jasondoege

i know energy does not exist on its own. thats one of the things this hypothesis aims to rectify. The energy imbalance problem is a major problem that needs to be answered. I do not have no mathematics in my conjecture. i give general mathematical descriptions. if you think thats none im not the one with the math problem. you say my hypothesis has very many inaccuracies. i point out the ones weve already fixed which was 3 and ask you for more. you point out nothing and instead call general math no math. If this idea does not interest you guys just say so and ill move on to a better forum where i find people that at least want to think about it and see if its true or not.

I point out in my hypothesis why these expansion rates have changed in this exact manner. Thats part of the whole crux of the theory. Its increasing now. Its decreased over time. Thats exactly what i said in my hypothesis. Dark energies rate is increasing now according to results in an article i linked in the theory that takes you to NASA's website. its been confirmed by many professional agencies. I know expansion can occur without some spooky energy. thats the whole point of my hypothesis

beyond being more specific about what im calling dark energy and instead dark energy and spatial expansion, using the word volume instead of area, and giving fully written mathematical formulas what else would you add to the list that you call very little accuracy? why would we have different rates of expansion near the edges? you dont say what this is referring to. can you not grasp the overall idea and the logic behind it? does it not seem interesting to you?

i dont see any edit. im not talking about the observable universe. but thanks for at least saying one thing ive said is accurate

Ok does any of your expert knowledge of the subject invalidate any of the specifics i gave in that specific portion of my hypothesis? if so we can say that was an invalid conclusion and ill drop that section.

well it was a bad example. id google the torus but ive pointed out several times that these are unknowable untestable concepts that do not invalidate my hypothesis the help i need is refinement which you guys have been giving me a little of. or outright showing its false which im begging you to try to do. What is the purpose for this section of this forum? ok i googled the torus. guess what it exists in three dimensional space, has an outside, and is just a freaking donut i acknowledged my limitations in the same sentence, i said i need help, why would you even suggest i think im infinitely capable of everything?

Thats a more detailed description of the big bang then i knew. So are you saying matter and antimatter annihilating each other would not produce the cmbr we measure? if there is no outside of a universe then it cannot be a donut. or any 3 dimensional shape that has a center that we cannot measure. you guys are positing extra dimensions which is what i pointed out currently untestable and impossible to visualize so we cannot use them to determine if the merit of my hypothesis is valid. your explanation of why the cmb has not passed(more importantly does not vary) is insufficient. in a donut that began as a smaller donut the cmbr would have had to travel in all 3 dimensions and would begin to double back on itself in the wierd way you are claiming the universe can.and our position would vary in a measurable way in one direction because of the expansion of that donut unless we happened to be in the very center of the ring and somehow that ring moved in accordance with our position on earth. dark energy is the increase in the rate that the universe is expanding. I realize i need to refine my language and i have apologized for this. If you think reading this and helping me refine it based on its merit is a waste of your time then stop doing it. My mind is a pearl but i need to share and thereby refine the gifts it gives me with other people with different sets of pearls so that i can see if it is false and like you said stop wasting everyones time. not nice, the center of a donut is in the center of it even if youre inside it. if the universe is shaped like a donut it is somehow is three dimensional without three full dimensions existing and it would still have a center that somehow existed nowhere. it would be an impossible to visualize donut with no center. cmon you guys this spacial dimensions thing you keep bringing up is a strange attempt to discredit my hypothesis by referring to things that cannot be tested known or even visualized.

if its impossible to visualize then i think its fair we can drop it. because thats a huge red flag that its false. motion is relative. we define our planets motion based on the location of the sun and its location in the milky way. If cmbr is coming at us uniformly in age from all directions then it has traveled the same distance from all directions and this distance does not vary to any measurable degree no matter our position relative to anything. If you can agree with me that the universe can be infinite and in fact we have no way of measuring if it is or not(though i think ive shown several reasons why it is) then we can focus on the other merits of the hypothesis because you are claiming this is an indeterminable value and therefore has no knowledgeable connection to if my idea is true or not. Id also like to point out that as someone showed my detailed account of the big bang that results from this also answers the energy imbalance problem. Thats 4 answers to the 4 largest problems modern physics/astro physics faces.

the surface of the earth is not unbounded. you are binding it by removing a dimension which gives it no depth, or really gives it some sort of depth but only in reference to other parts of itself, it has a huge gap in it. im refering to three dimensional shapes. nothing actually physically exists that isnt three dimensional. my point about the sun. i could clarify by saying that the cmbr we measure is uniform in age from all directions. If the universe was a 3 dimensional finite object it would have a center. we would either have to be in it and our elliptical orbit coorelated impossibly to the universe moving in synch with it or the sun would have to be that center and we just couldnt measure the difference in the cmbr age as we elliptically moved around it.

i clarified and said a smaller non infinite volume. isnt a property of any finite shape to have a center? you seemed to have missed an edit i made before you posted this. i show why the cmbr we measure had to come from an infinite everywhere

Ive seen some descriptions of the big bang as being everywhere not a singular point. if a finite universe expands from a singular point or a very dense non infinite smaller volume then it has a center which as far as im aware it does not. we are getting a bit sidetracked but i dont mind, if you want to go into how dimensions would somehow wrap around on themselves be my guest but at the moment it sounds like nonsense to me. the evidence of contraction youre asking for is the crux of my hypothesis. I show that if it is happening dark matters and dark energies chandra effects would be results. if the two directly correlate then i think we can say fairly logically that it indeed is happening. since the cmbr is uniform in age coming from every direction then it means that the the sun is the center of the universe and to such a degree that for some reason the cmbrs age cannot be measured with any differention along our non elliptical orbit of the sun. another check mark in my book for the universe being infinite.

Yes i meant volume. thank you for the refinement. im completely removed from the scientific community and do many other things in my life so ive made a lot of small errors and you guys are def helping with that. 1. I cannot fathom a universe that is not infinite. one not being so either requires dimensions to somehow curve back around on themselves or requires a boundary between empty space and what your are referring to as nothing. The things that our universe was born from(mathematics, logic, a multiverse of potential) are infinite. It logically follows to me that what we find ourselves in is too. Whether the universe is infinite or not is an open question, so any hypothesis considering these issues has to choose one or the other and its necessity to do so does not invalidate it. 2. Youre right about this. and its another thing that has to be refined in the description of the theory. We know that there are different levels of infinity. my selection for which one we are dealing with in this hypothesis is one that constantly transverses those levels. basically i think i should refine it by saying it is the infinite level of infinity 3. expanding inward or better known as reduction(the exponential reduction you ask about in another spot) is a reference to the infinite amount of values between two numbers. its a further refinement im adding about the concept of infinity, but youre right this does not mean that the matter that occupies space would be affected by this. Its something i definitely need to think about more but if the rest of the hypothesis holds up we can at least say that it does happen we just dont know why. same thing for things like why matter warps space time through gravity. Maybe my knowledge of why cmbr exists is incorrect. but as far as im aware scientists think its due to the anihilation of a large amount of matter and its anti pair during thebig bang. But from my understanding a big bang occuring from a singular point would mean the universe has a center and would mean that all the cmbr would have moved away at light speed from it leaving us with none. To be more clear, Time is the subjective process we experience by being part of a universe that is infinity trans versing its infinite levels

Thanks your description is a better way to put it. have you read my hypothesis? do you have any thoughts on its logical consistency? I think i showed how you can do this in two facets. can we take a bit to analyze the first way(conceptual, logical) and then if we determine its worth merit get into more specific refined mathematical details? I gave general mathematical descriptions. I think its a good idea to analyze the hypothesis for logical inconsistences while i put the time and effort into making those refined detailed descriptions youre asking about. sorry about the indignation getting intelligent individuals to even read my hypothesis has been a very frustrating ordeal so far. I over reacted. sorry again whats insufficient? im confused by this statement

You were the one pointing out that their theories cant all be correct. i was just saying that has no correlation to if mine is or not and there was no reason to bring it up. I wasnt under the impression that dark matter can be described as matter simply having the same effect as gravity, isnt its effect additive, doesnt it get stronger the further out from the center mass you go in a galaxy? that doesnt sound like matter at all to me and thats the whole point of this hypothesis. i can provide that level of detail i just need to take the time and effort to do it. Im completely removed from the physics community and spend very little time on it so this takes me a good deal of effort. If the general mathematical descriptions and the complete concept behind the theory and the fact that it solves the 4 major holes in astrophysics doesnt interest you then maybe i came to the wrong forum. What could prove my model wrong is any logical conceptual issues you guys find with it at the moment. or a complete inability to create detailed mathematical descriptions to align it with the observations i already laid out in my hypothesis(dark matters additive "gravitational effect" and the area of space we define it to effect coorelated to the area of empty space being effected by dark energy/the natural expansion of space(which i seriously doubt will happen because these descriptions can be modeled to already align with those observations, but ok ill take the time to write those out if i can, thanks for pointing that out)

IF youre going to differentiate the exelerating expansion and the expansion of space to simply invalidate my theory you are just splitting hairs man. you know what I mean. thank you though ill clarify By clump imean get more dense. cmon your point does not invalidate my hypothesis My idea has nothing to do with other peoples nonsense and even bringing it up is a low blow and yes another notch on the scientific communities state The way you test it is by logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed! jesus man how are you a moderator on this forum I cant reply to you. this is hilarious.

Yes that's exactly what I said dark energy is. but you said nuh uh Dark matter has none of the properties of matter, it does not clump, it does not interact with anything, it has no values other than its "gravitational effect as far as im aware. Its effect is greater on the edges of galaxies not in the center. I explain why the amount of dark matter appears to be constant. I explain it simply and clearly in the beginning of the idea I have no idea what you mean by your last comment, youll have to clarify. the idea shows many things that are currently known and unexplained that it answers, that was the whole point of it

Say why, don't just say nuh uh, youre a moderator of a FORUM

The state of the current scientific community and its resistance to outside ideas is abhorrent. theres another notch on the scoreboard

There are three major holes in our current understanding of cosmology including the big bang(inflation). Scientists are dying to know the answers to them. our current model predicts many specific things that have been confirmed repeatedly to extremely accurate levels, but a refinement is needed for this theory and I know it sounds crazy of me but I feel like ive done it simply and logically in a way that a high school kid could understand. If this interests you but you don't know physics, here is a simple explanation of the three main holes so that you can simply grasp the rest of a refined straightforward hypothesis that if correct would be groundbreakingly huge. The first problem is whats known as matter/anti-matter asymmetry. when we look at the visible universe we see no anti-matter and have no idea why, it should be making up its half of its own random galaxies. This is a huge problem to solve, the largest one. The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space. its not an energy at all. I explain simply why this happens and relate it clearly to the last problem The last problem is dark matter. its just like the previous problem it has a daunting sounding name but really its just the fact that galaxies have a strange attractive force running through them that is similar to gravity but actually gets stronger the further out you go in the till it gets the strongest and the edge in a galaxies spiral arms. Physicists called the last two forms of matter and energy when clearly theyre just measurable unexplicable effects the universe has on itself. If the enormity of these problems and a curiosity about the origins and current state of our universe interest you feel free to read my theory because Im confident you have the brain matter to understand at least almost all of it. If this idea holds up it will be bigger than I can imagine at the moment. if anything doesn't make sense to you feel free to ask me about it. Thank you to the few if any of you who read this. (The link is to support the hypothesis not describe it) https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/images/astronomers-find-dark-energy-may-vary-over-time.html?fbclid=IwAR0v2HYRlolhyjZ_wcb0IhBYOIGHmtcRVSR-OHuKbXPbJ6-yKjgot3jmt08 This hypothesis aims to explain the nature of dark matter as an effect resulting from an exponential reduction in the area of matter and an area of space around it inversely related to dark energies exponential growth and gravitational time dilation's inverse effect on both processes. By doing so it appears to solve the nature of dark matter and the matter/anti matter asymmetry problem(the largest problem In astrophysics) with the standard model and deeply refine our understanding why and how the big bang occurred that determines there wont be a big freeze but instead logically arrives at a new result. Recent discoveries by many professional agencies have observed that dark energies rate is not only increasing like we already know because spatial expansion generates more space for itself to generate more space for itself ad infinitum. But its been confirmed that the rate of increase is increasing too. (a specific form of quintessence, the dark energy Chandra result) this could be due to two factors I explain later in this hypothesis. This is confirmed by widespread recent professional studies and is yet another a discrepancy the current model fails to account for. If the generation of space grows exponentially the further it is from mass then as you get closer to the mass it's growth slows until this theory posits the opposite of dark energy happens where the area of space eventually starts being reduced including the area of the matter present in it. The reason space is expanding and contracting exponentially is that it is infinite, infinite means expanding without bounds in all directions(including inward) Since the size of the vantage point we measure from is defined by that contraction these two inverse effects specific rates can be described entirely by the recent exponential growth figures of the dark energy chandra results. Dark energies exponential growth rate happens as times rate increases because there is less gravity that we know effects the passage of time thanks to Einstein's brilliant insights and due to a result I derive from my description of the diminishing areas of matter and the areas of space surrounding it and its diminishing ability to negate the effects of spatial expansion because Spatial expansion is feeding off itself exponentially and the dark matter is diminishing its ability to combat that inversely by shrinking its area of counteractive effect. Even though the amount of matter in locations tends to be centralized due to the effects of gravity the rate of its shrinking would slow exponentially as you approached the center of mass and the massive objects it exists as including galaxies because time would be moving more slowly and there would be less space to be reduced in the smaller more centralized areas by the dark matter constant. Its “gravitational" effect would result from the fact that the further away from the center mass you measure from more space would be shrinking along the distance from the center causing a cumulative effect of loss of distance. Consider dark matters growing effect at the edges of a galaxy. We can only describe the intensity of dark matter and dark energy as two inversely related constants that can be measured by exponential growth and reduction formulas. Since dark energy can only be defined in terms of its relationship with its inverse means in a universe occupied only by completely empty space dark energy will be an infinite immeasurable force where time and space are generated at an infinite rate. Virtual particles constantly being generated by virtual foam become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force like dark energy. At t=0 all of space would have this property. This would cause infinitesimal areas of space(cubes, because space is 3 dimensional and flat, that occur because the generation of virtual particle pairs happens in randomly directed lines) with heights and widths slightly smaller than the space virtual particle pairs have between each other when they are generated by a fluctuating string. These cubes would eject virtual pairs randomly on opposite halves of the randomly rotating cubes(which generates a sphere of effect) instantly around them as it generated exactly enough or slightly more space than they needed for them to occupy. This random distribution would leave an asymmetry in the amount of matter/anti-matter produced on opposite randomly aligned halves of the infinitesimal spheres. The dominantly generated particle or anti-particle in randomly determined areas up to an entire half of all the space generated would annihilate its neighboring opposite. This would account for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry problem. The empty generated space and the space left when annihilation occurs would also have slightly less intense but similar levels of spatial expansion rates as the original cubes and would rapidly generate more space and matter until enough generated matter was present to combat these effects. This accounts for inflation. The annihilated mass would generate a lot of cmbr. Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original point in space would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. This accounts for cmbr being measured coming to us equally in all directions. This is concurrent with what we know about the big bang. Lots of generated mass/energy, lots of expansion. That slows rapidly, where as we are observing dark energy slowly take over again as its acceleration compounds relative to the space/time that's still being generated due to the effects of the levels of mass in the area. This means the original points would generate matter until inflation stopped due to its presence and slowly the imbalance between the amount of empty space, and dark energies exponential area expansion rate(modified by gravitational time dilation as well) became strong enough to create much smaller bangs than the original in the pockets of empty space between distant galaxies. The bangs would be much smaller because they would not start at an infinite expansion rate only the rate necessary to produce matter from virtual foam. These little bangs would stutter on repeat over and over again as the universe didn't exactly enter a big freeze but instead continually made most likely insignificant pops for eternity. Don't be disheartened by the conclusion of the fate of our physical universe, if you want to get into the purpose and possibilities of our existence through a singularity in the future well that's another forum on another day but if you read this far thank you very much I hope you could comprehend and enjoy