Theory Hub: Post Your Space Theories!

[Mikki]

... After many years in serious business and many talks with lots of engineers from different branches i start to doubt Newtons/ Einsteins concept of the field-theory.

Some explain it like this (calm down before reading):

"Gravitational pull from objects in space could be described as omnidirectional monopole magnetism on quantum scale."

Just one example: Dust and molecules in interstellar/ intergalactic space tend to condense pretty fast... How come so...?

All the new debate and guesswork about "undiscovered and unmeasurable dark energy and dark mass" would be obsolete and other ideas for space travel could become interesting to examine.
I better stop here, alternative ideas are prone to become [REDACTED].

My advise for all the young students in this forum:

Never stop to doubt what your teachers tell, there are other ideas out there which may lead to other ways.

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Mikki
;D

[vger]

1 hour ago, VictorP said:

Couldn't agree more. Rare to find someone that thinks the same on this as I do.

As far as we know, the only thing standing between an ever more entropic universe and an eventual heat death of it is us. How's that for purpose!

Are you suggesting an advanced race of humans in the distant future could actually prevent the universe from dying? I can't imagine how that could be possible, even with sci-fi magicks, but I've had thoughts like this before. If you consider that the universe itself could be a living entity, then we are microbes that serve a specific purpose in the order of things. We should start small though, such as learning how to keep our own planet from overheating.

[PB666]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Earth without us has no purpose. We're the best it've created.

Moreover, it has no more time to repeat this again.

We can't change the fate of the earth, its current fate is not going to change. It doesn't need time, only we do.

Edited June 9, 2016 by PB666

[VictorP]

12 hours ago, vger said:

Are you suggesting an advanced race of humans in the distant future could actually prevent the universe from dying? I can't imagine how that could be possible, even with sci-fi magicks, but I've had thoughts like this before. If you consider that the universe itself could be a living entity, then we are microbes that serve a specific purpose in the order of things. We should start small though, such as learning how to keep our own planet from overheating.

It is what I am suggesting.

In my theory, these are the 2 great directions that determine the ultimate fate of the universe. The natural tendency of the universe to become ever more entropic vs life, which was called to have negentropy (negative entropy) by Schrodinger in his book What is life? Complexity has been rising since the Big Bang, constantly developing new links between matter, protons to atoms, Hydrogen to Helium to Metals, atoms to molecules, molecules to RNA, etc. Now, we are at the onset of the linkage of our brains I think, of which the internet is the first glimpse. In the future I see our complex society to link up with other equally complex societies in our galaxy, similarly as in the past when equally complex entities interlinked to produce new complexity. Eventually, complexity will rise indefinitely until it matches the universe in size and will encompass all .

[kerbiloid]

16 hours ago, PB666 said:

We can't change the fate of the earth, its current fate is not going to change.

The Earth withou us cannot be "pretty", as nobody would see is it "pretty" or no.
Like a beautiful maiden lost on a desert island.

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, VictorP said:

It is what I am suggesting.

In my theory, these are the 2 great directions that determine the ultimate fate of the universe. The natural tendency of the universe to become ever more entropic vs life, which was called to have negentropy (negative entropy) by Schrodinger in his book What is life? Complexity has been rising since the Big Bang, constantly developing new links between matter, protons to atoms, Hydrogen to Helium to Metals, atoms to molecules, molecules to RNA, etc. Now, we are at the onset of the linkage of our brains I think, of which the internet is the first glimpse. In the future I see our complex society to link up with other equally complex societies in our galaxy, similarly as in the past when equally complex entities interlinked to produce new complexity. Eventually, complexity will rise indefinitely until it matches the universe in size and will encompass all .

My humble stream-of-conciousness:

All order created by life on earth is balanced by disorder created elsewhere. For example, I need food to continue ordering my molecules, to do this I must disorder enough food to pay for it. If you follow the food cycles down, you find that the main "order sink" of life on earth is the sun, atoms fuse (decreasing disorder) but in doing so they get very hot (increasing disorder by a larger amount). Some of that heat/light is used by organisms on earth to disorder their immediate surroundings and to order themselves. That order passes up the food chain to us.

Life is only a *local* reversal of entropy, we have no special power over entropy.

 

[VictorP]

Yes, that's what negentropy means, the export of entropy to keep the entropy of a living system low. The larger the complexity, the more it exports entropy. I think eventually complexity will rise and rival as a single entity the universe.

[PB666]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Earth withou us cannot be "pretty", as nobody would see is it "pretty" or no.
Like a beautiful maiden lost on a desert island.

Earth does not care about pretty or ugly, pretty is a registration by your visual cortex. Beautiful maidens on deserted islands are pretty much a dead end.

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, VictorP said:

Yes, that's what negentropy means, the export of entropy to keep the entropy of a living system low. The larger the complexity, the more it exports entropy. I think eventually complexity will rise and rival as a single entity the universe.

How can "complexity" overtake the entropy it is exporting though? It always has to create a little more disorder than the order it gains, disorder grows faster than order.

You can always decrease entropy by exporting it out of the system, but if the system is the universe, there is nowhere else to export it to. The entropy of the universe always increases.

4 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Earth does not care about pretty or ugly, pretty is a registration by your visual cortex. Beautiful maidens on deserted islands are pretty much a dead end.

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The Earth withou us cannot be "pretty", as nobody would see is it "pretty" or no.
Like a beautiful maiden lost on a desert island.

 

If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around to hear it, does it make sound? Yes, because the tree still vibrates the air around it which propagaets away in a series of pressure waves, which is the very definition of sound.

Ergo, the Earth is still pretty even if humanity disappears, because our presence is not necessary for the definition of a word to remain constant.

 

**edit**

Thats weird, my response to the below was merged upwards...ok.

Edited June 10, 2016 by p1t1o

[vger]

12 hours ago, VictorP said:

Yes, that's what negentropy means, the export of entropy to keep the entropy of a living system low. The larger the complexity, the more it exports entropy. I think eventually complexity will rise and rival as a single entity the universe.

I almost feel like this would warrant its own thread, but suddenly I'm thinking about the use of Dyson spheres to create an (almost) closed energy system. I briefly entertained the thought of enclosing the entire universe, but that has a lot of problems (such as whole galaxies slamming into the shell). It's also said that if a Dyson sphere exists out there already, then it's probably radiating tons of infrared light. But what if it didn't? We have developed materials that are all-but-perfectly absorbent, it stands to reason we can also accomplish the opposite. What if it could grab 99.9999% of the energy from the star, and either store it, or reflect it back? There's a lot of problems with this, because it would probably turn the whole solar system into a baked potato eventually, and it's still not a permanent solution because there's no such thing as a "flawless machine." But looking at it from this perspective, could a Dyson sphere still be alive and kicking for a time, while the rest of the universe was in its death-throes?

Edited June 11, 2016 by vger

[PB666]

You could not enclose the universe into a shell because of aspects of the universe. Whike the universe slowed or stopped its inflation 13.8 billion years ago, there is a vacuous momentum component to space-time largely governed by the momentum of matter and energy within. It so bad that if you tried to contain our local group of galaxies the forces therein would tear the walls aprt the second you completed. On the universal scales if you could momentarily assert a sphere a finite distance at that very instance it would shatter due to the stretch forces. Even building an orbiting ring structure around the sun has to deal with the ripples of space time that travel through our system and the rolling forces that jupiter and saturn exert. 

The other aspect is that -time has no meaning away from comoving space-time reference frame, in fact a distances far enough away from us that their current velocity is such that thier light can never reach us it makes no sense to argue with them where the edge of a universe might be, because you and they could never agree upon time, and you could coordinate the building of such a sphere, you could not even coordinate the planning of building such a device, because if you were in the center you could never reach the edge, and if were on the edge you could never communiate with other visible universe edge locations that there was an intent to build. Its so bad a problem you could not even plan the build of a ring around our galaxy, simply because of the variances of time for different reference frames. 

Finally, the mass of a wall that would contain the universe would have so much energy it would exceed the energy of the universe itself. For example it is suggested that at the end of inflation the edge of the universe was moving away from the center at 3c. This is allowable because the motion pertains to spacetime and no mass existed at that time, the energy of the universe was all in quantum space time. Mass pours into an expanding space time reference frames after inflation stops, which means that the mass relative to the center is so fast that only the visible universe is visible to us, lol, the majority of our universe can never-ever be seen.  If we assume that 5% of the universe is mass, there is an inadequate energy in the universe to slow the mass down as to bind them together. Likwise you could not decelerate the wall pieces either, there is inadequate energy to do that. And most importantly, because of the limit of field propogation you can never place all the pieces in a stopped reference frame, the theoretically central reference frame, it simply can never be done.

[AwW SaM]

On 2/15/2016 at 8:22 AM, Spaceception said:

What if there's floating lifeforms of hydrogen 'powered' jellyfish type life in the upper atmosphere of Venus? It's reliant on CO2, and Sulfuric Acid, like we are to water and Oxygen and uses hydrogen from water vapor (Which is supposed to be in the upper atmosphere of Venus) to float/propel itself.

Btw, by 'Upper atmosphere' I mean 40-60 km high.

This was the hypothesis already stated by Carl Edward Sagan in his series "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" in 1980, Henceforth try your own hypothesis-"Try not copying anyone". -AwW SaM

[Spaceception]

4 hours ago, AwW SaM said:

This was the hypothesis already stated by Carl Edward Sagan in his series "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" in 1980, Henceforth try your own hypothesis-"Try not copying anyone". -AwW SaM

I honestly haven't read that

[pyrosheep]

There is Intelligent life in the universe, however it doesn't spread, because if you have the technology required for successful Interstellar migration, you probably also have the technology required to create virtual universes that are much more fun to live in. 

[Jovus]

Black holes are a lot more common than the usual estimates, and the theories about dynamical friction are wrong. They hang out in the haloes of galaxies, being dark matter.

[UNIVERSEALBEING]

what about Gravity repulsors? like, creating a machine that can reverse gravity on its field. so it goes away from the center of mass, instead of towards. you can use this technology to sling shot yourself into orbit of another planet, or star.

also i have the greatest idea for a Interstellar ship, if you strategically place the G.R's you can get your self a fast gravity-propelled aircraft. 

i don't think its that far fetched but we should try and experiment through trial and error and try and  build a ship

 

 

 

 

 

[PB666]

17 hours ago, UNIVERSEALBEING said:

what about Gravity repulsors? like, creating a machine that can reverse gravity on its field. so it goes away from the center of mass, instead of towards. you can use this technology to sling shot yourself into orbit of another planet, or star.

also i have the greatest idea for a Interstellar ship, if you strategically place the G.R's you can get your self a fast gravity-propelled aircraft. 

i don't think its that far fetched but we should try and experiment through trial and error and try and  build a ship

Easy, to repel gravity on Earth, here is what to do

1. drill a hole 6.4 Mm deep.
2. create a chamber about 100 cubic meters.
3. Place condensed antimatter (several million kilograms should do)
4. Drop a several million kilogram lead bullet down the hole.

No more gravity. And on the bright side the moon will now be a dwarf planet with a rather unusual orbit.

The ship you propose . . . . .its called the Start Trek's Enterprise . . .the drive you propose is called a warp drive . . . .and its space fantasy.

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

However, if you want to exit fantasy worlds and read up on what the problems are. There are complete lectures on general relativity online. General relativity is the limit of sciences knowledge on gravity at the moment, beyond which is a matter of conjecture.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_gravity.svg  Note the big question mark surrounding quantum gravity.

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

Gravitons  appear  to be a particles that travel at the speed of light. In fact their speed is what appears to determine the speed of light. They also are the structural basis of the Universe. While this is hard to fathom they also compose space. Space is not empty, it contains both gravitons (non-zero energy particles and other bosons) that compose space and create the spacetime field, the curvature of which you are familiar with as gravity. spacetime is curved by E = mc². Despite the fact that these particles are traveling at C, the also simultaneously form 3-dimensional space in a process euphemistically cause the cosmic foam.

Why we cannot alter the gravitational field?
Actually we can, just not very much, we can move mass and energy from one place to the next. The problem is that Earth's graviational field is greater, the Earth has 10²⁵ kg which produces a = 9.81 m/s² at the surface.

To negate the effect of gravity you need negative energy and negative mass. The problem is that in quantum systems, energy is always conserved (at least on the local scale). IOW the total of all potential and kinetic energy in a system remains constant indefinitely. Even space has energy, so called non-zero rest energy.

 

[NSEP]

My theory for life beyond Earth:

If a celestial body has liquid water and volcanic activity in that water, there is life. I don't believe Its terribly uncommon for life to exist elsewhere. Multicellular life, and Intelligent life however, might be extremely rare.

Oh and my solution for the Fermi Paradox is that, not only is the chance of a spacefaring civilization beyond terra low, but humans are also hella impatient for them to come, thats why the Fermi Paradox exists in the first place.

[garwel]

One idea I came up with recently, although it may be obvious to some, is of interstellar travel and the future of humankind. I am skeptical about a possibility of FTL travel, at least for macro objects, which means that we as humanity will probably never be able to reach other stars. However, robotic explorers will because they don't age (at least it's more avoidable than with organics). They also don't have so many requirements as we do (specific atmosphere, temperature, radiation level, ability to grow food, etc.).

So probes be able to travel for decades and maybe even centuries to establish robotic "colonies" in other star systems. However, they'll need to be completely autonomous, capable of self-replication and self-modification, and sort of sentient (at least be able to define and pursue their own goals). Effectively, it means that the human civilization and all organic life will be merely a predecessor to more durable and adaptive silicon and electronics-based civilization, pretty much like protozoa were a necessary step to appearance of modern animals. Humanity may remain on Earth and some other planets of the Solar System for quite some time, but the rest of the galaxy will be inhabited by successors of our robots.

[Steve Scully]

Hi all!  I just stumbled on this forum and joined the website, then I found this particular topic when considering if I wanted to attempt to share my perspective.  I greatly appreciate that there is a specific thread for this!  I have produced extremely extensive content on this subject matter which I will link at the end of this post, but am just writing a short summary of the important elements.

With that, I call it: The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy.  This is because it uses Newtonian classical mechanics but with two very important conditions that were not included in previous models:

1)  The universe is infinite, and this means that particles can be infinitely large in mass relative to atoms as well as infinitely small in mass (notably, there is no such thing as an elementary particle as every such particle is divisible in the same way as the Earth is).

2)  Sufficiently smaller particles can travel through sufficiently larger particles (as we know occurs with neutrinos passing through the Earth, but more generally).

This model answers many questions very quickly, and the most important one is how electromagnetic fields are formed:

When a sufficiently small particle is close enough to a sufficiently large mass particle, it is physically pulled directly towards the center of gravity.  However, due to its relative mass/volume, it physically travels through the body of the larger particle and passes the center of gravity such that the direction of gravity exerted on the small particle by the large particle reverses.  Due to the reversal of the direction of gravity, the small particle is once again pulled back towards the center of gravity and physically passes through it where the direction of gravity on the small particle once again reverses.  This produces a Figure-8 orbital for the small particle.  When there are many such particles having varying masses surrounding this relatively large mass particle, then the summation of the flow of all such small particles in Figure-8 orbitals produces what we observe as an electromagnetic field.  Spin of the relatively large system produces more powerful electromagnetic fields for a system of a given mass, which is why electromagnetism is known to be linked to spin.

Therefore, simply put: gravity causes electromagnetism.  As the model is able to demonstrate a mechanism through which gravity can produce the outcome of electromagnetic fields, Occam's Razor demonstrates the accuracy of the simple model.

Like I said, I have produced extremely extensive content and if you want to actually delve into it, you can read my book and research paper, and/or watch my explanatory video here.  I also address cosmological redshift as the result of gravity rather than motion (and therefore the model does not require a Big Bang nor expansion of space nor dark energy).

My website: CascadingUniverse.Org

My Steemit:  Steemit.com/@stevescully

Some specific articles on Steemit I would recommend:

 The Big Bang's Big Assumption -- Explains Cosmological Redshift as the result of gravity rather than motion.

Black Holes are Optical Illusions

The Universe Has Infinite Dimensions

The Observer Assumption

Photons Do Have A Mass

The Big Bang's Misinterpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background

The Biggest Mistake With Galaxy Mapping

The Double-Slit Experiment in the Infinite Universe

The Universe is Fractal!

Temperature is a Measure of Mass per Volume

 

It's a lot of information, good luck!

With love for all,

-Steve Scully

[Hung]

If time travel is real, then a second must be counted as a dimension, right ? Because last second you do this and now you do that, so a second must be a dimension. And because of that, we are moving through a lot of dimensions to let our life continue, and every second is setup to let things happen, example : I think that I made up this theory, but in my theory, The Timelines made me think that I made up this theory. So every single second is part of The Timelines, and the hour, the minute, the second, the year, the month,... is basically the units of measure to measuring how many dimensions we have gone through. So that is my theory, please don't judge me.

What ! Is 10000 billion+ dimensions already ? I am going to sleep. Cya !

[p1t1o]

On 3/1/2018 at 5:31 AM, Steve Scully said:

Hi all!  I just stumbled on this forum and joined the website, then I found this particular topic when considering if I wanted to attempt to share my perspective.  I greatly appreciate that there is a specific thread for this!  I have produced extremely extensive content on this subject matter which I will link at the end of this post, but am just writing a short summary of the important elements.

With that, I call it: The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy.  This is because it uses Newtonian classical mechanics but with two very important conditions that were not included in previous models:

1)  The universe is infinite, and this means that particles can be infinitely large in mass relative to atoms as well as infinitely small in mass (notably, there is no such thing as an elementary particle as every such particle is divisible in the same way as the Earth is).

2)  Sufficiently smaller particles can travel through sufficiently larger particles (as we know occurs with neutrinos passing through the Earth, but more generally).

This model answers many questions very quickly, and the most important one is how electromagnetic fields are formed:

When a sufficiently small particle is close enough to a sufficiently large mass particle, it is physically pulled directly towards the center of gravity.  However, due to its relative mass/volume, it physically travels through the body of the larger particle and passes the center of gravity such that the direction of gravity exerted on the small particle by the large particle reverses.  Due to the reversal of the direction of gravity, the small particle is once again pulled back towards the center of gravity and physically passes through it where the direction of gravity on the small particle once again reverses.  This produces a Figure-8 orbital for the small particle.  When there are many such particles having varying masses surrounding this relatively large mass particle, then the summation of the flow of all such small particles in Figure-8 orbitals produces what we observe as an electromagnetic field.  Spin of the relatively large system produces more powerful electromagnetic fields for a system of a given mass, which is why electromagnetism is known to be linked to spin.

Therefore, simply put: gravity causes electromagnetism.  As the model is able to demonstrate a mechanism through which gravity can produce the outcome of electromagnetic fields, Occam's Razor demonstrates the accuracy of the simple model.

Like I said, I have produced extremely extensive content and if you want to actually delve into it, you can read my book and research paper, and/or watch my explanatory video here.  I also address cosmological redshift as the result of gravity rather than motion (and therefore the model does not require a Big Bang nor expansion of space nor dark energy).

My website: CascadingUniverse.Org

My Steemit:  Steemit.com/@stevescully

Some specific articles on Steemit I would recommend:

 The Big Bang's Big Assumption -- Explains Cosmological Redshift as the result of gravity rather than motion.

Black Holes are Optical Illusions

The Universe Has Infinite Dimensions

The Observer Assumption

Photons Do Have A Mass

The Big Bang's Misinterpretation of the Cosmic Microwave Background

The Biggest Mistake With Galaxy Mapping

The Double-Slit Experiment in the Infinite Universe

The Universe is Fractal!

Temperature is a Measure of Mass per Volume

 

It's a lot of information, good luck!

With love for all,

-Steve Scully

Hi Steve,

Do you have a book for sale by any chance?

[Steve Scully]

On 3/12/2018 at 8:06 AM, p1t1o said:

Hi Steve,

Do you have a book for sale by any chance?

Hi p1t1o,

 

I have written a book that I have self-published, which is able to be found on the main page of my website (https://www.cascadinguniverse.org) as a link to the Amazon as well as a free PDF version available able to be directly accessed here.  While I would love to be able to find support through my passions, I don't intend to prevent anyone from reaching my work by putting up hurdles to get past to gain access.

 

The book is about 30 pages, and targets what I find to be the most significant aspects of our observations.

Thanks!

Steve

[SouthWestScott]

Here, I got a good one that matches with String Theory and the Big Bang theory...

 

What if the universe WAS a singular point, the "0th" dimension if you will, but then, when the energy was pushed to its limits, then BAM, the universe broke the first dimension, then the second, then the third. This theory can help explain the odd shape of the universe and can help us think of string theory itself. This also works with several other universes.

 

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

 

I have an idea to discribe the universe and how it works, for the 0th dimension, it would simply be "A = 0", but for the 1st dimension, it would be "A = Infinity", showing it's potential, and the 2nd dimension? You'd think it would be "A = Infinity^2", but no, it's "A = Infinity^infinity", the 3rd? "A = Infinity^Infinity^Infinity",  this goes on for several times over and over, showing simply the potential of the universes ability to expand infinately, several universes can be all sorts of dimensions.

[andysher]

Quantum entanglement says electron pairs are connected even though they can be many light years apart.

So what if one of those electron pairs falls into a black hole. It has mass, could it not be possible that there is

a relationship between dark matter and a particle connected via quantum entanglement falling into a black hole.

eg1 dark matter is that matter lost to another universe being created in a big bang by a supermassive black hole,

the matter being that matter which has a quantum entangled pair in our universe.

or eg2 energy is conserved in a black hole but quantum entangled particles radiate out as dark matter