The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[footy11]

Although I have zero credentials other than a high school diploma, I hope you guys can hear out my developing theory.

[Buffy]

Sure, but why not open a new thread to discuss it...don't want to take this one off in a different direction if possible...

 

Thanks!

Buffy

[Thunderbird]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

 

 

The Split of Zero

 

Conceptually, this is a very simple theory. It is easy to understand if we replace the infinitely dense mass-energy complex (of the big bang theory) with zero and the event of big bang with the split of zero. In other words, it is from nothing that everything sprang up. Mathematically,

 

0 = +x –x.

 

Zero 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. The universe will always obey the law of conservation, that is, the sum total of all existing things and phenomena should be zero.

 

Although this theory explains the origin of the universe from nothing, it is not without difficulties. According to this theory, there must be positive and negative mass, positive and negative energy, positive and negative space, and positive and negative time. Why don’t they cancel each other and become zero? This can be explained by supposing that the positive and negative things are compartmentalized so that they do not interfere with each other. It means that we live in a positive (or negative?) universe and there must be some negative universe as well. This does not explain how the positive and negative things could be compartmentalized.

 

Another difficulty with the theory of “split of zero” is that if zero can split, other things can split too. Mathematically,

 

If 0 = +x –x,

Then, 2= +4 -2,

8 = +4 +4, and so on.

 

However, we do not see any object splitting spontaneously in front of our eyes. The theory of “split of zero” fails to explain this contradiction.

 

 

The nature of Zero

 

The contradiction shown above is the major limiting factor of the theory of “Split of zero.” In order to resolve this problem, we need to study the nature of zero. For this, let us assume a hypothesis and then try to support the hypothesis with reasoning and available data.

 

Hypothesis: “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.”

By “things,” we mean mass or energy or space or time or any other conceivable phenomena in the universe.

 

This would mean that gross things would be stable because they are quite distant from zero. However, the smaller it becomes, more is its instability. The closer it gets to zero, its instability increases to such an extent that it can never become zero. In other words, zero would be infinitely unstable. Therefore, zero (nothing) cannot exist by itself. The only way by which zero can exist is in the form of positives and negatives, the sum total of which is zero.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Hi durgatosh,

For what its worth I think we are groping the same elephant.

This is what I'm "feeling" :) Let me know if any of this helps.

 

 

First of all, time is an experience. According to basic laws of physics there is no fundamental reason why we see the universe as either historical, or as yet to be.

What we do is observe causes and affects back to a singularity/zero point, a first cause in a linear way.

This point of origin being the first causal point of all we see. This is a point of no time, no movement, no things.

This point a complete opposite of everything outside of it.

This tells you much in the way dualities.

 

These opposites drive one another.

 

 

 

The driving force’s of the universe are dualities, up down, right left, positive negative, past and future.

These dualities create currents between one another to create movement.

 

All these dualities can be traced to one main duality, temporal time and eternal principles- {Singularity/ zero point}. The universe can only exist with a balance of opposite but complementary poles. These dualities create the movement, cycles and evolution we experience as the temporal observer. The ultimate duality is the eternal and the temporal, without one the other has no contextual existence, therefore the visible universe and man are manifestations brought into existence by the presents of the eternal form. The Singularity.

------------------------

Therefore if the singularity is the source of all, and does not exist in temporal time, there was no big bang in as much as a historical linear sense, but a nonlinear construct that exist in all states at once .

 

The same can be said for the particle, it has no real independent existence aside from how it is measured it in the context of an observer, who is moving though time. The particle does not really move but reflects like a hall of mirrors, the singularity’s opposite creation.

This opposite is expressed metaphorically in the myth of Indra’s net

-------------------

Quote

 

Indra's Net is a core metaphor of HuaYen.

Stephen Mitchell, in his book The Enlightened Mind, wrote:

"The Net of Indra is a profound and subtle metaphor for the structure of reality. Imagine a vast net; at each crossing point there is a jewel; each jewel is perfectly clear and reflects all the other jewels in the net, the way two mirrors placed opposite each other will reflect an image ad infinitum. The jewel in this metaphor stands for an individual being, or an individual consciousness, or a cell or an atom. Every jewel is intimately connected with all other jewels in the universe, and a change in one jewel means a change, however slight, in every other jewel."

(It's also interesting to note that contemporary physicists are in general agreement that this ancient metaphor is indeed a good description for the universe.)

[capricornicis]

At the point where matter "Externally Colapses " it is considered to be critic-mass in a sense, right? Isn't it possible the centripetal position in the matter accelerates and disperses a force in the form of dark energy. It has a infinite cycle of inverse properties, once one property of the matter reachs the point of "assymptotic zero" the mass energy in the given space is absolute in ratio to surrounding mass energy.