@kilroy70 saidThe point about division by zero is this: in any equation, x times y = z for example, if you want to isolate one of the terms on the left side and transfer it to the other side, you have to 'divide through'. Whether any proposed solution requires division by zero cannot be known in advance, not until we see the actual equations which supposedly map the physical phenomena.
My proposed solution wouldn't require division by zero. And the most number of extra dimensions I'm willing to postulate are 2. I would prefer zero number of extra dimensions, but realistically 4 may not be enough.
My theory is still in its infancy, so there is plenty of room for growth and increased complexity.
One advantage of spring theory, at least conceptually, is that it is not dualistic, as the current physical model is. The current model proposes two categories or principles, matter and energy. Whenever you have two principles, you have to connect them somehow -- which is what Einstein's famous equation does: it shows that matter and energy are convertible. But there is still a residual metaphysical conundrum in any dualistic system: why hasn't the universe either condensed into pure cold dark matter (e.g., stone), or rarefied into pure defused energy (e.g. light)? 14 billion years is plenty of time for one or the other to have gained the upper hand and settled into a stable state. So now physicists are postulating yet more things and yet more pseudo-things (dark matter, dark energy) to try to explain this. It's getting messier and not simpler.
Whereas spring theory postulates only one fundamental principle, namely the coiled spring, which embodies an intrinsic dynamism. Nice idea: the universe is simply uncoiling; this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change.
@moonbus saidkeep the gate open
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.
@kilroy70 saidI think now I can "spring" into the hereafter with complete peace of mind. 🙂
"String theory has been called both the theory of everything and the theory of nothing."
(I hope the following helps you understand where I'm coming from.)
"It was discovered that the only way for the mathematics of the theory to satisfy both quantum mechanics and general relativity was if the strings existed in a space of 26 dimensions for bosons or 10 dimensions fo ...[text shortened]... "
Excerpted from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe © 2001 by Gary F. Moring.
@moonbus saidWould the term "unraveling" fit into any of that?
The point about division by zero is this: in any equation, x times y = z for example, if you want to isolate one of the terms on the left side and transfer it to the other side, you have to 'divide through'. Whether any proposed solution requires division by zero cannot be known in advance, not until we see the actual equations which supposedly map the physical phenomena.
...[text shortened]... erse is simply uncoiling; this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change.
@moonbus said"...spring theory postulates only one fundamental principle, namely the coiled spring, which embodies an intrinsic dynamism. Nice idea: the universe is simply uncoiling; this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change."
The point about division by zero is this: in any equation, x times y = z for example, if you want to isolate one of the terms on the left side and transfer it to the other side, you have to 'divide through'. Whether any proposed solution requires division by zero cannot be known in advance, not until we see the actual equations which supposedly map the physical phenomena.
...[text shortened]... erse is simply uncoiling; this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change.
This is a huge contribution to the theory! I'm not sure if I can call this MY theory anymore, because it didn't occur to me the springs (over time) would be uncoiling.
@earl-of-trumps saidNo, but there’s a cream for that (a friend tells me).
@moonbus this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change.
--------------------------------------------
Ha! But can it explain the heartache of psoriasis 🤔
@kilroy70 saidThere is still the possibility of a rebound or a recoil; an oscillating spring is conceivable, though it wouldn’t oscillate forever. Each rebound would be less energetic than than the previous one, leading ultimately to stasis.
"...spring theory postulates only one fundamental principle, namely the coiled spring, which embodies an intrinsic dynamism. Nice idea: the universe is simply uncoiling; this is sufficient to 'explain' spacial inflation and all material change."
This is a huge contribution to the theory! I'm not sure if I can call this MY theory anymore, because it didn't occur to me the springs (over time) would be uncoiling.
4 edits
@moonbus saidAn oscillating universe would as you say lose energy with each oscillation. But I don't believe this would lead to stasis.
There is still the possibility of a rebound or a recoil; an oscillating spring is conceivable, though it wouldn’t oscillate forever. Each rebound would be less energetic than than the previous one, leading ultimately to stasis.
The force(s) preventing collapse back to a single point would ultimately peter out, leaving us with the same current problem of mapping out a return to the singularity. An oscillating universe stalls the return for an indefinite period of time, but it can't ultimately prevent that return.
On the other hand an expanding universe could be all that's needed for the forces (known and unknown) to eventually balance themselves out, resulting in a self sustainable (permanently balanced) universe.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@kilroy70 saidNo, it wouldn't. An oscillating system within a greater one would - entropy, and all. But an oscillating universe would have nowhere to lose entropy nor energy to, and would therefore continue to spring back and forth eternally.
An oscillating universe would as you say lose energy with each oscillation.