You can repost it here if you like as long as it is exactly as it was when removed. (We also have a version).

You can repost it here if you like as long as it is exactly as it was when removed. (We also have a version). — Baden

Can moderators or administrators see our PMs?

In this OP I am trying to bring together several ideas I have been working on.

In the beginning there was a big bang…. And already science is in trouble. I call it the container problem, but I’m sure it has other names. What is it expanding into? Nothing? Bullshit.

Whenever we have a material object we need the background in which it dwells. Imagine a sphere deep in the ocean. I can recreate that same sphere by completely removing it and have the space it occupies remain. This is like a shape and an anti-shape (or object and anti-object)– although again, I am fairly certain that having a background requirement is pretty much understood. It is context.

Space is expanding into something, and that something once invoked must also be inside something and so it continues on like Russian stacking dolls. It is funny how one of the main arguments against a god is that there is no need to invoke him because the question then becomes well who created God. It’s exactly the same container problem physics has. I don’t have an answer to that, but I do have a conceptual alternative to expansion.

I posited once, in another OP, that the universe could either be expanding, contracting or every inch of it could be shrinking and we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, and the debate remained largely unresolved, especially as it related to shrinkage.

This is interesting because shrinkage of space fits well into this description. It is said that when the Big Bang occurred it was a blast of energy so hot that particles were essentially massless, but as the universe cooled there was interaction with the Higgs field and mass was acquired. I’m no physicist and I’m sure there’s people who can explain it better. The upshot though is the curdling of energy into matter as the universe cooled.

I propose a model of the universe inside a container, much like the shape of a petrol can. Rather than exploding though, I want space to shrink: After all, a Big Bang is just representing a change in the spatial arrangements of the energy. This shrinkage of space fits in with the idea of cooling and curdling of matter, but what I am interested in is looking at the container. The petrol can itself.

We know how much energy gets condensed into an atom. Lots! Across the universe, the sucking of energy into atoms would have created an enormous negative pressure on the container – just like placing a heated petrol can suddenly in ice water. The container would have buckled in.

I propose that indeed the container of the universe did buckle in as energy was converted to mass. As the crumpling happened a restorative force opposing the movement grew– the container we have today wants to resume its unbuckled shape (perhaps the container it is in needs it to be so). The negative pressure of the contracted universe needs to be undone. To do this the energy in matter needs to be released.

Thus there is this huge sucking force on matter to bleed the energy back out into the universe. The drive to suck the energy out of structured matter is called Entropy. This explains why entropy is directional. It wants to dissolve all the well-structured atomic combinations down and release the trapped energy (as Apokrisis likes to remind us). Entropy is the restorative force of the universe allowing the container to return to its normal size.

It’s funny though that we have such universal monstrosities in our system like galaxies when the quantum realm should just feed the energy straight back out. As I see it, there have been two attempts to oppose the entropic force. A primary and secondary attempt. That they have occurred and how they have occurred is very interesting and raises a lot of questions – the one we debate so vigorously: why the structures of the universe exists and why life exists. Both of these have occurred through the formation of emergent systems. It is a bottom up system, not a top down one.

Entropy hates the idea of quanta becoming atoms becoming molecules and cycles and systems, and yet it happens (sometimes Entropy favours a reaction or two). It is going the wrong way.

Look at the galaxies and suns and planets in our universe. They formed because of an emergent force. Gravity. As mass increases gravity increases causing larger and larger accumulations.

I can’t make my mind up about gravity – whether it wants to oppose entropy or help it. Most of the other forces seem indifferent to entropy, but gravity takes separated particles of matter and crushes them in its bare hands until all the atoms are bonded into tight inanimate structures like rocks, or like solar furnaces. As it does so energy leaks out between its fingers and helps restore the container of the universe.

Apart from releasing energy though, there is a secondary effect: the remaining structure is extremely resilient to entropic decay. It stays around for a long, long time. Much longer than the fleeting quantum particle.

The second resistive force, as we mentioned, is life – once again a system that opposes entropy by building emergent systems while also hastening the release of energy from the environment (Once again, Apokrisis has made much of this).

But it doesn’t end there.

Time also slows as we move through the hierarchy. Planets do slow loops around the suns, (some taking as long as year to complete the orbit!). The entropy of hierarchical systems drops slowly the higher up the hierarchy you climb, they are almost immune to the entropy of the lower levels.
This is also very interesting. If we could standardise the rate of movement in hierarchical systems against the rate of entropy of those systems I predict we’ll find they all move at the same speed. This suggests a time differential between those layers. Time is moving at different speeds for different hierarchies!

The higher up you go the more timeless you are. Molecules process hundreds of thousands of reactions a second, which is much more than I can do, even listening to the Top Gun soundtrack. Likewise, as we mentioned planets slowly orbit the sun and the suns slowly orbit their galaxy, which slowly spins off into the nether-nether. The slowing of time is anti-entropic, suggesting time itself is entropic.

Are Gravity and Time enemies? What is happening here?

Can moderators or administrators see our PMs? — Agustino

Haha, not as far as I know. Thanks for the idea though. I'm pretty sure it's impossible not to mention unethical.

Can moderators or administrators see our PMs? — Agustino

Release the private messages!

As I said in the shoutbox, it's bizarre arm-chair science. And talk of gravity and time being enemies? That's bizarre pseudo-philosophy.

Obviously it is a light hearted way of asking if they have opposing actions.

If that is the only objection, I am happy to amend it.

As I said in the shoutbox, it's bizarre arm-chair science. — Michael

Seems so, yes. Before even getting to a stage where I'd be coming up with my own ideas to present, I would make sure that I knew the subject inside and out. And, before presenting my own ideas, I would first ensure that the prevailing view is properly dealt with, which would entail addressing evidence and going into complex detail where necessary.

I don't believe that you've met these criteria, MikeL.

I take your point. If you are not an expert in a field than say nothing unless you want to present a scientific paper on the matter. A very solid approach for shutting down ideas and promoting elitism. Well done.

A very solid approach for shutting down ideas and promoting elitism. — MikeL

If by "elitism" you mean "experts", then yes.

I take your point. If you are not an expert in a field than say nothing unless you want to present a scientific paper on the matter. A very solid approach for shutting down ideas and promoting elitism. Well done. — MikeL

No, you don't take my point if that's what you've taken. Basically, know what you're talking about before diving in headfirst, and go about it in the right way. I don't expect perfection, just adequacy.

Yeah, I notice you don't have a problem with the first part.

Know what I'm talking about? I know the theory of the universe as a Big Bang is just a theory, and one with plenty of holes in it. I know that it can be reasoned that the big bang was not an outward expansion. I know that entropy releases energy from systems. I know the theory that mass formed when the universe cooled because the symmetry broke and interaction of condensing matter with the Higgs field caused mass to 'appear'. I know that large systems like galaxies seem eternal , and we can all observe the rate of entropic decay of that system is very low (which is just another way of restating the fact they seem eternal). We know that as hierarchies form in nature and in life (emergent systems) that the rate of processes drops. This slower entropic rate when considered with slower functioning suggests a time correlate. We know that gravity exerts it effects increasingly as the scale of objects grow due to the ratio of surface area to volume, and thus as the nanoscale level it is all about the surface area and not about the mass. We know that when things like bonds form that is mostly anti-entropic in nature. We know that gravity crushes matter together and forms it into inorganic structures, often chrystaline. We know also that when there are such reactions that energy is also lost as heat, increasing the entropy of the universe.

So you want me to have a PhD to express a thought?

So you want me to have a PhD to express a thought? — MikeL

Yes, that's exactly what I want. You're good at reading people. Is that a learnt skill or does it come naturally?

Go to hell the lot of you.

Haha, not as far as I know. Thanks for the idea though. I'm pretty sure it's impossible not to mention unethical. — Baden

It's not impossible for sure. I know it can be done. The information is stored in a database, whoever has access to it could, in theory, read it. As for unethical, it would obviously be.

Release the private messages! — Sapientia

>:)

@MikeL, instead of bombarding people, why not take it one step at a time? How about starting with Hubble's Law?

Alternatively, we could go to hell, the lot of us.

Speaking for myself, I do find the OP hard to follow. Without necessarily commenting on it's substance - which is obscure to me - it does seem to rely too heavily on imagery and metaphor to make it's argument, which makes the exact steps in logic hard to follow. At the very least, I think the exact flow of how you get from A to B needs to be tightened and made more explicit.

I have already done an OP entitled "Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?" In that OP I suggested it was possible the universe is contracting as a whole toward the centre of the universe (playing it backward) or if doppler shifts were a problem that each point of space could be contracting . It was almost unanimously agreed that it could be. There was one person who said a contracting universe was not likely, but when the issue of contracting from points was challenged there was no reply. So I have already laid a ground work.

The theory I proposed has many pieces in it, that is true, but the pieces are logically connected. There is a lot of known information that the theory draws on. I am mostly rearranging the information and combining it with applied observation.

If you want me to break it into pieces and feed it to the readers then the crescendo of the point is lost. It is one thing to give constructive advice about how you would like an OP styled, where precisely you would like it tightened up, but it is another to pull it without notice and then when I want to know why, demand I be an expert in astrophysics and quantum mechanics before even rating a mention on your scale.

The OP is written in simple language, designed to try and promote discussion on the issue. Perhaps it will fall like a lead balloon, especially now, but I thought this Forum was to promote the free exchange of ideas.

Ah, thank you at last some constructive feedback. How hard was that for the rest of you to do?

Ah, thank you at last some constructive feedback. How hard was that for the rest of you to do? — MikeL

How was my feedback not constructive? You just didn't like hearing it, and seem determined to twist my words.

Perhaps it will fall like a lead balloon, especially now, but I thought this Forum was to promote the free exchange of ideas. — MikeL

It would likely have caused a lot of confusion. I agree with @StreetlightX's suggestion. And I would add maybe try to be a little less ambitious. Pick a specific problem with scientific orthodoxy and pick a hole in it. You're trying to present too many unusual or obscure ideas together here in my view and it really does come across as bizarre as @Michael said. That shouldn't be taken as an insult but honest criticism.

No, you're right of course. I've just signed up for my doctorate. I should be able to post something on this forum in about 5 years. I'm so excited - cant wait!

No, you're right of course. I've just signed up for my doctorate. I should be able to post something on this forum in about 5 years. I'm so excited - cant wait! — MikeL

Yeah, that piece of paper makes a big difference in some people's minds :-}

No, you're right of course. I've just signed up for my doctorate. I should be able to post something on this forum in about 5 years. I'm so excited - cant wait! — MikeL

See? That's twisting my words again.

And I would add maybe try to be a little less ambitious. Pick a specific problem with scientific orthodoxy and pick a hole in it. You're trying to present too many unusual or obscure ideas together here in my view and it really does come across as bizarre as Michael said. That shouldn't be taken as an insult but honest criticism. — Baden

Exactly.

Don't worry, I suppose if this guy posts here, his posts would be deleted as unscientific:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson

And he's a Nobel Prize winner. But believing in ESP is apparently pseudo-science for materialists :P

+None of the mods mentioned anything about academic qualifications being necessary for writing any OP.

So you want me to have a PhD to express a thought?
— MikeL

Yes, that's exactly what I want. You're good at reading people. Is that a learnt skill or does it come naturally?

That was sarcasm, Mike.