Certainty

[jck]

It has proven extremely difficult for anyone to comprehend how anything can be certain but having a certain beginning and restricted to moving on only when the next step is certain does provide a solution that can then be used to compare with anything in mainstream science that is obtained theoretically and observationally.

 

Science has a multi choice section regarding how the universe came about but the clean alternative that space was always constant everywhere at all times, although more valid, does not gain the same amount of research.

 

While theory almost ignores there being space as we know it before big bang then any solution using space as a certain beginning has certainty by default, if the theory is correct then that is available to all but should space exist before the universe then the alternative becomes certain.

 

There is no cause for alarm for all I am asking is for space before big bang to be considered as a certain base for determining what then must follow given this consideration. Anyone not willing to consider space existed before big bang simply as an exercise in logic need not take part.

 

It is a clean slate, everyone has only empty space and has to work out what else is needed before a universe can be created. Because this is starting from scratch no theory can be used until the logical steps confirm the theory.

 

Space itself is not well understood at the best of times but for the purpose of the consideration it is absolutely empty, the only thing that can be added is the next thing that must exist in the empty space before any further steps can be taken.

 

I am not creating the space, I am not taking the space away or doing anything else with the space that we already know exists in the universe.

 

Apart from theoretically no one can show how it would be possible to take space away from space without leaving a space, the space we have here and now creates that problem with any solution besides having the same space before big bang and then it has no arguement.

 

So with a certain consideration that absolute empty space is the blank canvas for working out how a universe could be created all that is required is for someone to come up with the next certain requirement in that empty space before moving on to the next step.

 

 

john

jck

[jck]

Interesting so far no response.

 

 

Instead of endless empty space as your canvas for working out how the universe was created I could have chosen "absolutely nothing at all" and we could be sitting here a million years from now with nothing at all.

 

To save a considerable amount of time I have given the prime requirement for having anything at all, somewhere for anything at all to exist.

 

What is the one thing that is certain to be required now before anything can be created?

 

It could not be made any simpler.

 

john

jck

[jck]

Perhaps it has to be made simpler?

 

 

Given a blank canvas of endless empty space what is the next certain thing that empty space must contain in order to create a universe?

 

The answer is energy.

 

It cannot be made any simpler.

 

john

jck

[jck]

This so far must be well within what everyone can logically agree with for the consideration.

 

I will expand on why it is energy that would be certain in empty space to create a universe and not mass.

 

Anything that exists can be considered mass but mass can be composite of energy particles which would need a fundamental explanation, by selecting a single fundamental energy particle there can be no arguement as to its origin as it is required by default. No energy particle means no universe.

 

The definition of particle for this consideration is part of the energy being the smallest part that can exist.

 

The energy cannot fill the empty space so there is no empty space left as nothing would be able to move.

 

This is all that is required to create a universe.

 

Empty space and a single fundamental energy particle with room to move in that empty space.

 

It cannot be made any simpler.

 

john

jck

[psynapse]

virtual particle pairs?

One containing negative energy and the other positive energy. If one somehow bumped into another virtual pair and they collide in empty space then... Hmm perhaps we need two of the same to interact. The two positive energy particles with one being opposite to the other might have started off the universe. Do I need empty space first for vacuum fluctuations? Probably.

[jck]

psynapse,

 

Nice try but the consideration does not allow theoretical anything before providing the foundation conditions for the creation of a universe.

 

Still you are on the right track with opposite energy particles.

 

We establish a single energy particle that by default must be the smallest particle that can exist for the building block for all matter. Two things need to be explained before the particles can do anything, one is the movement of the particles and the other is direction of the movement.

 

You have also identified a need for the particles to collide into each other.

 

Movement in all directions would allow such collisions and thereby creates particles coming from opposite directions which could be transposed to positive and negative as much as anything.

 

Movement has to be c+ in order to establish a means for anything in the universe to travel at c.

 

There is a problem with a solution from scratch having an energy particle travelling at c+ with no energy input to allow it to do that and a certain method must be explained before moving on.

 

For a particle to pass in the opposite direction of two particles coming the other way the empty space factor must be at least + the size of the energy particle so that any particle is accelerated directly into an actual vacuum.

 

Using the tiny vacuum of empty space that a particle travels towards at all times solves the zero energy input problem and provides the c+ speed collisions to fuse the energy.

 

So we have opposite particles, empty space vacuum for movement and c+ speed for collisions.

 

That is all that is required for creating the universe from scratch, it can now be done.

 

john

jck

[jck]

The result of having empty space with a single fundamental energy particle travelling in all directions at c+ gives rise to collisions at certain points although initially these would be extremely small fusions gradually more energy particles would get trapped at the same point in endless space accelerating the fusion.

 

This process appears to require a considerable period of time to get to the proportions dtected at big bang. The logic in this consideration points to the universe being a slow gradual build up of energy in one place leading to a rapid increase as the build up accelerates.

 

The conclusion would be that big bang was not the initial creation of the universe but the result of a slower build up over a substantial period of time.

 

Another conclusion would be that the energy detected at big bang would only constitute an extremely insignificant amount of the energy in the empty space being needed.

 

After big bang conversion of energy to mass leaving a vast amount of space in the universe the flow of energy from outside in all directions would continue.

 

There could only be one explanation for such a flow of such a magnitude particularly as no such energy flow has been detected directly, the force involved in total from collisions would be a great force.

 

The only unknown great force in the universe is gravity.

 

Despite the overwhelming view being against particle gravity from this consideration it is certain to flow as energy particles in all directions.

 

More than that it must flow continually through the universe to the outside not remain constant as a single gravity source inside.

 

This then starting from scratch with empty space and a single fundamental energy particle is what transpires.

 

The big bang can be created so mass can be created exactly as it has and gravity is explained as differential particle gravity.

 

The real logic follows when the hydrogen atom is created and such things as black holes, dark energy and dark matter and the expanding universe are looked at from the foundations that have been established here.

 

Everything becomes a natural progression.

 

This in no way assumes theory to be wrong but considers only the alternative view that empty space did exist before big bang.

 

It is an interesting consideration to say the least.

 

john

jck

[jck]

So far so good.

 

The slow build up of energy reaches a critical level where the collisions increase rapidly till it reaches a point where apparently it is detected as a big bang burst of energy.

 

From the initial consideration the burst of energy would not have happened suddenly from nothing at all, particles could have been created during the build up at least to quark and electron status although these may well have lasted only for an instant until the energy started to expand through the force of the energy pressure from outside on such a large blockage.

 

Once the energy and particles were allowed to expand then the nature is that the further away the mass was the greater would be the acceleration while inwardly an established flow from all directions would tend to keep galaxies within boundaries.

 

Once the space was cleared in the universe there would be opportunity for the quarks to collide and force the proton for the hydrogen atom to form.

 

If something is certain it does not have to be proved and it is certain that at a critical mass the proton in the hydrogen atom no longer allows for any further fusion of mass to increase the size of that proton.

 

Here therefore the physics of the universe are established prior to big bang as the only form the energy can take is the quarks, and these can only form a single proton for the hydrogen atom.

 

With the hydrogen atom in place all other atoms in the universe can be created so that is where the consideration needs no further explanation of how anything else was created.

 

Trapping an electron in the hydrogen atom must confirm that opposite particles of energy combinations create electrons and quarks at which point they aquire properties such as positive and negative charge.

 

There does not appear any requirement for other particles or energy in the hydrogen atom as it is now bombarded by the free flowing single energy particles described as differential particle gravity.

 

Any forces or properties of the hydrogen atom would be essentially via the proton and electron and formally the DPG.

 

The energy trapped in the atom no longer has the empty space vacuum as a means to move or accelerate anywhere, there is no free energy so the dynamics of the atom must in this consideration come from the bombardment of energy particles that constitute gravity.

 

This would give first cause of movement as DPG bombardment and any other force as observed force after the fact.

 

That being the case then the calculations would include particle gravity affects while ignoring them in the proofs. This then leads to the theories being wrong in comparison and by default cannot be used to refute the particle gravity scenario.

 

Here lies the problem with research into particle gravity, it fails to take into account that the equations must be wrong in the first place if particle gravity is correct so it is no wonder they cannot work out how particle gravity would work.

 

That is the conclusion so far.

 

john

jck

[jck]

A central point in science is the existance of black holes.

 

Using the logic so far obtained has the matter established in the universe with the energy from the space outside flowing in all directions as a differential particle gravity flow. Particle of energy would continue to collide with atoms and form the base for creation of new hydrogen atoms as there would be nothing to stop this happening.

 

Assuming the bulk of the energy flow would provide gravity as standard then this relates to dark energy levels if correct. The fusion of energy particles would relate to dark matter if correct.

 

Now as the universe formed so would an established fairly settled flow of gravity be established particularly where that flow meets with galaxies. The swirling could be attributed to the flow from all directions meeting the obstacle the galaxies present. That initial effect would produce a whirlpool at the centre of galaxies where the predominant flow would be from one direction in particular.

 

However as in a supanova black hole where the matter condenses to a greater and greater density rapidly then a flow from one direction could create the black hole while the reduced matter could produce a singularity.

 

That was my initial thought on this matter but just recently that has thrown up a problem.

 

As the matter reduces in all directions at the same time the black hole would be a black ball! It would be similar to the so called curved space around matter.

 

The situation then consider how an event horizon would infer anything as the event horizon would be all around the black hole.

 

This is all deduction from the consideration there was space and energy before big bang so basically I have to work everything out as I go along, nothing is in the text book to help me out. My book on Certainty was written about 4 years ago and gave a general introduction but as I use the science forums it leads to greater thought about the theory and a more logical consideration.

 

This may not be the correct logic but it is interesting to think of a black hole as a ball with a dense centre as a so called singularity as then it can be compared to the apparent single hole theory represents.

 

john

jck

[jck]

Further thought on the matter of black holes is causing all sorts of problems.

 

Besides the idea that the mass would reduce equally and require curved space all around rather than any hole the reduction of mass is a worse paradox.

 

Mass must be reduced to energy in a black hole right back to big bang scenarios therefore the very conditions for forming the hydogen atom before the singularity is reached leads to a star forming and not a dense singularity.

 

The other anomaly is the energy can shoot straight out of the bottom of the black hole before any singularity forms to prevent it.

 

These are considerations before working with my own differential particle gravity solution so I am not looking for theoretical fixes to explain these problems. I have not done a lot of thinking before on the black hole for they reduce mass back to energy which is required for my solution.

 

Yet these questions can be asked of science, what prevents the energy passing straight through the black hole and why doesn`t the eneryg form hydrogen atoms insode the black hole?

 

john

jck

[jck]

Science is not about theory, theory is a collection of accademic explanations of observed and inferred data from all sources that conform to the set of criteria laid down by institutions regulating theories.

 

Science is about understanding the universe in any way possible where no stone is unturned and no view is left outside.

 

When questions are asked that theory cannot explain then other methods become just as valid, no answer from theory does not mean everyone sitting round for the next hundred years waiting for the theories to include an answer.

 

Should I consider theory then everything is in order, within the scope of theory, so I do not question that fact.

 

The space question cannot be answered by theory, I am at a loss to know exactly how space has conveniently been allowed remain uncertain before the universe was created.

 

There is abundant proof that space exists and no proof at all that it could not exist at anytime or anywhere.

 

Now while theory is restricted to the time after big bang what right has anyone to demand a proof of space before that time when it exists, there is no proof by theory that at anytime it can cease to exist except various theoretical solutions?

 

Somehow science has managed to convey the idea that nothing at all before big bang is a possibility, a miraid of ideas, all theoretical again, show anything but absolute space.

 

Theory has its place, it has no place before big bang as it can obtain no information before then so the status quo is that space existed before.The very unverifed scenarios that apparently any new theories are accused of run riot before big bang in the guise of theoretical models.

 

I am adamant that the space we have cannot simply be construed as possibily not existing before big bang by science that has no information or any scientic method that would support no space before the universe.

 

Space exists and as such the idea of no space is that which requires the specifications maintained by swansont regarding new theory.

 

If the space existed and there never was any universe no one would question that it must have always existed. The constricted view that the universe is all there is has no base in fact and yet once again the idea that space does not extend beyond the universe is conveyed as a possibility.

 

The space question comes before theory, it is here and as far as we know it is everywhere. The sole idea that space does not extend outside the universe or before big bang comes from within the science institutions simply to protect scientific method within the universe and after big bang.

 

The space question is a seperate issue to theory which only deals within the universe and has no voice outside that limit. To have anyone try and use theory to prevent a perfectly valid space before big bang and outside the universe purely because the theory has no place at those positions is self preservation for those theories.

 

Life is very simple, space at all times can be tested using the same physics as theory uses, in fact the physics being the same everywhere must include outside the universe and before the universe.

 

Here again science maintains that as far as we know the physics are the same everywhere and use that to support data from billions of light years away but will conveniently prevent this being tested to the maximum by automatically considering space apart from the universe.

 

E=mc squared tested to the maximum would have the same amount of energy required for the creation of the universe before that time but again science wants to control the use of this to within the universe where it suits the theory. Hardly a level playing field.

 

Space is the only question, if there was space before big bang and outside the universe the theory cannot hold up.

 

This is not a new theory, this is a solution to the dispute regarding whether space can not exist once it already does exist. The solution is certain space, a seperate perspective starting with space before big bang so that all the options are covered.

 

At this time the only option is there was "no before" the universe, how very convenient for theory.

 

There are theoretical models such as zero energy creation which imparts cause and effect at the same time and an immaculate conception scenario.

 

This ludicrous idea that science is uncertain that space existed before big bang so no one can work out a solution based on space before then simply because that is the rules and will not constitute science is fine by me because something so restrictive to lateral thinking is not what I consider science.

 

Not one accademic has even attempted to consider space existed before big bang and worked logically through the steps required to create a universe

using the slogan it is uncertain and not science.

 

Science is the understanding of the universe and how it came into being and how everything works the way it does, if anyone is not interested in the possibility that there was space before big bang fine they dont have to but do not insult everyone else by saying it is not science when theory has no answer to that question and has perpetuated the possibility that there was no space before big bang.

 

Space exists and once it exists there is no longer any option that it might not have existed at anytime. You cannot remove space without leaving a space in the same space.

 

That does not need any proof, it cannot be done.

 

john

jck