Dark matter, expansion of the cosmos and time as the 4th dimension

[danno180]

Ok how do I explain what I see fluidly in my head? Where to begin relative to current understanding? The wave is the more basic concept of all that exists, positive and negative balancing out to equal practically nothing yet achieving something thru separation both equalling the opposite of each other whose net equals zero. Existence would seem to naturally move towards a point of non existence or zero again. This "movement" could be perceived as time or the change towards equilibrium/nothingness. Matter and energy are interchangeable because they are different states of organization of this wave function that composed what we perceive as existence. The expansion of the cosmos isn't truly expanding so much as the matter within it shrinking in a somewhat static space giving to the illusion items in the universe are getting further apart. Dark matter fits into this part if I am able to muddle thru my thoughts. The space time continuum in my view is a four dimensional contruct. As time moves towards non existence, matter loses mass compared to states it had earlier in time. Dark matter has gravitational influence in the universe but cannot be physically seen. Dark matter in my view may be the effect normal matter has on other lower energy states of matter that exist in the future, i.e. matter in the past influences space time today but "appears" invisible because it isn't in the present even though it is still part of the space time continuum

[GeneralDadmission]

You are travelling in the right direction. Concluding that future state effects present state is not without credibility. DM is a particle that interacts with the future to a greater capacity than physical matter, IMO. This enforces the dynamic that DM must have a particulate presence that defines the universes separation from the future where normal baryonic matter is defined by the universes origin of state.

[ajb]

Why is this in science news?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations.

 

danno180, please take a moment to review our guidelines for discussion here. If you can't formulate some kind of reasonably coherent scientific discussion, this will be closed.

 

GeneralDadmission, this is not your thread, therefore it is not appropriate to bring up your views on dark matter. The only permissible discussion is about the idea presented by the thread starter, and what mainstream physics has to say on the matter. (please note that this excludes responding to mod notes)

 

[danno180]

Ok how do I explain what I see fluidly in my head? Where to begin relative to current understanding? The wave is the more basic concept of all that exists, positive and negative balancing out to equal practically nothing yet achieving something thru separation both equalling the opposite of each other whose net equals zero. Existence would seem to naturally move towards a point of non existence or zero again. This "movement" could be perceived as time or the change towards equilibrium/nothingness. Matter and energy are interchangeable because they are different states of organization of this wave function that composed what we perceive as existence. The expansion of the cosmos isn't truly expanding so much as the matter within it shrinking in a somewhat static space giving to the illusion items in the universe are getting further apart. Dark matter fits into this part if I am able to muddle thru my thoughts. The space time continuum in my view is a four dimensional contruct. As time moves towards non existence, matter loses mass compared to states it had earlier in time. Dark matter has gravitational influence in the universe but cannot be physically seen. Dark matter in my view may be the effect normal matter has on other lower energy states of matter that exist in the future, i.e. matter in the past influences space time today but "appears" invisible because it isn't in the present even though it is still part of the space time continuum

Who is this moderator? Adolf Hitler? I'm presenting a framework idea that is generalized not completely unrelated to Stephen Hawking describing how matter exists using the analogy of digging a hole and creating a hill, both sums equalling a net of zero. Ideas should not face the threat of deletion.

[StringJunky]

Who is this moderator? Adolf Hitler? I'm presenting a framework idea that is generalized not completely unrelated to Stephen Hawking describing how matter exists using the analogy of digging a hole and creating a hill, both sums equalling a net of zero. Ideas should not face the threat of deletion.

If I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants. - Newton. He didn't just make stuff up from nothing, he built upon existing ideas. Your idea doesn't do this.

[danno180]

I like that quote from Newton. Even he was wrong on certain things but is still highly regarded. I'm not Newton, I'm not Einstein, and I'm not Hawking. I see relationships with space, time, energy, and matter.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

So present some evidence / actual science to support your assertions. Not doing so will result in thread closure.

 

Do not respond to this note within the thread. Please PM staff or report the post if you take issue with it.

[Klaynos]

What precise, numerical predictions does your idea make? How do these vary from the existing predictions?

[Mordred]

Ok how do I explain what I see fluidly in my head? Where to begin relative to current understanding? The wave is the more basic concept of all that exists, positive and negative balancing out to equal practically nothing yet achieving something thru separation both equalling the opposite of each other whose net equals zero. Existence would seem to naturally move towards a point of non existence or zero again. This "movement" could be perceived as time or the change towards equilibrium/nothingness. Matter and energy are interchangeable because they are different states of organization of this wave function that composed what we perceive as existence. The expansion of the cosmos isn't truly expanding so much as the matter within it shrinking in a somewhat static space giving to the illusion items in the universe are getting further apart. Dark matter fits into this part if I am able to muddle thru my thoughts. The space time continuum in my view is a four dimensional contruct. As time moves towards non existence, matter loses mass compared to states it had earlier in time. Dark matter has gravitational influence in the universe but cannot be physically seen. Dark matter in my view may be the effect normal matter has on other lower energy states of matter that exist in the future, i.e. matter in the past influences space time today but "appears" invisible because it isn't in the present even though it is still part of the space time continuum

There is nothing in this entire post that makes sense in all honesty. Here is the problem, you've jumped far too many wide ranging arenas of influences to even have a hope of making sense of this.

 

The only accurate description of the above is "word salad"

 

There is zero science involved, you haven't described a single relation in any detail that we can even start.

 

There isn't even enough here to begin to even speculate on.

 

My suggestion is focus. Focus on one relation at a time, detail it properly including the mathematics.

 

After all physics is mathematic relationship.

Normally I would post related articles to study, but I can't even find a direction of interest enough to select a helpful reference

[MWresearch]

What you are describing seems to me much like a closed cosmological model of the universe. In that model, the energy density of the universe creates a cumulative attractive force that is greater than the force of dark energy, causing the universe to eventually contract to an infinitely dense point after a certain amount of time. However, measurements of space-time curvature on a cosmological scale show that we live in either a flat or hyperbolic universe, meaning that time will not end, space will keep expanding forever, possibly to a big rip but most likely a heat death. In that model, matter does not lose mass as it travels through time towards convergence of an infinitely small point.

 

Frankly, nonexistence doesn't make much sense. In singularity big bang models, there was still mass, but since there was 0 space over which it could be distributed over, it occupied an infinitely dense point.

 

But, even that model is coming into question. Recent models and observation suggest there is a limit to how small space and time can get. In those models, infinitely small and infinitely dense objects can't exist, so the universe may never have been completely contracted.

[Strange]

Ok how do I explain what I see fluidly in my head?

 

Use mathematics. Without this, all you have are some vague, muddled thoughts that might or might not make sense. You need to refine and formalise your ideas so they can be understood and tested.

 

This may require several years of study and hard work. That is what it costs to be taken seriously.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Strange

[ajb]

Who is this moderator? Adolf Hitler? I'm presenting a framework idea that is generalized not completely unrelated to Stephen Hawking describing how matter exists using the analogy of digging a hole and creating a hill, both sums equalling a net of zero. Ideas should not face the threat of deletion.

 

Your thread is not facing deletion, you posted this in the wrong section. It is not science news.

 

I could only echo the majority here; I don't know what you are suggesting and the only advice is to learn more physics first.

[swansont]

Who is this moderator? Adolf Hitler?

That's one of the poorest attempts at flattery I've ever seen.

 

I'm presenting a framework idea that is generalized not completely unrelated to Stephen Hawking describing how matter exists using the analogy of digging a hole and creating a hill, both sums equalling a net of zero. Ideas should not face the threat of deletion.

It's one thing to explain established science with an analogy, but the analogy itself is not science, and this is a site for discussion science. So if your idea has scientific merit, let's see it: Can you describe implications of your idea? Can you make predictions that can be tested? Is your idea in any way falsifiable?

 

If not, then the best course of action might be to ask questions about existing physics, to learn the science behind the pop science.

[Ten oz]

@ danno180, I don't think OP's deserve negative reputation points so I helped even you out there. Then I had to add a neg rep to the Hilter comment directed at the Mod.

 

Is there a question or specific point of discussion you started this thread for? Perhaps it would be best to go a point at a time with what you "see fluidly" in your head.

[danno180]

What you are describing seems to me much like a closed cosmological model of the universe. In that model, the energy density of the universe creates a cumulative attractive force that is greater than the force of dark energy, causing the universe to eventually contract to an infinitely dense point after a certain amount of time. However, measurements of space-time curvature on a cosmological scale show that we live in either a flat or hyperbolic universe, meaning that time will not end, space will keep expanding forever, possibly to a big rip but most likely a heat death. In that model, matter does not lose mass as it travels through time towards convergence of an infinitely small point.

 

Frankly, nonexistence doesn't make much sense. In singularity big bang models, there was still mass, but since there was 0 space over which it could be distributed over, it occupied an infinitely dense point.

 

But, even that model is coming into question. Recent models and observation suggest there is a limit to how small space and time can get. In those models, infinitely small and infinitely dense objects can't exist, so the universe may never have been completely contracted.

Hmm, I suppose I could be seeing part (or all) of it wrong. If what I see has merit, matter in the universe shrinking by way of losing mass is incorrect, but rather it is becoming more compact giving the appearance of an expanding universe. If that were the case, then what is perceived as dark matter could be the effect future matter is having on matter today instead of past matter and why we can't see dark matter.

 

"Non-existence" is my way of trying to label absolute entropy if that is even possible

Edited March 2, 2015 by danno180

[Strange]

Hmm, I suppose I could be seeing part (or all) of it wrong. If what I see has merit, what if what I see as matter in the universe shrinking by way of losing mass is incorrect but rather it is becoming more compact giving the appearance of an expanding universe.

 

You can choose a coordinate system in which the universe is described that way. It is more complex mathematically (e.g. you no longer have a constant speed of light), is not intuitive, and doesn't tell you anything different.

 

If that were the case, then...

 

I see no reason why viewing matter as shrinking rather than space expanding would imply anything about "future matter" having an effect. This would also violate causality and generally not be consistent with known physics.

[MWresearch]

In in the more classical relativistic theories, the only way for matter in the future to affect matter in the past is to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Particles which do this are called tachyons which have not been measured and are becoming seemingly less likely to exist as time goes on.

Less likely as in, we see less and less evidence for them.

[danno180]

You can choose a coordinate system in which the universe is described that way. It is more complex mathematically (e.g. you no longer have a constant speed of light), is not intuitive, and doesn't tell you anything different.

 

 

 

I see no reason why viewing matter as shrinking rather than space expanding would imply anything about "future matter" having an effect. This would also violate causality and generally not be consistent with known physics.

That was a passing reflection on a comment. I don't see future matter as fitting into the mechanics of observable phenomena but I do see past matter as still having influence (perhaps what we are describing as dark matter). I see entropy as the main "fuel" so to speak that puts everything in motion and the organization of matter nothing more than eddys that form as matter and energy attempt to move to a state of absolute entropy if that can even occur (that pile of dirt dug to make a pit in the ground wants to go back into that hole and even out). People are stating its in the mathematics of which I am quite certain it is but I only have a Biochemistry degree and that level of math would take lifetimes of study hence posting my ideas online and if any of it fits, good, if not, who is harmed?

In in the more classical relativistic theories, the only way for matter in the future to affect matter in the past is to be traveling faster than the speed of light. Particles which do this are called tachyons which have not been measured and are becoming seemingly less likely to exist as time goes on.

Less likely as in, we see less and less evidence for them.

I wrote this response on a comment from Strange but fits here as well:

 

... I don't see future matter as fitting into the mechanics of observable phenomena but I do see past matter as still having influence (perhaps what we are describing as dark matter). I see entropy as the main "fuel" so to speak that puts everything in motion and the organization of matter nothing more than eddys that form as matter and energy attempt to move to a state of absolute entropy if that can even occur (that pile of dirt dug to make a pit in the ground wants to go back into that hole and even out). People are stating its in the mathematics of which I am quite certain it is but I only have a Biochemistry degree and that level of math would take lifetimes of study hence posting my ideas online and if any of it fits, good, if not, who is harmed?

Edited March 3, 2015 by danno180

[Strange]

I don't see future matter as fitting into the mechanics of observable phenomena but I do see past matter as still having influence (perhaps what we are describing as dark matter).

 

What you "see" is not very helpful, unless you can provide some evidence to support it.

 

 

who is harmed?

 

No one, I guess.

[swansont]

 

... I don't see future matter as fitting into the mechanics of observable phenomena but I do see past matter as still having influence (perhaps what we are describing as dark matter). I see entropy as the main "fuel" so to speak that puts everything in motion and the organization of matter nothing more than eddys that form as matter and energy attempt to move to a state of absolute entropy if that can even occur (that pile of dirt dug to make a pit in the ground wants to go back into that hole and even out). People are stating its in the mathematics of which I am quite certain it is but I only have a Biochemistry degree and that level of math would take lifetimes of study hence posting my ideas online and if any of it fits, good, if not, who is harmed?

 

That sounds like something other than standard thermodynamics. Entropy is a property of a system. How is that "fuel"? What is a state of "absolute entropy"? In standard thermodynamics, total entropy increases (unless you have a reversible process, in which is stays the same)

 

How can we tell if your idea fits if it is not presented in enough detail to present it? You say you have a degree in biochemistry. Is "stuff happens because reasons" a viable biochemistry theory? Or would you need more detail?