Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cosmilogical Theory


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:23 PM

Hello and welcome.

What I am going to share with you is a way of viewing the universe that I had not known was possible untill it came to me just recently. In fact it would not do to just say "a way to view the universe" because actually it is essentially a new view on reality, the reality of the universe we've discovered ourselves within. This can of course be considered an extension to Einsteinian Relativity (special and general relativity). This is going to be a crash course explanation, so bare with me.

Firstly, some postulates of this theoretical insight.

-There is no absolute reference frame (something most people in the scientific community are familiar with)
-(However, read carefully) The only reference frame that can occur is in the absolute.

Following these theoretical rules an interesting phenomina of reasoning unfolds.

-The present (moment of time) exists in all places at the same time
-The present exists in location A but not in location B at the same time
-The present exists in location B but not in location A at the same time
-The present exists in neither A or B at the same time

It would help to elaborate on what I mean by the present. The present is a location where time is unfolding in a moment of now(s). A central specific reference frame. A reference frame in the absolute.

What is the absolute? I call the absolute, the phenomina of a conscious experience of an individual making observations. This does not restrict any life form, but lets only concern humans since "we" are doing the experiments and observations. I have been hesitant to involve consciousness in scientific theories, but after careful thought realized it would not be possible to exclude this "phenomena".

So lets start with how to see ourselves in our universe and how to see the universe in itself based on some of these principles.

In a thought experiment sense, we can see that all places of the universe can be both considered the past, present and/or future with close to zero restrictions and it only depends on where the absolute decides to place itself.

When we make an observation of the stars our in space from our present position (spacially and time wise [space-time]) we observe our Present from the past of other positions.

For example, when we observe the sun we observe what can be considered the sun as it was approx 8mins prior to making the experiment. However, even though this is a past event, it provides the creation of a present moment for the observer.

So what happens when we view futher and further into the past? Let's say we take an extremely powerful telescope and scan the universe as far back as the beginning and we make a 360 degree observation. Suppose what we see is evidence of extremely hot gas from a "big bang" like event in all directions. Now, it may seem right to imagine this as a sort of view of the edge of the universe, where one is seeing the locations on the circumference of an approx 12billion light year radius view line.

Naturally one would visualize this area of this hot distant gas as a spacial area surrounding the area of observation in all directions, however this would be inaccurate and incomplete.

What one is observing is the universe in a box so to speak. Infact one could say that somewhere in that cloud is ones own actual position in space in the past. it is not shaped like a ring with a 12billion light year radius, where your location of observation resdies at the center.

it is only the long journey of the light through time which creates this sort of illusion that it exists in the shape of a sphere where the observer is viewing from the inside.

If we imagine for a moment to instantaniously warp ourselves to a position along this 12 billion light year distant ring or sphere, it would not be obsurd to think that one could end up at a fully developed planet like earth that is orbiting a developed star liek our sun in a developed galaxy like our milkyway. In fact I would not exclude the thought that one could infact warp to earth and appear to have never moved or changed at all, even though you have just travelled some 12billion light years. It could like saying you circled back in on yourself.

The reason for this to not be absurd is due to the effect an absolute creates in the universe where there is no absolute frame. The effect being the so called "illusion" of the past surrounding one in the shape of a sphere.

If we go back to our scenario with our teliscope and begin observing in the manner of starting from the most distant to closer and closer locations what kind of effects would one observe?

lets say we de-zoom a few billion years to the era of the first galaxies. Pretend for simplicity sake that this is at the 10billion light year distance mark. An era where there is still a high concentration of gases that have not yet formed into stars, where there is greater distance between galaxies because there is fewer galaxies and thus more space between them in this time than there is further down the road in time ( I mean closer to our telescope observation location).

Observations have been made to find that the further away a light source is observed (be it a galaxy or star) the greater its redshift is observed to be. Could this attributed to the extra gases and particles not yet formed into stars or sucked into other gravitational bodies as proposed? Or some other factor like the dimensional transformation that occurs as one views the past.

At this point I will have to stop and continue later.

I've been working on some geometry, measurements, and calculations to backup this theory if you will, and investigate further to what other insights it could deliver.

One interesting thing I was noticing was that these postulates on time (or more specifically the present) are similar to results in quantum experiments like the double slit experiment. It may be fair to say that reason is relative and thus so behave the fundamentals of mass-energy within the structures of space-time.

#2 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 12:32 AM

G'day from the land of ozzz

Mate seems to me like many words meaning nothing.

#3 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 06:39 PM

great, thanks for the response. I see I will have to spend more time on this before I am able to explain it clearly and understand it better myself.

#4 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 02:00 AM

G'day arkain

My comments should not stop you from developing your ideas.

If you wish to discuss them, just post.


One point

Time cannot change. Its not a physical item.

#5 jerrygg38

jerrygg38

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 07:41 PM

great, thanks for the response. I see I will have to spend more time on this before I am able to explain it clearly and understand it better myself.


JG: You seem to have some good ideas. The problem people have with Einsteins theories of space and time is that our brain thinks in terms of absolute references and infinite light speed. thus we can look all over the universe simultaneously if we connected into the infinite light speed reference plane.

As I see it, we live in a multi-light speed universe with light speed going from zero at the common center to infinity. We exist 15.9 billion years from the common center. Basically we live on the surface of a sphere 100 billion years in circumference. The big bang tends to be a billion simultaneous big bangs on the circumference.

We look into the mind of the common center. That is how we think.
Anyway you have some good ideas.

#6 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 15 November 2008 - 08:23 PM

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Jerry

Read your statement again.

Common centre? Where did you get this from?

and

The big bang tends to be a billion simultaneous big bangs on the circumference.


Where on earth do you get info like that?

#7 jerrygg38

jerrygg38

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:46 AM

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Jerry

Read your statement again.

Common centre? Where did you get this from?

and



Where on earth do you get info like that?


The common center is part of my multi-lightspeed theory of the universe. As I understand Einstein's thoughts, we live in a curved space time universe. He liked to use flat people living on a spherical surface to explain his curved space time.
I think his ideas were very good. In my cosmological theory, I believe that the center of all the galaxies are indeed upon a curved surface. The most simple surface is a perfect sphere. Therefore I base my theory upon us living upon a simple sphere. therefore all the galaxies originated on the spherical surface.
This means there is a common center of the entire universe. To get a picture of the total universe you can draw a circle. Upon the circumference of the circle draw circles all around it. Notice that every 60 degrees produces interesting patterns. Then go halfway from this at 30 degrees and then 15 degrees. Notice that the outer edge of the circles form a larger circle.

This is what I believe to be the shape of the universe. If we rotate the circles on the Z axis we end up with a perfect sphere for the outer edge.
The big bangs produce a spherical outward field. They also flow inward toward the common center. thus the electromagnetic and gravitational fields join at the common center and produce an outer sphere.

In effect a perfect sphere for the universe does not deny Einsteins theory of curved space time.

As far as multiple big bangs are concerned, I cannot believe that this universe is the product of an explosion at a single point. My brain cannot comprehend how the universe appears to be like Einsteins curved space time and simultaneously came from a single point. I cannot compute that.

#8 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 17 November 2008 - 06:10 PM

In a thought experiment sense, we can see that all places of the universe can be both considered the past, present and/or future with close to zero restrictions and it only depends on where the absolute decides to place itself.


Hello Arkain. I agree with the premise above to a certain extent. I might word it a bit differently, maybe:

Once an event has happened in some location then that event exists as past, present, or future in another location.

But, I don't think all of your conclusions follow from this. In particular:

What one is observing is the universe in a box so to speak. Infact one could say that somewhere in that cloud is ones own actual position in space in the past. it is not shaped like a ring with a 12billion light year radius, where your location of observation resdies at the center.


The CMB that we observe forms a sphere around us. The matter that emitted that light is currently some 46.5 billion lightyears away from the Milky Way in any direction. When the light was emitted, it was only 36 million lightyears away (in any direction) from the matter that would eventually become the Milky Way.

We cannot observe the light that our past position emitted as CMBR. It is being observed (today) by some observer that is currently 46.5 billion lightyears distant from us and was 36 million lightyears distant when our past position emitted the CMBR.

In other words, I don't think we can see our past position in the cosmic microwave background.

~modest

#9 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 01:08 PM

The common center is part of my multi-lightspeed theory of the universe. As I understand Einstein's thoughts, we live in a curved space time universe. He liked to use flat people living on a spherical surface to explain his curved space time.


Okay, going from this I think I can explain a point I was trying to make quite clearly.

There is sections of reasoning, almost to say sections of reality. This theory is almost more of a theory of how the mind works, or how reasoning works more than it is the universe. Because the core of everything we know is reasoning, and how we reason. Thus we must fully understand this core to try to understand and explain the world around us. Otherwise it is futile, and will become much more difficult and confusing than need be.

Therefore we must realize these following realities / sections of reasoning.

1)There is: The world you observe. Example, looking around the earth, seeing clouds move; looking up into space at the stars through a teliscope.

2)The world we comprehend. Our mind says there is such a thing as the "HERE" and "NOW". As such we can imagine that all around the universe there are galaxies and other bodies of mass/matter like we see on earth having events and such like we know here, however this is something that is "impossible to observe" strictly in observation. It is our imagination or mind if you will that says, because such is true at home, it must be 99.99% likely that it is happening other places under the same laws and dynamics. And thus we can assume, there is a present moment happening all over the place on all kinds of stars and planets.
(I think it is important to note in order to understand me is that I consider that comprehension is imagination, for anything in the world of thought is in our imagination. This does not mean, things of our imagination are true or false it simply just categorizes the realm of things.)

3)currently unavailable.

Because of these sections of reality. Such a theory as Einsteins Special Relativity may very well only explain the observed world. However, if we declare that the two sections are true and correct, then we can use them to declare further, that the observed world is not infact the same as the tangible world of the present "here" and "now". A study of observation behaviors and not a satisfactory theory for studying material events at extremes. Using strictly and centerally SR's model of reasoning, it may not be possible to accurately understand the functions at the quantum level.

It may be possible that this dichotomy of reality I am trying to bring to light at the macrocopic level exposes itself even at the quantum level, and thus to our "MINDS" it at first appears quote "unreasonable" or "strange and crazy".

If we understand how our minds can think we may understand why we think ( conclude) what we do in certain experiments and observations.


Now, this is all said in a suggestive manner which I tried to do on purpose.

I propose for the attempt to begin to answer the question of what all these suggestive thoughts could actually officially conclude?

#10 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 26 November 2008 - 01:13 PM

One statement that came to me just now I think will help explain in summery my thoughts.

Before an observable event or phenomina is comprehended, understood, and labled it is a mysterious enigma that is partially nonexistent.

This is because everything that one is aware that exists is a structure of reasoning in the mind. And everything that does not exist has yet to become part of that mental structure. And thus what can be considered part of our understandable reality can only exist in the mind.

#11 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 12:05 AM

G'day Arkain

What has this got to do withthe price of eggs?

#12 jerrygg38

jerrygg38

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 07:21 AM

Okay, going from this I think I can explain a point I was trying to make quite clearly.

Because of these sections of reality. Such a theory as Einsteins Special Relativity may very well only explain the observed world. However, if we declare that the two sections are true and correct, then we can use them to declare further, that the observed world is not infact the same as the tangible world of the present "here" and "now". A study of observation behaviors and not a satisfactory theory for studying material events at extremes. Using strictly and centerally SR's model of reasoning, it may not be possible to accurately understand the functions at the quantum level.

It may be possible that this dichotomy of reality I am trying to bring to light at the macrocopic level exposes itself even at the quantum level, and thus to our "MINDS" it at first appears quote "unreasonable" or "strange and crazy".

If we understand how our minds can think we may understand why we think ( conclude) what we do in certain experiments and observations.


Now, this is all said in a suggestive manner which I tried to do on purpose.

I propose for the attempt to begin to answer the question of what all these suggestive thoughts could actually officially conclude?



Good thoughts. As you look at the value of special relativity, you see Einstein related the world of space and time to what we ordinary think. Everything he quotes is respect to our own bodies. Thus we view the world from our reference plane.

SR is wrong because the Michelson/Morely experiment was invalid. The gravitational field of the Earth causes the light speed in all directions to adjust to light speed Earth Ce. Thus the instrument could not measure anything other than equal light speed in all directions.

The brilliant mind of Einstein related to world to his mind. You get the same equations from the Doppler.

M(forward) = Mo (C/(C-V)
M(rear) = Mo (C/(C+V)
M(RMS) = Mo / [1-(V/C)^2]^0.5

thus Einstein is Root mean square Doppler. His answers are beautiful because they are RMS Doppler.

the distance formulas for RMS Doppler are

L(RMS) = Lo [(1-(v/c)^2]^0.5

T=To [1-(V/C)^2]^0.5

The Michelson/Morley experiment is invalid because the gravitational field of the Earth reduced the speed of the photons to our light speed as they traveled from the sun to us.

Now why do we think of an infinite light speed reference plane and instantaneous interactions? Because we exist in a multi-light speed universe. Althought Einsteins reference plane ideas are excellent, he did not understand that light speed goes from 0 to infinity in the total universe.

Another basic problem with Einstein was that he did not realize that his photons travel quantized distances. Thus my dots exist at 0 velocity, then they jump to light speed C. Then they stop and become mass dots. Then they jump to light speed C.

Thus the dots within the photons continually materialize and dematerialize. The electron for example has huge amounts of dots and they all jump from spot to spot as the electron moves. If all the dots move simultaneously the electron completely dematerializes. The probability is low of course but the electron beam will produce a distribution of spots.

The important thing is that once we only think from our own vantage point, we neglect to see the entire universe.

Your points are excellent from the position of an ordinary person who looks at the universe from inside himself. It is invalid from the point of view of a person who sees himself within the universe from outside the universe. That is the way I think. I always look at myself from outside myself. The world is different when you look at yourself from afar.