Origin of the universe

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by pluto2, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The OP focuses on the initial conditions. What precedes the initial inflation?
    What is at t=0? The standard model starts with zero space, maximum crunch. But that implies that the singularity "exists" in a timeless state. Spacetime necessarily arises contemporaneously with the expansion. But back at t-zero is the crunched singularity, stuck in timelessness, analogous to the frozen images of matter entering a black hole.

    The best analogy I could get taking your proton tennis ball would be to start with a photon, stranded in time, and then start it racing around in random spherical trajectories of ever increasing radius, emitting light in the process. The light is ever changing, but the photon itself is stranded at t=0.

    This would more or less illustrate my remarks about the crunched singularity co"exist"ing with the time-tagged inflating and expanding products of its "emission".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    We don't know, and there really isn't any way we can know. It's all speculation at that point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Agreed.

    I would just like to know your opinion: if an object lies outside of time, is it not correct to infer that it remains there forever?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    No, because the concept of forever deals with time, and if an object is outside of time, it doesn't apply.

    If an object is outside of time, why couldn't it intrude into time at any point along the timeline?
     
  8. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    That's interesting Aqueous, Eternal and Temporal overlap?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    "Nothing" lies outside of time. That nothing becomes a part of our universe is a matter of scale and quantum effects.

    Every space holds these possibilities. The hard part is observing them.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    And another crank is heard from.
    Any evidence for your claims?
    Any at all?
     
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Anyone on this thread is liable of that label so how about specifying who you are referring to please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The eternal object sees time as an integrated continuum. The time traveler sees the eternal object persisting, but perceives time as differentiable.

    Good question. For example, is the BBS ever present, but, never encroaching into space, does it remain the non-interactive observer over all the continuum for all eternity? (By way of illustration, I'm not remotely suggesting any power of observation!)
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Find me a photon and tell me where it lies.

    Substantial physics is rooted in the collapse of spacetime.

    Assuming the standard model, the Big Bang singularity is presumed to create spacetime. The only apparent alternative to creatio ex nihilo (see the OP) is that the singularity blooms from a timeless spaceless initial state. According to this logic, the singularity lies outside of time.
     
  14. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well I proposed that scale is relative, and the first particles in a total emptiness have no relative scale, nothing to be compared to. In my theory this allows them to be any scale so long as all of the constituents that they are made from obey the same scaling rules. This was my proposal some years ago, and then to confirm my thoughts space-time grain was measured, and was larger in the north than the south. I don't see a problem with my theory, and its probably confirmation.

    As for the maths, well 1 + -1 = 0 is very important. Because this simple formula can be used as a self building algorithm. We know from computer binary that you do not need more than two opposites to create any computer program. So we know that my formula can build all other formulas. I have proposed how the universe uses particles with holes to produce physics. I have a method.. Newton's Kissing Problem. I have evidence leptons all obey kissing problem numbers.. 6, 12, 24. I have more evidence, nature obeys kissing problem numbers.. most creatures have 6 limbs, if body parts on insects are segmented the segments obey kissing problem numbers. Take for example a millipede, its body is sectioned to be blocked at both ends. This gives you a kissing problem in the remaining direction which is 2, and millipedes have two legs in each section. Atom orbits obey kissing problem rules, and snowflakes. feet, hands, and fish.

    The Universe uses opposites to create everything which adds up to 0. It is binary code written this way +1 + -1 = 0. Using ball packing physics.

    In 3D there are 12 balls around a single ball, and a space for a 13th ball. This allows the balls to move around. The space is time, and it works like a tile puzzle in which you are not allowed to move the same tile twice....

    http://slide-puzzle.lastdownload.com/

    I have the formula. I have many proofs. Being as the quote says "Nobody knows." Then I am allowed to suggest in this thread my proposal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I do not understand what you are talking about.

    If you want others to understand you, you will need to be clear.

    It's hard enough to be clear when striving to do so.

    But your posts seem to strive toward murky ambiguity.

    My first suggestion is to remove all analogies and drive to the facts and inferences.

    Next, you will have to at least strive for accuracy. I don't know how you can do that, because you are persisting in all kinds of errors.

    (by the way a system of three symbols {1,-1, 0} is tertiary, not binary).

    Also you should try to bring something to the table. This thread is about as light as it gets for science. Can't you find anything to connect your ideas with actual science or math?

    All of these elements combine to make it impossible to extract meaning from your posts.

    Just a suggestion. These are things to consider if you wish to be understood.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think every permutation is seen. In particle/antiparticle interactions, there seems to be on overlap with forward and reverse time streams. In wave function collapse, there seems to be a springing forth of time from a timeless state. In the event horizon, time and space seem to switch coordinates as they collapse. Then there's the photon, persisting over all of time, yet revealing itself all along the timeline, as if it has solved every spatial path problem instantaneously to yield all the correct answers to every problem with observable data (e.g., slit experiments). And so on.

    Herman Von Helmholtz once said that the eye integrates and the ear differentiates. This is maybe a good analogy between the timeless and the temporal states. The timeless photon, stranded in its eternity, sees all of the continuum, all that ever was and ever will be. The real word object, chained to the wheels of time, experiences the difference, moment by moment, of every interaction that attaches to it.
     
  17. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Then just ask 1 question at a time.

    You must surely understand +1 + -1 = 0? As it is in the Hawking video.

    The kissing problem is here, just change the balls for particles...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem

    Energy is where the balls touch.

    12 balls can touch 1 ball.

    There is space for a 13th ball.

    Space-time grain is here...

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128204.200-distant-light-hints-at-size-of-spacetime-grains.html

    It is all science.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes those two facts are evident to me. What is not evident is what these facts mean in connection with origin of the universe, whether is is ex nihilo or infinite. That was the question in the OP.

    Can you state a position and your reason for that position?
     
  19. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Zero is obviously infinite, and obviously nothing. So why are you asking?

    1 + -1 = 0
    2 + -2 = 0
    3 + -3 = 0

    Infinite.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    This statement is an example of my remark about errors. Zero is the reciprocal of infinity. So if you enter into a dialogue by asserting the opposite of a concept as it is commonly known, you will leave your reader believing that you intend to be confusing.

    Why am I asking your position on the origin of the universe? Because I have not been able to detect it from what you have posted so far.

    Zero is infinite, the universe is infinite, or the universe is zero (ex nihilo)?
    See already I'm lost again. Why not just try to be clear?
     
  21. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    There are a lot of examples already in the thread. The Hawking video of a man digging a hole...

    1 shovel full of soil - 1 shovelled out hole = 0
    2 shovels full of soil - 2 shovelled out hole = 0
    3 shovels full of soil - 3 shovelled out hole = 0
    ...but the hole is getting bigger, and bigger. Scale is not an issue.

    Same with my igloo example. Same with a lot of other examples. You just sound like you are not clicking on all of the links.

    The Universe is infinite, and has a total state of zero.
     
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I don't know if you remember that the OP was asking about the origin of the universe - I mean, a lot of stuff has passed this window since then - feet, hand, fish, balls, shovels, igloos, piles of dirt, a lot of stuff.

    So when you say the universe is infinite, do you mean that it always existed, and therefore you are against the proposition of creatio ex nihilo?
     
  23. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Ask yourself.. has zero always existed? It has its own answer built in the question.

    Can zero expand? ... built in the question.

    Can you create a Galaxy from zero? ... yes.

    Can you create a Universe from zero? ... yes.

    Can you create a particle from zero... The particle is zero. It even looks like a zero 'O'.. neat coincidence.
     

Share This Page