Size Of Universe At Big Bang

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by jerrygg38, Jan 17, 2009.

  1. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    SIZE OF THE UNIVERSE AT BIG BANG

    Let us find an Engineering method to calculate the minimum size of the universe at big bang. For this analysis we will use a method similar to the method used in Doppler Space Time except we will use the Plank length as the minimum size of the dot. Thus the dot-diameter is equal to the Plank length.

    First need to find out the mass of the universe. Since we know the mass of a neutron, we can find out how many neutrons there are in the universe. Then we can calculate the number of dots in the universe. Finally we can calculate the size of a ball containing that many dots.

    We know that the universe exists as a spherical shell 15.9 billion light years from the common center. The force equations operating upon a mass Mx within the spherical shell is:

    G Mu Mx / Ru^2 = Mx C^2 / Ru (8-8)

    In equation 8-8 the mass of the universe Mu stands at the common center of the universe at a distance Ru from the mass Mx upon the surface of the universe. This force is counterbalanced by the mass Mx that is moving away from the center of the universe at light speed C. This force is similar to an orbital force. Thus we have the mass times the velocity squared and divided by the distance.

    The equation is independent of the mass Mx. It could have been a proton. It could have been a dot mass. The equation simply says that the gravitational force on any object depends upon the total mass of the universe and the gravitational constant and the distance from the universe to the common center. Solving for the mass of the Universe we get:

    Mu = [C^2] Ru / G (8-9)

    Since G = 6.67428E-11, Ru = 1.5052393E26, and C = 2.99792458E8, we get:

    Mu = 2.0269477E53Kg. (8-10)

    Since Mn = 1.67492721E-27Kg, the number of neutrons in the universe is:


    # Neutrons = Mu/Mn = 1.21017E80 (8-11)


    Since the # dots per neutron is 2.2813727E41, the dots per universe is:

    # Dots per universe = 2.276085E121 dots (8-12)

    The volume occupied by the dots will be the number of dots times the volume per dot. The radius of the package will be the radius of the dot times the cube root of the number of dots. Therefore:

    R universe = (1.6162525E-35) 2.8339756E40 = 4.580418E5 (8-13)

    Since I miles = 1609.334 meters, we get:

    R universe = 284.4157 miles (8-14)

    Equation 8-13 gives us the size of the universe at big bang. However this is the size of the sum of all the lower light speed universes. The light speed C universe sits above this size. It has the same volume but a different thickness.

    If we assume that we have the series:

    C, C/2, C/4, C/8,……………….C/2N (8-15)

    We can assume that the volume of each higher lightspeed universe is equal to the total volume occupied by all the lower light speed universes. Therefore:

    V' = Va + Va/2 + Va/4 + Va/8 + ………. Va/ 2N (8-16)
    Therefore:

    V (total) = 2Va (8-17)

    We can now solve for the thickness of our universe at big bang. The total radius of the universe will be:

    R = [2^0.333333] Ru (big bang) = 1.25992 Ru (big bang) (8-18)

    R = 5.77095E5 meters (8-19)

    The thickness of our universe is:

    Thickness = 0.125992 Ru = 1.19054E5 meters (8-20)

    Thickness = 73.9767 miles (8-21)

    The universe at big bang is a layer 74 miles thick upon a radius of 284 miles from the common center.

    It is worth noting that Planks length of 1.616E-25, the radius of the proton at 1.321E-15, and the radius of the universe at 1.505E26 form a series of measurements which are apart by approximately a power of 10 to the 20th. However one measurement is missing. That is:

    L = 1.616E-35 x 1.505E26 / 1.321E-15 = 1.841E6 (8-22)

    We see that the radius of the universe shown by Equation 8-19 fits into the series. Thus

    R x pi = 1.8130 E6 (8-23)

    Equation 8-22 is only 1.5- percent difference from equation 8-22. Therefore the radius of the universe at big bang fits perfectly into the series of constants.

    R min = π [PL] x Ru / Rp (8-24)

    R min = 5.78398E5 meters (8-25)

    The percent difference with equation 8-19 is:

    Percent difference = 0.225 percent (8-26)

    We see that equation 8-24 gives us the minimum radius to within 0.225 percent of the original method. Therefore we have great confidence that we have the minimum radius of the universe at big bang.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    The radius is a measurement problem. The big bang, if it began in an ground state, cannot have any unique radius or size.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    By measurement, i mean there was no observer to measure the radius.

    First rule of quantum mechanics: There needs to be some measurement to collapse some possibility. Otherwise, it had many radii in the beginning, an infinite amount.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    You cannot rely upon the rules of quantum mechanics. The first rule of the physics of the universe is:

    There are no absolute rules which apply to everything.

    Thus quantum mechanics works within a limited scope.

    the problem with quantum mechanics is that they try to make the students believe that it is the absolute truth. This is a great fallacy. It is only true some of the time.
     
  8. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    Quantum rules do apply to everything. This is the first rule
     
  9. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37

    That is a matter of opinion. Quantum mechanics is a collection of theories based in part upon electrical theory and maxwells equations. It is very good work but has three basic flaws.

    Firstly it states in a vacuum there is no charge less than Q

    This denies the ability of the electric field to be composed of very small charges such as my dots with charge 1.29E-57 coulombs

    If we did not subdivide the charge then how could an electrical field exist???

    Therefore Quantum is false

    Secondly Quantum limits it energy levels to what the electron can see and measure. However what is the electron composed of except very small levels of energy such as my dots which have a mass of 7.34E-69kg

    Therefore Quantum does not take into account the very small masses in the universe such as the gravitons.

    Therefor Quantum is false

    Thirdly Quantum takes large objects and places them in multiple universes

    This is a silly extention of microscopic effects translated to large scale effects.

    Therefore Quantum is false.

    Quantum is good in many circumstances. However it is not how the universe works.

    The importance is that people study the complexity of quantum math and become brainwashed into believing the universe obeys quantum laws.

    First you must deny the validity of Quantum. then you must look at all the alternatives. Finally after you have expanded you vision, you will able to see the fallacy of quantum. It may take you years to do this. Many people will merely accept what they are taught. Some people have believed quantum for 40 years. Their minds become filled with half truths.

    It is not their fault. It is just human nature. People like to believe that what they struggled to learn is the absolute truth.
     
  10. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    You assume that there was no observer. Yet in the beginning we had infinite positive and negative time going to plus and minus infinity. We had infinite light speed. We had infinite intelligence.

    The attraction of the plus time universe and the minus time universe is the contraction of pure intelligence coming to a pinpoint. However as the light speed drops the material world forms into a multi-light speed series of universes from light speed zero to light speed infinity.

    Infinite intelligence over infinite time and infinite light speed became the series of material universes. You say that there needs to be measurement to achieve a radiii. Well there was infinite intelligence which created the physical universe. Therefore an observer was always present.
     
  11. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    No we had an infinite density, mass and energy, the intelligence (if there was any) must have been very poor because entropy was very low. However, from a human viewpoint, i suppose, we can say entropy is in fact the loss of knowledge on the system...

    However, moving on, lightspeed is a measure of the speed of luxon particles. It does not apply to ''strange'' terms like ''light speed zero,'' and ''light speed infinity,'' (whatever they are supposed to mean.) Fair enough, i think one of your points is that at the singularity, there was some kind of intelligence which created everything.

    I say fair enough,because a singularity might be the closest thing to God we have in science. We can't mathematically solve it, and it has infinite qualities.
     
  12. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    My light speed defines the universe we are in. Our light speed is C. There are many other universes from zero light speed (no light speed at all) to light speed infinity. Thus there is a light speed C/2 universe which looks similar to ours but is closer to the common center.

    From a non-religious viewpoint we can say that two equal and opposite forces combined at the zero point to produce the universe. From a religious viewpoint we can say that the God of Good and the God of Evil attracted each other and merged into a singularity.

    Since I compress space time into the singularity, my singularity is quite large. Therefore I have a universe of hundreds of miles in radius at big bang.
    So all the intelligence has been converted into compressed dot-waves which by themselves have no intelligence. However they have the infinite ability to produce infinite intelligent structures. Most times all they produce are the higher particles such as electron and protons. These in turn have infinite combinational possibilities for our universe. then we have to add all the other universes.

    It is possible that some of the initial forces which produced the universe remained. Then we have other dimensions similar to the original dimensions which still exist and which were there at the big bang to oversee the creation which is a balanced blend of good and evil.

    The two universes were separated in time by infinity and then became a plank time apart. Some of the two universes may still be separated by greater than the plank time. Therefore it may very well be that the dual forces are dual Gods or one God which split into half.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Seriously? You actually think what I've quoted is anything to do with science? It hardly makes sense, never mind scientifically.

    Come on guys, do you really think the discussion you're having has anything close to scientific merit? Jerry, you ignore experimental evidence, talk about things in physics (singularities, quantum mechanics etc) you have no idea how to model and without even a hint of being tongue in cheek you bring into your discussion about the Big Bang the merging of deities?!

    I really and truely hope that when you type this stuff you're messed up on something. It's the lesser of two evils considering the alternative is you actually believe the stuff you say.
     
  14. gluon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    512
    To be fair, i was taking my time out to answer some of his erreneous conlcusions.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Ok, what if it is? Then my next question would be about the density. I assume this large astroid sized initial universe is made up of all of the dots in the universe, all packed together as tightly as they can be.

    The density would be mass divided by volume. Obviously we aren't talking about infinite density. And also, if the dots are tiny spheres, then you can't get all the space out from between them can you?

    Tell me about each dot. Is there any space in a dot or is it solid through and through?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    The denisty is not infinity but it is rather high rather high. As I picture the dot mass, it is a spherical oscillation from the plank radius to the dot radius. At present the dot-radius is 2.1594E-29 meters while the plank radius is
    0.808E-35meters (half the plank length).

    As long as the dots at big bang do not compress and remain spheres, there will be empty space between them. I look at them like little empty ball bearings.

    The dot has nothing inside it. It is empty. When we look at something this small we would conceive of a very high energy entity. Thus
    E = hc/lambda = huge for small radius

    This is not the case of the dot wave. The dot-wave has its energy outside of it. the wavelength of the dot-wave is twice the radius of the universe. A plus dot-wave flows outward to the radius of the universe and returns as a minus dot wave. Therefore each dot-wave has low energy.

    An alternative way of looking at the dot wave is a focal point of the universe. the largest dimension is the radius of the universe and the smallest dimension is the plank radius.

    It is hard to express exactly but the dot-radius and plank radius are inversions of the huge radius of the universe.

    I am just looking at things from a simple relationship. The plank radius could decrease in size as the universe expands. It could reach zero if the universe stretches out to infinity. Thus there are many possibilities.

    We could also say that the universe is the result of a space-time oscillation from infinity to zero which wove space-time into a huge amount of focal points. there are many possibilities.

    As far as the dot wave theory is conserned the mass of a bipolar dot-wave is
    Md = 7.339E-69 kg while the charge of a dot is
    Qd = 1.291E-57coulombs.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I have a few questions that might help me grasp exactly what you are saying.
    The dot mass oscillates spherically. Is there a fixed period for the oscillation? Do all dots oscillate? Do you mean that the volume of the dot changes as it oscillates but it retains its spherical shape? Some of these questions will seem simple, but let me try to learn the details of the physical picture.
    It is empty? Does empty space represent a vacuum. So a dot is energy (E)? "h" is what, a well known constant? Lambda is the famous Lambda? Talk me through this equation in words and explain the phrase "huge for small radius".
    Are dots and dot waves separate? Do dots always remain dots, and do dot waves always remain dot waves? Or do dots and dot waves represent different phases of the same E unit?
    I know it is hard to put it into words in a single post, and too much detail at one time will not be productive for me anyway since I am better at looking at it in small steps. Thanks for the reply.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009

Share This Page