/sci/ - Science & Math

any input?

Infinite space/time does not equal infinite mass.

>>5630457
i never made a point of infinite mass

>>5630461
Your idea requires it.

>>5630462
in what way?

>>5630440
> free reign
> pushes our universe back into singularity
Please explain what you mean here.

>>5630452
What forces are creating universes in this theory, and how(or with what)? How do you know that your fractal pattern doesn't stop at the universe?

>>5630475
i suggest a force that we cannot view as it is has no direct force on our universe at this point, when heat death occurs the energy within our universe is gone and this aforementioned force now can exert its force on the universe, causing all the matter within our universe( after heat death only the smallest building blocks of matter exists, yet is all the matter that ever was and will be in our universe), to be forced together back into the*singularity* we theorize existed as the base for our universe.

>>5630487
i believe it doesnt because at a certain point of reference we believe it to be the final point, but we are always proven wrong as time goes on and our *technology and knowledge* advance.

anymore input /sci/?

>>5630488
Why can't it have any effect before heat death?

>>5630440
My PoR is already the omniverse without your stupid bouce-back theories. Gravity is intangibly linked with mass; if there is no significant mass (matter) in the universe post-heat-death, there will be no contracting force.

For a better (IMHO) alternative, look at Fecund universes and Tegmark's Levels of the Multiverse. And/or the Ten Dimensions series by Rob Bryanton, although be careful to not twist that into some sort of "higher selves!" viewpoint like some (cough cough Spirit Science).

>>5630440
>What if time is the movement of our universe around another object?
This is a completely nonsensical remark. It doesn't make any sense in ANY fashion whatever.
Time is a characteristic interior to our own universe; there is nothing you can say about it OUTSIDE our universe.
And time is not caused by movement; movement CANNOT happen if time doesn't exist first.

>Imagine a force that exists around our universe that is weak(like gravity) that pushes on our spherical universe but isnt more powerful than the mysterious dark energy.
You are trying to establish forces OUTSIDE the universe, but nothing (nothing AT ALL) is known about such an environment.
Everything you say, everything you imagine, can only be fantasy.
And apparently, you fantasize that it works just like the atmosphere of earth.

>Now, we know these forces enacted to create our universe, why not again elsewhere?
No, we know our universe began -- we do NOT know there are forces that created and regulate it, and in fact it sounds stupid.

>what if, because space/ time is assumed to be infintite,
Space time MIGHT be infinite, but that is ONLY true INSIDE our universe. You're still trying to make rules for something outside.

>Our PoR becomes the *multiverse?onmiverse?*
Never, because we can never have any knowledge of what is outside our universe.
Our knowledge of what is inside our universe will never be very significant; get used to it.

>>5630491
>i believe it doesnt because at a certain point of reference we believe it to be the final point, but we are always proven wrong as time goes on and our *technology and knowledge* advance.

Wow -- you seem to take pride in assuming we will always be completely wrong.
You are wrong about that -- our direction ALWAYS has to get closer to the truth. We will never be as wrong as before again.

But, in this case, it doesn't matter; there are firm reasons we can never see beyond the universe.
Even more, there are major forces that restrict even how far we MIGHT see, and they are vastly smaller than you seem to accept.

>>5630513
i agree with that remark being misplaced.

outside is a relevant term describing the space around our spherical universe on a 3d grid, using that image you can obviously see area that doesnt encompass our known universe. Think of where the singularity that was the center point of the universe is on said grid. Our universe is what is around said point making the whole grid the universe and our *universe* is simply what we can see as of now, our universe has no wall around it so that space is still part of the universe.

we know our universe was created right, im just suggesting a cycle.

Why do you assume that our universe is all that there is, its just like a nomadic tribe viewing the landmass they live on as the only place because it is surrounded by water they cannot yet cross.

The human point of reference is not forced larger; it becomes larger because of our need to improve knowledge.

You seem to be trying to apply the human point of reference as though it was a predictable law of the universe, and had an effect there. It does not.

The human point of reference is not always growing bigger: it also looks smaller (as it learns about small things) and 'deeper' (as it examines deep issues). There is no reason to treat it as a growing field of view that can be relied upon.

>>5630532
im talking about the viewpoint of the space around us, it has always gotten bigger. Always, at this point we view our universe as the final point, just as we viewed our planet to be all we could reach. Travel to the moon was thought completely impossible, we did reach it however. Who is to say that as technology and understanding expands that we cannot break the idea of our universe being all that there is?

>>5630530
>outside is a relevant term describing the space around our spherical universe on a 3d grid,
I understand the concept; you are imagining something around the universe.
That's fine, but THEN you started describing forces and pressures and principles that apply in that space, and that is nonsense.

>our *universe* is simply what we can see as of now, our universe has no wall around it so that space is still part of the universe.
Our universe is NOT simply what we see; our universe is much larger, but what is beyond it, if anything, does not have any known characteristics.

>Why do you assume that our universe is all that there is,
I specifically did NOT say anything like that. I said we can never know anything outside it, not that nothing else can be there.

>its just like a nomadic tribe viewing the landmass they live on as the only place because it is surrounded by water they cannot yet cross.
No, it isn't. None of this is about the limits of what we see; it is about the physics that we know to be true.
We know a lot about the universe, but you are just inventing stuff.

You know what you'd find fascinating? Learning what we actually know, rather than imagining it and telling people you've got a bright idea.

>>5630545
im here to expand this theory with others who can put input and i can then try and fit it around that input or add that input and see if my theory works.

m NOT here to say im right and you're wrong.

>>5630550
>im here to expand this theory with others who can put input and i can then try and fit it around that input or add that input and see if my theory works.

And I'm trying to explain:
you cannot add to, improve, validate, verify, grow or test your theory.
Everything you are saying is outside our ability to know. Permanently.

You're not even making any sense when you make statements like the pressure of a force on the outside of the universe.
That is because you cannot even establish any expectation of forces, or pressure, or matter existing; it's completely unjustified.

And you cannot even call it theory; what you have is a conjecture. 'Theory' is when it actually has solid evidence and fits the models well enough to predict and be justified. "Theory" is the top of the pyramid, not the beginnings of a notion.

>>5630545
i am offering a theory that shows that our area of space time that we call the universe is cyclical and that by adding this force we can explain the big bang. Its a theory and id like people to show me where im right and where im wrong. Its scientific speculation.

Im saying that as time goes on perhaps we can learn what is beyond our universe.

as for inventing stuff, it is just speculation and i was wondering if anyone else has an opinion on said speculations, maybe even more ideas.

>>5630557
law, i believe is what you are referencing.

>>5630561
>i am offering a theory that shows that our area of space time that we call the universe is cyclical and that by adding this force we can explain the big bang. Its a theory and id like people to show me where im right and where im wrong. Its scientific speculation.
>Im saying that as time goes on perhaps we can learn what is beyond our universe.
>as for inventing stuff, it is just speculation and i was wondering if anyone else has an opinion on said speculations, maybe even more ideas.

You are offering a vague and unfounded conjecture; it is neither scientific nor can it explain anything.
It isn't that you are wrong; you are inventing the entire thing. There is nothing about it that CAN be right or wrong.

And you persist in assuming we will somehow learn what is 'beyond' -- we CANNOT.
I'm not saying we don't know how -- we CAN NEVER interact with, observe, or receive data from outside our universe.

Maybe I should explain the reason:
all the laws of energies and matter that we have were created after, and within, the beginning of this universe. They apply only within. They have nothing to do with anything that might be outside.
It isn't about seeing through a barrier: it's about not having anything in common with the barrier or what is outside so that we could see at all.

You know how a camera works? light, lens, sensor? If we could imagine putting that camera outside, there is nothing it could do -- the 'light' would be different, electronics, refraction; everything would be different.
But even more -- the camera itself would not be able to exist. Matter and the atomic forces are part of our rules, too.
It has to be, because it wasn't created by our universe.
If we could breach that imaginary barrier, we might even destroy both sides of the breach, because there is no way for the rules to be bent on either side.
It's totally nonsense to suppose any interaction.

That is why it is totally nonsensical to try to describe any of the forces on the outside.

>>5630565

OK, yes, the actual peak of the pyramid is a 'law.'

The top of the notional pyramid -- stuff we have to come up with and verify -- those are 'theory.'

>>5630591
nonsensical eh? looks like i came to the wrong place, try being more open minded sir. see ya /sci/, i probably wont be back

>>5630624
>nonsensical eh? looks like i came to the wrong place, try being more open minded sir. see ya /sci/, i probably wont be back

Sorry, but just because you imagine something doesn't mean it's a good, open-minded idea.
There are real limits in the universe.
You won't be able to do everything you can imagine.

>>5630457
Actually it can. CMBR is present all throughout the universe which is energy and indeed mass. Were there to be infinite spacetime all with CMBR throughout it then there would be infinite mass, just spread out infinitely.