RICHARDBATTY

i dont know much' date=' nor have i heard anything about, different animals seeing things faster or slower. but smaller does not mean faster in computer chips, nor does simpler mean faster. a 486 chip is significantly larger than a 386(i have them both on my keychain ), close to 6 times the size. it also has many more transistors, making it more complex, not simpler.

 

computer chips get smaller because we improve technology to be able to make smaller transistors. they get faster because we make them with more transistors.[/quote']Its also to do with the switching time which is governed by the thickness of the oxide layer. Thats why the clock speeds have changed as well as the trany count.

I think the first premise is wrong.

 

What has actually been seen is that very distant galaxies are accelerating away from us (and other galaxies). But the light from these galaxies have taken a very long time to get to us' date=' so they are from close to the time of first galaxy formation. In other words, galaxies were at some point long in the past accelerating apart, but are no longer doing so now (because we see no acceleration away from us in near galaxies).

 

Putting a cosmological constant into the equations is enough to explain this (just as Einstein originally had), so I am often confused as to why this garners so much speculation.[/quote']Thanks, I think you mean that what we see is an ancient movie of the original expansion. I thought all this had been taken into account. I had often wondered if the rotation of planets galaxies etc had been taken into account when calculating red shift as all this movement could affect time etc.

Will the theme tune of the conference be Half man half machine by Goldie Looking Chain. (SLAPS OWN WRIST).

No offense, but you have convinced me of nothing. This theory contains very little physics and much conjecture. Perhaps fine-tune your idea a bit futher before continuing...

Pressure usually makes things contract not expand.

I would say baloons to you but that would be rude . I know what you mean though. It is as I said we are not talking 3d. You have to try and think that all the universes are layered up on each other without actualy touching. Then think of this as occuring on all dimensions at once you will then see that each universe is infitely entangled (not quantum) and yes it is very difficult to perceive. I can only do it for a few seconds at at time .

"If things collide, then they are touching, there is no gap. And last time I checked universes can't just create themselves."

This idea is born of the brane idea which I would be the first to admit its not the best place to start. But the basic idea is the matter and gravity cause a bulge in the membrane. In another membrane the same happens. If these two bulges are deep enough to bridge the gap and meet some thing from both branes combines which begins the new brane. Yes to us in our universe observing this it seems to be a insignificant amount of material, but the new universe is only relative to its self.

As the new universe expands it puts pressure on the gap and therefore the surrounding universes and the universes are stretched in all directions at once.

This is a completely different point from what you where making before Mr Batty' date=' first the universes were created in the gap, now they are created by the collision between boundaries.

 

As for these new universes robbing the existing ones of matter/energy I think this is unlikely, see the wormhole thread. It seems in the last post you are suggesting a wormhole is temporarily created and then collapses trapping energy in it. While this process is plausible I don't see how it ties into your inital statement. Nor do I think it is entirely likely as if there is a method to create this bridge what would be the process that destroy's it? Does it happen instantly or does it stay open for a while? What processes dictate the time the hole is open, etc.

 

Also this would mean the new universes are either much much much less massive than their parent universes or, the parent universes are robbed of a large proportion of their mass/energy. Our universe is pretty massive so I assume we are not born from a larger one(quite an assumption I agree but I do not prescribe to the universe in a universe in a universe with infinite regression theory (mainly because I don't believe infinity has any place in physics)), and we don't appear to be losing any mass to baby universes (nor have we any cosmological evidence that we ever have) so again, I remain starkly unconvinced.[/quote']These quotes are getting a bit too big I think. The collision starts the proccess the new universe creates its self in the gap.

in brane theory, the new space is made when the two "universes" meet. aka cyclic model. )

I don't understand the logic behind this arguement. If the universes were to remain at a constant distance(which there would be no reason for, but I have adopted that assumption to point out the following) and they expand, the space between them would shrink, not grow. As I assume the space 'between' universes is where you plan on inserting these new universes, you would need more space not less...

No' date=' they wouldn't, because space-time is independent for each universe, as in each universe has its own space-time and one cannot 'insert a new universe into existing space-time, because it wouldn't be a new universe it would be a subspace of an existing one...

 

I know we've had a similar discussion in the wormhole thread (that went a bit off topic in the end) but if anything then the creation of new universes would detract from space-times ability to expand(IMO) as this expansion requires energy as does the creation of a new universe.[/quote']Sorry I didn't explain that very well. I was meaning that universe created between universes would require space and not a universe created within a universe. If the distance between universes was to remain the same all universes would have to expand. I cannot use an example as there are no examples of something being layered on more than 4 dimensions. The closest I could get is a natural sponge when dry takes up little space. When hydrated it takes up more space but the liquid is not part of the sponge.

'']I dont really know what you are saying, but I think its wrong.

So the expansion is speeding up. Could the creation of new universes be the driving force. If all universes are entangled but not touching the creation of new spacetime between universes would require more space.

My main problem here is that the system may be infinite.

 

Assuming it is not infinite' date=' there's nothing stopping it changing scope (i.e. becoming different systems, systems changing size etc), seeing as the wormholes between universes could very well open and/or close.

 

Both of those scenarios present problems for conservation.[/quote']

I am not educated enough to realy have an opinion but within space is more energy that is not normaly accounted for. It apears that photons are popping in and out of existence all the time and that gravity could sometimes pull energy from the ether. Maybe this could be of help in your paradox.

I think the only way you could get the post ant bit would be the super telescope idea where you could see all the way round the universe back to where your looking from.

alright, what if I were to create a mirage by superheating the air around an object...then i were to focus a high powered laser, such as the ones attached to 747s that are used to take down missiles, what would the affect be? Would the beam refract off of the mirage? would the object underneath be untouched? Or would the laser only be refracted for several degrees, then continue on through the mirage?

If there are white holes in 'another' universe there would have to be ones in ours(conservation of matter/energy/information).

 

Some people theorise that quasars are white holes although it is merely conjecture.

 

As for creating universes out of 'over-expanded' quantum wormholes' date=' where would the energy and matter to create the 'new' universe come from? If the answer is our universe, then it is not so much a 'new' universe as a transformation of an old one.

 

Out of curiosity please define ghost radiation.[/quote']Sorry missed that bit. There is no real definition as yet. The idea is that it creates a dampening field to compensate for the positive energy placed in the hole. This dampening effect has been proved so they say (Japanees scientists) but to open the hole enough to send a person through would take the amount of energy that could be liberated from the mass of jupiter.

Quark is you user rating based on your total number of posts.

 

In order to learn the maths to descibe what your thinking about' date=' i'd say 5 maybe 6 years...depending on your ability. To be honest seeing as this is more of a hobby for you, you'd be better off starting with general/special relativity. The maths is relatively simple(compared to Quantum Mechanics) and the idea's brought up are interesting to say the least.[/quote']

Thanks for that. I don't know of any paid work available in this sort of field so hobby is as good as it gets.

You're right; if time didn't exist of course it wouldn't take any time to travel anywhere. But maybe it doesn't anyway. I’m not trying to say I’m right, I’m just pointing out that we don’t know enough about time to argue either way. I read somewhere that pigeons see things 9 times slower than we do. And flies see things even slower apparently. How does this work if time is a universal force. We can only observe what we perceive.

I think its to do with the size of the brain and the time taken to proccess the visual information.

How long on average does it take to aquire the level of math to describe this sort of thing. Say starting from the level of a domestic cat. :confused:Why am I a quark today when I was a lepton yesterday.

hmmm...for an Englishman/woman your English is terrible. Communication is the key my friend' date=' you might be the smartest person in the world but, as someone else so eloquently put it in another thread, if you can't communicate your idea's, things will become much more difficult.

 

Modesty doesn't go astray either, I've noticed a lot of the self professed 'geniuses'(mainly the youngens) on these forums often turn out to have little or no clue. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but just be weary that blowing your own trumpet just to make noise, can be irritable to say the least.[/quote']

I can't spell for toffee. I don't mean to make myself out to be a genius or compare myself in any way to great figures past or pesent. I am a male aged 31. I just want to understand and vent some ideas. I have always been this way since the age of about 9ish. I am here in the main as a release and for people like you to help me where possible. I am gratefull for your coments either positive or negative. I have had no formal education in any science and have only gleaned the information I have from my own research. My grammar is terrible also and you are right I should think a little more before I type. I would like to appologise for any irritation I may have caused.

I think we need to establish what a worm hole is. 1 A region of space torn open allowing a path to another universe. 2 Two distant regions of space joined by a path that bypasses normal space time. A black hole compresses space so the only way one could create a worm hole is if there were two close together. An inter universe bridge would only work if holes in space time opened in both universes and joined at some point and a barrier of some description maintained seperation of universes. I beleive that when worm holes are discussed it a distance short cut that people are talking about. I have a parachute feel free to shoot me down in flames at any time.

I meant by thinking beyond what seems possible. Leonardo DaVinci made designs for a helicopter. Odds are, to most it did not seem "logical". Of course, it seems logical now, because we know how it works. I'm saying at first, many new ideas do not seem "logical" until they are actually proven to work.

I find special relativity works logicaly with the space control theory and bubble theory. In fact it explains some of the unexplained.

There is a theory that the quantum worm holes around us could be made wide enough to travel through. Using ghost radiation as a negative energy input to first open up the hole and then adding more as the matter is introduced to compensate. It has been theorised that if this balancing act went wrong an over expanded worm hole would produce a new universe and if one were allowed to snap shut it would collapse into a black hole.