It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# New Theory: We Live In The Past of a Parallel Universe

page: 4
38
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:26 AM
bbracken677, the post by KorgTrinity below my earlier one offers another hint. Put it together with what I said and the answer should be easy.

edit on 13/1/15 by Astyanax because: of BBcode blues.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:33 AM

No offense, but you need to stop.

You are, in some cases, making my point for me. Obviously you either didn't read my post well, or you didnt understand the post. I quite clearly stated that what we see is basically looking back in time. The further objects being from farther back in time. Currently we can almost see far enough back to see the immediate aftermath of the big bang. By definition (my point) the farther we look, the greater the rate of expansion since we are getting closer to seeing things as they were immediately after the initial expansion of the universe. Given the laws of entropy, by definition the universe was (as our understanding goes) more energetic and expanding at it's greatest rate of expansion immediately after the "big bang".

I have several college level physics courses as well as a couple of Astonomy courses under my belt. I am a geologist. I considered making physics my minor and settled on computer sciences instead. Granted, this was quite a few years back, but I have a firm grasp on the basics.

You maintain that all objects are equidistant in "space-time" from an observer. The only place this hypothesis (not a theory) holds is in the "reality is a virtual reality" line of thinking and is, IMO total BS.

The center of the universe, hence, (assuming uniform expansion) the location of the original big bang would be the point at which the edge of the universe would be equidistant from the observer. Note that statement is not equal to "all things in the universe are equidistant to the observer", which is such total claptrap that I can disprove that using simple observable phenomena.

Please take your condescending, oversimplistic "explanations" and save them for high school kids.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:46 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677

No offense, but you need to stop.

You are, in some cases, making my point for me. Obviously you either didn't read my post well, or you didnt understand the post. I quite clearly stated that what we see is basically looking back in time. The further objects being from farther back in time. Currently we can almost see far enough back to see the immediate aftermath of the big bang. By definition (my point) the farther we look, the greater the rate of expansion since we are getting closer to seeing things as they were immediately after the initial expansion of the universe. Given the laws of entropy, by definition the universe was (as our understanding goes) more energetic and expanding at it's greatest rate of expansion immediately after the "big bang".

I think you maybe misunderstanding expansion.

Space is not expanding in one direction from the big bang outwards... It is expanding in all directions at once....

And it is doing so at an accelerated rate... Caused by Dark Energy.

The magnitude of this effect is compounded over great distances from any point of observation.

Peace,

Korg.
edit on 13-1-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:14 PM

NO...not at all. I understand that space is expanding in all directions. More appropriately speaking, the fabric of space, in a sense, is expanding in all directions. This has been the working theory for quite some time. I am asking about the proof, or more accurately, the supporting evidence that is explained by the rate of expansion increasing. The rate of expansion....increasing.

Yet the supposed evidence of the rate of expansion growing seems to be coming mainly, if not exclusively, from far distant objects. There is zero evidence in our own immediate area to support this, at least that is my understanding. If I am wrong, please post a link to a research paper or something of a similar level.

No one else needs to reply to this, unless they can apply the science involved and not just repeat generalities. If there is a research paper out there describing the evidence of an increasing rate of expansion that does not depend on extreme distant objects then please link it.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:21 PM

No offense, but you need to stop.

Please take your condescending, oversimplistic "explanations" and save them for high school kids.

None taken. Clearly you grew angrier in the process of inditing your post.

I quite clearly stated that what we see is basically looking back in time.

And quite clearly, I agree with you.

Currently we can almost see far enough back to see the immediate aftermath of the big bang.

Agreed; we seem to be getting within a few hundred million years.

By definition (my point) the farther we look, the greater the rate of expansion since we are getting closer to seeing things as they were immediately after the initial expansion of the universe.

No, not immediately (unless you count the cosmic microwave background). Light from the oldest parts of the universe will never reach us, because the expansion of space in that era (according to current theories of inflation) is superluminal, and carries the light from them away so that it never reaches us.

Given the laws of entropy, by definition the universe was (as our understanding goes) more energetic and expanding at it's greatest rate of expansion immediately after the "big bang".

As, indeed, it is believed to have done. Though oddly enough the rate of expansion seems to have started speeding up again a few billion years ago. At least, that's what the WMAP satellite data say.

I have several college level physics courses...

Good. That should make it easier for us to understand each other.

You maintain that all objects are equidistant in "space-time" from an observer. The only place this hypothesis (not a theory) holds is in the "reality is a virtual reality" line of thinking and is, IMO total BS.

Yes, I made the error of agreeing too quickly with what you said. Sorry about that. However, I did put it correctly earlier, in the post to which you were responding:

Astyanax
The Universe has no centre, the expansion occurs througout spacetime, and the distance between an observer and the most distant thing observed is the same no matter where in the universe the observer is.

What I should have said is that all objects are equidistant from the 'origin' of the Big Bang. Not because they occupy places on an expanding spherical shell (as plainly they do not) but because they have all travelled an equal distance in spacetime from the origin.

If we step into your backyard, would you be able to point me in the direction of the origin of the universe? Okay, could you point me toward the oldest galaxies visible? You can't, because they're all over the sky. The universe isn't older in one direction than it is in any other.

the point at which the edge of the universe would be equidistant from the observer.

The universe has no edge.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:30 PM

Great description

The past is no more
The future not born
The moment is timeless

A verse from a poem by me .... translated /described from the "Hermetica"s view of time

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:39 PM

Yet the supposed evidence of the rate of expansion growing seems to be coming mainly, if not exclusively, from far distant objects. There is zero evidence in our own immediate area to support this, at least that is my understanding.

That is because inflation doesn't occur around aggregations of massive objects like galaxies that are bound together by gravitational attraction.

If I am wrong, please post a link to a research paper or something of a similar level.

Simpler version for anyone else who is interested.

But this is still a pretty contentious area. I'd prefer to say there's no real evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

edit on 13/1/15 by Astyanax because: of another thing.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:52 PM
Many astrophysicists believe that the Universe underwent a period of incredibly rapid expansion shortly after the big bang. One consequence of this "inflationary" model is that the Universe is "flat" with a value of Omega equal to one. However, when all the visible mass in the Universe is added up, it is much less than that needed to give a flat Universe. This is one of the main motivations of the search for invisible or "dark" matter in the Universe.

I might add, there has been no success in finding direct evidence of dark matter and dark energy.

"The evidence for an accelerating expansion comes from observations of the brightness of distant supernovae. We observe the redshift of a supernova which tells us by what the factor the Universe has expanded since the supernova exploded. This factor is (1+z), where z is the redshift. But in order to determine the expected brightness of the supernova, we need to know its distance now. If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating due to a cosmological constant, then the expansion was slower in the past, and thus the time required to expand by a given factor is longer, and the distance NOW is larger. But if the expansion is decelerating, it was faster in the past and the distance NOW is smaller. Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. Note that these distances are all proportional to the age of the Universe [or 1/Ho], but this dependence cancels out when the brightness of a nearby supernova at z close to 0.1 is compared to a distant supernova with z close to 1."

The above, and much like it is all I have been able to find describing my the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The above explanation is highly dependent on factors which, for lack of a better way to state it, are highly suspicious or questionable. Reminds me, in a sense, of stories told by someone who knows someone who knows someone who saw what happened.

Based on the red shift of distant supernovae, or galaxies as I have read on some cases. It is based on the delta of expected red shift vs observed, given a specifically known distance ( a distance which is not, indeed, actually "known").

Back to the OP: I guess I need to research this a bit more, since it seems to me that if there could be one split, producing 2 universes, it stands to reason that more splits could also occur.

Unless the split in question occurred at the big bang and we have one universe moving in a negative relation to the other, thereby maintaining a balance. Assuming, of course, that a balance is required.

This would bring all kinds of questions, from an anthropogenic standpoint, in perception of time and causality in the "negative" universe. In ours, we see cause, followed by effect. In the negative universe would effect precede cause? Or would the perception be cause and then effect, even though the reverse would be true? The latter sounds absurd, to me.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:53 PM

I looked at the simpler version ... confession ... did not read it all

I think when it comes to the Universe no one knows 100 per cent
Bit like an ant trying to map and understand the Earth ...

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 02:01 PM

Thanks for the link. I will be sinking my teeth into that for some time to come, however.....

At first glance it does not seem to address the increasing rate of expansion...just expansion. However I qualify that statement with "at a glance". I will dig through it and get back with you on that.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:17 PM

originally posted by: Astyanax

Why do you think it implies a number of cycles over time?

I think that's a semantic question. Didn't you indicate that the
universe is cyclical in nature?

So, I'm being questioned about the definition of time (I think)

So here goes:

Scientists do not know what happened before the Big Bang; they
don't even know what happened at the time of the big bang. They
only know what happened a fraction of a second after the big bang
when the laws of physics were reported to have formed and that
would include gravity, and the other four forces that govern our
universe, and our physical reality including TIME, since time is a part
of our physical reality according to Einstein.

The reason scientists can not tell us what happened before that
fraction of a second after the Big Bang is because the pressure and
heat were so far off the map that physics as we understand it would
not have existed yet.

So, we do not know what happened at or before the Big Bang.

Oh and by the way someone (not you) stated that the Big Bang is a fact.
It's not a fact or it wouldn't be called a THEORY, it would be called a LAW.

There was another poster also that stated that (I think, correct me if I'm
wrong) stated that everything was expanding away from everything
else and that was B.S.

I wouldn't word it that way, because that would be B.S. However,
I was taught in college that all observable galaxies (and there are
billions of them) are moving away from us (red-shift indicates) and
that they are all moving away from us at the same speed, AND that
all the galaxies are moving away from each other at the same rate
of speed.

The illustration we were given in class (and is also used by Carl
Sagan in the mini-series Cosmos) is the universe is like an inflating
sphere getting bigger and bigger.

This was in the 80's that I took these science classes, and maybe
the model scientists are using now has changed. I don't know,
I'm not a scientist.

Rebel 5

edit on 13-1-2015 by rebelv because: syntax

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:37 PM

I am sure Black Holes... if they exist are connected to the Big Bang ... if we believe our science ... star matter etc pulled apart and so highly compressed into ...nobody knows what.... for it is beyond the event line and scope of our science.

edit on 13-1-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 04:19 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677

NO...not at all. I understand that space is expanding in all directions. More appropriately speaking, the fabric of space, in a sense, is expanding in all directions. This has been the working theory for quite some time. I am asking about the proof, or more accurately, the supporting evidence that is explained by the rate of expansion increasing. The rate of expansion....increasing.

Sure... Your wish is my command.

In essence Dark Energy is a consequence of the quantum nature of reality. Due to the Chaotic nature of the universe at the Planck scale and the fact that matter and energy are both a consequence of this randomness.

What you have to grasp here is the concept that matter is not located within a space-time substrate... like an apple in water.... But is in fact made of space-time.

The fabric as you call it of space-time is in fact pure raw chaos... so pure that at the fundamental levels of reality can be thought of as a sea of pure potentiality (also known as quantum foam) where there is only one natural law.

That natural law is simply the value Zero cannot exist. Zero has a Zero potential. Due to this simple rule we have chaos that inturn creates stable particles. i could literally write a book on this subject but I suggest you read up on Quantum Gravity to grasp the idea.

Suffice to say that this level of reality is creating virtual particles that comes into existence all the time, these particles always appear in pairs a positive and a negative. Just as they appear they annihilate each other... the resulting energy this creates is what we call Dark Energy.... It is this Dark Energy that is causing the universe to speed up it's expansion.

I suggest you read into the following: -

Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe

Using very distant supernovae as standard candles, one can trace the history of cosmic expansion and try to find out what’s currently speeding it up.

Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate?

Peter Coles has issued a challenge : explain why dark energy makes the universe accelerate in terms that are understandable to non-scientists. This is a pet peeve of mine — any number of fellow cosmologists will recall me haranguing them about it over coffee at conferences — but I’m not sure I’ve ever blogged about it directly, so here goes. In three parts: the wrong way, the right way, and the math.

Universe may face a darker future

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

Researchers in Portsmouth and Rome have found hints that dark matter, the cosmic scaffolding on which our Universe is built, is being slowly erased, swallowed up by dark energy.

Vacuum energy

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

Quantum Mechanics is my field so if you have any questions and I have the time, I will try my best to answer.

Peace,

Korg.
edit on 13-1-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:26 PM

Concerning quantum mechanics, as a well known physicist once stated: "anyone who claims to understand it is lying". lol I make no such claims. I may be an old fool, but not that much of an old fool.

Dark energy, much like dark matter was invented (so to speak) to resolve certain issues. Dark energy is an hypothesis, nothing more. There is no, repeat: no direct evidence of it existing despite all the effort being put into discovering it. Does it truly exist? You got me....there is a lot to suggest it does, but again: it serves a purpose to explain phenomena we THINK we are seeing and IF specific theories are correct then Dark Matter (or another explanation altogether) aptly fills in the gaps.

It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.

edit on 13-1-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 05:53 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677

Concerning quantum mechanics, as a well known physicist once stated: "anyone who claims to understand it is lying". lol I make no such claims. I may be an old fool, but not that much of an old fool.

Dark energy, much like dark matter was invented (so to speak) to resolve certain issues. Dark energy is an hypothesis, nothing more. There is no, repeat: no direct evidence of it existing despite all the effort being put into discovering it. Does it truly exist? You got me....there is a lot to suggest it does, but again: it serves a purpose to explain phenomena we THINK we are seeing and IF specific theories are correct then Dark Matter (or another explanation altogether) aptly fills in the gaps.

It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.

Science is the road to discovery... The only fools are those that think they have arrived when they are still on the road.

For a greater understanding of Dark / Vacuum energy, I urge you to please take the time to read the links I have provided.... perhaps then you may understand why Dark Energy was not an invention but simply two words to coin a phrase that describes a real phenomena of nature.

Korg.

edit on 13-1-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:02 PM

originally posted by: Astyanax
I wonder how this squares with Barbour's earlier work, in which he theorized — to his own satisfaction at least — that time does not exist?

In another post, it was stated that if the Universe was infinite, then their exists in it by that definition an infinite number of probabilities. Which means that what we experience, called life is just one of a myriad of possible experiences. We experience this life mainly by giving it all of our concentration. This is what locks us in. We need the concept of linear time, to rationalise the experience to make it seem real. The reality that the reality is composed purely of wave states , that is interpreted to make a functioning reality, seems highly probable. So basically we are decoding, one of a myriad of possible states.

Is this testable? When we concentrate on other seemingly impossible things, the more we concentrate, to interpret what we are after from the infinite possible wave states, on the face of it, it appears to stack up. If you go looking for UFOs Ghosts demons Christ mother Mary, God etc. Magic , like in any Dream state they will become real with the more time and effort you use. Added to this, once you are free of what you perceive to be your body, then you have really cracked it.We have NDE, OOBEs Astral projection etc. Which really point to the real nature of the experience. Although these are just a few of millions of possibilities. That can be thought up from a mind that works in the logic of linear time. Only thought exists, to create an environment.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:40 PM

Dark energy is nothing new to me, but I am trying to work in the readings you posted. I am still on the WMAP paper another poster linked. Lot's of math in that one...Swallowing as best I can lol

You can call it what you want, but the concept came about in an effort to explain discrepancies between theory (ies) and observed phenomena.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 10:51 PM

I look at time as a way for man to describe the difference between cause and effect. We perceive time in a linear sense (but, oddly enough at different times in our life time is perceived differently) and use minutes etc in an effort to "describe" it. Much like inches, meters and miles...they are arbitrary units used to describe an arbitrary space, in a sense.

By the different rate of time at different times in our life I like to use this analogy: When we are ten years old, a year seems to take forever to pass. When we are 60 (as I am) a year just zips right by leaving us with the odd feeling we missed part of the year, somehow. I explain the reason as 1 year represents 10% of a 10 year olds total life and therefore seems much longer than the 1/60th I perceive.

Which then brings me to the mind-bender mentioned by this OP, which is a universe in which, seemingly by definition, effect precedes cause (the negative time universe). If one were born in such a universe, no doubt it would seem normal. For someone who was born in the positive time universe who, somehow, finds themselves in the alternate universe. How odd it would be to suddenly be experiencing effect before cause.

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:42 PM
Dark matter and dark energy are said to be 95%-96% of the universe which is unknown to us. Meaning we dont know squat. . .

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:26 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677

Dark energy is nothing new to me, but I am trying to work in the readings you posted. I am still on the WMAP paper another poster linked. Lot's of math in that one...Swallowing as best I can lol

You can call it what you want, but the concept came about in an effort to explain discrepancies between theory (ies) and observed phenomena.

That much is true, the source of which was Einstein.

I think the distrust comes from the way theoretical physics works. In essence it is very much like a jigsaw puzzle, with each piece of math fitting into place with the bigger picture.

Though this method often leads to dead ends and the dreaded Infinity, it also gives us a greater understanding that something is missing or leads us to make accurate predictions about what should be.

In this case Einstein redacted his original concept stating it was his greatest blunder..... as it turns out it was not a blunder at all. Though one can understand how he concluded it as such, due to the lack of understanding during that time of Quantum Mechanics.

I appreciate the is much information to absorb.... though as I stated earlier I am available through here should there be any math or concept you are having trouble with.

Peace,

Korg.

new topics

top topics

38