A new vision of the universe and the origin of our universe and the operation and interaction of the fundamental forces of nature
A NEW VISION OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE CREATION OF OUR UNIVERSE AND THE OPERATION AND INTERACTION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE FORCES
By Fred Baumgart
Version December 7, 2012
1. INTRODUCTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
2. FOR THE CONCEPT
3. SOURCES
4. THE BIG BANG
5. THE BEGINNING OF THE BIG BANG
6. THE "NOTHING"
7. FURTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE "NOTHING"
8. PLAUSIBILITY OF THE BIG BANG THEORY IN THE FORM AS WE SEE THIS NOW
9. A NEW MYSTERY
10. CERN AND EXPERIMENTS
11. STRONGER (SPACE) TELESCOPES
12. WAS THE BIG BANG THE RESULT OF AN EVENT FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION?
13. ARE THERE OTHER STATEMENTS POSSIBLE?
14. VACUUMS
15. SPONGE-LIKE STRUCTURE OF OUR UNIVERSE
16. THE "PATCHES" THE SPONGY STRUCTURE
17. FORMATION OF THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES
18. MAY MATTER HAVE BEEN ALSO CREATED WITHOUT DISCHARGE?
19. NOTES AND DISCUSSION ON (SUB) ATOMIC LEVEL
20. GRAVITY
21. THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
22. ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
23. THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE
24. THE HIGGS BOSON AND QUASI ANNIHILATON
25. HYDROGEN
26. GLUONS
27. ANNIHILATION
28. VIEWS ON CURVED SPACE
29. CONNECTION GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY OF EINSTEIN ON THE QUANTUM THEORY
30. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE ABOVE ON ORBITS OF PLANETS?
31. THE CARRIERS OF STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE AND "EMPTY SPACE" IN OUR UNIVERSE
32. MAGNETISM
33. WHY IMBIBED INTO A "BLACK HOLE"
34. CONTINUED DISCUSSION SPONGY STRUCTURE
35. FIRST SHRINK THAN EXPANSION
36. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO SHRINK
37. THE APPARENT EXPANSION OF OUR UNIVERSE
38. SPONGE STRUCTURE AS A BLUEPRINT OF THE BIRTH OF OUR UNIVERSE
39. TURNAROUND SHRINK TO EXPANSION DUE TO EXPLOSION?
40. BACKGROUND RADIATION
41. THE DARK AGES
42. ROUND SHAPE OF THE BACKGROUND PHOTOS
43. FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE BACKGROUND RADIATON
44. WHAT DO WE SEE IN A RADIUS OF 13.7 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AROUND US?
45. FINAL CONSIDERATION ARISING FROM DISCHARGE AND NOT FROM A BIG BANG
46. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
47. DARK ENERGY
48. DARK MATTER
49. THE AGE OF OUR UNIVERSE
50. THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE FOR THE DISCHARGE
51. FORMAT OF THE DISCHARGE
52. ARE WE IN THE ONLY UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS?
53. A LOCAL PHENOMENON
54. "POLLUTION” OF THE UNIVERSE
55. WHICH LEADS TO THE FUTURE OF OUR UNIVERSE?
56. INTELLIGENT DESIGN
57. WHAT IF THE BIG "NOTHING" NOT THE FIRST STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN?
58. AN INTERMEDIATE STEP?
59. FINAL WORD
1. INTRODUCTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Dear readers,
As many on Earth - and perhaps beyond, if they have not found the answer already - I will be one of them that deal with the question of how "everything" has begun. In my sparse free time as I'm just in the opportunity and I am not seized by all sorts of important things in life always take my thoughts a walk. This is unstoppable for me. If items appear in the newspaper or on television and attention is given to the history of the universe, I follow this with great interest.
I have no education or special or theoretical background in which I proceed in the following theory. I go out of my imagination and intuition. It may be that I hit wide of the mark.
On the other hand I feel compelled to make expressing my views. This is also because I see that there is sought for statements by so many people
From statements of physicists on television and the Internet I hear they're waiting for good ideas that they can take care because it remains in the dark groping a breakthrough. I myself know so little about physics that I sometimes can go passing in my ideas to physical principles that are fixed for one hundred percent, but I simply know too little off.
The conclusion I draw for myself how it all started I stand completely behind. I'm under other behind my conclusion of what is causing the expansion of our universe.
That there is background radiation is clear to me. Just my interpretation differs from that of the big bang theory.
Due to my limited knowledge of physics there are two scenarios in my head occurring to me that the period at the birth of our universe could be done. With the possibility of a third (sub) scenario, which I have not mentioned but actually little different in the core of the two scenarios in my theory.
If my ideas are not immediately are rejected because I overlooked things making my theory in advance can not be correct then it will be possible from pre-existing knowledge of physics, in any case of the first or second scenario, the most likely will be designated.
Also seen from the perspective that it is waiting for good ideas I have in my more extensive considerations and philosophical context let into account. Some call things by me questions and I think it is important for the wider concept to name them so that they may be elements into further discussion about the beginning of everything.
My belief is that if we know the origin of the universe and what processes were in formation we as humanity are advancing. The answer will also start to contribute to questions such as "why are we there and what is the purpose of our existence?"
I see it my duty to do my part to the solution of the mystery.
If I'm writing than in my mind arise continuing new insights and ideas. I now feel the need to take a little time in going further with my ideas of how it all began and examine more closely for myself and take a pause in my further thinking.
I would love to receive constructive comments from people who also have long been doing with this matter and have the same questions. Maybe my ideas are not tenable, but they do contribute to a broader vision of the universe and work perhaps inspiring.
I think that it is possible that I am not the only one who came with the thoughts expressed in my theory. I would like to know what their findings are and take note of the arguments that could make my theory impossible and why they have abandoned the idea.
Should I be able to contribute to an (additional) vision - so that does not start with the big bang in the form in which it is imagined to date - to the a real beginning, the history of our universe then my mission is accomplished.
2. FOR THE CONCEPT
If you find it worthwhile to read this piece it will notice that I use two different terms to express me.
If I use the term "our universe" I mean the area bounded by the structure that is called background radiation including what is possible behind it but what we can not see.
I use the term " the universe" I mean anything outside our universe, including our own universe above.
3. SOURCES
In addition to what I wrote in the introduction above, the text below emerged from my own imagination. Where I quote people I will mention that in good conscience.
I have had a lot of support to Wikipedia where a wealth of explanation and information is available.
In the website of NASA images of space are a few of which I've used for illustration. From the website of CERN I took the picture of the collision of particles.
In the application of Google with images I have found the other illustrations.
4. THE BIG BANG
5. THE BEGINNING OF THE BIG BANG
Suppose we go back to the earliest possible moment in the history of the universe. The big bang is deployed and the universe is as big as a pinhead or even smaller, even smaller than an atom, as it is proposed.
One of the questions that immediately impose upon me: What is the situation outside the area in which the Big Bang physically takes place?
In the literature, this is not written and also provides no clarity on what is there. It is actually written only from the situation of the big bang. This of course leaves the really essential question of where it really started is open.
Because this outside of the Big Bang must be different, in the theory of the big bang, essential to the composition of this "outside" view of the situation and composition of the present universe, as we know it now and find ourselves and which the current laws of physics apply. So it must be different if what is happening inside the Big Bang.
6. THE "NOTHING"
Based on the theory of the big bang should therefore beyond "nothing" be.
We start our search from this nothing. Further back we can not go.
The big bang does not exist yet.
No radiation, no gas or dust or elementary particles. Not even dark matter, dark energy or even matter. No dimensions.
The total nothing!
7. FURTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE "NOTHING"
Because there is nothing, and therefore can not be something that for example the speed of light can limit, the law should be that if you were to start from any point to another point in which any direction whatsoever you immediately at the place of destination should arrive.
But this is not because it is not infinite. At the same time this apparent contradiction also occurs with the concept of distance. Because, here is the distance from one point in the nothing nil but also infinite.
There are no dimensions in this comprehensive nothing.
The phenomenon of "time" and "distance" exist not in this capacity of the universe. The "time" stands still, this is a situation that could remain immutable.
This would have been logical for the previous origin is indeed a state of absolute "nothing".
Yet there has been a change in the situation occurred because otherwise we were not there.
In my presentation of the "nothing" I compare this with a "super vacuum" because I think this characteristic most closely matches the situation then.
8. PLAUSIBILITY OF THE BIG BANG THEORY IN THE FORM AS YOU SEE THIS NOW
The foregoing implies that explain the big bang as envisaged is implausible.
Firstly, because I read somewhere (and should have been if you argued back from the expansion to a seemingly center which makes sense) that the state of the big bang in the beginning of infinite density must have been. I can not post from my sense of logic. It seems to me to be with all the laws of nature in conflict.
This immediately sets out a discrepancy with infinity. Because this element is immediately ignored in the theory.
The second question about infinite density that occurs to me is: can there be a greater force than a force that generates infinite density and much unspeakable violence raises or does proceed?
The big bang may therefore not taken place in a way that is accepted as prevailing theory at the moment. Moreover, the big bang theory does not explain anything of what was before the Big Bang and what was in the outskirts of the Big Bang and what the situation was there on the spot.
And ... why not immediately filled the big bang this whole "outdoor", the universe, as there is still nothing found.
9. A NEW MYSTERY
If the big bang is not without swelled to fill the entire universe it must "have pushed" something away. But what? And what did this mean? Then there would be a new mystery to be. Because what was this resistance which existed then? In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that there is a resistance existed. Would this have been there then there may be a shell around our universe that must be composed of unknown components.
I will not going further on this subject because it looks very similar that our universe is expanding faster and faster. With a resistor would just expect that our universe would expand slower
10. CERN AND EXPERIMENTS
The experiments at CERN for example, have not yet demonstrated that particles in another dimension or just go out come. I don't think that in any future experiments situations arise in which this could occur.
Moreover makes it in the following theory no difference because it still leaves open the question of what was before the creation of our universe.
It would surprise me if it turned out that particles would move themselves in or out other dimensions. It would make the process much more complex in nature than is strictly necessary to achieve the creation of our universe.
Nature loves simple.
11. STRONGER (SPACE) TELESCOPES
At the moment is about 13.2 billion years furthest that we can look back in the history of our universe. We are working on telescopes and techniques to watch deeper in our universe and also in time.
Looking at 13.7 billion years deep into our universe, we should see our universe edge.
So we can not (yet) see what is happening in the outside edge. (If we hypothetically us had stood on the edge of our universe with our Earth did we have to see this! This raises questions that I will consider further in this theory).
From what I understand we should encounter an area of about 400,000 light-years "thick" (called The Dark Ages) which would occur in the first 400,000 years immediately after the deployment of the Big Bang.
The characteristics of that area at that distance in time after the big bang is that there could be formed no particles and there would be only radiation
12. WAS THE BIG BANG THE RESULT OF AN EVENT FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION?
This is not likely.
I think in the first place that more logical process did happen in the creation of our universe. Other dimensions make it more complicated and can not be the way that nature has followed. There must be statements that are more obvious.
The other thought that I have is that if the big bang came out of an other dimension that on the "other side" there also must have been an other event from where out our universe did came.
So coming from another dimension seems to be no option in the explanation of the origin of our universe.
13. ARE THERE OTHER STATEMENTS POSSIBLE?
The origin of the universe must be, according to me begun on a very basic way in the order of laws of nature and could not happen in a very complicated way. It must have started in a relatively simple manner. So without many dimensions for example.
I think in the understanding of the origin of the universe and our universe we have enough using the first four dimensions.
Completely nothing and infinite and therefore in the capacity that in the time before our universe rose are apparently equal quantities. From any point in this situation - if there is nothing - to any arbitrary point in this state makes no difference in time to arrive here but you can not arrive there ever because you never could come there while the distance is infinite.
Nothing equals everything. No distance is equal to infinite distance. No time is equal to infinite time.
So this is the state of the beginning: an immense big nothing.
But a very special "immeasurable big nothing"! An ultimate tension between "nothing" and "infinity", this must lead to a discharge!
The early beginning of our universe must have occurred when this pre-situation was in the "empty" state. It is unlikely that there was something before so. For where would it come back?
I start my argument on the premise of an infinity filled with "nothing".
To the current situation in which we find ourselves, which is simply arising because the situation well and once is that we are there. To make the birth our universe possible is needed a - measured by our standards - great amount of energy. I deliberately say "our standards" because on a cosmic scale it could be a piece of cake to arise the energy required
This energy must have been present in potentially equally or fairly evenly or not uniformly in the pre-universe.
In the pre-universe must be suffering from this energy in the form of an immense and huge force between nothing and everything. There are forces that case to attempt to draw a baseline situation but also forces that tend to towards to infinity. I visualize myself for two Magdeburg hemispheres that sucked together.
But on an unprecedented big scale.
It is unlikely to assume that this situation between "nothing" and "everything" was a state of "rest". Although it might be that in a resting situation there may arise leading to the formation of matter processes possible. But this is not likely to assume in understanding of the formation of our universe.
This because the processes described in this piece that got underway in the formation of our universe would not have taken place.
So we have to do here with a state - call it a vacuum - of unprecedented power.
I imagine that in a kind of ripple or shudder or a shock wave in the pre-universe this "Magdeburg hemispheres" (our universe) have had to separate.
It is therefore inevitable that in this great force expression - when the "Magdeburg hemispheres" were pulled apart with unbridled violence - the earliest particles have separated.
These particles exert a mutual attraction or repulsion on each other. In building these particles electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear force in itself. These forces have manifested themselves in totality when particles were united.
The particles formed from the great pull-apart I call the first generation. Particles are created in subsequent events are therefore of later generations.
I will discuss the phenomena of gravity further in this theory.
As the universe thus created out of nothing, so shall all vacant elementary particles added again to lead to the outcome of "zero". I hereby follow the principle "nothing is created, nothing is lost." Since the "nothing" as it were, is trying decompose the particles back into one another to go.
Only nature has this as is clear, otherwise we would not exist and there would be no universe, apparently made it impossible.
The resulting particles remaining after the annihilation "fit" no longer together and can not cancel each other so other physical processes must be taking place. That these other physical processes occur must be true and therefore lawful happen.
We see this fact is all around us and also happen, otherwise we could not be here and exist.
Through our entire universe matter tries to unite again together as described elsewhere in this document.
(If these forces would not have existed matter would never have been able to clump together and there would be no universe as we know it today, this was then not possible and could not have formed. All particles would move lose into space without clumping to each other).
At the time that the elementary particles, or directly, or in the course of time, have been created, the four dimensions, are a fact.
For in that there matter or something is, in any case, to pass through have to be able to move, there is also required time to come from one arbitrary point in the universe to the other arbitrary point in the universe This also in all conceivable directions. So there is also created distance.
With the emergence of these four dimensions the phenomenon of "time" emerged.
The maximum speed set in our universe is the speed of light. Unless there are other situations such as these may have emerged, such as wormholes and other distortions in space-time.
14. VACUUMS
In the context of this theory, I distinguish three types of vacuums:
- As we encounter these in objects in universes which objects have an atmosphere, like here on Earth;
- In the space as it prevails in the internal universes (believed to be the largest single structures in the universe) and;
- As they are in the (pre) universe force.
The vacuum of the pre-universe within this theory is the most interesting, so I go into this a little further.
It is absolutely unlikely that something else was outside this "super vacuum" that if it were this super vacuum and everything in it could have compressed to something of infinite density the size of an atom.
I will not go further into this idea because it don't lead to anything and if I think about this I caught up in all kinds of circular reasoning to touch a credible explanation of the origins of our universe.
It is therefore most likely that the event internal in this vacuum has taken place. That it has been a vacuum and not a neutral state at the birth of our universe is definitely for me. This also based on the idea that would fail to explain the expansion of our universe by failing the power for this expansion. Or we have to introduce concepts like dark energy and dark matter, which I believe they don't exist in the way people try to explain them.
A special feature of this type of vacuum is that it can not implode like the types 1 and 2 can. In this type of hierarchy is type 3, with a total absence of matter, the strongest and overruling in force so that all the inside tries to include in themselves. Here try the particles of type 1 and 2 to the outside edge of the type 3 to move. They will never arrive because Type 3 is infinite.
Type 3 can exercise its power because type 2 is a separate entity with separate internal processes and power relations and thus a closed whole in representing itself against type 3.
Type 3 is a very vacuum. In this type predominates no time and no space. This is the state of the pre-universe with all its characteristics.
It is an optimum condition for a type 2 vacuum to be imbibed with unprecedented power
15. SPONGE-LIKE STRUCTURE OF OUR UNIVERSE
Our universe is not the result of a big bang of minute dimensions, this is unlikely, but rather a sort of "split" in the vacuum of the pre-universe (type 3 vacuum).
I imagine this schism also a phenomenal discharge, immense lightning in a spherical structure, to visualize it.
Out of this, the sponge-like structure of our universe can be explained.
16. THE "PATCHES" OF THE SPONGE-LIKE STRUCTURE
Like streaks of condensation of an aircraft in the atmosphere that fan out and fade so will the traces of the discharge become deformed. Because there is in the universe, into nothing, no wind the rest structures that are not drift from their origin in construction are preserved. Since the matter is formed and the first characteristics of the discharge are gone alone is left due to the discharges. So this is the sponge-like structure.
All particles are in-now beginning our universe by the universe drawn together in the remains of the "arrows" of discharge that I call patches for myself. This draw to each other is caused by the mutual attraction of the particles that they exert on each other.
Below more about the formation of elementary particles.
17. FORMATION OF THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES
In the literature it is stated that formation of elementary matter must have happened under enormous temperature and pressure.
As I have imaged enormous temperatures and pressure prevailed in the immense discharges above. And also any other possible effects may be a factor such as a vacuum at the discharge of an unimaginable big scale.
Well looking at the sponge-like structure and the phenomenon of lightning discharges or we can see that there are different thicknesses in the foothills. It may be that in the main arteries and foothills, and also at the edges, several situations have occurred in intensity. These differences may well be the cause of the formation of different elementary particles.
Equal particles would have formed as pressure and temperature or vacuums in the discharges have been the same levels everywhere. And this seems not to be. Therefore apparently this has not been the case.
It would also have been, in this case than the annihilation happened on a much larger scale, in which all or substantially all of the particles annihilated themselves no or practically no more particles would have been left.
Matter and antimatter are very likely with massive opposing forces formed in such a process. Inspiring I find the idea that matter and antimatter can cancel out each other. This then seems to happen with the release of much energy.
It looks like the reverse process of creation of these particles.
That the particles immediately after the rupture not again merged into each other is that the different types of matter and antimatter pairs heard in the annihilation process as it were. After the creation they were "lost" of another and clumped together with "foreign" elementary particles whereby these particles become stable.
18. MAY MATTER HAVE BEEN ALSO CREATE WITHOUT DISCHARGE?
This is not likely because there probably would be no violent underlying process in their formation. It would in my view took to evenly place in circumstance to create different particles
While writing I try to imagine how this fits from scratch to me.
Also, I can not (yet) well imagine how cloud particles in the super vacuum (as a natural "byproduct" of the forces of the vacuum type 3 for myself to make it visually) then would act to get together. Without discharges it seems to me that you get clot without foothills.
But the main objection to the idea without discharge is assuming particles coming out nothing. Because where did they come from then? They could not just be there.
So, every time I'm getting back in my idea of the discharge between the opposing forces of nothing and infinite.
Before I go further into the spongy structure in this theory I first want explain and discuss my views on some other issues in this theory.
19. NOTES AND DISCUSSION ON (SUB) ATOMIC LEVEL
20. GRAVITY
We look for the composition of gravity. I read about that it is a relatively weak force. And also states that it is a massless force.
I'm going in this theory on the assumption that the particles above "looking at each other" continue to annihilate each other. In the form of processes of cohesion and adhesion.
Later in this piece discusses the shrinkage and expansion of our universe.
In the run-up to this piece, I have gravity included in the versions as a separate fundamental force in my arguments. Gradually when writing this piece is gravity disappeared from my theory as a fundamental force because it has not been necessary in the further articulation of my statements.
I dare say that gravity itself as a separate standing force does not exist but that the move towards to each other of matter purely the result is of the desire of different matter to re-unite together.
But this no longer can.
This attraction between the matter may be completed by our local situation of our universe with the rest of the universe (which we are imbibed with violence).
While the matter in our universe does not want apart but rather together.
I think in my frame of mind that the three remaining fundamental forces of nature, the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear force sufficient to describe the whole theoretically.
21. THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
Strong nuclear force attracts not only protons and neutrons in the nucleus but also to nuclei that are located around the core. This causes the force we call gravity. So the strong nuclear force is the force.
The more cores together the more material the stronger this effect.
The force called gravity is in fact not the same everywhere and varies from object to object. Even on our Earth varies the "gravity".
If gravity would really exist as a separate fundamental force then there would be on a light object, such as our moon, the falling speed as any to be here on Earth.
After all, all matter is in principle the same structured as here on Earth and therefore would like gravity "falling" matter as to attract as here on Earth, but that is not what's happening.
That this is not done so because of the clustering of nuclei on the moon, for example less as here on Earth and thus a weaker field of (partially) yields cumulative strong nuclear force.
Gravity can be described as an accumulation of strong nuclear force.
So in this context it is not surprising that even here on Earth, local differences in the "gravity" are observed.
22. ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
The electromagnetic force causes the individual atoms can not come together.
This force is transmitted by photons. This effect include further discussed below under the topic of "views on curved space".
23. THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE
Within this theory, I'm not going to these fundamental forces of nature as it sufficiently clearly defined elsewhere and which I have nothing to add or other vision have.
24. THE HIGGS BOSON AND QUASI ANNIHILATON
I quote - free translated - below a piece of Barry van der Meer from an article by Kennislink of July 4, 2012 that dealt with the alleged discovery of the Higgs particle.
"That was an answer to the question of how particles get their mass, something was missing in the Standard Model, the theory of elementary particles such as quarks, electrons and neutrinos, and their mutual forces. Physicists came up with a field that whole universe fills and works like a big pot of syrup. Particles are slowed herein, and are so heavily. The more a particle is slowed down, the heavier it is. "
"The effect of a field - in this case give a particle mass - is always passed on by a particle example. One photon for example brings the electromagnetic force over. In the case of a Higgs field must therefore be a Higgs particle. In other words, if one is able to find the Higgs particle shows that the existence of a Higgs field - and there it is the physicists eventually to do for."
If an atomic nucleus would consist solely of protons this would repel each other. The mix of elementary particles in the nucleus forming protons and neutrons make the fact that they attract each other without neutralize each other and form mass.
I do not rule out that there are particles found in the spectrum of elementary particles that have certain qualities with in them. But I think it is more likely that a particle with the properties that are attributed to the Higgs particle will never be found. The formation of nuclei rather appears to be a process of quasi annihilation that give the circumstance that there were formed nuclei and mass.
A separate particle agglomeration that creates or gives matter its mass by them as it were, to glue together is not really necessary. Enough is a circumstance of attraction to annihilation in which the process of annihilation simply not has been established. The attraction is mutual there but merge is not there.
There is no separate "particle glue" needed in addition to the elementary particles we already know now because the particles in the neutron and proton combinations have all the features already in it to want and can bind themselves to each other.
Moreover, if there is an unknown particle separate adhesive or glue particles would exist then these should be present in such enormous masses and generate such powers that this can not possibly be missed by us. Unless we theoretically to create such a force. It should therefore be even draws protons to each other and can keep together by a force.
Mass arises be cause of no possibility of annihilation of the elementary particles and persist. And so forming structures that represent mass.
25. HYDROGEN
While I was writing the previous topic I thought of the hydrogen atom. This atom is the only atom that consists of only one proton and one electron. I've read that 75% of all matter in our universe consists of hydrogen and that this is the most abundant element.
In his "simplicity", this atom has all the characteristics of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. The proton and the electron attract each other as opposing force. The electron remains in the atom but are also not rejected out of the atom.
An electron is called a point particle and I understand that elementary particles cannot be divided further.
I imagine an experiment to collide to see how many and in which particles protons of hydrogen fall apart. The combination of particles, which would thus have to be released could then point to which elementary particles in combination the electromagnetic force is generated so that the electrons are held at a distance.
These particles indicate coupled also to the elementary particles that also cause the strong nuclear force (gravity = accumulated strong nuclear force). It would also consequently also be seen how many strong nuclear force, therefore, is required to hold single electrons entrapped
I read in Wikipedia that the proton of a hydrogen atom consists of two up (charge color red and blue) and a down quark (green color charge).
26. GLUONS
I have little knowledge of the integral matter. Gluons seem to be a unifying factor that quarks can bind to each other. Yet I do not understand this at all and I sometimes suspect that quarks in their color combinations strength combinations and connections can form bonding together entails and so cause the various fundamental forces of nature.
Looking at pictures of collisions in particle accelerators, I sometimes suspect that the particles collide at high speed on not just disintegrate into elementary particles. I mean to say that in my imagination as they come together with a bang they can be broken. It seems that there are different particles but it does not always have to be. We can observe fragments bearing no new features in on it. Unless (combination) collisions of the same type of atoms always identical patterns emerge and are pictures taken performed in the same situation to give the same picture. This is something that I can not judge. But this should be clear from the observations at CERN.
If e = mc2 then so you should continue to collide and break until you perceive the amount of "one unit of energy" in theory. The clashes must then be super powerful and have to be raised with a lot of energy, much more powerful than it is in particle accelerators now.
27. ANNIHILATION
About annihilation and the very large amount of energy it produces as positively and negatively charged particles come together has been written very much. Because this phenomenon happens to me as very logical and fits within the theory there is no reason for me to continue to go in here.
28. VIEWS ON CURVED SPACE
Writing to this theory I look on the Internet what is written about the subjects I cover in this piece. Sometimes I come across topics that are new to me.
One of those issues is curved space. Not that I had never heard of it but I never thought about it further.
In a brief interview with Professor Icke that I listened to on the Internet, he said he did research on this subject. The question that he imposed himself as he kept time was that around matter the space is curved and how matter in the space around it tells that the space is curved around it.
Further revealed to me, Albert Einstein first predicted the phenomenon in one of his theories after it was shown. But from a physical perspective, it is not explained, unlike for example the phenomenon theoretically explained by introducing the presence of dark matter.
I can not imagine that the empty space is curved in itself. Yet it seems so. Some images of our universe give a mirror effect. And also electrons revolve around the nucleus of the atom.
The next thing I'm going to write I had in my head and had actually wanted to put it under the chapter annihilation but I do it here under.
What I wanted to write was the following:
In the discharge and the foothills of these are different types of elementary particles created, positively and negatively charged so that added zero if there were "counted" together.
In the first process is by annihilation weather most merged into each other, which again release a lot of energy has been accompanied. This may be called a reverse form of creation-energy.
Of the remaining particles is a process started that ensured that certain particles become attached to each other. These have formed protons and neutrons that have connected with one another. They undergone a kind of quasi annihilation because they could not annihilate each other. These particles in this form of quasi annihilation manifests the strong nuclear force.
Electrons, which I've read are elementary particles and can not be further divided and are trying to reach the core to annihilate.
But they can't get in there.
The charge in the nucleus has undergone a substantial change by the combination of protons and neutrons. The urge to annihilate there is certainly there only - as said - the load must be changed. The electrons can approach the nucleus but are kept at a distance. This distance is precisely positioned so that they remain "stuck" in an area of a certain repulsion and attraction. The electrons do want to continue but could not and also they can not return.
As I image "hangs" the core but is not static, but turns (possibly also under the influence of nearby nuclei) where I can conceive that the elementary particles of which the core is built up also can move or rotate relative to each other. These twists and turns or movements could generate the electromagnetic force.
The core has, as it were, gained a different type of charge which are independent of the strong nuclear force it manifests and ensures that electrons remain in their zone in which they are to move around the core. I think this must be the electromagnetic force.
So this would immediately imply that the electromagnetic force is the force that holds electrons in the atom but actually ensures that the electrons can not reach the core.
Depending on the composition of the core may be more or less trapped electrons. Since electrons repel each other, they will continue to look for their perfect mutual spacing relative to each other.
Very briefly (without extended here to elaborate) explains the above also immediately why the Earth is not pulled in to the sun as we are close and not launched in the universe as we are to the farthest point from the sun in our year cycle.
The phenomenon mentioned above also repeated in our solar system and in larger structures etcetera.
This is also seen to apply to the structure of our entire universe as a stand-alone object. This allows our universe has taken a round and consistent form, see it as a king atom. This also ensures that the super vacuum of the surrounding vacuum type 3 universe can have grip on our on our universe (as a bubble of soap) in which we expand.
29. CONNECTION GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY OF EINSTEIN ON THE QUANTUM THEORY
General relativity is a theory on cosmic scale and quantum theory a theory subatomic scale.
A major problem in physics is, to me has shown, the connection between the theory of Einstein and quantum theory that describes the other three fundamental forces because there is no theory that gravitation quantum theoretical consistent describes.
The force of gravity exerts on which an object to another object reduces in accordance with a determined constant depending on the distance between these objects becomes larger.
In theory, as I have expressed it in this theory I come to the conclusion that gravitation is accumulated strong nuclear force. Referring to this and my conclusion is that there are only three fundamental forces of nature. Gravitation = cumulative strong nuclear force and has on cosmic and subatomic scale exactly the same effect because it is the same force exerted.
While at this point a theoretical problem arises in connection with the big bang theory it does not play this in my theory while the beginning of our universe is described on a much larger scale herein.
30. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THE ABOVE ON ORBITS OF PLANETS?
In Wikipedia I joined a topic about problems with the current theories of gravity and read: "The orbits of the planets thighs faster than can be explained by loss of solar mass."
By internal processes in solar masses disappears mass. So the attraction is less and on planets which in turn has the effect that the track is wider. The electromagnetic force field around the star which also reduces the field to the planet of the star distract also decreases. (I refer elsewhere in this piece to my thoughts and observations). It reduces the accumulation of strong nuclear force (as a stronger force above the electromagnetic force) on balance more to the electromagnetic force, creating a wider orbit arises only on the basis of the increasing distance of the planet from its star that can be obtained from the formula.
The removal is not only a result of change in attraction of the star but also a change in the electromagnetic field around the star. If it were, this combination creates a "weaker" power play of forces around the star which the orbit of the planet is in than can be widely adopted only involving attraction in the calculation.
Deep space probes sent to leaving our solar system will something more to lose speed than can be calculated based only on the formula. (Some other influences such as the attraction of other celestial bodies such as a side attraction for the object causing the object not a perfect straight line to follow make it look like it is going slower). Stronger I think the real speed loss can be attributed to the fact that our universe is not empty and that the object of this encounters resistance. Thus, in this resistance can be also for example, collisions with the dust particles which are added to reduce the speed.
31. THE CARRIERS OF STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE AND "EMPTY SPACE" IN OUR UNIVERSE
The strong nuclear force must be a very strong force. If I have understood the formula well it is more than 100 times as strong as the electromagnetic force and many times stronger than the weak nuclear force.
Looking at the mirror effect that is also covered in this theory, I come to the conclusion that light is deflected by the strong nuclear force.
If radiation is emitted by objects such as our sun than this radiation remains subject to the appeal of the object. In this radiation is as it were the strong nuclear force "passed".
If E = MC2 then mass M = E/C2. The combination of strong nuclear force has - as I discuss below in the subject black holes - also hold on electromagnetic radiation and influence it.
The cumulation of strong nuclear force is given through in radiation.
Radiation is everywhere in our universe and fills it, as it were. The space between the objects in our universe is not empty but is filled by the "canvas" of radiation.
Our universe is as it were a more or less "compact" unit. Sometimes very close as in black holes and sometimes very thin as in interstellar space.
But it is never "empty" as described by me as in the state of the vacuum type 3.
Objects as planets baths in the radiation. Because the radiation is everywhere in our universe, there is a connection between objects so that they touch each other in attraction fields. A field of radiation that is ubiquitous and to which it can not escape.
This allows the strong nuclear force also can do his work on large distances and attract the other object. The heavier object can thus attract the lighter object to itself.
This effect occurs mutually between all celestial bodies. Elliptic orbits can also occurs then. The strong nuclear force of an object inhibits an object continuously in his orbit and slows it down infinitely while the distance increases. And on any moment it falls back to the heavier object. Why the object is not standard disappears in the heavier object is described further in this theory.
The whole above-mentioned process is not the result of a single particle, but occurs by reason of the entire radiation field.
Looking at the Earth and the Moon, this phenomenon also applies. The strong nuclear forces of our Earth and the Moon are transported through the intermediate radiation so that they can be drawn together.
If would be no space in our universe filled (in the hypothetical case) there can be also passed no strength. So also not the electromagnetic force. In this case, there would be no coherence in our universe between the objects. If it were, radiation creates a "bridge" in which objects can be drawn together.
As radiation wants to return, par example to the star where it is coming from but too fast for going to be, (except in the situation of black holes, for example), the radiation on the other hand is attracted by the object that it approaches.
Where in our universe more radiation density will concentrate more objects are there as in other places where the radiation density is less.
I realize that there are several types of radiation. On Wikipedia I read that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light. It may well be that there are certain types of radiation where the effect of the passing of the strong nuclear force the strongest occur. Maybe even with only one a type of radiation. Whether one or more types of radiation may be that the effect triggers I can not judge because that is limited to my knowledge.
I do not know whether radiation can be "stretched out". Faster than about the speed of light does not seem to be possible.
The mutual attraction must be the best in radiation that can't be stretched out further. Like radiation that is already moving at the speed of light (or almost). (In my mind I see the objects on both sides of the radiation that can be no further "stretched" so that they can attract to each other. Obviously there arise different orbits when forces are exchanged in a complex of objects that exchange forces between).
The transmitter of the attraction between objects is (a complex) of radiation.
32. MAGNETISM
The above-described "canvas" offers in celestial bodies generated magnetism the opportunity to manifest and also to have its effects.
Powerful radiation emitted by par example a star like our Sun can on the sunny side of our planet's press in the magnetic field and have a strong stretch at the back of the planet that is turned away from the sun.
So the above implies that the closer the canvas is filled with radiation, the stronger the effect is that the canvas can pass. The shell of magnetism is so compressed on one side and the reason is that the shell of electromagnetic radiation around our planet deformed and pressed by the intense radiation.
From this effect, we can also see that electromagnetic radiation generated by the two objects have a repulsive force on each other. Relatively close to the electromagnetic radiation works sharply but takes away much stronger than the cumulation of strong nuclear force.
33. WHY IMBIBED INTO A "BLACK HOLE"
The strength of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force are in "healthy" solar systems like ours and other "healthy" structures in our universe complement to each other in the interplay of attraction and repulsion. If there is an excessive accumulation of mass then rejection to other objects as a result of the electromagnetic force does not work optimally anymore, and can't play a role anymore in the rejection of the object.
The interaction between the strong- and the electromagnetic force on a large scale in this situation is disturbed.
Due to the enormous accumulation of strong nuclear force can thus carriers of the electromagnetic force not detach from the object and "void" this fundamental force present in its operation. Objects can no longer be kept at a distance and are therefore only subject to the attraction of the strong nuclear force of the object that represents the black hole and there are so imbibed with violence.
They will thus act as a huge vacuum cleaner that everything in their vicinity absorbs.
34. CONTINUED DISCUSSION SPONGY STRUCTURE
35. FIRST SHRINK THAN EXPANSION
After the discharge has been taking place I imagine a process of contraction of our universe. This is because all components of elementary wishing to movement of large and very large scale to each other and also to a central middle.
Since it has not been such as the big bang but a discharge and also not an explosion, there is no expansion outward.
The round shape of our universe emerges more and more on the shrinkage. Ascending in the contraction process parts of the patches have become higher and higher pressures and temperatures - after an initial cooling in the immediate period after the discharge -.
In my theory, it is quite possible that the density, pressure and temperature at the beginning of the expansion were not exactly the same everywhere in our universe that was at the origin. This may have been involved in clotting of the matter so that the universe has been able to develop in its current form and very helpful.
Completely fascinating is that it is mainly accomplished, according to the contours of the sponge-like structure. If the spongy structure had not been present at birth of our universe, our universe had a different internal structure shown. You would expect a lot more in his (origin) spherical structures.
36. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO SHRINK
An alternative idea that develops in writing this theory piece is that the discharge on a smaller scale took place. This with a diameter of about 800,000 light-years or 1,000,000, for example. But certainly not the size of infinite density!
In this scenario, the event that leaded to the birth of our universe must have been of unprecedented force.
In the period after the discharge must then first a period of consolidation took place in which annihilation took place and contributed to the structure in the spongy structure.
The remains of this event discharge could therefore be the image of the background radiation that has stuck and can be observed. If there cannot be observed background radiation at 13.7 billion years then this might be the cause.
Another consequence could be that before the suction effect of the vacuum type 3 on full power was would be that after the discharge annihilation had to be worked out and the holes on the outside of the discharge had to be closed.
A representation of what's what probably happened:
1. Discharge;
2. Annihilation process and not yet optimal pull vacuum type 3 resulting in a period of contraction and then after a slow expansion;
3. After sealing edge optimal expansion.
37. THE APPARENT EXPANSION OF OUR UNIVERSE
But how does that than with the observation that the universe seems to move from a seemingly center?
So after starting our universe is reduced until a "critical mass" originated the movement turned into expansion.
This expansion can not be started that the shrink the size of a pinhead or had even smaller. There was simply too much mass. The expansion should be started at a much larger size. Namely at the critical moment the mass and the released energies to continue together to "squeeze" were in conjunction with the suction power of the vacuum type 3. So this was when our universe was completely "sealed" with no openings on the edges and set the expansion forces greater than the contracting forces.
In the "compression" the structures of the patches of the "spongy structure" were stored as "wires" of different thicknesses in this structure. As a drop of black ink in a glass of clear water I imagine this for me to make it visually.
38. SPONGE STRUCTURE AS A BLUEPRINT OF THE BIRTH OF OUR UNIVERSE
From this view it can be concluded that the spongy structure is the blueprint of the birth of our universe. I think this because I can imagine that at the time the reversal took place and our universe had been passed shrinkage to expansion at that time the maximum theoretical density of compression of matter not yet had to be reached.
Probably a process in which events have occurred follows below.
It could well be that the expansion of the universe is not the result of forces within our universe which bring this about. It could very well be that the universe with great violence in the zone outside our universe is drawn into the vacuum beyond. Aided by the above-mentioned internal phenomenon of nuclear fusion that matter turnover in radiation according to principle E = mc2 and thus ensures fill our universe. This expansion is incredibly fast.
Possible with the speed of light or even faster!
This includes the observation that the further you move to the edge of the universe's expansion is faster. This is a logical inference and immediately explains that a "middle" of our universe should be. Under our universe I understand that part of the universe where matter is in and not the "outside" vacuum type 3.
The suction should be greater than the forces that play inside our universe that all try to attract to each other.
And inside the universe remains the "rubber band" that the expansion sometimes plastic is compared also in force. The galaxy's each other and other structures remain namely under the influence of the attractive forces between the particles and still will be drawn to each other. So there can not be only drawn to the outer edge of our universe.
The interdependence remains preserved. But increasingly thinner.
The incredibly equal pull effect of the super vacuum in which our universe thus must be located, is also explaining that the expansion of large to very small scale in such a beautiful uniform (the super vacuum instantly fills every bump in the expansion on) way trough our universe occurs. Indeed, at any place in our universe draws power equally hard! And also at any place in our universe will matter move to each other!
So there is very evenly admitted in our universe to the power of the vacuum.
This means that our universe is getting thinner. Because of this thinness is becoming increasingly manifesting the distance between the galaxy's larger and the space between them thinner. Because the super vacuum outside of our universe remains constant force the expansion is accelerating.
But why is not our universe in the super vacuum withdrawn immediately after the discharge?
The discharge occurred in a still open atmosphere. The foothills of the discharge space left between the foothills and at the edges open.
Within these areas of the foothills were parts of vacuum type 3 in position that had to be in the round structure of our early universe absorbed first
In addition, the mass at the beginning of the creation of our universe was concentrated in a relatively small area on a cosmic scale viewed creating a strong attraction in the entire mass of matter. The vacuum type 3 could get only after certain time progressive grip on our universe. (The thinner the more power can be exercised).
Until completion of this process in the closing the structure was pulled as hard to matter in all directions so that the type 3 vacuum did not get (maximum) grip on here. This could also let the forces who are responsible for pulling matter to each other dominate in power.
If it were, the vacuum type 3 filled between the foothills of the discharge. The result was that the matter was drawn together into a critical mass. The maximum density in a fully sealed unit with respect to the vacuum type 3. It seems to me that physicists can calculate its maximum density.
The mass had formed fully sealed whole at any time and thus the vacuum type 3 was able to get grip on the whole as the greatest force. And could start it with unimaginable violence pulling the critical mass out of each other.
In the critical mass - patches of spongy structure had before the optimum conditions in themselves - are now extremely high temperatures and pressures arise that the physical processes that are needed for the further creation of our universe in its current form have needed. The basic particles from the discharge are passed into the next generation of particles from the early expansion. Then started forming of next generation's particles formed in stars and so on.
If the forces of vacuum type 3 not have been stronger than the cohesive forces between the particles the critical mass would be remained on maximum density forever.
39. TURNAROUND SHRINK TO EXPANSION DUE TO EXPLOSION?
Can this reversal of contraction to expansion begin with a single explosion?
This does not seem likely. The power of the vacuum type 3 must be an unimaginable strong force, much stronger than the forces that matter to each other try to contract. Otherwise because this power could not be able to suck our universe with the speed of light or even faster in to it.
It remains unacceptable for me and in my mind impossible to imagine that a big bang in some form the trigger was of the ultimate beginning of our universe.
If it would have a blast concerned then under the influence of the attraction between the particles have a uniform inhibition of the expansion have to take place. And that is not what is observed. But the opposite effect is thus seen.
Moreover, established around the theory of the background radiation that the outside of our universe should be with minimal defects and extremely smooth. It is therefore very likely that this smoothness can be explained by the suction effect of the vacuum type 3. This force is capable pulling of every bit of the edge of the universe the same hard and very evenly.
A suction force of a vacuum can take place much more uniform in all directions than the outer ends of an explosion. You would expect in the event of an explosion after 13,7 billion years that an erratic form at the edge should be seen (especially when adopted given minimum temperature differences in the big bang).
However, it would be by local explosions occurring in this first critical mass that brought expansion on launch. The internal explosions give it outward force and could give the type 3 vacuum grip go suck without giving the matter chance to return to the masses.
40. BACKGROUND RADIATION
41. THE DARK AGES
In a few years we will be able to look so far so far in our universe that we will able to see this area - which could have formed and consisted of radiation (and no particles yet) and was formed soon after the big bang -. Maybe we first see some kind of transition area.
From these pictures will able to analyze be the composition of the "shell" of about 400,000 light-years around our universe.
This should lead to a further confirmation of the big bang theory.
Moreover, it could be also explained as a confirmation of my theory.
42. ROUND SHAPE OF THE BACKGROUND PHOTOS
Unlikely on the basis of the presentation of the picture it looks like we are - our Earth thus - in the exact center of our universe. Because I think the exact center is the only point in our universe that could produce such an image. Seen from other points in our universe would you expect other models because of the picture of the background radiation it seems like we are in the middle of our universe, but we do find ourselves of course not there.
This would be extremely coincidental!
An egg shape of the performance of the background would be more obvious.
Moreover, if we, for example, 10% of the border were in the formation of our universe had then this would mean that we all need to see the edge of our universe on one side at a distance of 1.37 billion light years
I have seen no representation or model in which area our Earth is in the picture of the background is.
43. FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE BACKGROUND RADIATION
It seems more that we look at a round view in our universe from the perspective of our planet.
So it is a representation of our position in our universe and we only see what is around that could reach us as light. What we can see around us may well be 13.7 billion light years, simply because all the light outside this area does not come to us but moves away from us!
The redshift must also be seen at equal distances in all directions from Earth. It follows immediately conclude that our universe could be much larger and older as we think now!
This I infer as only some galaxies are exhibiting a blue shift.
For example, objects that are located on the edge of our universe and which in that place a picture of their background radiation would be made should therefore give a different picture
In this theory the explanation of the phenomenon of the background radiation, which the minimal temperature differences of the origin of the process of expansion expresses, would brings this in a different vision how we have to see it.
But if we are going to see the ring of background will still have to be proved. If we don't see it than our universe must be older if we don't find ourselves in the middle of our universe.
44. WHAT DO WE SEE IN A RADIUS OF 13.7 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AROUND US
On Wikipedia under the topic redshift I read the following:
"The most distant galaxies have a cosmological redshift z of about 5, which means that these galaxies move from the earth at a speed of 95% of the speed of light. By this changes the size of our universe since the beginning of the transmission of light slightly increased by a factor of z + 1 = 6, so that the wavelength of the light with it stretched "
I strongly doubt that we see the area of the first 400,000 years after the big bang as we will look 13.7 billion years back in time. If we assume that the galaxies are moving with the speed of light from the position of the Earth, the light can not reach us because the light is moving away from us. In that case we can not perceive anything and it will seem as if the space after this area is empty.
This does not mean that we have reached the end of our universe. It may hereafter extend even further.
The skin with the picture of the processes occurred directly after the big bang where we can see what immediately after the beginning of our universe happened could well turn out to be invisible to us. That still remains that we can observe radiation from the beginning of the creation of our universe and is plausible because it indeed has occurred within the area of origin of beginning of our universe and therefore there must have stuck something.
Is my theory makes that the process of creation took place on a large radius more plausible. Because this creates the right circumstance that early radiation linger.
This contrasted with the big bang theory and would be difficult to explain from the big bang theory. That residues in the form of background radiation from the first existence would linger is more difficult to understand then. In this big bang theory it is indeed common ideas that the first moments played out at a speed greater than the speed of light. Thus, everything, including radiation, must have moved from the center in this case.
Compare this with a boiled egg with the yolk and the white is the first radiation portrays with the speed of light is launched away. So at the place of the empty yolk you expect that you actually can not see background radiation from the big bang theory.
As for the big bang I just do not continue in this theory on this subject because it raises more questions in this case to me. Such as that it looks like if we look around in all directions that the redshift seem to manifest anywhere in the same way. Reasoning back from the big bang theory it would be that by observation on a large scale it seems as if everything started with the Earth exactly in the middle. This seems to me an interesting point of view for theologians. If this is true then I can not even in my imagination - as I look to it now - call it a coincidence.
45. FINAL CONSIDERATION ARISING FROM DISCHARGE AND NOT FROM A BIG BANG
By the enormity of the discharge face of the very small size of at least the beginning of the Big Bang seem discharges a much more optimal environment and conditions for the emergence of our universe to have in themselves.
The problem explaining of infinite density at the beginning of the Big Bang that scientists now have to deal with no longer apply in my theory.
46. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
47. DARK ENERGY
These are still mysteries of which it would exist. Firstly, it is argued that there are certain phenomena should be otherwise would not have explicable. On the other hand one does not know what it is and its existence one has not yet been able to demonstrate through experiments in a scientific way physically.
One is at the moment so desperately looking for a way to the explaining existence of dark energy that would act as a negative gravity that is indispensable to explain the expansion of our universe.
In my theory that our universe is in a super vacuum it is not necessary to explain expansion from the view of this dark energy.
And if I could make an imagination of dark energy to me the only idea is that dark energy is a part of the spectrum for which we have no techniques to observe it. But for me this is not the case thus.
I also think that even if my theory is embraced, that the search for dark energy must to go ahead. This from the point of view that existence of dark energy can be excluded.
The strength of the dark energy could be used as my aforementioned vacuum type 3. Also seen the driving force of expansion our universe is equal under both views. Just my view comes from the outside and the common perception from within. However, in the same strength.
Dark energy = the above-mentioned vacuum type 3.
48. DARK MATTER
The observations so far have failed to demonstrate existence of dark matter. In all probability it does not exist.
Moreover, I have seen in a lecture on internet from Lawrence Krauss that dark matter would show that our universe is flat. The quantities calculated on the basis of calculations should be present I do not understand the calculation only but it seems highly unlikely that our universe is flat. This I infer from the statements that I put forward in this theory.
In the context of this chapter on dark matter is a picture from NASA recorded with gravitational lenses. This phenomenon would occur by the existence of dark matter. I hope I have understood correctly.
Within my theory, this effect does not occur by the presence of dark matter but by the combination of strong nuclear force. This accumulation bends light from behind for us after lying galaxy's so that this effect occurs.
Dark matter: the dense admitted to this phenomena are caused by accumulated strong nuclear force.
49. THE AGE OF OUR UNIVERSE
According to this theory would have to be thus the age of our universe recalculated. Incidentally, this does not mean that the age of our universe will be estimated younger than 13.7 billion years. It could even be that it is older than assumed because the processes that have played will have to be understood and interpreted better.
Suppose the contraction lasted as long as the expansion as it is in progress now then our universe can be 27.4 billion years old.
In the expansion of our universe structures are in principle floating ball-shaped set. It is not implausible that these structures exist in infinite numbers (multi versa).
As with colliding galaxy's colliding universes will also occur in many forms and guises.
The spongy structure from the point of view from an image as it occurs as with images of the background radiation is also plausible. Also phenomena such as red shift can be explained from the previous theory.
The main conclusion from my contention is that the formation of our universe did not arise from or with the big bang but rather in the area beyond.
To me recently learned in a program aired on Discovery Science that a circular object you can calculate the circumference using a triangle technique. Thus one could therefore also use certain techniques - if I remember well - based on the redshift determine the dimensions of our universe. Through this method, they came to 13.7 billion light years radius and therefore the age of our universe. Elsewhere this piece I'm going to elaborate on this matter.
50. THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE FOR THE DISCHARGE
The foregoing implies that it gave no phenomenon of "time" before the discharges. It was so like me that I proposed a situation where time did not exist. This had therefore may exist as if no discharge had taken place forever.
Although "eternal" obviously is not the right term because "forever" is a concept of time.
51. FORMAT OF THE DISCHARGE
Above in the piece and the recitals in the background radiation - as the performances are right about this, and which I in this recital conveniently just go out - it may well be that the diameter of a discharge from which a universe like ours can develop out of a cross-section of about 1,000,000 light years. (Thickness peel Dark Ages - as it ultimately possible is to determine this thickness because I assumed this example from the big bang theory - two times because it has played in both directions).
On a cosmic scale of 1 million light years is unimaginably small but also large enough to complex events into putting that lead to particle formation and future generations of particles.
52. ARE WE IN THE ONLY UNIVERSE THAT EXISTS?
Given the above, it seems quite possible that there are (numerous) other discharges have taken place or have to take place. There can therefore universes exist who are older or younger than ours. They can also differ in size in which discharges take place.
Other universes therefore do not necessarily have to be in qualities or composition equal to our universe. But all this takes place according to the same laws of nature that also in force is in our universe. It can thus be apply to zones in the universe which were have been more powerful discharges occurred and possibly other elementary particles as we do not know in our universe emerged.
It can thus easily be that there are certain elementary particles are not created by the local circumstance in our universe or just that.
Also a fascinating idea is that there may well be immature universes. Or perhaps universes that are so severe that the vacuum for the process to return and pull apart is not strong enough or can not get going.
53. A LOCAL PHENOMENON
It does not seem likely that the origin of our universe is the only event as such has been. This certainly must have played many times before and there will be many more to follow.
This means, among other things, that "time" and distance could re-emerge in different places. In the empty spaces between the universes, there is no time or distance.
Or is it infinite time and infinite distance? Fascinating idea to dedicate a new chapter.
54. "POLLUTION” OF THE UNIVERSE
Between the universes the spaces fill up. Universes will thus come against each other. Or not!!!! (Fascinating) Local vacuum so it will disappear. On a cosmic scale, the process will continue because the universe is infinite and there will be always circumstance for new discharges.
It is therefore probable that universes will collide against each other. What happens then? Creates a kind of bubble structure in which there straight separations between the various universes arise or they just go into each other?
In my mind, the exterior of a cluster of universes under the influence of the super-vacuum again forms a perfect circular shape in the course of time. Within this, the universes can survive from compartments individually or merge.
It could also be that universes may or may not merge and whether or not that happens depends on what kind of universes come into contact with each other.
On the formation of other types of possible universes has already been discussed in detail in this theory.
55. WHICH LEADS TO THE FUTURE OF OUR UNIVERSE?
Faster than light in the expansion does not seem so impossible. This means or that our universe is going to seem to be getting smaller in the future because an increasing proportion of the outside of our universe is so fast moving from us that the light moves away from us. In theory, this could lead to an almost infinite thinness.
56. INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Unfortunately for many, I can not extrapolate to a higher power that could be the origin of the universe. I also found no evidence that of the structures and events that have been shaped no scientific explanations underlying could be.
It looks very similar to me that everything can be explained by physics point of view.
However, I note that the physics is still evolving.
Opinions should be adjusted. With the passage of the years both in theology and in physics both areas are in motion. The opinion that the sun revolves around the Earth has long been abandoned. Science, apparently with hands in the hair care begins even ideas as an intelligent design to consider.
Someday conclusively shall be established how everything went exactly work.
This is then both for religion and physics the creation. The event that this causes can we call God or Nature. Eventually it can once be the same concepts. I fervently hope that this will be the case because then both ends come together. I believe that this understanding, once established, will bring a lot of good for humanity.
57. WHAT IF THE BIG "NOTHING" NOT THE FIRST STAGE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN?
In this case we will have of course to look for the answer further.
A practical problem is that a super vacuum, as described in my theory I think difficult (I'm not saying it's impossible for the human mind stands for nothing) with an experiment to mimic to study the effects.
And this certainly not on a scale that must be compared with the dimensions of the discharges needed for births of universes.
But if the current quests for example, gravity, dark energy and dark matter or of transition and in other dimensions may lead to nothing we will have to change one idea to another.
If it is true that there is an experimental piece "vacuum type 3" could be created then we must be cautious with it at all before getting into here.
58. AN INTERMEDIATE STEP?
I can't make me an imagination of an earlier onset of matter being.
Unless the matter is created directly in the discrepancy between the infinite everything and nothing infinite and thus formed is under construction and should be and always has been. Apart from the fact that it is almost beyond the imagination must have nature have a way out, a discharge sought. This could hardly be otherwise. Then this is accompanied by the formation of particles, which added together positive and negative cancel each other again as stated in the literature - it sounds almost logical.
The next thought that then arises is "cloud formation" and particles attract each other and / or repel. After so processes would come as with discharge or without discharge. But at least the move - temporarily - of quantities of matter to a central middle.
I keep the theory of discharges prefer. Also, since the foregoing in this subparagraph would immediately raise the question of which came first. Also it seems again difficult to explain the process as I have done in this theory earlier because of the presence of a super vacuum and thus a logical explanation for the expansion of our universe.
59. FINAL WORD
My theory makes no difference with the other theories or explanations of phenomena and processes after the reversal of the decline to period of expansion. Provided that the expansion is not the result of a big bang, but an exceptionally strong and inexhaustible vacuum operation and possibly reinforced by the internal circumstance within our universe of e = mc2.
Well my theory is possible explanatory to the point where now the general prevailing theories are not fully or proven.
This theory might give a new perspective on the origins of our universe seen from different angles with respect to:
1. a phenomenon as infinite density of the big bang, since the idea of an infinite density is contrary to the fundamental laws of physics;
2. the existence of dark matter;
3. the existence of dark energy;
4. the existence of the separate fundamental force of gravity;
5. operation of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force on a cosmic scale;
6. the existence of other dimensions in the formation of our universe;
7. the shape of our universe that in all probability is just round.
Nature loves simple!
We are in a wonderful power game in which the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force are the basis. This allows objects to be repelled when they close and attracted if they are far away. All celestial bodies are participating in this immense game of attraction and repulsion which all processes are influenced by this. Elliptic orbits may arise and also processes of destruction and rebirth happen.
Maybe we look too far and we might not look good enough for what we do have and know.
Final note: We are the product of the greatest force that is conceivable. The interaction between nothing and infinity. Is there anything more greater conceivable?
I hope I can make with this theory my contribution to a better understanding in order to qualify for the solution of the mystery.
If my theory would not be sustainable but only ground for new inspiration, how small whatsoever, I consider my contribution for myself as successful.
If my theory with some strokes are referred to the realm of fiction, I know I don't have to continue on thinking about this further.
Thank you for reading this!
Fred Baumgart 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment