• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Opinion I have a theory about how our Universe was created and how it will end

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Fascinating stuff but I believe that black holes don't decay.
Small black holes decay measurably, but large black holes also decay, albeit at a much slower rate.

Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So I believe that all visible matter will be consumed by the black holes and then they will combine to make the ultimate black hole, which will then explode in a big bang to create visible matter and smaller black holes that would create galaxies. So in a way no energy or information ever gets destroyed, it just changes forms.
The problem with this theory is that the expansion of the universe is stronger/faster than the pull of local gravity. Undoubtedly, galaxies will collide and black holes will eat up trillions of stars over the course of the universe, but it will not outpace the universe's expansion.

And since Scientists too have found that early universe was full of black holes, I think that this gives credibility to this theory.
Every period of the universe's history is full of black holes because black holes are the result of a collapsed / failed star.
 

Greedings

Member
May 23, 2016
2,448
2,275
490
I am not trying to disrespect Scientists in any way, my theory is also based on an established theory called Superfluid vacuum theory. But it's not complete yet, so I am just trying to complete it by filling in the blanks.

I am very grateful about the sacrifices that our scientists and researchers make to make our world better. I am just trying to help by providing my point of view.
I don't mean to shit on your ideas, I also know nothing about astrophysics, but it's just I'm well aware I don't know anything about it.

My problem with this kind of lay-person theorising, is that it's what leads to things like anti-vaccine advocates, people buying in to bullshit treatments etc.

If anything, COVID has really made me realise how little the general public knows about science, and fortunately I have a base in biology and disease, but it astounds me how little people know, and we also see how our media know nothing too, yet they have massive influence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUPERGGK

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
To be fair, it's a better, more believable theory than how String Theory is usually explained. :messenger_grinning_sweat:

"It's like...*big bong hit*...EVERYTHING, maaaan."
Yeah, exactly. I don't like string theory much and it's wasting so much precious time of so many wonderful scientists.

String theory supports time travel even though time travel can't ever be done in the past as evident by so many paradoxes.

String theory claims multiple dimensions exist and claim that they run simultaneously, even though they never bother to explain how anything can exist into something, even though we have not seen a single example of particles that have mass existing into each other; and even also from where the energy and matter for all these multiple dimensions are coming from.

I can go on but you get the point. It's borderline superstitious theory that have no basis in reality.

I believe that we should try to find answers of things from taking examples from the real world. I believe that space is full of a medium because we are all surrounded by a medium on Earth. Scientists say that it's fascinating that matter and energy both show wave particle duality, as in they behave both as a wave or a particle but fail to see that both air and water too show wave particle duality.

And since vortexes are formed in these mediums too, I just assumed that similar vortexes form in space medium too, that helped me in solving the many problems of Gravity. And much more that I have written here and also in my book.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: Ornlu

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
It
I don't mean to shit on your ideas, I also know nothing about astrophysics, but it's just I'm well aware I don't know anything about it.

My problem with this kind of lay-person theorising, is that it's what leads to things like anti-vaccine advocates, people buying in to bullshit treatments etc.

If anything, COVID has really made me realise how little the general public knows about science, and fortunately I have a base in biology and disease, but it astounds me how little people know, and we also see how our media know nothing too, yet they have massive influence.
It's ok man, I know where you are coming from. But I believe that stupid people will say and do what they want, no matter what the smart or intelligent says or do. It's just human nature and behavior.

And also the reason why I wrote my book was to discourage superstition and such beliefs. From the title of my book to the way I present my views and ideas, it's pretty clear that I am just presenting them as just ideas and thoughts and not as facts that you must agree or believe.

And the main reason I wrote this was because I was frustrated with so many misinformation and superstition present in the name of God and the scientific community doing nothing to stop this. The scientific community simply refuses to address topics related to God, soul, afterlife, ghosts etc., and in turn they push people towards the self proclaimed religious leaders.

So I want them to find the fundamental truths and facts about our universe, so that they can shut down the business of religion and God, once and for all. And I just want to help them reach there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greedings
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
It is, how can something always exist without a beginning?
A theory that is more of a hypothesis but called a theory since we know next to nothing about the universe and how everything works is still a hypothesis. We are only assuming truths based on explanations that make sense to us in extremely simplified terms which are at best very educated guesses. What is knowledge you can't prove again? Observations and thoughts whether yours or others will only get you so far when trying to find the truth. I believe this is because each truth isn't universal.



cocks
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Small black holes decay measurably, but large black holes also decay, albeit at a much slower rate.




The problem with this theory is that the expansion of the universe is stronger/faster than the pull of local gravity. Undoubtedly, galaxies will collide and black holes will eat up trillions of stars over the course of the universe, but it will not outpace the universe's expansion.




Every period of the universe's history is full of black holes because black holes are the result of a collapsed / failed star.

No proof of Hawking's radiation has ever been discovered, so I don't think that it's proof that black holes decay.

Nope, the faster an object is moving through space the more their mass increases, as even though it's a superfluid medium, it still provides a little resistance and so eventually gravity will win.

Scientists have discovered that black holes were present in very early universe when there were no galaxies and stars, so how do you explain it?
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Sorry, i skipped a bit of explanation. The singularity point at the very centre of the black hole is theorised to be super super small. I just chucked in a whacko theory, backed up by 0 science that it must go somewhere. I only believe that because when you compress an atom/molecule, doesn't it create nuclear fusion and kick out a lot of energy? If a black whole swallows a solar system, how does all of that energy not escape from the black hole?

I understand the gravitational pull of a black hole is so great that it warps time, space and light, which i assume would lead to cause/effect been turned on its' head. But, as Electromagnetism is a lot stronger than the pull of gravity, wouldn't we see EMP-ish distortions around the black hole?

I don't see it as a wormhole, as such, more of a tear/pinprick a dam, holding back the torrential river of the universe

Nice theory, here is what I believe about black holes.

Black holes are very dense objects that have lots of matter densely packed in a very small area. Due to this they have a very powerful gravitational force or suction force created by their spin and movement in the space medium. This suction force is so powerful that everything that comes in close vicinity is sucked inside, even light. As light is just wave of the space medium, it too is affected by the suction force of the black holes that are attracting the surrounding space medium towards them. Just like waves of water and air getting sucked in the vortexes that are formed in them, waves of space medium or light is sucked in the vortex of a black hole. So this is why we can’t see them directly and only observe them due to their effect on the surrounding area, as light or the waves of the space medium don’t come back after getting close to it.

Also light is just electromagnetic energy or radiation and yes light is warped around a black hole.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Slings and Arrows

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
No proof of Hawking's radiation has ever been discovered, so I don't think that it's proof that black holes decay.

Nope, the faster an object is moving through space the more their mass increases, as even though it's a superfluid medium, it still provides a little resistance and so eventually gravity will win.

Scientists have discovered that black holes were present in very early universe when there were no galaxies and stars, so how do you explain it?
Scientists discovered Hawking radiation. I don't think we can have a fruitful conversation if you cherry pick which scientific discoveries we should be using to discuss the larger topic.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Sakura Doritos

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Scientists discovered Hawking radiation. I don't think we can have a fruitful conversation if you cherry pick which scientific discoveries we should be using to discuss the larger topic.

Here is what I found on this topic
It's from 2020 and it clearly states that we may never detect Hawking's radiation from a black hole directly.

And the idea behind Hawking's radiation is that space creates virtual particles near the event horizon, and one of them falls in and the other escapes and just because the energy in the universe must be constant, the black hole decays.

So first of all the radiation is not coming from the black hole, nothing escapes the event horizon.

Second I don't think that space creates virtual particles. I believe that Space is a medium and when two waves interact with each other in it, they create standing waves in the medium that make particles. But I think that these are not virtual particles they are real and part of the space medium.

So even if one of them falls into a black hole, the energy or the matter in the universe stays the same as black holes are a part of the universe. Like a bank vault or something that traps everything. So they don't have to decay even if we get some radiation from near the event horizon.

And also energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, so black holes don't destroy information. They just store them inside.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Here is what I found on this topic
It's from 2020 and it clearly states that we may never detect Hawking's radiation from a black hole directly.

And the idea behind Hawking's radiation is that space creates virtual particles near the event horizon, and one of them falls in and the other escapes and just because the energy in the universe must be constant, the black hole decays.

So first of all the radiation is not coming from the black hole, nothing escapes the event horizon.

Second I don't think that space creates virtual particles. I believe that Space is a medium and when two waves interact with each other in it, they create standing waves in the medium that make particles. But I think that these are not virtual particles they are real and part of the space medium.

So even if one of them falls into a black hole, the energy or the matter in the universe stays the same as black holes are a part of the universe. Like a bank vault or something that traps everything. So they don't have to decay even if we get some radiation from near the event horizon.

And also energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, so black holes don't destroy information. They just store them inside.
When you apply this same "but we haven't detected..." skepticism to the claims in the OP, we can begin the conversation. Until then, you are arguing from shifting sand and I have no ability to keep up with you.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
When you apply this same "but we haven't detected..." skepticism to the claims in the OP, we can begin the conversation. Until then, you are arguing from shifting sand and I have no ability to keep up with you.

Yeah, I think that until Scientists discover the space medium or the Hawking's radiation, we would just be discussing around these topics.

So let's wait and see. It was fun arguing with you. Have a great day, sir.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Yeah, I think that until Scientists discover the space medium or the Hawking's radiation, we would just be discussing around these topics.

So let's wait and see. It was fun arguing with you. Have a great day, sir.
Do you not have any comments on Madhvacharya and the disagreements he raised with the Hindu interpretations that you are using in your OP? We may not be able to see eye to eye on the science of black holes themselves, but there's another half to your theory that can be discussed as well.
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
1,236
1,801
585
I really like space stuff. My little understanding of the multiple "end of the universe" scenarios is, if space keep accelerating is going to expand forever, a big rip could happen, if stop expanding a big crunch could happen. I like to think that If atom decay and hawking radiation is happening the universe could end empty with time and entropy stopping. It's mind blowing.
 

Liljagare

Member
May 8, 2013
2,184
663
745
Sweden
It is, how can something always exist without a beginning?

You miss the answer in the question. Nothing existed, ie, time itself didn't exist. If time didn't exist, the universe could have come from literarly nothing, as we can fathom. Time would have started when some form of the universe allready did in a sense.

I think it's moot to ask what existed before the universe, as time isn't a factor, there would not be a "before", and it is also moot to discuss really what comes after, as time will again cease to exist as a reference, there will be no "after", depending on which theory is more correct. Now certain things in some theories still work, without time, but all that stuff (last thing I tried to follow was the brane (membrane) theory of Hawkins) is way over my head. Alot of math works when time allready is a factor, and alot falls apart when time is removed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jon Canon

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Do you not have any comments on Madhvacharya and the disagreements he raised with the Hindu interpretations that you are using in your OP? We may not be able to see eye to eye on the science of black holes themselves, but there's another half to your theory that can be discussed as well.

I am not well aware about this, can you explain it a little more so that I can gain knowledge about what disagreements he had?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I am not well aware about this, can you explain it a little more so that I can gain knowledge about what disagreements he had?
Well I am an amateur as to the finer details, but his theology asserted that the Hindu concept of "cycles" and endless reunification, splitting, and reunification was not sound. Hinduism has traditionally been monistic (all is one, all aspects of reality and spirituality are ultimately of the same base substance) but he countered that, insisting that reality is made up of distinct, separate elements that do not flow from one another (but all flow from Vishnu).

Madhva began to preach his own philosophy according to which the world is real, the individual souls are different from Brahman, and Vishnu is the highest entity in the Universe. Madhvacharya advocated dualism and realism. His philosophy accepts panchabhedas or five kinds of bhedas (differences) which are real and permanent. They are: Isvara or God is different from the jivas or souls; he is also different from the jada (insentient nature, prakrti); the various jivas are different from one another; the jivas are different from the jada; the various objects which are jada, are also different from one another. He accepts God, called Narayana or Vishnu or Srihari, as the Supreme Reality and the others as dependent realities. Mukti or liberation, which is regaining one’s blissful nature can be got only through bhakti or devotion to God.

 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Well I am an amateur as to the finer details, but his theology asserted that the Hindu concept of "cycles" and endless reunification, splitting, and reunification was not sound. Hinduism has traditionally been monistic (all is one, all aspects of reality and spirituality are ultimately of the same base substance) but he countered that, insisting that reality is made up of distinct, separate elements that do not flow from one another (but all flow from Vishnu).

Madhva began to preach his own philosophy according to which the world is real, the individual souls are different from Brahman, and Vishnu is the highest entity in the Universe. Madhvacharya advocated dualism and realism. His philosophy accepts panchabhedas or five kinds of bhedas (differences) which are real and permanent. They are: Isvara or God is different from the jivas or souls; he is also different from the jada (insentient nature, prakrti); the various jivas are different from one another; the jivas are different from the jada; the various objects which are jada, are also different from one another. He accepts God, called Narayana or Vishnu or Srihari, as the Supreme Reality and the others as dependent realities. Mukti or liberation, which is regaining one’s blissful nature can be got only through bhakti or devotion to God.


No, I don't think that Lord Vishnu created the universe. It is clearly mentioned in Nasdiya Sukta hymn of the oldest hindu text, Rig-Veda that it was the cosmic ocean(that I call the superfluid space medium) that created this universe. And the three main Gods of the Hindu religion, including Lord Vishnu came after the universe came into being.

Also the universe is too big and too empty to be the creation of an intelligent creator. And Lord Vishnu had a body, dark blue skin(discussed in the book) and also they didn't have unlimited powers and there were limits to what they could and couldn't do(discussed in the book in great detail).

Also in my book I discuss that who these Gods were and if they didn't create the universe then why is it still mentioned that God made the universe.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
No, I don't think that Lord Vishnu created the universe. It is clearly mentioned in Nasdiya Sukta hymn of the oldest hindu text, Rig-Veda that it was the cosmic ocean(that I call the superfluid space medium) that created this universe. And the three main Gods of the Hindu religion, including Lord Vishnu came after the universe came into being.

Also the universe is too big and too empty to be the creation of an intelligent creator. And Lord Vishnu had a body, dark blue skin(discussed in the book) and also they didn't have unlimited powers and there were limits to what they could and couldn't do(discussed in the book in great detail).

Also in my book I discuss that who these Gods were and if they didn't create the universe then why is it still mentioned that God made the universe.
That's just your interpretation, as valid as my mentioning of Hawking radiation.

As mentioned before, we have not established common language or agreed-upon axioms, so I am not going to be able to keep up with you on this track.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Y
That's just your interpretation, as valid as my mentioning of Hawking radiation.

As mentioned before, we have not established common language or agreed-upon axioms, so I am not going to be able to keep up with you on this track.

Yeah, it's ok man. I totally respect your opinions and I am sorry if you felt that I was imposing or forcing anything. Your opinions, ideas, thoughts and beliefs are as valid as mine. It was great arguing with you.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Y

Yeah, it's ok man. I totally respect your opinions and I am sorry if you felt that I was imposing or forcing anything. Your opinions, ideas, thoughts and beliefs are as valid as mine. It was great arguing with you.
You don't need to apologize. I didn't feel offended and I didn't take anything you said as aggressive. I'm just unable to "connect" with your core assertions because when I try, you pull a caveat that my examples do not apply, while in the next post putting forward your own theories and assertions as a priori. It makes it impossible to agree or disagree.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Sakura Doritos

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
You don't need to apologize. I didn't feel offended and I didn't take anything you said as aggressive. I'm just unable to "connect" with your core assertions because when I try, you pull a caveat that my examples do not apply, while in the next post putting forward your own theories and assertions as a priori. It makes it impossible to agree or disagree.

My thinking is very simple, if I can see it happening on Earth then it's possible in the Universe too. But if there is something that is not possible on Earth then it won't also be possible in the universe.

We know that magic or miracles do not exist in our current world, so I believe that they didn't exist in the past too.

We have to use machines and technology to do everything, so I believe that even our Gods had to use them(as clearly seen by magic items, wands, divine objects etc)

I see mediums on our Earth that show wave particle duality, so that's why I believe that all matter and energy is made up of a medium, as they show wave particle duality too.

I see vortexes in air and water, so I believe similar vortexes appear in space medium too. And honestly if you look at pictures of cyclones and galaxies, they look the same.

I know it's difficult to move through dense mediums like water, than light mediums like air. So I believe the same thing must happen in the space medium too and is the reason behind time dilation.

I think you must have got the point now.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
My thinking is very simple, if I can see it happening on Earth then it's possible in the Universe too. But if there is something that is not possible on Earth then it won't also be possible in the universe.

We know that magic or miracles do not exist in our current world, so I believe that they didn't exist in the past too.

We have to use machines and technology to do everything, so I believe that even our Gods had to use them(as clearly seen by magic items, wands, divine objects etc)
I'm confused on the conclusions you draw here. Humans have/had advantages other than our ability to use tools. One of those is our ability to speculate and simulate possible futures by using our imagination. This isn't technology. And at one point, even if you go back to a prior universe, and then to a universe prior to that one, you will eventually reach a species / intelligence that did not have access to technology.

Similar to scientists who posit a Multiverse, you are kicking the can down the road. Surely, fantastical technology could have given rise to what we see, but what preceeded that species? Was it a caste of techno-gods, too?

I see mediums on our Earth that show wave particle duality, so that's why I believe that all matter and energy is made up of a medium, as they show wave particle duality too.
All matter is made up of subatomic particles, and those particles are subject to the laws of quantum physics. Is this medium like "quantum foam"?

I see vortexes in air and water, so I believe similar vortexes appear in space medium too. And honestly if you look at pictures of cyclones and galaxies, they look the same.

I know it's difficult to move through dense mediums like water, than light mediums like air. So I believe the same thing must happen in the space medium too and is the reason behind time dilation.
Based on our theories, spacetime does indeed stretch and dilate.

I think you must have got the point now.
Thanks for the summary.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Now I would like to share my views and thoughts about charges and magnets

I think due to the standing wave type nature of particles, they create waves in the superfluid medium by their movement. And depending on the corresponding movement of the space medium particles in time, two particles can make waves that have crests and troughs meeting each other at the same time or not. So particles that have the same charge are those that are making waves which are meeting Crest to Crest and trough to trough, resulting in the waves becoming strong and then pushing each other away. So similar charges repel each other.

And the opposite thing happens for the opposite charges. The waves they make due to their standing wave movements meet each other and cancel out each other. So force of attraction kicks now as they are spinning and creating vortex which is attracting everything. So opposite charges attract.

And this is the reason why electric and magnetic fields are formed when a charge moves, as these are just waves in the space medium that are formed by the movement and standing wave type movement of a charge itself in the space medium. You can compare this to the waves formed in air behind a large moving vehicle or a fast vehicle throwing away water to the side on a water filled road.

Also I believe that in magnetic objects, the electrons that are not paired move around the object in a way to create a suction force that attracts the space medium inside through one end and expels it outside through another. This is just like if we dip one end of a pipe in water and suck air through the other end. When air starts moving through the pipe it creates a suction force and the water also moves in through one end of a pipe and comes out of another. And this is the reason why we can create electromagnets if we move charge or current through a metal. I believe that the same thing happens inside that metal and electrons start to move in a direction creating a suction force that pulls in space medium from one side and pulls out it from another. And due to this phenomenon magnetic poles are formed and also because of this magnetic objects are attracted towards and repelled from each other. The magnetic pole through which the space medium is going in attracts the pole through which the space medium is coming out and vice versa. So same poles repel while opposite poles attract each other.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
I'm confused on the conclusions you draw here. Humans have/had advantages other than our ability to use tools. One of those is our ability to speculate and simulate possible futures by using our imagination. This isn't technology. And at one point, even if you go back to a prior universe, and then to a universe prior to that one, you will eventually reach a species / intelligence that did not have access to technology.

Similar to scientists who posit a Multiverse, you are kicking the can down the road. Surely, fantastical technology could have given rise to what we see, but what preceeded that species? Was it a caste of techno-gods, too?


All matter is made up of subatomic particles, and those particles are subject to the laws of quantum physics. Is this medium like "quantum foam"?


Based on our theories, spacetime does indeed stretch and dilate.


Thanks for the summary.

Just remove space-time with space medium and it solves all our current problems in the understanding of the universe. And quite frankly why is space-time always only shown in 2d models. If we would create a 3d space-time, we would get a medium. Einstein was right but we have restricted space-time to just 2d models and have created so many problems. 3d space-time means a space medium.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Just remove space-time with space medium and it solves all our current problems in the understanding of the universe. And quite frankly why is space-time always only shown in 2d models. If we would create a 3d space-time, we would get a medium. Einstein was right but we have restricted space-time to just 2d models and have created so many problems. 3d space-time means a space medium.
This is semantical. Space-time has been shown visually by 2d models because that's how we tend to express mathematical concepts in visual form. There are 3d examples of how space-time operates and you don't have to look far to find them:



I am not a physicist, but I don't see a functional difference between spacetime and "space medium" if the differentiator is that one is 2d and the other is 3d. All the mathematical models of spacetime take place in a 4-dimensional arena afaik, so asking for a 3d representation would still be insufficient if your goal is accuracy.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,720
3,171
1,185
What are your thoughts on Solar Eclipses on Earth and the proportionality of the Sun to the Moon in terms of size/distance?
 
Last edited:

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
It
What are your thoughts on Solar Eclipses on Earth and the proportionality of the Sun to the Moon in terms of size/distance?

It's fascinating isn't it. I don't think it's all a mere coincidence. I have shared some theories about our moon too, in my book.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
This is semantical. Space-time has been shown visually by 2d models because that's how we tend to express mathematical concepts in visual form. There are 3d examples of how space-time operates and you don't have to look far to find them:



I am not a physicist, but I don't see a functional difference between spacetime and "space medium" if the differentiator is that one is 2d and the other is 3d. All the mathematical models of spacetime take place in a 4-dimensional arena afaik, so asking for a 3d representation would still be insufficient if your goal is accuracy.

Yes if we remove the 4th dimensional aspect of it, 3d space-time becomes space medium. And that is what I believe it is. I don't believe that we can time travel. There is no 4th dimension of time as we have no example of it in real life.

I believe that there can’t be negative space or negative time. Therefore time cannot be reversed and you can’t go physically in the past to change something. And frankly there is no past or future that exists right now for you to go, only present. Everything in this universe is only present right now. So you won’t find anything in the past or the future as they don’t exist. We can only observe what happened in the past by collecting information about it and if we want to know what happens in our future then we will have to live long and be present there. You can’t make jumps or use shortcuts. Everything that happened in the past made our present as it is now. And everything that will happen today will make up our future. So I don't believe in time travel or 4th dimension of time. And since quantum theory also states that time is absolute, I think that we can't change time.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,720
3,171
1,185
It

It's fascinating isn't it. I don't think it's all a mere coincidence. I have shared some theories about our moon too, in my book.
I agree. It’s too perfect for it to be coincidence that a planet that actually has intelligent life (at least intelligent enough to ponder such things) has these two celestial bodies in perfect proportion to each other. Yet no one really talks about it when they talk about The Grand Design.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: SUPERGGK

Darkmakaimura

Member
Dec 12, 2008
15,764
7,229
1,625
I don't think our universe is unique and there are Big Bangs happening all the time.

The Big Bang (and other Big Bangs) are probably created in a kind of higher dimensional "superspace".

Now where that Superspace came from itself is a whole other question but this might at least explain the Big Bang and our universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUPERGGK

God Enel

Member
Mar 26, 2011
2,760
3,096
1,180
Fuck me. I came into this thread for the laughs. No LULz just a serious discussion going on about shit.

subscribed will read later when I have more time andin philosophical mood.

btw. How come you wanted to write a book about this stuff? What was your motivation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUPERGGK

buizel

Banned
Feb 19, 2018
1,585
2,277
550
Fuck me. I came into this thread for the laughs. No LULz just a serious discussion going on about shit.

subscribed will read later when I have more time andin philosophical mood.

btw. How come you wanted to write a book about this stuff? What was your motivation?

my face after being high and thinking ive figured out the universe


jks
 

Liljagare

Member
May 8, 2013
2,184
663
745
Sweden
Just remove space-time with space medium and it solves all our current problems in the understanding of the universe. And quite frankly why is space-time always only shown in 2d models. If we would create a 3d space-time, we would get a medium. Einstein was right but we have restricted space-time to just 2d models and have created so many problems. 3d space-time means a space medium.

You are missing the entire point of E=MC^2.. :\ Einsteins theory includes 4d.

No mumbo jumbo space mediums etc, it's all math, that works.

What you are stating is that 1 + 1 =! 2 in some instances, but, 1+1 = 2 in all instances.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
6,626
13,072
925

It does seem likely that there are other dimensions that our senses can't really perceive. They may be microscopic dimensions that just affect quarks, or a hypersphere that encases our universe.

We have such limited ability to look and measure at this point that our only real indications are that this theory makes the math work. However, making the math work is a decent indication that there is probably something there, even if we haven't figured it all out yet.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

GAMETA

Banned
Jun 3, 2014
2,716
3,782
905
It is, how can something always exist without a beginning?

Existing. Even the idea of "nothing" requires "something", so something was there from the beginning.

Separate existence from time and this may give you the idea.

If time is bound to the expansion of our universe and is finite in itself, cyclic, then outside time and outside our universe there's room for ever lasting existence.

It's not a hard concept to visualize if you separate it from time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SUPERGGK

timeflais

Banned
Sep 9, 2017
263
392
345
32
My problem with this kind of lay-person theorising, is that it's what leads to things like anti-vaccine advocates

The premise of vaccination works. Its not different to how our bodies work, the issue isnt "do vaccines work", the actual issue is "Are vaccines open to abuse".

Scientists can be bought off just as easily as politicians, make no mistake. Some for as little as $100 for 10 mins of air time.
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2018
4,247
4,990
570
A theory based on “if I can’t see it then I surmise it doesn’t exist” is always superseded by the person who invents a tool to measure the unseen.

Sorry OP but I think your reasoning started with a conclusion you wanted to achieve and backed into what we “currently” know about the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: black_13

GAMETA

Banned
Jun 3, 2014
2,716
3,782
905
Why are you posting a Picture of maxi pad absorbing liquids?
If the maxi pad is the universe and the frame containing the universe is the liquids, then the Timeless Outside is your inability to ever touch a woman's vagina. O.O

It all makes sense now, thanks for the revelation!
sorry :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Sakura Doritos

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
Fuck me. I came into this thread for the laughs. No LULz just a serious discussion going on about shit.

subscribed will read later when I have more time andin philosophical mood.

btw. How come you wanted to write a book about this stuff? What was your motivation?

I was tired of people claiming that our God can do anything or that they have unlimited powers and abilities. But since I have read a lot of religious books and the various mythological stories mentioned in them, I knew that it's not true.

There are things that even our Gods can't do. They couldn't go back in time to change things. They too were limited by the rules of the universe. And used objects to give boons and perform miracles.

So I wanted to find the fundamental rules of the universe, so that I could prove once and for all that our Gods too followed these rules. And on the basis of these rules I could also see how a system of soul, afterlife, heaven and hell could work.

Also I was tired of scientists wasting time with stupid theories like the string theory and wanted to help them in a way to find the fundamental rules of the universe, so that we can evolve into the next stage of evolution; and could also become an advanced species or rulers of the universe, like our Gods.

And also I wanted to show the truth about our Gods that since they too followed the rules of the universe, so who they really were. So that we can teach all this to our children and save them from any manipulation from any religious leader. I want to shut this business of religion, once and for all.
 

SUPERGGK

Member
Nov 11, 2018
218
151
355
You are missing the entire point of E=MC^2.. :\ Einsteins theory includes 4d.

No mumbo jumbo space mediums etc, it's all math, that works.

What you are stating is that 1 + 1 =! 2 in some instances, but, 1+1 = 2 in all instances.

I am sorry but we have found no evidence of this 4th dimension ever, and quite frankly I don't think that we can move through time because of so many paradoxes and issues.

Our universe doesn't need a 4th dimension for anything. Quantum theory clearly states this too. Our universe has a clear beginning and an end and also a cycle or a loop that we can observe or theorize on the basis of real world examples, so 4th dimension feels like fantasy to me.

Also we should not rely too much on maths to make our fundamental theories. Don't get me wrong, maths is a great tool for finding and analysing stuff but it's also full of things that don't exist in real life. Like the division of zero by zero or the concept of negative space and time etc. So scientists can theorize while using solid maths that there can be negative space and negative time so we can time travel or there are multiple dimensions etc. But these are all fantastical ideas as we have never seen examples of them in real life.

In real life things have mass, they occupy space. Two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time. They can't exist into each other. In real life past makes present and present makes future, so how can we jump or go to past or future as they don't exist right now.

I have claimed that space medium exist because I have seen mediums in our world. They show similar properties as our space. Things float in space, galaxies look like cyclones etc. So I feel that we should make our theories on things we can observe and see in the real world, rather than theorising it all on a paper and with just using maths.