Theory of how our universe was created.

[KUKTLE]

#1 - The Creation of Our Universe

I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today. How this molecule was arranged and what it made leaves every man clueless. For know I'm just going to refer to it as an atom. So at one time our universe was an atom, something extremely dense (like an atom), something with the strongest force known that pulled in to keep itself together (like an atom).

 

This atom was split, then then created our universe and changing the physics all around it. From such the strongest force that mankind has ever made to happen, think of what would be going on at the atomic level within the area. For this to happen it would itself stretch time and space and continue to do so until the force from the explosion died off. This would create the vaccum of space. The immense pressure would also massively puncture time space and create massive black holes then form galaxies. "But how did it explode?" No one is entirely sure, but an atom is such a stable object that it is against the laws of physics for it to split on its own. There MUST be another force to act upon it in order for a split to occur. Think of it, our universe is an atom to an entirely different universe and the scale repeats and continues, its infinite. This scale goes infinitely bigger and infinitely smaller. So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom.

 

#2 - Time

You might have thought, "well if an atom explodes then it would just explode and massively separate too quickly for any life to exist. Because if i were to split an atom then everything it was made of would just transform energies or perish" Right? This is how it works. Here's an example if you were to spit an atom then you would create a universe that lived and died within less then a second of your life, but if you were to be living inside of that universe you created then it would take probly several billions of years for it to live and die for you. "How is that possible for time to move so fast for the person who split the atom but for you time goes massively slower?" Well let me explain this, Time is actually something that surrounds and takes up space and is intertwined with space very well.

 

Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion. Our galaxy, our solar sytem and our planet is constantly in motion. Meaning that it is nearly impossible to stop the clock of time. The faster you run the faster you go through time. Also the bigger you are the more you go through time because your covering more space, which makes you cover more time. So if you were in the universe that is above us you would be in a completely different Time Dimension (This is the only term I can think to call it but I don't find it to be an accurate name). Time would flow extremely different for the universe that created our universe. There's higher Time dimensions and lower Time dimensions. In the smaller Time dimension time flows alot slower then our time and in a higher Time dimension time would flow alot faster then ours. And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split.

 

 

--------------

 

 

 

Let me know what you think, I've never been able to find any factual information that disagrees with my theory. The only thing is in a previous debate with a physicist claimed that this would be impossible according to E=MC2. Well if Alberts theory is correct then The Big Bang Thoery would have been out of the question a long time ago. So this doesn't make sense to me and either there's a hole in my theory or Alberts.

 

Let me now if you can find flaws, I've studied chemistry, particle physics, cosmology and a couple others and I've never been able to find something that didn't completely agree with this theory.

[csmyth3025]

#1 - The Creation of Our Universe

I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today...

 

...Let me know what you think, I've never been able to find any factual information that disagrees with my theory. The only thing is in a previous debate with a physicist claimed that this would be impossible according to E=MC2. Well if Albert's theory is correct then The Big Bang Theory would have been out of the question a long time ago. So this doesn't make sense to me and either there's a hole in my theory or Albert's.

 

Let me know if you can find flaws, I've studied chemistry, particle physics, cosmology and a couple others and I've never been able to find something that didn't completely agree with this theory.

Regarding your first statement, I would refer you the the Wikipedia article on Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the applicable portion of which is as follows:

 

The key parameter which allows one to calculate the effects of BBN is the number of photons per baryon. This parameter corresponds to the temperature and density of the early universe and allows one to determine the conditions under which nuclear fusion occurs. From this we can derive elemental abundances. Although the baryon per photon ratio is important in determining elemental abundances, the precise value makes little difference to the overall picture. Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in mass abundances of about 75% of H-1, about 25% helium-4, about 0.01% of deuterium, trace (on the order of 10⁻¹⁰) amounts of lithium and beryllium, and no other heavy elements.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....nucleosynthesis )

 

Regarding your other conjectures and your claim that "...I've never been able to find any factual information that disagrees with my theory...", I can only say that you must be reading different books than I've been reading because I've never found any factual information that agrees with your theory.

 

On your claim that "...Well if Albert's theory is correct then The Big Bang Theory would have been out of the question a long time ago...", it's my understanding that General Relativity is an integral part of the big bang standard cosmological model. I'm completely baffled by your statement.

 

As a general observation, I would say that your ideas fall more into the category of speculation rather than Modern and Theoretical Physics. I haven't read any mainstream science articles or papers that share your views. If you can provide us with any references or links it would be helpful.

 

Chris

 

Edited to correct spelling errors

Edited August 20, 2011 by csmyth3025

[KUKTLE]

Well you wouldn't be able to find anything that would have anything to do with my theory honestly. What I've done is put a puzzle together and I'm not entirely sure what it is that you say disagrees with my theory. Though I'm not a college student, I do this more as a hobby of interest.

 

Also may I say that you didn't give me any information of that disagrees with this. A lot of my basis also comes from educational science shows. so I guess I could add a link from youtube if I'm capable of finding them.

 

But remember I'm asking for information that could entirely put my theory out of the question.

[csmyth3025]

Well you wouldn't be able to find anything that would have anything to do with my theory honestly. What I've done is put a puzzle together and I'm not entirely sure what it is that you say disagrees with my theory. Though I'm not a college student, I do this more as a hobby of interest.

 

Also may I say that you didn't give me any information of that disagrees with this. A lot of my basis also comes from educational science shows. so I guess I could add a link from youtube if I'm capable of finding them.

 

But remember I'm asking for information that could entirely put my theory out of the question.

Let's start with:

 

Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion. Our galaxy, our solar sytem and our planet is constantly in motion. Meaning that it is nearly impossible to stop the clock of time. The faster you run the faster you go through time. Also the bigger you are the more you go through time because your covering more space, which makes you cover more time.

 

If you run faster, you must be running faster relative to some person or object. In that case your time is slower than the time measured by that other person.

 

Writing the Lorentz transformation and its inverse in terms of coordinate differences, where for instance one event has coordinates (x₁,t₁) and (x'₁,t'₁), another event has coordinates (x₂,t₂) and (x'₂,t'₂), and the differences are defined as Δx = x₂ − x₁, Δt = t₂ − t₁, Δx' = x'₂ − x'₁, Δt' = t'₂ − t'₁ , we get

 

 

and

 

 

Suppose we have a clock at rest in the unprimed system S. Two different ticks of this clock occur at the same place in the unprimed system, i.e. Δx = 0. If we want to know the relation between the times between these ticks as measured in both systems, we can use the first equation and find:

 

for events satisfying

 

This shows that the time Δt' between the two ticks as seen in the frame S' is larger than the time Δt between these ticks as measured in the rest frame of the clock. This phenomenon is called time dilation: from the perspective of the S'-system, the clock at rest in the S-system is moving, and moving clocks run slow. Time dilation explains a number of physical phenomena; for example, the decay rate of muons produced by cosmic rays impinging on the Earth's atmosphere.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....gth_contraction )

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

Yes this also agrees with my theory, I apologize for wording it incorrectly. I said your moving faster through time, meaning time is ticking at a faster rate making it slower for you. The whole time slow and fast factor always gets my tongue in a not sometimes.

[csmyth3025]

Yes this also agrees with my theory, I apologize for wording it incorrectly. I said your moving faster through time, meaning time is ticking at a faster rate making it slower for you. The whole time slow and fast factor always gets my tongue in a not sometimes.

(bold added by me)

 

A person's time (his proper time in his frame of reference) is always the same: it passes at the rate of one second per second. If you say that time is ticking faster (or slower), it must be ticking faster (or slower) relative to someone else's frame of reference.

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

We all have a mechanism in our brains that perceives time for our conscience. This continues to vary and change as you live. Sometimes it slows down, sometimes it speeds up.

 

 

I'm sorry no offense to anyone but could someone please make a comment that can actually help my theory? Or even help disprove it? So far it's just been a bunch of crap that's nearly useless/pointless.

[Realitycheck]

Big Bang was quark gluon plasma, only produced in the latest colliders at superhigh temperatures. When it cools, it assembles into hydrogen atoms.

[csmyth3025]

...I'm sorry no offense to anyone but could someone please make a comment that can actually help my theory? Or even help disprove it? So far it's just been a bunch of crap that's nearly useless/pointless.

Since it's your theory it's incumbent upon you to check the predictions that it makes against experimental evidence. For instance, does the Earth travel through time faster than the Moon (because the moon is smaller than the Earth)? We've had astronauts on the Moon several times. It seems to me that the effect you describe would have been noticed.

 

Perhaps this is something you should investigate.

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

This affect has been noticed by astronauts, they've actually sent clocks into space in orbit and they've noticed that when they return to earth the clock that was in space is about 3 - 8 seconds further in time. Traveling through time is not very sensitive at all so if you travel to the moon and say it did pas through time at a slower or faster rate then when you come back to earth the difference would be in minutes at most but very unlikely to be that much. So it wouldn't be noticed by your own perception unless you hit speeds that we have yet to achieve.

 

 

[csmyth3025]

This affect has been noticed by astronauts, they've actually sent clocks into space in orbit and they've noticed that when they return to earth the clock that was in space is about 3 - 8 seconds further in time. Traveling through time is not very sensitive at all so if you travel to the moon and say it did pas through time at a slower or faster rate then when you come back to earth the difference would be in minutes at most but very unlikely to be that much. So it wouldn't be noticed by your own perception unless you hit speeds that we have yet to achieve.

 

 

 

If I understand your theory correctly, a "bigger" object (more massive, I assume) moves faster through time. A satellite is much smaller than the Earth. How is it that the orbiting clock seemed to have moved faster through time than the Earth?

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

If I understand your theory correctly, a "bigger" object (more massive, I assume) moves faster through time. A satellite is much smaller than the Earth. How is it that the orbiting clock seemed to have moved faster through time than the Earth?

 

Chris

 

There's several ways to move faster through time, the key element is to "cover" more time. Either by being more massive or reaching such a great speed that your covering more time per second. A satellite travels at about 17,000 MPH, at this speed with several weeks of orbit the satellites clock will be 2-3 minutes ahead of our clocks on earth.

 

so you cover time by size and by speed, this isn't a very delicate procedure though. You must be either extremely massive or be moving extremely fast to notice any kind of difference.

[csmyth3025]

There's several ways to move faster through time, the key element is to "cover" more time. Either by being more massive or reaching such a great speed that your covering more time per second. A satellite travels at about 17,000 MPH, at this speed with several weeks of orbit the satellites clock will be 2-3 minutes ahead of our clocks on earth.

 

so you cover time by size and by speed, this isn't a very delicate procedure though. You must be either extremely massive or be moving extremely fast to notice any kind of difference.

I'm afraid you've got your "faster and "slower" turned upside down. The reasons you think these effects occur are just plain wrong. The numbers you cite are off by a factor of 150,000:

 

Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of

 

 

, or result in a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(-10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable.

 

When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day,...

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity )

 

Note that "speed" results in orbiting clocks ticking slower than stationary clocks. The stronger gravity at the stationary clock's location on Earth ("more massive") causes the clocks on Earth to run even slower (not faster) than the clocks on the satellite. In three weeks (21 days) this would result in a net discrepancy of 798 microseconds (about 0.8 milliseconds). This is the amount of time that an orbiting GPS clock would "gain' on a stationary clock on Earth in three weeks. The two minutes you cite is about 150,000 times larger than 0.8 milliseconds.

 

BTW, these GPS satellites have an orbital velocity of 8,639 mph (about 3.86 km/s) at an altitude of 12,600 miles. The 17,000 mph figure you cite is the orbital velocity usually given for the Space Shuttle at a nominal orbital altitude of about 320 miles.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_orbiter#Shuttle_Orbiter_Specifications )

 

You're going to have to come up with calculations that show how your theory predicts the results observed in the operation of our GPS navigational system if you expect it to have any credibility.

 

You might want to study existing (relativity) theory to see how these effects are explained.

 

Chris

 

Edited to add reference for Space Shuttle velocity.

Edited September 5, 2011 by csmyth3025

[KUKTLE]

I'm afraid you've got your "faster and "slower" turned upside down. The reasons you think these effects occur are just plain wrong. The numbers you cite are off by a factor of 150,000:

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity )

 

Note that "speed" results in orbiting clocks ticking slower than stationary clocks. The stronger gravity at the stationary clock's location on Earth ("more massive") causes the clocks on Earth to run even slower (not faster) than the clocks on the satellite. In three weeks (21 days) this would result in a net discrepancy of 798 microseconds (about 0.8 milliseconds). This is the amount of time that an orbiting GPS clock would "gain' on a stationary clock on Earth in three weeks. The two minutes you cite is about 150,000 times larger than 0.8 milliseconds.

 

BTW, these GPS satellites have an orbital velocity of 8,639 mph (about 3.86 km/s) at an altitude of 12,600 miles. The 17,000 mph figure you cite is the orbital velocity usually given for the Space Shuttle at a nominal orbital altitude of about 320 miles.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia...._Specifications )

 

You're going to have to come up with calculations that show how your theory predicts the results observed in the operation of our GPS navigational system if you expect it to have any credibility.

 

You might want to study existing (relativity) theory to see how these effects are explained.

 

Chris

 

Edited to add reference for Space Shuttle velocity.

 

 

 

Okay well thank you for correcting my miswording. Yes the clock inside the satellite would actually tick at a slower rate, but the time around the satellite would stay at the same pace so the satellite is still moving faster through time, just with a slower clock. Yes I also had my speed of a satellite wrong. But could you come up with any evidence that says the big bang came from an atom (or molecule) is physically impossible? Could you come up with the evidence saying that the universe would live and die in less then a second than the universe above it would be irrational? Could you come up with evidence to say that if we were to destroy an atom (or molecule) then there's no possible chance it would be logical to create a universe within its area?

Thank you for making some corrections I made that I didn't word properly and you are correct and I know that, but still no one has said any kind of evidence that this wouldn't be possible.

[IM Egdall]

Okay well thank you for correcting my miswording. Yes the clock inside the satellite would actually tick at a slower rate, but the time around the satellite would stay at the same pace so the satellite is still moving faster through time, just with a slower clock. Yes I also had my speed of a satellite wrong. But could you come up with any evidence that says the big bang came from an atom (or molecule) is physically impossible? Could you come up with the evidence saying that the universe would live and die in less then a second than the universe above it would be irrational? Could you come up with evidence to say that if we were to destroy an atom (or molecule) then there's no possible chance it would be logical to create a universe within its area?

Thank you for making some corrections I made that I didn't word properly and you are correct and I know that, but still no one has said any kind of evidence that this wouldn't be possible.

 

 

Ah, with all due respect, science doesn't work that way. You don't just propose some new theory and then say there is no evidence to say it is not possible. You have to propose a new theory and make specific new predictions. When these new predictions are shown to be correct by new experiments, measurements, observations --- then your new theory gets the attention of scientists. The burden of "proof" is on you to show the validity of your idea, not on the rest of us to show that it is impossible.

 

marksmodernphysics.com

Edited September 6, 2011 by IM Egdall

[csmyth3025]

...But could you come up with any evidence that says the big bang came from an atom (or molecule) is physically impossible?...

The big bang standard cosmological model says nothing about the state of the universe prior to about 10^-36 seconds after the big bang itself.. Are you claiming to have evidence that supports the idea that the big bang came from an atom (or a molecule)?

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

I've studied quantum physics and cosmology as a long with many other sciences and from everything they say my theory would be correct. It can even be added to string theory and if accepted instead of laughed at and the onlooker had an open mind to research for not even an hour, they wouldn't be able to find anything that would disprove this. This also does answer many questions people have about the universe.

 

It's nearly impossible to have evidence for this without being able to split an atom and watching it in slow motion, which is impossible for us at the moment. I'm just saying there's nothing out there that proves this wrong. It agrees with all physics, I don't know why no one has ever thought of it before.

 

Ah, with all due respect, science doesn't work that way. You don't just propose some new theory and then say there is no evidence to say it is not possible. You have to propose a new theory and make specific new predictions. When these new predictions are shown to be correct by new experiments, measurements, observations --- then your new theory gets the attention of scientists. The burden of "proof" is on you to show the validity of your idea, not on the rest of us to show that it is impossible.

 

marksmodernphysics.com

 

 

Okay thank you for the informative response, now what kind of predictions can I make to validate this theory? The only thing I can think of is to watch the behavior of an atom split, not much else. The whole time thing is already in modern science and well accepted I just did my description backwards is all.

[csmyth3025]

Okay thank you for the informative response, now what kind of predictions can I make to validate this theory? The only thing I can think of is to watch the behavior of an atom split, not much else. The whole time thing is already in modern science and well accepted I just did my description backward is all.

What I'm asking is that you show the quantitative calculations by which your theory arrives at the same time dilation (38 microseconds per day) that calculations based on Special and General relativity predict for clocks on our GPS satellites.

 

Your theory predicts that things that move "faster" (through space) will travel through time faster. Special relativity predicts that an outside observer will see a moving clock run slow by a very specific amount as determined by the relative velocity between the observer and the moving clock:

 

 

 

Your theory predicts that things that are "bigger" will move through time faster. General relativity predicts that a clock on a massive planet will run "slow" by a very specific amount as determined by the amount of of mass contained in the planet ("bigger" = slower):

 

 

In order for your hypotheses - and your theory - to have any credibility you will have to show your calculations that predict the observations that our GPS gives us every day. One of the many reasons that the Special and General relativity theories are widely accepted is that calculations (as noted above) - which are based on those theories - do predict our GPS observations with a very high degree of accuracy.

 

In your post #1 you said:

 

Let me know if you can find flaws, I've studied chemistry, particle physics, cosmology and a couple others and I've never been able to find something that didn't completely agree with this theory

 

So far your theory includes absolutely no quantitative analysis (mathematical formulae), it says that "bigger" things move though time faster in spite of clear evidence that time on a "bigger" things is slower, and it says that moving faster (through space) means that one also moves faster through time in spite of clear evidence that moving clocks run slower. These things do not "completely agree with this theory".

 

Even if we accept your claim that "...I just did my description backward is all...", how would your re-written theory explain the much slower clocks on the surface of a neutron star (radius = ~12 km) compared to those on the surface of the much bigger Earth (radius = ~6,300 km). No matter how you reverse the wording of your theory it will conflict with existing experiments and observations.

 

 

How many flaws in your theory do you want us to list before you decide to study existing relativity theory in order to understand what these theories actually say and the tremendous amount of experimental and observational evidence that makes them so widely accepted?

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

What I'm asking is that you show the quantitative calculations by which your theory arrives at the same time dilation (38 microseconds per day) that calculations based on Special and General relativity predict for clocks on our GPS satellites.

 

Your theory predicts that things that move "faster" (through space) will travel through time faster. Special relativity predicts that an outside observer will see a moving clock run slow by a very specific amount as determined by the relative velocity between the observer and the moving clock:

 

 

 

Your theory predicts that things that are "bigger" will move through time faster. General relativity predicts that a clock on a massive planet will run "slow" by a very specific amount as determined by the amount of of mass contained in the planet ("bigger" = slower):

 

 

In order for your hypotheses - and your theory - to have any credibility you will have to show your calculations that predict the observations that our GPS gives us every day. One of the many reasons that the Special and General relativity theories are widely accepted is that calculations (as noted above) - which are based on those theories - do predict our GPS observations with a very high degree of accuracy.

 

In your post #1 you said:

 

 

 

So far your theory includes absolutely no quantitative analysis (mathematical formulae), it says that "bigger" things move though time faster in spite of clear evidence that time on a "bigger" things is slower, and it says that moving faster (through space) means that one also moves faster through time in spite of clear evidence that moving clocks run slower. These things do not "completely agree with this theory".

 

Even if we accept your claim that "...I just did my description backward is all...", how would your re-written theory explain the much slower clocks on the surface of a neutron star (radius = ~12 km) compared to those on the surface of the much bigger Earth (radius = ~6,300 km). No matter how you reverse the wording of your theory it will conflict with existing experiments and observations.

 

 

How many flaws in your theory do you want us to list before you decide to study existing relativity theory in order to understand what these theories actually say and the tremendous amount of experimental and observational evidence that makes them so widely accepted?

 

Chris

 

 

Yes you are correct the clock does more slower we've gotten that across, but when a clock is moving slower its aging slower making time outside seem to move faster. This is why if you travel at the speed of light you end up in future and instead of barely had moved through time at all. Though I would appreciate it if you could explain to me everything in my theory that is flawed. If that wouldn't bother you that is.

[csmyth3025]

...Though I would appreciate it if you could explain to me everything in my theory that is flawed. If that wouldn't bother you that is.

Show me your calculations that describe the effects that "bigger", "smaller", "faster" and "slower" have on clocks in GPS satellites and clocks on Earth. Then we can talk about specific flaws in your theory. Your theory has to make predictions that are testable. In this case we already have the test data. Now we need your theory and its predictions.

 

Chris

[KUKTLE]

Well I'm not a major in Math or Physics so I probably wouldn't even know where to begin with finding formulae to describe my through so I guess it'll never be credible.

[DevilSolution]

#1 - The Creation of Our Universe

I begin with agreeing with The Big Bag Theory, But with a little addition. The universe used to be an atom but more than likely a molecule, one mostly made of Hydrogen and that contains all the elements that we know of today. How this molecule was arranged and what it made leaves every man clueless. For know I'm just going to refer to it as an atom. So at one time our universe was an atom, something extremely dense (like an atom), something with the strongest force known that pulled in to keep itself together (like an atom).

 

This atom was split, then then created our universe and changing the physics all around it. From such the strongest force that mankind has ever made to happen, think of what would be going on at the atomic level within the area. For this to happen it would itself stretch time and space and continue to do so until the force from the explosion died off. This would create the vaccum of space. The immense pressure would also massively puncture time space and create massive black holes then form galaxies. "But how did it explode?" No one is entirely sure, but an atom is such a stable object that it is against the laws of physics for it to split on its own. There MUST be another force to act upon it in order for a split to occur. Think of it, our universe is an atom to an entirely different universe and the scale repeats and continues, its infinite. This scale goes infinitely bigger and infinitely smaller. So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom.

 

#2 - Time

You might have thought, "well if an atom explodes then it would just explode and massively separate too quickly for any life to exist. Because if i were to split an atom then everything it was made of would just transform energies or perish" Right? This is how it works. Here's an example if you were to spit an atom then you would create a universe that lived and died within less then a second of your life, but if you were to be living inside of that universe you created then it would take probly several billions of years for it to live and die for you. "How is that possible for time to move so fast for the person who split the atom but for you time goes massively slower?" Well let me explain this, Time is actually something that surrounds and takes up space and is intertwined with space very well.

 

Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion. Our galaxy, our solar sytem and our planet is constantly in motion. Meaning that it is nearly impossible to stop the clock of time. The faster you run the faster you go through time. Also the bigger you are the more you go through time because your covering more space, which makes you cover more time. So if you were in the universe that is above us you would be in a completely different Time Dimension (This is the only term I can think to call it but I don't find it to be an accurate name). Time would flow extremely different for the universe that created our universe. There's higher Time dimensions and lower Time dimensions. In the smaller Time dimension time flows alot slower then our time and in a higher Time dimension time would flow alot faster then ours. And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split.

 

 

"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then.....

 

HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.

 

 

" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.

 

"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?

 

Well I'm not a major in Math or Physics so I probably wouldn't even know where to begin with finding formulae to describe my through so I guess it'll never be credible.

 

Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.

[csmyth3025]

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

 

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

(ref.

http://en.wikipedia....ical_definition

)

 

I think under the present circumstances that your theory has to be considered speculation - or, at best, a hypothesis - until such time that you can develop it enough to match the descriptive and predictive power of existing theories.

 

I would urge you to study some of these existing theories to see how they were developed and the exactness with which they're presented. A good place to start would be the Wikipedia article "Introduction to Special Relativity", here:

http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity

 

Chris

 

[Mystery111]

"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then.....

 

HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.

 

 

" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.

 

"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?

 

 

 

Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.

 

The universe does not have an exact defined energy. For that to be so, someone would need to be sitting outside of the universe to measure the energy.

[khaled]

The universe does not have an exact defined energy. For that to be so, someone would need to be sitting outside of the universe to measure the energy.

 

In theoretical physics, you can know the total energy in the universe .. The zero energy theory, since we have symmetries that cancel each others,

we get a total energy of Zero .. when we say the total energy is Zero, some people think it's wrong, but the expansion for one

to understand this is that there are amounts of positive and negative energies, NOT that it means there is no energy in the universe!

 

Also, scientists found clever methods to calculate things that are difficult to think about, such as total energy in the universe,

total matter in the universe, and even the energy of nothing! they didn't have to go measure it, they took the other way in ...