Background-dependent assumes a certain, often static, background of space against which string stuff happens, but space is always evolving in time and interacting with itself.
I guess we should look more into space
(although many of us do that a lot!)
Whatever forms space-time is probably the key to everything.
How's your motorcycle? You're taking it all apart in the living room? I had many motorcycles, but none lately. If there are any parts leftover, you could make a mini-bike.
Please take one moment to put into words the compartment in which this all takes place.
You can not do that. There is NO theory relating to that
Without a compartment you are left with an ever expanding idea of nothingness of a real nature. Both ideas are preposterous.
Big rip and BB are NOT theories
A theory must be complete in order to be viable
Rufe
Well spotted. I am also taking into account your wise words regarding speculating on the nature of before the beginning. But on a physics front I guess one or the other needs to be a compartment. Either we opened up and expanded or are contained. The current idea is that we opened up into a compartmentalised outer universe. That is the case for time before the big bang does not exist.
The second case is that we are compartmentalised and are part of an outer non accessible or mostly inaccessible universe. The question is then do we or do we not leak. I know it goes against the law of thermodynamics and feel a bit uncomfortable about that but it is a question that should be asked. Mainly because if there is no leak ever how did it all get going in the first place. Do we leak now or not and if so by how much. Finally it a thing leaks then which way ... in, out or both.
Until there is a lot more information available it is hard to complete a theory. Viability is the burden of all theories because they are based on not knowing all things and so even with the best theories in the bag it is important to know both where they break and where they leak.
After all the shocks of the quantum world and promises from other ideas the point really is now is the now. The whole point of the now is how much are you enjoying the now and planning as best you can for the future to enjoy that too. A good sense of humour will help decide whether to laugh or cry, cheers
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
Background-dependent assumes a certain, often static, background of space against which string stuff happens, but space is always evolving in time and interacting with itself.
I guess we should look more into space (although many of us do that a lot!)
Whatever forms space-time is probably the key to everything.
Austin
You are using the word space as if there were something in it?
I understand space as being empty
Space-time is another thing you and Mike could try to put into laymans terms for me.
I really appreciate this Guys. You have no idea how long I have been trying to grasp these Einsteinian (if that's even a word) concepts.
I just bought another new/old bike '86 750 kawi Ninja ....it does 270 kph and I'll prolly never have it past 120
Well it's a good thing to know that at least modern science has addressed these things. Leakage indeed! You seem to have such a passion for the mainstream scientific direction. In many ways I do too. I have a tremendous respect for Einstein. He soo looks the part.
Did you see this from the ToN thread Drifter or Nobody I think
"Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either "matter" or "fields." The distinction between "matter" and "fields" in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of "conversion" seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a "conversion" between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy. Finally, our observation obtains even in so-called "annihilation" reactions where the entire mass of the incoming particles seems to "disappear" (see, for example, Baierlein (p. 323, 2007). Of course, the older terminology of "matter" and "anti-matter" does not really help our philosophical understanding of mass-energy equivalence and is perhaps partly to blame for misconceptions surrounding E = mc2."
There you go mate. The multiverse concept does come in. However if at Y=0 you have 4 interactions, then does it mean that our Universe is in a quadratic system of interlinked Universes???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentient marine
True those are two of the possibilities. The big rip is that a new universe will spawn from the torn apart remnants of the old universe due to dark energy causing a break in space time at some as yet undetermined weak point.
The big bounce is being explored by a New Zealand scientific team based on the law of thermodynamics. At some point the heat generated by the nature of a big crunch would not need to go to a singularity to provide the bounce to restart or make the universe cyclical.
I suppose that I am just being difficult with a third perhaps not yet considered option. A third option in that the second derivative requires an equation with a quadratic or power to four. That means during the life of the universe there are four crossings of the line Y=0. I needed the multi inversions to allow the cooling of the energy fireball in a spatial frame for this model where space is very energy intensive.
So in other words there was no Guth free lunch to expansion, the cooling energy ball inverted through its own centre or near enough and the proton became the boundary of the universe in the bounce. It mirrors quantum six dimensions with shaped gravity and provides for the many universe concept in one universe model.
I needed to match gravity to the quantum forces as a very high density, much like the atmosphere. Now as much pressure as we are under our movement is not impeded beyond normal momentum and inertia. Much the same for atoms or more specifically protons with gravity acting at the level of atoms. The problem is that for the action of gravity I needed the quantum forces of flow. That just leaves electromagnetism. While I had the strong nuclear force as a binding force and the weak nuclear force as a lifting or raising the stability of atoms to iron as the most stable ... neither the strong or the weak forces show affinity to flow or act at a distance and so it leaves the entire effect of gravity to some split effect in the electromagnetic force.
I had hoped the difference would be in the electroweak interaction but then discovered there is no distance associated with the weak nuclear force even though it bonds with the electromagnetic force at or above 10^15 K. I have been working at the unified idea for nearly a year and physics as a hobby since about September - October 2006. I am not a scientist so the idea is still formative and needs an awful lot of work to get it beyond description.
The good news is that the universities have on-line studies here so if I can't find someone who would like to run with this idea it may sit on the shelf for a few years until I can learn to present it correctly.
There you go mate. The multiverse concept does come in. However if at Y=0 you have 4 interactions, then does it mean that our Universe is in a quadratic system of interlinked Universes???
I understand the y=0 but not the rest of your question. Please put it into terms that can be understood by someone that does not speak quantum.
By the way with BB or BBB there is no Y=0 or do you consider a portion of the cycle to be that? Either way that's highly theoretical.
Time isn't a dimension. It is loosly considered one but in a speculative way
Dimensions are actually qualities that furthur the description of anything.
To say that there are seven more dimensions without any qualifications is a bit brash
Other dimensions are things like color, gender, motion..
Stuff like that
Rufe
Hi Rufe;
I was trying to explain the 11 dimensions associated with M theory. 7 internal enfolding to make 3 spatial ( L,W,H ) and the 11th is time according to M theory.
Again if you go back to my Idea you'll see where I have COLOR as a dimension as well as sound etc.
My attempt here was to help you understand the 11 dimensions better, which you admitted you had a difficult time understanding, and therefore dismissed it as B.S.
I guess you really don't understand my theory, but if nothing else it should help you in your quest.
Best,
Pat
P.S. I think most of the members understand my Idea, in that it is really very easy to comprehend, whether it's correct or not is another story.
You are quite correct, I don't understand it but don't feel bad my brain does not work that way. Things that perport to be quantum theory are way over my head.
I'm glad to know why they say 10 or 11 dimensions when one is considered time, thanks.
I am not Aussie, but my boss is. Hence it has kind of rubbed onto me.
I just want to clearly understand the meaning of this sentence.
That means during the life of the universe there are four crossings of the line Y=0. I needed the multi inversions to allow the cooling of the energy fireball in a spatial frame for this model where space is very energy intensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus
Dipayankar
I understand the y=0 but not the rest of your question. Please put it into terms that can be understood by someone that does not speak quantum.
By the way with BB or BBB there is no Y=0 or do you consider a portion of the cycle to be that? Either way that's highly theoretical.
E=m.c^2 a wonderful equation being the equivalence between matter and energy. Yes it is rare for people now days to talk as if matter and energy are the same. In the atomic tests the energy released was the difference in the mass of one helium and the four hydrogen required to fuse to make that helium. So a tiny mass difference and enormous energy. Energy itself is free flow and so not attached to mass although the force of being near a hydrogen to helium conversion would be something. That is the principle behind the mass-less photon which is the carrier of light and also of magnetic force.
That is why energy has the wonderful term rest mass, it is not until it is released does it become mass-less. So a star that converted 0.03% of its mass to photons would still have the same mass until that energy was released according to theory. Fortunately that is not going to happen I hope to our sun as that instant energy release less than 1% would finish us off nicely.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard P. Feynman. These quotes are the most brilliant things and help keep us in mind that when it seems like we see science as clearly as Gulliver sorting out the differences of the Lilliputians in their war with the Blefuscu over the correct end from which to eat an egg. Wikipedia entry here .
While it seems easy from the comfort of the home computer to see the problems of the politics in science ... it does become easy to forget that there is a far bigger world to deal with than why scientists don't seem to understand physics. Gulliver had his own problems with the giants of Brobdingnag.
So it is fields and such and yet for having said all that I am still in with the few that see the equivalence as equal and that matter is cold compressed rest mass energy. But if I follow physics I can't teach it that way
Refer again to the first principle.
__________________ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."...Albert Einstein
Re: You are right I can not do that 
Re: Cyclical Universe 
Linear Mode
