coldcreation Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery Durgatosh Pandey The Split of ZeroZero is the singularity. Before the beginning, there was nothing; no mass, no energy, no time, no space. We can mathematically represent this nothing as zero. The origin of universe was the split of zero. From zero, several positive and negative things sprung up. This was the beginning of time, space, mass and energy. ... . This seems to contradict what you just wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Costas Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 Hello All People assume that the Big Bang is reality and from there they make conclusions. Split zero and what have you? With all the ad hoc ideas put into the Big Bang. What else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 ColdCreation This seems to contradict what you just wrote. I have explained this on a number of occasions, and I will explain it again. I would urge you to read my 1st post carefully. The "split of zero" was a concept I designed to explain the origin from zero. Quickly, I realised the limitations of this concept (if zero can split, so can any other number; but we do not see objects splitting spontaneously). I thought hard and then formulated the hypothesis "the stability of an entity is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero". I derived support for this hypothesis from quantum theory and my illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles. Suddenly, everything made sense. Zero (nothing) cannot exist by itself; it can exist only as a vast multitude of things and phenomena with a sum total of zero. Thus, universe has always existed, it is eternal, with the entire array of positives and negatives with a sum total of zero. It is not a contradiction, my friend. It is an evolution of a concept. Harry CostasPeople assume that the Big Bang is reality and from there they make conclusions. Split zero and what have you? With all the ad hoc ideas put into the Big Bang. What else? Harry, you have so often replied in my thread. And I am surprised to hear this from you. My theory has nothing to do with the big bang theory. In fact, I do not believe that big-bang explains the origin. It may have happened, but it surely does not explain the origin. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 As I mentioned in my earlier posts, my interpretation of zero is that it is a composite of all possible numbers, from negative infinity to positive infinity. 0 = (+1-1) + (+2-2) + (+3-3) + (+4-4) .......... you can continue this indefinitely, but the sum would be zero. This reinterpretation of zero helps us understand the true nature of nothingness (i.e. it is a composite of all entities and phenomena, positives and negatives). If you combine this with the hypothesis "the stability of an entity is indirectly proportional to its proximity to zero", zero (nothing) becomes an impossibility and therefore can only exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, with a sum total of zero. Since zero cannot exist on its own, there is no event of the split of zero, i.e. there is no origin. Therefore, universe has always been there; without origin or annihilation: a composite of all negative and positive entities and phenomena so long as the sum is zero. "Split of zero" is an intermediate explanation, a tool to understand the nature of nothingness or zero. But my final conclusion is the eternity of universe because of the infinite instability (impossibility) of zero. Whether the negative and positive universes are compartmentalized or the fundamental entities of the universe (space. time, matter/energy, consciousness...) are inter-related in a way that their sum is zero: these are two possibilities to explain about negatives and positives in the universe. To me, the fundamental truth is the eternity of universe based on the mathematical explanation of the impossibility of zero. The rest are just details. Thanks Kailas. This hypothesis was formulated by me when I was contemplating about the limitations of "split of zero" (If zero can split, so can any other number). It is curiosity, not brilliance. DPhi durgatosh, suddenly something sprung up in my mind..... wouldn't anti-matter be unstable coz of the anti-neutron problem....neutron has no charge ,,so anti-neutron is either +ve or -ve , so it would be unstable , i think... if that's true , my concept of -ve matter or anti-matter can't exist. did u read the msg i sent to u?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery ...snip, snip, snip... Origin of universe: the final theory The following points have already been explained: 1. The issue of origin can only be resolved if we can explain that universe originated from nothing.2. “Split of zero” explains the possibility of origin from nothing. However, it does not explain why we do not see things splitting spontaneously (if zero can split, why a finite object doesn’t also split?).3. “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.” In other words, zero is infinitely unstable and therefore cannot exist. This infinite instability of zero is also supported by the quantum theory and the illustration of overtaking vehicles. If we combine the above points to come to a conclusion, it is obvious that the sum total of everything in the universe is zero. But because zero cannot exist on its own, it can only exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives. Therefore, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. It has always existed and will always exist as an infinite multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which will always be zero. I don't see anywhere in the natural world an observation that could falsify or substantiate your claims. Do you? What's your take on redshift, expansion, acceleration, CMBR, light element abundance, heavy elements, formation of the large-scale structures, small-scale structures. In order please. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 ColdCreationI don't see anywhere in the natural world an observation that could falsify or substantiate your claims. Do you? Mine is a mathematical theory about the origin of universe. It is based on the re-interpretation of zero and its relationship (equivalence) to infinity. Zero and infinity are concepts; they are the explanation to the existence of the universe. It is very difficult to produce conditions in the natural world where we can actually verify or falsify my hypothesis. The reason I say this is that in order to verify my hypothesis, one has to look into a very very small scale (quantum scale of time, space, matter/energy). At that scale, the tools of observation (be it light, photons, electrons or whatever) would distort the conditions so that what we observe is not actually what happens. In addition, it would be too presumptuous for us as human beings to assume that we have all the faculties of sense organs and intellect to understand everything. I have elaborated this point in the introduction of my first post under the heading "The blind men and the elephant". However, if you think mathematically (and I believe this is the only way to understand reality because tools of observation distort the real picture), you will find merit in my theory. ColdCreationWhat's your take on redshift, expansion, acceleration, CMBR, light element abundance, heavy elements, formation of the large-scale structures, small-scale structures. In order please. I wish I could explain these with as much conviction as I explain my theory about the origin. As I mentioned earlier, all these things which you mention are details, which I would be very happy to learn from the experts. Honestly speaking, I have been fascinated by my desire to understand the two fundamental questions of existence: about the origin of universe and about the nature of consciousness. I believe I have found a satisfactory answer to the first (many would disagree and that is fine with me). I am still searching and thinking about the second question... DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I don't see anywhere in the natural world an observation that could falsify or substantiate your claims. Do you? What's your take on redshift, expansion, acceleration, CMBR, light element abundance, heavy elements, formation of the large-scale structures, small-scale structures. In order please. CCDurg is a big banger, CC. It's an attempt to explain "the" big bang from nothingness. Am I correct, Durg? Therefore, the answers to CC's questions would be imported from the ΛCDM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Happy new year to everyone! SouthtownDurg is a big banger, CC. It's an attempt to explain "the" big bang from nothingness. Am I correct, Durg? Therefore, the answers to CC's questions would be imported from the ΛCDM. Unfortunately, you are not. It seems that most readers of my theory get fixated at the "split of zero", which I admit is analogous to the big-bang in the sense that zero is the singularity from which the universe arose. However, I have explained a number of times that the "split of zero" is just an intermediate explanation which then evolves into my actual thought: about the reinterpretation of zero based on the infinite instability of zero. This explains the universe to be eternal and everlasting; a composite of all negatives and positives, with a sum total of zero. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcewen Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 It's a question that my 6 year old asked me recently after school - I am a liar and untrustworthy since he got wind of Pluto being 'de-listed.'Cheers dears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 It's a question that my 6 year old asked me recently after school - I am a liar and untrustworthy since he got wind of Pluto being 'de-listed.'Cheers dears Please read more than a thread's subject line prior to posting in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 It is very difficult to produce conditions in the natural world where we can actually verify or falsify my hypothesis. So your idea is unverifiable at the telescope. The reason I say this is that in order to verify my hypothesis, one has to look into a very very small scale (quantum scale of time, space, matter/energy). At that scale, the tools of observation (be it light, photons, electrons or whatever) would distort the conditions so that what we observe is not actually what happens. So your idea is unverifiable at all energies in an accelerator. In addition, it would be too presumptuous for us as human beings to assume that we have all the faculties of sense organs and intellect to understand everything. I have elaborated this point in the introduction of my first post under the heading "The blind men and the elephant". Isn't the title of this thread The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery¿ However, if you think mathematically (and I believe this is the only way to understand reality because tools of observation distort the real picture), you will find merit in my theory. Merit is found in a theory when it's predictions are confirmed, even if only in principle. I wish I could explain these with as much conviction as I explain my theory about the origin. If the universe is infinite (as you write) how is there an beginning, an origin (as you write). It don't jive. As I mentioned earlier, all these things which you mention are details, which I would be very happy to learn from the experts. The details (as you write) are not details. They are observed phenomena from which interpretations and conclusions are drawn regarding cosmology, nature, the physical world. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 ColdCreationSo your idea is unverifiable at the telescope.So your idea is unverifiable at all energies in an accelerator.Merit is found in a theory when it's predictions are confirmed, even if only in principle. It is well known that phenomena in a very small scale cannot be observed as they are. Any attempt at observing them distorts the real picture so that what we observe is different from what actually is. If you wish to verify my theory which is based on the instability of entities in close proximity to zero, you will have to think mathematically. Let me put it in perspective. 1. The universe either had an origin, or it always existed. 2. If it had an origin, one has to ultimately explain this origin from nothingness (zero) to avoid falling into the trap of the endless question of "where it came from". Hence, the "split of zero". But the split of zero has its limitations as previously mentioned (if zero can split, so can anything else, but we do not see finite objects splitting spontaneously). 3. Hypothesis: "The stability of an entity is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero". Therefore, zero is infinitely unstable and hence cannot exist on its own. I got support for this from the quantum theory and the illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles. 4. In view of the above, how do you explain the origin? Since zero (nothing) is impossible, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. The universe is zero in sum, but infinite in range (negative infinity to positive infinity). It is purely a mathematical theory. If you find evidence of nothingness, my theory is refuted. If you keep looking for origin, you will have to ultimately explain it from nothing. My theory solves these problems. Yes, it cannot be tested with the means of observation, but it stands the tests of mathematics and logic. If you cannot find merit in it, well, I have nothing to say. I have presented my concept; there will always be detractors and supporters. ColdCreationIsn't the title of this thread The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery¿If the universe is infinite (as you write) how is there an beginning, an origin (as you write). It don't jive. Solving the mystery of the origin does not necessarily mean that one has to accept that there was an origin. I started from trying to explain the origin, then showed how such a concept is flawed, and then went on to explain how the universe is eternal, infinite, and still zero in sum. Have you forgotten the good old proofs in mathematics to begin with assuming the opposite and later disproving the assumption! It is a perfectly valid approach to solve a problem. ColdCreationThe details (as you write) are not details. They are observed phenomena from which interpretations and conclusions are drawn regarding cosmology, nature, the physical world. Of course, and I have a lot of respect for experts trying to interpret these phenomena. I have presented a theory about the origin (or if you prefer, eternity) of universe. It may throw some light at these phenomena, but to my understanding, I still cannot talk with a lot of conviction about these. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Have you read anything by Halton Arp et al?Article - ARP Controversy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I have presented my concept; there will always be detractors and supporters. I don't see how anyone could support an idea that (like god) has no physical proof, either against is or for it. Solving the mystery of the origin does not necessarily mean that one has to accept that there was an origin. I started from trying to explain the origin, then showed how such a concept is flawed, and then went on to explain how the universe is eternal, infinite, and still zero in sum. DP There is nothing new in this type of conjecture. Ever hear of Edward Tryon (see 1973), Guth, free lunch, etc... CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted January 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Quote:Quote:Originally Posted by durgatosh Solving the mystery of the origin does not necessarily mean that one has to accept that there was an origin. I started from trying to explain the origin, then showed how such a concept is flawed, and then went on to explain how the universe is eternal, infinite, and still zero in sum. DP There is nothing new in this type of conjecture. Ever hear of Edward Tryon (see 1973), Guth, free lunch, etc... CC While others have certainly conjectured about an eternal universe and also origin from nothing, I don't know if anyone has given a mathematical explanation for the eternity of universe. My idea about the infinite instability of zero and re-interpretation of zero as a composite of everything (from negative infinity to positive infinity) explains the eternity of the universe mathematically. If you have come across this concept anywhere else, I would be glad if you could share that with me. SouthtownHave you read anything by Halton Arp et al?Article - ARP Controversy I had not seen it previously, but I read from the link you provided. To quote from it, If one views the form of a spiral galaxy, it can appear more as having unfolded out from a centre, rather than having condensed inwards from homogeneous matter in space. That antithesis does quite well express the contrast between Arp's views, and current cosmological theories. We have become conditioned to the idea of black holes at galactic centres, as a logical consequence and end-result of the Big Bang. Let's try instead to envisage Arp's view, of galactic centres as white holes, from which the matter of galaxies has emerged. Creation, out of nothing? ......Galaxies grow, Arp theorises, from quasars. Arp argues that, repeatedly, filaments are seen to connect quasars with their parent galaxies. That is the crux of his argument. Far from being the gigantic entities they are cracked up to be, out on the very edge of the universe, quasars are generally ejected in equal and opposite pairs along the galactic axis, the hub of its rotation. They have their high-redshifts because they are newly-formed. That's the shock! In fact, they have supported it from a telescopic observation of a galaxy with a quasar and a luminous bridge between them. Coming to its posible relationship with my theory, these happenings at the edge of the observable universe would possibly be due to the instability at close proximity to zero. While it would be extremely difficult to reproduce the conditions at such small scales as quantum scale in laboratory, it would be certainly happening somewhere in the universe. The telescopic photograph is indeed a compelling evidence. Thanks, Southtown, for the link. I would like to study Ark's book to find further evidences. It would probably answer some of CC's questions about the lack of observational data to support my hypothesis. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southtown Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Arp's view is also one of an eternal universe and your last few posts reminded me of him. I am part way through his second book, Seeing Red, and it is cram-packed with observational details. I am now spoiled to his level of scientific persuasion. What's more, Hawking's Paradox is farse which says that information is destroyed that finds itself consumed by a black hole. In which case, gamma ray bursts wouldn't be such a mystery. It just makes sense to me that black holes will periodically burp material at its poles (where gravity is weaker?). And as this protomatter escapes the gravity of this black hole and its galaxy, it undergoes change. It inflates, grows, and condenses. Just my views. I'll try to dig up more links. It's probably right up your alley. InfiniteNow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 1. No-things, absence of thoughts, consciousness being conscious of consciousness, things (objective) are thoughts (subjective) manifested at different rates of vibrations.2. Finite objects split on the microscopic level (the fertilized ovum).3. Life on the microscopic level is unstable.4. This sum total is what some few label as God while the masses give glory to the creating attribute of this diety. What we must learn to accept is that as sure as each of us took the time to formulate and give order to our communications, that there was a moment in duration for the calculation of the formulation that we call the "Big Bang" which is simply a part of the unknown of the unknowable. Peace Mark 4:11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.