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

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Dark matter and dark energy are said to be 95%-96% of the universe which is unknown to us. Meaning we dont know squat. . .

We do not understand Dark Matter... we have a few ideas but we do not understand it. Mostly due to the fact that we have not really known about it for very long and have only just begun to explore the subject.

Dark Energy however is different, we have a much greater understanding of it due to the fact that it is required to make sense of a) observational data and b) theoretical models.



Peace,

Korg.

a reply to: rebelv

I think that's a semantic question.

No, it's a physics question. As you understand well, time is a physical component of the universe, so temporally speaking there is no 'before the universe', far less 'before the Big Bang'. So why, then, cycles over time?

I think the point these guys are making is that all the cycles are, essentially, equivalent to a single closed loop, which you could go round in either direction, timewise — hence 'we are living in the past of a parallel universe'.

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.

Actually, it was me and I stand by what I said, though I really don't want to get into an argument — which really would be a semantic one this time — about the different meanings and applications of the word 'theory'.

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.

Me again, although others may have stated it too. It doesn't happen on a local scale around gravity wells. It's intergalactic space that expands. Gravity appears to counteract the expansion over short (a few hundred light-years') distances.

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.

The trouble with that image is that you look at the sphere from the outside. The universe doesn't have an outside, only an inside.

originally posted by: rebelv
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...

...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.

Here is another illustration:

Consider this 2D surface as being a representation of space (yeah -- I know space is not 2D, but this is just for illustrative purposes). The graphic below has edges, but in reality there are no edges; it extends infinitely in all directions, or it curves back on itself. Either way, none of the little circles are closer to an edge than any other, because there are no edges:





Now, let's consider this surface expanding in all directions:


Every circle is now further away than every other circle, and no matter which circle you may be located at, all of the other circles are moving away from you equidistantly. If you pick one circle to be your "home location", all of the other circles would appear to be moving away from you, with you at the center of that expansion. However, if you then chose another circle to be your "home location", all of the other circles from that location, too, would appear to be moving away from you, as if THAT location was the center of expansion.

But actually, none (and at the same time, all) of those locations would be the "center of expansion".

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: rebelv
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...

...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.

Here is another illustration:

Consider this 2D surface as being a representation of space (yeah -- I know space is not 2D, but this is just for illustrative purposes). The graphic below has edges, but in reality there are no edges; it extends infinitely in all directions, or it curves back on itself. Either way, none of the little circles are closer to an edge than any other, because there are no edges:

Now, let's consider this surface expanding in all directions:

Every circle is now further away than every other circle, and no matter which circle you may be located at, all of the other circles are moving away from you equidistantly. If you pick one circle to be your "home location", all of the other circles would appear to be moving away from you, with you at the center of that expansion. However, if you then chose another circle to be your "home location", all of the other circles from that location, too, would appear to be moving away from you, as if THAT location was the center of expansion.

But actually, none (and at the same time, all) of those locations would be the "center of expansion".

Well put!

Star for you!



Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

That is about what I learned in college, a different kind
of model to explain the same idea.

Of course, the "center" of the universe would be located
in the middle of this big bubble, and actually exists in the
very distant past (the theoretical Big Bang) billions of years
ago.

So, time could be defined as the increasing size of the universe.

Great post

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rebelv

I think that's a semantic question.

No, it's a physics question. As you understand well, time is a physical component of the universe, so temporally speaking there is no 'before the universe', far less 'before the Big Bang'. So why, then, cycles over time?

I think the point these guys are making is that all the cycles are, essentially, equivalent to a single closed loop, which you could go round in either direction, timewise — hence 'we are living in the past of a parallel universe'.

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.

Actually, it was me and I stand by what I said, though I really don't want to get into an argument — which really would be a semantic one this time — about the different meanings and applications of the word 'theory'.

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.

Me again, although others may have stated it too. It doesn't happen on a local scale around gravity wells. It's intergalactic space that expands. Gravity appears to counteract the expansion over short (a few hundred light-years') distances.

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.

The trouble with that image is that you look at the sphere from the outside. The universe doesn't have an outside, only an inside.

That was an awesome response, and I'm in total agreement with everything
you just stated. Awesome.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: rebelv

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.

You're right. The entire universe could be a big giant black hole.

I have my own amateur hypothesis about black holes:

Many scientists say that a black hole may lead to somewhere else,
they've even suggested there could be white holes and that the Big
Bang could even have been a giant white hole.

I have a problem with these kinds of hypothesis; and that is that
black holes continue to increase in gravity the more mass they
acquire, so I do not agree that anything can pass through a black
hole to "somewhere else" either a different part of the galaxy or
universe or even a parallel universe or even a different time.

What would happen is (assuming it was you) would be smashed into
some kind of unimaginable singularity and since the further you go
into the black hole, the slower time goes so hypothetically, you would
never reach that singularity, and this seems a paradox, but this I
think is something how Black Holes work, once you go into one, you
are relative from outside black hole, squished into a singularity, and
your mass and gravity is integrated into the overall mass and gravity
of the black hole.

However, from your perspective having past the event horizon,
You would just keep going deeper into black hole and taking
longer and longer to reach that singularity and at the same time,
this time dilation would change your physicality.

I think the speed of light is a singularity and you would experience
much the same thing as you approached a black hole singularity;
you'll never get there but at the same time you do, because its all
a matter of relativity.

Rebel 5

P.S. there are some modern theories that have very good science
to indicate that everything that goes into a black hole becomes
two dimensional digital information on the surface of the black
hole and that the information is such that it could reproduce a
hologram of everything that got sucked into it in 3D inside
the black hole. I just thought I'd add that on there because
if the universe is a black hole, we could very much be holograms.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Korg Trinity

That is about what I learned in college, a different kind
of model to explain the same idea.

Of course, the "center" of the universe would be located
in the middle of this big bubble, and actually exists in the
very distant past (the theoretical Big Bang) billions of years
ago.

So, time could be defined as the increasing size of the universe.

Great post

Rebel 5

Their would be no middle in an infinite system. It couldn't increase in size, because its already infinite. All definitions and observations would be relative to the observer. Sound familiar?

a reply to: rebelv


Don't think of the theoretical big bang as an explosion of stuff outward into space. That's because there was no "space" at the time of the big bang for stuff to explode out into.

Instead, think of the big bang as an expansion of space itself, and that expansion had no center. It had no center because space had no edge, not even at the beginning.

So there was no particular place that the big bang occurred; it occurred everywhere.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: rebelv


Don't think of the theoretical big bang as an explosion of stuff outward into space. That's because there was no "space" at the time of the big bang for stuff to explode out into.

Instead, think of the big bang as an expansion of space itself, and that expansion had no center. It had no center because space had no edge, not even at the beginning.

So there was no particular place that the big bang occurred; it occurred everywhere.

I agree, In an infinite system, their can be no time either, because it has always existed. If their is no time, then their is no distance. If their is no time and distance then all must be relative to the observers experience, time is needed, to perceive reality as a coherent construct, time must only be a tool for logic in the area of observations. Because it only exists as a thought tool. For the construction of a reality to exist in. Which again must be a simulation.

a reply to: anonentity

Time does not only exist as a thought tool. It also exists in the real world around us.

If time (or at least the thing we call time) didn't exist, then everything would happen at once.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: anonentity

Time does not only exist as a thought tool. It also exists in the real world around us.

If time (or at least the thing we call time) didn't exist, then everything would happen at once.

I agree, but time only exists in the "Real observed world" as necessary for thought construction, for constructing a model of the "Real world". "I think therefore I am" either way its still a simulation. When we leave the simulation as in sleep or death, linear time stops. My suspicions are that we must be interpreting a Universe which is really a wave state... as a real solid thing. For what we perceive to be solid is just interpreted data, that fits the model of solid. Since photons are time locked, in the Universe they might exist as a standing wave frozen in our concept of time. This is the raw material for constructing the simulation called life. But the reality might be that, its one of an infinite number of possible models, that consciousness can link into, all depending on the consciousness of the observer.

originally posted by: anonentity
.."I think therefore I am" either way its still a simulation. When we leave the simulation as in sleep or death, linear time stops. My suspicions are that we must be interpreting a Universe which is really a wave state... as a real solid thing....

When one person is sleeping or has died, another person is still awake and alive -- so time isn't stopping. Neither time nor the universe cares if a person sleeps or dies.

In fact, the Earth is such an infinitesimally tiny little speck of almost nothingness compared to the rest of the universe that the universe won't even notice if the everyone on earth died. The Universe and time was doing its thing for billions of years before humans came along to "perceive it", and the universe will keep on doing that thing after humans are no longer around to perceive it.

Human perception does not control the universe. We are not that important.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: anonentity
.."I think therefore I am" either way its still a simulation. When we leave the simulation as in sleep or death, linear time stops. My suspicions are that we must be interpreting a Universe which is really a wave state... as a real solid thing....

When one person is sleeping or has died, another person is still awake and alive -- so time isn't stopping. Neither time nor the universe cares if a person sleeps or dies.

In fact, the Earth is such an infinitesimally tiny little speck of almost nothingness compared to the rest of the universe that the universe won't even notice if the everyone on earth died. The Universe and time was doing its thing for billions of years before humans came along to "perceive it", and the universe will keep on doing that thing after humans are no longer around to perceive it.

Human perception does not control the universe. We are not that important.

As a personal observer, it is ultimately important because its the observers interpretation of reality, is all that counts for the observer.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: anonentity
.."I think therefore I am" either way its still a simulation. When we leave the simulation as in sleep or death, linear time stops. My suspicions are that we must be interpreting a Universe which is really a wave state... as a real solid thing....

When one person is sleeping or has died, another person is still awake and alive -- so time isn't stopping. Neither time nor the universe cares if a person sleeps or dies.

In fact, the Earth is such an infinitesimally tiny little speck of almost nothingness compared to the rest of the universe that the universe won't even notice if the everyone on earth died. The Universe and time was doing its thing for billions of years before humans came along to "perceive it", and the universe will keep on doing that thing after humans are no longer around to perceive it.

Human perception does not control the universe. We are not that important.

As a personal observer, it is ultimately important because its the observers interpretation of reality, is all that counts for the observer.

Sure -- everyone perceives the world around them differently, but reality and the universe itself as a whole is not affected by human perception.

If there was some creature living on another planet in some far away galaxy, it would not care (nor even notice) if the Earth blew up tomorrow, taking all of humanity with it. The universe for that creature would not change just because humans were no longer around to perceive the universe. There would be no change in reality just because humans were no longer around to perceive reality.

Personally, I like to think of the universe as it exists outside of my perception of it. I like to try to put myself on the "outside" of the universe looking at it from that perspective (the metaphoric "outside", considering there probably is no outside), and think of the universe as a whole, not just the universe that I can perceive.

a reply to: anonentity

Sounds like The Theory of Relativity.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: rebelv


Don't think of the theoretical big bang as an explosion of stuff outward into space. That's because there was no "space" at the time of the big bang for stuff to explode out into.

Instead, think of the big bang as an expansion of space itself, and that expansion had no center. It had no center because space had no edge, not even at the beginning.

So there was no particular place that the big bang occurred; it occurred everywhere.

Gotcha.

I guess this old model of the universe being defined as a bubble
and the edge of the universe is the surface of the bubble is outdated.

Reminds me of when I started studying Quantum Mechanics how the first
thing I learned was that the model they taught us in middle school was too
simple to even be 10% accurate; that is you have your protons and neutrons
in the nucleus and an electron(s) in orbit around the nucleus, kind of just
flying around it.

Rebel 5

a reply to: anonentity

As I see it their is the Universe and you. Then work out by all the clues available , on how the environment that you find yourself in works. We seem to have certain clues from our observations that time is a very important concept in our understanding. We know that "space time" varies in different parts of the universe. It varies with the intensity of mass, infinite mass stops time, Speed of light stops time . We know this because the photon is time locked. But only from the point of view of the observation. So can we conclude that the position of observation changes the very fabric of the observed Universe.?

We can virtually say that the Universe is infinite, if it is infinite then all the laws of an infinite system come into play, which mean that in an infinite system, their is no centre, no linear time, etc. if their is no time then their is no distance. What then our we observing.? it must be a construct from our point of observation. A vital, but imaginary concept of mind necessary to make a reasoned observation.

I wish I could work out the rest , but from my point of observation, the Reality we discuss, is a 3D. generated simulation. of an infinite number of possibilities. Where the observer has access to a memory bank of personal experience. But can discuss the infinite number of possibilities, with others, and basically agree on what they are seeing, and with this are going to accept a paradigm to base their flavour of reality on.

a reply to: rebelv

The conundrum is: if the universe is expanding, how can it be infinite? If it began as a singularity, how can it not have borders...so to speak?

I mean, if we know the rate of expansion, and we know how far back the big bang occurred, then we should be able to calculate a size, no? lol Seems that way, anyway.

Problem is, infinity is often tossed around because there is still so much we do not understand. It is kind of like a joke in some circles...infinity is the anwer to the question. Any answer that is infinity is, practically by definition, suspect. I know there will be those arguing that, but then there are similar arguments going on by people a lot smarter than I am on both sides.

The main problem I see is, here on ATS, there are an awful lot of theoreticals being tossed around as though they are factuals...absolutely not the case. The best argument in many cases is that there are strong indications that such and such (dark energy, for one) exists. Anything that was created by man's mind to satisfy a need to explain phenomena we observe, and yet we cannot "find" the thing created or prove it's existence should be, always, viewed with some suspicion. Once verified, once quantified, then yeah...that is something else entirely. Don't get me wrong, either.....we should by all means search.

a reply to: bbracken677

The answer to the conundrum, is that everything observed is a simulation, of one, of an infinite number of possibilities, perceived as a 3D virtual reality. Which includes your sense of self and your body. How can the Universe be expanding, when there is nothing for it to expand into, bearing in mind with infinite possibilities it could even expand into itself. Of course not in a physical way, as we interpret our reality. For proof we only have to look at how many anomalies seep into our changing reality.