julius2

I am not interested in a Nobel Prize, truly. I just want Earth to have a future. We all watched Star Wars as kids. Why can't we have a future like this? It is not possible to stick to "conventional" scientific methods in this case (trust me)! But these scientific methods have served us well in the past. Gaussian distribution. I haven't heard this in a long time. (Basically a curve symmetric around the mean.) I looked it up. Thank you.

The aim of my posts is to "stitch together" the "right theory". It is a difficult topic however. So the model so to speak would be the overall combination of my posts. Hopefully small breakthroughs occur along the way which satisfy the rules of the forum?

Yes. Your comments are very helpful. So DM is a placeholder label. This roughly reconciles with my own theories. In other words my "time" concept is not explainable within the current context of physics. But I am happy to explore DM more as I only have speculation for my idea. So DM looks at a MISMATCH in mass estimates for the universe? Maybe you could elaborate more about the observed rotation rates (of galaxies?). I am okay with some maths but not super complicated maths.

Ok. I guess one cannot comment about dark matter idea unless they have some idea of what the concept is and the rigour that has gone in to it. I obtained my information about dark matter from reading some books and also a magazine. According to the magazine and I quote "indicate that 85% of all matter consists of a mysterious form of "dark matter", so-named because it does not interact directly with light". Honestly I truly respect the rigour scientists of the world have gone in to to try and discover about where we came from and where we are going.

Studying this is a complete waster of time. The theory is that much of the universe is made up of "dark matter". What is more important is to see this as "time". It is a bit complicated and relies on an element of belief. But I am just trying to saving our scientists (and people on this planet), from wasting their time.

Would they die? Exactly how would they die? Obviously it would not be a "hanging". What geometrical death?

I like what MigL wrote above. Expansion is not that simple. He gave examples using different "volume" definitions. Okay, so we agree that we could use another point of reference. I guess when science literature says that the universe is expanding, they mean us (people) see it expanding as we stand on the Earth. Is Earth the best viewpoint from which to make the expansion assessment. From literature I have read, research has been able to use sophisticated techniques regarding geometry. For example combining multiple radio telescopes on Earth from which to "see" deeper in to the universe.

This is a very good article. It is interesting how they try to calculate the Hubble constant - expansion rate. One book by Kaku mentioned that the universe was accelerating at an increasing rate and would somewhat approach a "runaway" problem. Interesting that your article mentions that there was an implication that the universe is younger than the age of the Earth. Logically speaking this would result in a "false" result. But the "wording" of this, I actually agree with. In other words we don't understand the science exactly perfectly. It is also interesting about the "error factors". So you can estimate the age of the universe to be 9.7 billion years or up to 19.5 billion years. In other words there seems to be some contention about the age of the universe, meaning that the calculation for the age is up for DEBATE. It seems that the point of reference we use is us here on Earth. Is it possible to use another point of reference? E.g. would our result change if we picked an arbitrary star out there as the point of reference? I agree surfaces can be more difficult to understand than a simple straight line.

What is the point of reference?

I agree. I guess the most testable assertion is "is there "time" in matter". If this is true, then you would find "time" in a rock. You would find "time" in water. No one has found "time" in these objects as yet. It is a tricky one. Just because we haven't found it using sub-atomic physics to date, doesn't necessarily mean I am completely wrong. The trick is we are trying to find something that no one has found yet. I am guessing induction?

Well, assuming T1 represents time since the BB, then everything out there including space must be T1?? Because we have little observation going that far back in time. The initial conditions may not be so straight forward as we imagine. I propose something "wierd" ie unexplained may be in the mix. But I must say that the current research using particle accelerators, and smashing atoms eg CERN, is a good idea. Hence we probably have a good idea of what matter consists of today. But maybe not that far back.

Cool The problem with this is that we don't know enough about the "initial conditions" for the state of the current universe. Let's say our current state is called T1. We are made of T1 particles. When we look into space we only see T1 objects. We live with objects that are T1 only.

Any theory which does not explain how we have life can really not see itself as complete. The theory is that it takes a long time for things to evolve. An example might be initially there is a faint light for 1 million years. Then this transforms into spherical globules for the next 500,000 years. Then becomes globules with spikes for the next 200,000 years. I am in agreement with the scientists roughly about rapid expansion, reconstitution of particles etc. Mainly because it would have been rigorously researched etc. Where I disagree is that the process is very mathematical. My proposal is that our current universe began with a "birth". Similar to how a person is born. The singularity is probably some kind of "wierd" state very foreign to us. Not really just a plasma. The universe had a "birth", involving tremendous forces - exploding a lot of past time. The theory is that this "time" is caught in all matter. What we see and know is the main reconstitution. But the theory is that time is caught in this reconstitution. The time itself is a living thing that evolved prior to the singularity. If it is not possible to consider that there MAY have been time previous to the BB then it is hard to work through the following stuff. The basic tenet is that life is somewhat "mechanical", once you know the process. It is interesting to know about the different inflationary models. But you guys MAY be missing a key piece.

How fast is the rapid expansion? What is the rate of matter per minute? Is it not possible that the singularity scientists talk about is the "other side" of an explosion or explosions. As per scientists why did matter come into existence "all of a sudden". Does the big bang model explain how we have life? Are we just composed of quarks / neutrinos created after the singularity?

It seems improbable to me that everything came from an infinitely dense point. Is matter uniform everywhere in the current universe? Would we need to take a particle accelerator to another star system to find out?

I mean we don't have any inkling about any past time. The basic theory is that in previous time, there were many thousands of previous "times", looking very different to the universe we see today. Each "time" is spawned, and exists. The theory is that this formation process was getting old and was heading towards a terrible "death". The "death" would have been extremely painful for time. So the times shrank, compressing etc. until there was an incredible explosion (the BB). The times sit like vectors. One thing of note is that there are no actual observers of the BB. Unlike a light interference experiment where one can observe the light interference pattern. Likewise there are no actual observers of life being formed on earth, but we have fossils etc. to guide us. So everything is "up for grabs". To say that we come from a "thermal equilibrium" may not be strictly true as there are no actual observers. We are using a lot of subatomic physics in order to see right back. Quite valiant. The key will be in the recombination of matter of previous times, but the vastness of the current universe is a problem. According to theory, the current universe is both a recombination of a massive explosion and a transformation as well. The transformation is to get away from the spawning of times process. Away from linear vectors and towards a circular model.

Speculation: So one thing I observe is that everything is so "fresh and new". We are not hampered by anything from the past. This makes sense as according to modern theory everything came from an "infinite point" and evolved over billions of years. So in effect this is a new "time". The question is were there any previous "times". According to Roger Penrose (scientist), this universe is born from the collapse of a previous one. In effect there is an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. The question is were there were any "earth worlds" previously in time? And if so were they more connected to that of previous times? For us we are not connected to previous time at all. We obviously inherit the previous history of this world through ancient monuments and written history and cave drawings. But we have no link per se to time previous to the formation of this world. And hence the search and theorizing about what did actually happen. Eg there were quarks and other subatomic particles per se. The theory is that this universe is a "rehash" of the "smashup" of previous times. Essentially like a "recycle garbage bin" in time. Yet we see ourselves as completely new. Wonderous, exciting etc. The theory is that previous times are reflected very well in this world. Through our stories, creativity, art etc. The theory is that there is no such thing as "creativity". Our minds are drawing upon a "mashup" of the past !!!

No, there is no galactic time that we are aware of. I guess I was just postulating on different models for A universe. As it stands it looks like we have one big planet with life on it and the rest stars and other planets. We may find life elsewhere but not yet. The two models mentioned appear to be one in which things develop in to spheres. I can think of a different time where things are triangular centric.

Looking for some intelligent thought about this: Been looking at online video's to update my knowledge about such things as the Big Bang, exploration in the universe, the concept of time etc. I come back to where we are now. I am aware there is ongoing space exploration going on but on the off chance that all of this becomes fruitless what is the summary? What we know for sure is this planet - the trees, ocean, animals, life, sun etc. We are secretly optimistic that we will "find" something that will extend the reign of humanity in time. But as the years pass and there is a lack of any new discovery we are left with how special this planet actually is. At the moment we have a leakage in human consciousness about looking to the outside universe and the vastness that entails. But if this option is closed off I predict we will take a closer look at our own planet. In this case we would have to consider the finiteness of resources such as oil and uranium which power us as people. As an intelligent species I imagine a gentle decline as we seek to use more sustainable resources. (Or there may be a more warlike history). And more global policies come in to play as nations work together to ensure continual survival. In which case eventually life on this planet will end. Humankind didn't get to conquer space and the rest of the universe. In which case what would happen now? Perhaps the universe stops expanding and then starts to contract into an interesting state. And then who knows what happens next, is another universe born again etc. And we are left wondering what this is all about. Luckily this is a big planet so we have a while to go. As an observer in the 21st century I wondering if anyone has thought of such an angle. Is there any intelligent thought about this? I am happy to be wrong about everything providing there is some logic. (If anyone knows of a better forum in which to post this please let me know.)

A general "rant" about Time Galatic Time A universe where different environments exist on different planets as opposed to different environments existing in different countries on 1 planet. Key to a galatic time is transportation. Previous to a true galatic time there would need to be exploration and discovery. And previous to this discovery and invention of transportation vehicles themselves. Galatic time would be a time / universe which would be kinder to travel in space. (Assuming space is the key medium for transportation). How would one travel between different planets / star systems? Would everything have to be close together? Would we travel at "light speed" to go to different star systems? My inspiration no doubt is the movie trilogy Star Wars. One Big World Time The current universe. Where we realise that going in to outer space becomes impractical. And so over time we realise that we live not on a relatively small planet but actually a big one. Different lands have different environments. If we want to go to the desert we go to the Middle East. If we want to go to a rainforest environment we might go to the Amazon. If we want to go to a snow environment we might go to Russia. In contrast to Galatic Time where you travel to different planets to experience different environments. Is there the chance to do more exploration or do we do more with what we've got? Are we a world wanting to live in a Galatic Time? Or are we happy with just staying on 1 planet? Is it our fate to age on this planet of ours? Is it enough? On another note, what if there were times previous to the BB. According to current science there was no before and everything that exists now comes from that one singularity. Would it help if we knew there were other times? (If this were possible). Surely we live in the here and now and our main task is survival?

Yes, I don't know. Are we able to communicate that far out? But I think we should make some efforts. People are leading the way. Only time will tell where we head with this.

I take your point. Since we have not properly explored the universe or are yet to do it better, we do not know if there is more life out there. If we say discover a "twin earth", we could then assign a life index to it. For a "twin earth" it might be = 2 billion + plant life + animal life. Then we would have a better balance of life in the universe...... It would be interesting to know where in such a world's development it is. For sake of argument let us assume it is an older world than ours. It would be very difficult to find another world in at a similar development to ours due to the short timeframe of our development , say 1000 - 2000 years over a very long time frame.

It is true it is difficult to make the necessary observations on exoplanets. I guess in nearby star systems for example Alpha Centauri and Sirius we have not found any life as yet. Stars would still have a life index of 0.0. I don't know what it would look like if there were civilisations on other exoplanets. Eg. Could we detect this? I guess my point is, we seem to have an abnormally high density of life here.... Why not be more evenly distributed?

Finding a virus like lifeform on a planet distant in the universe doesn't sound that exciting to me. Civilizations only! It's true that our universe exploration is relatively new. Who knows what we may discover given more time.....

Since this is the Speculations forum, I thought I might broach something speculative and quite unsubstantiated. One thing I noticed, and probably everyone else, that Earth appears to be the only place in the currently known universe to harbour life. If we were to put this in to an index, Earth = 8 billion + plant life + animal life. Quite a high number. But for stars index = 0.0. Plus all other discovered planets index = 0.0 We are like a massive black hole with everything else relatively insignificant in terms of a life index. Of course we wouldn't survive without the sun.... On another note, our quest is to discover life somewhere else in the universe. But space travel , the medium of transport is so "messy" for humans. We try to put ourselves in to spacecraft equipped with oxygen tanks to travel amazing distances. I wish there was something more "elegant". Perhaps wormholes close to Earth that transport us or link us to Other Worlds.