Infinite universe = everything exists.

[Tiapan]

Angular momentum is Newtonian physics and was explained several hundred years ago

Most of the Universe is Newtonian in that most matter is moving around at speeds well short of the speed of light. Special relativity only appears different to Newtonian calculations at speeds approaching that of light.

Where V=1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)).

– it is the result of orthogonal resistance to rotation – that must exist in order to create rotation from forces that intend to travel in a straight line.

I thought this was a simple application of fluid dynamics under the influence of gravity countering the tendency to continue in a straight line. The word resistance strikes me as inappropriate. Resistance is force acting inhibiting forward movement, acting in the opposite direction to the movement and proportional to the forward movement squared. Whereas what we observe is a balancing of forces gravity vs centripetal force acting at rightangles to the direction of the velocity vector.

I did write a paper many years ago in college that forces act within volumes and not plains as calculated in Newtonian physics – but the delta is miniscule for objects not near the speed of light.

Agreed see above

The interesting by product of the math is that there is another dimension to our universe

Would like to see the maths

– but since you are obviously smarter than me I will not pursue such thinking.

I don't know that I am any smarter than you, we all have a pretty neat supercomputer sitting on our shoulders, but I may have a different way of analysing and interpretting the evidence.

I still suggest the current rotational velocity of our Universe, has an angular momentum associated with it. Further this must have come from the big bang so what made the proto-universe spin. I offer a plausible explanation using natural physics and you can only offer myth.

Cheers

 

[Zadok]

.....

I still suggest the current rotational velocity of our Universe, has an angular momentum associated with it. Further this must have come from the big bang so what made the proto-universe spin. I offer a plausible explanation using natural physics and you can only offer myth.

Cheers

The universe is spinning? Apart from the "Great Attractor" I thought it was expanding? What is the force turning the expansion into rotation and what is the center of that rotation?


Zadok

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

The universe is spinning? Apart from the "Great Attractor" I thought it was expanding? What is the force turning the expansion into rotation and what is the center of that rotation?


Zadok

I'm way below the levels you two are at in terms of physics and mathematics but could the rotation and expansion be separate, such that the universe is both expanding and spinning? I'm not sure why or how it's spinning though, I never considered that.

 

[arimoff]

I'm way below the levels you two are at in terms of physics and mathematics but could the rotation and expansion be separate, such that the universe is both expanding and spinning? I'm not sure why or how it's spinning though, I never considered that.

I'm right with you regarding physics and mathematics but I think the expansion is what causing it to spin, but I might be wrong.

 

[Zadok]

I'm way below the levels you two are at in terms of physics and mathematics but could the rotation and expansion be separate, such that the universe is both expanding and spinning? I'm not sure why or how it's spinning though, I never considered that.

Thank you for asking. The force behind the expansion of the universe is generally believed to have originated with the Big Bang and be in a straight line. This is the essence of the Newtonian first law of Motion. In order for something to move in a circular motion or to spin there must be some force acting on the object in a continuous manner to create the circular motion or as mentioned “angular momentum”.

The law of gravity creates such a force between two objects that have mass. Other than gravity the only other forces in play are atomic forces but they do not act over long distances. The calculations for gravitational attraction can be calculated with Newtonian physics using the universal gravitational constant. This process is known to produce a slight variation to reality. Einstein developed a better method through the concept of special relativity. The assumption was that mass will alter the “normal” structure of space and time creating a bent or curved path that creates the circular movement of various elements of our universe following the path that is bent. As brilliant as Einstein was he needed help with his math.

As I mentioned – many years ago I use the same math structures used to “prove” Einstein’s special relativity to demonstrate a possible additional dimension. This I did by using the similar methods in the same equations. That is seeking out what happens in the equations as mass approaches the speed of light. But I took a slightly different approach and made my calculations for mass approaching the speed of light from speeds in excess of the speed of light. The result was that the function could only be continuous if there is another dimension.

Zadok

 

[logician]

Actually, most cosmologists are hopping aboard multiverse theories where our universe is one of many, or possible uncountably many universes of various types. And multiverse theories make the existence of some man-made god irrelevant.

 

[arimoff]

Actually, most cosmologists are hopping aboard multiverse theories where our universe is one of many, or possible uncountably many universes of various types. And multiverse theories make the existence of some man-made god irrelevant.

well you answered you own statement, "hopping aboard" meaning not searching for truth or knowledge but choosing for a specific reason.

 

[McBell]

well you answered you own statement, "hopping aboard" meaning not searching for truth or knowledge but choosing for a specific reason.

rotflmoa

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Actually, most cosmologists are hopping aboard multiverse theories where our universe is one of many, or possible uncountably many universes of various types. And multiverse theories make the existence of some man-made god irrelevant.

That multiverse theory is somewhat stupid in my view.
It seems to be just as limited in it's answers as the God theory.

 

[Zadok]

That multiverse theory is somewhat stupid in my view.
It seems to be just as limited in it's answers as the God theory.

I am trying to understand why you posted this??? One of the greatest drawbacks, or if you will – flaws, in the Big Bang theory is the event horizon to the “Big Bang”. As we view the Big Bang from our dimension of space time reality it is impossible to have contained the Big Bang. Or in the simplest statement – the Big Bang would be impossible. Please note that the word used is “impossible” and not implausible which would prove there was not a Big Bang.

One theory proposed to overcome this blatant inconsistency is the collapse of an eleven dimensional universe of space. In fact this is the most plausible theory that has ever been presented. The problem with this theory is where does an eleven dimensional universe come from and why would it collapse?

In order to solve the problem of the existence of an eleven dimensional space universe it was proposed that there are alternate universes that exist. Now the problem is that all kinds of speculators pursue all kinds of tangents without doing anything but jumping to imaginary conclusions about what other parallel universe could exist – without doing any “math”. There is a reason that an 11 dimensional space collapse was considered. It is the only one that works with the math.

I am willing to debate issues that relate to science and religion but I would point out to make a blatant statement that something is stupid without a reasonable alternative that demonstrates something is not real smart.

So for the forum, I will purpose that there is another dimension to our universe that we do not recognize because we are 3 dimensional beings. But I also purport that this theory can be proven using particle accelerators and demonstrating that at high speeds forces on particles do not act on the center of mass but a delta based on intersecting force units of 4 dimensional volumes. I will also propose “a possibility” that G-d is a 4 dimensional being.

Zadok

 

[TechTed]

There is another theory out there that describes our universe as a "bubble" of sorts. Think of air pockets caught in gel, only the "gel" is something else, perhaps dark matter. The dark matter is constantly flowing and shifting (I imagine an infitely large lava lamp) and when enough of this "dark matter" condenses a "big bang" occurs and a universe "bubble" is created. The bubble expands until it can no longer sustain itself then collapses or dissipates.

Within this construct there are multiple universe "bubbles" and they can collide. Some claim that the evidence for this is great areas of "nothing" in our own universe, places where there should be stars / galaxies etc but are mysteriously empty. When another universe "bubble" intersected with our own the stars / matter were "cancelled out".

On a cosmological timescale, entire universes are born and die with regularity within this "dark matter" construct.

I obviously oversimplified the theory a great deal and probably screwed up some of the details, but I found it to be a very interesting and plausible explanation. Can't seem to locate the original site i read it on though...

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I am trying to understand why you posted this??? One of the greatest drawbacks, or if you will – flaws, in the Big Bang theory is the event horizon to the “Big Bang”. As we view the Big Bang from our dimension of space time reality it is impossible to have contained the Big Bang. Or in the simplest statement – the Big Bang would be impossible. Please note that the word used is “impossible” and not implausible which would prove there was not a Big Bang.

One theory proposed to overcome this blatant inconsistency is the collapse of an eleven dimensional universe of space.....

Hello Zadok (and a happy new year),
The multiverse theory is not really related to your 11 dimensional explanation. What you talk about is the M-Theory (which is based on the String theory, which is often named as one theory about multiverses).

Anyway. I do not criticize any mathematical equations that are testable.
My criticizm about multiverse theories is pretty simple.
I criticize especially the idea that many universes exist because it is empirically not testable and not falsibiable.
It only pushes the question one step further. Where people say God did it you ask "who created God".
Where people say "there are multiple universes" you can simply ask "where did THOSE" come from.
The multiverse theory doesnt explain anything really. Its just a hypophesis and no more. Actually it doesnt deserve the name theory in my view.
In either case you end in an infinite regression.

 

[Tiapan]

The latest data from WMAP and Plank observatories may indicate that distant bright objects such as Quasars and Super clusters may not be part of our universe as assumed and in fact may be examples of other sister universes.

Cheers

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The latest data from WMAP and Plank observatories may indicate that distant bright objects such as Quasars and Super clusters may not be part of our universe as assumed and in fact may be examples of other sister universes.

Cheers

I do not know (but guess) that you meant me with this post.
Could you give me a link with information concerning above statement?

 

[Zadok]

Hello Zadok (and a happy new year),
The multiverse theory is not really related to your 11 dimensional explanation. What you talk about is the M-Theory (which is based on the String theory, which is often named as one theory about multiverses).

Anyway. [/font][/color]I do not criticize any mathematical equations that are testable.
My criticizm about multiverse theories is pretty simple.
I criticize especially the idea that many universes exist because it is empirically not testable and not falsibiable.
It only pushes the question one step further. Where people say God did it you ask "who created God".
Where people say "there are multiple universes" you can simply ask "where did THOSE" come from.
The multiverse theory doesnt explain anything really. Its just a hypophesis and no more. Actually it doesnt deserve the name theory in my view.
In either case you end in an infinite regression.

I agree but at the same time here is a lot to discuss both in regards to religion and science. I am 100% with you concerning the concept that anything not understood as evidence of G-d. The only thing that can be resolved from things that we do not know is that we do not know.

My basic attitude is until we know a thing we should be very careful with both what is considered as well as what is not considered. We do not want to eliminate any possibility especially for reasons we may be considering something else. Next I like to order the possibilities according to probabilities.

There are several religious claims about G-d that I find both impossible and improbable and some claims in science I find somewhat improbable. But to be fair – it appears to me, through observation that the religious community is slightly more acceptable of the improbable.

Zadok

PS. Happy New Year to you as well.

 

[Baydwin]

The latest data from WMAP and Plank observatories may indicate that distant bright objects such as Quasars and Super clusters may not be part of our universe as assumed and in fact may be examples of other sister universes.

Cheers

Maybe I'm unusual, but if it exists in our spacetime I class it as part of our universe.

 

[Tiapan]

I do not know (but guess) that you meant me with this post.
Could you give me a link with information concerning above statement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

Maybe I'm unusual, but if it exists in our spacetime I class it as part of our universe.

That depends on your definition of Universe. You are of the school that the universe is all encompassing and all things are contained within.

A more modern interpretation may be that a universe is that derived from a big bang phenomena. This is the one I use, and appears consistent with the evidence. So universes may be continually being created just the same as stars, in some giant super space. We are part of just one of these and perhaps quasars are examples of other universe visible from ours.

Further in Multiverse rather than spatially dispersed entities, the discussion of Dark Matter leads to a conclusion that they may over lay each other. ie occupy the same space time but not interact with each other.

Cheers

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

Video was removed due to copyrights

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

But to be fair – it appears to me, through observation that the religious community is slightly more acceptable of the improbable.

But you see my point is exactly that: peopole should not be "acceptable" of the improbable. Thats the whole issue.
Science is not (should not be) about accepting improbable things.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No boundaries = infinite universe = everything exists.

There, I just proved God exists . :angel2:


Do you ever feel dizzy when you look up into the night sky?

Naw....you just proved how insignificant man is in the grand scheme of things when observed what we can "currently see using the Hubble Telescope. Observing a dark part of space may just mean our current technology precludes us from seeing that far.