JohnSSM Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Not equal values. But the same thing - the same mechanism. It depends on the energy density of the universe. It used to be assumed that an eventual collapse and "big bounce" was a possibility, but the discovery of dark energy makes that seem unlikely now. The only mechanism I can guess to answer is GR...
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The only mechanism I can guess to answer is GR... Give that man a cigar!
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I'm curious. This is really a GR view of the universe on steroids. Is it that hard to believe we flipped the problem around 100 years ago? This is more or less a mirror image of the way we've been thinking about the universe, and in my view it really wouldn't be all that different from what we observe now. We've spent the past 100 years trying to prove the universe is expanding, not looking at the inverse possibility. It's the difference between 1 or -1. EXPANSION <----(+c)-----\-----(-c)-----> GRAVITY OFFSET +C/-C = -1. There is an offset between the natural forces of expansion and gravity which creates a natural torque energy or rotary motion. Mass lives primarily on the -C side of the problem. Massless particles live primarily on the +C side, and/or flip back and forth between the two. That offset between the forces can push in either direction, but the value always remains -1 between the two sides. Push matter towards -C and it condenses. Push it towards +C and it expands. There is no 0 between the forces, only energy as we experience it, which is more than likely a form of torque. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to define mass or light to the umpteenth degree. All I'm looking to accomplish is gain a basic logical fundamental understanding of the process. And to be clear, I think the -1 value is a bit more dynamic in reality. It means something different depending on time and your perspective. That perspective always remains more of a static viewpoint though, or fixed perspective.I think rotary motion would be more the reality of the process. Push mass towards +C and it spins faster. Push it towards -C and it spins slower. The centrifugal force expands or contracts the circumference. Gravity and expansion are always on the rise so there's a constant input of energy into the system keeping everything moving. The -1 value represents our relative view of nature. It is a fixed perspective which makes it incredibly difficult for us to understand the underlying reality. Which is a good thing, because the universe probably wouldn't make sense any other way. Time is the difference between the action and the reaction in the process. Expansion is the action, and contraction is the reaction, and there is an inherent delay between them. The further the distance between the two the longer the interval of time. Absolute expansion would represent the slowest possible interval, and absolute contraction would represent the shortest possible interval. When I say absolute expansion, I refer to a potential value of 1. When I say absolute contraction, I refer to a potential value of 0. The faster we travel the closer we move towards expansion, and the further away we are from the reaction in the process. Time slows. The slower we go the closer we move toward the reaction, or the contractive process, so time speeds up. It's a very simple logic. Everything though, rides along the same 2-dimensional line between expansion and contraction. Think about it. Time is not its own temporal dimension, it's a tangible physical property of matter. Everything is part of the same whole, including time. This is the arrow of time, and it always points in one direction, because nothing can exceed the rate of expansion to become the totality of existence, and to head beyond the other direction that something would cease to exist. It's very simple and straight forward reasoning. I was thinking about virtual quantum particles in the vacuum, and how they pop in and out of existence. I then began applying my newly formed fundamental understanding of time to those particles. Suppose your universe existed in a quantum particle, hypothetically speaking of course.Because you are right on the very extreme edge of the contraction process from my perspective, time for you relative to me, is moving at an almost inconceivable rate. For you though, you've lived a full life, got married, had kids, etc etc. By chance, you were also a renowned theoretical physicist in your little quantum blip of a universe, and you were trying to figure out how the universe came to be, and how long the universe had been around, etc, etc. How would you see the universe compared to me?For me, 1 second is 1 second, and it will always be 1 second. I am absolutely certain of this fact from my point of view. For you 1 second is also 1 second, and you are absolutely certain of that fact. For me, the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Do you think that would be the same perspective for you? My guess would be, yes, that is precisely how you would understand the universe. That makes me wonder about the relevance of our own perspectives. We're both right, but we're both dramatically wrong. I think the universe may be static, exactly as Einstein had originally considered. Well, maybe not quite exactly as he thought, but still static in nature as far as the totality of its existence goes. We may see that potential beginning and ending from our perspective, but it's not a real destination for the whole of the universe. The potential for the totality of absolute something and absolute nothing is exactly that, potential. We are merely the stored energy in that potential. From any perspective, I'm guessing the universe appears to have begun approximately 13.7 billion years ago. I'm guessing that number is going to have a mathematical significance in physics. Although, I think we're studying an apparition to some extent. We're studying a what if, and what might be, but what actually never was and will never be, although it probably will for us. The universe is infinite. Science is right on one hand, but dramatically wrong on the other. Coincidentally, and in further thinking, I could be profoundly right about the sum total of the universe, but dramatically wrong about our own perspective on the universe as it may relate to a quantum fluctuation. I see how it could possibly be a quantum fluctuation, although the idea of randomness is somewhat of a conflict in my mind still, because it was caused by expansion and contraction which stems from an equality. It's not random, rather an indeterminate result due to the sheer complexity of the problem. Consider our perspective like one might consider a bouncing ball. The intervals of time become smaller and smaller with each bounce, until all time and motion stops, and we cease to exist. If this is an isolated or compartmentalized universe within the totality of the universe, our beginning was more like a big bounce, and that first bounce was the totality of our universal domain in which we perceive the universe, and we've been losing a bit of time with each bounce The intervals of time are accelerating in the process exactly as we might watch a bouncing ball, until that ball comes to rest. Our rest point represents the end of our perceived universe though. Eventually we'll just blip off the radar screen of another universe as we might see a virtual quantum particle blip out in our own. ------ If we're contracting, then time would also be accelerating. I suspect the acceleration we see in the redshift is related to accelerating time intervals, and expansion is the redshift from contraction. Hard to say which is which for certain though. This is why we notice the acceleration in the expansion though, whichever the cause. I don't understand enough about the detection process to speculate much further about which would cause either in the results. I understand it fundamentally or in general terms. ------- Another thought I'm having at the moment is galactic spin, and how accelerated time and condensing mass might alter our perception of dark matter as related to galaxies. I understand the spin rate is too high, and galaxies should fly apart. I've never attempted to hypothesize what any of it means on a fundamental level though. This leaves me with little information on what the observation represents and how to apply it to my thoughts. I think dark matter might be the second unicorn along side dark energy. I don't know. A quick wiki investigation tells me it's going to require a tremendous amount of mathematical calculation to see what it really means. Edited January 15, 2015 by andreasjva
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force. If these two forces were overlaid upon each other, and working in opposite directions, they would meet in the middle at 4 pi r^2, or the surface area of a sphere. You are assuming that these two forces originate from, or act towards, a single point. Where is this point? How would we identify it? How do you explain the fact that this contradicts the apparent homogeneity and isotropy of the universe? (Which has been measured very precisely.) We've spent the past 100 years trying to prove the universe is expanding, not looking at the inverse possibility. Changing the coordinates used so that instead of space expanding, matter contracts is well-understood (as are many other equivalent conversions). People don't do it because it isn't very useful and (for most people) is counter-intuitive. It's the difference between 1 or -1. EXPANSION <----(+c)-----\-----(-c)-----> GRAVITY OFFSET +C/-C = -1. There is an offset between the natural forces of expansion and gravity which creates a natural torque energy or rotary motion. Mass lives primarily on the -C side of the problem. Massless particles live primarily on the +C side, and/or flip back and forth between the two. That offset between the forces can push in either direction, but the value always remains -1 between the two sides. Push matter towards -C and it condenses. Push it towards +C and it expands. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. C is a speed. Your diagram appears to show that if you move at (or at a speed approaching?) c in one direction, you get gravity but if you move at c in the opposite direction you get expansion. Is that what it is meant to show? This does not appear to be supported by evidence. For one thing, stationary objects experience gravity. Also, any efgfects we observe due to motion are independent of direction: it doesn't matter whether they are moving in the +ve or -ve direction. And velocity is relative so what are you defining speed relative to? Push mass towards +C and it spins faster. Push it towards -C and it spins slower. There is no observed connection between speed and rotation. (And, as speed is relative, there can't be.) Another thought I'm having at the moment is galactic spin, and how accelerated time and condensing mass might alter our perception of dark matter as related to galaxies. I understand the spin rate is too high, and galaxies should fly apart. It is not that simple. It is more that the orbital speed at different distances from the centre only makes sense if there is more mass in the galaxy than we can see; simple Newtonian physics.
imatfaal Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Here's a more comprehensive explanation. I also have a few more posts regarding matter, time, gravity, time perspectives, and expansion/acceleation. The sum total of all the mass in the universe could be represented with a value of 1 as a set. If you chose to look at it as a set, than the energy that mass set contained would also have to be defined as 1, because there is an equivalence between between mass and energy as Einstein proved in E=mc^2. That leaves us with a fairly meaningless truth of, 1=1. So what? No it doesn't. If you set the mass to 1 then the energy is equal to c^2. Well actually it is equal to sqrt(c^4 plus p^2c^2) cos the equation you used doesn't take account of movement
JohnSSM Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 "+C/-C = -1. There is an offset between the natural forces of expansion and gravity which creates a natural torque energy or rotary motion"I dont wanna add an fluff to your theory, but that sounds like the eternal yin-yang to me...I used it for my theory...but i made a model for a yin yang in 3 dimensions with a sphere within a sphere...and instead of rotating, they actually compresses into and back out of one another...
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 You are assuming that these two forces originate from, or act towards, a single point. Where is this point? How would we identify it? How do you explain the fact that this contradicts the apparent homogeneity and isotropy of the universe? (Which has been measured very precisely.) I'm not sure I follow. I see many points. I think the quantum foam is the interaction between expansion and gravity. Maybe the universe cycles through all of them and us, or maybe it acts equally upon the whole. I don't know. I think you misunderstand me somewhat Strange, I won't be able to prove any of this, but it does seem to explain a lot of the "whys" on a much more comprehensible level. Mathematically, it is will over my head. This is for others to ponder with much greater skills than myself. Is it exactly right? No way, not even close. I can't take it any further. This is how it could be working, and if someone had the notion to examine it mathematically, they could. It won't be me. I dont wanna add an fluff to your theory, but that sounds like the eternal yin-yang to me Yes, the universe works from extremes. I've even equated it to precisely that terminology in my thoughts.
JohnSSM Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I'm not sure I follow. I see many points. I think the quantum foam is the interaction between expansion and gravity. Maybe the universe cycles through all of them and us, or maybe it acts equally upon the whole. I don't know. I think you misunderstand me somewhat Strange, I won't be able to prove any of this, but it does seem to explain a lot of the "whys" on a much more comprehensible level. Mathematically, it is will over my head. This is for others to ponder with much greater skills than myself. Is it exactly right? No way, not even close. I can't take it any further. This is how it could be working, and if someone had the notion to examine it mathematically, they could. It won't be me. Yes, the universe works from extremes. I've even equated it to precisely that terminology in my thoughts. Nice...and now you mention quantum foam...I think we've thunk similar thoughts...
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 No it doesn't. If you set the mass to 1 then the energy is equal to c^2. I don't think you get it. I am assigning it a value of 1 as a set. You can look at it that way. If you do that, then the energy inherently must equal 1 as a set called energy energy is equal to mass. The mass is considered stationary. To release that energy you would need something to act upon it at c^2 so your answer comes out to 1. That's where I made an assumption that expansion and contraction are equal and opposite forces, and expansion/contraction will always yield a static value of -1 as a set called constants. It is considered the primary constant from which all constants are derived. All sets must possess a value of 1. Make sense?
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure I follow. I see many points. So this sphere you describe: where is it? Is it detectable? I don't think you get it. I am assigning it a value of 1 as a set. 1 is not a set. It may be a member of a set {1, ...} but it is not itself a set. All sets must possess a value of 1. Sets do not have a value. Unless you mean that all sets must contain the value 1? Which is trivially false (e.g. the empty set or the set of all primes do not contain 1). Edited January 15, 2015 by Strange
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Strange, I think science is so obsessed with observational data and mathematical formulas, that they ignore the fact it is human beings who imagine the possibilities. Every once in a while you have to put down your pencil and logically think the problem through. If it makes logical sense, it's worth exploring. Science is afraid to take a shot in the dark and try to come up with something new. Science wants to examine the universe 1 proton at a time. I understand why mind you, but it certainly doesn't invalidate anything I've said here. I have no dog in the fight, so I am free to imagine without consequence. Scientists have consequences for their ideas. One screw up and they're potentially a Walmart greeter. The business is harsh, and filled with intellectual bullying. They can't publish ideas without support, and there ideas aren't considered valid until a consensus is formed. And then those ideas won't come to fruition until someone lobbies a politician for funds to explore it. And then there's decades of evidence gathering. What I have written makes perfect sense to me. Is it right? I don't know. I'm not trying to define every single piece of minutia in the problem. I'm trying a general approach. I do suspect it's probably closer to the reality in which we exist. So this sphere you describe: where is it? Is it detectable? You're thinking of it the wrong way. There are many spheres. It's all around us. It is how we perceive matter. They are the stars, and planets, and molecules that make up the stars and planets. We are a reflection of the process. Everything is a reflection of the greater process. It;s not really a destination, it's a potential state that will never be. We are >0 and <1. 1 is the maximum potential for the totality of the whole universe, and 0 is the potential to be nothing. Our existence is a derivative of infinite potential, and we are the finite aftermath of the process at any given slice of time.
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Expansion and contraction are not forces. These are pressure terms when applied in terms of an ideal gas. Relativistic radiation has a well studied and measured equation of state relating its energy density to pressure relation. Seriously cosmology MUST conform to the thermodynamic laws. We can measure light and it's influences on pressure. So explain why we don't measure a directional flow ? We can also measure matter particles so why don't we measure a directional flow in the opposite direction? Two flows that are interactive in opposite directions will cause perturbations in the thermodynamics. Why don't we see this ? In terms of two preferred directions? You can bet there have been models that would love to find preferred directions as it would validate their models. Homogeneous and isotropic Cosmology is constantly examined and tested. Your model needs to conform to that in order to work with observation. If you have photons flowing one way and mass flowing the other way. There will be measurable influences on not only pressure but also temperature.. we do not see preferred direction in any form of radiation or matter and we do have a well known and understanding of how they influence each other in thermodynamic relationships
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I'm not quite sure I follow you Mordred. The expansion and contraction process creates the vacuum of space. The actual force causing the results is somewhat out of our range of perspective. If I were to take a wild arse guess at what's causing the expansion, I would suspect nothing, literally. And there's an infinite amount of it to draw on. To answer your question though, I don't know how it fits thermodynamically. Maybe you should be asking yourself the same question? We know much about the physical processes, but we know next to nothing about the underlying fundamentals of these processes. Why does a hot cup of coffee have a tendency to cool down? Why does mass gain with acceleration? What is gravity? What is mass? Why can't we travel beyond the speed of light? And what the hell is energy anyway? You're asking about question number 1038, 624, and 10545, and I'm asking question 1, 2, and 3. I'm sure it will all fit. Two flows that are interactive in opposite directions will cause perturbations in the thermodynamics. I don't really see space expanding locally in a physical sense. I see mass contracting locally against space. For me, I can see why a cup of coffee wants to cool down, because as the molecules contract, they shed energy while they settle into a steady inward motion. There is a slight growing separation between the molecules and they begin to stabilize over time, which is also accelerating. I'm not sure it would really be all that perceivable from our perspective though. We just notice our coffee is cold. As for the galaxies we observe, they haven't really moved from their original locations since the beginning of the universe. Ignoring internal gravitational forces pulling them in one direction or the other. We're cooling down like a cup of coffee. Matter contracts, time accelerates, and eventually the universe that we perceive will just blip out of existence. The point is though, I'm not trying to solve anything mathematically. I'm just trying to understand fundamentally what we don't know. The why's. The hard math is up to people like you. You tell me how it could work.
Strange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 We know much about the physical processes, but we know next to nothing about the underlying fundamentals of these processes. Why does a hot cup of coffee have a tendency to cool down? Why does mass gain with acceleration? What is gravity? What is mass? Why can't we travel beyond the speed of light? And what the hell is energy anyway? Science has answers to all these questions. You seem to be asking why science gets those answers, in other words, why is the universe like it is. That is philosophy, not science and there are, I assume, an infinite number of possible answers to choose from according to your desires. None of them are testable, therefore none of them are science. You tell me how it could work. We already have good theories. You are not providing anything new, in terms of science, so I don't know what you expect people to do. If you had some evidence that showed that GR was wrong, or some mathematical idea of how to unify GR and QM, it might be different. But just coming up with random speculation about stuff that only makes sense to you isn't going to encourage anyone to look at it.
Phi for All Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The point is though, I'm not trying to solve anything mathematically. I'm just trying to understand fundamentally what we don't know. The why's. The hard math is up to people like you. You tell me how it could work. I don't want to derail the discussion, but when in real life does this EVER work? Where else would you expect someone to come in with limited knowledge, not speaking the language, and declare that they're here to figure out everything we don't know about a subject? Would you go into an auto shop and tell the mechanics that you're going to figure out what they're doing wrong, despite not knowing very much about cars? How would they react if you told them you had a better way to fix cars, but it's just a concept and they'll have to figure out how to do the greasy bits themselves?
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I assume, an infinite number of possible answers to choose from according to your desires. No, there is only one logical answer. And it will make sense and follow the observations. It will also be comprehensible in plain English. It's definitely not philosophy. We already have good theories. You are not providing anything new, in terms of science, so I don't know what you expect people to do. So, with that philosophy, only science can understand the answer. I don't expect anything from anybody, but you seem to expect an awful lot from me. I told you I can't prove it. I'm not trying to prove it. I have shown you one bit of evidence that may or may not support it. I have also made a prediction, whether or not it will be verified remains to be seen. Time will tell. If you want to ignore what I have written, that is your prerogative, not mine. Science has answers to all these questions. Science has answers to none of those questions. All science knows is the physical properties, because that is all science allows itself to do. Science might be satisfied knowing mass gains with acceleration, but that doesn't mean anything to the rest of the world. Why on Earth do you think people imagine going beyond the speed of light? Science cannot say why. Very recently, CERN made a stunning announcement. They had detected particles traveling beyond the speed of light. My brother had sent me the article. Based on my own understanding, I shot him back an email telling him their equipment was at fault, not the universe. Eventually, CERN admitted their equipment was at fault. Now, you can say my prediction was purely a guess, and maybe it was. But, maybe it wasn't. I was pretty confident they messed up. There is a tremendous amount of irony in the story though. Here we have the collective scientific knowledge of half the planet, using Einstein's formula's to accelerate particles near the speed of light, and they immediately abandon the very fundamental knowledge they're using to accelerate the particles in the first place. Really? You're still going to tell me with a straight face science understand what's going on fundamentally?
swansont Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Very recently, CERN made a stunning announcement. They had detected particles traveling beyond the speed of light. My brother had sent me the article. Based on my own understanding, I shot him back an email telling him their equipment was at fault, not the universe. Eventually, CERN admitted their equipment was at fault. Now, you can say my prediction was purely a guess, and maybe it was. But, maybe it wasn't. I was pretty confident they messed up. There is a tremendous amount of irony in the story though. Here we have the collective scientific knowledge of half the planet, using Einstein's formula's to accelerate particles near the speed of light, and they immediately abandon the very fundamental knowledge they're using to accelerate the particles in the first place. Really? You're still going to tell me with a straight face science understand what's going on fundamentally? No, that's a bit of revisionist history. The scientists doing the experiment said they were not claiming that anything exceeded c, but they couldn't find their error. Almost zero scientists thought the results were real; a few of them trotted out some hypotheses about how something like that might occur, but these were almost immediately pointed out as flawed. (Which is how science works) Nobody abandoned anything. (except a few people abandoned their jobs when the error was discovered, because it was an embarrassing oversight after they claimed to have checked all of their calibrations) We know much about the physical processes, but we know next to nothing about the underlying fundamentals of these processes. Why does a hot cup of coffee have a tendency to cool down? Why does mass gain with acceleration? What is gravity? What is mass? Why can't we travel beyond the speed of light? And what the hell is energy anyway? … I don't really see space expanding locally in a physical sense. I see mass contracting locally against space. For me, I can see why a cup of coffee wants to cool down, because as the molecules contract, they shed energy while they settle into a steady inward motion. There is a slight growing separation between the molecules and they begin to stabilize over time, which is also accelerating. I'm not sure it would really be all that perceivable from our perspective though. We just notice our coffee is cold. As for the galaxies we observe, they haven't really moved from their original locations since the beginning of the universe. Ignoring internal gravitational forces pulling them in one direction or the other. We're cooling down like a cup of coffee. Matter contracts, time accelerates, and eventually the universe that we perceive will just blip out of existence. Coffee contracts as it cools down, with a "steady inward motion"? Seriously? If matter is contracting in the universe, where is the point to which it is contracting? And why do we get a redshift if we look in the other direction?
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 No, that's a bit of revisionist history. From where I was sitting, that is precisely what happened, not a revision. The story made headlines, and the rest is history. And from where I was sitting, I said no way. And the reason it made headlines is precisely the reason I stated in the first place. The world lacks a fundamental understanding of these problems. Science cannot offer the reasons why to the world, because they themselves have not figured it out yet. Mass gains with acceleration is not a reason, it's two unknowns defining a physical property. They're getting to an answer one proton at a time. I'd be long dead by the time they figure it out. Sorry, I'm too damn impatient. I want to know before I'm pushing up daisies.
swansont Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 From where I was sitting, that is precisely what happened, not a revision. The story made headlines, and the rest is history. And from where I was sitting, I said no way. And the reason it made headlines is precisely the reason I stated in the first place. The world lacks a fundamental understanding of these problems. Science cannot offer the reasons why to the world, because they themselves have not figured it out yet. You need to sit where you get better science news. i.e. not from the popular press. Mass gains with acceleration is not a reason It's also not true. (and mass gains at some speed require a redefinition of mass). If you're going to criticize science, you need to actually understand the science first.
Mordred Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The thing is as I mentioned in Cosmology studies the cosmological principle has been questioned and tested. These tests were not restricted to just the overall dynamics as a whole. They also involved all the individual contributors to those dynamics. These contributors in energy density would influence the BAO, baryon accoustic oscillations, CMB temperature measurements ( the anistropies you see have largely been accounted for as consistent with current LCDM, despite counter models) You made it clear you never looked at the math involved. Might be a good idea to listen to those that have studied the math. Especially since we also study the math of suggested alternatives. However we will not do someone else's math for them. In your model you have two energy density flows. Each has a resultant pressure correlation. When two different pressures collide they don't mix smoothly. You can test that yourself at home.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 You need to sit where you get better science news. i.e. not from the popular press. You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines. It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said. A lack of fundamental understanding. Like I said, you may be satisfied with the scientific definition, but the rest of the world is not. I personally don't understand how you think the scientific explanation says anything about the speed limit. It's kind of baffling to me actually. Aren't you more curious than that? Why is anything able to move in the first place? Why do photons immediately hit light speed? These are the questions I want to know.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 However we will not do someone else's math for them. I would never expect it. I've given possible solutions to a number of questions. They loosely, and curiously, fit a number of key observations. This is a forum to present ideas. What you take away from this forum is entirely subjective. If you see no inherent value in anything I have said, and are completely satisfied with what you have learned from your schooling, then inherently it will be of no value to you. I accept that.
Unity+ Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 You can debate this all you like, but the fact remains. The story leaked FROM CERN, and it hit the headlines. It hit the headlines for the exact reason I said. A lack of fundamental understanding. Like I said, you may be satisfied with the scientific definition, but the rest of the world is not. I think the major population has a lack of proper understanding of science, if this is the case. I personally don't understand how you think the scientific explanation says anything about the speed limit. It's kind of baffling to me actually. Aren't you more curious than that? But it does. The speed of light is the "speed limit." If anything went at that speed, there would be infinite mass, which would not be possible with current understanding of physics. Why is anything able to move in the first place? Why do photons immediately hit light speed? Those questions are valuable, but simply making random, unfounded assertions is just bad science. These are the questions I want to know. There are many pieces of literature that can give insight into PROPER theories and hypotheses on the current matters. Read those before going any further. Because there is an equivalency between these forces, we can determine a constant at +∞/-∞=-1. That is mathematically indeterminable. I would gladly accept that the Universe came about when someone got a calculator and divided by 0 and caused a huge black hole. At least that is the closest thing to being correct because there are already theories that exist that our Universe came about through black holes.
andreasjva Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 If matter is contracting in the universe, where is the point to which it is contracting? And why do we get a redshift if we look in the other direction? The redshift was discussed earlier. It is contracting to the reaction point. Probably the theoretical Higgs. Don't know. Time accelerates with contraction. Times slows with expansion. The closer to nothing we get, that faster the time. If you think about it, it does fit. From our perspective, it's going to look as if things are moving slower the deeper we peer into an atom. Time is a function of separation in the process. Our physical perspective of the universe exists along the surface of matter, or the surface of a sphere. From our perspective, things moving fast have slower times, and things moving slow have faster time.
Recommended Posts