A brief hypothesis of space/time universe and non time microverse to find a meaning for the BIG BOUNCE BANG and ALL MATTER ENERGY.

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : A brief hypothesis of space/time universe and non time microverse to find a meaning for the BIG BOUNCE BANG and ALL MATTER ENERGY.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1926128 - Posted: 23 Mar 2018, 23:43:54 UTC - in response to Message 1926022.  

[quote]Where there are gravity there are matter. In order to understand gravity you also have to understand matter and energy.
But where is all matter and energy? Scientists can only find a small fraction of it, less then 5%.
If Dark Matter can be found then it will 28%, the rest is supposed to be Dark Energy that is reponsible for the expansion of the universe.

Is it really 5% seen? I have read 4/5ths more is needed to create galaxy formation as we see. I would like to read that too.

Vera Rubin studied galaxies in the 60's and found that for some reason Newton's law of gravity doesn't seem to work.
Not the formation of them but how stars moves around a massive black hole in the center and could only be explained by that matter creating the gravity needed is missing from the observations made from our scientists.
Long story but here is a pic what we know of the universe.
Yes. Only 4.6% :)
ID: 1926128 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1926183 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 3:45:28 UTC - in response to Message 1926128.  

I'll research more on this. Thank you! Exactly what i hoped to help my hypothesis. This is the best!

Taking this into account perhaps my model could be closer than I thought. Thank you so very much moomin.

It's not such a stretch given relativity and light speed act so weird. Time is just as weird as it acts on mass.

Just staying alive for me is such a battle, when Dr. Hawking passed, I feel a new desperation to put this out there for the experts to look over. Write or wrong. In part or in full.

There are ideas that are so much simpler than taking diffyQ and quadratics with so many solutions.

I value constructive skepticism and optimism greatly.
ID: 1926183 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1926217 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 7:13:04 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2018, 7:25:20 UTC

Same for that of relativity for its possible importance, except for not any wheel of luck either.

Make it rather walls, filaments and also voids, next another way of understanding the universe, only because it could be observed this way.

Make it observational facts which next are supported by proven theories should still be the most important,
but here also that of catching the train for yourself, in order to understand it all.

The strange thing is that it still could be a fire of wood for that of heating, except for not any pyroclastics fire or explosion either,
but assumedly fusion is the process which could make for the larger effect.

But rather more important is that of walls, filaments and voids which should be making up the structure of the universe, and next also what we could see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Here also that of a neutron star, which from that of a neutron itself, should not be confused with a neutrino.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Make it rather stars or galaxies for this, and it still becomes white dwarfs, neutron stars, and finally Black Holes at the end of the sequence,
but what next about the Fundamental Forces of nature, and the way these forces could be telling about the universe itself?

Count it everything, and it next becomes inventory as well, for also that of elementary particles, in that gravity should be the force in control of nature,
but also that fusion should be a live event for that of a process, while the ultimate events leading to a Black Hole, should rather be telling about a demise.

Some people could also choose to make it Reason for that of life, because it perhaps is not only about elementary particles, or given forces, for such a thing.

For this perhaps that of Existence as well, but if more about the subject, also that we could be having the Large Hadron Collider as well, for that of balancing
one given property against another, which perhaps could be the Equivalence principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

We still could choose to make it gods and angels for a couple of things not being understood, but next that some choose to make it science, while others Religion.

I tend to see myself a Creator for that of nature, in that making it one Theory for another, only becomes that of butter on bread for the similar thing,
or perhaps rind, when it only should be pork itself.

If still making it only matter, energy and gravity here, because it could be about the Forces of nature, in which way are we supposed to make one thing decide for another,
in that it next could be an option for the way things are supposed to be?

As a good example, gamma rays could be about radiation, but perhaps not any Forces either, because it could still be about Energy.

Perhaps a difference here, in that energy should still correspond to tremendous amount of matter, but still be much the same.

Make it both birth and death for that of stars and galaxies, and also life as well, and next compare with life itself for perhaps that of thinking,
you may probably notice the difference.

Looking back in time for both that of ancestry and also that of the universe itself, it could become the Hubble Deep Field, and next also galaxies which are
at the early start of their evolution phase.

Such a thing also goes by the name of Progenitor, and should next be related to the different objects possible as well.

Here it becomes much like the baker, in that he is having the ingredients, and possibly even more, but next not the finished bread either.

Mix it all together, and it becomes a mixture, and for this also the final result as well, because the whole thing was already hidden in the cards.

Perhaps no reason to make it any Logic for that of life itself, because it next could becomes less of it, except for even more, and we still could be only counting.

Make it only the cup of coffee when starting up the day, and next both life itself outside the window, except for not the sun itself, so still a difference.

The singularity could perhaps be the reason for infinity, if not the opposite way, but I could next be still around, because even this is not the factor left deciding everything.

So therefore rather the bird of Phoenix once more, when it rather could be that of Reincarnation, in that both life and matter ceases to exist,
but next could also recur or reappear.

It almost becomes like that of a shed of thoughts for a couple of things, in that it still could be a Creator in charge of everything, but next also the pea, or the single rice,
where it also should be the dinner itself.

Make it rather the push of the wind, next perhaps not a big gush either, but it still could be the wind.

Make it still a difference here, and recent studies could also find this to be of value when it comes to number theory as well.

A derivation could still be about both Mathematics and Statistics, but also that some three other functions could be adding even more to the bits and pieces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation

If rather the Theory of Relativity for such a thing, next perhaps that of a GUT as well, but next that we do not find this to be true either.

But rather that the Big Bang should be about a prevailing theory for that of the Universe itself, because it is also what it is supposed to be,
taken the given meaning, when it perhaps should be correct or not.
ID: 1926217 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1926228 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 8:39:27 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2018, 8:50:11 UTC

It still could be corrected here for the small details, like Relativity, but noticing the fact that "perfectness" could be a given way of life,
when it also could be the opposite.

Perhaps comments in between from others as well, but you probably notice that I could be on the run at times.

We still could make it both Order and Chaos, only because we are having both, and next also Quantum mechanics for this as well.

Here we still could be having the decision making process for at least that of Politics, except for not the ultimate decision,
which next could mean the man in charge, and next also for overruling everything.

But rather that nature should be "as is" for what it also is meant to be, and therefore not on any pedestal, or high horse either.

Perhaps both Order and Chaos could still mean the opposite, but next also about Fundamental Forces as well, in that it could still be nature.

Next open a book for what could be read, and next also the details as well, except for not all of it either.

If perhaps still a GUT, also that you should know what "everything" means, because this should be about the "Theory of everything".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

But next also that Philosophy could be the way of making a couple of thoughts, except for not making it any life or death scenario either.

Here you have the three part brain for that of yourself, and next also Cognition, but rather the way of making it any siblings or children, still relies on your stomach.

Make it rather DNA here, and it could be about functionality, rather than a wheel of fortune, for that of luck sometimes passing by.

If our way of life is still because of the Laws and Equations making up nature, perhaps true, but next also what these Equations should be all about, or possibly mean.

Either more than one interpretation, or the whole thing was perhaps meant to be already at the start, only because of the initial moment of Creation.

Needs to be added, or perhaps finished, if not already so, but why the reason you do not take the universe for granted in all its details, when it also could be explained in such a way?

If rather making it a way of life for a couple of things, you know that it could be both, or possibly either/or, only because it could also be about Uncertainty.

In a similar way, perhaps a reason why the Universe might not be explained in one given way or another either.

If perhaps rather making it "Relativistic effects" instead, you also know that it could be explained, except for perhaps not all the details.

So here perhaps both that of a difference, and also equality as well, in that we could be making it a process for that of ageing, except for not any stars or galaxies either,
which could be about nature.

We definitely know that we still could rely on ourselves, but also that it could be the same questions asked for that of someone else which could be around.

For this perhaps forever, and it could therefore end up in a loop.

There are now a quite good reason to believe that we are not alone in space, and therefore we should concentrate our effort on such a fact.

Here the difference between are not and may not, in that Credible evidence should only come from facts when these also could be proven in one given way.

For this also that of modularity versus quantification, in that you still could count, and next also make it a difference, except for not all the details for that of both
possibilities and options which could be available.

The fact is that we could end up digging into both Dark Matter and Dark Energy, only because it could be the whole subject, or perhaps all.

The reason for backtracking is that you may end up starting all over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking

Everyone knows that a fake story is not supposed to hold, and the only reason is that of Logic itself.

But rather count, and next also the number of civilizations which could be possible, only because it also could be about Probability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus

Perhaps only spaghetti for your dinner, and next also twisting it along your fork as well, and you know the way it goes, or perhaps works.

Here I still could make it a famous equation only, and next that a Field equation could next be much the same, for at least the details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_equation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Here because I happen to know that there could be a slight difference, or perhaps two subjects, and you next could also make it a space curvature.

Could we still make it more than one debate for perhaps that of ourselves, next with respect to science when it rather should be the Universe,
and for this only science, or should we perhaps know where it should all go, in that it could be still one thing for another, next also with respect to much of the same?

If perhaps still a GUT for such a thing, next also an equation as well, but perhaps this is not true either.

But rather that the Universe could still be more than one single thing, and next could be telling about different things instead,
and for a similar reason, or perhaps similar way, there should be different equations.

For one thing still both variables and constants for a couple of things, but next we could choose to make it expressions.

You still could make a difference between that of Logic, Probability, and next only that of counting, and for the same reason, no valid point of just counting up anything either.

Perception could still be about the mind, and like software itself, and also a couple of other tools, they are not supposed to lie either, for its intended functionality,
which also could be translated into a given meaning.

The three Laws of gravity, by Newton, should relate to the Physical, and next also matter itself.

If still both Matter, Energy, and also gravity part of the same thing, also that we should know where it should go.

But if next a different explanation for that of the Universe itself, only because it could be about "Forces", next also perhaps a different explanation for the whole thing.

Like both a sad day, next also the end of a summer as well, except for not the end of story either.
ID: 1926228 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1926260 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 12:42:25 UTC - in response to Message 1926228.  

Thank you so much for all this material to review. I understand solar panels are silicon based reactors to convert bosons into fermions for application to turn a meter backwards or directly perform work. Looking forward to reviewing more than what is my experience now.
ID: 1926260 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1926302 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 16:00:56 UTC - in response to Message 1926260.  

Thank you so much for all this material to review. I understand solar panels are silicon based reactors to convert bosons into fermions for application to turn a meter backwards or directly perform work. Looking forward to reviewing more than what is my experience now.

Convert bosons into fermions?
Well thats very theoretically.
Anyway, it's called bosonization-debosonization by some scientists.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314111135.htm
Theoretical physicists are about to report on a controversial discovery that they say contradicts the work of researchers over the decades. The discovery concerns the conventional approach toward bosonization-debosonization. The finding could affect calculations regarding the future of quantum computers as well as your electronic devices as they become smaller, faster and more advanced.
ID: 1926302 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1926307 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 16:16:31 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2018, 16:21:00 UTC

post withdrawn
ID: 1926307 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1926403 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 21:32:09 UTC

Obviously oversimplified. I see photons go in and electrons come out. I am aware of the accepted mechanics of electron shells and releasing energy as an excited electron falls back into a lower energy shell. Even using different trace elements to convert wider ranges of wavelengths. Lucky Space station. I wish I could afford the panels they have. 100% of our electricity for my computers running BOINC is from solar. No sense selling it back to the utility for a fraction of what they get. My sawmill ran 3 phase 15HP motor and the meter still ran backwards on a sunny day. Now I make heat out of it as a byproduct of computation.

Quantum computing. You mean they think they found a better way? Or found a flaw?

Perhaps it was a good thing I was napping? A pulled post?
ID: 1926403 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1926405 - Posted: 24 Mar 2018, 21:37:38 UTC - in response to Message 1926403.  

Well I should have read your link first.
ID: 1926405 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1929554 - Posted: 12 Apr 2018, 10:53:14 UTC

Dear readers, if you made it all the way to here, thank you!

I want to point out some of my posts seem out of context. That is because the comment I was answering has been, guessing, deleted by the moderator. It is an honor to have the entire of my simple idea kept intact here for anyone thinking out of the box to read and consider. The idea of two parts to the universe is simple since there seem to be two parts to the universe. The idea that the root of every black hole might be connected is no farther fetched than Dr. Einstein's Theory of special relativity. Or the idea of point of reference of the observer.

Sunny regards,
earthbilly
ID: 1929554 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1929567 - Posted: 12 Apr 2018, 12:52:06 UTC - in response to Message 1929554.  
Last modified: 12 Apr 2018, 13:22:21 UTC

Let's all pool our collective ignorance on the subject. Pardon my own personal ignorance; but, I like to think that the energy for the expansion came from the intense heat of the "Big Bang". I claim that we don't know if the expansion is accelerating or slowing since what we see at 13.2 billion light years at the edge of the universe is what was happening 13.2 billion years ago. At this point in time gravity would have had little time to slow the initial expansion of the Big Bang. Additionally, if more space is being created, and since the universe is bounded, then imagine the 2-dimensional analogue of a balloon that is covered with dots being inflated. The dots will be moving away from each other. In a 3 dimensional version of my balloon analogy the Galaxies at the far reaches of the universe would be moving away faster than the closer in ones under a constant expansion rate.

Obviously fuzzy thinking here but then there seems to be a lot of it surrounding these issues. Also, did we ever decide on the mass of a neutrino ?
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
ID: 1929567 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1929588 - Posted: 12 Apr 2018, 15:55:00 UTC - in response to Message 1929567.  

Thank you for this insight. I believe if one takes focus of only the ant, little can be gained of how the colony survives. Refer to an above link on precisely this subject. I think it is still there. if not search and read the latest on neutrinos and the expansion theory. I could not explain better.

Power by 100% solar. Sunny regards,
ID: 1929588 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1930093 - Posted: 15 Apr 2018, 12:58:16 UTC
Last modified: 15 Apr 2018, 13:11:04 UTC

Am I perhaps unfair if next saying that it perhaps is neither about the neutrino or a couple of ants for a couple of things, when it comes to that of making it science itself?

Not meant directly for Mark + Rita here, but rather in a more general sense.

Everyone knows that a boxer in a ring is not supposed to hit out in any anger either, but if rather a reflection upon science, for that of a couple of things, which way next to go?

Your theory, versus mine perhaps, and we could end up in the same boat by next being wrong for that of the subject itself.

Perhaps sometimes "Life of Brian" for a couple of things, but next you could question reality of life as well, only because it could be about the Universe.

Am I right or wrong, or should I perhaps rather continue with the discussion, like also some others here?
ID: 1930093 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1933545 - Posted: 4 May 2018, 13:21:40 UTC

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-05-03&et_rid=397678404&et_cid=2008893

I still think my idea is a better explanation.
Sunny regards,
ID: 1933545 · Report as offensive
Profile Lynn Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 14162
Credit: 79,603,650
RAC: 123
United States
Message 1933760 - Posted: 5 May 2018, 7:57:52 UTC - in response to Message 1933545.  

ID: 1933760 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1933764 - Posted: 5 May 2018, 8:22:01 UTC
Last modified: 5 May 2018, 8:26:11 UTC

This agrees with Carlo Rovelli's idea that time is a creation of man. He expanded it in his latest book "The order of time".
Tullio
ID: 1933764 · Report as offensive
moomin
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 17
Posts: 6204
Credit: 38,420
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1933791 - Posted: 5 May 2018, 10:49:37 UTC - in response to Message 1933764.  

Rovelli has a gift for memorable comparisons.
He tells us, for example, when explaining that the smooth “flow” of time is an illusion, that “The events of the world do not form an orderly queue like the English, they crowd around chaotically like the Italians.” The concept of time, he says, “has lost layers one after another, piece by piece”. We are left with “an empty windswept landscape almost devoid of all trace of temporality … a world stripped to its essence, glittering with an arid and troubling beauty”.
ID: 1933791 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1933866 - Posted: 5 May 2018, 21:34:40 UTC

And almost forgetting the debate which could be around for that of a couple of things, including both pros and cons.

Better watch the YouTube video instead.
ID: 1933866 · Report as offensive
Profile Mark + Rita Hadley (earthbilly)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 16
Posts: 30
Credit: 28,355,726
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1934254 - Posted: 7 May 2018, 18:40:16 UTC - in response to Message 1933760.  

ID: 1934254 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : A brief hypothesis of space/time universe and non time microverse to find a meaning for the BIG BOUNCE BANG and ALL MATTER ENERGY.


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.