Universal Creation Hypothesis

[TJ McCaustland]

Good Evening everyone, I have once again a crackpot style hypothesis, but with some mathematics tonight. Before I allow you to begin poking holes in my hypothesis here are some basic rules for discussion.

 

1. There will be no copying of equations except for the purpose of peer review, this equation is my own, and I claim copyright and ownership of this hypothesis unless there is a hypothesis that has be proposed prior to this that has the same equations and general thought.

 

2. No personal judgement is to be rendered, only judgement upon the theory. (Basically no flames if you think this is insane and would like to beat up on me for it, after all all of us have insane thoughts sometimes.)

 

OK. To begin my first equation if ~M_u=~M_s⁵ (if approximate mass of the universe equals approximate mass of a five dimensional star.) then U_t-U_t=BH³ (Universal time minus universal time {without passage of time} equals a three dimensional black hole) and if M_BH³=M_s⁵ (Mass 3 dimensional black hole equals 5 dimensional star) then M_BH³=M_BH⁵ (Mass 3 dimensional black hole equals mass 5 dimensional black hole) which means M_BH⁵=M_s⁵ (Mass of a 5 dimensional black hole equals mass of a 5 dimensional star) then all universal matter comes from M_s⁵ > M_BH⁵>M_BH³ (Mass star⁵ into Mass black hole⁵ into Mass black hole³) Then F_GBH³ -F_GBH⁵= -G_F (Force of a 3 dimensional black hole is not enough to hold the mass of a 5 dimensional black hole and therefore the black hole expands rapidly and dissipates because of the gravitational force deficit.)

[John Cuthber]

Among other things, you need to define " a five dimensional star." before this idea has any meaning.

[Strange]

I claim copyright and ownership of this hypothesis

 

You can't claim copyright on a hypothesis, only on a specific representation of it.

As well as explaining what a "five dimensional star" is (and providing evidence that such a thing exists) you need to do the same for a "five dimensional black hole".

 

 

if approximate mass of the universe equals approximate mass of a five dimensional star.

 

How can a star have the same mass as the entire universe?

 

Also, "Universal time minus universal time {without passage of time} equals a three dimensional black hole" appears to be meaningless. "U_t-U_t" is zero. What does "=BH³" mean? Are you saying that black holes are zero (do not exist)?

 

The whole thing seems pretty incoherent.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Strange

[andrewcellini]

how is any of this falsifiable? how could you measure these quantities?

also you need to be as clear as possible to get your ideas out there. you can't just coin terms and not explain what they mean. crackpot style is not very good.

 

what is the reason for these equations? how did you derive them?

Edited October 3, 2015 by andrewcellini

[ajb]

Among other things, you need to define " a five dimensional star." before this idea has any meaning.

People study five-dimensional Schwarzschild-like solutions of the field equations. Apparently such things can have some quite drastically different properties to the more standard 4 dimensional solutions.

 

What is interesting is that all 4-d vacuum solutions (with cosmological constant) can canonically be embedded into a 5-d Ricci-flat solution of the 5-d field equations. Maybe that helps motivate the opening post?

[John Cuthber]

... Maybe that helps motivate the opening post?

I suspect other motivations.

And I didn't bother to comment on the dubious copyright declaration, mainly because I don't believe a problem will ever arise.

[TJ McCaustland]

Among other things, you need to define " a five dimensional star." before this idea has any meaning.

That would be the average mass of a star^5

[Strange]

That would be the average mass of a star^5

 

Very helpful. What is a star^5?

[John Cuthber]

That would be the average mass of a star^5

The nearest that gets to having a meaning is (the mass of a star) ^ 5

But then the units don't make sense because you also say

"if approximate mass of the universe equals approximate mass of a five dimensional star."

and a mass can't be equal to the fifth power of a mass.

 

Do you understand dimensional analysis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

It shows that your idea is impossible.

[TJ McCaustland]

Alright there goes that part of my hypothesis. But Strange

 

 

You can't claim copyright on a hypothesis, only on a specific representation of it.

As well as explaining what a "five dimensional star" is (and providing evidence that such a thing exists) you need to do the same for a "five dimensional black hole".

 

 

How can a star have the same mass as the entire universe?

 

Also, "Universal time minus universal time {without passage of time} equals a three dimensional black hole" appears to be meaningless. "U_t-U_t" is zero. What does "=BH³" mean? Are you saying that black holes are zero (do not exist)?

 

The whole thing seems pretty incoherent.

A star cannot have the mass of the universe in a single mass, but if we have multiple masses that coalesce at small intervals the formation of a singularity with the mass of the universe would be possible would it not? Especially if half of the laws that affect matter today might not of existed back then? Even more so if mass did indeed transcend dimensions through black holes would it not be possible for a higher dimensional black hole to cause the huge expansion that created our universe? Also forget the copyright thing..... this hypothesis has a million holes from a million places I didn't know existed, it might as well both be pseudoscience and swiss cheese.

 

Very helpful. What is a star^5?

That would be Mass of say, the sun or 1.989*10^30 Kg^5 Not that it truly matters now.

[Strange]

A star cannot have the mass of the universe in a single mass, but if we have multiple masses that coalesce at small intervals the formation of a singularity with the mass of the universe would be possible would it not?

 

Well, if all of the mass of the universe is collapsed to one or more singularities, then yes. The classical (non quantum) result from GR is that the entire mass of the universe was initially in a singularity. But I don't think many people thank that that singularity, or those in black holes, have physical reality. We need a bigger theory.

 

 

Even more so if mass did indeed transcend dimensions through black holes would it not be possible for a higher dimensional black hole to cause the huge expansion that created our universe?

 

I really don't know. But there isn't any evidence for black holes, or anything else, having 5 or more dimensions.

 

 

Also forget the copyright thing..... this hypothesis has a million holes from a million places I didn't know existed, it might as well both be pseudoscience and swiss cheese.

 

[John Cuthber]

Alright there goes that part of my hypothesis.

 

The rest of this "idea" fails for exactly the same reason.

If you learn what dimensional analysis is you will avoid producing stuff that, to be frank, the world of science will laugh at.

[TJ McCaustland]

The rest of this "idea" fails for exactly the same reason.

If you learn what dimensional analysis is you will avoid producing stuff that, to be frank, the world of science will laugh at.

You may have that fancy expert tag but that does not mean that you didn't produce stuff like this at one time or another, its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts.

[pwagen]

its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts.

It is. And it's that attitude that separate you from the majority of nutcases with their own pet theory. That said, JC has a point. If you are working on an idea which includes a certain aspect of science, it's a good idea to learn what you can about that aspect. If you just guess or come up with your own version of it, it's likely your idea will fall apart when incorporating "the real deal".

[TJ McCaustland]

It is. And it's that attitude that separate you from the majority of nutcases with their own pet theory. That said, JC has a point. If you are working on an idea which includes a certain aspect of science, it's a good idea to learn what you can about that aspect. If you just guess or come up with your own version of it, it's likely your idea will fall apart when incorporating "the real deal".

In the process of that, this is just as stated on the original post a "Crackpot" Style hypothesis, meaning IDK if this is even scientific but it sure sounds cool and is interesting so lets discuss it!

Sadly however I just don't know enough physics to properly formulate a hypothesis with all the different laws of cosmology and astrophysics and such taken into account right off the bat, however I guarantee you as my years in school progress so will my hypothesis' formulation and mathematics improve, What you saw up above was an absolute guess at what exactly happened to create this universe, I do not credit myself that it was accurate, but it was a guess, and one of my better ones.

I suspect other motivations.

And I didn't bother to comment on the dubious copyright declaration, mainly because I don't believe a problem will ever arise.

No kidding man. Whats the word I'm looking for? Crackpot, and heavily irradiated with holes.

Edited October 22, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Phi for All]

I don't think an idea becomes a "crackpot" idea until crackpot behavior forces that perspective. An idea can just be wrong. If, however, someone starts insisting they can "prove" it but offers no real supportive evidence, starts ignoring evidence that refutes the idea while doubling down on their assertions, and becomes more convinced they're right the more people tell them they're wrong, then they're acting like a crackpot, and the idea gets treated accordingly.

 

This makes it really hard to deal with true crackpots here at SFN, because we try to focus on ideas rather than those who have them.

Sadly however I just don't know enough physics to properly formulate a hypothesis with all the different laws of cosmology and astrophysics and such taken into account right off the bat, however I guarantee you as my years in school progress so will my hypothesis' formulation and mathematics improve,

This is the outlook and behavior of a student, not a crackpot. It will be harder for you, since you have to actually learn what our best current science says about the behavior of reality. You won't get to ditch the books and make up your own stitched-together, pop-sci irradiated, mumbo-jumbo while insisting you must be right.

But once you've been through school and learned not only the facts but the methodology as well, you'll have that ability to look at a problem and have all the basics "taken into account right off the bat". Congratulations, btw, for recognizing that as a fundamental problem.

[TJ McCaustland]

 

This is the outlook and behavior of a student, not a crackpot. It will be harder for you, since you have to actually learn what our best current science says about the behavior of reality. You won't get to ditch the books and make up your own stitched-together, pop-sci irradiated, mumbo-jumbo while insisting you must be right.

 

Exactly the reason my friend, why I do what I do, I learn from each and every reply, and modify my own concept of the universe, and reality, and will do so until my concepts are identical to the real things, You are the teachers, this is my question, I am the pupil.

[John Cuthber]

You may have that fancy expert tag but that does not mean that you didn't produce stuff like this at one time or another, its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts.

I didn't produce the same crackpottery twice in the same thread, even after having had it explained to me why it was cracked.

And, as you say " its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts."

Well; you didn't learn did you?

You carried on regardless.

So the million dollar question here is

Did you actually go and learn about dimensional analysis?

If not; don't try to lecture me on the importance of learning.

[TJ McCaustland]

I didn't produce the same crackpottery twice in the same thread, even after having had it explained to me why it was cracked.

And, as you say " its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts."

Well; you didn't learn did you?

You carried on regardless.

So the million dollar question here is

Did you actually go and learn about dimensional analysis?

If not; don't try to lecture me on the importance of learning.

But a trial with a single improvement is an improvement nonetheless, at least I attempted mathematics, instead of shouting out "MY THEORY IS RIGHT! SHUT UP AND GO HOME!" In a similar fashion to my first post. I share these ideas for the purpose of collecting valuable insight on my faults in thinking and such. And about dimensional analysis, as stated earlier, IN THE PROCESS, I still have to finish up Calculus. Also that can't really be considered much of a lecture as calling you out that although you may not be doing as I am doing, you still had hypothesis' of the same state at one point or another, So you cannot say that you are not guilty of the same action.

Edited October 24, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[John Cuthber]

blah..., So you cannot say that you are not guilty of the same action.

I can say that.

I did so.

[michel123456]

 

Very helpful. What is a star^5?

To me the first idea that comes to mind is the pentalpha (or pentagram)

[TJ McCaustland]

To me the first idea that comes to mind is the pentalpha (or pentagram)

Ok wow...... Just wow.......... I can see where that came from, but I was speaking mathematically.....

[michel123456]

Pentalpha is more about mysticism and I am just pedantic.

[billiards]

And about dimensional analysis, as stated earlier, IN THE PROCESS, I still have to finish up Calculus.

 

Dimensional analysis really is not much to learn. You can *easily* learn it in an afternoon. Calculus on the other hand is something you could be studying for years and years.

[TJ McCaustland]

Oh fine. Dimensional analysis it is. This better be worth it....