ZVBXRPL

Maybe it does have a higher temp, who knows? It is an only an analogy to try and elaborate more on my theory. In the Universe I am suggesting there are no particles, so there is no duality. The interaction is the same, the energy level of the region makes them different. It is an infinite continuum, all that exists is connected including Bosons or anything else you mention. Imagine the key moving from one end of warehouse B to the other is a light wave. Any energy fluctuation could cause a redshift or blueshift.

I will elaborate a bit more on my theory by using an analogy I thought of. Imagine 2 very large rooms such as a warehouse. Warehouse A contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. Warehouse A represents a region of a Universe that contains matter and empty space. Warehouse B contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floort to ceiling and surrounding each and every golf ball is a jelly like substance. Warehouse B represents a Universe that is a continuum of matter. The golf balls in each represent matter. The jelly like substance in warehouse B also represents matter, a different form of matter. How does motion occur in each warehouse? Insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse A, this is to identify the golf ball we are observing. If the golf ball moves from the south side of the warehouse to the north side of the warehouse, the key remains in the golf ball we are observing. The golf ball is moving through the empty space and passing other golf balls on its journey. Now insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse B. The golf ball does not move, the key moves. It will pass to an adjacent golf ball and then to the next golf ball and so on until it reaches the north end of the warehouse. The motion in warehouse B is happening in the form of wave motion. The golf ball stays where it is. The key is what we are observing. It could appear that the golf ball is moving but it is not. The golf ball adjacent to the original golf ball becomes the original golf ball. Now imagine that a dozen golf balls at the north end and a dozen golf balls at the south end undergo an increase in their energy levels. This increase in energy causes a change in structure and so now each dozen golfballs becomes a football. The footballs represent a region of energy higher than the surrounding energy. The footballs being at an increased energy level now interact differently with the surrounding golfballs and jelly like substance. Energy is transferred in all directions from each football. When the energy fluctuations of the 2 footballs interact at the middle of the warehouse, there is a further energy interaction. This interaction happens as a result of the 2 footballs being present. This connection between the 2 footballs causes a permanent interaction between the 2 footballs. The connection will be affected by an increase in energy level of either football or an increase in energy levels of the surrounding golf balls and jelly like substance. How and why would the Universe I suggest collapse? Infinite continuum of matter. It is impossible for such a Universe to collapse. Only a finite Universe that consists of empty space could in theory collapse. Should I ignore a minority of scientists in favour of a majority of scientists, simply because the majority are the majority? I prefer to listen to both and think for myself on who may or may not be correct. If the minority bring up legitimate questions that the majority do not answer, what should I do then?

As X, Y and Z have different energy levels I would say that the weight is different for all 3. For Z not only is there a difference in energy levels but there is also the gap between the 2 iron circles, this contains energy and mass to add to the total (or are they weighed without the gap?)

Does that mean they give up adding more and more space dimensions and so started on time now? Which is more plausible, space has 3 dimensions and time is just time, or space has 11+ dimensions and time has 3 dimensions? What number of dimensions do you have to arrive at before pausing to ask the question "am I getting carried away a bit here?"

What about the problem with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Do you not think it may be possible that the reason there is a problem between the 2 theories is that one or both theories could be wrong?

What was the first thing to think? How did that happen? Is a rock aware that it is a rock? Is an atom aware that it is an atom? We are aware, as far as we know, that we are human beings, lifeforms and we are made of atoms. We can oberve rocks and call them rocks, we know they are also made of atoms. How did all this happen? It is a fascinating THOUGHT We only know of lifeforms on Earth that are able to think and manipulate the environment around them etc. What if there are other lifeforms elsewhere in the Universe and they can think at a level beyond our comprehension? Another thing that fascinates me is how did we go from being a random event in nature to being able to control our cells and atoms and brain. What if we don't? What if we just think we do? How did brains of animal develop so complex, that they were able to think? A molecule? 2 molecules? 20 molecules? How much interaction between atoms and molecules is needed for the collection of atoms and molecules to stop being a victim or random chaos and be able to control it's own destiny? And WHY?

I post in the speculations part of the forum because my theory falls into speculation category. You say there is no evidence for my theory, but there is evidence for dark energy and dark matter. What evidence is there really for dark energy and dark matter that doesn't result from the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories? You may believe those theories are more than theories and actual scientific fact, but they are not, they are theories. There are scientists around the world that do not believe them to be true. Just because they do not believe they are true does not mean they are wrong, it just means they have a different opinion to the majority. Throughout history the majority have often been wrong, I think a good scientist should keep an open mind and accept the fact that any theory could be proven incorrect at some point in the future. As for evidence of my theory, what about the doube slit experiment?

From our perspective it will appear very slow indeed, but maybe not from it's perspective. Consider how we measure time. We observe that the Earth travels around the Sun and we call the time taken for this, a YEAR. That seems fairly long from our perspective, but how about if we were the size of an atom. It would seem like an eternity for the atom. Smaller always seems to be faster and larger always seem to be slower. Microcosm from our perspective seems to be operating at blinding speeds, yet macrocosm from our perspective seem to be operating at very slow speeds. The imaginary creature would have a completely different perspective for microcosm and macrocosm. Our macrocosm would be it's microcosm. Also, until Relativity goes from theory to LAW, you have to consider the possibilty that there is no speed limit for the Universe. The brain of this creature could use methods of transport and motion that we are not even aware of. We already know about the phenomena of quantum coupling. This is an interesting phenomena, because at present it is believed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible that deeper into the microcosm there is a connection between these 2 regions and so information and messages can be relayed back n forth and to us they appear to be instantaneous, but from their perspective it is just really fast, like light speed seems really fast from our perspective. Light speed from the perspective of the huge creature may appear to be instantaneous.

The phrase "popping in and out of existence". In the theory I have suggested you would not get this, you get energy fluctations in the microcosm. Into existence = at an energy level observable and out of existence = beyond our level of observation, deeper into microcosm. The atom has nucleus and electrons. At first people believed the electrons orbited the nucleus, similar to planets orbiting a star. Suppose that the electrons come from deeper in the microcosm. Energy level increases in that region, what we call an electron appears. Energy level decreases, electron is gone again. Energy level increases in another region of the atom, what we know as electron appears, energy decreases, electron disappears. The effect of mulitple energy fluctuations gives a electron cloud. The number of energy fluctuations results in different type of atoms. An area with low energy fluctuations results in what we call hydrogen or helium. One with high energy fluctuation results in a heavy element such as Uranium. When the region loses energy, light results. Light = wave/particle? Q that has been asked for long time. Well, in this theory, everything is a wave, so light is a wave. Energy is transferring from one location to another across the Universe as a wave and we observe it as light. Our eyes evolved to detect light, part of the EM spectrum. We cannot see any other part of the Universe, only the light waves. This doesn't mean that the rest of the Universe doesn't exist, just that we cannot see it. What exists between the atoms here on Earth? We observe, "the best we can", atomic and subatomic. Just because we cannot see what is there, doesn't automatically mean there is nothing there. There is either something or nothing. My theory involves there being something and nothingness does not exist. If nothingness exists, then nothing exists between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space. If nothingness does not exist, then there is only something and something lies between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space. We just cannot see it because it so deep into the micorcosm. If you go back far enough we didn't know about atoms and back further we didn't even know about cells. We should not assume that we have seen all there is to see just because of current technological limitations. There is substructure to the Universe. Is this substructure finite or infinite? Even if it IS finite, it is human arrogance to assume that the substructure begins and ends with us. We can see the smallest level of substructure in the Universe, because we are human? A formula that says there is 1 proton per cubic metre does not also lead to a conclusion that there is empty space. It only means that the rest of that cubic metre is not proton. You mention DARK energy, along with DARK matter and anything else "dark", that is something scientists do not KNOW exists, they just assume it must do based on formulas and equations that say it might exist.

Your theory is very interesting. Looking at those 2 pictures of the brain and the Universe does lead to some fascinating thought processes. We don't have to necesarily be part of a huge living organism and all the galaxies and stars etc are part of this living organism, but the concept of infinite substructure and each level of substructure resembling all other levels is really interesting.. If your theoretical huge living creature looked down a microscope, into what he views as the microcosm, maybe he would see "us" as being the same as we observe the atomic world or subatomic world. Or maybe we look like a cell and he hasn't discovered a powerful enough microscope to see what lies beyond yet

What makes you so special? Did I quote you? Did you make the thread?I just made a post in a 9/11 thread giving some thoughts and opinions. I didn't even read any of your posts. Don't plan to either after observing your ego.

There is no way of knowing what happened on 9/11. You can read articles, stories, interviews, watch video after video, all giving different theories. At the end of it, how do you decide what is truth, what is fiction, what is real information and what is disinformation. You cannot, so it's no different to reading about any event in history. You just absorb various information and sift through it in your mind. A lot of people just accept the official version of what happened (angry muslims did it), they trust the government and do not ask questions. Others make claims that CIA did it, goverment did it, Jews did it or even aliens did it etc etc. You get exactly the same for the Kennedy assassination and other major events in history. I do not know what happened, so my answer to what happened on 9/11 is always "I don't know". Regarding the 3 buildings that collapsed, I don't know why they collapsed. I know that WTC was hit and 3 buildings collapsed. Pentagon was also hit. People died. There was an act of violence committed by some people and it is now part of the history books. If you wonder what happened, decide to read the official version of events provided by the government and then be 100% satisfied you have your answers and move on, fair enough. I would never do that because I know that the government is not a reliable source of truth. But knowing that there is a high probability the government is lying does not automatically mean that one of the other theories is truth. Which theory? There is no way of knowing. Even if you somehow found out the 100% truth of what happened from some mystic powered superbeing, what then? There is nothing you could do about it anyway. In my opinion, the most plausible theory is that 9/11 was a false flag operation to initiate the decades long war on terror. During the Cold War, there was a "Operation Northwoods" put forward by the President's chiefs of staff, all of them signed it and it was ready for the green light, but Kennedy rejected it. The plan was to commit an act of terrorism on US citizens and blame Cuba. The US citizens would be outraged and violence could ensue with the people behind it and supportive of it. After 9/11 the vast majority of people are supportive of the violence that has been committed in the Middle East, because they believe that "these guys attacked us on 9/11, let's kill 'em all". Some object, but they are the minority. Vietnam War caused anti war protests too, but the protests were much stronger because there was no 9/11 type event for Vietnam. (Maybe there should have been, in hindsight?). The 9/11 for WW2 was Pearl Harbour. Doesn't matter whether US knew that the attack was imminent or caught with pants down, the effect was the same. Same for 9/11. After 9/11 War on Terror was set in motion and decades of violence was given the green light by the people and those in power. What is the actual reason for the War on Terror? Does it matter to the people who were outraged by 9/11? Not really, they just seek vengeance on who they believe was responsible. People are naturally violent. Wars have been fought all over the world since we first started building walls to protect our resources. Some might think that the government would never act so evil, why? Why would they be any less evil than those who commit atrocities all over the world? Truth is that the majority of people in this world are violent and evil, motivated by greed and anger. If they were not, there would be much less crime, poverty and war than there is.

Can you prove there IS empty space? The answer to your question and mine is NO. The continuum of matter/energy is infinite, there are no bounds. Infinite size, infinite age, infinite microcosm, infinite macrocosm and infinite energy variation. I remember when younger I used to ask "what is beyond that and what is beyond that" type of questions, there are 2 possible answers - Infinite with no end to the question or eventually you get nothingness. I do not like the second possible answer for a few reasons, mainly because it leads to a Universe of something and nothing. I believe we exist in a Universe of infinite something and there is no such thing as "nothingness". If there is no such thing as nothingness, then the only possible answer to the question is the Universe is infinite Yes, but I would prefer infinite "particle" rather than massive. A whale is massive to a human and even more massive to an ant, but the Universe is infinite to the whale, the human, the ant, everything.

I would answer by saying that "we" as human beings, make matter by observing it and labelling it, just as we assign labels for everything to try to understand the world and Universe around us. The Universe as a continuum of matter is the same as Universe as a continuum of energy, the key point is continuum, everything is connected and there is no empty space, the concept of empty space onlly exists in the human mind. Energy and Matter are one and the same, it is just a label. When we walk across the room or drive a car, we asume that we are moving as a bundle of matter through empty space, bumping into other bundles of matter of varying sizes. I am saying that this is an illusion and our brain just interprets our movement in that way. What is really happening is that the energy level in one part of the universe is moving to a different part of the universe and all motion in the universe happens this way. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, energy and matter are one and the same. The Universe is an infinte continuum of this energy/matter, with no empty space and all motion is energy tranferring from one location to another. If you break down "matter" into small enough pieces you eventually get, what is labelled "not matter". This is our brain putting a limit on what we call "matter". It is all the same, just at different energy levels. We are only aware of the energy levels that are within our realm of observation, we cannot imagine 1000s levels lower or higher into the microcosm or macrocosm, so we just call what we are aware of "matter"

The microcosmic is only microcosmic from our perspective and the macrocosmic is only macrocosmic from our perspective. There is no logical reason that the microcosmic and macrocosmic would follow different laws of Physics. The Universe is not confused. The Universe is not broken. The problem of trying to reconcile the two theories is of no concern to the Universe, it is only a problem for those trying to solve it.

I believe the Universe is an infinite continuum of matter. How would light "travel" in such a Universe? As a wave. The medium is the continuum of matter. This continuum is in a constant state of flux. Not only does light travel as a wave, but everything does. At the moment we view the Universe as particles existing within empty space and these particles move or travel through empty space. If the Universe is an infinite continuum of matter then there are no particles and there is no empty space.

I believe the Universe is infinite. The Big Bang theory is a theory and it is the currently accepted theory by the mainstream. That does not make it truth. 200 years ago there was no Big Bang theory. Will the Big Bang theory still be the accepted theory by the mainstream 200 years from now, 2,000 years from now, 2,000,000 years from now? There is no evidence for the Big Bang theory. There is only evidence to support the "its the best model we got at the moment" approach.

Hope others may share their thoughts

The Earth's climate fluctuates between 2 climate states: Greenhouse Earth and Icehouse Earth Currently the Earth is in an Icehouse Earth state So, previous to this the Earth was in a Greenhouse Earth state and previous to that it was another Icehouse Earth state and so on What caused all the previous Icehouse Earth to Greenhouse Earth changes? Global warming means we are heading to Greenhouse Earth state, which will happen regardless of whether there are 7 billion people or 1 solitary person on Earth Is there danger ahead? If there IS danger ahead, what are the various politicians and celebrities doing to prevent this "danger", aside from saying "there is a danger ahead" and making money

The only worry I have is for the millions of gullible people around the world who have fallen victim to the global warming money making scam American government are so "worried" about the effect CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are having on the environment, they needed to take serious drastic measures So they came up with the carbon tax Maybe the reason America is so obsessed with middle eastern and north african oil is that they want to protect the environment by preventing these regions using it themselves So they are killing and sacrificing "to protect the planet"?

In this infinite continuum of matter universe, there is no empty space/void/nothingness, there is only something and not something and nothing Infinite macrocosm and infinite microcosm In an infinite universe, there is no beginning, no cause and no initial point, the ball has always been moving and will never stop moving

If you are writing a science fiction story, you do not have to follow any rules laid down by any current scientific theories, or even laws for that matter Think of all the sci-fi stories that involve time travel, warp speed, parallel universes and travelling to other dimensions etc Are those stories "realistic"? What were the scientific theories of 500 years ago? What will the scientific theories be 500 years from now, or 50,000 years from now?

A static infinite universe is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite Static infinite universe was first proposed by Giordano Bruno, the Catholic Church burned him at the stake for heresy He wasn't the only scientist to have a run in with the church The first person to propose the expansion of the universe theory and big bang origin of the universe theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest Scientia - knowledge Philosophia - love of wisdom These words have lost their meaning in the modern scientific community Religious dogma rules the world of "science" and don't dare go against religion or you will be discredited and labelled a crank

If the Universe is an illusion and all in our minds, why would "god", that came out of the same mind, not also be part of the illusion?

If I make it long, then I don't think people will bother to read it