Proof of the Origin of Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Woody, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Lucas Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    There's a theory called F-theory that postulates that there exist two temporal dimensions, but i couldn't tell you if these two dimensions existed before the Big Bang, because F-theory is structured within string theory and String theory can be a nightmare with all the unfolding and folding of dimensions, so is possible that one of the temporal dimensions unfolded after Big Bang, but here I'm out of breath, I'm not sure

    Like a curiosity, I have found this theory that postulates 3 temporal dimensions, that is, a 3+3 spacetime
    http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0404033
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Hum,

    Tnx for link.

    It seems to regard Time as a `plane` rather than `linear` dimension...
    (T<sub>1</sub> T<sub>2</sub>)
    (But then again with the spatial dimensions we regard them as `planes`)

    <font color=blue> < time jaunt > </font>
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36401
    <font color=blue> < time jaunt > </font>
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    But gravity is only magnetism in a different form. Gravitation is not a quality of matter itself. It is a result of magnetic motions (attraction and repulsion) Generally speaking, particles spin in synchronized motion, which causes gravitation (permanent attraction, although repulsion also exists between them).

    If an apple falls on earth, it means that the apple is also attracting the Earth, but of course that's not visible. The Earth's attraction is so much stronger than any other object on earth, that it always reverses their polarities. Because the two polarities of all things, planets and particles spin and stay on their orbits.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
  8. Maddad Time is a Weighty Problem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    No Woody. You are the one who says you have proof of your theory. If it is proof, then you need to handle all possible alternatives or it is not proof. You are the one who needs to produce information to support your claims, or others here are not going to take you seriously.

    No.
     
  9. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    LOL. You mean there are still people here taking him seriously???


    By the by, Yorda, Maddad is correct. Gravity is not a magnetic effect.
     
  10. Alpha «Visitor» Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,179
    You can't prove something that's incoherent. The Universe is all of existance. There can be no external forces. If such forces existed, they'd be part of the Universe by definition.
    How is C & D a subset of B? Also, the first law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the Universe is not.
    Logically proving it would require your premises to be true, and your conclusions to follow logically from them. This is not the case.
    Impossible/incoherent.
    Duh.
    Duh.
    Woah there. Do you mean that the force must be eternal, or the Universe? Either way, you need to demonstrate this first.
    C is not applicable. B is not necessarily violated. If you think it is, demonstrate it.
    How is that? D is not applicable Either. It only applies to a closed system, and doesn't apply at all if there's no Universe.
    A force is energy / capacity for physical change. Thus it requires space and time, which require a Universe. Therefore as I said at the outset, there can be no force external to the Universe.
    Eternal = infinite time. You claimed the law of entropy dictates this is impossible. So your conclusion is in conflict with one of your premises, thus rendering your argument incoherent.
    Non-sequitur.
    Non-sequitur.
    Unsubstantiated.
     
  11. Gambit Star Universal Entity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    317
    All we need to know to find the answer is to find the contempt in questioning.

    Such motives for energies developing into their present states in time and space provides enough to explain life will be for a long time.

    But in the mean time it has become more of pioneering of questioning rather than trying to always find the answer.
     
  12. Maddad Time is a Weighty Problem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    Cut me some slack, guy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm new here.
     

Share This Page