GENIUS FORUMS

First i would like to outline the current theory of the early universe then proceed to show its short comings and then try to overcome them with my own theories.

First things first:

There is nothing , absolutely nothing . No space and no time .
Nothing.

"Then"

Shreeeew , off goes positive space in one direction.
And off goes negative space in the other.
Coupled with positive space is positive time in the same direction.
Coupled with negative space is negative time .

In these two dimensional sructures negative and positive mass-energy expand.
these dimensional sructures would now form separate "universes" that rely on each other for their objective existence.
Through all this can be seen in play the one most important principle that will ever be.

The law of the conservation of nothing.

Take all these "universes" and it can be seen that ,taken together, nothing exists.
A good example to illustrate this would be the law of conservation of momentum in a system.
A given system ,such as me in a room holding a tennis ball, could have no momentum to start of with but this "no momentum" could be made up of many couples of negative + positive momentum.
Eg. I could decide to throw the ball i am holding and immediately the ball will have positive momentum while i would be pushed backwards with negative momentum.the net sum of momentum in the system would still be zero.


One question that comes naturally would be why did these dimensional structures separate into their present form from the "nothing"

The answer that i was told to believe was that since "0" , "10 - 10" and "70 - 70" are all equaly zero there need not have been a cause for this but that it was more likely for the "0" to be manifested as a dual of two integers.
In fact it can be seen that the dimensional structure we live in is expanding .Both time and space are expanding.

My problem with this view is that ,say i have 100 cows and - 100 cows.
Could i give you some of them ?
Yes i could give you 5 - 5 cows, but would i be able to give you only three cows for instance ?
The quick reply is that i have 100 - 100 cows but that the are no separated .
In what way can these dimensional structures be separated if there is nothing to separate them with.
If they are separated then where did this "thing" that separates them come from.
The whole point of the theory was to explain where everything came from, now we are led to requesting another "substance" to separate them.
The word direction as we are using it only makes sense in a dimensional context, so if these structures are separated then it means that they are separated on the backdrop of another dimension.
Then the question is just begging to be asked ;where did this dimension come from?

If we do what we have been doing all along and say that there are two "separation dimensions" , a positive and a negative one and that they came into existence on the backdrop of the law of conservation of nothing, then we will need to explain what separated this dimension from its negative self. We would then invent another "separating dimension" to separate the first "separating dimension". this invention of other dimensions would carry on forever ad infinum.

There is also the need to reconcile this with the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.
According to which universes branch off every Planck time to meet all possibilities. My problem with this was that these universes can not exist now since the word 'now' refers to 'our' time dimension and not theirs. Similarly these parallel universes never existed any time in the past and will not exist any time in the future . this real bothered me because i failed to see how these other universes could exist all the same.
I now believe that these universes are not that separate at all but that they share a dimension ,I'll call it the G dimension.
Any universe that branches of at the next Planck time will have the exact same space-time dimensions as ours but having a different g value on that dimension .
This would mean that they really do exist now since they share the same time dimension and they necessarily exist here because they share the same space dimension.
They occupy the exact same space as us and at the exact same time but occupy different g's .

Going back to the big bang model one way out of the mess would be to imagine two dimensional structures separating each other.
If we have an X dimension and a Z dimension then we could have the X dimension separating on the backdrop of the Z one and the Z dimension separating on the backdrop of the X dimension.All the other dimensional structures could then separate using these primary existential structs.

Would that mean our universe is one of the halves of the X or Z dimension? If that's what you mean, then sure, it's possible. How does that fit in with the G dimension?

It might be simpler to think of the G dimension as the backdrop of the positive-negative split. The split doesn't need a separating dimension separate from the split. It could be a more inclusive dimension that holds the split together. The conservation of nothing would just be the integrity of the G dimension evidenced in the split.

divine focus wrote:Would that mean our universe is one of the halves of the X or Z dimension? If that's what you mean, then sure, it's possible. How does that fit in with the G dimension?

No . The X and Z dimensions are like a canvass on which the universe is painted on.
I'm not sure whether space-time distributes over these primary dimensions but I think the X and Z dimenstions distribute over space-time.
If time does not distribute over them then as i explaind they do not exist now and never existed in the past.
I know that this does not necessarily mean that that they do not exist . They could exist "x" in X and "z" in Z just as we exist "here" in SPACE and "now" in TIME.
They are the foundation on which other dimensions can be built from.

divine focus wrote:It might be simpler to think of the G dimension as the backdrop of the positive-negative split.

The G dimension was brought in to explain the many worlds theory .
It would also need to have a negative counter part to preserve the conservation of nothing.

The split would need a separating dimension otherwise in what way was there a split in the first place.
Any dimension that is holding the split together would need to justify its own existence meaning it would have to have a negative half.In order for it to exist and one that is seperate from it For it to have other properties.

divine focus wrote:The conservation of nothing would just be the integrity of the G dimension evidenced in the split.

Could you expand on this.

I would like to add some new elements to this discussion..

Science has included Dark Matter into its understanding of the universe to get gravity to work the way it is supposed to. Otherwise, some distant galaxies will fly apart. Science hasn't really given dark matter a purpose other than to fix science. The Big Bang still sits snugly glued to the beginning of the universe, and most people just accept it. The thing is...

You don't need a big bang with dark matter!

With dark matter filling space at the beginning of time, you have a connection of elements, and all you have to do is get them moving to create other things. Kinda like a newtons cradle. One element knocks into another, and you get a flow of almost stationary waves. Very close to perpetual motion, as the distance to create a wave is sooo tiny.

This brings me to this positive/negative space that is mentioned in the opening post. Rather than divide them over a distance, isn't it better to weave them together very closely? Then the forces will create movement, and it is movement, or perpetual motion that is required to start the universe. Oh, and don't forget neutral space as well. You need Positive/Negative, and neutral. Neutral ground is required as an opening, a doorway, birth of new energy.

what happens when there are infinity of nothingness?

LooF wrote:what happens when there are infinity of nothingness?

I would suggest that Dark Matter fills an area of it gradually, because Dark Matter is so tiny that is obeys the rules of spooky science, and can pop into existence in and out of the physical dimensions of the universe. Either that, or Dark Matter always fills it, and so nothing cannot exist.

chikoka wrote:The split would need a separating dimension otherwise in what way was there a split in the first place.

Exactly! Maybe the split is only apparent, but from a wider perspective there really is nothing to split. A "higher," inclusive dimension doesn't have to follow the same rules as the balancing subdimensions.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I would suggest that Dark Matter fills an area of it gradually, because Dark Matter is so tiny that is obeys the rules of spooky science, and can pop into existence in and out of the physical dimensions of the universe. Either that, or Dark Matter always fills it, and so nothing cannot exist.

I think what you are referring to is "virtual matter" and not dark matter.

quote
----------
...and so nothing cannot exist.
---------


If nothing cannot exist that is the same as saying everything can exist.
Why would that be true?

quote
-------
what happens when there are infinity of nothingness?
------

The word "when" has connotations of time.
In a situation of nothingness there is no when for there to be a

...what happens when there are an infinity of nothingness.

If nothing cannot exist that is the same as saying everything can exist.
Why would that be true?

I am saying that Dark Matter is so dense that it has no spaces between it, and anything else, so there is no such thing as nothing. The nearest thing to nothing would be Dark matter with 0 energy.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I am saying that Dark Matter is so dense that it has no spaces between it, and anything else, so there is no such thing as nothing. The nearest thing to nothing would be Dark matter with 0 energy.

Do you really understand the gravity of what you are saying .
There is space even inside a proton.
As well as inside the middle of a black hole.

chikoka wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I am saying that Dark Matter is so dense that it has no spaces between it, and anything else, so there is no such thing as nothing. The nearest thing to nothing would be Dark matter with 0 energy.

Do you really understand the gravity of what you are saying .
There is space even inside a proton.
As well as inside the middle of a black hole.

That's not space, that is just Dark Matter. Dark Matter is currently undetectable, and therefore shows up as nothing. The problem is that Dark Matter creates the detectors that would be used to find Dark Matter, and that makes it extremely difficult to detect it. We are like flies trying to fly through a window pane of glass, we just can't see it. We are encased in a solid universe, we only move as a wave through the solidity like a newtons cradle that creates a wave from the stationary balls, but instead of the outside balls swinging, the flow is merely the passage of information between two points.

Pincho Paxton wrote:That's not space, that is just Dark Matter. Dark Matter is currently undetectable, and therefore shows up as nothing. The problem is that Dark Matter creates the detectors that would be used to find Dark Matter, and that makes it extremely difficult to detect it.

I dont know much about dark matter so i have to ask if normall matter displaces dark matter as it (normal matter) moves or if normal matter just goes straight through it.

If it displaces then this should show up as a resistance to motion.
I know that the higgs boson is a messenger (of force) particle and it creates a field that causes normal matter to resist accelaration and in so doing gives it the properties that we like to think of as having mass.

This could very well be the dark matter that you speak about.

Normal matter is a shape created by Dark matter. It works like this...

Imagine a drop of water is normal matter. The drop of water knows that it is spherical, and the knowledge that it is spherical is all that makes it spherical. Now the drop of water is put in the sea. It still remembers that it is spherical, and therefore does not get mixed into the rest of the water. Now you have to detect the drop of water in the sea. What you are looking for is the information stored in the water that says that it is spherical. hard to detect this information.

Now you get normal matter which is a shape of information made from Dark Matter. The shape is just a set of energy levels, a scale of information, a set of rules. A wave in a newtons cradle. For it to move it just has to be recreated over, and over again. The information passed along the Dark Matter highway.

I wrote:I dont know much about dark matter so i have to ask if normall matter displaces dark matter as it (normal matter) moves or if normal matter just goes straight through it.

Could you give a more direct answer to the question.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Dark Matter is currently undetectable, and therefore shows up as nothing.

Why did science include it into theory if it makes no noticeable effect on the universe?

Pincho Paxton wrote:I am saying that Dark Matter is so dense that it has no spaces between it, and anything else, so there is no such thing as nothing. The nearest thing to nothing would be Dark matter with 0 energy.

Nothing would be what would between two units of dark matter.
This nothing could then expand into other dimensional structures.
Why we dont see this happening is because dimensional structures do not take up space , they make it.

Pincho Paxton wrote:With dark matter filling space at the beginning of time, you have a connection of elements, and all you have to do is get them moving to create other things. Kinda like a newtons cradle

Where would the dark matter have come from in the first place.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Then the forces will create movement, and it is movement, or perpetual motion that is required to start the universe.

What forces do you mean?