julius2

What if we found another earth-like world that we could get to. Obviously that hasn't happened yet and maybe lots of people haven't thought about it yet.. What would you envisage the first steps would be? Exploration I suspect would be top of the list? My point is over the last 2000 years we have developed this world to such an extent. It has been such a voyage of discovery. But if we find another habitable planet would it just be a transfer of knowledge?

Not really.

I did find some stuff on the internet about Bounce Cosmology: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-began-with-a-bang-not-a-bounce-new-studies-find/ My model does not follow the Bounce Cosmology entirely. My model says that a universe - ie planets and stars - form after a Big Bang. But the thing is that this is actually a "mashup" of times from before. Where the times are like vectors - rather than many spherical objects in it. To prove all of this is probably quite difficult because how do we see that far back. Especially since everything has been "mashed up" in the Big Bang. But can anyone think of any possible scenario where we ARE able to see that far back. Hint: think outside of the box.

No, I am building a theoretical model, with the help of your responses. In general, my idea is that science works upon testable assertions. Making experiments to confirm or deny any scientific theory. The question becomes how does one test my theoretical model?

So following on we might have U2 (s = 140), U3 (s = 80) and so on. The question becomes how do these universes come into existence? For our current universe we have done a lot of research and the most accepted explanation is due to a Big Bang which matches most to current empirical evidence. My proposal for universes in general is that they are a "mash up" of previous "times" with "times" yet to defined properly. So this agrees with current theory of the Big Bang for the current universe. So instead of one universe spawning multiple universes I propose that there is a period where there are many different "times". This may contain primitive life very different to what we know. Eventually as these "times" get old they collapse and there is an almighty squeeze and then a big explosion.

Okay, I am happy to support my proposals. Sorry it is taking some time. I will try to do something to eliminate the guesswork ! Unfortunately I am not familiar with any of the mathematical examples with regards to multiverses. My preference is to read about this from books rather than "skatty" sources on the internet. This way the arguments are more coherent ! Bounce cosmology is a new term for me. But it sounds interesting ! Are you able to outline the basic tenets, here in the forum? So if I can add some parameters to my model..... Let us have the set {U1, U2, U3, .........} where U1 - universe 1 in time, U2 - universe 2 in time....... So by having a set this implies that we have multiple universes in time. I suppose for completeness we can call our current universe U0 or just plain U ! Now, what I want to address in my model for time is: - the varying sizes of these universes - so what are the sizes of {U1, U2, U3.....} My proposal is that each of the universes would be of varying size. Given the randomness of our own universe, you would not expect {U1, U2, U3.....} to be exactly the same. So adding a parameter for size (s) U1 (s = 100). might be universe U1 is 100 million light years across. And so on.

Thanks to all the posts on this forum to my posts. This is where I am up to so far.... The pretence is that there was time before the Big Bang. The question is what might this time look like? My proposal is that some of the time might look similar to what we see in the world today. So let's propose that there were earth worlds in the past. What is the model? Well, they would have had their own Big Bang. For the sake of argument let's argue that they there existed a "smaller" time than ours. So a smaller earth world and a smaller universe. Over time an earth world develops. Oceans form and plant life comes on to the planet. Then some form of reptilien life evolves. Reptilien possibly because it is more resilient in a more harsh environment. Then somehow other life forms evolve. And an ape like species evolves (like for us). And eventually humans come on to this earth world. They have a history, starting with tribes etc. Then eventually as society stabilises science develops and they invent engines, electricity etc. Then as time progresses they discover a type of time science. Overall their world dies, the stars in their universe die out and they go in to the Big Freeze. My proposal then is that we are living in a similar way but with a MUCH BIGGER world and universe. Will we go to in to the Big Freeze or will we discover something along the way that will alter our current trajectory in time?

Lol Left hand galaxy? Please put in to layman terms. I can understand EVERYTHING when it is in layman terms. In a nutshell, what are galaxy rotation curves?

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 !!!