way, In the Logical Universe Gravity gravity is present when we have the energy of rotating matter. . . The faster the rotation the more compressed the matter the stronger the Gravity. .

Really? This is not what is observed in nature or experimentally. What evidence do you have that this actually occurrs?


In the Logical Universe there is no such thing as empty space so the more compressed the matter the more gravity you have per area. . .

Really? This is not what is observed in nature or experimentally. What evidence do you have that this actually occurrs?


As things cool down in the cold universe you have less and less gravity per area. .

Really? This is not what is observed in nature or experimentally. What evidence do you have that this actually occurrs?

[knowerastronomy]

Sorry I've been off line because of Christmas duties.


To answer questions about matter compression.

In the atomic world, faster rotational speeds expands matter because of increased energy, friction and centrifugal forces. .

In the theoretical world of particle physics, it is hypothesized that U1 particles will compress when spin energy is added and expand when when spin energy is decreased. . . This is at the Heart of the Logical Universe Theory. . .

It is theorized that U1 Particles are bubble like matter. . .

[knowerastronomy]

It stands to reason that a Black Hole has the ultimate gravity because of matter concentration. . .

In the openness of space there would be less gravity.

Keep in mind there is no such thing as empty space (vacuum). .

[Pincho Paxton]

Oh I get it now. Yeah, I would say stick with it. Although.. totally evolve it.

[Motor Daddy]

The term universe covers all of the (infinite) volume of space.

Infinite volume does not have a beginning or an end. Infinite volume does not or can not have any boundaries.

The universe never began and it will never end. Objects of mass do have a beginning and an end, as the object defined evolves into something different.

ALL MASS EVOLVES, infinitely! Always has and always will.

Mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time. It's why the earth (and all the planets) came from the sun. The entire SOLAR system is actually the sun...expanding...getting less dense over time.

See for yourself. Look at a picture of a spiral galaxy. ALL the mass came from the core (black hole) and is traveling AWAY from the core. Can't you see it???

[Pincho Paxton]

The term universe covers all of the (infinite) volume of space.

Infinite volume does not have a beginning or an end. Infinite volume does not or can not have any boundaries.

The universe never began and it will never end. Objects of mass do have a beginning and an end, as the object defined evolves into something different.

ALL MASS EVOLVES, infinitely! Always has and always will.

Mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time. It's why the earth (and all the planets) came from the sun. The entire SOLAR system is actually the sun...expanding...getting less dense over time.

See for yourself. Look at a picture of a spiral galaxy. ALL the mass came from the core (black hole) and is traveling AWAY from the core. Can't you see it???

I meant backwards not forwards.

[knowerastronomy]

The term universe covers all of the (infinite) volume of space.

Infinite volume does not have a beginning or an end. Infinite volume does not or can not have any boundaries.

The universe never began and it will never end. Objects of mass do have a beginning and an end, as the object defined evolves into something different.

ALL MASS EVOLVES, infinitely! Always has and always will.

Mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time. It's why the earth (and all the planets) came from the sun. The entire SOLAR system is actually the sun...expanding...getting less dense over time.

See for yourself. Look at a picture of a spiral galaxy. ALL the mass came from the core (black hole) and is traveling AWAY from the core. Can't you see it???

To me it is illogical to assume there is an infinite amount of gravity in a Black Hole. In the Logical Universal Theory, gravity is proportional to the number of U1 particles. This means, it is finite.

As human beings we fully understand the concept of a beginning and an end. It happens all the time, right? We Understand the concept of a beginning and lasting forever. . . Or Do we. . . In my mind the latter is impossible and is totally wrong. It is illogical and can't happen. To me If you define something as having a beginning you must define an end. I think the same is true in mathematics as well. For Example.... When you cut something in half you have defined a beginning. You cant keep going forever or for infinity. You must define an end. It also has to be divisible by two. That will keep your activity logical.

[Pincho Paxton]

To me it is illogical to assume there is an infinite amount of gravity in a Black Hole. In the Logical Universal Theory, gravity is proportional to the number of U1 particles. This means, it is finite.

As human beings we fully understand the concept of a beginning and an end. It happens all the time, right? We Understand the concept of a beginning and lasting forever. . . Or Do we. . . In my mind the latter is impossible and is totally wrong. It is illogical and can't happen. To me If you define something as having a beginning you must define an end. I think the same is true in mathematics as well. For Example.... When you cut something in half you have defined a beginning. You cant keep going forever or for infinity. You must define an end. It also has to be divisible by two. That will keep your activity logical.

Humans only know what they know. Nothing is infinite, everything is nothing. :D

[origin]

In the theoretical world of particle physics, it is hypothesized that U1 particles will compress when spin energy is added and expand when when spin energy is decreased. . .

What do you mean 'it is hypothesized'? By who? Do you have some background on the hypothesis?


It is theorized that U1 Particles are bubble like matter. . .

What do you mean 'it is theorized'? By who? Do you have some background on the theory?

[origin]

It stands to reason that a Black Hole has the ultimate gravity because of matter concentration. . .

What do you mean by 'ultimate gravity'?

[knowerastronomy]

Ultimate gravity is theorized because of the maximum compression of U1 Particles in a Black Hole. . . Gravity is not infinite, it is directly proportional to the numbers of U1 Particles. . .

Any one can come up with a theory, hypothesis, Idea or speculation. . . all that's needed is an explanation as to what it is. . . The relevance to whether it's right or wrong is up to the recipient. . .

[wlminex]

. . .infinite gravity in a BH would infer that the mass contained in a BH is also infinite . . . don't think this is the case . . . however, conditions could be such that, under such gravitational stress (in BH), a threshold is reached wherein 'mass' converts-back to subatomic constituents (e.g., quarks, gluons, etc.).

[knowerastronomy]

. . .infinite gravity in a BH would infer that the mass contained in a BH is also infinite . . . don't think this is the case . . . however, conditions could be such that, under such gravitational stress (in BH), a threshold is reached wherein 'mass' converts-back to subatomic constituents (e.g., quarks, gluons, etc.).


Thanks for your post

In the Logical Universe, U1 Particles are the smallest particle out of which others are made. . Such as Quarks Gluons Neutrinos etc. if they are indeed unique particles and not just support resonance's of the Proton. . .

It is true that Black Holes grow in size so there matter and gravity would increase proportionally. . .

[AlexG]

Any one can come up with a theory, hypothesis, Idea or speculation. . . all that's needed is an explanation as to what it is. . . The relevance to whether it's right or wrong is up to the recipient. . .

No.

The relevance to whether it's right or wrong is up to it's correspondence with physical reality.

[wlminex]

Thanks for your post

In the Logical Universe, U1 Particles are the smallest particle out of which others are made. . Such as Quarks Gluons Neutrinos etc. if they are indeed unique particles and not just support resonance's of the Proton. . .

It is true that Black Holes grow in size so there matter and gravity would increase proportionally. . .

. . . well . . . I suppose so . . since both large and micro-BH's have been hypothesized . . . I'd expect their mass and gravity characteristics to be different . . . maybe scalable

[river]

“ Originally Posted by knowerastronomy
To me it is illogical to assume there is an infinite amount of gravity in a Black Hole. In the Logical Universal Theory, gravity is proportional to the number of U1 particles. This means, it is finite.

As human beings we fully understand the concept of a beginning and an end. It happens all the time, right? We Understand the concept of a beginning and lasting forever. . . Or Do we. . . In my mind the latter is impossible and is totally wrong. It is illogical and can't happen. To me If you define something as having a beginning you must define an end. I think the same is true in mathematics as well. For Example.... When you cut something in half you have defined a beginning. You cant keep going forever or for infinity. You must define an end. It also has to be divisible by two. That will keep your activity logical.


Humans only know what they know.


Nothing is infinite, everything is nothing. :D

I disagree

all energy and matter is infinite

for the opposite , nothing , is nothing and will always be , nothing , and nothing but nothing

but our Universe is not based on nothing , but on something and something is infinite

hence material

[Pincho Paxton]

I disagree

all energy and matter is infinite

for the opposite , nothing , is nothing and will always be , nothing , and nothing but nothing

but our Universe is not based on nothing , but on something and something is infinite

hence material

Nothing is something without anything in it. :D

[river]

Originally Posted by river
I disagree

all energy and matter is infinite

for the opposite , nothing , is nothing and will always be , nothing , and nothing but nothing

but our Universe is not based on nothing , but on something and something is infinite

hence material



Nothing is something without anything in it. :D

NO

nothing is nothing , without anything or something in it and any possibility of this situation changing , ever:D

[James R]

The universe never began and it will never end.

What about the big bang?


Mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time. It's why the earth (and all the planets) came from the sun. The entire SOLAR system is actually the sun...expanding...getting less dense over time.

I debunked this nonsense previously - TWICE!

[Pincho Paxton]

What about the big bang?



I debunked this nonsense previously - TWICE!

I can say 100% factually that there was no Big Bang. I can prove it with the position of time. Inflation acts at every point inside an atom. This means that every point is a tiny flow that just looks like a big bang.

I amaze myself! :D

It's about time I amazed science! :cool:

[origin]

I can say 100% factually that there was no Big Bang.

You can say that but that does not mean it has any basis in reality.


I amaze myself! :D


I'm sure you do... well at least you have one admirer.:rolleyes:

[origin]

Ultimate gravity is theorized because of the maximum compression of U1 Particles in a Black Hole. . . Gravity is not infinite, it is directly proportional to the numbers of U1 Particles. . .

You keep saying 'it is theorized [bla bla bla]'. The truth is it is not theorized, but simply what you think with no supporting evidence what so ever.

It is somewhat dishonest to say, "it theorized", because it implies that someone with actual knowledge of science came up with this idea.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I posed?

[Motor Daddy]

What about the big bang?

We seem to have two different definitions of the term universe. My definition is all encompassing infinite space (volume) which has no boundaries and contains objects of mass. Your definition of the term universe seems to be that of an object, like a solar system, or a galaxy, only larger. With your definition, you could theoretically be external to the universe and look at it from afar, as you would the moon from the earth. You view the "universe" as an object comprised of smaller objects. You saying "big bang" is like me saying the earth came from the sun. I say the entire solar system is the sun, expanding. You say the universe (the object) was created by the big bang, and is expanding. You are saying the same thing as I am when you say the universe (the object) was once very small and expanded into a larger object. I say the same about the sun. What say you??




I debunked this nonsense previously - TWICE!

You never debunked it even once. You seemed to be confused on the different states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. You know what a solid is, James? Define it for me, will you??

[knowerastronomy]

We seem to have two different definitions of the term universe. My definition is all encompassing infinite space (volume) which has no boundaries and contains objects of mass. Your definition of the term universe seems to be that of an object, like a solar system, or a galaxy, only larger. With your definition, you could theoretically be external to the universe and look at it from afar, as you would the moon from the earth. You view the "universe" as an object comprised of smaller objects. You saying "big bang" is like me saying the earth came from the sun. I say the entire solar system is the sun, expanding. You say the universe (the object) was created by the big bang, and is expanding. You are saying the same thing as I am when you say the universe (the object) was once very small and expanded into a larger object. I say the same about the sun. What say you??


You never debunked it even once. You seemed to be confused on the different states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. You know what a solid is, James? Define it for me, will you??


Solid, Liquid, gas, plasma, are states of matter in the atomic world not in the particle world. . .

[knowerastronomy]

You keep saying 'it is theorized [bla bla bla]'. The truth is it is not theorized, but simply what you think with no supporting evidence what so ever.

It is somewhat dishonest to say, "it theorized", because it implies that someone with actual knowledge of science came up with this idea.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I posed?

The Higgs Boson is theorized. . .

[Motor Daddy]

Solid, Liquid, gas, plasma, are states of matter in the atomic world not in the particle world. . .

So what is your definition of a solid? Does it contain atoms? Space between the atoms? Any motion going on in a solid? :rolleyes:

[James R]

Pincho Paxton:


I can say 100% factually that there was no Big Bang. I can prove it with the position of time.

Ok. Go ahead and prove it for me.


I amaze myself! :D

It's about time I amazed science! :cool:

Fine. Now's your chance. Post your proof here, or withdraw your claim.



Motor Daddy:


We seem to have two different definitions of the term universe. My definition is all encompassing infinite space (volume) which has no boundaries and contains objects of mass. Your definition of the term universe seems to be that of an object, like a solar system, or a galaxy, only larger. With your definition, you could theoretically be external to the universe and look at it from afar, as you would the moon from the earth. You view the "universe" as an object comprised of smaller objects. You saying "big bang" is like me saying the earth came from the sun. I say the entire solar system is the sun, expanding. You say the universe (the object) was created by the big bang, and is expanding. You are saying the same thing as I am when you say the universe (the object) was once very small and expanded into a larger object. I say the same about the sun. What say you??

I say you're attempting to put words into my mouth.

If you want to know what I think or believe, ask me.


You never debunked it even once. You seemed to be confused on the different states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. You know what a solid is, James? Define it for me, will you??

Solid: state of matter in which a substance has no tendency to flow under moderate stress, resists forces (such as compression) that tend to deform it, and retains a definite size and shape.

Do you agree?

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy:

I say you're attempting to put words into my mouth.

If you want to know what I think or believe, ask me.

What is your definition of the term "universe?"

Could you theoretically be external to the universe and look at it from afar, like you would the moon from earth? Do you consider the universe an object that is expanding?




Solid: state of matter in which a substance has no tendency to flow under moderate stress, resists forces (such as compression) that tend to deform it, and retains a definite size and shape.

Do you agree?

That is all subjective. My point is that there is no real "solid." It is only a matter of space between objects, like atoms or electrons etc... There is no real "solid" it's all just motion.

A rock is no more a solid than a galaxy is!

[Pincho Paxton]

The position of time is in the nucleus of space, which is a grid structure made from stacked grain. It's scale is 1. the nucleus scale is negative, it is -1. The reason that time expands from the hole is because virtual particles will appear in a hole that totals smallest scale which is 1 + -1 = 0. This is the scale at which our universe begins. Time is a particle, it is a membrane with a negative hole. When it is released from the hole it scales up to become a photon. The photon then splits 6 ways to produce a hexagon grid. The grid structure expands sending a Newton's Cradle wave formation along the structure of interconnected hexagons, and Icosahedron. These connections are connected to everything around them. The paths are waves, because hexagons stack in waves. The rods in our eyes directly connect to the hexagon wave formations. The lens of our eye is an inverted mass construct, The thickest part of a lens is the most negative. The negative lens construct creates an area of least resistance (This also works with glass lenses). This revolves photon alignment to match the area of least resistance. The rotation of the photon wave construct affects the two-slit experiment, and so does the hexagon scale adjustment. The scaling UP of the hexagon path remains in the experiment as a sort of trail of thick hexagons. The next photon path bounces off the first photon path. Time is a flow like a hose pipe from the scale 1 hole. Gravity slows time down as it presses into the hole the flow is blocked partly like a finger over a hose pipe.

The reason that the Big Bang did not happen is that time is local to the grain structure of space time. This locality is a scale factor, and so the inflation actually happens in all of local space. Because time is local to a central hole in each grid resolution it is the cause of every part of its own space. So space begins at all grid locations, and not a singularity. By moving time to all places at once, you have no expanse from an origin. You have expanse from all origins. The singularity therefore is now infinite, and everywhere. So you divide the singularity into infinity.. you get infinite start locations, and no Big Bang.

[knowerastronomy]

The Logical Universe Theory states, the key to the Universe lies in understanding Black Holes. .

When the Universe reaches its ultimate cold expansion the U1 Particles slow to a stop. . . They pop so to speak because there membranes are so thin. . There is a tiny amount of matter left over with no energy because it is not rotating. . . This is called Cold Matter. . .

Eventually the Universe will consist of only Black Holes and Cold Matter. . .

Because there is no such thing as empty space the cold matter will collide with the merged Black Holes. . . This will break the locked resonance of the Black Hole and cause the Universal Black Hole to Explode which will trigger another Creation Event. .

Initially, why Black Holes merge and don't explode is because they have the same resonance and gravity concentration. . .

When a Black Hole looses its resonance containment it will explode and spill out its contents which are made up exclusively of U1 Particles in an extreme energy state. . .

[origin]

The Logical Universe Theory states, the key to the Universe lies in understanding Black Holes. .


You have no theory. You are incapable of answering any questions about your idea because you clearly have no science background and your conjecture is incomplete and poorly thought out. Your ideas are nothing more than pseudo-scientific adolescent conjectures.

Try taking some physics courses at least you could learn some new buzz words to toss around.;)

[origin]

The position of time is in the nucleus of space, which is a grid structure made from stacked grain. It's scale is 1. the nucleus scale is negative, it is -1. The reason that time expands from the hole is because virtual particles will appear in a hole that totals smallest scale which is 1 + -1 = 0. This is the scale at which our universe begins. Time is a particle, it is a membrane with a negative hole. When it is released from the hole it scales up to become a photon. The photon then splits 6 ways to produce a hexagon grid. The grid structure expands sending a Newton's Cradle wave formation along the structure of interconnected hexagons, and Icosahedron. These connections are connected to everything around them. The paths are waves, because hexagons stack in waves. The rods in our eyes directly connect to the hexagon wave formations. The lens of our eye is an inverted mass construct, The thickest part of a lens is the most negative. The negative lens construct creates an area of least resistance (This also works with glass lenses). This revolves photon alignment to match the area of least resistance. The rotation of the photon wave construct affects the two-slit experiment, and so does the hexagon scale adjustment. The scaling UP of the hexagon path remains in the experiment as a sort of trail of thick hexagons. The next photon path bounces off the first photon path. Time is a flow like a hose pipe from the scale 1 hole. Gravity slows time down as it presses into the hole the flow is blocked partly like a finger over a hose pipe.

The reason that the Big Bang did not happen is that time is local to the grain structure of space time. This locality is a scale factor, and so the inflation actually happens in all of local space. Because time is local to a central hole in each grid resolution it is the cause of every part of its own space. So space begins at all grid locations, and not a singularity. By moving time to all places at once, you have no expanse from an origin. You have expanse from all origins. The singularity therefore is now infinite, and everywhere. So you divide the singularity into infinity.. you get infinite start locations, and no Big Bang.

That's your explanation - really? Wow, it is hard to believe the physics community hasn't embraced this little gem.

:roflmao:

[knowerastronomy]

You have no theory. You are incapable of answering any questions about your idea because you clearly have no science background and your conjecture is incomplete and poorly thought out. Your ideas are nothing more than pseudo-scientific adolescent conjectures.

Try taking some physics courses at least you could learn some new buzz words to toss around.;)

This Post is meant only to boost the ego of its author. . . It is an assault on new ideas and speculations with the total disregard of known science. . . Resonance is beyond your understanding along with relativity. . . The science in the Logical Universe is well in the bounds of observations and experimental proof. . . For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. . . (not my Quote)

[Dywyddyr]

This Post is meant only to boost the ego of its author.
Like the OP?


It is an assault on new ideas and speculations with the total disregard of known science.
Like the OP.


For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. . . (not my Quote)
Depends how you mean it...

[origin]

This Post is meant only to boost the ego of its author. . . It is an assault on new ideas and speculations with the total disregard of known science. . . Resonance is beyond your understanding along with relativity. . . The science in the Logical Universe is well in the bounds of observations and experimental proof. . . For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. . . (not my Quote)

My comments are meant to goad you to either answer some simple questions or admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am not trying to boost my ego, I realize that I am no where near as intelligent as many, many people on this forum. I suppose it just annoys me when people like you are so full of themselves and present their grand ideas expecting accolades when it is painfully obvious that they don't have any understanding of even basic physics or any science.

[James R]

What is your definition of the term "universe?"

Are we going to keep doing this definition thing?

universe: all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.


Could you theoretically be external to the universe and look at it from afar, like you would the moon from earth?

No.


Do you consider the universe an object that is expanding?

Yes.


My point is that there is no real "solid." It is only a matter of space between objects, like atoms or electrons etc... There is no real "solid" it's all just motion.

A rock is no more a solid than a galaxy is!

You didn't read my definition of "solid", did you?

A rock has no tendency to flow under moderate stress. It resists forces that tend to deform it. It retains a definite size and shape.

A galaxy, on the other hand, is made up of stars and other materials. It does not resist compressive forces. It does not retain a definite size and shape. In fact, the component stars all move relative to one another.

The main thing that distinguishes a galaxy from a rock in terms of solidity is the vast amount of space inside a galaxy compared to the space inside a rock. To put it more formally, I am taking about relative average densities. A galaxy is MUCH MUCH less dense than a rock.

[knowerastronomy]

My comments are meant to goad you to either answer some simple questions or admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am not trying to boost my ego, I realize that I am no where near as intelligent as many, many people on this forum. I suppose it just annoys me when people like you are so full of themselves and present their grand ideas expecting accolades when it is painfully obvious that they don't have any understanding of even basic physics or any science.


I wonder what makes you the judge of who has the proper knowledge of science and who doesn't. . . What makes you the judge of people dare to question the standard model. . .

It seems you have a great knowledge about these things. . . It's to bad your science is not up to your standards. . .

[Motor Daddy]

Are we going to keep doing this definition thing?

Yes, in order to better communicate your ideas compared to my ideas. I need to know that we are talking about the same thing when we both say universe. You apparently aren't speaking about the same thing as I when you say the word universe, according to your definition.


universe: all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Infinite volume then, huh?



Yes.

If you answer yes to the question "is the universe an expanding object," then we are not talking about the same thing when we say universe. According to my definition, the universe is not an object that is expanding, it is AN INFINITE VOLUME WITHOUT BORDERS THAT CONTAINS OBJECTS OF MASS. According to my definition, the universe in and of itself is not an object, but an infinite volume without borders. The universe can't expand according to my definition because it has no borders and is certainly not a defined object.

According to your definition, your universe expands. According to that, it expands in the infinite volume I refer to as the universe. So when you say the universe (the object) expands, you are thinking in smaller terms than I. My universe is all encompassing, while yours is simply an object that resides in my universe.




You didn't read my definition of "solid", did you?

Yes I did, and I said it was all subjective. You didn't comprehend my response, did you?


A rock has no tendency to flow under moderate stress. It resists forces that tend to deform it. It retains a definite size and shape.

A galaxy, on the other hand, is made up of stars and other materials. It does not resist compressive forces. It does not retain a definite size and shape. In fact, the component stars all move relative to one another.

The main thing that distinguishes a galaxy from a rock in terms of solidity is the vast amount of space inside a galaxy compared to the space inside a rock. To put it more formally, I am taking about relative average densities. A galaxy is MUCH MUCH less dense than a rock.

So you are basically saying that my size determines your state of matter. If I was so small to travel through your "solid" without touching any matter, would that still be considered a solid according to your definition? If I passed through a galaxy without touching anything, would that be the same as passing though an atom without touching anything? You are very confused, James. You are correct on one account, that objects have different densities, but do you realize that the object's density doesn't stay the same, that objects get less dense over time, like your "universe" does??

[origin]

I wonder what makes you the judge of who has the proper knowledge of science and who doesn't. . . What makes you the judge of people dare to question the standard model. . .

I am judging YOUR idea based on my educaton in physics and engineering. You said in your earlier post:


G=ER
Gravity is Energy times Rotational speed. . . U1 particles only have energy if they are rotating. . . the faster they rotate the stronger the Gravity and visa versa. .
when they don't rotate there is no influence on other particles thus no gravity. .

There is absolutely no evidence that energy times rotation speed has anything to do with gravity - there is actually a great amount of evidence that says G=ER is wrong, hell physics tells us that G=ER doesn't even make any sense.


It seems you have a great knowledge about these things. . . It's to bad your science is not up to your standards. . .

I have enough knowledge to recognize double talk and pseudo-science.

[James R]

Motor Daddy:


Infinite volume then, huh?

Yes. It seems that way according to the latest data.


If you answer yes to the question "is the universe an expanding object," then we are not talking about the same thing when we say universe. According to my definition, the universe is not an object that is expanding, it is AN INFINITE VOLUME WITHOUT BORDERS THAT CONTAINS OBJECTS OF MASS. According to my definition, the universe in and of itself is not an object, but an infinite volume without borders. The universe can't expand according to my definition because it has no borders and is certainly not a defined object.

There's no problem with an infinite volume without borders expanding. Double the size of infinity and you get infinity. No problem.


According to your definition, your universe expands. According to that, it expands in the infinite volume I refer to as the universe. So when you say the universe (the object) expands, you are thinking in smaller terms than I. My universe is all encompassing, while yours is simply an object that resides in my universe.

I can't speak for your universe. We've already established that you have some fantasies that have nothing to do with the real world we live in. So, at this stage it is difficult to work out whether your universe is another fantasy or has some relation to the one I'm talking about - i.e. the real one.


So you are basically saying that my size determines your state of matter.

No. If you want a shortcut, density is often a good thing to look at.


If I was so small to travel through your "solid" without touching any matter, would that still be considered a solid according to your definition?

Yes. But what do you mean by "touching" in this context?


If I passed through a galaxy without touching anything, would that be the same as passing though an atom without touching anything?

Maybe. All "touching" involves forces being exerted - either by electromagnetism, gravity or whatever. You might like to consider whether you could pass something through a galaxy leaving the galaxy unaffected by your passing. Then ask the same question about passing something through an atom.


You are very confused, James.

No. In my interactions with you, I find that I invariably get to the bottom of your latest fantasy fairly quickly. Then, after months of discussion, you still fail to see that your fantasy is not real.

You seem to have a mental block against reality. Does that make you confused, or just an uneducatable fantacist? I'm not sure.


You are correct on one account, that objects have different densities, but do you realize that the object's density doesn't stay the same, that objects get less dense over time, like your "universe" does??

The computer I'm typing this on doesn't seem to get less dense over time. Why not? At what rate do things get less dense, according to you? And what is the cause of this decrease in density? Which of the four fundamental forces is involved?

[Motor Daddy]

Yes. It seems that way according to the latest data.

No need for data on that one, James. That is the ONLY possibility. You can not have a finite volume without having an external volume. What do you recommend, a dead end sign is at the end of the volume? Turn around now, nothing to see here sign! It is impossible for there to be an end to the volume of space.


There's no problem with an infinite volume without borders expanding. Double the size of infinity and you get infinity. No problem.

The problem seems to be with your understanding of infinity. Infinity has no size to double. Infinity is this <-------> in every direction. How do you propose to double the size of something that doesn't have a size because it has no borders? Again, you say the universe is expanding. So you must mean the universe has borders, and the borders are expanding, correct? That means your universe has a size. My universe is infinite and doesn't have a size, James.


I can't speak for your universe. We've already established that you have some fantasies that have nothing to do with the real world we live in. So, at this stage it is difficult to work out whether your universe is another fantasy or has some relation to the one I'm talking about - i.e. the real one.

No, what we've established is that I have an absolute frame to work in, so things may seem very weird to you because you don't know an absolute frame. Too bad, James. The absolute frame is wonderful!!


Yes. But what do you mean by "touching" in this context?

I mean making contact with matter. Objects are made of smaller objects. Objects have borders. There is space between objects. I mean travel through space between objects and not make contact with the object.


No. In my interactions with you, I find that I invariably get to the bottom of your latest fantasy fairly quickly. Then, after months of discussion, you still fail to see that your fantasy is not real.

What I find is that you frequently find yourself in a circular argument and derail the conversation. Then, after several weeks you claim you debunked my logic (and I do mean logic).


You seem to have a mental block against reality. Does that make you confused, or just an uneducatable fantacist? I'm not sure.

Define reality, James? Are your "mainstream" ideas reality, or just a place mark until such time the truth reveals itself?


The computer I'm typing this on doesn't seem to get less dense over time. Why not? At what rate do things get less dense, according to you? And what is the cause of this decrease in density? Which of the four fundamental forces is involved?

How long have you been monitoring your computer density? What measurements have you made? How accurate and precise is your test equipment? The way I see it, the computer can not stay the same density forever, it either has to get less dense or more dense over time. Do you propose the computer will get more dense over time, or stay the same in time? Let me remind you, James, we are talking about the real world, not a set of calculations on a piece of paper. In 100 million years, will your computer be less dense, the same, or more dense? Reminder, the same means perpetual motion. More dense means a force compacted the original mass (no external mass can be added) to a smaller volume. Less dense means the volume of the original mass got bigger. The second law of thermodynamics says the computer gets less dense over time!!!

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

It would be great if, one day, you would familiarise yourself with the physics you are attempting to discuss before starting one of these conversations. It gets tiring having to introduce you to basic concepts from scratch every time we discuss something. It's even worse when you come out with the same crap a few weeks later, as if you don't remember any prior conversations or what you were taught last time.

This is why I have backed off spending much time and effort on you. If you get one-line responses from me, it is because I have found from experience with you that you just aren't worth effort. If you displayed a willingness to learn, or an open mind, or something like that, then progress might be possible, but I fear those things are probably beyond your present capacities.


You can not have a finite volume without having an external volume. What do you recommend, a dead end sign is at the end of the volume? Turn around now, nothing to see here sign! It is impossible for there to be an end to the volume of space.

Let me give you an analogy. Consider the surface of the Earth. That is an example of a finite area. Agree? Does it have an "external area" where there is more Earth-surface? i think you will agree it does not. And yet, you can walk/sail/fly in one direction along the Earth's surface and never hit a dead end sign at the end of the area.

The Earth's surface is an example of an area that is unbounded but finite. Now, recall that this was an analogy. I now tell you that the universe could logically be an unbounded but finite volume. Clearly you have never considered such a thing as a possibility. Now I have introduced you to the idea, I hope you will refrain from making silly statements about what we can and can't have in this regard.


The problem seems to be with your understanding of infinity.

No. The problem is with your understanding of infinity.


Infinity has no size to double. Infinity is this <-------> in every direction.

That's infinite size, not no size. Infinity and zero are not the same thing.


How do you propose to double the size of something that doesn't have a size because it has no borders?

If it doesn't have a finite size, what prevents it from doubling in size?


Again, you say the universe is expanding. So you must mean the universe has borders, and the borders are expanding, correct?

No. Consider: move all the stars and galaxies in the universe so that they are twice as far apart as before. Adjust the "space" that contains the stars equivalently. No borders are required.


No, what we've established is that I have an absolute frame to work in, so things may seem very weird to you because you don't know an absolute frame. Too bad, James. The absolute frame is wonderful!!

I've already debunked that nonsense.


I mean making contact with matter.

All "contact" between matter is really a matter of interacting electromagnetic fields.


Define reality, James? Are your "mainstream" ideas reality, or just a place mark until such time the truth reveals itself?

They are the best available description of reality that we have at present.

Just to compare: your ideas are all refuted by extant empirical evidence.


How long have you been monitoring your computer density? What measurements have you made? How accurate and precise is your test equipment? The way I see it, the computer can not stay the same density forever, it either has to get less dense or more dense over time. Do you propose the computer will get more dense over time, or stay the same in time? Let me remind you, James, we are talking about the real world, not a set of calculations on a piece of paper. In 100 million years, will your computer be less dense, the same, or more dense? Reminder, the same means perpetual motion. More dense means a force compacted the original mass (no external mass can be added) to a smaller volume. Less dense means the volume of the original mass got bigger. The second law of thermodynamics says the computer gets less dense over time!!!

I don't see how your "matter expands to space" is anything new, if that's your explanation of it.

[AlphaNumeric]

Actually you can have a.finite universe without the need for something external. I guess MD doesn't know much about manifolds and differential geometry but no one thought otherwise.

[river]

I perfer reason

reasonably the Universe , doesn't have a begining , changes rather than evolves and cannot end

to end means that energy and matter end

not possible

the Universe is complete