Jump to content

How big is the Universe ?


Ned
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You are not answering the question. What does the observer at "X" observe when looking at earth?

 

Your personal interpretation is obviously incorrect.

 

I can't draw "the feeling of amusement when reading word sallad". But I can understand it pretty well. 

Observer x observes the milkyway and maybe beyond . 

My personal interpretation is more correct than the present model because my interpretation advances the present models , relying on the present models to certify my model by correcting the errors  . You will find if you study the big bang theory , they explain the Universe started from a high temperature , high density state . The big bang model does not explain how the high temperature and high density state was derived . They magically manifest this state and infer that not even space existed before the BB . 

In essense they looked out into space , took all the matter and energy , then placed it in one location . This isn't good logic , there is no evidence to support that all the matter and energy was ever in one position and there is certainly no evidence that shows there was no space before any event . 

In my interpretation the absolute space existed before any event and the observable universe started from a low temperature , low density , sparse state which seems more likely than the instant manifestation of high temperature and high density . 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

My personal interpretation is more correct than the present model because my interpretation advances the present models , relying on the present models to certify my model by correcting the errors

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. And what will the observer located at "X" see when turning around, looking away from earth?

Undetermined ! The observer will most likely observe new discovery . 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can brag about how good it is, but at some point we need to have the pudding. How does one test your ideas? What confirmable predictions does it make?

It predicts that when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time , that the energy transformation will be E=mc^2 . It also predicts that some of the energy will be inverted in direction , sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame . It also predicts that the energy transformation maybe observed as a ''glow'' in the distance . 

It also explains the mechanism of gravity as being an Eigenstate , the absoloute of space having the maximum possible gravity potential , a conservation of energy force . 

I don't think I'm going to stick around this forum though as its a bit weird to say the least ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

Undetermined ! The observer will most likely observe new discovery . 

It predicts that when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time , that the energy transformation will be E=mc^2 . It also predicts that some of the energy will be inverted in direction , sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame . It also predicts that the energy transformation maybe observed as a ''glow'' in the distance . 

We already know E=mc^2, so this is nothing new, and "when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time" , "energy will be inverted in direction" and "sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame" is word salad.

 

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

It also explains the mechanism of gravity as being an Eigenstate , the absoloute of space having the maximum possible gravity potential , a conservation of energy force . 

And a second course.

 

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

I don't think I'm going to stick around this forum though as its a bit weird to say the least ! 

Wanting science at a science discussion site. The very idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

We already know E=mc^2, so this is nothing new, and "when the wave function collapses at the edge of space-time" , "energy will be inverted in direction" and "sending a CBMR back into the space-time reference frame" is word salad.

 

And a second course.

 

Wanting science at a science discussion site. The very idea!

I have no idea why you are calling it word salad , it is plane English ! 

As I said , I am finding this forum a bit weird . 

Science discussion doesn't just involve talking mainstream science or the words new science becomes pointless . 

Ocean waves crash on the rocks and some of the wave energy is reversed in direction . 

 

''so this is nothing new''   - Everytime I write anything new you feel fit to tell me provide evidence from something old . You ask me to use present terms . In regards to new , you are asking the impossible although I'm making my best efforts to oblidge . 

If you want new , I'll write new but you'd never understand it because I'd use unfamiliar terms such as a Quantum mainframe . Then you'd say it was word salad because I haven't used old terms etc . 

A Quantum Mainframe is an unspecified volume of conserved energy . This energy is conserved by the space and has inertia . The Quantum Mainframe can be viewed as ''fused'' with space and indistinguishable from the space in appearance , transparent in nature .The Quantum Mainframe is stationary but not immovable and in present terminology can be compared to a Higgs field . 

All things within a Quantum Mainframe move independent of the frame , motion creating kinetic energy within the frame that is dispersed in wave energy and/or eddy currents . Larger areas and higher speeds having the most affect on the frame .

Way more advanced than mainstream and uses reference such as Higgs but what's the point if people are just going to keep mocking the new ? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

I don't think I'm going to stick around this forum though as its a bit weird to say the least ! 

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

Seems as the conservation of energy force is a new term , I'd have to make up a new term and unit that would only get ridiculed. The best I could come up with using present terminology is using Eigenstates . 

However I'd like to use cubiks of force as a unit because 8 points of space form the smallest cube possible with no core . 

In essense that is using volume to explain the force magnitude but there is two sets of forces at work . 

It's difficult to explain because the value of any point of absolute space is 0 , 0 eigenstate , but the value of any point within space-time is a value of 1 , 1 eigenstate . Both these values are constants but 0 can become a ''positive'' constant rather than a ''negative''constant by conserving a point of energy that tries to pass through . 

I have quickly drew another diagram to show you as you are polite and interested . 

 

 

 

force.jpg

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

Additionally in absolute space there is no motion until the space-time frame as grown  . The conservation of energy force of absolute space applies ''the brakes'' and any matter or energy leaving the already formed quantum mainframe , for a better word , become ''gluons'' (fixed in position) , growing the quantum mainframe (space-time).

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

I think you might like this part of my model . 

eigen1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ned said:

Undetermined ! The observer will most likely observe new discovery . 

Ok. 

11 hours ago, Ned said:

The ''roof'' of my model is absolute space that is empty and unoccupied of matter and energy

Why are we in the middle? Why not for instance Andromeda, or observer "X"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you don't recognize sarcasm ?

2 hours ago, Ned said:

Seems as the conservation of energy force is a new term , I'd have to make up a new term and unit that would only get ridiculed. The best I could come up with using present terminology is using Eigenstates . 

Why not ?
You've already made up all sorts of stuff.
And 'eigenstates' makes no sense.
 

2 hours ago, Ned said:

However I'd like to use cubiks of force as a unit because 8 points of space form the smallest cube possible with no core . 

That would make dimensional analysis interesting, but extremely wrong, because the vertex of a cube are not a force in any way imaginable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is unfolding just as I predicted. I hope everyone is enjoying their turn on the Theorist magic roundabout. He can keep it revolving almost indefinitely.

I'm saving my remaining 50p coins for something else.  

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I hope everyone is enjoying their turn on the Theorist magic roundabout.

The "diagrams" posted made me curious about geocentric models and reference systems. Found this that I may have time to read later:  

Quote

Resolutions passed in 2000 provide the relativistic metric tensors for reference systems with origins at the solar system barycenter and the geocenter, and the transformation between the two systems

From: The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models, George H. Kaplan (U.S. Naval Observatory) https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602086.pdf 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. 

Why are we in the middle? Why not for instance Andromeda, or observer "X"? 

Isn't Andromeda suppose to be ''drifting'' towards us ? 

I think the reason we are central might be because of a black hole but it might just be a visual thing and kind of an illusion . 

If you look out into the night sky at the distant stars , you'll observe the space between stars appears to be short distances  . However , if we was to travel to one of these distance stars , as we approached the distance between would appear to increase . By time we arrived at the distant star how far apart would other bodies actually be ? 

Are we just the center of our own vision ? 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

you don't recognize sarcasm ?

Why not ?
You've already made up all sorts of stuff.
And 'eigenstates' makes no sense.
 

That would make dimensional analysis interesting, but extremely wrong, because the vertex of a cube are not a force in any way imaginable.

Well if Eigenstates isn't correct then I am at a loss because I can't find any other present physics that explains what I am trying to explain . 

Quote

 An eigenstate is the measured state of some object possessing quantifiable characteristics such as position, momentum, etc. The state being measured and described must be observable   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_eigenstates  

This does apply to my notion so it must be the right line of reasoning . 

Its not the vertex of a cube that is the force , it is the empty space that applies the force because it has 0 Eigenstate . 

 

Quote

In mathematics, a square matrix is a matrix with the same number of rows and columns. An n-by-n matrix is known as a square matrix of order {\displaystyle n}n. Any two square matrices of the same order can be added and multiplied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_matrix

 

("Eigenvalue" also refers to a mathematical property of square matrices, a usage pioneered by the mathematician David Hilbert in 1904. Some such matrices are called self-adjoint operators, and represent observables in quantum mechanics.)[5]

 

 

0000.jpg

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Nope.  (And you don't have a model)

That was a 3d moment I provided that explains orbitals and the electrodynamics of moving bodies . Yes I do have a very good model ! 

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Isn't Andromeda suppose to be ''drifting'' towards us ? 

 

1 hour ago, Ned said:

By time we arrived at the distant star how far apart would other bodies actually be ?

 

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Are we just the center of our own vision ? 

Why aske me? This thread is about your ideas; you provide answers.

 

(If this was in mainstream sections of the forums I could provide an opinion based established theories)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

 

Why aske me? This thread is about your ideas; you provide answers.

 

(If this was in mainstream sections of the forums I could provide an opinion based established theories)

One possible formation of the Universe is the following diagram matrix where the Eigenvalue 0 is an attractive force . 

This can be viewed as a black hole in present terms . The matrix I am interested in is the space-time curvature matrix which I have not this far provided . When the space-time curvature occurs then the Eigenvalue of each given element increases because of the dot product . 

 

um.jpg

stm.jpg

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you do that ...
You don't know how to express an idea mathematically, so you reach into a bag  of 'scientific verbage', and say "This represents what I'm trying to say".
When actually, it refers to something totally unrelated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why do you do that ...
You don't know how to express an idea mathematically, so you reach into a bag  of 'scientific verbage', and say "This represents what I'm trying to say".
When actually, it refers to something totally unrelated.

I follow what it says on the information I'm viewing . My Matrix's aren't  any different to the one on the link I provided ! 

How are they unrelated ? I am going off this bit of information I provided earlier . 

("Eigenvalue" also refers to a mathematical property of square matrices, a usage pioneered by the mathematician David Hilbert in 1904. Some such matrices are called self-adjoint operators, and represent observables in quantum mechanics.)[5]

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ned said:

One possible formation of the Universe is the following diagram matrix where the Eigenvalue 0 is an attractive force . 

 

What is the equation for which this is a solution? How is it that 0 represents an attractive force? In QM it represents no coupling between the states

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is the equation for which this is a solution? How is it that 0 represents an attractive force? In QM it represents no coupling between the states

I used 0+1 

0 is an attractive force because it is negative of energy and has a conservation of energy force . 0 is any point of absolute space  E→0 . 

0 is more attractive than 1 , 1 is more attractive than 2 , so on....

Consider this , if all x=0 , then hf/x=c 

However , that would be relative to the construction phase of space-time , the growing observable universe . x would become var(x) as photons bombarded the boundary , edge of space-time . 

In a real life physical example , consider a light bulb . For purposes of the discussion we will say the element of the bulb has an Eigen value of 10 . We will say the room space has an Eigen value of 2 . 

10/2 = 5 

We can now say the room space has an Eigen value of 5 when illuminated by the bulb . Of course if you want to know the Eigen value of any point in the room , that would be 5/V , V being volume of course . 

 

Michael Morley proved the speed of light was constant in any direction which I use as a citation to prove that all unbounded energy is attracted outwards to the edge of space-time by the force 

 

 

f=go.jpg

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.