Problems with an Infinite Universe

I open up to discussion the fallacy inherent in the dismissal of an infinite universe based on the night sky being bright everywhere. If I stand across a dark room with a flashlight you will see it from the other side of the room. If I stand across a football field with the same flashlight at night you will see it. However at some distance apart the light waves will not be strong enough in intensity for the naked eye to see the light without the aid of binoculars or a telescope. The same holds true for the night sky, even with the strongest telescopes optical, electronic, or digital we are limited to only being able to see those stars that are close enough to see. ** Please don't stop reading yet, I’m not done. Many would stop reading here thinking I am stating the obvious but I am not.I submit to discussion that the scientific precision of the instruments we currently have at our disposal are sufficient enough to view every star that was created during the same event that created our sun BUT every star in the Universe was not created in this event. The known universe that too many people mistake for the whole Universe and was most likely created from a single event, (for now lets call it the big bang) does not contain every star in the entire Universe. Our known universe contains a finite number of stars created from the same cosmic event.I submit that there are an infinite number of such spherically oblong universes created from similar cosmic events but the distance between these unique entities is too far apart for the scientific precision of our current instruments to measure. If the intensity of a light wave did not dissipate over distance then our night sky would in fact be as bright as day but our night sky can only show those stars whose intensity of light is within the tolerance levels of either our naked eyes or the instrument we are viewing the night sky with.If we consider our known universe as an oblong spherical shape (although the Earth is not at the center) for the sake of argument lets use the exact center of our planet as a central point. From this point there are an infinite number of lines that intersect with a point on the outer edge of our known spherical oblong universe. After each of these lines pass the outer boundary of our known universe they by definition and in theory travel in a straight line forever never crossing one another. If that is true, which I do believe in my heart it is, then our known universe is just a point in time and space. The entire infinite Universe is so much larger than our known finite universe that our known universe is just a point in space. The entire infinite Universe which has no beginning in time nor end in time would relegate the length of time that our known universe has and will exist to be a point in time. A point is timeless and massless and energyless. Relative to the entire Universe our known universe is a point. Because our known universe, (that which we can measure and that which was mostly if not solely created from the same cosmic event) (although it is expanding) takes up a measurable finite distance it is a point. Because our known universe as it is now will not exist as a self-contained unique shape for an infinite length of time our universe will exist for a finite length of time. Relative to the infinite length of time that our entire universe will exist our universe is a point in time.So I submit that our finite point in time and space is one of an infinite such finite points in time and space that exist currently, have existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. However each one exists for a finite length of time. I further submit that the entire universe can never be fully measured or understood and is infinite in size and never began and will never end. The entire universe has no first moment in time and no last moment in time. It has no boundary or edge or center. It is infinite and possibly by God's design and possibly not by any design at all it will continue to self-replicate points in time (what we call our known universe) forever.While I am on a roll I might as well close with what the big bang really is. When two of these points in time and space collide the destruction and subsequent reconstruction are what we call a big bang. All matter in our known universe was not inside of a single singularity but all matter in our known universe is the result of the collision with an incredible amount of force between two or more particles of matter. Gravity causes the trillions upon trillions of subsequent collisions to force gaseous and solid matter to take shape again. Momentum, centrifugal, and centripetal forces create orbits and help the universe hold itself together. I submit the big bang as a collision of particles because I truly believe that there is no such thing in an infinite universe as a smallest particle of matter. We have the smallest particle of matter that we can detect with the current scientific precision available to us but that smallest particle of matter when viewed with the precision equal to making that smallest known particle of matter as large as our known universe is made of an infinite chain of smaller particles.When two atoms bounce the outer shells of the electrons hit at a high rate of speed. The leptons inside and the sub particles that make up the leptons are actually what bounce. Inherent in this collision and those like it are the forces that destroy and create universes. An infinite chain inwards and outwards of universes being created and destroyed with no beginning and no end and no creation to the entire process.Many of us have thought about this in the past. Many of us believe it to be so but cannot comprehend the complexity of a scheme that we cannot quantify. I submit in closing that a leap of faith can sometimes bridge the gap needed to bring closure to the unquantifiable. When pure research and proof is unable to bring closure then logic and faith must prevail.So taking a leap of faith and accepting the logical for a moment without trying to grasp the true nature of an infinite universe makes most people feel even smaller. If our universe is a point in time and space and we each exist for so much less time than our known universe and we each take up so much less space than our known universe then we must also be points in time and space. To become a point which by defintion does not exist in reality is too difficult a concept for most to grasp which is the real reason people refuse to accept the true nature of an infinite universe.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 09:28 PM

You are a respected member of these forums so I offer to you to take your best shot at an enlighted debate rather than dismissing the possibility outright. If it is a load of crap as you say I would love to hear which part you can disprove. I would very much like to hear an opposing view point from anyone that can state with any level of certainty that there are no stars or galaxies that exist far far beyond the reaches of our current known universe. I guess one thing I failed to do is give a name to what we call our universe. What we need to do is stop calling our universe THE UNIVERSE. THE UNIVERSE is infinite. Our universe or all that we know about it (our known universe) is finite and has boundaries that we have been able to map out with advanced stellar cartography and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of hours.I think that the approximate diameter of our known universe is about 160 billion light years or so. I would love for someone to explain to me how they can be sure that if we went 16,000 trillion light years in every direction they can be so positive that there is nothing but empty space out there.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 11:28 PM

The common thought that the universe is between 20 and 40 billion light years wide is no longer the accepted theory. As far as I know recent research and analysis of background radiation which is used to estimate both the age and size of the universe puts the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old and the diameter of the universe to be about 160 billion light years wide. Space.com along with other news agencies listed this article a while ago. I don't claim to know the diameter or able to prove the diameter and moreso I was only using the length to make a point and the actual diameter has very little to do with the point being made.Disagreement with the points I am trying to make does not offend me. A well-presented argument that can prove that any one of my points is in error is welcomed because it helps me strengthen the overall work. I ramble a bit and merge dissimilar topics that make sense when you understand the big picture and I can see where they seem disjoined when someone is still trying to grasp the complexity of what to me is so logical and flawless as a whole.I can however be offended by responses based on stubbornness, ignorance, and arrogance in particular when no effort is made to present even a minimum attempt towards a valid argument. Dismissing my points as loads of crap or nonsense without offering a valid counter point does neither of us any justice. I guess I am putting too much information together too closely and need to put more detail into smaller paragraphs. Its obvious that rather than attempt to read the entire post and try to comprehend the theory as a whole many people would rather try to pick it apart piece by piece. This works for me, as it may be easier to explain one topic at a time. With each explanation questions will arise until every question is answered and a whole of the argument or theory will make sense to even a layperson.When two atoms collide the nucleus of each atom does not touch, the outer electron shells are what actually make contact during the collision. When two atoms collide I submit to you that in actuality it is likely that two or more subparticles that make up electrons that actually making contact. (or the subparticles that make up those subparticles). The electrons spin in their orbit around the nucleus at a fast rate. It is likely that the subparticles that make up leptons have orbits around particles of greater mass density and the subparticles that make up those particles have orbits as well around particles of greater mass density. The fact that our scientific precision does not yet exist to clearly define the subparticles that make up the subparticles that make up quarks or leptons does not negate their existence. Again, you cannot dismiss the unknown because it has not been proven. You can dismiss the known when it is proven to be in error but that which is unknown if it is logical can still be a very strong part of any theory.So, the point I was making is that if the Universe is in fact infinite and extends outwards and inwards as an infinite chain then the collision of two atoms is really the collision of two electrons which is really the collision of an infinite chain of smaller and smaller subparticles so our Universe is infinitely large and infinitely small. They say that if you were to compare our single solar system in size to the known universe it would be a similar ratio of E. Coli bacteria to that of our planet earth. If we were to take a single lepton and scale it in size to be the size of our planet Earth I submit to you that it is illogical to assume that this would be a single solid piece of matter but instead we would find it is made up of smaller particles of matter that are bound together by the same electrodynamic properties of other quantum matter.So if you are able (and I mean you to be anyone reading this, not just the poster I am replying to) for a short while to open up your mind to the possibilities I will do my best to try to make sense of our significant insignificance as I like to put it. The scientific precisions of the instruments at our disposal are far inadequate to truly document the nature of subatomic particles on millionth the size of a quark or lepton. String theory is fine and dandy but one issue that too many nuclear physicists fail to take into account is that by using an atom smasher to dissect the atom they are contaminating the experiment. So to compensate we make up theories to make the structure fit the results but the results are not what we can see by examining a lepton or quark at one one-millionth of a scale in its native state. The results we see are when subatomic particles are smashed together at speeds that for the most part do not exist in nature and lead us to try to explain what we see based on those results. What I am saying is that just because we have no proof that there are particles that make up the particles that make up quarks or leptons does not make the theory any less plausible then string theory because the data that string theory is based on is flawed in my opinion and designed to fit the results seen using atom smashers.So back to the point I tried to make that you called nonsense. A part of what I believe to be true is that the collision of subatomic particles many times smaller than those we have been able to measure to date are the catalysts that we call our big bang. Although the leading consensus is that all matter started from a speck of dust (and just exploded 13+ billion years ago and mass evolved in the space around that starting point and we see this mass moving farther away from this starting point) that does not mean that has to be the only plausible reason. I submit that there are other possibilities. They are not parallel universes or other dimensions; they are naturally occurring universes that go through the standard life cycle of a universe. Notice I use small u not big U for universes to indicate that there is a difference between our known universe and the entire UNIVERSE.I am not stating something new. I am sure others have tried to present their arguments for what I believe to be true but I doubt that anyone is as well prepared as I am to backup my theories. Granted I have built a house of cards and can prove very little of it but I can also argue the foundations and every level of cards to a point that I have yet to have anyone topple this house of cards and that is why I joined these forums. If nobody here can topple my house of cards then the 30 years work I have ready to publish is ready to go. If however my house teeters I will either have the opportunity to strengthen it or help knock it down.The reason too many people have had and will have difficulty with an infinite universe is because as I stated in another post it turns your life and your existence into a point in time and space. A massless, timeless, energyless point that in the grand scheme of the UNIVERSE is so insignificant that like a point in time and space it really does not exist. Once you can put in perspective the significance of your insignificance you take the first step forward in appreciating that general and special relativity can be used in many ways to explain the universe from more than just one angle.As far as not understanding what I am claiming trust me, after over 30 years of putting this theory together I most certainly understand every aspect of what I say. It is the reader that will have difficulty at first understanding. My goal to continue to simplify my explanation to such a point that a laymen can see the light. My goal is not to irritate and offend but to offer a solid foundation to help others understand what seems too logical to be ignored when all components are understood.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 11:37 PM

I wanted to delete the post below because in re-reading I can see where this is going to cause me grief down the road in this forum but instead I decided to expand a little bit more on it now and worry about the real explanations down the road. Hopefully there is enough here to make some sense with.

---

Energy and matter are one yet separate. I submit that energy is everywhere but so is matter. It just so happens that we are able to use special and general relativity to boost the idea that energy and matter are interchangeable but we must take into account the possibility that there is a margin for discrepancy. That margin of discrepancy sounds stupid but I am trying to make a point.. I submit that E=MC^ is just as valid as E=MC^ + PI + the number of seconds that I have been alive. In the grand scheme of quantum mechanics and special relativity the value of pi plus the value of the number of seconds I have been alive are meaningless compared to the square of the speed of light. WHAT IF PARTICLES the size of PI exist that are on scale with Quarks the size of C^. The point I have been trying to make is that we cannot say for sure that because we have been unable to detect their existence that they do not exist. There is the possible option that they exist at such a small scale in height, width, mass, and energy to current point particles that they are undetectable by the current scientific precision. There is also the possible option that the time they can exist outside their parent particle before they merge back with their parent particle is so minute that we do not currently have the scientific precision to see them.The world is full of chemical reactions that can be explained using a formula. Molecules and compounds change structure and recombine and it all can be documented with pictures and diagrams that make sense because the left side and the right side of the equal sign make sense. Just because energy equals mass times the speed of light squared does not mean that mass and energy are interchangeable. It does not mean that matter is built from energy. It means that a certain amount of mass is able to self contain a certain amount of energy. When the mass is broken down and the energy inside is allowed to escape you have results that can be documented and explained through E=MC^ .E=MC^ is a great break through in understanding the fabric of the universe but it is relied on too much to use matter and energy interchangeably. Until you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that pure energy alone is the fabric of the universe and there is no smallest piece of matter then I say that virtual particles do not exist. I say matter comes in all sizes, an infinite array of sizes, and just like inside the atom or our solar system a very basic force will create orbits with smaller pieces of matter circling larger pieces of matter. And inside of every piece of matter regardless of the size is a fixed amount of energy. Inside each piece of matter is a certain amount of energy that can be released when the bonds holding that matter together are nullified. That means the process of matter being broken down into smaller and smaller pieces releases energy similar to a log burning where energy is released by a process. The energy is the bond that holds that matter in its orbit. Smaller pieces of matter require smaller amounts of energy to maintain their orbits so energy is released. NOW I AM NOT saying that an orbit is energy just that electromagnetic energy is required to maintain an orbit. Electromagnetic energy is the single force that binds the universe. Strong and weak forces and gravity are all results of electromagnetic energy. I don't have the formulas worked out yet and if I did then I would not be wasting my time in these forums.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-06-2004 10:22 PM

I do appologize if I sound arogant. I guess when 99% of the world sees things one way and you try to present another option and tend to be long winded and disjointed that I am going to ruffle some feathers. Maybe a forum about the possibility of an infinite universe was the wrong place to try to explain the plausibility of something that everyone else seems to be unable to accept, an infinite universe.Also, I just learned something tonight. So if nothing else good comes out of my ramblings and I am unable to open up some closed minds then so be it. But I just learned that electrons are no longer what they use to be. I did a internet search and lo and behold the fabric of the universe now has new names. Last time I checked quarks made up protons and neutrons and leptons made up electrons. Shows you where I've been the last 10 years. Too busy writing and now they go an reverse wording on me. I don't know when they stopped claiming that leptons made up electrons and now classify Muons and Neutrinos at the same level of electrons as basic building blocks and types of leptons but whenever that happened it was after they originaly called leptons the building blocks of electrons. So call me wrong for using the wrong terminology because my names are outdated.That that has nothing whatsover to do with my point. In nature atoms are in flux and always bouncing off each other. Electrons form an outer shell around the nucleous of an atom. When Atoms in nature bounce off each other my point is that an electron from each atom is what really makes contact. My further point is that due to the current limitations in the scientific precsion used in sub-atomic research we can not rule out the likelyhood that electrons are made up of smaller peices of matter. Just because science has not found them yet does not mean they don't exist. I can't prove that there is no smallest peice of matter I just know that when one accepts the inifinite nature of the Universe and applies that to understanding the fabric of space and time that so many things fall together. In a very small number of postings I have touched on the tip of the iceberg and before I go much further I would be elated to be shot down and my house of cards thrown out the window but I need solid proof and if I can't restack the cards right then the house falls. If my utterances annoy then I suggest don't reply. If you have a valid argument or a valid question great but Its obvious I am pissing people off so maybe this was not the right forum to try to bounce my theories off of others. I did not expect to hit so many closed minds right off the bat and hoped for some open minds to throw some valid questions or valid arguments at the concepts, not the terminology used.

I took your suggestions and learned something tonight. Last time I studied particle physics the general consensus was that leptons made up electrons. Now I see that leptons are a classification that includes muons, neutrinos, and electrons. To be honest I have not had the time to keep up to date on a daily basis with the advances in particle physics or astronomy so I may err at times in my wording but its the concepts I am trying to open up for discussion not the wording. I went too fast jumping from the infinite outwards of our Universe to the infinite inwards of our Universe without giving ample time to fully discuss the possibility of an infinite Universe going outwards. I just took it for granted that accepting an infinite Universe going outwards carried with it hand in hand the much harder to grasp concept that the there could be no smallest piece of matter.If its all the same I'd love nothing better than to drop discussions about the infinite nature of not having a smallest piece of matter, a smallest piece of time, a smallest unit of measurement, or a smallest unit of energy and only concentrate on the Infinite Universe that exists outside the boundaries of our known finite universe.

Thanks for the honest reply. I agree I am out of my league. That’s why I wanted to bounce some ideas off some great metaphysical minds as those found on this site. I will try to keep my posts shorter and more succinct. I know the Universe is infinite. I can’t find a house of cards build on any other premise that I can’t knock over. Doesn’t make me right, just right in my own mind. But to be honest the tidbits I’ve touched on in my few posts are nowhere near the stuff that I had expected to raise questions. I was only trying to touch on what I see as the obvious. It seems that it is not as obvious as I thought.

It is obvious I went about this the wrong way so I am going to start over and aim to be more succinct and direct. Rather then rant and rave as if I am an expert I'm going to try an approach that I hope is better suited for this forum.In message 9 a point was made that I can only assume others so quick to dismis me share that "the original point of expansion not only gave birth to time but also space itself"So since this does not correspond to my house of cards if this is an accepted belief then it would be a great starting point for me to try to understand where the fallacy in my logic is coming from.Since I feel that THE Universe and our universe (like many other respected astrophysicists) are very separate entities and the original point of expansion explains what we have been able to know about our universe then I need to understand how time and space could not exist prior to this cosmic event.Not even talking about space but just time and the big bang how can anyone logically conclude that there was a first second? A second of time that had no preceding second? If the big bang created all we can see then how can time not have existed prior to the big bang? Can you or anyone who shares this belief explain how that is logical?

You claim the Universe with at capital U is expanding. I submit that the universe with a lower case u is expanding. I agree with all proof to date that a cosmic event took place about 13.7 billion years ago and most if not all the matter in our known universe was created as the subatomic particles that were released during that event when through an evolution and grouping together. I disagree with the common thought on the cause of this cosmic event but that discussion has already got me in hot water here. I feel that space-time as we call it should be lower case space-time and that there exists a Space-Time that corresponds to the Universe. There may never be proof of this but can anyone say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can prove that space and time can not, do not, or did not exist outside of our little tiny known universe?This message has been edited by nipok, 08-05-2004 08:49 PM

The basis I have for adding this hypothetical is that the argument I am trying to make is that the Universe may be infinite and the big bang and the known universe that resulted from the big bang may be one of an infinite number of such universes.I am trying to validate the acceptance of the possibility that the cosmic event that created our known universe may occur an infinite number of times and has created and will create an infinite number of universes similar to ours.I am trying to clarify that nothing in accepted scientific doctrine to date can disprove the possibility that the cosmic event that created our known universe may not be alone. I submit that it is possible that 500 trillion light years past the north star another big bang may have occurred last week and 25 quadrillion light years past the center of the big dipper a big bang is going to occur in four hours.I am trying to validate the difference between what we conceive as our known universe and the entire un-ending timeless Universe. This is the foundation that I base my beliefs on. With the acceptance of the possibility that our known universe may be a small microcosm and one of many similar size universes then many other predictions of the fabric of our Universe make much more sense.I am not trying to prove anything or state facts and if any earlier posts made me sound like I was stating fact then that was poor wording. I am trying to find a shred of proof that can denounce the possibility of an infinite Universe no matter how difficult it is to conceptualize the possibility.

So you think that we live in an infinite space where Big Bangs are occurring all the time (and in this case - each Big Bang is simply an explosion producing matter)? And we don't see these Big Bangs because they occur outside of our visible Universe?
I submit that IF the Universe is infinite and one can travel in any direction in an unending line that at some distance far away from the edge of our known universe in it is impossible to not eventually encounter another universe.Why then does the Universe look different the farther away we look? In what way different, which aspect of our known universe are you referring to. In trying to minimize confusion using uppercase Universe or UNIVERSE refers to the entire infinite Space-Time continuum where lowercase universe refers to our finite known universe that we have mapped out and tried to understand.Why do we see such large scale homogeneity in the visible Universe? I submit that evolution is not just a process that can bring forth life but in a broader term evolution is a sequence of events that causes many things to be as they are. I submit that the life of a star, the life of a solar system, the life of a galaxy, and the life of a universe are all due to an evolutionary process that will duplicate itself when the circumstances are similar enough. Changes in an environment may yield different variations on this process but similar conditions will in most cases produce similar results.What's the mechanism for how these "little bangs" occur? In an infinite universe why are these bangs likely to occur where they do and not somewhere else? This is where I got into trouble in an earlier post so I will try to tackle this more clearly later. I tried putting a reply together here but kept sounding too confusing. For now let me say that I feel that the natural interaction of atoms in flux that bounce off each other all the time are the primary catalysts that create and destroy universes. If the Universe is infinite then it exists outwards in an infinite direction but also inwards in an infinite direction. Right about here is where I loose everybody. I will elaborate on this in more detail later.If one of these little bangs occurred in our solar system right now, would we know about it (i.e are these universes connected)? If our known universe was involved in another collision (big bang) I have no empirical data to estimate the length of time that our solar system would exist. We could be wiped out in the fraction of a second or we could be wiped out in a thousand or million years. The empirical data that I don't have and we may never have is the proportion in size of our known universe or any life supporting universe to the next largest size of self contained matter that would make up a subparticle that in turn makes up a subparticle that in turn makes up a subparticle in some chain of increasing sizes of matter until the particle is a quark or lepton in a larger structure. And yes this occurs infinitely inwards and infinitely outwards and is so hard to comprehend that sometimes I don’t even believe it but then I look at everything else in my house of cards and it makes perfect sense.Space (or space-time), the backdrop upon which matter and energy "sits" has physical properties of its own (e.g matter can warp it). Where did this space and its properties come from? Space-Time are all relative. What we observe to be Space-Time is really our own space-time. A major fallacy in interpreting space-time has been failure to remove yourself from the frame of reference that is our space-time. We interpolate and extrapolate conclusions that we justify based on the space time principles but I submit that the fallacy lies in not removing ourselves from our tiny little universe when we make conclusions based on observations inside this frame of reference. We cannot use special relativity to account for some of our observations but then ignore it when the resulting observations don’t fit with the paradigm. Lets say for a second that a larger Space-Time continuum that uses the infinite Universe was used as a frame of reference to watch our little tiny big bang occur and our little tiny universe evolve. Then much of what we state in current cosmology could be biased by the frame of reference used to observe something that according to special relativity we should take into account for.One of the little repeated but obvious issues with an infinite universe is that it allows for an infinite number of possibilities. As long as something is physically possible, the chance of it happening in an infinite universe is 1. This means that there are an infinite number of doppelgangers of yourself for example. Weirder still, there are regions of the Universe where the probabilistic laws of the quantum world are actualized at a macroscopic level. YES, in a true infinite universe that goes on forever, and is made up of an infinite number of universes similar to ours inside every lepton and every quark in our known universe and of which our known universe is only one of an infinite number of similar sized universes that may exist your DNA structure will be repeated an infinite number of times.

Is there proof for dimensions greater than 4 or is not string and superstring theory just theory? I submit that in our attempts to accomplish 2 goals we risk running around in circles. One goal is to try to explain what we observe and the other is to make those observations fit the current paradigm. At some point too many misrepresented observations will break the foundation and we will need to start over.That day may never come or it may be right around the corner so if the current paradigm has holes then any (or almost any) building block of the foundation can be called into question. To dismiss any alternate theory blindly because it does not fit the rest of the paradigm is not a legitimate reason to dismiss it. PROOF is a good way to dismiss a valid theory in particular one that support a much different paradigm.To that end I say again, there is no smallest particle of matter and claiming that dimensions other than the 4 we know about exist is wrought with flawed logic. What we see come out of particle accelerators is not mass and matter and point particles going about their everyday normal existences but particles undergoing a huge variance from their norm and then further being subjected to observations in a medium that also contaminates the results.Talking this over the other day with a friend a good analogy was made about the misconception that pure energy creates matter. If a log burns energy is released. Containing the energy and forcing it back to the shape of a log is not going to give you a log back. We know that energy is released when strong atomic bonds are broken (or any mass is disintegrated). We know that energy is released when a subparticle and its anti-subparticle annihilate each other but that fact alone does not mean that pure energy alone can create matter.In some ways energy uses mass to hold itself together. I'd almost go so far as to say mass requires energy or the existence of mass or matter will absorb or retain energy but the mass or matter is in and of itself not energy.If there is a formula that says otherwise, one that can categorically denounce the possibility that the matter is not releasing the energy it was holding and breaking into particles too small to be detectable I would appreciate any insight. Those particles can then reform to become point particles if and when certain conditions are met. That includes the right amount of energy absorption, the right mass density, and right mass volume. I’d go so far as to say that give the right type and amount of energy, the right mass density, the right mass volume, and the right type of sub-point particles you will always get one of the 12 known point particles created.

(ok here I go again, getting myself into more trouble probably sticking my foot in my mouth 3 different ways but here I go anyway)

---

Ringo, physical or not, vibrating in one of our 4 dimensions or one of many possibly non-existent dimensions, I submit that there is no hard proof to back up string theory. String theory is the result of trying to fit observations to match an existing paradigm that MAY (or may not be) based on flawed conclusions. Particle accelerators use a detector. I don't care if its a bubble chamber, cloud chamber, argon calorimeter, or data from a Cerenkov detector, the observations we see and conclusions we make are subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.Not that I am intimately familiar with particle accelerators or the Heisenberg principle but I do know that what we observe is not the natural state of an atom. Show me conclusions based on a microscope powerful enough to see an atom 100 billion times larger than it is in its natural state and take snapshots of time at intervals of 100 billion or 100 trillion frames a second and then I’ll say there may be a value to any evidence or conclusions made towards a Theory of Everything / GUTS.All particle accelerators do for us is tell us with some degree of scientific precision that we can measure a piece of mass or a piece of energy for a piece of time that would be immeasurable if we did not create the piece of mass or piece of energy and slow it down enough to measure it. Without the effects a detector places on the subparticles we could not measure them with current means. Now I am not in any way saying that particle accelerators have not moved particle physics leaps and bounds ahead of where we were in the 50’s nor am I saying that the plethora of evidence regarding the nature of subatomic particles in general is questionable. I am only saying that deductions or conclusions made COULD be flawed because the goal was to fit them into a paradigm that MAY be questionable and the act of observing the events MAY have contaminated the data used to make the conclusions.To that end I again repeat that I have yet to find proof that deters me from my belief that particles much smaller than known point particles most likely exist and that a smallest particle of matter is a misnomer. There is nothing that I have found yet that can prove that there is not an infinite chain of smaller particles of matter making up larger subparticles of matter. I’d go so far as to state that quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum electromagnetics, and quantum photonics, as well as other principle interactions between matter and energy may very well hold true for these possible subparticles as well.And as usual I finish up by going from the lucid to the rambling (OK, so most the above is non-lucid rambling by some accounts) but my two cents for what their worth is that I feel that the grand unification theory / theory of everything will be explained in the next 50 years. String theory is in my eyes just an attempt at a unification theory and is nothing more than a theory but lacks any proof of 9 or 11 dimensions; just suppositions based on in my eyes flawed perceptions and using these to back up any argument is not strong enough in and of itself to hold credence to the argument.Someone will find that all four fundamental forces are all variations on electromagnetism. AETHER or ETHER was for a long time thought to be a way to bring these 4 forces together and somewhere along the line the likelihood of Aether or Ether was dismissed. (I need to look into this more) But I submit that inside the nucleus, inside the atom, and inside our solar system is an Aether with a variance of density. I submit that once this variance in density is determined it will define the formulas that bring together all four forces as different ways that electromagnetic fields interact. The nature of this variance in density between either distance or wavelengths of photons or gravitons or some other Aether will link strong, weak, and gravity. A simplistic example that may or may not be a good analogy would be to take the orbit of MARS, the forth planet from the sun and create an imaginary sphere with this diameter. Fill this sphere with atmosphere, air, oxygen, or any other gas. There will be a point in time where the density of this gas will be great enough to collapse the orbit of our planet and the Earth will fall into the Sun. The Weak and Strong force simulated in one simple concept with gravity as the catalyst all explained by electromagnetism. OK I don’t have the formulas to back it up or explain how electromagnetism causes it but maybe someday someone will.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 02:23 AM

I like the idea of extra dimensions wrapped in between spacetime fabric as it allows for the existence of the repository of consciousness, souls, and God in heaven, even life.

---

Eventually either people will get tired of my 2 cents and tell me to go away or some people may see the merit in my banter and give cause to sit back and rethink their stance on what they accept as most likely and what they are willing to at a minimum accept as possibly feasible. We don't need an extra dimension to store life. Life is everywhere. Life is energy. Your body contains energy trapped inside of cells and interacting with neurons in your brain. A plant takes the suns energy and captures it. All life sustains itself by digesting energy be it through photosynthesis or the eating of plants or animals. When the life energy is all gone from a plant or animal its not very palatable any more so I submit that the more life energy left in a plant or animal no longer actively growing or alive the more palatable it is to the species that consumes it. But I digress.We are one planet. Including the energy that exists in our neural pathways let’s also for a moment take all the life energy that exists inside every cell on our planet, every cell from every plant, animal, bacterium, etc. Add to that the energy trapped in the core of our planet and we can come up with the total amount of energy that is contained within our one planet.With estimates between 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe it is not a far stretch to lowball an estimate of 1 trillion planets in our known universe that are able to support habitable life. I don't want to argue because that is not the point I am making so if it is easier to digest then lets say there may be 1 billion planets with life on them. Add up all the energy from every cell on these 1 billion planets and you have a significant amount of contained energy but this pales in comparison to the amount of energy contained in the estimated 70 some odd sextillion stars in our known universe. Then there is also the total core energy from all the other cosmic objects that don't have habitable life on them which could easily surpass a quadrillion planets, moons, and comets.Lets say for a moment that another universe much likes ours comes speeding at us 41407371740736000000000000000000 miles per hour. That is c^4. We don't know that our entire universe is not moving through the void of space as an entity at c^2 or faster compared to a central frame of reference that we will never know. Nor do we know that there are not other universes like ours traveling in their own frame of references at c^2 or c^3. That means that if at some point in our future we did encounter a universe like this our entire existence could be obliterated in the fraction of a second or the fraction of a minute. I’ve never seen a planet smash another planet at this rate of speed or two suns collide but my instincts tell me this would release a lot of energy. It would also take a whole lot of very large pieces of matter and make a whole bunch of much smaller pieces of matter and over time the resulting mess would reform galaxies and stars and planets by the same physical laws that govern how our galaxies interact now. BUT energy would be released on a scale that defies imagination.That MAY be what happens when the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up an Electron bumps into the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up the subparticle (if it exists) that makes up an Electron from another atom that bounces into atom #1. Two atoms bounce away from each other, energy and mass are maintained because at the scale we can measure what happens we don’t see the release in energy and the recapture of the energy by the mass around it.NOW, the example above is more likely to occur when a single electron is thrown at a nucleus at a speed close to the speed of light. For our frame of reference we see the electron approach the speed of light in a particle accelerator but IF subparticles smaller then electrons exists in an infinite chain then as you go smaller and smaller, the actual speed of the subparticles making the initial contact increase and increase with each smaller level of subparticle that you go into. AND this collision to us happens in a fraction of a second but it causes an infinite chain of collisions of smaller and smaller subatomic particles. Nipoks Paradox number 1. If there are an infinite number of smaller particles that make up matter then when 2 particles of matter bump into each other because the chain of collisions itself if infinite the 2 particles never really touch other.As far as God existing in one of these made up dimensions I think of God more like a calculus equation. Calculus is great at taking infinity and making something you can fathom by equation. I submit that the Sum of the limit of all energy is God. God is everywhere, inside of all us keeping us alive, radiating from the Sun, and holding our solar system, our galaxy, and every atom together.I can’t put my finger on telekinesis or supposed ESP but if the mind is able to tap into the electrical energy that exists everywhere then whose to say that the sum or limit of all energy that exists everywhere may not have its own consciousness.If so, our planet again becomes a point in time and space and The God with a capital G does not know of our existence where the god with a lowercase g may or may not have interacted with our species with a goal of setting up a moral structure.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-11-2004 10:53 PMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-11-2004 10:56 PMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 12:38 AMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 12:52 AMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 01:01 AMThis message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 01:06 AM

25,000 years from now if by some slim chance our planet is still habitable and we figure out a way to work together for the benefit of every species on this planet it is not all that unrealistic to beleive that desim would not eventually become the prevalent religion.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 08:55 AM