Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SimpleKid18 If time is the opposite to what it is in our universe, then it MUST be backwards and things would move in reverse there- but, how can things move in reverse if there is no starting point? Or is there? If your theory is correct, then there must have been something at the start of the BB that separated these two universes. K es? How do you know that whiteholes exist? It is supposed to be the opposite of a black hole but i must remind you that there is absolutly NO proof of their existence, purely theoretical. |
It is not backwards, it jsut goes the other way round. I know how strange it looks, and appears to be the same as backwards, but not really. They don't move backwards, the time is just oppositelly directed, but they move forward, they get older...etz. What impplies the direction of time is entropy, and this one is determined by the universe. As this one is expanding, and the other one is contracting, then the entropy is doing the opposite thing, therefore the time is the opposite direction. But it's not backwards, it just contracts. When our universe stops expnadng and starts contracting, the entropy will be the opposite and thus our time will be opposite to now, but we wont' be going backwards. One thing is the direction of time universal, and the othe rvery different thing is the time axis of each of us in relation to the universal axis.
When you say starting poitn, do you mean the BB? Now, you make far too many questions for how much I've developed my theory. I'm 15, I can't dedicate all my time to this, if I could, I would be very happy, but I can't, in fact, most of the time I have to develop theories is whiles I'm posting, I develop them throughout it. Now, I have two candidates: or the two universes started from the same BB, or there was one for each other, at the same time. What caused the difference, in any case, would be something that made one more antimatterial and one more matterial (string theorists still don't know what provoked that there was more matter in this universe than anti-matter). And one grows when the other one contracts because of another something (I'm sure it is the same thing that made the proportions of matter-antimatter opposite). I'm still to discover/derive this. But at least see how good is my theory: string theorists invent dark matter, dark energy, membranes, closed and open strings, calabi-yau spaces.... And stil they neither solve sr+gr to qm problem, or explain the arrow of time, or proof there is onyl thi suniverse, or say how it is shaped, or say how it started, or say the proportions matter-antimatter, or any good thing... They just add and add problems. Some few things are good from the theory, but it's completelly wrong as a whole idea. And I, without the need of maths or any stupid inventions like theirs, have solved several of the msot improtant present questions in cosmology. Just whiteholes. I cannto proof them because it happens that I can't simply get the Hubble telescope for me. But there ahve been observations which proof that suddenly masses come into our universe andappear from the nowhere. And it is also common sense (not like string theory): thing that have a shape in a place, have the opposite in the opposite place. Black holes here, whiteholes there, whiteholes here, blackholes there. And the simple neglection of whiteholes is just like in the mid-20th century when many said blackholes where stupid ideas, and very soon came Hawking and others, and nobody doubts of their existence.