Is our known universe nothing more than a pulse of energy?

[Yelram]

This is more of a science thing, but since the premise is somewhat unprovable, atleast at this point, i'll call it philosophy.

Okay, lets pretend that the "universe" as we know it is nothing but a medium for the movement of energy, and that the energy that is fed through it CAUSES time. No energy traveling through, no time. Much like sonic vibrations cause sympathetic vibrations in other material. Now lets imagine that this energy travels similar to a wave, with crests and troughs. I'll use an animated Gif to help visualize what i'm saying here.
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/bar5_anm.gif

Now lets imagine our whole visible universe only exists within one of those pulses, at the end of the pulse, the amount of energy diminishes, likewise with the beginning. Our perception can only exist within that bubble. So as we look out to the edges of this energy, we see a perceived "end" or "begining" of time, and the expansion from the introduction of this energy effects the medium it is currently traveling through (very similar to how a wire conducting electricity absorbs energy in the form of heat, due to resistance, or molecules in the air sympathetically vibrate from a source of sound energy) Its really basic if you just imagine that each galaxy is an atom frozen in a specific state(from our perspective). Energy is streaming in from multiple outside sources (this may also account for dark matter), and affecting that atom(galaxy), but only in pulses. So the beings living on a planet, rotating around a star, thats within a galaxy do not have the frame of reference to see what is truly effecting the universe, because they only exist within one pulse of energy being transmitted across a (intergalactic)medium.

So what do you all think?
A couple pics to get you all going.

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/art/galaxies1.06-09-18.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2wNottTwbE4KCM:http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/galaxies.jpg
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/index.php/pages/research_areas/images/galaxies.jpg

http://web.rollins.edu/%7Ejsiry/atoms_to_quarks.gif

[Hodge]

Science has advanced far enough that we could tell if there were outside forces acting on our universe.
I suggest a read: Entropy.

[Yelram]

Science has advanced far enough that we could tell if there were outside forces acting on our universe.
I suggest a read: Entropy.

You really believe that? Because we can barely understand all the forces within interstellar medium, to believe we know what forces are between galaxies is silly. Its much like being on earth, and attempting to sense the cosmic rays that are deflected by the earths magnetic field. Do you know what Dark Matter is? They know theres forces, they just dont know WHAT they are, or WHERE they come from, and account for them mathematically. I was hoping for a little more of a response than "science knows best".

[Hodge]

You're missing the point. It's common knowledge that there is less known about our oceans then there is known about our galaxy.
We can sense the cosmic rays both by orbiting satellites and through the laboratories we have built miles underground.
Dark matter is a moot point since it is believed to exist within our galaxy. Who's to say energy doesn't have mass? Can we see all energy? Did I just simplify dark matter theory (not bloody likely)? Refer to a little equation we call E = mc^2 for that one.

A little more thought and I do see what you're getting at though. I think it would make more sense to post articles relating to your argument than pictures of (sub)atomic particles and the like.

You can't start a thought discussion like this on your own and be taken seriously unless you're a published Ph. D. in Physics. Resource material, please!

[Hodge]

Here, to help you out:
Some M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Theory) cosmologists also propose that multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects on the visible universe meaning that dark matter is not necessary for a unified theory of cosmology.
Near the bottom within Modifications of Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)

[Hodge]

Here's another, albeit from a forum, but it does quote articles (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=245530)

[Yelram]

You're missing the point. It's common knowledge that there is less known about our oceans then there is known about our galaxy.
We can sense the cosmic rays both by orbiting satellites and through the laboratories we have built miles underground.
Dark matter is a moot point since it is believed to exist within our galaxy. Who's to say energy doesn't have mass? Can we see all energy? Did I just simplify dark matter theory (not bloody likely)? Refer to a little equation we call E = mc^2 for that one.

A little more thought and I do see what you're getting at though. I think it would make more sense to post articles relating to your argument than pictures of (sub)atomic particles and the like.

You can't start a thought discussion like this on your own and be taken seriously unless you're a published Ph. D. in Physics. Resource material, please!

Oh wow.... I'm on fucking GMF dude, this isnt exactly a peer reviewed science journal. Your understanding of E=mc^2 seems a bit juvenile(to put it lightly). And the "fact" you state is all out preposterous. Do you know how big the galaxy is compared to the oceans? (sarcasm)Whos to say energy doesnt have mass?(/sarcasm) What the fuck are you trying to prove. This is a philosophical introspection type thing. I sure hope you arent in school for this shit, because that is just sad.

[Yelram]

Here, to help you out:

Near the bottom within Modifications of Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)

That is exactly what I am saying there chief. Only i'm proposing that the "Expanding" universe, and light and time as we know all exist within one iteration(probably half an interation) of a wave of higher dimensional energy. And where this wave plunges below the X axis is where we have marked the "edge" of our known universe.

[Hodge]

Oh wow.... I'm on fucking GMF dude, this isnt exactly a peer reviewed science journal. Your understanding of E=mc^2 seems a bit juvenile(to put it lightly). And the "fact" you state is all out preposterous. Do you know how big the galaxy is compared to the oceans? Whos to say energy doesnt have mass? What the fuck are you trying to prove. This is a philosophical introspection type thing. I sure hope you arent in school for this shit, because that is just sad.
I'm trying to keep it simple for the simple folks.
I have a degree in this shit.

I provided you with some articles to support your claims. I gave evidence to the idea that your proposed but were too lazy to back up. Give me a fucking break you nitwit.
If you're gonna say something that requires credentials post some fucking credentials. Posting on GMF isn't an excuse for not doing so, just an excuse for getting ridiculed for not doing so.

[Hodge]

Here's an excerpt from an article I'm not paying to read (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-633888.html)

[Hodge]

Some good ideas here, and probably where you should post your question. (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2314)
What your question boils down to is the expansion of the universe. That's the greatest factor if there are forces outside of our universe acting on it.

My question is almost word for word from one of the members from the post above:
If our universe supposedly encompasses everything and is expanding, what the hell is it expanding into?

[Yelram]

I'm trying to keep it simple for the simple folks.
I have a degree in this shit.

I provided you with some articles to support your claims. I gave evidence to the idea that your proposed but were too lazy to back up. Give me a fucking break you nitwit.
If you're gonna say something that requires credentials post some fucking credentials. Posting on GMF isn't an excuse for not doing so, just an excuse for getting ridiculed for not doing so.

Anyone who has a degree in "this shit" and thinks we know more about the galaxy than the oceans, must have got their degree at the university of phoenix. I am not saying anything that "requires credentials". Never once. Thats like if I posted Schrodinger's cat as a thought experiment, and you demanded a cat, and a box, and a dead cat. And then proof that I am indeed Schrodinger. I am talking about our size, and relativity in comparison to the size and scope of the universe, and trying to find the point where the pattern repeats (which I personally believe is a correlative value between the size of a hydrogen atom, and the size of its corresponding "galaxy".)

[Yelram]

Some good ideas here, and probably where you should post your question. (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2314)
What your question boils down to is the expansion of the universe. That's the greatest factor if there are forces outside of our universe acting on it.

My question is almost word for word from one of the members from the post above:
If our universe supposedly encompasses everything and is expanding, what the hell is it expanding into?

Did you read my first post at all? Because I fucking addressed that. This forums better anyway

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=261161&page=7

So far every one of the "problems" you addressed are problems I have had, and the reasoning for my current thought experiment. Read it again, with an open mind. The expansion is only due to the interaction of higher form energy, and it only happens within an isolated bubble that we call the "universe". Much like how any energy within our environment causes expansion and contraction within molecules.

[Hodge]

You don't get it, do you?
We DO know more about space than we do about the darkest depths of the ocean. This is a well publicized and televised FACT.
Your lack of knowledge of current science doesn't make me the stupid one.
The thought experiment does not apply at all, in fact you missed the point of it completely. And if you're going to act like such an expert on the subject you can at least spell Schroedinger correctly.

As far as anything remotely smart you have posted; my own education and a little Google have proven you haven't had an original idea in this thread.

[Yelram]

You don't get it, do you?
We DO know more about space than we do about the darkest depths of the ocean. This is a well publicized and televised FACT.
Your lack of knowledge of current science doesn't make me the stupid one.
The thought experiment does not apply at all, in fact you missed the point of it completely. And if you're going to act like such an expert on the subject you can at least spell Schroedinger correctly.

As far as anything remotely smart you have posted; my own education and a little Google have proven you haven't had an original idea in this thread.

HAHAHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

Please show me that televised fact, and then I will compare the mass/volume of the galaxy and what we know about it, to the mass/volume of the oceans and what we know about them, and you will see how absolutely false your claim is. You have posted little bits that SUPPORT my argument, not prove that my thoughts arent "original" which was never my intent. You have just been a bag of assumptions since you started posting here eh?

You have made comments in this thread that show your belief of "what we know" is drastically inflated

I have made no definite assertions here to prove. YOU have.
You have stated "science is far along now that if there was a force acting on our universe, we would know"
Patently false, proven so by your own citations.
You have stated "we know more about the galaxy than the oceans"
Again, waiting for you to support this beyond saying "its a fact"
You have stated "Schroedinger" is the correct way to spell "Schrodinger"(you could have just used spell check) and more or less called me stupid for not spelling it the wrong way ( I know arch is probably hovering here waiting to tell me that its not an o its an ö, which is still silly semantics, and doesnt even address the original post. I feel bad for the future of the science community if your understanding of science will get you a degree. If you had started off working within the structure of the thread, instead of saying that it somehow doesnt count, because I dont have credentials, we would have never got into this pissing war.

[Hodge]

ö = oe
Where's my umlaut, bitch!

[Hodge]

Even a little kid knows about this. (http://naturethorn.blogspot.com/2007/09/ocean-vs-space.html)

[Yelram]

ö = oe
Where's my umlaut, bitch!

Type Shroedinger into google and see what you get. Again irrelevant, you are stuck in a pissing match, that I want nothing of.

[Yelram]

Even a little kid knows about this. (http://naturethorn.blogspot.com/2007/09/ocean-vs-space.html)

You didnt seriously just post that to back you up did you? You were asking me for scientific credentials to back my shit up, and you back yours up with.


Ocean vs. Space (http://naturethorn.blogspot.com/2007/09/ocean-vs-space.html)

Did you know that we, as humans, know more about Space than we do about the OCean? We spend billions of $ to make peices of metal junk that we arent even sure is gonna work! When we could be using that money to explore the ocean, right beneath our feet, instead of millions of miles away.

I was watching a special on Discovery Channel about how the oceans got fileld. It was saying how rain filled themm, but there may have been metors that hit the middle of the ocean and the steam condested (turned into liquid) and may have filled the ocean. but we arent sure, because WE HAENT BEEN DOWN THERE TO CHECK!! (Although, scientists think, the Mariana Trech may have somthing to do with it.)

ok, the pressure downthere could squish an airplane, but f we used that space money for the ocean, think how much we'd learn!!

OMG!11!1 Squish an airplane!!1!1!1! Seriously, respond to the original post, I dont need anymore of your silly horseshit. You both must have watched the same discovery channel episode, and both totally misunderstood what they meant.

[Hodge]

My post is just a reflection of my interest in this. Common knowledge man, not even a scientific fact. Spend a day in society and you might learn something.

I'm sick of arguing with an idiot and pray they aren't doing the same thing.

[Yelram]

My post is just a reflection of my interest in this. Common knowledge man, not even a scientific fact. Spend a day in society and you might learn something.

I'm sick of arguing with an idiot and pray they aren't doing the same thing.

Excellent proof, "Go out in society and ask people"? WTF is that supposed to mean. Dude, just admit it, i'm not making fun of you (overtly, but in hushed tones IRL), just admit it. You heard something like that on a discovery channel special once, and thought you would come in here and show how smart you are, and you have nothing to back it up.

[Hodge]

Type Shroedinger into google and see what you get. Again irrelevant, you are stuck in a pissing match, that I want nothing of.
You get Schrodinger with an umlaut and Schroedinger spelled in English throughout the rest of the article.

The kid isn't credible, just more knowledgeable than you are. You're out of touch man and no amount of proof or reason will convince you otherwise.
I've heard of it 50,000 times, as have most other people. Just because there isn't a mathematical or physical explanation for it does not mean that it's unknown.
The depths of our oceans are less known that the reaches of the galaxy. We build spaceships and the like to explore our galaxy and have not even been to the deepest depths of the ocean.

Once again you've taken a barb at my intelligence and have done nothing to support your own.
I posted all of the support for the argument in your thread.
Just shut the fuck up already. You've done nothing to support your own claims and ideas.

I should ask a mod to make this my thread with an argument and title that make sense. I'll try this again: I'm done arguing with an idiot.

[Yelram]

I've heard of it 50,000 times, as have most other people. Just because there isn't a mathematical or physical explanation for it does not mean that it's unknown.
The depths of our oceans are less known that the galaxy.

Once again you've taken a barb at my intelligence and have done nothing to support your own.
Iposted all of the support for the argument in your thread.
Just shut the fuck up already. You've done nothing to support your own claims and ideas.

I should ask a mod to make this my thread with an argument and title that make sense. I'll try this again, I'm done arguing with an idiot.

You arent arguing, to do that you would have to make a point, and back it up, and that point would have to be different than my points.
You do realize that the earth is just one planet in a solar system, and the solar system is just one within a galaxy right? I mean this is obvious stuff. So for you to say "we know more about the Galaxy than we know about the depth of the oceans" means that any oceans that exist within the Galaxy we would have to understand. Maybe you mean "human beings have a greater amount of knowledge compiled about the galaxy than they have compiled about the depths of the oceans". Being that the amount of information in the galaxy eclipses the amount of information in the ocean by man orders of magnitude, this wouldnt seem irrational.


Edit: Spaceships to explore the "galaxy"? Are you fucking retarded? Have you ever heard of a sub-marine? They may not get to the very bottom, but I have yet to see a (manned)spaceship get beyond the moon. If you mean satellites, those still havent exited the galaxy(I looked this up, only one has exited the SOLAR SYSTEM).

Repetition does not make fact. I've heard all sorts of things many times over that people assume are "common knowledge" that arent true.

[Yelram]

Heres a pretty good page that makes some parallels between atoms and galaxies.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/spinningcoinsCH4.GIF
This animation shows just one of the number of ways four outside
points may each share two members with a central point using this
rotating/precessing ring model.
Each shell is full with 16 members.
The below shows how the Periodic Table is shaped by building concentric
rings of 16.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF



I find this extremely interesting, and I believe within our lifetimes the fields of astrophysics and chemistry will be combined, and they will start to explain one another. Our observations of galaxies will expand our understanding of atoms, and chemical reactions. And our observations of chemical reactions will allow us to interpret the actions of star systems and galaxies better.

[NoGravitas]

Did you come up with this on your own or is this something you read/saw? Also i recently read an article in new scientist that hypothesised that our visible universe is like a holographic projection from the edge of the universe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

I havnt really thought about it properly but it seems you could maybe integrate that with your theory somehow.

[NoGravitas]

It may also be possible that it is the universe that moves in this undulating fashion (a trough being a big bang and the next being a big crunch, though latest i heard there wasnt supposed to be a big crunch) and it is the universes movement along this pattern through some sort of extra-universal medium that creates time.

[Yelram]

Did you come up with this on your own or is this something you read/saw? Also i recently read an article in new scientist that hypothesised that our visible universe is like a holographic projection from the edge of the universe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

I havnt really thought about it properly but it seems you could maybe integrate that with your theory somehow.

Its not so much a "theory" as it is a different model. And I more or less have to build the model, before it can be testable. My model right now is that galaxies and atoms are the same phenomenon, but at drastically different time/energy scales. That would make the perceived universe "matter" in some larger world. Which would make it a medium for energy to travel across. I believe our whole observable universe exists within one pulse of a higher waveform, and that the edges of our perceived "universe" are nothing more but this energy tapering off. But thank you for your responses, I appreciate your thoughts, and i'll be sure to read the article.

This would reduce chemical reaction to being caused by gravity, and gravity being caused directly by motion. So every form of energy could then be expressed as a moving force.

[NoGravitas]

So when you say that atoms and galaxies are the same do you mean that metaphorically, like they behave similarly, or that they are actually the same but viewed from a different perspective?

[Yelram]

So when you say that atoms and galaxies are the same do you mean that metaphorically, like they behave similarly, or that they are actually the same but viewed from a different perspective?

I believe they are the same phenomenon, but I have heard people speculate that it may be a knot, and somewhere within the galaxy is an atom that IS the galaxy. This probably isnt the case, but its an interesting thought.

What I mean is that they are the same phenomenon. If you got the right perspective, and time relation, you could use the Universe(full of galaxies) to learn about atoms, as if you had them in freeze frame. You could also use properties we understand within chemistry, to properly explain the actions of galaxies. You would obviously have to label galaxies as to where their specific form would fall on the periodic table, which would certainly be no easy task.

[NoGravitas]

Youve lost me there im afraid. Aside from having orbit at some level i dont follow how galaxies and atoms are the same thing. For one thing this galaxy is made of atoms right now and those atoms will never were or will become a whole galaxy. Perhaps im not reading you right. Are you suggesting a "theory of everything" type thing wherein the same equation that can predict the movement of a planet around a star can predict the movement of an electron around a nucleus?

[Yelram]

Youve lost me there im afraid. Aside from having orbit at some level i dont follow how galaxies and atoms are the same thing. For one thing this galaxy is made of atoms right now and those atoms will never were or will become a whole galaxy. Perhaps im not reading you right. Are you suggesting a "theory of everything" type thing wherein the same equation that can predict the movement of a planet around a star can predict the movement of an electron around a nucleus?

I think your post that I missed was alot more at what I was getting at. Only the "big bang" is alot more like a detonation wave, and the resulting "contraction" is where we see the "end" of the universe. Heres a couple more gifs that might help illustrate better.

http://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/reflect/pulse.gifhttp://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/forkanim/contour.gif
http://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/forkanim/latQ.gifhttp://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/forkanim/contour.gif
http://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/forkanim/contour.gifhttp://www.kettering.edu/%7Edrussell/Demos/forkanim/latQ.gif

The medium never really "moves". Its that something is traveling through it, effecting the galaxies(atoms), and then traveling on. As it leaves, the galaxies(atoms) contract.
Now in those gifs, we are in a low pressure area. A place that once was high press, and now appears to be "expanding" in all directions. Our perception of ever galaxy around us, gives us the impression of a starting point, since everything appears to be moving outward. Now if that is correct, and the universe composed of galaxies, is the exact same thing as matter in our world(although on a drastically different scale), we could start testing if all the same rules apply, and find correlations between the two worlds.

Fuck it wont let me post the gifs, let me link you to the page.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/forkanim.html
Look at the ones where the wave is moving across the dots, an causing contractions and expansions.

[NoGravitas]

Right let me try and get this again. Ill use some imagery and you can tell me wether it applies or not. Say our veiwpoint at the beginning of the universe(big bang) is like being in a big highly condensed deflated balloon (singularity). Your energy wave hits it and over time it inflates (expansion of the universe) and then after a point deflates back to its original state (big crunch) until it is hit by another wave at which point a new universe begins. Is that about right?

Im still struggling to follow this atoms vs galaxies but though. Matter is the same throughout this universe and the galaxies in this universe are made from the same matter as ours (except for anitmatter galaxies if they exist). The motion and properties of matter at an atomic level bares little resemblance to matter on a stars/planet scale.

[Yelram]

Right let me try and get this again. Ill use some imagery and you can tell me wether it applies or not. Say our veiwpoint at the beginning of the universe(big bang) is like being in a big highly condensed deflated balloon (singularity). Your energy wave hits it and over time it inflates (expansion of the universe) and then after a point deflates back to its original state (big crunch) until it is hit by another wave at which point a new universe begins. Is that about right?

Im still struggling to follow this atoms vs galaxies but though. Matter is the same throughout this universe and the galaxies in this universe are made from the same matter as ours (except for anitmatter galaxies if they exist). The motion and properties of matter at an atomic level bares little resemblance to matter on a stars/planet scale.

You are exactly what I was looking for.

Okay, the balloon is kind of a bad analogy though. Think instead of an ocean full of equally spaced buoys. And a wave is permeating through this medium. From where we are, we can only see the waves on either side of us(we'll assume we're in a trough, and that the wave froze in place) and we cant see beyond that. That is our observable universe. We can see the buoys(galaxies) that appear to be moving "away" from us, but what is actually happening, is contraction somewhere else, in our immediate area. causing the appearance of the buoys moving away. So you are pretty close to getting what I mean on that part.

The matter thing. Star systems arent quite a good fit, but Galaxies and Atoms are certainly very similar in many different ways. What we are able to deduce about atoms from our current perspective, would be the equivalent of watching a galaxy over an inconceivably long period of time. The differences fade away when you slow one down, and speed the other up. If you think about colliding galaxies as chemical bonding. And higher density gallaxies as either very heavy atoms, or compounds made of multiple "bonded" galaxies that could be seperated by the right form of higher order (you could even call it dark energy) energy. This would explain why some galaxies appear to be gaining mass, while others are losing mass. This would mean that quarks and muons and the such, are nothing but star clusters coming into being, and fading out in a very very small period of time. Sometimes this matter is "eaten" by a black hole, and then released as a different form of energy. This sounds exactly like when a valence electron moves from a position in the outershell, it changes energy forms, but then is reabsorbed by another atom, and changes back to a stable form.

I thought of another example. Ionization. The less "orbitals" an atom has, the easier it is to "free" an electron from the electric potential barrier. If an atom has too many orbitals, the electrons in the outer orbital will enter an "excited state" until the energy is burned off. This would make perfect sense in the scope of a galaxy, because the more "orbitals" the more gravity, and the harder for the energy to escape the gravity well. I just find it funny that the original atomic model was based upon the solar system, and it unlocked endless parallels. I feel that this model will do the exact same thing.

This makes absolute sense, the more energy you put into a galaxy/atom, the more expansion the g/a goes through, until the outer edges of the g/a start to come under control of the gravity of another g/a. This would help explain the process of ionization, and even normal chemical reactions, and the necessary amount of "activation" energy, to get the reaction started.

[NoGravitas]

Right that last bit of imagery didnt help so much but i re-read your first post and thought about it a bit. So ive a question that might clear up your idea a bit for me - does one of these pulses (from trench to trench) equate to a observable moment in time for us? I think i may have got you wrong bringing big bang/crunch stuff into this when you were theorising about time.

Also i think what you are getting at with the matter/galaxies affair is very similar to the whole quantum gravity/theory of everything stuff.

[Yelram]

Right that last bit of imagery didnt help so much but i re-read your first post and thought about it a bit. So ive a question that might clear up your idea a bit for me - does one of these pulses (from trench to trench) equate to a observable moment in time for us? I think i may have got you wrong bringing big bang/crunch stuff into this when you were theorising about time.

Also i think what you are getting at with the matter/galaxies affair is very similar to the whole quantum gravity/theory of everything stuff.

Its EVERYTHING thats observable, 93 billion light years across is how big the "pulse" we exist on is (atleast thats their calculation). Think of it this way (this may be a little hard to connect) but lets say we are in the "daytime" of our observable section of the universe. As this daytime moves forward, there is darkness on either side of it. If we existed within ONLY that day(all of our life, or lets even say the whole existence of the species), the "edges" of the universe would be where the light ends. Where the energy doesnt exist, we cant perceive, because we are beings made of energy. Imagine a wave so big, that just its crest composes our entire observable universe, and outside of that, a contraction is happening, which is pulling the matter away from us faster than light can escape, so we see an "end", or what most scientists call a "beginning" (in theory it would be both)

[NoGravitas]

Im getting a bit confused by your treatment of the observable universe and the whole universe. Also why does the contraction at the end of the wave pull matter away. Every time i think im getting close to understanding this i just get more confused lol!

[Yelram]

Im getting a bit confused by your treatment of the observable universe and the whole universe. Also why does the contraction at the end of the wave pull matter away. Every time i think im getting close to understanding this i just get more confused lol!

Its not something that's very easy to convey, thats why I started this thread, I was hoping to find someone willing to throw back and forth ideas, without being critical.

I am pretty much basing this on the universe being far bigger than what we observe. And that our whole observable universe is basically some bit of matter in some higher world, composed of a mix of different atoms.

If you look at the gifs on the page about tuning forks(since they wont seem to copy in, and I dont feel like downloading them, and uploading them again), and how the wave permeates the medium, and causes contractions, and expansions. Then he graphed out the "low" pressure, and "high" pressure points to coordinate to red and blue. Low pressure would mean the atoms/galaxies at that point would be uniformly pulling apart, in response from being in a high pressure state prior. So if we were on one of those dots, all the other dots would be seen to be moving uniformly apart, as if the universe is expanding.

[vasili denisov]

I think there are a few problems with your theory; but I also don't know if I understand all aspects.

I think a chief problem is that you're beginning first with a hypothesis, rather than moving from existing data to a hypothesis that accomodates that data. Your hypothesis, as far as I can tell is: a vibration which encapsulates a galaxy causes us to see a distorted vision of the external universe, one which embodies the properties of the vibration rather than the universe external to this vibration. It seems you're arguing that this vibration is indistinguishable from our perceived universe; there is no empirical way of distinguishing one from the other. Yet if there's no way of distinguishing one from the other, why can't it be an entirely different hypothetical form?

Energy is streaming in from multiple outside sources (this may also account for dark matter), and affecting that atom(galaxy), but only in pulses.
Why would the introduction of energy result in dark matter? Where are the outside sources? Outside the universe? Because the introduction of energy into what is perceived as a closed system would violate a few physical laws.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/spinningcoinsCH4.GIF
I find this extremely interesting, and I believe within our lifetimes the fields of astrophysics and chemistry will be combined, and they will start to explain one another. Our observations of galaxies will expand our understanding of atoms, and chemical reactions. And our observations of chemical reactions will allow us to interpret the actions of star systems and galaxies better.
Except the conception of atomic structures being a series of "rings" is an artifice; a more accurate description would be layers of fields of atomic particles. Their movement however, is not circular, or elliptical; I believe it's not even continuous movement, but discrete jumps from point to point.

[Archetype]

I think a chief problem is that you're beginning first with a hypothesis, rather than moving from existing data to a hypothesis that accomodates that data.
Isn't that the way experiments work, testing hypotheses?

[Mustard]

Isn't that the way experiments work, testing hypotheses?
For a few years now at least.

Unless you're a crackpot like Yelram.

[vasili denisov]

Isn't that the way experiments work, testing hypotheses?
I'd argue that hypotheses develop when a current model fails to accommodate the available data, or in the absence of a model which provides any pattern to the data. In this case, the hypothesis seems to exist independent of any anomalies in the data. To give an example: let us suppose we live in an apartment and that socks occasionally are missing from our laundry basket. We may assign no model to this; socks occasionally disappear. If we come across a neighbour and he's clearly wearing our socks, we may have the hypothesis that our neighbour is stealing socks; we can test this hypothesis by investigating. This would be a reasonable hypothesis to explain the data.

A hypothesis independent of data might be: an invisible, undetectable sock monster consumes socks for energy. If we heard unfamiliar, non-animal noises or unusual spoors, we might have basis for such a monster; we could speculate that the monster may feed on our socks. But the missing socks themselves are no proof of such a monster. This, however, goes even further then Yelram's idea because it begins with the mystery of missing socks. I'm not sure what a hole in cosmic theory prompts the idea of a pulse emission.

[NoGravitas]

Right i think that last post of yours cleared things up a bit for me. Was getting confused with what you meant by observable universe. Now that i think i understand you a bit better i not only think this theory is pretty cool but with a little adjustment may be right! If you look at the sound wave GIFs they start from nothing then contniously expand outwards. As far as i know this fits in neatly with the current accepted theory.

So lets make sure ive got you right now. Our universe is just a big lot of matter and energy in medium. Your energy wave comes in and its movement causes the progression of time as well as determining the shape of the universe. Thus is the wave is an undulating pattern like in your first GIF then we are looking at a big bang - big crunch universe or if its more like the sound wave GIF then its a big bang - big freeze universe (the current thinking if im not mistaken). Is that about right?

[Yelram]

[quote=vasili denisov;525005]I think there are a few problems with your theory; but I also don't know if I understand all aspects.

I think this is exactly the type of dialogue we should have began earlier, since our political leanings seem to clash
I think a chief problem is that you're beginning first with a hypothesis, rather than moving from existing data to a hypothesis that accomodates that data.It does, I just didnt get to that yet. The movement of far away galaxies at superluminal speeds, and the lack of an origin point for expansion are two main supporting bits of evidence. In theory, galaxies should not be able to move away from us faster than the speed of light, the only thing that could lead to this, would be a contortion of spacetime. Most models assume uniform expansion from a high density singularity, because they cannot sense any contraction elsewhere. This is because the expansion is happening faster than light can travel certain places, causing there to be a gap of information. The light is emitting from theses contracting galaxies, but since the fabric of spacetime between us and the contraction is expanding faster than the speed of light, it prevents it from being observed.
Your hypothesis, as far as I can tell is: a vibration which encapsulates a galaxy causes us to see a distorted vision of the external universe, one which embodies the properties of the vibration rather than the universe external to this vibration. It seems you're arguing that this vibration is indistinguishable from our perceived universe; there is no empirical way of distinguishing one from the other. Yet if there's no way of distinguishing one from the other, why can't it be an entirely different hypothetical form?A vibration which is permeating through a medium, this medium is galactic (what I mean is that the wave is causing contractions of galaxies in certain positions in the universe, and expansion in others), much like a soundwave travels through matter. Or electricity flows through a conductor.
I'm not saying this vibration IS the universe, rather it is traveling THROUGH the universe, and distorting spacetime, and causing all sorts of interactions between galaxies, and star systems.
Why would the introduction of energy result in dark matter? Where are the outside sources? Outside the universe? Because the introduction of energy into what is perceived as a closed system would violate a few physical laws. The energy is already accounted for, they call it dark energy, and it apparently composes most of the "mass" of the universe (even though if its a gravity wave, the mass may be an illusion caused by the wave bending spacetime). This wave would have an EXTREMELY low frequency, and an extremely LONG wavelength.

Except the conception of atomic structures being a series of "rings" is an artifice; a more accurate description would be layers of fields of atomic particles. Their movement however, is not circular, or elliptical; I believe it's not even continuous movement, but discrete jumps from point to point.Thats because the accretion ring is spinning on two different axises. You have the rotation of the ring around the galactic center, and you have that ring spinning as well(like flipping a coin). This also solves wave/particle duality (if you go and read that page I posted earlier, he describes this in depth). a Photon would be the equivalent of a coin being flipped, while its moving directionally towards something. The flipping coin has a frequency, but it also acts as a particle.

The jumping of quarks from point to point makes perfect sense. It is like how a sun converts matter into energy. Once its no longer "matter"(I say this assuming any particles we can perceive within an atom are actually matter if we were able to slow down time, and become very very small) we can no longer perceive it as a quark, and so it appears to blink in and out of reality. And because of the time difference, they appear to exist multiple places at once.

I've gotta go work, so i'll be back later, peace.

[NoGravitas]

Your theory is sheer monkey genius!

[Da Raider]

We gain more scientific knowledge and due to technology regarding the distribution and processing of information, we make leaps and bounds in far less time than in any other period of man's development. That being said, anytime we express that we are absolutely certain about things that are merely theory, we reveal that we really don't know what the fuck we are talking about.

It's common knowledge that "experts" claim to know things with absolute certainty.

It reminds me of the time when "experts" used to claim the earth was flat, or the sun revolved around the earth.

[Yelram]

We gain more scientific knowledge and due to technology regarding the distribution and processing of information, we make leaps and bounds in far less time than in any other period of man's development. That being said, anytime we express that we are absolutely certain about things that are merely theory, we reveal that we really don't know what the fuck we are talking about.

It's common knowledge that "experts" claim to know things with absolute certainty.

It reminds me of the time when "experts" used to claim the earth was flat, or the sun revolved around the earth.

Its exactly the same, and thats why science has gone from "logic and reason" to a sort of dogmatic connection to their own version of the "truth". It really prevents anyone directly connected with the science community to see the forest instead of just the trees. Just look at Hodges original posts "you cant have ideas without a PHD".

There are two types of thinking, a conceptual, applicable understanding (being able to throw a football with a high level of accuracy), and theres explanatory, number crunching type understanding (graphing the path the football would take mathematically). The first requires the brain to do the calculus in realtime, and any incorrect figures, result in a ball thrown incorrectly. To have someone analyze all the forces, and attempt to mathematically show how the ball got where it did will be atleast 30% incorrect, and would require a level of "rationalizing", to say, oh well, what made it different from the calculations was the air movement, or the amount of spin on the ball, or bla bla bla. In reality, the other half of the brain is able to do the calculations in hundreths of a second. Which is the part we should be fostering?

This is why theoretical physics is always a completely different type of people, and their deductions are sought to be proven wrong (or correct) by the number crunchers. This is why it was the wright brothers who first flew in the air, they were bicycle mechanics, they watched the birds, they understood the concepts that the physics of the time couldnt describe, and what was the concept? It was a density issue. The speed of the air moving across the wing at a curvature, caused the air that had to move across the curvature to be less dense than the air that had the straight path, and what happened? They flew. Now one could say that it is the density of the air beneath the wing that allows the plane to fly, I would argue it is the expansion of the air ONTOP of the wing that draws the plane upward. And this can be proven with a hot air balloon. You do not "add density" to the surrounding air when you fly a hot air balloon, you remove the density from above you.

[UNC]

WE KNOW MORE ABOUT SPACE THAN THE OCEAN!!@#$%^uB

[Archetype]

Well we do. Doesn't mean we know shit about space, just means we don't give two shits about the ocean. Also, the ocean is smaller.

[UNC]

I found this interesting (http://www.tnaflix.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ac44d20b2943846c1a8e)

[Yelram]

I found this interesting (http://www.tnaflix.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ac44d20b2943846c1a8e)
WTF? Take this shit the fuck out of here.

[Yelram]

Well we do. Doesn't mean we know shit about space, just means we don't give two shits about the ocean. Also, the ocean is smaller.

Yeah thats what I was getting at. He was trying to use the "fact" that we "know more about space than the oceans" as reasoning for not questioning mainstream conceptions of the universe(Because they KNOW). Which would then require our knowledge of space to be "more complete" than our knowledge of the ocean, which is not the case.

[UNC]

WTF? Take this shit the fuck out of here.

My Bad...I copypasted the wrong thing

Here it is (http://www.tnaflix.com/view_video.php?viewkey=15f2ff970a259d6ce832)

[Limp]

Yeah thats what I was getting at. He was trying to use the "fact" that we "know more about space than the oceans" as reasoning for not questioning mainstream conceptions of the universe(Because they KNOW). Which would then require our knowledge of space to be "more complete" than our knowledge of the ocean, which is not the case.
NASA disagrees...

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography (http://www.meatspin.com)

[Yelram]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7167

Heres an article that proposes the exact same thing as I am.

[Bullfrog]

What about the "Biocentric Universe" theory? Has anyone here read the latest issue of Discover Magazine? It posits that perhaps there IS no space or time without consciousness to generate it and support it. Now there's an interesting thought.

As for the atomic correlation to solar systems and galaxies, I was having those thoughts all the way back in high school in the mid-70s, and getting shot down by teachers who were saying that scientist couldn't support them BECAUSE... (and they couldn't find EXACT correlations, so they shot them down)... Today I believe any correlations don't have to be EXACT, if they exist, because they could represent entirely different universes that operate under different rules... At least that's ANOTHER thought.

[Don Scrappy]

If we accepted all the assumptions you made in your original post, then yes it might make sense.

[Kerjack]

Has anyone here read the latest issue of Discover Magazine?

Discover Magazine is the bomb yo.

[NoGravitas]

Ive my own little cosmological theory and this seems as good a place to post it as any. So here goes:

It is currently thought that the universe will simply expand forever. Over time the stars will die and matter will break down until theres nothing left but photons and black holes and eventually not even those.

My theory is that the purpose of sentient life if to advance to a stage where they have the god-like technology to create a "big crunch" - reducing the universe back into a singularity and creating a "big bounce" allowing the universe to start over again. Sure all life will be destroyed but its better than it fading away altogether and never having a chance to live again. Its possible this has happened many times before and we are leading the exact same lives as in the previous universe that eventually lead to the creation of the "big-crunch".

[Yelram]

What about the "Biocentric Universe" theory? Has anyone here read the latest issue of Discover Magazine? It posits that perhaps there IS no space or time without consciousness to generate it and support it. Now there's an interesting thought.

As for the atomic correlation to solar systems and galaxies, I was having those thoughts all the way back in high school in the mid-70s, and getting shot down by teachers who were saying that scientist couldn't support them BECAUSE... (and they couldn't find EXACT correlations, so they shot them down)... Today I believe any correlations don't have to be EXACT, if they exist, because they could represent entirely different universes that operate under different rules... At least that's ANOTHER thought.

I dont think the rules are any different, just relativistically different. We see one tiny snippet of the life of a galaxy, but when we see an atom, its like a billion of those snippets in a fraction of a second.

The whole biocentric thing is cool, but the problem is that its hard to demonstrate. I dont doubt that the universe would cease to exist if all sentient life was removed though.

[Yelram]

Ive my own little cosmological theory and this seems as good a place to post it as any. So here goes:

It is currently thought that the universe will simply expand forever. Over time the stars will die and matter will break down until theres nothing left but photons and black holes and eventually not even those.

My theory is that the purpose of sentient life if to advance to a stage where they have the god-like technology to create a "big crunch" - reducing the universe back into a singularity and creating a "big bounce" allowing the universe to start over again. Sure all life will be destroyed but its better than it fading away altogether and never having a chance to live again. Its possible this has happened many times before and we are leading the exact same lives as in the previous universe that eventually lead to the creation of the "big-crunch".
You never know, that might be the case. I personally think the idea of space "Expanding forever" is silly, and science will give that POV up. Just like the idea that the oceans fell off the "edge of the world". If we cant see any farther, we just assume thats the end.

It'd be like the whole human race since its beginning to now has been experiencing "fall" moving into "winter", and they assume at winter, that its only going to keep getting colder. They would probably even postulate that "if temperatures keep dropping this fast, soon we'll hit absolute zero".

[kid_vidrio]

You never know, that might be the case. I personally think the idea of space "Expanding forever" is silly, and science will give that POV up. Just like the idea that the oceans fell off the "edge of the world". If we cant see any farther, we just assume thats the end.


With our current inability to grasp infinity, I have to agree that the idea of 'expanding forever' is silly to even contemplate on some level.
I do think that infinitely changing is a realistic consideration. Expanding farther that we can imagine, contracting equally as far, with time collapsing in between.
It might be a huge sphere, which would seem infinite since by the time you came back around everything would have changed. But what does the sphere sit in?
Who cares? It's not going to put food on my table. I find the infinite challenge of dealing with finite resources to be much more engaging for teh sober mind....

[NoGravitas]

As is my understanding physicists have calculated the mass density of the universe to be less than a critical value. This means that the universe will continue to expand unless something changes. Cant really prove anything of course but just thought my idea was a nice novel theory of a cyclical universe.

[Yelram]

With our current inability to grasp infinity, I have to agree that the idea of 'expanding forever' is silly to even contemplate on some level.
I do think that infinitely changing is a realistic consideration. Expanding farther that we can imagine, contracting equally as far, with time collapsing in between.
It might be a huge sphere, which would seem infinite since by the time you came back around everything would have changed. But what does the sphere sit in?
Who cares? It's not going to put food on my table. I find the infinite challenge of dealing with finite resources to be much more engaging for teh sober mind....
I have a couple experiments i'm going to try. One of them involves cooling water from 4 deg C to 0 deg C, and monitoring the convection current as the water crystallizes, and loses density. It probably wont put food on the table though, but it might be fun.

[vasili denisov]

Ive my own little cosmological theory and this seems as good a place to post it as any. So here goes:

It is currently thought that the universe will simply expand forever. Over time the stars will die and matter will break down until theres nothing left but photons and black holes and eventually not even those.

My theory is that the purpose of sentient life if to advance to a stage where they have the god-like technology to create a "big crunch" - reducing the universe back into a singularity and creating a "big bounce" allowing the universe to start over again. Sure all life will be destroyed but its better than it fading away altogether and never having a chance to live again. Its possible this has happened many times before and we are leading the exact same lives as in the previous universe that eventually lead to the creation of the "big-crunch".
Sentient life has the common trait of being very good at staying alive and perpetuating itself. The sentience is very useful at both things, and gives the sentient an edge over the non-sentient. That it would willingly destroy itself would go against this genetic programming; a more highly evolved being might be vastly more intelligent than us, but the superior traits of this species would be the result of greater survivability in context. Destruction of itself and its universe would be the adoption of a philosophical idea, rather than anything arising out of its own traits. However, we can assume that the adoption of such an idea would not be universal; some might wish this, others would consider it madness. So, even taking certain premises to be true (that the universe can die out, that it can be re-started) to speak of a common destiny is ridiculous. The disagreement would be philosophical, not the result of greater insight of a more highly evolved being.

Though I don't have the information at my quick disposal, I dispute the idea of the universe burning out the way you present it. Stars may die, but much of their material is recycled in other stars. Even if we can speak of extreme circumstances where cosmic material is so spread out it can no longer form new stars, or much of it has been sucked in by black holes, it seems that if a species were to have the capability to re-start the universe (presumably through something involving gravitational pull which would cause it to collapse, from which a new universe woul emerge), it would have the technology to create smaller gravitational shifts pulling in widely dispersed hydrogen to form stars, as well as pulling it out of the reach of black holes, thus sustaining parts of the universe indefinitely.

[freegood]

I'm guessing as limit trends to infinity, entropy wins.

[Yelram]

So, even taking certain premises to be true (that the universe can die out, that it can be re-started) to speak of a common destiny is ridiculous. The disagreement would be philosophical, not the result of greater insight of a more highly evolved being.

A common destiny? I can give you one, energy dissipation, there thats the common destiny of every sentient(and living) being, prove me wrong.

Though I don't have the information at my quick disposal, I dispute the idea of the universe burning out the way you present it. Stars may die, but much of their material is recycled in other stars.
Wrong again, stars lose mass during release of photons, and then the dead "Stars" will be pulled into the galactic center, and consumed by a supermassive black hole. The stars gain density, but lose vast amounts of energy in the process. This density is again lost at the event horizon. If you can postulate a place where this energy "returns" I'd love to hear it, because thats exactly what we're talking about.

Even if we can speak of extreme circumstances where cosmic material is so spread out it can no longer form new stars, or much of it has been sucked in by black holes, it seems that if a species were to have the capability to re-start the universe (presumably through something involving gravitational pull which would cause it to collapse, from which a new universe woul emerge), it would have the technology to create smaller gravitational shifts pulling in widely dispersed hydrogen to form stars, as well as pulling it out of the reach of black holes, thus sustaining parts of the universe indefinitely.

So when the stars change all of the hydrogen into helium and heavier components, where is the new hydrogen going to come from?

[Yelram]

I'm guessing as limit trends to infinity, entropy wins.
But what is entropy in this scenario?

[freegood]

2nd law of thermodynamics ftw

[NoGravitas]

Sentient life has the common trait of being very good at staying alive and perpetuating itself. The sentience is very useful at both things, and gives the sentient an edge over the non-sentient. That it would willingly destroy itself would go against this genetic programming; a more highly evolved being might be vastly more intelligent than us, but the superior traits of this species would be the result of greater survivability in context. Destruction of itself and its universe would be the adoption of a philosophical idea, rather than anything arising out of its own traits. However, we can assume that the adoption of such an idea would not be universal; some might wish this, others would consider it madness. So, even taking certain premises to be true (that the universe can die out, that it can be re-started) to speak of a common destiny is ridiculous. The disagreement would be philosophical, not the result of greater insight of a more highly evolved being.

Though I don't have the information at my quick disposal, I dispute the idea of the universe burning out the way you present it. Stars may die, but much of their material is recycled in other stars. Even if we can speak of extreme circumstances where cosmic material is so spread out it can no longer form new stars, or much of it has been sucked in by black holes, it seems that if a species were to have the capability to re-start the universe (presumably through something involving gravitational pull which would cause it to collapse, from which a new universe woul emerge), it would have the technology to create smaller gravitational shifts pulling in widely dispersed hydrogen to form stars, as well as pulling it out of the reach of black holes, thus sustaining parts of the universe indefinitely.

Im no physicist but as far as i understand it matter does degrade over huge periods of time. This obviously includes the matter that sentient beings are made of. Therefore it is in their survival intrests to "restart" the universe and return matter to a stable state.

[vasili denisov]

I'm guessing as limit trends to infinity, entropy wins.
A common destiny? I can give you one, energy dissipation, there thats the common destiny of every sentient(and living) being, prove me wrong.
Im no physicist but as far as i understand it matter does degrade over huge periods of time. This obviously includes the matter that sentient beings are made of. Therefore it is in their survival intrests to "restart" the universe and return matter to a stable state.
These all seem to deal with the same issue, roughly, what freegood identifies as entropy in the system. However, when we speak of entropy in a system, we're speaking of energy dispersal within that system; the energy does not simply disappear, but is transferred elsewhere, outside that system. The problem with applying this to the universe, is that given current hypotheses, there is no "outside" of this system. As a star burns, the energy given off may leave the star, but it does not leave the universe.

Wrong again, stars lose mass during release of photons, and then the dead "Stars" will be pulled into the galactic center, and consumed by a supermassive black hole. The stars gain density, but lose vast amounts of energy in the process. This density is again lost at the event horizon. If you can postulate a place where this energy "returns" I'd love to hear it, because thats exactly what we're talking about.
Not all dead stars result in black holes; however, let's concede that some such stars result in black holes. The point I brought up initially was whether this system could be maintained without needing to re-start it. Faced with the very difficult, as well as suicidal, choice of collapsing the universe to re-start it, the alternative of collecting the energy thrown off a dying star so that it can be re-converted to matter to form a new star is comparatively less difficult.

So when the stars change all of the hydrogen into helium and heavier components, where is the new hydrogen going to come from?
This is fission, the breaking down of atomic material into smaller parts. We already do a crude form of this in our nuclear reactors. If we can postulate a super-intelligent species that can collapse the universe, they should be able to do this, no problem.

[NoGravitas]

These all seem to deal with the same issue, roughly, what freegood identifies as entropy in the system. However, when we speak of entropy in a system, we're speaking of energy dispersal within that system; the energy does not simply disappear, but is transferred elsewhere, outside that system. The problem with applying this to the universe, is that given current hypotheses, there is no "outside" of this system. As a star burns, the energy given off may leave the star, but it does not leave the universe.


In the context of my idea entropy is best defined as the way in which the universe tends to disorder. In this case organised matter is gradually breaking down of aeons to a state that it can no longer form complex systems (organisms for example). The matter does not have to escape the universe to become so inert. As is breaks down and the universe expands the matter eventually becomes so dilute that one bit wont come into contact with another leaving a cold, dead universe.

[freegood]

These all seem to deal with the same issue, roughly, what freegood identifies as entropy in the system. However, when we speak of entropy in a system, we're speaking of energy dispersal within that system; the energy does not simply disappear, but is transferred elsewhere, outside that system. The problem with applying this to the universe, is that given current hypotheses, there is no "outside" of this system. As a star burns, the energy given off may leave the star, but it does not leave the universe.


Energy becomes inefficient or unusable heat. That heat is spread out over time while the universe continues to expand.

The known universe is mostly pockets of matter and energy. Eventually everything could dissipate.

[vasili denisov]

In the context of my idea entropy is best defined as the way in which the universe tends to disorder. In this case organised matter is gradually breaking down of aeons to a state that it can no longer form complex systems (organisms for example). The matter does not have to escape the universe to become so inert.
I think my points are already very, very general; the difficulty I have with what you're saying here is that it's so general, I'm unsure at all of your definitions. You speak of matter "breaking down" and "becoming inert", but I'm unclear what you intend here. Becoming inert suggests a gradual loss of energy; the hypothetical model I tried to come up with was a superintelligent species that was able to avoid this energy loss in parts of the universe.
Energy becomes inefficient or unusable heat. That heat is spread out over time while the universe continues to expand.

The known universe is mostly pockets of matter and energy. Eventually everything could dissipate.
I think I'm arguing for one nearly impossible hypothetical over another nearly, though more, impossible hypothetical which would involve cosmic suicide. I'm saying the hypothetical of trapping all dissipated energy, from a dying sun or other cosmic system, in areas of the universe is an easier task than collapsing the universe to restart it. Trapping all energy given off a system would be an impossibility for us, but not for a theoretical species that could collapse the universe.

[freegood]

This discussion reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Last Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).

[Yelram]

These all seem to deal with the same issue, roughly, what freegood identifies as entropy in the system. However, when we speak of entropy in a system, we're speaking of energy dispersal within that system; the energy does not simply disappear, but is transferred elsewhere, outside that system. The problem with applying this to the universe, is that given current hypotheses, there is no "outside" of this system. As a star burns, the energy given off may leave the star, but it does not leave the universe.[/quote[
Outside the system? The energy is given off as heat, you cant turn heat back into hydrogen.

[quote]Not all dead stars result in black holes; however, let's concede that some such stars result in black holes. The point I brought up initially was whether this system could be maintained without needing to re-start it. Faced with the very difficult, as well as suicidal, choice of collapsing the universe to re-start it, the alternative of collecting the energy thrown off a dying star so that it can be re-converted to matter to form a new star is comparatively less difficult Not all STARS collapse into black holes, but ALL GALAXIES have a supermassive black hole at their center. If you look at it like a wave "collapsing" the universe isnt the same even as you are picturing.

This is fission, the breaking down of atomic material into smaller parts. We already do a crude form of this in our nuclear reactors. If we can postulate a super-intelligent species that can collapse the universe, they should be able to do this, no problem. Last time I checked, theres no way to break helium down into hydrogen. Fission happens in highly unstable very dense elements. If you can show me how matter goes from stable and dense to "Spread out everywhere in the form of hydrogen", then we might be getting somewhere. You do realize the energy released during fission is infinitisemal when compared with fusion right? So once you fuse, lose a bunch of energy, how are you going to get that energy back to separate?

[vasili denisov]

Outside the system? The energy is given off as heat, you cant turn heat back into hydrogen.
Heat is a form of energy, you can most certainly convert energy into matter, though we are able to do it only on a very small scale. Presumably a hyperintelligent species would be able to do so on a large scale.

Last time I checked, theres no way to break helium down into hydrogen. Fission happens in highly unstable very dense elements. If you can show me how matter goes from stable and dense to "Spread out everywhere in the form of hydrogen", then we might be getting somewhere. You do realize the energy released during fission is infinitisemal when compared with fusion right? So once you fuse, lose a bunch of energy, how are you going to get that energy back to separate?
I think we're going over the same bases; the point I've been making is that it's easier for this hypothetical species to prevent large scale entropy by trapping energy from the system, say given off by a sun, then to re-start the universe. As to the issue of breaking down helium into hydrogen, it cannot presently be done with our technology; conceivably it can be done. We can't accomplish the reverse effect of fusion, generation of energy through the bonding of particles that the sun does; at some point the technology should be available.

However, let's try a separate tact for why there is an easier alternative to re-starting the universe when dealing with entropy. Presumably, this universe is one re-born without the problem of entropy afflicting the old universe. The species that re-starts the universe may be super-intelligent, but it cannot violate present physical laws; therefore, it cannot create new energy. So, it cannot infuse this new re-born universe with energy that isn't there in the old one. Therefore, this re-born universe is re-started with the same energy of the old.

Then let us suppose much of the energy has dissipated through the universe; yet one way this species could re-start the universe would be through intense gravitational force triggering a collapse. If the species has technology to exert gravity for such a purpose, it should also be able to use smaller gravitational pulls to bring in dissipated energy and material, to form new suns. Therefore, the easier alternative for the species is through this action, rather than any more complicated re-birthing of the cosmos.