Reply
Tue 8 Nov, 2011 07:26 pm
Imagine, if you will, an infinite moment of creation. The entire infinite universe begins; the illusion of space-time is created. A neutral force of the mind of creation begins to separate two forms of light, negative and positive. Instantly the entire infinite universe is hot from the creation and annihilation of these two energies. The two energies instantly begin to spin, negative and positive, with the neutral separating the two (quark confinement)? As the separation continues the point of positive energy spins positive with a point of equal neutral energy. The negative spins around these two spinning points, separated by an equal amount of neutral energy, gravity is created. The negative energy pushing against a wall of neutral energy, with a singularity of positive and neutral energy spinning in the center, the negative energy completely surrounds the outer wall of neutral energy.
What are to become the atoms is simultaneously pushed apart, and compressed together, by the pushing of the negative energy. As the energies separate across the universe, the atoms are gathered and compressed into the locations where the galaxies will form. The negative energy is stretched across the universe forming the fabric of the universe, the dark energy. This stretched, dark energy both separates and connects the energies of matter. It creates the energy cloud that surrounds the outer portion of the atom. What appears as an electron is the point of concentration of the dark energy within the energy cloud. This energy seems week because it is stretched across the emptiness of space.
The reason an electron, photon, neutron, etc. appears as a particle when observed is because, when in motion, it stretches into infinite mass across the dark energy, the fabric of the universe, the vastness of space, getting weaker as it is stretched. When these energies are observed, their motion is stopped, and the energy is concentrated into a single point.
The pushing of the dark energy against the energy within the atoms of matter would explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.
The condensing of the energy of matter at the locations where future galaxies would form would form giant gas clouds. These gas giants would eventually become so compressed; they would go into super nova, exploding matter and gas into space while the remainder of energy would implode leaving the black holes in the center of each new galaxy.
@voiceindarkness,
Youve strung concepts together, youve used neologisms to pepper your statement and then call it a theory?
Please dont engage in self assigned honors just yet. Youve not really eplained anything since No theory exists independent of observations of its fundamental components. NO THEORY. what you engage in is no different than HArry Potter stories. Its sophistry to the max and its without substance.
Where are any observations equivalent to the pattern and uniformity of the Cosmic Microave Background Radiation.
The Big BAng theiry is an unfortunate use of terms that give a wrong idea of what we know.
We know that , a long time ago, the universe was dense and hot. It has , since become less dense and cooler by expansion. The evidence we can bring to bear strongly suggests that sometime in the past we can join and observe a process where the Universe (or multiverses) began to expand. Science really has no idea of the start point but can strongly evidence the process that has occured a few microseconds after the event began.
Im afraid that your story involves "Imagine if you will..."
Thats more a lead -in to the TWilight Zone, not a scientific theory.
@voiceindarkness,
If you speak broadly enough you're bound to get a few small things right (even though you'll never know what they are), but you're also going to get most things wrong.
@rosborne979,
I prefer a hypothesis where there are infinite number of universes that exist like soap bubbles (M hypothesis) wherein Big Bangs occur all the time as inflation occurs across uncountable universes.
HOWEVER compelling that sounds to me, ITS JUST A HYPOTHESIS not a theory.
So, I prefer a means of explanation that starts with
"We have evidence for the following", what can we conclude?
@farmerman,
I prefer non-gobbledygook
@farmerman,
Quote:We know that , a long time ago, the universe was dense and hot. It has , since become less dense and cooler by expansion.
My theory begins with the universe being dense and hot, cooling as it evolved into existence, as apposed to expanding.
Where are any observations equivalent to the pattern and uniformity of the Cosmic Microave Background Radiation?
My theory explains this better than the "big bang" theory does. Have you read my theory?
Quote: The evidence we can bring to bear strongly suggests that sometime in the past we can join and observe a process where the Universe (or multiverses) began to expand. Science really has no idea of the start point but can strongly evidence the process that has occured a few microseconds after the event began.
Just because the universe is expanding, isn't evidence that it is expanding from a single point of a big bang.
I explained the expansion in my theory.
The big bang is an impossible fantasy, according to the laws of physics, and creates more questions than answers.
@voiceindarkness,
Quote: Have you read my theory
YEs, its rather convoluted with some facts chucked into a stew. Apparently you didnt read (or understand) what I wrote about what constitutes "Theory".
Take your ideas and try to parallel them (side by side) to actual observations and then try to extend that to "theory status".
@voiceindarkness,
Quote: isn't evidence that it is expanding from a single point of a big bang
The fact that it expands isnt really the evidence for a Big Bang. There are many observable pieces of data that, when taken together support a Big BAng or membranes of a multiverse.
Try to show some evidence of each of your points in your hypothesis before you anoint it with the title of "theory"
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote: Have you read my theory
YEs, its rather convoluted with some facts chucked into a stew. Apparently you didnt read (or understand) what I wrote about what constitutes "Theory".
Take your ideas and try to parallel them (side by side) to actual observations and then try to extend that to "theory status".
What points in my theory don't parallel observations, can you be specific?
@voiceindarkness,
I asked you to place some evidence parallel to your ideas. Dont ask me to do your homework. You are the one trying to convince others that you make sense. Im merely saying "not so fast dude" nothing of a conclusionary basis of what youve said , has any evidence. Your hypothesis is dependent upon certain observable facts. How then, does there exist evidence that allows you to carry it further into the realm of anything more than self congratulatory assertion?
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote: isn't evidence that it is expanding from a single point of a big bang
Quote: The fact that it expands isnt really the evidence for a Big Bang. There are many observable pieces of data that, when taken together support a Big BAng or membranes of a multiverse.
Other than the fact that the universe is expanding, what are the observable pieces of data that, when taken together support a Big Bang or membranes of a multiverse? Big bang hypothesis?
Quote:Try to show some evidence of each of your points in your hypothesis before you anoint it with the title of "theory"
proton, neutron,seeming empty space, electron cloud, dark energy, same evidence the Big Bang hypothesis is looking at.
@voiceindarkness,
Thats what I figured . Youre gonna try the "I use the same evidence as you but I wont share with how I reach conclusions"
How does the background Microwave RAdiation support your worldview without inflation? Im curious how you negate a Big Bang without denying all the evidence.
Curiouser and curiouser.
==============
PS, in your world, what is the speed of DARK?
@voiceindarkness,
Quote: The observable evidence of the end result is the same.
You are delusional. For you the universe would have to operate on another realm of "physics"
Im glad youve demonstrated the way that you attempt to "debate" with R Dawkins. I suspected as much.
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:My theory begins with the universe being dense and hot, cooling as it evolved into existence, as apposed to expanding.
How do you explain the observations that show the universe to be expanding?
Quote:The pushing of the dark energy against the energy within the atoms of matter would explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.
This doesn't explain the movements of galaxies away from each other unless they were created closer to each other. That doesn't seem to be part of your theory.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:The observable evidence of the end result is the same.
You are delusional. For you the universe would have to operate on another realm of "physics"
For many people the universe
does operate in another realm of physics, it's the "I don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about" realm
We've seen it more than a few times here on A2K. Always entertaining (even Bewildering)
@rosborne979,
I get a bit annoyed when someone who is talking out his ass calls his farts "theories".
Im sure the guy has no idea about the rigor and homework necessary to attain that lofty title.
Its obvious that "voice" ignores evidence and really believes that he makes sense.
Still, even though all of this is extremely boggling to we who dont work inthe field of cosmology, yesterday I heard an interview with Saul Perlmutter (This years Physics Nobel prize for discovering that the Universe (that we know of) is expanding at an ever increasing velocity) Perlmutter admitted that his mind is in a constant state of "boggle" and hes always playing catch up.
@farmerman,
However, Mr. Perlmutter is to be distinguished from characters like Jesus here by the fact that he is trying to catch up.
@Setanta,
Imagine that a Nobel prize recipiant admits to being in a constant state of bogglitude
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote: The observable evidence of the end result is the same.
You are delusional. For you the universe would have to operate on another realm of "physics"
Im glad youve demonstrated the way that you attempt to "debate" with R Dawkins. I suspected as much.
No, a realm not of the physical
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace