I've followed most Sciforum discussions regarding cosmology, cosmogeny, and how the universe may work. I'd like to start this thread to discuss ALL hypotheses - even the wacko, pseudoscience ones - as I believe that we have the intellectual capability to ferret-out constructive concepts and ideas, or portions thereof, from meaningful (even if 'proven' incorrect) visualizations. We all (well . . . most anyway) have functional, creative brains. Also, I would like -for the time being - to keep theological arguments out of the thread - those can fall-out later. Thanks!

wlminex

The universe appears to be a balance: things are not so frozen that they cannot change nor so reactive that everything happens at once; the weak nuclear force promotes changeability, while the strong force promotes stability; pair production emits entities of opposite polarity of charge and opposite matter/antimatter state; there are two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and one stable energy particle (neutral charge).

I've tried to speculate as to how this universe started but alas I don't yet have enough information to put forth any better explanation than already given, the big bang. It seems that this theory is the best yet derived from the data that scientists have obtained up to this time in history. I could only speculate on other theories but they cannot be proved with solid facts that could substantiate anything I'd come up with. Until more data can be obtained I'm going to have to stick with the big bang until something other comes along that makes more sense and can be proved with facts.

The Earth’s day-star had set, the twilight dusk putting it to rest. Even if one had never seen the night sky, one could infer the existence of many distant suns shining far away as stars in the black velvet.

There was no moon and we were far from the city lights and so we could see thousands of the glittering jewels of various colors. If these gems had been diamonds on our carpet, we would have been rich. Arcturus was orange, Betelgeuse red, and Sirius blue, with a green companion. We could also deduce the planets of those solar systems. Such can things be foretold from existence.

A misty wide and white highway crossing the night sky was the Milky Way galaxy, seen edge on, and we could also see the Andromeda galaxy through our binoculars. It was no great shakes to intuit many more. It turns out that in every dark patch sky no larger than a grain of sand that there are over 10,000 galaxies. The universe was surely much larger than it needed to be.

If this universe was here at this time in this place as from an inflating bang, then surely there could be more, making for the extrapolation of an endless Cosmos. There was really much more out there than there needed to be.

So it is that we surmise, reason, interpret, gather, understand, presume, and assume that there are countless numbers of stars and planets out there, as well as endless numbers of universes. What the heck is going on? Why so many? They were perhaps even near infinite, whatever that means. Why is it so overdone?

Well, infinite largeness is so vast because the infinitesimal is so small, but that’s not the direct reason, but more like a reason to a reason, which is that Totality would not be as such if it were limited in extent—and from that line of thought we also know that it cannot be limited by duration. Eternity must accord with infinity.

Yet, there is nothing and nowhere for this everything to have come from, so now we understand that nothing and everything must complete the package begun by the figuring of infinity and eternity. It is the ultimate reckoning.

Everything happens everywhere forever from nothing.

Since we're seeing more posts regarding the expanding unverse . . . I refer you to this thread . . .

wlminex

I start with nothing in the Universe at all, but I use the mathematical version of nothing +1 + -1 = 0. This allows me to build up from there. If I used just 0, I don't see how I could get that to work. I have +1 as a membrane, and -1 as the hole inside the membrane. -1 has properties, and you could call it anti-matter. When they are both spherical they are entropy-safe. When particles overlap, the +1 will partially overlap another +1, and you get the first raise in energy. When the matter enters the anti-matter zone, and matter is pulled away into the hole. The matter then spins around in a figure 8 between the two spherical particles, and the matter also spins in the lens cross section of overlapping sphere. You get the atom orbit that looks like a figure 8 with a cylinder central position. You get bonding because the overlap is chained by the figure 8. Put more particles into this bonding position, and you get flow through the bonds, and Gravity. So from nothing so far I have bonding, and gravity. This is how my theory works. I evolve each physical condition from the last condition, and start from nothing.

and start from nothing.
Self-evidently incorrect, as per your "explanation" above.

Self-evidently incorrect, as per your "explanation" above.

You wouldn't be able to see it, you wouldn't get a reading from it, so it's nothing. The zero version '0' of nothing is invented by mathematicians. So my version of nothing is the true version of nothing. Stop thinking with knowledge that you acquired.

You wouldn't be able to see it, you wouldn't get a reading from it, so it's nothing. The zero version '0' of nothing is invented by mathematicians. So my version of nothing is the true version of nothing.
Arrant nonsense again.
According to you your start from "nothing" also pre-supposes quite a few properties. All of which you fail to explain.

Arrant nonsense again.
According to you your start from "nothing" also pre-supposes quite a few properties. All of which you fail to explain.

I do explain, try drawing a picture of it. Overlap two sphere, the membrane are +1. See what happens when the membrane overlap a bit. You get a lens, and the lens increases the +1 because it contains a bit of another particle. Then overlap right into the hole. Now you get a tip that enters the hole. Entropy is completely broken in the positive, and the negative. The universe is creating something from nothing, and entropy puts it back to zero by removing the parts that break the rules. The tip in the negative mass is trapped, and it has to spin around the walls to try to obey entropy. The walls are figure 8, and the lens is perpendicular to the figure 8. This is the atom orbit shown in a number of images all over the place. I presupposed +1 and -1 which means I presupposed zero. I presupposed that the Universe had a paradox to create something from nothing, and tried to fix it. But I didn't add anything that is new, I actually used the rules that I tried to stop anything new from being created.

I do explain
Nope.


Overlap two sphere, the membrane are +1.
Why spheres?
Why a membrane?


Entropy is completely broken in the positive, and the negative.
Entropy? How is that "nothing"?


The tip in the negative mass is trapped, and it has to spin around the walls to try to obey entropy.
Why does it have to spin? Because of "nothing"?


I actually used the rules that I tried to stop anything new from being created.
What "rules"? The rules of nothing?
More specious nonsense.

Nope.


Why spheres?
Why a membrane?


Entropy? How is that "nothing"?


Why does it have to spin? Because of "nothing"?


What "rules"? The rules of nothing?
More specious nonsense.

Sphere are mathematically entropic. No point is greater than another point.

A membrane is a negative of a hole at the centre, both are entropic, and both can cover the same area like an igloo, and its hole.

Entropy prevents something.. so it generates nothing. You can put a bubble inside a bubble, and the middle bubble plays on the walls of the outer bubble. natural entropy.

The middle particle has to spin, because at each overlap inside the hole it is breaking entropy. To try to prevent it from creating something from nothing you have to move it, but then it moves to a point where it also breaks entropy, so you have to move it again. This continual movement is the spin around the walls of the particle.

Sphere are mathematically entropic. No point is greater than another point.
A membrane is a negative of a hole at the centre, both are entropic, and both can cover the same area like an igloo, and its hole.
Entropy prevents something.. so it generates nothing. You can put a bubble inside a bubble, and the middle bubble plays on the walls of the outer bubble. natural entropy.
The middle particle has to spin, because at each overlap inside the hole it is breaking entropy. To try to prevent it from creating something from nothing you have to move it, but then it moves to a point where it also breaks entropy, so you have to move it again. This continual movement is the spin around the walls of the particle.
Ooh. A mix of word salad and more "explanation" that goes away from "nothing".

It's beginning to look like the true reason for the start of the universe is that the stupidity had go somewhere...

Ooh. A mix of word salad and more "explanation" that goes away from "nothing".

It's beginning to look like the true reason for the start of the universe is that the stupidity had go somewhere...

Then you can remain hiding behind your mask of the truth.

Then you can remain hiding behind your mask of the truth.
:rolleyes:
And keep pointing out your errors and delusion. Yup.

If you like...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/SpinResult.jpg

Yep, and now you post graphic (literally) evidence that your claim you "start from nothing" is false.

Yep, and now you post graphic (literally) evidence that your claim you "start from nothing" is false.

Doh.. homer? If you look at a converse wave, and a convex wave together you see a total of zero. All that the spherical body does is create a wave that creates a flat line. You have no idea of how quantum physics works with messages. You can receive only powered inputs. You can't receive a message that is both +1 and -1 together. In the room you are sitting, if you evolved to see both properties together you would be blind.

Doh.. homer? If you look at a converse wave, and a convex wave together you see a total of zero. All that the spherical body does is create a wave that creates a flat line. You have no idea of how quantum physics works with messages. You can receive only powered inputs. You can't receive a message that is both +1 and -1 together. In the room you are sitting, if you evolved to see both properties together you would be blind.
When are you going to learn that word salad doesn't cut it?
Or, more relevantly, are you going to learn? Anything.

When are you going to learn that word salad doesn't cut it?
Or, more relevantly, are you going to learn? Anything.

Word salad? if you don't understand my words you have a severe learning difficulty, because I have posted little pictures for you as well. Maybe I shud break my words down to summat you can fink about?

Word salad? if you don't understand my words you have a severe learning difficulty, because I have posted little pictures for you as well. Maybe I shud break my words down to summat you can fink about?
Oops, wrong again.
I understand your words.
But the way you string them together is what makes them word salad.
And, as stated, your "little picture" proves you're not starting from nothing.

Oops, wrong again.
I understand your words.
But the way you string them together is what makes them word salad.
And, as stated, your "little picture" proves you're not starting from nothing.

How does my picture prove I am not starting from nothing? I applied light so that you can see the Aether.. it is not visible. It only interacts to create zero. It overlaps, and still tries to create zero. It is always using methods to create zero as best as it can. You are confused by the paradox of creating nothing from something, and something from nothing. All properties have an equal, and opposite.. nothing has an equal and opposite.

How does my picture prove I am not starting from nothing? I applied light so that you can see the Aether.. it is not visible.
Aether? Is that nothing?
Where do the spheres come from?
What governs their interaction?
From where does mass/ negative mass arise?
How does entropy come into it?

In other words your "nothing" pre-supposes (while failing to explain or account for) many other things.

Aether? Is that nothing?
Where do the spheres come from?
What governs their interaction?
From where does mass/ negative mass arise?
How does entropy come into it?

In other words your "nothing" pre-supposes (while failing to explain or account for) many other things.

Yeah so ask questions then.

The sphere don't need to come from anywhere because they equal nothing. You don't need to account for zero in a theory. So nothing is just there.

Their interactions are governed by paradox. They start to equal something, the paradox throws them back to nothing, but once you cut off a bit here, and there the paradox grows out of control.

Mass, negative mass, and matter, anti-matter mean just + or -. I haven't added anything there, just names.

Entropy is the paradox that you don't get something from nothing. But you can put Aether inside Aether... +1 +1 + -1 -1. If you enclose them the total is still zero. when they are enclosed like that the outermost membrane will correct the innermost membrane. You can do this from nothing.

:roflmao:

Please refer to my earlier post about word salad.

:roflmao:

Please refer to my earlier post about word salad.

Sorry..

Nofink is nofink. Simples.

I start with nothing in the Universe at all, but I use the mathematical version of nothing +1 + -1 = 0. This allows me to build up from there. If I used just 0, I don't see how I could get that to work. I have +1 as a membrane, and -1 as the hole inside the membrane. -1 has properties, and you could call it anti-matter. When they are both spherical they are entropy-safe. When particles overlap, the +1 will partially overlap another +1, and you get the first raise in energy. When the matter enters the anti-matter zone, and matter is pulled away into the hole. The matter then spins around in a figure 8 between the two spherical particles, and the matter also spins in the lens cross section of overlapping sphere. You get the atom orbit that looks like a figure 8 with a cylinder central position. You get bonding because the overlap is chained by the figure 8. Put more particles into this bonding position, and you get flow through the bonds, and Gravity. So from nothing so far I have bonding, and gravity. This is how my theory works. I evolve each physical condition from the last condition, and start from nothing.A refutation of the claim of starting with no assumptions/nothing (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2813338&postcount=65).

And that's just the notion of 'checking distances'. In the above quote you mention many other things which you are implicitly assuming. For instance, entropy. What is your definition of entropy? Shannon entropy? Renyi entropy? Topological entropy? Kolmogorov entropy? Compression entropy? What about spin, what kind? Classical spin? Quantum spin? Angular momentum? Spin structure? What about membranes? Orientated? Closed? Quantised? Tension? You've mentioned spheres, so you've assumed basic topology. You mention energy, what is your definition of energy?

That's a classic example cranks don't realise they can't assume in their attempt to make a 'theory of everything'. Energy is not some obvious well defined quantity which is just intrinsic to any formal construction, it has to be precisely defined. The fact mainstream physics does this so well that it becomes almost taken for granted makes hacks assume they can take it for granted. Likewise with momentum and angular momentum. They have to be formally defined and constructed before you can talk about them in a system.

But Pincho won't read this, he has me on ignore because he doesn't want to face up to the long list of fundamental flaws in his work.


Sphere are mathematically entropic. No point is greater than another point.That isn't even coherent. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone that Pincho is just throwing buzzwords out which he doesn't understand.


A membrane is a negative of a hole at the centre, both are entropic, and both can cover the same area like an igloo, and its hole.

Entropy prevents something.. so it generates nothing. You can put a bubble inside a bubble, and the middle bubble plays on the walls of the outer bubble. natural entropy.
Actually the shapes of bubbles are not defined by entropy, they are defined by minimising the mean curvature. And you can't use 'entropic' as a description of a manifold or surface.


Then you can remain hiding behind your mask of the truth.
Says the guy who puts on ignore people who point out factual errors in his claims.


If you look at a converse wave, and a convex wave together you see a total of zero
The opposite of convex is concave, not converse. Pincho doesn't even seem to have a good grasp of basic language.


You have no idea of how quantum physics works with messages.
I do and I can see you don't.


The sphere don't need to come from anywhere because they equal nothing. You don't need to account for zero in a theory. So nothing is just there.
The concept of a sphere in mathematics is highly non-trivial. A sphere is a manifold and a manifold M is a Haussdorff topological space along with a set of pairs \{(U_{a},\phi_{a})\} where the U_{a} are open sets in M which are homeomorphic, via \phi_{a}, to open sets in \mathbb{R}^{N} for some fixed N such that certain intersection rules of their images are satisfied. Hardly 'nothing' but you don't realise that because you're ignorant.


But you can put Aether inside Aether... +1 +1 + -1 -1. If you enclose them the total is still zero.
Actually the sum 1-1+1-1+1-..... is undefined under standard summation rules because it is not absolutely convergent, ie |1|+|-1|+|-1|+... is not convergent. To illustrate why it isn't well defined note that 1 = 1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+.... = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+.... = 0.

More basic and important things you are unaware of.

Sphere are mathematically entropic. No point is greater than another point.

A membrane is a negative of a hole at the centre, both are entropic, and both can cover the same area like an igloo, and its hole.

Entropy prevents something.. so it generates nothing. You can put a bubble inside a bubble, and the middle bubble plays on the walls of the outer bubble. natural entropy.

The middle particle has to spin, because at each overlap inside the hole it is breaking entropy. To try to prevent it from creating something from nothing you have to move it, but then it moves to a point where it also breaks entropy, so you have to move it again. This continual movement is the spin around the walls of the particle.

That Pearlman Guy ? Didn't he work out a doughnut thing . Mathematically that is . A doughnut universe . I forget ? He won an award that came with a million dollars he refused . The Pion'ure conjecture I think ? Something like that , Don't know ,don't remember. He was mad about the way he was treated by his peers I think . That was the impression i got . Media hype maybe ?

That Pearlman Guy ? Didn't he work out a doughnut thing . Mathematically that is . A doughnut universe . I forget ? He won an award that came with a million dollars he refused . The Pion'ure conjecture I think ? Something like that , Don't know ,don't remember. He was mad about the way he was treated by his peers I think . That was the impression i got . Media hype maybe ?

He did some sort of spherical transformation conjecture. I don't actually know what it is for.. maybe melting materials? I don't understand it... there's an admission.

He did some sort of spherical transformation conjecture. I don't actually know what it is for.. maybe melting materials? I don't understand it... there's an admission.He proved the Poincare conjecture in 4 dimensions. It is a statement about the topology of particular types of manifolds, it has no application to melting materials. If you don't know don't just make shit up.