How does our universe work?

Unknown Brain 1651

It's petrol-driven, isn't it?

Joseph Morgan 2400

If anyone is watching this question, I want you to know that the videos Cameron recommended are eye-opening. Exactly why I love BBA. You may be behind a computer screen in relation to me, thousands of miles away, but you took a long held belief of mine and pretty much shattered it. I just wish our intellectual elite would try on a new thought, they might find it fits. Open heart, open mind.

Melissa Merritt 2399

The quantum theory book I was reading seemed to think it was a new one, with a different # of dimensions and everything. But it was just that, theory, and at the time, I'm like, "So, the new one will have 6 dimensions?? Where do they get all this??" I think the same book insisted that space itself is curved, but both premises were theories. ARRRGGHH. Still fun! But I would tend to lean toward "we've done it all before." Now: Do you think that agrees or disagrees with the "split universe" belief that it splits when events occur, so there are already hundreds of "Josephs" and "Melissas" and "Camerons" etc??

Such a fucking nerd I am.

Also, kabbalah talks about previous worlds, "that were no more," etc...also, that "God's Eye" is an "equilibrium" that would obliterate existence if it closed...or SOMETHING like that...the part I was reading sounded like someone dropped acid and then decided to write a star trek episode...but fascinating that it's so old ;) and yeah, the "collapsible universe" is in there too :) Unfortunately, that shit is so convoluted, I really have to be in the mood for it...which is, like, never :)

Joseph Morgan 2400

Yep - that's what it is. If it's the true model, does it mean we have done all this before, or is it another universe every time, completely?

Melissa Merritt 2399

Joseph--is the "oscillating universe" the theory where it begins and ends and begins again, "opening and shutting" like a collapsible balloon? Kind of like after the proverbial big crunch, another big bang? At any rate, I read that in a "quantum theory" book years ago, and I wondered if oscillating universe referred to the same thing.

Damn computer wouldn't play the video tho :(

Joseph Morgan 2400

I've been reading more about plasma cosmology, which is what your basically speaking of ,and find it very interesting.
But you say all particles have a charge -what about neutrinos? And what about the observed expansion of the Universe, which is accepted due to the Hubble redshift of galaxies that is observed? Even Einstein, a proponent of the static model, conceded that was an error, to assume that the Universe has always been here. And entropy? Is that real? If the universe was eternal, everything that had a statistical chance of happening would have already happened, since given infinite time (which we have if we regress time back to infinity) anything that statistically can happen will happen. All oscillations will also reach equilibrium after an extended period of time, so given infinite time, the universe (which is probably defined by string oscillations) would have died down to its final equilibrium point. As the universe has not reached equilibrium, we can conclude that infinite time has not elapsed, and hence the universe is not infinite.
One of the core tenants of science is that you can’t ever prove something or “know” something: only disprove it. Science aims towards figuring out the most probable theory. I personally like the idea of the oscillating universe - although it's hard to wrap my mind around. (Nothing, then something, then nothing, then something - ack!)
And as for gravity - like you say, who's to say it isn't variable, also? We theorize it is at the nuclear level - and that's where I draw the line - String Theory and Quantum Mechanics seem to really be "the Land of God".

Have you seen this?
http://revver.com/video/99898/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/

Joseph Morgan 2400

I almost deleted the remark below, but I am indeed curious if there is anything you take face value. I assume not, by the way you think.
I give. I, nor anyone else can give you sufficient proof of dark matter. And try I as I may, I just don't know enough to dispute your electrical galaxy model. I really need to learn more about this light deprived substance, this - - dark matter. Sunspots, I believe, at last concern, are electrical, aren't they?
So, back on topic - did we figure out how magnetic and gravitational forces work? Kinda got lost in the shuffle. I was waiting to see how you were going to respond to my first answer.

Joseph Morgan 2400

Cameron, you know your stuff, sir. I'm going to respond, but haven't got the time to give it my all as I want to at the moment - but I love this discussion. Answer me this, though - are there any theories that you accept, that cannot at the present be proven by replication? Any at all? Does everything need to be proven by direct observation to be considered true? I am not setting you up - just curious.

Jim Williams 2367

I may be wrong here but... doesn't gravity rely on centripacal force or other properties to make it work (it doesn't just exist it needs to be made) and magnetic force is measured by it's own make up?

It is also my understanding that magnetism has a lot to do with the rotation of the planets which creates the centripacal force necessary for gravity to exist. I never really paid much attention in Science class to recall a model that would support any of what I have said. Just poking through the memory banks and this is what came out!!!!!!

In my limited knowlege I would have to state that magnetism is the greater force as it is a force of it's own and does not rely on any other properties to work except itself negative and positive. Just blabbn away here....lolz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who did i pissoff?? hahahah... no one... i think it was just a miss click... Everyone LOVES ME!!!...right??? LMAO

Joseph Morgan 2400

You go with the most parsimonious explanation that covers all the available data. If the effects look like they're due to gravity, then the simplest idea is that they are due to gravity, and some sort of hidden mass is required to create it. If other data comes along, which show that the effects of dark matter are subtly different than those of ordinary masses, then - perhaps - it would be more correct to describe it as a force all its own.

This kind of thing happens all the time. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever seen what an actual electron looks like. The "tiny sphere" model works really well, but if we had microscopes with enough resolution, we might find that they actually look like tubby little leprechauns.
It's simpler to postulate that the force in question is gravity - since it behaves just like gravity - and that the mass causing it is somehow 'undetected.' To postulate an entirely new, previously unknown force that acts exactly like gravity but does not originate in mass is a greater change in physics as we know it. While the second idea cannot be ruled out without further evidence, science tends to go with the least radical idea until more evidence is found.