CB71109 opened a can of worms...good job
How was "Space" created before the Universe
- Thread starter cb71109
- Start date
There you go with the "time" attributes again
And I can completely understand why folks are comfy with believing in "higher" "dimensions" or "states" w/e when faced with this conundrum. The need to calibrate. It's just human. But like I said, easiest way to get past this dilemma is to accept that something just existed as a default. Not necessarily created from nothing. I chose continuous infinitely extended space as the that thing. Yeah i know, it's an abstraction. I'm ok with that.
I feel you bruh. It's kinda hard for me to take this sort of thing as is. I don't disagree with infinite continuum. I think its a very plausible. I just want to know the truth.
Bro! The MultiVerse, Universe-Bumping...simple!
The Multi-Dimensional-Verse!
Think of a universe with infinite dimensions.
What would that be like? Nothing?That only begets the same questions . . . but now with more universes.
JG
cool. but does the universe have to be ascribed a shape in order to model it? I don't think so. All that shape of the universe shit is another artifact of mathematical physics.
Mathematical models are not real physical things and as such can't have shape. See, i think in order to begin to grasp this shit, one has to be able to sacrifice something. Give up or take up a belief that you can't fully comprehend. like infinity or acausal default existence. shit our brains weren't built for.
What I am saying, what I believe, is that existence requires physical substance. substance that doesn't need to come from anywhere or be caused by anything. my starting point is something just, existing. I don't see the issue here. we all have to believe in something. logic just necessitates that one be consistent an non contradictory throughout their thesis.
the default substance that exists comes with its own energy. problem solved.
?
The only test of scientific TRUTH is how well a theory corresponds to the world we observe. Does it predict things that we can then see? Or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible? No matter how well liked a theory may be, if observation contradicts it, then it must be rejected. For science to be useful, it must provide an increasingly true and deep description of nature, not a prescription of what nature must be.
i'm gonna leave it there and fall back for a minute lol
Theories & connections ....hmm.. Interesting , thanx guys
cool. but does the universe have to be ascribed a shape in order to model it? I don't think so. All that shape of the universe shit is another artifact of mathematical physics.
See, i think in order to begin to grasp this shit, one has to be able to sacrifice something. Give up or take up a belief that you can't fully comprehend. like infinity or acausal default existence. shit our brains weren't built for.
No the universe does not have to take on a shape to model. That's where it can be infinite in all coordinates.
I guess my question is would you consider the universe a volume? And if it is a volume wouldn't that make it a shape? Do we not live in a 3 dimensional universe?
Say I eliminate the idea of the universe being a volume. Then we must account for infinite space. Galaxies drifting endlessly in infinite space.....forever. It would be like 0 to infinity. Would that infinite space be already occupied with engery/matter?
ive always enjoyed your posts.
you figured it out, dont know if you've connected everything
though, for yourself. it is kinda hard to grasp the concepts that you have
just stated, but it is right there for everyone, even though everyone will
not take to it.
Yeah thats pretty weird because as a volume it suggest it has set "Borders/Dimensions" and thus is being "filled" by the stuff of the universe until "full"?
The other way you mentioned suggest no set borders, the stuff of the universe thus is flowing into...what exactly?
nothingness? Can nothingness hold Somethingness?
damn, its beautiful when energy recognizes itself!
the article that gene cisco provided for me to read was excellent.
it illustrated to me the simplicity of what & how we get back to 1+1=2.
nature, watch the micro & apply it to our physical, thats how we'll
get back on track. not as you so eloquently stated "a prescription
of what nature must be". we have to let it be, 'cause as the highest form
of life on this planet we've allowed our "creation"(which is still ourselves) to
run amok. but we already knew this, it was just a big science experiment.
so even it things get out of hand, there is always a self correcting mechanism
to get back to the proper order.
Yeah thats pretty weird because as a volume it suggest it has set "Borders/Dimensions" and thus is being "filled" by the stuff of the universe until "full"?
The other way you mentioned suggest no set borders, the stuff of the universe thus is flowing into...what exactly?
nothingness? Can nothingness hold Somethingness?
its not nothingness, thats the whole major point!
i can say i love cb71109 for this thread,
it helped to open my eye FULLY!
it helped to open my eye FULLY!
"What the hell you talkin bout willis"?
I know JG posed the question but did we conclude that "nothing" is a form of something?
"What the hell you talkin bout willis"?
I know JG posed the question but did we conclude that "nothing" is a form of something?
I would not not look @ it that way!
Something is a form of something!
Re-read the last few quotes that I quoted from Sean 69.
#427 & 429(posts).
Yeah thats pretty weird because as a volume it suggest it has set "Borders/Dimensions" and thus is being "filled" by the stuff of the universe until "full"?
The other way you mentioned suggest no set borders, the stuff of the universe thus is flowing into...what exactly?
nothingness? Can nothingness hold Somethingness?
Or more so an infinite volume of the universe
bounded by dimension that expands with the universe.Maybe that nothingness is dark matter/energy
if there are no set boarders.
Or more so an infinite volume of the universe
Maybe that nothingness is dark matter/energy
I understand what you are saying,
However your wording my be hindering you
A tad bit. I can see you are grasping the concept
But you are still using words that put parameters
On what you are trying to describe! There isnt a place
Where there is no universe. So when you use borders
& dimensions, those things don't exist. Again re-read
What I quoted from Sean 69, in post 427 & 429.
He brought forth the best explanation thus far in words.
I hope you know Sean69 might be a little crazy, i doubt he uses a fume hood anymore for phenol, trizol, RNA electrophoresis or stinky mercaptanol!
Yeah, Sean and I share different views about few things. I don't necessarily believe in the just is concept. I understand it, I just don't view that way. Another example is he doesn't understand why I believe time has speed
That's another can of worms.....I like to throw out ideas when I reach this level of discussion. Some are more valid than others, but I like to look at possibilities while including a reasonable arguments.
We don't really know that boarders do or do not exist in the outer universe. I will say this though. If you believe in the BB, then there is a strong possibility that boards my exist on the edge of the universe as it expands.
Hmmm....The edge of the universe? Do the universe have an edge?
Yeah, Sean and I share different views about few things. I don't necessarily believe in the just is concept. I understand it, I just don't view that way. Another example is he doesn't understand why I believe time has speed
I like to throw out ideas when I reach this level of discussion. Some are more valid than others, but I like to look at possibilities while including a reasonable arguments.
We don't really know that boarders do or do not exist in the outer universe. I will say this though. If you believe in the BB, then there is a strong possibility that boards my exist on the edge of the universe as it expands.
Hmmm....The edge of the universe? Do the universe have an edge?
Say what!
Time has speed?You gotta give a quick synopsis on that one...
Say what!
Man you don't remember that debate?!
You was involved with it toohttp://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=9047973&postcount=170
I'm not going through that shit again!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=528651&highlight=5th+dimension&page=5
Man you don't remember that debate?!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=9047973&postcount=170
I'm not going through that shit again!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=528651&highlight=5th+dimension&page=5
Yoooo, i'm going through that thread now, man that thing is
Sean and Les...WOW!
Yoooo, i'm going through that thread now, man that thing is
I know right! I'm over reading that shit like
Crazy shit bruh, but very entertaining!
You guys figure this shit out yet?
I need to know what matter is, what nothing is, and what God is before this weekend....
You know, playoffs.
*two cents*
What matter is nothing but god.....
I know it was lame
What matter is nothing but god.....
I know it was lame
Don't worry fame GOD/CHEMICAL CHANCE/ willing you will get em' next time!*two cents*
yep. our planets are spheres with boundaries.
*two cents*
The MOTION of space would be what we refer to as matter. Matter is simply the effect of the wave structure motion of space. In this sense, the starting ingredients for the theory/model would be space and motion. Two things. Simpler than the current physics theory (Occam's Razor) which is based on the standard model and which requires at least three things to model; space, time, matter (particles) and in some cases, energy.
Thanks man. Figuring it out ... I don't know about all that but what I know is that it's so exhilarating and exciting when things start to click together and seem so obvious, in hind sight of course...
For me right now, physics based on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) is what's up.
That was actually an excerpt from a book I read back in the day by pop science writer Eric Lerner called "The Big Bang Never Happened"
I hope you know Sean69 might be a little crazy, i doubt he uses a fume hood anymore for phenol, trizol, RNA electrophoresis or stinky mercaptanol!
lol. it wasn't that complicated. You believe that time is an existent physical THING, like a book or a coffee mug. I disagree. It's just a CONCEPT. Like love, hate or happiness. It's useful in physics for calibrating change/motion of matter. That's all.Yeah, Sean and I share different views about few things. I don't necessarily believe in the just is concept. I understand it, I just don't view that way. Another example is he doesn't understand why I believe time has speed
I have a 14 page thread I started in physicsforums.com a while ago arguing this. I'm all good.
I can dig that explanation.
Any particular type of wave motion or is it just motion in general? A regular wave has a sine and a cosine. I know fluid mechanics on Earth physically produces events on Earth such as low pressure systems.
Now if I can remember correctly you mention temperature plays a role. In fluid mechanics (you may be familiar with this) there are waves produced when there is a temperature gradient between two masses. The wave produced is called a baroclinic wave (or baroclinicity). This waves produces a vortex underneath 'minimum' amplitude (negative) of the wave. This vortex may cause matter to gather in the center become very hot and dense. Are you following me on this?
Let assume that the right wave speed and the right temperature gradient was able to produce this vortex. Matter could gather centerfold and produce the event that lead to the birth of the universe.....
Yes. Speherical standing waves. This is the simplest model. Oscillating "in and out" wave motions of space. Think of it as vibrations of space. What we observe as particles are just an effect of this wave motion. An artifact. Specifically, the wave center of the standing wave creates the illusion of a particle.I can dig that explanation.
Any particular type of wave motion or is it just motion in general? A regular wave has a sine and a cosine. I know fluid mechanics on Earth physically produces events on Earth such as low pressure systems.
If the spherical standing wave above is, say, an electron accounting for matter an the opposite wave phase, the positron accounts for anti-matter, then matter/anti-matter annihilation is simply explained by the destructive wave interactions. Constructive wave interactions create different forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas, etc)
Our current physics actually requires four things to model; space and time, the medium. Particles, the stuff. And fields, what interconnects the stuff.
In WSM theory, you need just one thing. Space, existing as the wave medium. Everything else, matter and time, is just an effect of the wave motion of space!
But if matter already exists and just organizes based on temperature and pressure gradients then how can you speak of "the birth" of the universe. Unless by birth you just mean the evolution of events after the fact. But you're still left with the dilemma of where the original matter came from, right?
WSM theory asserts that matter is the effect of wave motion. Put another way, activity/wave motions necessarily cause/creates/gives rise to matter.
You know what would be funny?... If there is an "exit" to the universe.
Think about the planets in the universe as cells inside of the human body. What if SOMEHOW we discovered an exit.... ( Ass, nose, or mouth ) and on the outside is a HUGE ASS REAL WORLD like ours with giant motherfuckers walking around.
Think about the planets in the universe as cells inside of the human body. What if SOMEHOW we discovered an exit.... ( Ass, nose, or mouth ) and on the outside is a HUGE ASS REAL WORLD like ours with giant motherfuckers walking around.
You know what would be funny?... If there is an "exit" to the universe.
Think about the planets in the universe as cells inside of the human body. What if SOMEHOW we discovered an exit.... ( Ass, nose, or mouth ) and on the outside is a HUGE ASS REAL WORLD like ours with giant motherfuckers walking around.
When I was a child, I thought about similar things. I wondered what if this shit was just infinite. Like what we think is a universe isn't anything but a cell.
And even at that, we might not be an important cell in "giant land". And the same with the giant universe.
And all that keeps going and going and going and going and going.
What started me to thinking that way was a simple question about killing bugs.
Yes. Speherical standing waves. This is the simplest model. Oscillating "in and out" wave motions of space. Think of it as vibrations of space. What we observe as particles are just an effect of this wave motion. An artifact. Specifically, the wave center of the standing wave creates the illusion of a particle.
If the spherical standing wave above is, say, an electron accounting for matter an the opposite wave phase, the positron accounts for anti-matter, then matter/anti-matter annihilation is simply explained by the destructive wave interactions. Constructive wave interactions create different forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas, etc)
Our current physics actually requires four things to model; space and time, the medium. Particles, the stuff. And fields, what interconnects the stuff.
In WSM theory, you need just one thing. Space, existing as the wave medium. Everything else, matter and time, is just an effect of the wave motion of space!
But if matter already exists and just organizes based on temperature and pressure gradients then how can you speak of "the birth" of the universe. Unless by birth you just mean the evolution of events after the fact. But you're still left with the dilemma of where the original matter came from, right?
WSM theory asserts that matter is the effect of wave motion. Put another way, activity/wave motions necessarily cause/creates/gives rise to matter.
Strong statement bruh and it absolutely make no sense on how that could happen. Although your explanation is very clear. The highlighted statement is something powerful.
I was speaking more of the events leading after the fact about the temperature gradient. I'm not assuming pressure at all. Just temp.
Another thing. Are we talking about large scale wave or very small scale waves?
Last edited:
That is an important question because it will fill a gap for me. That is a great thread.
Sean69, I am on amazon right now, do you know of a good book on WSM theory?
I am overdue...last run I made a few years back were on all on string theory. I am not familiar with WSM theory. It seems like an evolution of string theory from what I am reading up on it now...seems to be the next big thing in physics
Similar threads
