andreasjva

I am an atheist, and I could care less about philosophy. I am exactly where I need to be. I do know the history of it. Once the observation was made, it was considered resolved. Although acceleration has thrown it a bit of a curve ball. I believe we were supposed to be slowing down according to the original theory. Nothing really had to start it accelerating. Think of a bouncing ball. It starts at its highest energy, and then loses energy while increasing in frequency with each bounce. Kind of a standard everyday physics problem I would imagine. That's one of the reasons I like the idea so much, because it's utterly simple in concept. The complexity is in the backward engineering of the problem we're doing now. The universe is following the most basic laws of physics in my view.

That's exactly what I keep seeing in my mind. How do we know any of this until it is ruled out? No ones ever tried. No ones ever thought this way to my knowledge. We saw the redshift, concluded we were expanding, and then saw acceleration, and made up a theory to cover it, and we've been using expansion as the best guess ever since. I admit, it's very strong evidence, but it's not necessarily correct. My idea could cover dark energy quite easily, because it uses two elements of contraction, time and matter. Time is speeding up, and mass is contracting inward. Both would have an impact on the redshift of distant galaxies, and it would be time dependent. The math is well beyond me though. All the data is sitting there for someone to examine and rule out.

Shrinking matter, static space. We haven't really moved anywhere since we came into existence in my view, excluding local galactic motion and such. I know you don't like it, but it is exactly what I see. I am having difficulty determining what it would mean to the universe in general. I state our universe exists on the surface of sphere, but that's a very fluid definition. It is factually accurate though. We are indeed living proof of this simple fact. Our view of anything in the universe begins at the surface of all matter. We are influenced by space and things deeper in the atomic structure, but our perspective is really bound to the outer shell that makes us up. This really doesn't say much about the whole of the universe though. We could very easily just be tuned to see/experience things relative to our state bound by a frequency range or something. What we can't see could very well be trillions upon trillions of light years of universe. The universe by all means could be pushing the bounds of infinity in a perpetual manner. Our physical view is finite, and seems to be bound by C, although I do consider C a bit fluid in my view. In principle, I understand. Particle entanglement does seem to bypass the rules a bit if I understand it right. I would also wonder if there would be any significance to the underlying space within we exist. Would it play by the rules of C, or does it define the rules? I definitely appreciate why, but I also think it will be necessary to conjecture at some point to move forward, and not in a philosophical manner. There just isn't a mathematical answer to every problem, and observing is out of the realm of possibility. That only leaves scientists one tool to work with, their brains. They are going to have to use logic and reason the problem through to a conclusion, and then form a consensus of sorts. Admittedly, it's a bit like herding cats. I'm sure they'll figure it all out eventually once they finish examining all the protons a few thousand years from now. As for me, I prefer my short cut to understanding. I only have another 30 or 40 years, if I'm lucky. Misunderstood the question I suppose. I thought you simply wanted to know why I thought about it all.

There is mathematical evidence to suggest a key component in my reasoning is supported by the scientific community, which I offer as "some sort of proof". http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212686413000332 I have also made a prediction that gravity and expansion are equal and opposite forces within the universe. They are inherently bound in my view. Admittedly though, this is very difficult to prove given the relative nature of the problem, and the mathematical evidence has not been validated through the peer review process. None the less, I am following the guidlines. Analogies are very difficult to judge fundamentally, and will always be a subjective beast. For example, I have often read of the universe being compared to a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The galaxies are represented by the raisins. The heating up of the bread doesn't make a whole lot of sense though, but one can certainly understand it if they don't take it in an absolute literary sense. Surely the universe isn't in an oven. I mostly struggle with explaining the concept. It is difficult to convey the information properly. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Because I can't imagine a universe without causation. I can't imagine a dense energy that just happened to be sitting in the middle of infinite nothingness, before time, and before physics. I can't imagine it would have any reason to change states and become a universe randomly. I see the whole idea as illogical. I don't like the dodge by science of the hows and whys. There is an answer for all of it. Simply telling me the physical properties of things is not an answer. Just because is not an answer. In my view, it's somewhat of a cop out. Scientists aren't really allowed to ask why. I am. If you think my interpretation is hard to swallow, then just consider something like the creationists of the world. Yikes! At least I'm trying to use my brains. The logic has lead me to this conclusion. Everything is relative. That's why. ----------------------------------------- Look at it like this way. Expansion outward builds the energy. Following the laws of physics, a reaction to the expansion follows, and contraction begins. That contraction process is what forms the initial mass. Our universe starts at the top, and falls backwards, forever contracting until it no longer exists. This is very similar to the rough description of a quantum particle.

No. That is well beyond my ability mathematically, and probably 99.99% of the people on this planet. You know as well as I do how difficult it would be to prove it, especially if it is correct. That implies everything is in a relative state, including all the constants. I'm not even sure where to begin looking. The only place I could imagine starting would be in the redshifts from distant galaxies, and an awful lot of assumptions would have to be made from them. To me, they are possibly showing a change in mass and time. We call it expansion and acceleration, and I say it's possibly caused by contracting time and mass.

Of course. I think you miss the point. The further away something is the less certain we are about its actual state. That doesn't mean we are wrong, or can't predict its state. In most cases we would be highly accurate, but not necessarily flawless. Well, technically, no, they don't just disappear. Of course not. You know what I meant though.

Yes, you are right. I won't argue that. I am saying mass is relative in my view. In fact, I'm saying the entire universe is built on a relative perspective, including time and motion.

Whenever we observe any distance greater than 0, we are looking into the past. We are looking at a result. We then make a prediction that it will continue to be that way in the future. If we decide to go there, the closer we get, the more accurate we are in our prediction, because it is more relative to us. The further away something is, the less we can trust those prediction, because the less relative those objects are to us. For all we know, half the galaxies in the universe may not exist anymore. The relevance you question becomes somewhat more obvious, don't you think? What you thought was there may no longer exist, so what you thought you knew about that object is irrelevant, although one could find meaning in the history of the object itself.

Strange, you're just playing word games at this point. You saying something is less significant, and me saying something is less relative is literally the exact same statement worded differently. Me saying it's precisely what I'm doing is precisely what I'm saying I'm doing. Am I doing it with precision? NO. Don't be difficult.

It is precisely what I am doing. Whether or not someone reading this understands it precisely is another matter. Partially my fault I suppose, but it's difficult to explain. Changing adjective doesn't change the meaning. Things that are further away have less relevance, or are less relative to us. I didn't say no relevance. Of course the moon has an impact on us. Pain is an illusion. It's a series of electtrochemical reactions that signals your brain through your nervous system to respond with a definition of pain.

Isn't that what it's all about? The closer you are to the things that surround you, the more relative (and relevant) they become to you. As I said, reality would be incomprehensible without a relative perspective. The further away something is the less relevant it is to your perspective and existence. That's a pretty good thing when considering the sun. It doesn't look all that big from where we're sitting. Actually, it's exactly where it needs to be.

Well, that's the best I can do for now, so you'll have to live with it. Sorry. You'll either get what I'm trying to say or you won't. And that is precisely what I'm doing. That's a two way street. Some people head north, and others south. Doesn't really concern me a whole lot, because I like the direction I'm headed. And once science masters GR, one photon at a time, maybe they'll figure out what it all means, and clue us in.

I had a better definition written in a later post that might help clear up the confusion. It's a fairly long post so it's easy to spot. In principle though, I would not entirely disagree with your objection. The potential for a universe does exist in an empty universe though, for the simple fact that we exist. An empty universe itself is only a potential state in my view. In other words, it's not real. What more or less keeps this universe going is its potential not to exist. The universe seems to fight against being an absolute state (1) or nothing (0). Also keep in mind, this is more of a mutiuniversal point of view, although I don't like exceeding the thoughts beyond our own. Too complicated imaginatively speaking, and entirely beyond any chance of observing it. What's important is ours. We are more or less a virtual universe within the totality of the universe, so we can exist or not exist. The force that created us is perpetual expansion, and that force reacts with a counter force, contraction. or gravity as we call it. It is probably driven by nothing, literally, or absolute 0, which surrounds the totality of the universe. There is an infinite amount of nothing to draw on, so the total universe just keeps expanding into it. There is no definable beginning to the process, and no foreseeable end. We do have a beginning, and end, because we are merely a virtual state. I hope this helps you understand my viewpoint better. Isn't that the difficult part to accept in relativity? You can't necessarily trust what you observe, because everything is relative to something else. Is it so hard to consider our scale is nothing more than a relative perspective? We use relative objects to analyze relative things, which confirms the illusion that everything is static, when in fact the opposite may be the underlying reality in which we live. If you didn't have that relative static perspective, the universe would be somewhat incomprehensible. I am simply following the reasoning of relativity. Science assumes those weights they have sitting in a vault possess a static value. I don't think anyone has explored the other possibility. In fact, everything that Einstein has taught should lead us to question it. How do we know for certain? All matter is more likely just empty vacuum anyway. It's not real in a physical sense. Matter itself is merely motion. It's not like we could throw a bunch of atoms in a mortar and pestle, and grind it up into an energy powder. Energy isn't a physical substance. Science assumes each piece of matter comes equipped with a lifetime battery more or less, and that battery was energized at the big bang. Isn't that more or less the idea science assumes in the standard model? And they want to know where the mass comes from. Mass is relative. it would definitely be a hard perspective to accept, and equally as difficult to prove. That all hinges on whether or not the relative items we use to take the measurements is static. I suggest everything is relative, including the scale of the universe. A billion years ago, our atoms could have quite possibly been the size of basket balls or even planets in comparison to today's substance. Can you tell me with absolute certainty this isn't the truth? Of course not.

okay, let me try a little better analogy. imagine a ball inside an inflated balloon, bouncing back and forth. As the balloon deflates, the frequency of the ball rises. The more it deflates, the higher the frequency, the faster the time. Eventually the balloon and the ball will stop, and time ends. No motion, no energy. That is where we are contracting to. But a piece of matter has many many layers, and they are extremely far apart proportionately. Our perception of the universe is along the outside of the balloon wall. That defines our time, and distance in our universal perspective. it's just an analogy.

A bouncing ball is easier to incorporate an element of time. Each bounce becomes shorter and shorter, while the frequency rises. A balloon simply deflates. Surely you have the imaginative skills to consider shorter distances as a contraction process. A rising frequency value against a falling energy value. The rising frequency is time, and the falling energy is contraction.

It's an analogy.

Seriously? You don't understand the analogy? Would you prefer a deflating balloon?

I read a bunch of stuff on the Bose-Einstein condensate a while back. Really cool stuff with single atom laser type beam. I've pondered that globular state of the condensate on several occasions. In thinking about the issue, how much would time play into the model? For example, 1 second 10 years ago might be the equivalent of 10 years now. We're also accelerating, which i suspect is more from a standpoint of time than contraction. Could that be a factor in the problem?

I'm not sure if this helps your understanding or not or fits the problem, but the flows are somewhat isolated. All inward flow starts at the mass wall and points in, and all outward flow starts at the mass wall and goes out. The shell wall is like the great divide between the two forces. Our perspective is from the shell wall, or between the forces. I'll have to ponder it some. I have never examined it thermodynamically. I am not grasping the issue fully. When I get it, i get it.

In the ideal world, that would be great. However, please do consider reality. No one person can possibly know everything there is to know about every aspect of science. We could quite literally, be talking about 100 years or so. Science has evolved with millions of contributions both big and small over a very long period of time. Most are never heard of. Even Einstein was built on others work. I can only take this to a very limited point, and everything I've considered relies on everyone else. A scientist can literally spend a lifetime on one single problem. I'm not even a scientist. I'm tackling the whole thing at once in general terms. There would literally not be one single area this theory would not impact. I do appreciate your rational and extremely valid input more than you know. Unfortunately, I am only one man with one simple idea based purely on reasoning and observations at hand. I couldn't possibly know all there is to know, or all that needs to be understood in fully developing this theory. I'm a realist. Give me your concerns in plain english, and I'll do my best to sort it out. If we're talking relativity though, would it really matter? Our relationship to density would remain static, even if the density were rising. How would you know?

I did answer it. No, there is nothing on the other side of that point. Clearly you are not fully grasping the concept yet. You are thinking of it entirely wrong, which is why you're having difficulty understanding it. Think of each piece of matter like a bouncing ball maybe. Contraction is the bouncing up and down. You don't go anywhere. The increments get faster and faster until it comes to rest. When all motion stops, you cease to exist. That's contraction. When we move towards expansion, we move the whole bouncing ball from A to B. The faster we go, the slower the bounce. We can do this because the forces are omnidirectional, and expansion encompasses all points within the universe. Technically, we only ever move in two directions though, in or out. Time is the separation between expansion and contraction. The closer you move towards contraction, the faster the time. Just to give you an idea of what that means exactly. The distance to the nucleus of an atom to its shell, is about the equivalence of the distance from the sun to beyond Pluto somewhere. Proportionately speaking. That's just one layer. We are still a long way from contracting to nothing. All of these perspectives are completely relative, you would have no idea any of this happening.

That's certainly not philosophy. I'm kind of shocked that you would consider photon velocity and motion as such actually. That's almost like a creationist mentality.

Beating dead horses to death.... It can't ever be true, because nothing can exceed the speed of light. If they understood fundamentally what was going on, there was absolutely no reason to put out a press release in the first place. Like I said, first call should have been to the Maytag repairman, not the press. They did it to themselves. I can't believe you're even defending it. Do you get excited when your engine starts making funny noises? Should we put out a press release? Face it, they jumped the gun.

The perspective is entirely relative. You are basing the physics on a static view, but that's not necessarily reality. Science considers matter like little static ball bearings. This would still clearly be the view in the contracting state, because it's all relative perspectives. You don't understand it yet. We don't know we're contracting, because it's about relativity. We think we're static. Let me rephrase it. The is only one correct answer based on logic.

Look Mordred, there is no way you could possibly know if this is correct or not, because there is no math. It's that simple. Now if you would like to disprove it mathematically, then you would need to develop a complete and comprehensive mathematical theory to backup your speculation that it's wrong . This has to start from the ground up with this theory, to see how it ties into those field equations. You could not possibly know any of this at this juncture. No one knows. This is a forum, not a peer review process. I am presenting ideas that you clearly dislike. That's okay by me. As I said, it seems to loosely fit a fairly large number of observations. It does so because it is an inverse solution. I would suspect it would continue along the same path with most of GR. Where it deviates is things like possibly explaining dark energy, and/or dark mater. It also suggest that the universe came to be all at once, or began at its maximum scale, and has been dwindling down over time until an inevitable conclusion. Personally, I never expected to see that, but i do. I also never expected to consider a possible quantum fluctuation as a catalyst, but I do now. It's possible our entire universe represent a single quantum fluctuation. There was never a dense point of energy that just happened to be hit with a randomly fluctuation. Another thing that has always bugged me was light speed and time. Where is time fast? We can stop it, but no one really discusses speeding it up. My idea does give that dynamic like never before. It says that those quantum particles we see popping in an out of existence, are really here much longer than we really perceive. That little blip of a quantum fluctuation could equate to millions or even billions of years from it's perspective. Hard to say. We just see it momentarily blip in and out of existence because it lies on the very edge of our perspective of contraction. There's your time fast. No one has explored this idea though, so no one knows for certain if it's nonsense or reality. You think it's nonsense. Fine. Next!