Questions about "Dark Flows"

[Betrayer0fHope]

Somebody who understands these, please can you tell me where the flows are headed to, if they end, and what is going on to the things directly adjacent to the dark flows. Not sure how the hell you might know these things, but I'm theorizing that dark matter and dark energy don't exist, at least in the way we think of matter and energy, and that these "dark flows" are where we can "find" the gravitons. Of course, please don't give me a lesson on how wrong my theory is, and please, if you will, just answer my questions.

[quantum_wave]

OK.

In my opinion both dark energy and dark matter do exist.

However, like you were thinking, dark energy and dark matter are not like matter and energy that we normally think of.

First you have to address how the expansion of our universe (what I call our arena within the greater universe) was initiated. If the expansion was preceded by a big crunch and that crunch accumulated so much matter and energy that the compression of the core got too high for matter to function, and if gravity is a function of mass, then there is a scenario of how a big crunch could burst into an expanding ball of dense energy.

I call that ball of energy "dark energy". It expands rapidly and as it expands the energy density declines. When the energy density declines sufficiently, matter can again form. Dark energy drives the expansion and is the source of matter as expansion progresses.

When matter first forms it has mass and gravity, but does not yet have electric or magnetic characteristics or fields and there is no electromagnetic radiation to "light" things up. This is dark matter. As the expansion progresses, dark matter evolves into particles, electrical charges develop and electromagnetic radiation is emitted.

The gravity is very strong because when the particles form the energy density is very high and the particles are very close together. Clumping of particles leads to the formation of stars and galaxies but there is always a concentration of dark matter in and around those galaxies because the efficiency of converting dark matter to normal matter is not 100%.

OK?

[Betrayer0fHope]

So are the four fundamental forces not existent everywhere in the universe? Because the way I think about things, it seems impossible that there are only four, and the universe is uniform. :shrug: And, as how I think the expansion universe was initiated, I'm not really sure... I haven't done any thinking about it at all. Thanks for the help :)

[quantum_wave]

If you do think about it, let me know.

As far as questions go about quantum mechanics, or about cosmology, or science in general we never can really say that we know something "for sure". Tentativeness (http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/10/13/5609) is a characteristic of science; everything we think we know the cause of is subject to change. Well established theories are not fact, and there is no pre-ordained and invariant conclusion in science as there is in pseudoscience.

Four forces, five, one, it is not known for sure. One alternative protoscience called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is based on there being only one force called quantum action. All mass is composed of energy in quantum increments, mass *has* gravity, and the particles and force carriers discovered and predicted by particle physics would have to all be composed of the energy commodity and the force of quantum action.

Standard particle theory is limited by how deep we can currently see into the structure of particles, mass and the workings of forces. As far a we can see, the standard particle model is the best we can do. But one fundamental force and one common composition of all particles, like in the ideas of QWC, would result in the highly sought after Grand Unification Theory (GUT).

Whether or not the universe is uniform is a perfect example of the rule of tentativeness. Before the Big Bang Theory became the standard cosmology there was Steady State Theory which viewed the universe as uniform or static. The discovery of the Hubble effect and the expansion of our visible universe slowly but surely put uniformity behind and expansion and inflation replaced it.

QWC, if it ever comes into vogue, will bring back Steady State in the form of a greater universe that is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale, but that on a much smaller scale we would find arenas of expansion and contraction. If you are in an expanding arena, all you would see is expansion, and if you were in a contracting arena, all you would see is contraction. But if you could get a large scale view you would see both types of arenas; arenas would be forming, contracting, bursting into expansion and playing out by contributing fresh young galaxies out into the greater universe from where they can be gathered latter into new contracting arenas and big crunches. It is a perpetual process of energy-to matter-to energy that defeats entropy.

Such a cosmology requires that there is a finite limit to energy density and when that limit is reached, matter can no longer function. When mass cannot function, gravity does not work and the crunch fails to be contained. From the crunch comes the dark energy that I mentioned in response to your OP, and from the dark energy evolves, dark matter. From the dark matter evolves charged particles, electromagnetic radiation, light, heat, etc. that is common to the expansion phase of each arena.

You are pretty young to be thinking about dark matter and dark energy but it is never to young to get started. Learn the standard theories of science before accepting any of the many alternatives like QWC. Then decide for yourself which views are best able to survive "tentativeness" :).

[Betrayer0fHope]

What does QWC have to say to zero mass particle thingys? Bosons? And thanks for the mind fuck :)

[quantum_wave]

In QWC there are no zero mass particles. Now go to bed :D.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Question, since this seems to be my self help thread, if the universe was expanding, but is already the size of infinity, does the universe mathematically and logically stay the same size, but still somehow increase?

[Enmos]

It is only infinite relatively because the universe is all there is, there is no reference frame. But it can still be a measurable distance across.

[Enmos]

..I'm expecting an ass-kicking any second now.. :fright:

[Mr. Hamtastic]

How big is your head? If it took longer than your lifetime to travel from one end of your head to the other, would it be mislabeled infinite? Does your head have measurable ends?

[Enmos]

How big is your head? If it took longer than your lifetime to travel from one end of your head to the other, would it be mislabeled infinite?
It would be unknown.

Does your head have measurable ends?
See above.
I was, of course, talking about the distance across being measurably in theory.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Thus the size of the universe is unknown, not infinite. :D

[quantum_wave]

Three things:

If the universe was ever finite it could never be infinite; it could only expand infinitely but would never become infinite. The saying is, anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite.

General Relativity Theory, Einstein you know, says that space expands and so the universe grows in size but because spacetime is curved there is no "outside" or beyond the universe.

I say that the universe is potentially infinite and is composed of finite arenas. Our observable expanding "universe" is really only a tiny finite and temporary patch of expansion called an arena. Our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of arenas, some expanding and some contracting across the greater universe.

[Enmos]

Thus the size of the universe is unknown, not infinite. :D

If you only accept a physical measurement of the universes diameter, yes..
However, the size of the universe can be calculated (at least in theory).

[Enmos]

Three things:

If the universe was ever finite it could never be infinite
This either means the Big Bang never happened or that the universe is not infinite.

General Relativity Theory, Einstein you know, says that space expands and so the universe grows in size but because spacetime is curved there is no "outside" or beyond the universe.
So, in a sense you could say the universe is unlimited, since it has no "outside".

I say that the universe is potentially infinite and is composed of finite arenas. Our observable expanding "universe" is really only a tiny finite and temporary patch of expansion called an arena. Our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of arenas, some expanding and some contracting across the greater universe.
I like that idea.

[quantum_wave]

...
I like that idea.Thank you Enmos. That is the basic view of the landscape of the greater universe in Quantum Wave Cosmology. It includes the idea that each arena is characterized by a big crunch and big burst and that all arenas are in some stage of contracting into a big crunch or expanding out of a big burst. It addresses ideas about the quantization of energy and the composition of mass in quantum increments as well as the ideas behind the mechanics of mass, gravity and the energy-to matter-to energy process that operates throughout the arena landscape.

But that is all covered elsewhere. Right now we are entertaining Betrayer0fHope :).

[Betrayer0fHope]

Three things:

If the universe was ever finite it could never be infinite; it could only expand infinitely but would never become infinite. The saying is, anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite.

General Relativity Theory, Einstein you know, says that space expands and so the universe grows in size but because spacetime is curved there is no "outside" or beyond the universe.

I say that the universe is potentially infinite and is composed of finite arenas. Our observable expanding "universe" is really only a tiny finite and temporary patch of expansion called an arena. Our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of arenas, some expanding and some contracting across the greater universe.

An object increasing in size by an infinite amount every infinitely small fraction of time will be infinitely large in an infinitely small fraction of time, won't it?

[Betrayer0fHope]

Thank you Enmos. That is the basic view of the landscape of the greater universe in Quantum Wave Cosmology. It includes the idea that each arena is characterized by a big crunch and big burst and that all arenas are in some stage of contracting into a big crunch or expanding out of a big burst. It addresses ideas about the quantization of energy and the composition of mass in quantum increments as well as the ideas behind the mechanics of mass, gravity and the energy-to matter-to energy process that operates throughout the arena landscape.

But that is all covered elsewhere. Right now we are entertaining Betrayer0fHope :).

Thanks :p :o

[Enmos]

An object increasing in size by an infinite amount every infinitely small fraction of time will be infinitely large in an infinitely small fraction of time, won't it?

Yep, even if it increases an infinite amount in size once the object will be infinite in size regardless of its previous size.
Infinite doesn't exist.

[quantum_wave]

Yep, even if it increases an infinite amount in size once the object will be infinite in size regardless of its previous size.
Infinite doesn't exist.Hmm. You say "yep" and then "Infinite doesn't exist". Can it be both ways?

An object increasing in size by an infinite amount every infinitely small fraction of time will be infinitely large in an infinitely small fraction of time, won't it?Do you have any specific thing in mind? It is hard to imagine anything in real life doing that but with math you can do anything. As long as you know the difference you're OK. A balloon can never become infinite in size in real life, but you can multiply the volume of a balloon by an infinite number and get an infinite number if that helps :).

Why don't you ask how gravity works or how the universe emerged from a big crunch, something easy like that :p?

[Enmos]

Hmm. You say "yep" and then "Infinite doesn't exist". Can it be both ways?

Infinite only exists in theory.
If, in theory, something can increase an infinite amount in size.

In reality nothing is infinite.

[quantum_wave]

Why, thank you for clearing that up. I was almost getting tired of saying things can be "potentially" infinite because no one seemed to pick up on the difference.

The topic of infinity seems to be able to get people into arguments a quickly as politics, well maybe not politics but certainly religion. I like to say that there is a set of things "infinite". They have in common their infinite characteristic, but none of them have ever been proven to be infinite. However, everything in the set of things left if you remove the infinite set from all things, can be proven to be finite. Would you agree with that.

And then, when referring to things in the "infinite" set, I say that they are potentially infinite, and things in the finite set cannot be potentially infinite if proven finite. Therefore, among friends, I often drop the "potentially" and just call things in the infinite set "infinite". Does that work for you?

[Enmos]

Why, thank you for clearing that up. I was almost getting tired of saying things can be "potentially" infinite because no one seemed to pick up on the difference.

The topic of infinity seems to be able to get people into arguments a quickly as politics, well maybe not politics but certainly religion. I like to say that there is a set of things "infinite". They have in common their infinite characteristic, but none of them have ever been proven to be infinite. However, everything in the set of things left if you remove the infinite set from all things, can be proven to be finite. Would you agree with that.

And then, when referring to things in the "infinite" set, I say that they are potentially infinite, and things in the finite set cannot be potentially infinite if proven finite. Therefore, among friends, I often drop the "potentially" and just call things in the infinite set "infinite". Does that work for you?

I am somewhat against the statement that any physical thing can be infinite in amount.. if you know what I mean.
Perhaps this puts it better: Of nothing in the universe there is an infinite amount.
The universe itself exists (as far as we know :shrug:) of a finite amount of particles.

[Bishadi]

So are the four fundamental forces not existent everywhere in the universe?

the four; EM, weak, strong and gravity

yep

dimensions? uhhhh

periods in time?

[Betrayer0fHope]

I assume MasterSpecterofDoom is your sock, then, because your ideas are just as retarded? Am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Question, gravity is "limited" by infinity, right? Is it limited by infinity in every direction and in the fourth+ dimensions?

[quantum_wave]

I am somewhat against the statement that any physical thing can be infinite in amount.. if you know what I mean.
Perhaps this puts it better: Of nothing in the universe there is an infinite amount.
The universe itself exists (as far as we know :shrug:) of a finite amount of particles.I do know what you mean.

Not that I agree, but I know how about half of the people in the world come to the same or similar opinion. I’m in the other half for the same reason I think you are in your half. Brain duality :D. Though I believe thoughts are free and not predetermined, I can imagine that individuals are predisposed to one side or another on the imponderables.

It would be interesting to explore if people who are predisposed on one particular imponderable are in the same or opposing viewpoints on other issues. Is there is a correlation between those who are against physical infinites with those who are also in the same camp on other divided issues? Someone has probably done a study.

Don’t indicate your views but some of the other divided views are God or no god. Politically left or right. Thinker or doer. Optimistic or pessimistic. You can probably add many categories.

But I can conceive physical infinity even though I agree that an infinite cannot be quantified.

[quantum_wave]

I assume MasterSpecterofDoom is your sock, then, because your ideas are just as retarded? Am I misunderstanding what he's saying? Question, gravity is "limited" by infinity, right? Is it limited by infinity in every direction and in the fourth+ dimensions?You are a bright youth. How old did you say you are?

[Enmos]

I do know what you mean.

Not that I agree, but I know how about half of the people in the world come to the same or similar opinion. I’m in the other half for the same reason I think you are in your half. Brain duality :D. Though I believe thoughts are free and not predetermined, I can imagine that individuals are predisposed to one side or another on the imponderables.

It would be interesting to explore if people who are predisposed on one particular imponderable are in the same or opposing viewpoints on other issues. Is there is a correlation between those who are against physical infinites with those who are also in the same camp on other divided issues? Someone has probably done a study.
Now, that would be interesting.
Why are you in the other half and why do you think I am in my half ? It should be the same answer for both questions.. :p

Don’t indicate your views but some of the other divided views are God or no god. Politically left or right. Thinker or doer. Optimistic or pessimistic. You can probably add many categories.
You don't want me to answer ? Why not ? Perhaps you should start a thread on this, would be cool :)

But I can conceive physical infinity even though I agree that an infinite cannot be quantified.
I can imagine physical infinity, but through logic I come to the conclusion that it cannot exist.
Theoretical distance IS infinite measured from here in any direction, for instance. But I don't call distance physical.. although I know some (or a lot) would disagree.

[quantum_wave]

Now, that would be interesting.
Why are you in the other half and why do you think I am in my half ? It should be the same answer for both questions.. :pOnly that I was proposing that there was some predisposition. Probably if I was correct (not likely :)) then I was just saying that we just may naturally differ because of our predispositions.
You don't want me to answer ? Why not ? Perhaps you should start a thread on this, would be cool :).Only because some people aren't comfortable disclosing their positions on the imponderables. Often the position we take has a lengthy justification in our minds and yet could just be individuals justifying their predispositions. Yikes, forget I even brought it up. I would hate to think it was true because I like to think I could change my view freely, but what if I couldn't and just thought I could.
I can imagine physical infinity, but through logic I come to the conclusion that it cannot exist.
Theoretical distance IS infinite measured from here in any direction, for instance. But I don't call distance physical.. although I know some (or a lot) would disagree.That is an interesting statement because it is the same evidence I have, i.e. distance can be infinite in any direction (a mental grasp of infinite distance). I'm going to bet that the reason you say that distance being infinite is not physical is because you consider the universe finite. I, on the other hand, consider the universe infinite (General Relativity Theory does not constrain my thinking).

Have you had an opportunity to glance at my thread about QWC (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86883)? Skim through it and give me a comment that shows a point where our different views on infinity would cause you to disagree with the ideas of QWC.

And that would allow BetrayerOfHope to keep control of his thread.

[Enmos]

Only that I was proposing that there was some predisposition. Probably if I was correct (not likely :)) then I was just saying that we just may naturally differ because of our predispositions.
Hmm perhaps, but I don't think that is true. Unless you consider the effect the environment has on us all our lives, from the day we were born, predispositioning.
In my view a predisposition is something we are born with.. actually I'll go further than that a predispositions can only be purely based on ones genetic makeup.

Only because some people aren't comfortable disclosing their positions on the imponderables. Often the position we take has a lengthy justification in our minds and yet could just be individuals justifying their predispositions.
Yikes, forget I even brought it up. I would hate to think it was true because I like to think I could change my view freely, but what if I couldn't and just thought I could.
I have no problem with it..

That is an interesting statement because it is the same evidence I have, i.e. distance can be infinite in any direction (a mental grasp of infinite distance). I'm going to bet that the reason you say that distance being infinite is not physical is because you consider the universe finite. I, on the other hand, consider the universe infinite (General Relativity Theory does not constrain my thinking).
No, I deliberately said theoretical distance. I realize now that my remark about distance not being physical is actually not even relevant.
In my view dimensions are the fabric of the universe, thus they cannot extend outside of it.. obviously, of course, because there is no such thing as 'outside the universe'.

Have you had an opportunity to glance at my thread about QWC (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86883)? Skim through it and give me a comment that shows a point where our different views on infinity would cause you to disagree with the ideas of QWC.

And that would allow BetrayerOfHope to keep control of his thread.
I have little time for that right now and I'm probably away tomorrow, so it will probably be monday before I can get to that. Thanks for the invite though :)

[Betrayer0fHope]

Hey, I don't care about this thread, the question got answered a while ago. This seems to be more of a self help thread for me, as I said earlier, so derail this one as much as you want. I'm off to make a new thread now.

[quantum_wave]

Hmm perhaps, but I don't think that is true. Unless you consider the effect the environment has on us all our lives, from the day we were born, predispositioning.
In my view a predisposition is something we are born with.. actually I'll go further than that a predispositions can only be purely based on ones genetic makeup.That is exactly what I was getting at. Genetic.


I have no problem with it..


No, I deliberately said theoretical distance. I realize now that my remark about distance not being physical is actually not even relevant.
In my view dimensions are the fabric of the universe, thus they cannot extend outside of it.. obviously, of course, because there is no such thing as 'outside the universe'.Agreed


I have little time for that right now and I'm probably away tomorrow, so it will probably be monday before I can get to that. Thanks for the invite though :)Great, do that when you can.

[quantum_wave]

Hey, I don't care about this thread, the question got answered a while ago. This seems to be more of a self help thread for me, as I said earlier, so derail this one as much as you want. I'm off to make a new thread now.About what?

[Betrayer0fHope]

I made it. It's called the infinite universe. Sounds like the title of a book or something..

[Enmos]

Hey, I don't care about this thread, the question got answered a while ago. This seems to be more of a self help thread for me, as I said earlier, so derail this one as much as you want. I'm off to make a new thread now.

Sorry man. If that was sarcastic, please say.. I'll stop derailing :)

[Betrayer0fHope]

Lol, that wasn't sarcastic at all. To Quantum_Wave: I'm 14. I have a question between physical distance and theoretical distance. If it's possible in theory, doesn't that mean it's possible, physically? If it isn't what does speaking in these "theoreticals" have any use towards science? I can't see what distinction you're making between the two, sorry.

[quantum_wave]

Lol, that wasn't sarcastic at all. To Quantum_Wave: I'm 14. I have a question between physical distance and theoretical distance. If it's possible in theory, doesn't that mean it's possible, physically? If it isn't what does speaking in these "theoreticals" have any use towards science? I can't see what distinction you're making between the two, sorry.Your statement, “An object increasing in size by an infinite amount every infinitely small fraction of time will be infinitely large in an infinitely small fraction of time, won't it”, is what I think lead me to ask for an example.

If I think an object can increase in size infinitely and never become infinite in size, that is one thing. To increase an object by an infinite amount in an infinitely short time is another. There are no physical circumstances that I can think of where that makes sense. And so to me if it is imagined it is purely theoretical and cannot be tested or proved to be true physically.

However in math, in order to deal with infinites, some things must just be accepted. For example like 0.999 ... with an infinite number of 9’s is considered equal to 1 in math. Actually it approaches the limit which is 1, but never really equals 1 except in math, and in math it does because it is accepted as 1 to allow higher math to be provable. So if you take a finite object and multiply it by a finite amount an infinite number of times then the result would be considered infinite mathematically.

So the distinction I would make is that we cannot prove something is infinite physically but we can accept it and work with it mathematically.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Alright, I was just reading wrong. Thanks. *hands thread back over to Enmos*

[quantum_wave]

:D Don't kid about that ... he thought you might have been upset. Let's just say this thread is able to wind around a few different topics.