[TSBrewster]

I think we need to be careful when we say unquestionably that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. After all we know that E=M•C² and every energy unit corresponds to the mass M=E/C².

We must remember that the theory of expansion came from Christian Doppler after his discovery that the universe was expanding. The cause for the expansion however has not been verified to this day. We can visualise the expansion like a loaf of current bread being baked in an oven. With the currents being galaxies. As the bread bakes it expands. This expansion has been seriously troubling me, I just cannot make my equations fit. Just like many other theories, everything falls apart at the singularity. There are two theories however that can take us past the point of the singularity.

1) M-theory
I don’t like this theory, it states that the universe was born from a collision of membranes, two parallel universes collided thus creating the great squeeze. The theory definitely fits the facts, my problem with this theory though is that 8 extra dimensions have been added to our 3. I fear that the reason some physicists have added extra dimensions is because they could not get their equations to fit with just 3. Adding extra dimensions may have got them out of a fix but being able to prove these dimensions exist may prove to be impossible. That which cannot be proven will always remain theory.

2) A unique theory that I am trying to unravel, with which I could use some help.
A unique theory, which I have come up with, came about when I was thinking about why the universe was expanding. The reason for expansion is the key. Expansion need not mean a big bang. The reason I have come up with this theory is simple, we know the universe is not just expanding its accelerating. I asked my self why, and came up with the theory that the universe could actually be unravelling. Imagine you have in your hand an elastic band, and you roll this band up into a ball, when you open your hands the band will accelerate until its expansion is complete. Using this idea and the fact that symmetry and gravity are prevalent in our universe it is possible to take the theory past the singularity.

TSBrewster

A Quote:

There is something odd about scientific endeavour: often enough, it’s most important to see where there is no need for a concerted effort. On the other hand, it would be wrong to pursue goals just because they are easy. We need to develop an instinct about just how far we can get if we really try as hard as we can.
–Albert Einstein

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by TSBrewster I think we need to be careful when we say unquestionably that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. After all we know that E=M•C² and every energy unit corresponds to the mass M=E/C². A unique theory, which I have come up with, came about when I was thinking about why the universe was expanding. The reason for expansion is the key. Expansion need not mean a big bang. The reason I have come up with this theory is simple, we know the universe is not just expanding its accelerating. I asked my self why, and came up with the theory that the universe could actually be unravelling. Imagine you have in your hand an elastic band, and you roll this band up into a ball, when you open your hands the band will accelerate until its expansion is complete. Using this idea and the fact that symmetry and gravity are prevalent in our universe it is possible to take the theory past the singularity. –Albert Einstein

If it came from nothing then why cant it go back to nothing.
I dont belvie it came form nothing so nor do i belive it can expand or collapse back into nothing.

Our currnet finite physical Unvierse is soeverwhelmingly large that for anyone to inivite the idea of some source of infinite energy has no idea what infinite means in the context or relation to current size of our known Unvierse.

Rybo

[TSBrewster]

I agree with you when you say the universe cannot just appear nor just disappear. If that was to happen we would see annihalation of all matter, and that still would leave a trace. As for the theory I am proposing, please take note that an infinite source of energy in relation to the size of the universe is a question of geometry. When we say infinity we can imagine a universe expanding without end, massive distances. Yet we must note that these distances are 3 dimensional, or 3D space. You will note however these distances are no longer a factor when you think 2 dimensionally. Energy isn't 3 dimensional.

Many thanks for your reply.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by TSBrewster I agree with you when you say the universe cannot just appear nor just disappear. please take note that an infinite source of energy in relation to the size of the universe is a question of geometry. When we say infinity we can imagine a universe expanding without end, massive distances. Yet we must note that these distances are 3 dimensional, or 3D space. You will note however these distances are no longer a factor when you think 2 dimensionally. Energy isn't 3 dimensional.

TS, glad we agree on the first part.

Please elaborate on infinity Universe and geomectry cause I se it just the oppsite way using geoemetry i.e. systemic geometrical system is closed interlrealting netwwork like a polyhdron or sets of overlapping polyehdra.

As for energy being 2D well now your entering black hole mathematics and holography as arrived at by Jacob Bekenstien.

"entropy inside black hole is equal to the 2D event horizon" is is the most radical faor theories to date. Hawking and Bekenstien together discoverd Bekenstiens law, so, this may also have somthing to to with Hawkings interfering branes.

Not sure but if they too are propositioned as 2D then tey are just as radical.

I cant buy into that yet but it what Bekenstien balc mathemctic is saaying. Maybe he need to recheck his math. He he.

Rybo

[zeroca]

I don’t agree that any materialization existed just before Big Bang. The term “Big Bang” doesn’t mean anything like bang. I think it’s only introduced to emphasize “the process that takes place “everywhere” simultaneously”.
And that’s really it:
If there didn’t existed anything that means that there existed only nothing, even there didn’t exist even two different eternally small points, as the space and time didn’t exist (“nonexistence” didn’t take place within time and space). When we say that the process began from some center it doesn’t mean that this center really existed and it had size. We probably want to figure to ourselves how the process of existence started. As nothing is homogeneous, it means that it’s equal or rather the same in its “different places”, so we can figure it as one center, but it doesn’t mean that this imaginable center is any kind of accumulation of energy.
It only can considered as bearer of potential for arising of the world, as it had a possibility of change (the only kind of change within this “center”, or within nothing is splitting of it into two opposite phenomenon), so the assertion that something existed before the world arose I think is illogical, cause the question from what this “something “originated demands explanation as well.
My statement might be trivial, but I don’t see any other way. You can look it through at
http://autorestore.gol.ge/index.html

[Marketa]

Please, please, tell me what do you mean by nothing... and something... Of course that change IS something, of course that nothing CANNOT split into more parts, not speaking about the fact, that one nothing, and two nothings, are not three nothings - it doesn't work like that. It is an elementary mathematics that zero plus zero is zero, not two zeros...

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca ... so the assertion that something existed before the world arose I think is illogical, cause the question from what this “something“ originated demands explanation as well.

I agree with you that materialization did not exist before the Big Bang. But to call this previous state nothing is a qualification in itself that has no grounds (except that there was nothing from the perspective of materialization). I believe that what existed before the Big Bang must remain unqualified. Though this may sound like giving up on the idea that we can explain where the previous state came from, I think it is nevertheless an acknowledgement of the fact that we are viewing the point of origin from our own materialized position. To say this with other words; the only explanations we should be looking for are those pertaining to materialization. That what does not belong to the process of materialization cannot be fully known. Therefore to call this previous state nothing is like making the claim that we can know with certainty, while in reality we cannot know with certainty about that what existed before materialization. It may sound trivial again, but the distinction is important because it clarifies the difference between what we can and cannot know. I think we can fully know/understand the process of materialization, but our knowledge about the previous state will always be that of a grey area of which we can say something, but only in as far as how it contributed to/ enabled materialization.

[force5]

Hi all;

I just posted this stuff on another thread and I didn't know how to just point to it. This is my condensed version of how the expansion eventually ends and takes us back to pre-BB considerations.

1. The universe/cosmos is all that exist.
2. The universe/cosmos has always existed.
3. The universe/cosmos will not expand forever.
4. The universe/cosmos will contract when there is no more baryonic matter to fuel the expansion.
5. The universe/cosmos will continue to contract until most of the EMR is reclaimed.
6. The total contraction time will equal the total expansion time.
7. The reclaimation of EMR will produce new baryonic matter.
8. The new baryonic matter will create a cosmic star system that recreates the universe by first creating space/time via EMR.
9. Much like a supernova, the cosmic system will produce a cosmic-nova and the birth of the first baryonic systems. I.E.(heavy elements, galaxies, stars, planets, life, etc.)
10. To create a new cycle, Return to step three.


For whats it's worth, this is the way I see it........John A.

P.S. Non-existence, nothing, zero, nada is not valid at the fundamental level within the "volume" of our existing universe/cosmos.

Hint: Non-existence is necessary for this process to work.

[Marketa]

Could you explain more why "Non-existence is necessary for this process to work." please?

[Fredrick]

Could you explain how nothing becomes invalid at the fundamental level within the "volume" of our existing universe?