We don't really have evidence of a big bang. If you have infinite Aether, it doesn't bang outwards, it collapses inwards, and that is going to look a lot like a singularity. The Aether then bumps until it switches from +1 + -1 to -1 + 1. It inverts to remain at zero. This inverted particle can pass through a positive particle because the hole in on the outside, and the hole will just cut through matter.. well it's a hole in matter. So now the particles shoot out of the hole.. this looks like a big bang. So what I have is a singularity, and a big bang, but caused by an implosion... and it's not the big bang, because this has gravity reversed, and is an implosion. This is the bump gravity version that looks a lot like the current version. So there is no proof of a big bang if you can reconstruct it in another way. But I have explained the singularity, gravity, the implosion, and all of the physics, and accounted for Before The Big Bang.
Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
We don't really have evidence of a big bang. If you have infinite Aether, it doesn't bang outwards, it collapses inwards, and that is going to look a lot like a singularity. The Aether then bumps until it switches from +1 + -1 to -1 + 1. It inverts to remain at zero. This inverted particle can pass through a positive particle because the hole in on the outside, and the hole will just cut through matter.. well it's a hole in matter. So now the particles shoot out of the hole.. this looks like a big bang. So what I have is a singularity, and a big bang, but caused by an implosion... and it's not the big bang, because this has gravity reversed, and is an implosion. This is the bump gravity version that looks a lot like the current version. So there is no proof of a big bang if you can reconstruct it in another way. But I have explained the singularity, gravity, the implosion, and all of the physics, and accounted for Before The Big Bang.
Pincho, there is pretty good science to prove that the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other. Do you agree? That supports the Big Bang.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=9ec99a58cca5314e&biw=1280&bih=633
So there is good evidence for a big bang
.But even if you have a better explanation, you have to convey it in terms that pea brains like me can understand and I can't get my head around your explanation of "before or instead of" the Big Bang.
There are various ideas about the source of energy in the universe. Do any of them support your view of something from nothing?
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=9ec99a58cca5314e&biw=1280&bih=633
Pincho, there is pretty good science to prove that the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other. Do you agree? That supports the Big Bang.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=9ec99a58cca5314e&biw=1280&bih=633
So there is good evidence for a big bang
But even if you have a better explanation, you have to convey it in terms that pea brains like me can understand and I can't get my head around your explanation of "before or instead of" the Big Bang.
There are various ideas about the source of energy in the universe. Do any of them support your view of something from nothing?
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...gc.r_pw.&fp=9ec99a58cca5314e&biw=1280&bih=633
I had Galaxies moving apart, and Galaxy bubbles in 2004, before science found the Galaxy bubbles. So I predicted them from my theory. So my theory predicts these things, science just found these things. Einstein predicted no expansion, I predicted expansion. And you seem to have missed my last post because you already asked me this question a couple of posts ago. I said that the bubbles act like filters, and some of the material leaks out pushing bubbles apart. Entropy is my source of energy. Making the Aether always equal zero when it overlaps. My formula is to maintain zero. It's easiest just to say I repeat the same process over, and over. Atom, sun, Galaxy, Universe just the same process.
Last edited:
No problem with that. It is the details that I have a problem with. And please post the details elsewhere because I am not able to grasp your concept and I would prefer to get opinions on the source of energy in the universe, then get into details. Keep it simple and I asked twice because you keep it complicated by using my thread to promote your detail instead of a simple response, where did the energy come from. I take you response to be, it came from nothing. Is that correct?
It came from +1 overlapping another particle membrane of +1. You no longer have a zero state.
I don't hate that idea, lol. But that is not "nothing". The preconditions are the overlapping +1s. Would you agree? My question, for the third time and put into your context, where did the plus ones come from. Try to think in terms of "was there a beginning" or not, and maybe we can start at the beginning or the lack of a beginning, lol.
Wow, it's like magic. My question is more basic than that.+1 + -1 overlaps to get +1 overlapping +1...
Pincho, do you think the universe had a beginning or do you think it has alway existed meaning that there is an infinite past? This is intended to tie in with the Mersini-Houghton paper. Please tell me if you have read the paper and reviewed the foot notes. Go to the opening few posts for those links.
I have read her papers. My theory starts from nothing, therefore I start at the beginning. No galaxies, and you need 1 Aether particle. But its very boring. Then you get 2 Aether particles.. then 3.. then 4 and because they equal nothing you can have as many as you want until they collapse inwards to create the singularity for the first GALAXY, not universe. Her theory is a lot like my old theory with waves.. which I corrected in 2004. What I forgot was that a 3d wave is a bubble, and I didn't know about the Aether then.
Last edited:
:shrug: Well that explains it then, except where does the one Aether particle come from, and if the answer is "it comes from nothing" them excuse me but I give up, lol.
It doesn't come from nothing, it is nothing. I know that you have used 0 all of your life but I am not breaking any rules. This is common knowledge...
1/ All things have an opposite... +1 -1.
2/ The Universe is a zero state universe +1 -1
3/ Entropy takes matter back to its fundamental state +1 -1
So with these rules.. where did zero come from, it breaks those rules.. it doesn't have an opposite. So get rid of zero, The maths system that obeys those rules is +1 + -1 = 0. Allow your mind to remove zero on its own, and now +1 + -1 is nothing.
Last edited:
You send me an email, saying you want me to reply, saying "The ball is in your court now" and when I give a lengthy reply to your post you complain I'm off topic?
Sorry but that's just flat out dishonest. You made a post which you edited before I saw the original version, because I don't care enough about this thread to immediately read it each time someone replied, and then PM'd me when I didn't reply to it soon enough.
Wow, and you try to make me out as dishonest!
I have used zero, but not double talk.
The thing is, if you read the paper and your realize what Mersini-Houghton is suggesting. Spacetime has no preconditions but it has a beginning. Eternal Inflation puts the beginning far into the past, but it is not past eternal.
If we use her paper and the spacetime multiverse as the operative cosmology, and compare it to a cosmology that complies with the Perfect Cosmological Principle, defined here; http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp...gc.r_pw.&fp=9ec99a58cca5314e&biw=1280&bih=633, then we are on topic. You haven't quite shown that you get the topic. Sorry.
Why would you think that +1 + -1 isn't perfectly symmetrical? Of course it is. Zero isn't.. it's a loner. there are supposed to be equal amounts of matter, and anti-matter... +1 and -1. I get that her paper is very flawed. If you want to jump ahead to multiverse then they are the same rules as Galaxies.. they push apart. They cause pressure on the central Universe, they can collapse the central Universe. It is a fractal. Atoms are quite close. Suns a bit more distant. Galaxies even more distant. Universe even more distant. Fractal Symmetry.
Last edited:
Oh never mind Pincho. The point is that spacetime cosmologies have a beginning but there is no explanation for it and so the alternative ideas about cosmologies that don't require a beginning interest me. I am in a very small group, lol. Actually I seem to be alone at least here at SciForums Pseudoscience forum.
Since a beginning has no preconditions by definition, spacetime cosmologies are not as flexible as to where there energy comes from. See the point? That is why I was asking where people thought the energy came from. No one who is in the standard cosmology camp can answer that question unless the have a way for something to come from nothing; and they do, it is a singularity I guess. To me it would seem to be of interest to try to avoid that like the plague. That is what makes me a deluded pea brain, lol; I want the real cosmology and I don't see how the universe could come from nothing unless some one explains it to me. And I don't mean Pincho.
Since a beginning has no preconditions by definition, spacetime cosmologies are not as flexible as to where there energy comes from. See the point? That is why I was asking where people thought the energy came from. No one who is in the standard cosmology camp can answer that question unless the have a way for something to come from nothing; and they do, it is a singularity I guess. To me it would seem to be of interest to try to avoid that like the plague. That is what makes me a deluded pea brain, lol; I want the real cosmology and I don't see how the universe could come from nothing unless some one explains it to me. And I don't mean Pincho.
Opinion:
Do you really think that the understanding exnhilio [ something from nothing ] is going to be done using standard approaches to concepts such as "in the beginning" or "in the end" when using the perspective of someone who is supposedly exists "after a beginning" or "before the end"?
If you do you are sadly mistaken.
The logic of exnhilio is considerably more profound than simply looking at "what existed before something existed"
It is obviously a huge paradox and it is by finding and accepting the paradox that the answer to the question may come. and as we know science does not accept paradox as a logical solution. Therefore the question of Exnhilio will never be answered.
just an opinion...eh what?
And God (the universe) was asked: "uhm...so how were you created?"
and God replied: "If you ever find out the answer to that one you can have my job!", "....'cause I just woke up one day and here I was..."
and God replied: "If you ever find out the answer to that one you can have my job!", "....'cause I just woke up one day and here I was..."
Last edited:
True, but then you are assuming that speculation can't apply and I think that is all we have to work with. Regards.Opinion:
Do you really think that the understanding exnhilio [ something from nothing ] is going to be done using standard approaches to concepts such as "in the beginning" or "in the end" when using the perspective of someone who is supposedly exists "after a beginning" or "before the end"?
If you do you are sadly mistaken.
The logic of exnhilio is considerably more profound than simply looking at "what existed before something existed"
It is obviously a huge paradox and it is by finding and accepting the paradox that the answer to the question may come. and as we know science does not accept paradox as a logical solution. Therefore the question of Exnhilio will never be answered.
just an opinion...eh what?
And God was asked: "uhm...so how were you created?"
and God replied: "If you ever find out the answer to that one you can have my job!", "....'cause I just woke up one day and here I was..."
I am assuming no such thing but otherwise I agree!
edit: I just reread what I wrote and I think I just confused the issue terribly..:bawl:
thus deleted to keep on topic
thus deleted to keep on topic
Last edited:
It's very simple 0 is always relative to two conditions. +1 + -1. If I had 1 apple, and took 1 apple away.. you are actually transferring energy. You have two conditions, but they are hidden in the question. If something has a speed of zero.. relative to something else. Two conditions. Zero is always made from two conditions. So +1 + -1 = nothing. It is actually nothing once you get your head around zero being relative. But the way I have made the Aether is very special as well. The inner area is identical to the outer area. they are both spherical. the both share the same X/Y/Z. they both move together at the same speed. They have nothing to distinguish them apart until they overlap. I have made +1 and -1 relative to each other.
Get your head around E then...
E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)
E = the overlap of two Aether particles.
You might be able to improve that. My maths is terrible.
Get your head around E then...
E = pi*(R+r-d)²*(d²+2dr-3r²+2dR+6rR-3R²)/(12d)
E = the overlap of two Aether particles.
You might be able to improve that. My maths is terrible.
Last edited: