As I See It: An Attempt at Explaining the Universe

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
As I See It
Chapter One: Creation

When it all boils down to it, it’s really a matter of logic. Man is a creature that (collectively, if not individually) strives to know. It is never satisfied with the unanswered question or the unexplained phenomenon. This is not to say, however, that it is all knowing, or even on the right track. However, the logical mind will quickly come to understand that the knowledge generated by modern science has applications outside the classroom. And I’m not talking about electronics.

One of the greatest questions to plague the mind of researchers, philosophers, little children and just about everyone in between is where, exactly, the universe came from. The scientifically accepted model of the universe’s history, the “Big Bang Theory”, states that “the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day.”1 There is a flaw in this argument, and it’s not that the universe started small and got big.

The flaw in the Big Bang Theory, at least as an answer to this specific mystery, is that it answers nothing. It requires an initial condition, which is to say, that at some point in the history of the universe, the universe was still there, but different. No satisfactory answer to where the initial condition exists because no testable hypothesis has been put forth. But how could such a question be tested, without creating another universe? (A problem I’ll have to get into later.)

Fortunately, the philosophic mind has an answer where science fails. It is entirely possible that the universe was initially created by an extra-universal entity. A deity, if you like. Allah, Jaweh, Ra, any god or pantheon you choose, or no title more specific than creator. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing wrong with this explanation. Yes, it cannot be proven. But it cannot be disproved either... and if thought about long enough, the laws of physics will support this.

Now, before we all get out the tear gas, please remember that we’re trying to be logical here, and logic is something that will scare you if you aren’t paying attention. I am not saying that any one religion is true or false, no more than I am saying that the moon gives off it’s own light. It doesn’t, by the way; it reflects sunlight. But lunar meteorology is not the topic of this discussion.

Think, for a moment, about matter. It is all around us, and everything we can observe about our universe consists of matter and it’s intertwined cousin, energy. A very proven law of the universe, the law of Conservation of Matter (and also that of the same for Energy), states that Matter (and Energy) can not be created or destroyed, but only converted from form to form. The two are also interchangeable, as shown by the famous Einsteinian equation E=mc^2.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Which means one of three things. The universe has always existed and will always exist (a favorite of the skeptic), or something above the power of the laws of the universe (ie, something in another universe) spawned this one, or the laws of the universe have changed at some point in the future.

We are left here with a choice, and since we’re taking this logically, we’ll have to think it through. Thankfully, everyone knows of the basic premise of Ockham’s Razor, which is to say that the simplest solution is often closest to the mark. Let’s see which solutions it cuts.

At first blow, simply assuming the universe has already existed and will continue to exist is simple. However, it is not really a solution at all. For the universe to have existed ad infinitum into the past would have to mean that it is far older than the 13.7 billion commonly accepted years2 which it is. Sorry Texas, no, it is not 6,000, it is, in fact, 13, 700, 000, 000 years. Just a tiny difference. This statement is supported by the fact that time is universally considered a boundless measure....




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
in much the same way as the universe is considered infinite in scope itself. And, also, it does not answer the question. Therefore, for the purposes of our discussion, the universe, at some point, did not exist.

As for the laws of physics changing, ask yourself when the last time the laws of physics have changed. I am not asking when the laws, as humans understand them, changed. I am asking when something that happened in the universe happened one minute and then, in the next minute, did not. Gravity, the weak and strong forces, the speed of light in a vacuum... all constants. Cornerstones of our reality which have been the same since the beginning of measurable time. These universal constants changing is an extremely unlikely event, something on the order of a human being spontaneously transmuting to gold. If any of these laws changed (with the possible exception of the speed of light in vacuum), the result would be catastrophic, to say the least. The very molecules that make up objects, and maybe even the atoms or subatomic particles that make up them, would no longer be attracted to each other enough to remain. Everything in the universe would become a gas or plasma instantaneously. So unlikely an occurrence that it is, from a logical standpoint, unreasonable.

Which leaves us only with the idea that something beyond our universe created, at the very least, the initial energy and matter that would later be affected by the Big Bang and become our modern universe. This is not so unreasonable as one would think. The universe exists; we know this because it is observable and testable (ontonics is not a part of this discussion either). If I throw a brick at a wall, the brick will follow a perfectly predictable flight path before making it’s hole. This sets a precedent. If one universe can exist, why can’t another? Or another? Or Another? The thing is, they would be outside our universe, unreachable by observation. No test could definitively prove they exist, but neither could it prove they did not. In such a case, the laws of that universe could be incredibly different. What is to say that a universe does not exist wherein one or several “unusually” powerful beings exists, with the power to influence other universes either consciously or unconsciously? Nothing, really, because universal constants only exist in their own universes, much like laws only exist on their side of the border.

Consider the following: The universe is an infinite bubble of space, expanding at all times in four dimensions. These dimensions are X (horizontal in a sideways fashion), Y (horizontal in a left-right fashion), Z (vertically) and T (forward in the time direction). Since one universe already exists, it is not unreasonable to assume that others can also exist, also infinite in volume, and all also expanding in terms of X, Y, Z, and T. Just as would happen when charting multiple functions on the same graph, at some point the “walls” of the universes (that is to say, the points where they are currently expanding) would intersect. Such interactions, as they must surely exist, are intangible by any human sense or any method known by science. However, it is entirely possible that in one or many universes, a being or species of beings would be able to perceive this interactions, and perhaps even manipulate them. It is then possible that the mechanics of that universe would allow for energy, matter, or both to be connected across universes.

Black Holes are commonly accepted to consist of very dense matter compressed into a very small space, a singularity. If, then, before the Big Bang, all matter occupied one space before being scattered, it could be said that our universe began as a very, very large black hole. This implies that other black holes could, in fact, be the seeds of universes. We are now presented with another interesting fact: the “core” of a black hole is accepted to be known as a Singularity, which is defined as having zero volume...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
If there is matter, how can it occupy no space? Since even the smallest elementary particles must have volume, there is no way that any mass at all could have zero volume, as volume is defined as the amount of space occupied by an object.

If this is then the case, than the mass behind a black hole, or rather, inside its singularity, must not occupy any space at all. If it doesn’t occupy any space, it doesn’t fit within X, Y, and Z of our universe, but because it’s affects can be seen over time, it must therefore occupy T. If it isn’t in our space, where must it be?

It is in another space. It satisfies the variables of X, Y, and Z in another universe, on another graph. We can still perceive it because that universe intersects with our own, and it can occupy all universes it touches at once, so long as its has not yet “expanded” and remains at (0,0,0,0). That is, until that universe begins to move forward in time (and therefore, expand in terms of spatial dimensions), it exists in all universes passing through it. However, when it “initializes” and begins to expand, becoming (∞, ∞, ∞,1) (and so forth), it’s volume is no longer zero, and satisfies it’s OWN space. This is why black holes will seem to vanish over time; as soon as the mass that makes it up goes from zero volume to having volume, it immediately occupies space and can no longer exert infinite gravity, allowing the laws of physics (as they exist in that world) to come into play. Because humanity has no way to perceive the boundaries of this other universe, we can no longer observe it, and it appears to vanish.

Black Holes certainly persist more than an instant. This brings us back to the topic of physical constants. Time is the difference between changes in the universe. In our universe this rate is consistent, enough that we can devise units to describe it’s passage. In another universe, this could become a completely different constant. An “Instant” in one universe could be half a Planck in our time, or it could be billions of years. Since the back hole would persist for the instant of t=0 in its own universe, it will stay apparent in ours for however long it takes that instant to pass. This could be far less than we consider measurable (a Planck is considered the smallest possible unit of time) or it could be great (millions of billions of years.)

Black Holes have a measurable affect on matter in our own universe, seemingly absorbing it and using it to drive their own gravitational field, sucking more matter until they eventually seem to collapse. They also absorb energy: it is well-known that a photon traveling at c, the speed limit of the universe, cannot escape a black hole once it passes within a certain distance of it. This distance is known as the Event Horizon. Therefore, matter and energy are put into the singularity. What previously existed in space and time now exists in time only (because this transformation occurred, it can be expressed in terms of t.) It has joined the singularity in its baby universe, and, when the black hole collapses at the Big Bang of that universe, the matter remains inside. This is how it is possible for universe-universe interaction to occur. Universes share matter and energy. It satisfies the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy as well; the matter taken by the black hole into its new universe was not destroyed, and though it appeared inside the universe where it did not exist before, it did not create matter either. The amount of matter in all universes is constant.

Which leads us back to the problem of trying to decide where it came from in the first place. However, considering that we now know Time is not constant in all universes, it is possible that, in at least one universe, something else has occurred.

Since physical constants do not exist as the same value in all universes, it is not unreasonable to assume the laws of physics, as we understand them, are not also variable. It is entirely possible that...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
there is at least on universe out there where the Laws of Conservation no longer hold true. Such a universe would have infinite energy and mass. Infinite mass would be equivalent to the infinite gravity of a finite mass packed into zero space (IE, a primordial universe), causing such a universe to be very much like a universe at t=0, except it would maintain these properties at all times. Because it has the capacity to expand infinitely just as any other universe, it would exist in all universes at all times and form black holes wherever they intersect. There is nothing to say that in another universe, with ready access to this infinite mass, there exists a creature or creatures capable of performing the reverse of a black hole, taking out matter. Since even a tiny portion of an infinite-mass universe would have infinite mass, each portion removed would be a black hole. Suppose that the laws of physics in that second universe allowed for such a manipulation (gravity was a weaker force overall, for example). A sentient being in such a universe could then draw upon the powers of the Universe of Infinite Mass and Energy, removing from it as they pleased to make other black holes, and therefore other universes. Such a being would seem to violate the laws of physics in almost all other universes, making it appear “godlike”. It also possible, then, that if that being can survive the enormous forces involved in a singularity that they could move from universe to universe (assuming the receiving universe was at t=0 and intersected the one they were leaving) without harm, and would then be in a position to influence events in that universe after t became greater than zero. They would, however, instantly become subject to that universe’s laws of physics, unless we make another assumption.

We know that gravity is a property of matter, and that all matter in our universe exerts gravity at a given rate per unit of density (ergo per unit of mass and the space that mass must occupy). It is held as fact that this constant is, in fact, constant, for all matter in our universe, along with all the other physical constants.

However, consider that the being from another universe, who was able to withstand singularity because of his weak gravity-constant, is made up of matter from another universe. It would not be unreasonable that, once the laws of physics are fully established in a given universe (it is also held that this didn’t happen in our universe until the first shift in states (the so-called Planck Epoch) the laws of physics in that universe would hold for all the matter inside it, even in other universes. Because the laws of physics cannot change once they exist, this creature could exist outside of the new universe’s laws of physics. It would continue to experience all physical changes exactly as it had before, according to it’s laws of physics. It would therefore seem to the inhabitants of that universe that this creature would be above the laws of physics, and as long as he remained in that universe, he would be, for all intents and purposes, omnipotent.

Because the mass of the Primary Universe (the one without the laws of conservation) is infinite, the potential number of universes is also infinite. Also, once a universe undergoes it’s first unit of time and the laws of physics for that universe are established, if the Laws of Conservation exist within it, it’s mass becomes finite (because it will, eventually, have a bound.)
~Fin



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I believe there could be a possible answer to your question:


Fractals.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ephiram-Lo
Which leads us back to the problem of trying to decide where it came from in the first place.


A fantastic post
......I like your ideas....let me explain why


The more bizarre and unfamiliar science shows the universe to be, the more I believe that there is a God who designed such concepts as energy and dimensions, with intentions.

'We' at our very fundamental level according to known science are nothing more than energy in something.

Yet as that energy we are aware....we have desires.... we fear..... we love... we have a soul.

That is what God created, and science by its nature will never be able to prove or disprove that.

Science and religion sit side by side very well in my eyes, there is no contradiction I see. I am very comfortable with being a Christian and believing in not only evolution, but multiple multi dimensional universes, and perhaps also your ideas a little more also


A star and flag from me.......I did understand the concepts you were suggesting, but I think just for the sheer braveness also



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
"As for the laws of physics changing, ask yourself when the last time the laws of physics have changed. I am not asking when the laws, as humans understand them, changed. I am asking when something that happened in the universe happened one minute and then, in the next minute, did not. "

The moment of the creation of our universe. Also, the laws of physics change given the conditions of a singularity.


"Which leaves us only with the idea that something beyond our universe created, at the very least, the initial energy and matter that would later be affected by the Big Bang and become our modern universe. "

This statement assumes that the laws of causality in a state outside our universe are consistent with the laws of causality in our universe. This is not necessarily true.


"Black Holes have a measurable affect on matter in our own universe, seemingly absorbing it and using it to drive their own gravitational field, sucking more matter until they eventually seem to collapse. "

Be careful here. Black holes don't actually suck anything in as a rule. They simply create a condensed gravitational effect that the mass within the black hole would have created anyway, that is, it condenses the effects of gravity to a small volume of space thereby creating a more localized and a seemingly more intense effect.


"It has joined the singularity in its baby universe, and, when the black hole collapses at the Big Bang of that universe, the matter remains inside."

There is also the possiblity, equally unprovable, that the matter within a black hole is converted to a form of energy or matter that has yet to be detected and is redispersed into our universe upon the black hole's collapse.


"However, consider that the being from another universe, who was able to withstand singularity because of his weak gravity-constant, is made up of matter from another universe. It would not be unreasonable that, once the laws of physics are fully established in a given universe (it is also held that this didn’t happen in our universe until the first shift in states (the so-called Planck Epoch) the laws of physics in that universe would hold for all the matter inside it, even in other universes. "

The problem here is that you violate the definition of "inside"...or at least, you bend it in such a way that it is meaningless to use it anymore.

The way I see the logical trans-dimensional interaction/exchange of laws is as follows:
Being A is created in universe A.
Being A is restricted by laws of A.
Being A leaves universe A.
Being A is not restricted by laws of A.
Being enters universe B.
Being is restricted by laws of B.

What you are saying is as follows:
Being A is created in universe A.
Being A is restricted by laws of A.
Being A leaves universe A.
Being A is still restricted by laws of A.
Being enters universe B.
Being is restricted by laws of A.

The problem is that, given these conditions, you are saying that Being A can interact with universe B but not vice versa.

Either you are mistaken almost entirely or you have missed a crucial rung on the pandimensional ladder.


As a closing remark, I would like to point one last thing out: you may have violated Ockham's Razor.

Ockham's Razor is as follows: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Translation: Entities must not be multiplied beyond that which is necessary.

An entity as used her is an assumption. Though I do feel that in any cognitive model, assumptions are necessary, I also feel that there is probably a more simple, that is, less assuming, model for the creation of the universe (though I'm not saying it must therefore be more correct).


Just some food for thought. Best of luck.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Thanks very much, shambles.

To Daniel, in order posited.

1) You can't really call creation a change, since they didn't exist to begin with. It's not entirely the same. Also... I think I mentioned the breakdown of the laws of physics around singularities.

2) A valid argument, but I don't see how something can suddenly begin to exist without a transition of some sort occurring.

3) I suppose suction was a bad example to use, however, it is known that when mass or energy gets too close to the singularity, it will be trapped by this gravitational field. This is what I meant through suction.

4) The crucial part here is that both are not easily proven. Either assumption would be equally valid.

5) My assumption in this case makes use of the fact that the laws of physics are intrinsic to the universe itself. As the universe is made up of energy and matter, it seems logical to me that these laws are coded into the matter and energy. Since a hypothetical entity moving to universe B from A would be comprised of matter from A, it seems logical, from where I am standing, that the entity would continue to obey the laws of A.

These laws aren't like the laws of man; they don't need to change just because you crossed a border.

6) It is the purpose of this essay (and the others in the set) to take data and follow it through to the ultimate conclusion. If an assumption is made, it is only to attempt to explain holes in the data. Unfortunately that means that such hypothesis will have to be tested. However, I don't have the equipment to make such experiments possible, and I doubt anyone else on earth does either. Until new evidence is made available, I will consider this rudimentary understanding of the universe sound.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ephiram-Lo
 


Great. Another very long-winded, not entirely factually correct psuedo-metaphysical/scientific ramble that suggests the possibility of the universe being created by God, or some kind of supreme being. What is your theory for the origin of this being?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Simplicity (the quickest between two points) is best to describe the universe. And sometimes poetry helps, it keep the minds eye entertained.
Shrooms well tell you that no matter how many words you gather, you can't touch the universes essence.

Only Experience.

There is space between us and everything, only so we could see parts of the whole.

Don't get lost in the math(physics) even if you figured it out, your still going to ride the bike.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Response to item 5:

While it does make sense that matter from universe A would continue to obey certain intrinsic properties of A it also makes sense that the matter from A, in universe B would ALSO be bounded by the laws and properties of B.

In other words, the matter from universe A would interact in a unique and completely unpredictable manner with the very fabric of universe B while in universe B. In an ideal scenario, the rules of A and rules of B would be additive. However, ideal scenarios are rarely, if ever, actually existant.

Take this for example:

Matter from universe C possesses the property that a proton is made of 5 top quarks. This proton, while vastly different from our protons which are made of 2 up quarks and a down quark, functions in the same way that our proton does in universe A (our universe) while it is in universe C.

Proton C somehow crosses into universe A.

There is no proton in universe A with a composition of 5 top quarks. Proton C will behave in a way completely uncharacteristic of protons in either universe because it is now bounded by the laws of universe A. It will, however, still possess the properties of universe C (its 5 top quark configuration).

Also, it is no guarantee that the quantum forces of proton C will be sufficient to sustain its structure while it is in universe A. For lack of better words, it could just fall apart.


My point here is that a distinction must be made between the properties of universe C and the properties of specific instances of matter in universe C in order to get a more probable scenario.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Daniel, I see what you're getting at, but it is my understanding that your hypothetical c-proton (of five top quarks) would not be a proton in the traditional sense, and, as you said, would not function as a proton in our "B" universe, as you theorized. It would however interact with B-matter in ways directly predictable for B-matter, but it itself would not necessarily be bounded by the laws of a B-Universe. (Again following your beloved simplicity; there is no reason for it to "change states" and act like a B-Proton) That is why (as discussed later in the second chapter of the "essay" the universe would have appeared to form over an expanse of time that borders on unmeasurable, yet a living entity consisting entirely of C-Matter would be able to survive and continue to influence the B-Universe. You speak of a "fabric" of the universe which cannot be quantitatively defined; because of that I can't quite accept that this "background" could hold data.

I do, however, highly value your input, and if you're interested, I can upload the full essay to another location for you to pursue in full (insofar as an incomplete essay could be considered full). Just u2u me what format you like.

I'd upload the full of it directly as posts, but it's quite long, even in it's incomplete state.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I think what you are trying to say is that god is an extra dimensional being and that he created our universe. but who created him, or his universe?


At this point of our knowledge we can only say the following on how we all got here:

1) There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing, so that in the beginning there was nothing and since time didn't exist either, that infinitely small chance occurs, and so POOF we are here.

2) The universe always was, is, and will be. By this I mean that the big crunch is the correct answer and that once it happens the universe will just cycle again.

3) Sometime down the timeline an intelligence is born/created in our universe (or some universe) that for all intents and purposes is so powerful that it can exist outside the boundaries of time and dimensions and can create universes (since it can exists outside of the time dimension boundries it can create the initial universe).



[edit on 17-7-2008 by Zul007]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
In response to him and his universe, which is a complete and valid question, we must remember that his universe has infinite mass and energy BECAUSE the laws of concervation don't exist. It was, is, and will be, simply because it created ITSELF and was the start of all things.

As for my creator-entity, when a universe has infinite mass and energy, I suspect that the probabilities of the correct reactions for life occuring is close to, if not, 1.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Response to Ephiram-Lo:

"It would however interact with B-matter in ways directly predictable for B-matter, but it itself would not necessarily be bounded by the laws of a B-Universe. "


It itself, meaning it's composition, certainly would not be bounded by the laws of a B-Universe. However, the way that it interacts with matter outside of and within itself would be bounded by the laws of the B-Universe.


"(Again following your beloved simplicity; there is no reason for it to "change states" and act like a B-Proton) That is why (as discussed later in the second chapter of the "essay" the universe would have appeared to form over an expanse of time that borders on unmeasurable, yet a living entity consisting entirely of C-Matter would be able to survive and continue to influence the B-Universe. "


I'm unsure of the logic you used to make this statement. I think I will take you up on your offer; I would love to read the rest of this essay in order to more fully understand your logic. I'll send you a U2U.


"You speak of a "fabric" of the universe which cannot be quantitatively defined; because of that I can't quite accept that this "background" could hold data."


Actually, the "fabric" that I speak of can be more accurately and, though currently only through mathematics rather than through experimentation or direct observation, it can be quantitatively defined. The fabric that I speak of can be redefined as the complex of unseen Calabi-Yau dimensions predicted by string theory who's configuration "defines" the way matter within the small dimensions and also the entire complex exists and interacts with itself and other entities (things) within the universe in which they are located.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Response to Zul007:

"but who created him, or his universe? "

You ask this question under the assumption that causality and time interact the same in and/or with the hypothetical extra-universal entity and/or other universe as they do in our universe. This is a mistake as time is certainly not a constant in this universe and, according to current scientific models, at one point did not exist in this universe...mostly because at one point this universe didn't exist either.


"1) There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing, so that in the beginning there was nothing and since time didn't exist either, that infinitely small chance occurs, and so POOF we are here."


This is a logically complex statemet; let's break it down.

"There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing"= Proposition A

Therefore

"In the beginning there was nothing"

First, what you have proposed is a nonsequitor for an answer. What you have given is a second proposition. So:

"In the beginning there was nothing"= Proposition B

Cutting out a more specific restatement of Proposition B (time didn't exist either) we result in another proposition rather than a conclusion. I have reworded it slightly but only so that it is a stand-alone statement (a proposition).

"an infinitely small chance occurs given a state of nothingness"= Propsosition C

You then come to a conclusion:

"POOF we are here."= Conclusion D

We must now look at the validity of your conclusions.


Proposition A for all intents and purposes is correct. It is irrational with our current understanding of the laws of physics for something to come from nothing.

Proposition B is also consistent with our current scientific understanding of the universe according to string theory.

Proposition C is questionable. If you had said, "An infinitely small chance occurs given a period of infinite time," I would be, and how appropriately termed, bound by mathematics to agree. However, in a state of nothingness, by definition, nothing can occur. Preposition does not hold up to logical analysis.

You then make a conclusion: Conclusion D.

Your arguement must first be made to logically flow so we must omit Proposition C from the equation:

Proposition A is true, and Proposition B is true, therefore Conclusion D is true.

rephrased

"There is an infinitely small chance that something will come out of nothing, and in the beginning there was nothing therefore, POOF we are here."

Without the validity of Proposition C, this argument ends in a nonsequitor and, due to a fatal lack of truth, falls apart.



2) The universe always was, is, and will be. By this I mean that the big crunch is the correct answer and that once it happens the universe will just cycle again.

Again, logical breakdown.

"The universe always was, is, and will be."= Propositions A B and C respectively.

"The big crunch is the eventuality of the universe."= Conclusion D.

Even assuming Propositions A B and C to be true, Conclusion D is not the only mathematically possible conclusion for the "fate" of our universe (and logically, is yet another nonsequitor). Actually, it's not even the one supported by our current scientific model of the cosmos. I believe this site will help: www.superstringtheory.com...

Item 2 Status: False.


3) Sometime down the timeline an intelligence is born/created in our universe (or some universe) that for all intents and purposes is so powerful that it can exist outside the boundaries of time and dimensions and can create universes (since it can exists outside of the time dimension boundries it can create the initial universe).

Your original statement was that there were three things that we could say, at this point of our knowledge, about "how we all got here". Item 3 is purely an assumption. There are other assumptions about how the universe was created that also fit the current scientific model. It should be noted that this is an assumption, not a conclusion; it is a preposition, a belief, not knowledge.


I'm not sure of the goal of your post; I just thought that it would be an interesting exercise to logically evaluate it.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
To the first point, regarding interuniversal particle reactions, either conclusion seems equally valid from my position, as both are equally provable. Since nobody has ever studied a five-top-quark particle, there's no way to even predict how they would actually interact with a classical proton.

The second chapter (among other things) discusses the importance and function of time in relation to our so-called c-protons.

As for the fabric issue, I may have to read up on that. I admit my knowledge on physics is rudimentary at best and outdated at worst, so I've never heard of these Calabi-Yau dimensions. It would be interesting to look into this.





new topics




 
3

log in

join