Theory of the Universes

[Valkaes]

I believe that we are in half of a double universe. That we are in something like a ball. If one side of the ball is squeezed and there is a rubber band on the middle, one side shrinks and the other side expands. When one universe shrinks, it compacts together and eventually gathers enough energy in one place to cause what we call "The Big Bang." Once the Big Bang happens, the universe that shrank begins to grow with the force of the explosion. This process takes billions of trillions of years to complete in this theory of mine. However, if this is incorrect, how did the universe have enough energy to cause the Big Bang to begin with? This theory is likely as far as I am concerned. I encourage the commented opinions if you do agree or disagree! Good day!

[Strange]

This theory is likely as far as I am concerned.

 

Why do you think it is likely? Specifcally, what evidence is there for a "double universe"?

[Valkaes]

I made this theory so I am naturally biased towards the likeliness of this theory. Although, I have studied other theories and found that the theory I have created, seems most likely to the "beginning" of the universe we live in today. If it is disproven, I am sorry for wasting your time. However, if it is true, I am happy that we would get closer to discovering the secrets this universe we live in.

[Phi for All]

Yes, but why do you think your idea is more likely, what questions does it answer that mainstream theories don't?

 

What you need to do is figure out a way to test your idea, otherwise it's just guesswork, and that's not what science is all about. We need to know enough about the universe to see how your idea would manifest itself, then predict what would happen if your idea is right. Then you can set up an experiment to test your predictions.

 

Nobody's time is wasted on discussing a wrong idea. It's only when someone clings to a wrong idea irrationally when faced with a preponderance of evidence against that time gets wasted. Most ideas are wrong, did you realize that?

 

However, if this is incorrect, how did the universe have enough energy to cause the Big Bang to begin with?

 

When we trace the flow of that energy just after cosmic expansion, we see that the universe at that point was incredibly hot (energetic) and dense (tiny). It wasn't an explosion; that's a fairly typical mistake. It was an expansion.

[Strange]

The thing you need to understand is that the only reason the current big bang model is so widely accepted is because it is able to make predictions which very closely match observations.

 

Without predictions (mathematical, quantitative predictions) that can be tested, you don't have a theory; all you have a is an imaginative idea. Unless you can come up with some way to test it and show it is better than current theories.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please follow the guidelines of posting here in speculations

[Mordred]

Along with the comments already given, from your descriptive your implying an expansion from a preferred location. (Energy conduit from one universe to the other)

 

Measurements and observations strongly agree that the expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred location or direction. No matter how you measure expansion or from what location. Expansion is in every direction equally. (Except in gravitational bound regions such as large scale structures)

[Valkaes]

Forget this site. I am allowed to share ideas, and you are limiting my speech! By moving my theories I am very upset. What if years from now my theories are proven?

[Strange]

Forget this site. I am allowed to share ideas, and you are limiting my speech! By moving my theories I am very upset. What if years from now my theories are proven?

 

You shouldn't be upset: you should be pleased that people are interested enough to examine your ideas, to test them and to encourage you to think about them more deeply.

[Phi for All]

Forget this site. I am allowed to share ideas, and you are limiting my speech! By moving my theories I am very upset. What if years from now my theories are proven?

 

What if we left them in mainstream science and a student failed his test because they thought your idea was mainstream? You aren't the only member, nobody is limiting your speech (outside the rules you agreed to when you joined), and I don't know why you're upset that we have a special section just for people who like to speculate.

[Mordred]

Forget this site. I am allowed to share ideas, and you are limiting my speech! By moving my theories I am very upset. What if years from now my theories are proven?

The other forums are for understanding textbook mainstream science. You should be happy other forums don't allow anything but the above. This site is nice enough to allow a speculation forum.

[imatfaal]

... What if years from now my theories are proven?

 

We will boast that he once walked among us mere mortals, we will bask in reflected glory, in years to come we will tell our children and grandchildren of the day we saw that insightful Original Post, and then send you an invoice for all the free advice that helped you, even minutely, on your quest to your eventual and well-deserved nobel prize

[Phi for All]

What if years from now my theories are proven?

 

I tried this argument at Barnes & Noble.

 

"What do you mean I can't put my self-published book on your shelves? What if years from now it's a bestseller?"

 

Farging bastidges. What does Barnes & Noble know about books anyway?

[Valkaes]

Let's take this into account. If everything is in a shape, whether that be 2D, 3D, or 4D. Than even infinity must have a shape. Is the shape flawless? No. Even circles have edges, however small they are. Now let's think this. If infinity does exist, and we put it on a number line. It would fan outwards and be infinite. However, the inside of the deminsional shape, does. Now, most people will say you cannot graph infinity on a number line, yet they believe that math is infinite. So how can we not graph something that consists of numbers? The original belief of the world was that it was flat. But they were wrong. You can walk from where you are, across the world and back, and then it repeats. This is what I believe is math. A repeating system of representitive numbers that we believe to be infinite. Thank you. I have decided to fight for my theory rather than leave it.

[swansont]

Let's take this into account. If everything is in a shape, whether that be 2D, 3D, or 4D. Than even infinity must have a shape.

 

What does that even mean? Before you tackle infinity, tell me what is the shape of 3? Not the representation, which can be 3, III, … , ∆ or whatever. Does 3 have a shape?

[Strange]

Let's take this into account. If everything is in a shape, whether that be 2D, 3D, or 4D.

 

Why would everything be "in a shape"? What shape do numbers have?

 

Now, most people will say you cannot graph infinity on a number line, yet they believe that math is infinite.

 

Infinity is bigger than any number (because whatever number you choose you can always add 1 to it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zjyd7ty

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Valkaes]

If you were to put a representation of infinity of a number line, (arrows pointing in all possible directions) than it would stretch out infinitely. If it was on a 3 dimensional graph it would might as well be a solid block of nothing. Except for this! All of you believe that it wouldn't have shape because it's "infinite."

Edited February 4, 2015 by Valkaes

[swansont]

If you were to put a representation of infinity of a number line, (arrows pointing in all possible directions) than it would stretch out infinitely. If it was on a 3 dimensional graph it would might as well be a solid block of nothing. Except for this! All of you believe that it wouldn't have shape because it's "infinite."

You still haven't explained the meaning of "having a shape", which is a large impediment to believing anything.

 

On a number line, you only have arrows pointing along the line. That's what it means to be a line. So the notion that you'd have arrows pointing in all directions is meaningless.

[Valkaes]

Invalid argument.

[Strange]

If you were to put a representation of infinity of a number line, (arrows pointing in all possible directions) than it would stretch out infinitely.

 

Why would a number line consist of "arrows pointing in all possible directions"? A number line is, by definition, a line. Infinity cannot fit on a number line because it is not a number.

 

If it was on a 3 dimensional graph it would might as well be a solid block of nothing. Except for this! All of you believe that it wouldn't have shape because it's "infinite."

 

As you haven't explained how any finite number has a "shape" I don't think that is the reason.

Invalid argument.

 

Why?

[Phi for All]

Invalid argument.

 

It's not an argument, it's a request for clarification. You're using some terms in a non-standard way. It's confusing, we're asking what you mean by certain words.

 

You're also mixing infinity, which is more of an abstract concept, with real numbers, and throwing dimensions in on top of it, and then drawing conclusions from all that. I hope you can see why so many people are asking you questions about your idea.

 

Rather than telling us what we believe, or comparing us to flat-Earthers, I think it would really help if you were to answer the questions that have been posed.

 

We always assume people come to a science discussion site to get some pro and semi-pro input on their ideas. We want to help, we want to show you where you're right and where you're wrong. We want to make sure we understand what you're talking about first, though. Doesn't that make sense?

[swansont]

Invalid argument.

I agree. You have made an invalid argument. Nonsensical, too. Care to try again?

[Afraid of Time]

This double universe is as speculative as any I have seen. Personally, I do not believe in it. Then again I have very little evidence of string theory and I believe in that.