andreasjva Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1.Because there would be nothing but itself to compare to, its mass value could also be defined as 1.Mass is another way in which we define potential energy.The potential energy of that mass could also be considered 1, because once again, it would only be comparable to itself in that singular state, and mass is the equivalence of energy as Einstein proved in e=mc^2.What we lack in an empty universe though, is a constant, so 1=1C^2 can't be verified as a legitimate resolve. Although it is easy to know the answer is either a 1 or a -1. We don't know what that means though, so it all just sounds like nonsense.If the universe were frozen in time, the sum total of all the mass in the universe could be represented as a value of 1. Its energy could also be stated as 1 when comparing it to itself in that frozen state. You could say that the universe is possibly the result of an infinite empty universe, because an infinite empty universe only possesses a potential value. That potential is always 1.I think the universe is a result of the potential in infinity.What we need is a constant in a potentially infinite empty universe to prove this though, and that value needs to be represented in the value of 1 or -1, because both the mass and energy of that state is being defined by 1.So, what properties within our universe are theorized to have been around since the beginning of time?Expansion and gravity.I would propose that expansion is a natural condition or process or phenomena, with or without our finite universe. The force of this process is omnidirectional, and it can be stated as +∞.For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and we experience that reaction as gravity within our universe. That force can be described as -∞.Because there is an equivalency between these forces, we can determine a constant at +∞/-∞=-1.The constant in a potentially empty but infinite universe is -1.So, 1=1*-1^2. We are the result of the inherent potential within infinity.Although I personally can't prove this, I am stating as a point in fact that we will find an inverse equivalency between expansion and gravity. How that propagates within our universe, I don't know. All I've ever wanted to know was the fundamental answers. The details are well over my head. I claim the forces are equal and opposite though, and this will be determined true. And this is the reason it is true.The way I think it works on the most basic fundamental level, is that these natural forces of gravity and expansion over lay each other, and our universe exists in the middle at 4 pi r^2 (surface area of a sphere) because they are both omnidirectional. The reason we exist is because of pi. It is an imperfection in geometry which allows the forces to be put to work in creating a universe. If pi had a finite result, the forces would cancel each other out, and nothing would happen. An empty universe would stagnate in perfect balance or a state of equilibrium, resulting in no chance of a material universe.Randomness, evolution, and uncertainty, are all a result of this ongoing or perpetual process. The universe is more or less a pi calculator. We can never know what the future holds with any certainty, because the next digit of pi hasn't been resolved yet. Our universe is always a finite result of an infinite problem. There's always 1 more number that can be added to it. Infinity implies continual change, and we are the result of that continual change.
Strange Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1. Why? This is just a random assertion. You could equally well say that an empty universe has a potential value of -43.2. Because there would be nothing but itself to compare to, its mass value could also be defined as 1. If it is an empty universe, it mass is, by definition, zero. Mass is another way in which we define potential energy. No it isn't. Or, to put it another way: Citation Needed. so it all just sounds like nonsense. Seems like a good point to stop.
andreasjva Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Why? This is just a random assertion. You could equally well say that an empty universe has a potential value of -43.2 You could I suppose, but it would seem a little strange calling a singularity a -43.2. I think 1 is easier to manage. If it is an empty universe, it mass is, by definition, zero. It would be purely a singularity by definition, so it would more or less be 1 single piece of mass the size of the entire universe in that form. This is a potential state though, not an actual state. The energy has already been released in the form of a universe. No it isn't. Or, to put it another way: Citation Needed. Okay, let me put it another way. Any stationary body having mass has an equivelant amount of energy. Clearly, I'm talking about a stationary body called an empty universe, or singularity if you prefer. If you read further, you;d realize I was talking about a potential state that obviously doesn't/can;t exist, because we are here. It still had potential energy though, or we wouldn't exist. If I define the mass of this singularity as 1, it's mass energy would be equal to 1 as well. Then again, if I defined its mass as -43.2, its mass energy would be -43.2. Like I said, 1 is a bit easier to manage, and makes a lot more sense, seeing as it is the only element of this singular state. Edited January 6, 2015 by andreasjva
Strange Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 You could I suppose, but it would seem a little strange calling a singularity a -43.2. Where did the singularity come from? I thought you were talking about an empty universe. Something like this, perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model I think 1 is easier to manage. So it is just a number you made up. The energy has already been released in the form of a universe. If there is energy, in what sense is this universe "empty"? Clearly, I'm talking about a stationary body called an empty universe, or singularity if you prefer. Stationary relative to what? How can an empty universe be a body with mass? How can an empty universe be a singularity? It is almost as if you are just making this stuff up and throwing in some random buzzwords. If I define the mass of this singularity as 1, it's mass energy would be equal to 1 as well. If you define the speed of light to be 1 as well, yes. But so what. "Everything is 1". Wow, man.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, the value of 1 is an arbitrary assignment. Look, it's an imaginary potential state that could never be reached anyway, and only represents something versus nothing. I am arbitrarily calling that value 1. Why not? In the whole scheme of things our universe is merely a touch more than nothing, and 1 atom within our universe is a lot less than that touch of something. How me measure things in general is arbitrary and meaningless, but meaningful to us to establish a ponts of reference. Fussing about how I assign a value to a potential something state is irrelevant. I say, all the potential energy in that potentially empty universe represents a value of 1. Does it have mass? Who cares? The value would still be difinable as 1. It is a representation of something versus nothing. I see a property of that empty state, expansion, which makes that empty state an impossible reality. It can never happen. The real core of the issue is expansion and contraction that we experience in our universe. I am stating that contraction is Gravity, and gravity is an inverse function of expansion. They are equivelant in an inverse manner. I am making a prediction that physics will discover this eventually, and that is a function of infinite expansion. Since the beginning of time expansion has been present in our universe. That value has been rising perpertually since the begining of definable time, which pretty much defines our concept of an infinite number value. If that isn't definable as infinity in the real world, nothing is. Edited January 7, 2015 by andreasjva
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Strange, I gave your input a lot of thought, and I consider most of your argument baseless and irrelevant. I say that respectfully. Assigning a value of 1 is both proper and practical. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. All the energy in the universe is all we've got and there aint no more. Clearly, this value can be stated as a singular value of 1. Before the universe existed, we could also claim that the potential for the sum total of the entirey of our universe was also 1. If you would like me to compare our universe to that potential state based on arbitrary shards of existence 1 quanta of energy at a time like we do here, I would suggest to you that it is pointless, unnnecessary, impratractical, and impossible. Our universe could be trillions of light years in scale. We don't know. All I could say is good luck with that. The stated value of 1 works just fine. I will concede that my concept of a mass state of this potential empty universe may need a little work to interpret properly. In general though, it is a reasonable assumption for an unobservable and totally unporovable state that doesn't and couldn't exist anyway, and merely represents a potential state. It would also exceed the confines of our universe and would not be precisely definable in terms of its physical nature. It's a hunch, or educated guess. What it is doing is acting upon our universe in a discreet manner. It is also the catalyst for our existence, and still acting upon us in an infinite and/or perpetual manner. Popular theory suggests our universe was born from a random quantum flucuation within a random condensed point of energy. My question would be, where did this random point of energy muster up the additional energy to flucuate to begin with? Seems to me there is somewhat of a contradiction in the reasoning. The universe created itself? Or is it all the energy in the universe = 1 + 1 random quantum flucuation? When I look at the law, energy cannot be created or destroyed, I see equivelancy, not randomness. I also see two ends against a middle, acting equally in force in a constant manner. The result is always 1. I stick to my definition of the observations. Expansion can be represented as the positive nature of the universe, and gravity can be represented as the negative nature of the universe. Outside our universe I am defining those natural forces as +∞ and -∞, and because there is an equivelance in force they can be input into a formula (+∞/-∞=-1) to extract a finite value that represents the sum total of all the energy in the universe. That value is finite and unchangable, and it abides by the law, energy cannot be created or destroyed. We observe expansion, and we observe gravity. They are both real. To date, we have no practical explanation for either of these natural forces. They have both been present since the beginning of our definition of time. By definition, they both fit our logical concept of infinity as an ever changing numeric value that could be applied to these natural unexplained phenomena or forces. Edited January 7, 2015 by andreasjva
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) All the energy in the universe is all we've got and there aint no more. Not necessarily: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html We see photons from distant sources red-shifted, i.e. at lower energies. That energy hasn't "gone" anywhere. I has just disappeared. On the other hand, dark energy appears to be created as space expands. Clearly, this value can be stated as a singular value of 1. Among the reasons your initial post was confusing are: 1. You started out talking about an empty universe; but then you seem to be talking about a (our) universe full of mass and energy. So I am curious what you mean by the word "empty". 2. You seem to be using "singularity" in a rather non-standard way as well. So it might be helpful if you explained/defined what you mean by the term. (As it is, it sounds slightly Sherlockian, "This is a most singular case, Watson", rather than mathematical.) Outside our universe Is there an outside our universe? Isn't the universe "all there is" by definition? they can be input into a formula (+∞/-∞=-1) The value of +∞/-∞ is not -1, it is undefined. The value in the limit might be defined, depending how you derived this result. To date, we have no practical explanation for either of these natural forces. They are both described by the same Einstein Field Equations. You can, of course, always ask, "but why is the universe like that" but that is philosophy rather than science. I'm sorry if you find my attempts to help you clarify your ideas baseless and irrelevant. I do my best. Edited January 7, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Not necessarily: We see photons from distant sources red-shifted, i.e. at lower energies. That energy hasn't "gone" anywhere. I has just disappeared. On the other hand, dark energy appears to be created as space expands. I was following the law verbatum. What it means exactly is more subjective or dynamic in my view. I am proposing the universe exist between two natural forces of expansion and contraction, or gravity, and the result is always a finite amount of energy at any given point in time from which we choose to observe it. It is always a matter of perspective. No, we can't create or destroy energy, but my model implies continual change. 1 is more a dynamic value, but always finite in comparison. You can't create or destroy anything inside the universe, exactly as the law states. The energy that is present transforms into something else. Among the reasons your initial post was confusing are: 1. You started out talking about an empty universe; but then you seem to be talking about a (our) universe full of mass and energy. So I am curious what you mean by the word "empty". 2. You seem to be using "singularity" in a rather non-standard way as well. So it might be helpful if you explained/defined what you mean by the term. (As it is, it sounds slightly Sherlockian, "This is a most singular case, Watson", rather than mathematical.) Maybe it's simply a bad choice of wording. Empty universe implies a potentially static state with a potential value of 1. It would be more of an infinite state without motion, less our existence. It is an impossible or merely a potential state though, because a universe exists. I suppose the concept was a bit harder for an individual to imagine than I had anticipated. i didn't expect to have to explain this to the umpth degree, and it's proving to be somewhat of a challenge I suppose. I get it, but it is much more difficult conveying what I see. It's not really all that complicated though. No movement (motion), no energy. We exist, so this state cannot exist, and energy exists, so motion itself must be infnite in nature for energy to exist. That motion is expansion, and there is an infinite amount of space for expansion to occur. Beyond the sum total of the entirey of the whole universe there is nothing physical, except potential. Our universe is defined by this potential. It is more or less a perpetual conflict that lies between something and nothing. Something, or 1, can't exist in singular form, because that implies a state of equilibrium, and nothing would happen. Motion would be 1, energy would be 1, and mass would be 1. Nothing can't exist for more obvious reasons. In this reasonging, infinity must exist, because infinity represents a perpetually changing state of existence, or changing numeric value. We expereince this infinite state through expansion and contraction (gravity) as a finite result. Our universe is always viewed as finite at any given moment in time, or frame reference, but it is perpetually changing. s there an outside our universe? Isn't the universe "all there is" by definition? As I stated above. What lies outside our universe is merely potential, and there is an infinite volume to draw on. It's not nothing, but it isn't really definable as something unitl it's a part of the universe. We are expanding into the potential. The value of +∞/-∞ is not -1, it is undefined. The value in the limit might be defined, depending how you derived this result. Yes, value can be defined. +x/-x=-1. I am clearly stating there is a natural equivelancy between the forces. What x represents is irrelevant. The answer is always a finite result. What precisely -1 represents from inside the universe depends on what we're comparing that value to. Our existence is a fraction of the sum total of that finite value. It may look different from within our unvierse, but all the pieces added togther will always equal 1 at any given moment in time. They are both described by the same Einstein Field Equations. You can, of course, always ask, "but why is the universe like that" but that is philosophy rather than science. I'm sorry if you find my attempts to help you clarify your ideas baseless and irrelevant. I do my best. I'm not being philosophical. I'm stating as a point in fact that science will determine an inverse equivelance bewteen expansion and gravity. That's not philosophy, that's a prediction. I didn't mean to come across negatively. I apologiize. I thrive on debate, and it does indeed help me clarify my thoughts without question. I would much rather be challenged than agreed with blindly. And I always hold the right to retract or alter my thoughts if there is legitimate error in them. My difficulty is more in the explaining part at this point. Edited January 7, 2015 by andreasjva
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I was following the law verbatum. What it means exactly is more subjective or dynamic in my view. I am proposing the universe exist between two natural forces of expansion and contraction, or gravity, and the result is always a finite amount of energy at any given point in time from which we choose to observe it. It is always a matter of perspective. No, we can't create or destroy energy, but my model implies continual change. 1 is more a dynamic value, but always finite in comparison. You can't create or destroy anything inside the universe, exactly as the law states. The energy that is present transforms into something else. So you didn't read those articles explaining that energy is NOT conserved? I suppose the concept was a bit harder for an individual to imagine than I had anticipated. i didn't expect to have to explain this to the umpth degree, and it's proving to be somewhat of a challenge I suppose. I get it, but it is much more difficult conveying what I see. That is why we use mathematics; so much less ambiguous than words. Yes, value can be defined. +x/-x=-1. Not when x = infinity or zero.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 Not when x = infinity or zero. So, if x=pi, the result is what exactly? I am stating that the universe possess only two natural forces of infnite value that are equal and opposite. My x/-x=-1 are in reference to these natural forces, exactly as one might consider -pi and +pi would be equal in a value of -1. In this purely potential universe I am refering to, +∞/-∞=-1 is the only real way to describe it appropriately. I state that knowing full well it will be rejected by most. I am calling infinity a state with two physical properties that are equal and opposite in nature, so it is what it is. I stand by it, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Those forces are experienced as expansion and gravity within the physical universe in which we exist. If you'd you'd like to label them as (g)ravity and (e)xpansion inside the universe, you are free to do so. They would still possess infinite values as pi does though. I think I refered to the universe as a pi calculator. 0 is an imaginery number. Clearly "nothing" is an indivisibal state in the natural world. I am not suggesting it is divisible. That would be a futile and pointless endeavor.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So, if x=pi, the result is what exactly? Huh? Pi is not zero or infinity, so the division is well-defined in that case.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 That is why we use mathematics; so much less ambiguous than words. There isn't much math to consider at this level unfortunately. It's ether something or nothing, or a 0 or 1. The universes true value can be stated as 1, and we are a fraction of that value. What exactly that number represents becomes exponentially more difficult to define when trying to use the shards of existence we're accustomed to using. How does 1 compare to a photon? I don't know, and honestly, I don't care a whole lot. I'm just looking at the fundamental cause of the problem, not the details of the universe. I don't know how any of this applies to the details of individual problems we are trying to solve. There is an equivelence, or a direct relationship between gravity and expansion. I am stating there is an equivelance property. Dark energy is expansion, and gravity is contraction.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Dark energy is expansion Dark energy is hypothesized as the reason for accelerating expansion. Expansion happens without it.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 Pi is not zero or infinity, so the division is well-defined in that case. Pi is considered to possess an infinite value, as I am claiming both expansion and contraction are definable. They will be found to be equal and opposite forces, and as divisable as pi, which is also infinite in nature. I also stated the reason we exist is because of pi. Pi is an integral part of the process. I realize no one has ever tried to consider +∞ or -∞, but I do consider it relevant. Infinity is used as a variable to define unresovable numeric values in formaulas or expressions. It has many different meanings to us currently, and I understand that. In an infinite state void of a universe, it has a very specific meaning in my view. It represents a positive and negative force caught in a perpetual tug-of-war, which is all that state can contain. We are the result, or the constant of that potential infinite state. The geomoetry between them is imperfect, which allows the energy to be put to work in creating a universe.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I'm sorry but with the number of words that you are redfining (empty, singularity, universe, infinity, energy, ...) and the bogus mathematics, I am going to give up at this point. But ... why Pi, why not e, or root 2, or any of the other infinite number of irrational numbers?
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 But ... why Pi, why not e, or root 2, or any of the other infinite number of irrational numbers? Expansion and constraction are omnidirectional forces, so they oppose each other in a spherical manner. That would create a natural spin or torque as we observe in nature. That's why. Pi is an imperfection in spherical shapes, so a sphere is naturally imperfect. It can fracture and release energy. I'm sorry but with the number of words that you are redfining (empty, singularity, universe, infinity, energy, ...) and the bogus mathematics I'm not redifing anything. I am however, defining infinity as a potential state. What math is bogus? x/-x=-1?
Delta1212 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Pi is considered to possess an infinite value No, it is considered to possess a value between 3.14 and 3.15, which last time so checked, infinity does not fall between. It possesses an infinite number of decimal places when written in decimal notation, but that's really an arbitrary choice for how to write numbers. It can be more accurately expressed as π which involves no infinity of places whatsoever. Either way, pi does not equal infinity and you cannot pretend that it does.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 No, it is considered to possess a value between 3.14 and 3.15 Yes, that's true. There are also an infinite number of unique values to pi that we can ascertain, so you can never know its precise value. It is irrelevant though, because we can trust that its answer will be divisible by itself to return a value of 1. I am stating that expansion and contraction holds the same simple truth as pi, even though you can never know the actual value. The actual value is a irrelevant as 0. All we need to know is that there is natural expansive force which is equal and opposite to its counter force of contraction. You are making this way too complicated. It is a very simple process of natural omnidirectional forces opposing each other in the middle, and the result is 1, or a universe.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Yes, that's true. There are also an infinite number of unique values to pi that we can ascertain No. Pi has one single value. Expansion and constraction are omnidirectional forces The expansion of the universe is not a force. It is what happens in the absence of force. I'm not redifing anything. Empty = full of energy and matter - not the usual definition. Singularity = I'm not sure what you think this means, but clearly not the usual definition. Infinity = "an ever changing numeric value", a potential state, pi, ... none of which are the usual definition. And so on. What math is bogus? x/-x=-1? When x = infinity or zero, yes. Edited January 7, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 No. Pi has one single value. Maybe so, but it still doesn't negate the fact that it will take an infinite amount of time to know the precise answer, because there is an infinite number of unique decimal places. I was simply considering each resolution or decimal place a unique value. I assumed you would have understood what I meant. But yes, we can know pi is divisble by itself, exactly as we can know expansion and contraction is equal and opposite, without knowing what that value truly is.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Maybe so, but it still doesn't negate the fact that it will take an infinite amount of time to know the precise answer, because there is an infinite number of unique decimal places. No. It would take an infinite amount of time to express it as a decimal integer. But that is nothing to do with its value, which can be expressed precisely in a finite time. Perhaps you should go and do an introductory maths course and learn some basic concepts before taking nonsense about infinity. Edited January 7, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 It would take an infinite amount of time to express it as a decimal integer. Do you enjoy rewriting what I've already stated? But that is nothing to do with its value, which can be expressed precisely in a finite time. Yes, pi is good. And the more accurate we are in defining it, the more accruate we can be in a calculation. Admittedly, 200+ billion decimal places is a bit extreme, and probably a bit of overkill.
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Do you enjoy rewriting what I've already stated? I didn't. I corrected you.
swansont Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 ! Moderator Note Please review the guidelines for posting here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ Thus far I'm not seeing much in the way of a model, or any kind of testable predictions.
andreasjva Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 I didn't. I corrected you. which can be expressed precisely in a finite time No, you didn't do any such thing. but let me correct you. Pi can be approximated in finite time with a symbol. Its absolute value in that symbol is only as accurate as the defined value you choose to use in the actual calaculation, or however many digits your computer is using to define it. But if you just want to keep debating semantics, and that's all you really have to offer, I would say this conversation is pretty much done. I stand by my original prediction. Expansion and gravity will be determined as equal and opposite forces. And the reason is exactly what I stated in the original post.
Recommended Posts