It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

New Universe Theory

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I personally believe the Universe is undoubtedly infinite in both time, and space.

The fact that it is infinite provokes the very thought the Universe did not begin the 14.6 billion years ago our scientists predict, as the Universe was always there. The condensed matter that supposedly began the Universe had to exist in a sort of plane, a sort of space, because technically it could not exist in nothing, it has to exist in something. Otherwise you get this situation where something exists in nothing, then makes a whole lot of something, and the nothingness is suddenly gone.

The plane around the condensed matter could then be technically called the Universe as it inhabits the condensed matter. This in theory could also prove that there are many condensed matter type scenarios.

Scientifically this has no backing, but I was wondering what your guy's take on this would be?




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by prolific
 


Explanation: S&F!

All states self assess [not ethical but definately doable] including but not limited to null sets.

The reason for this is one of INTEGRITY as a state that can't hold its 'own' properties ISN'T a set!

So the state PRIOR to the big bang singularity was a null set that observed its own and THEREFOR initiated self collapse of an infinitely probable wave function!

Here is why that happened ... as one of the only other rules was [1st rule all sets self assess] nature [all sets including null sets] abhores a vacuum and can do anything within the rules AT THAT instant...to fill it.

Now as this state [null set] was empty of any other universal rules [gravity didn't exist yet and neither did the laws of thermodymanics] it was able to get something [everything including all the current universal constants and laws] from nothing and this can be represented mathematically and logically.

Its this simple ....

0% != 100% = Infinity

Translation: Zero perecent [null set] NOT [!] equal [=] 100% = EVERTHING [include time and all other dimensional constraints etc]

And this is basically a simple INVERSION and we have devices that actually do this called DIODES!

As above ... so below!

Personal Disclosure: And you yourself INVERTED yourself out of nowhere when you 'cogito ergo sum'ed' [i.e thought that you were].

God is so powerfull it is self causal. and God and The Universe both share the 1st 4 prime attributes of each other.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Hmmm... some things to think about (not to sure about the math either but Information Theory is NOT my forte).

Not sure about the diode bit either but it could be me missing something.

Could you expand on your ideas a little please?
edit on 17/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

For example:



state that can't hold its 'own' properties ISN'T a set!


I would have thought that ALL sets have properties, their own and no other. Therefore it is a nonsense to even contemplate a set that does not have its own properties.

With that said, the properties of a set can contain the properties of other sets too but they would be subsets of the master set.

edit on 17/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by prolific
 


As above ... so below!

Personal Disclosure: And you yourself INVERTED yourself out of nowhere when you 'cogito ergo sum'ed' [i.e thought that you were].

God is so powerfull it is self causal. and God and The Universe both share the 1st 4 prime attributes of each other.


I would be inclined to agree with this (if only because of my signature) although the term "God" comes with so many unfortunate connotations.

edit on 17-3-2011 by OptimisticPessimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Explanation: Believe it or not... I gave you a reason and it was in CAPTIALS!


Here is why...


The reason for this is one of INTEGRITY as a state that can't hold its 'own' properties ISN'T a set!


Personal Disclosure:


P.S. Other than that I completely agree with the rest of the post! My folders filled with myriads of files on my desktop tell me this is so! So does my mobile fone and ahhhh there are so many other metaphors.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I'm not sure you can actually have "infinity" going backwards, from the perspective of time.

Time always "begins"; it's of the essence. If you have "today", then you have "yesterday", but the logical implication is that there must have been "day one", in order to have a sequence.

This is one of the reasons the traditional "Big Bang" theory posits the universe and time "beginning" together. The religionist might say they were "created" together. Scientists actually can't clearly make a separation, they call it "space / time".

There is no "before" T= 0. Philosophically, whatever/whenever could be "before" T = 0 is of a different "substance", sometimes (perhaps erroneously) called "eternity".

From what I understand, the main competing "M" theory involves "branes" that are perhaps "before" the "instant" of our Big Bang, but even they must occupy something like "super-time" (and "space"). In other words, science doesn't seem to be able to make an "eternal", always-existing universe really work, in spite of the earlier attempts to do so when the idea of an "oscillating" universe took hold some years ago. The problem was that upon the proposed "contraction", space-time would again effectively dissolve. Which means we really can't say anything about it scientifically at that "point". Meaning, the idea was pretty much meaningless, even if intuitively satisfying.

Eternity does not "equal" infinity. Qualitative difference. Science still doesn't have it figured out, and this is the area where philosophy then has to suggest "answers".

Oops. One little problem! The greatest philosopher ever, Socrates, has been famously given credit for telling us that there are NO answers...only questions.

Hmmm....

JR



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I am giving this thread a star and a flag. I am given to thinking that vox pop of sciences have not explored this fringe avenue of 'the so called' occultictoc MAGI forthright, time is subjective to distortion because in our mind intelligence all a we truly are is a brain encased in a skull recieving signals from '?elsewhere' that titles the sword of the block, let us consider the following equation.

x = Nothing.

If x is nowhere then it can be considered as a diemension apart from most if not all of known science to this date.

Of course we must not forget about the brain is powered by electric signals from the all around 'space and time'. Except from x.

And final before we can consider x humans need to understand truly the

'I'.eye.mind.= reality(ty)/x(apart)

My Regards.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join