Well, this forum used to be a hive of activity, (actualy mainly from goatboy as i remember, is he still around?) But recently i havent seen many worth while new topics, so heres my atempt....

Ok, my (unique as far as i am aware) theory of creation. Ok, so I've looked into this and as far as I can tell this is not forbidden by any known (and commonly accepted) laws.


Weak Anthropic Principle (W.A.P)
"The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

Creation and the Big Bang
"Fifteen billion years ago, give or take five billion years, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang."
Taken from Here

Ok, now the Weak Anthropic Principle basicaly says that we observe the perfect world, because if it wasn't perfect we wouldn't exist. However, the chances of this world evolving perfectly are so remote that most people that believe in the W.A.P. also believe in the infinite universe theory. This theory basicaly states that for every possibility in an event happens in a different universe, and so there are potentially an infinite amount of universes.
But therein lies the problem? An infinite amount of universes? Infinite amounts of mass? This for most people is hard to comprehend. Therefore, I have formulated a new theory.

Simply put, Before the big bang, Time did not exist, the entire universe was contained in an infinitely small singularity. I believe that this is a 'closed' universe and therefore gravity will eventually slow down the movement of the stars, planets, and everything, and eventually cause it to collide back together, slowly forming super-massive back holes, and ultimately that infinitely small singularity same as the one with which we started. Now, here is where relative time comes into effect. Time is not a straight arrow as many people believe, instead it is relative. Therefore it is plausible to suspect that the first and second singularities (as they exist outside time) are one and the same singularity.

This opens up the possibility that this cycle can and has continued for an infinite amount of 'time'. Therefore an infinite amount of possibilities have occurred, and therefore negating the need for the infinite universe theory. This also accounts for the W.A.P. that would have, as required, an infinite amount of possibilities, all realised.

Any one who actually knows what they are talking about see how this might not be a possibility (please try not to argue with the time is like an arrow argument). But have I made any serious errors? Any fundamental facts I've missed out? Can you improve it?

Please reply (Constructive stuff would be good)

[This message has been edited by j0662 (edited 11-15-2001).]

If there were to be an infinite number of universes then we are lucky to have this one.

I think the exact percentage of Hydrogen needed to be converted into light is 0.7%. A fraction either way and this universe as we know wouldn't be here.

Which would then put us either left or right of the perfect line, assuming the line is a perfect universe. But taking into account, the fact that we exist in one of an infinite number of universes, ranging from clumps of black holes to a cloud of thin gas, i don't think that we are in that middle 'perfect' one, not far off, but not it.

Actually if there are an infinate number of universes we aren't lucky we have this one for it was inevitable that we would exist.

Why is it inevitable that we exist and who lays down these rules?

preying mantis, did you read my original post? The weak anthropic principle (and commen sence) explains, that if this universe were not perfect, we would not be here to experiance it. therefor, would not be here to consider ourselves 'unlucky'. So assuming there are an infinate amount of universes, (or time strings) we would always only exist where the universe is perfect.

you missed of '...in my opinion'. There is no right or wrong opinion, the point i was trying to make was that out if an infinite number of universes we, this is the only one that is perfect. Why? Bacause we are here. The human brain cannot comprehend infinite things, therefore how can any of us even begin to say that we fully understand.

Ok, cut it down, say infinite=1000. There are 1000 universes, 5 of which can support (carbon based)life, with universe number 3 the perfect one right at the middle. Who said that out of those 5 we were the one in the middle? We could quite easily be number 1, which happens to be the denser of the 5 that can support life.

Another thing to back this up, is that as stated above, exactly 0.7% of hydrogen needs to be converted to light etc. What if universe number 3 was at exactly 0.70000000%, yet 2 universes away, in our universe it is 0.70000002%. Life can therefore still be supported.

Q > If there are an infinite number of universe, how many would be considered perfect?

You imply that there is only one.

Im not implying only one can be perfect, im implying all the perfect ones will have life all of who will comment that their planet is perfect.

and wot the hell? i can comprihend infinity. am i special?

I have no trouble comprehending infinity. And if there are an infinate number of universes that means that there are also an infinate number of universes like this one and an infinate number of universes like every other one.

Thats a lot of universes

people only have trouble comprehending infinity when they dont realize infinity started with one

ive got a question, when you say that there are infinite universes are you talking actual seperate universes or the same universe and different times (like say we go back 2 seconds and instead of leaving the tv off i turn it on, in turn changeing the course of time, creating an alternate universe)?

i believe in one universe, restarting its self for infinanty. the only infinanty i can actually understand is a circle, so ive decided that time is a large circle from which the universe creation/destruction sequence had no beginning and will have no end.

if anyone can point out an error in my theory i would be much obliged, i dont like being blind

Sounds good to me

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bellicose:
i believe in one universe, restarting its self for infinanty. the only infinanty i can actually understand is a circle, so ive decided that time is a large circle from which the universe creation/destruction sequence had no beginning and will have no end.

if anyone can point out an error in my theory i would be much obliged, i dont like being blind

---

I totaly agree, thats what i was trying to explain in the original post. lol, you seem to have done it better than me tho.

why would you guys think the universe had been destroyed before?

If you follow the same train of thought as me & Bellicose, you will think that the universe is one an infinate "loop". Sinice the chances of us being here are infintecamatly(sp?) small (if u follow the W.A.P (see original post)) the chances are, this isnt the first time the universe has come into existance.

im unclear as to one thing, you say the universe is on a circle of time?? does that mean that it reachs a pinnacle and then recedes, or does it keep growing?? u say it has a beginning (1, i think u called it referring to infinite) and if it condenses again to that end, doesn't that mean its reached the end of infinite?? do you take doppler effect and red shift into account for any of your explanation??

One last stand, please explain

quote:

---

you say the universe is on a circle of time??

---

True

quote:

---

does that mean that it reachs a pinnacle and then recedes, or does it keep growing??

---

The stated theory relies on the fact that we exist in a closed universe.
ie. it expandes, then gravity takes over, it contracts into a supermassive black hole, and then into a singularity.

quote:

---

u say it has a beginning (1, i think u called it referring to infinite) and if it condenses again to that end, doesn't that mean its reached the end of infinite??

---

Look up infinite. and you will find :

in�fi�nite
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
Mathematics.
Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

The singulatiry from which the big bang occured, is one and the same, as the singularity that will (and has) occured when the universe colapses in on itself. It occurs on a time 'loop' which, by its very definition would go on into infinity.

quote:

---

do you take doppler effect and red shift into account for any of your explanation??

---

Yes, it does. if i remember correctly, the only think The Doppler effect shows us is that the universe is expanding. This does not in any way contradict anything in this theory. (correct me if im wrong, i havent read much about it)

[This message has been edited by j0662 (edited 11-15-2001).]

your forgeting one thing:
a singularity can not exist without gravity therefor there was gravity before anything else if you believe we came from a singularity.

besides that what makes you think this world actually exists in physical form and is not just a figment of you imagination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syphon detonator:
your forgeting one thing:
a singularity can not exist without gravity therefor there was gravity before anything else if you believe we came from a singularity.

---

and your forgetiing all mass has gravity, and if you follow the logic of the above theory, we came from a singularity which came from the compresion of the universe, which came from a singularity.. etc. (continued into infinity)

quote:

---

Originally posted by syphon detonator:
besides that what makes you think this world actually exists in physical form and is not just a figment of you imagination.

---

well, isnt that grmaticaly incorrect? or am i to tierd to read properly? I'm guessing you ment to put a commer after 'besides that'. But if this is a figment of my imagenation, where does my imagenation exist?

also for any one whos interested, i found a web page on Cosmological Redshift (The Doppler Effect) for any one whos interested.

[This message has been edited by j0662 (edited 12-05-2001).]

hehe I don't think i'am lucky to live in this universe becuase it would be cool to fly around in a space ship instead of a plane..hehe just a thought

------------------
don't get caught at anything and that is perfection

in my opiniion the world probably does exist in a physical plane. your imagination is part of your subconcious mind but it is also link to the concious mind. your mind is simply on a different plane of existance. the brain is the hardware connecting the two planes.

as far as the loop thing goes, the whole process has to start at some point since the universe is based on time. unless you believe that time is related to gravity (which is a very real possibility).

What ever you belive, be it God, infinte universes, whatever. Somewhere there must be an infinate.

In this theory the infinate is the existance of this loop. It is the infinate that has lasted forever, will last forever.

I heard some where that the universe is currently expanding with no sign of slowing down, let alone contracting. This force of expasion, some sort of counter gravity was found by Einstein in equation form. However he did not quite believe it, thinking the equation was just some sort of number constant.

Also, the Hubble's law support's this. It has something to do with missing mass. That the current mass that was calculated does not exert enough gravity to contract the universe.

Does this mean that the universe will not time loop and it is an open universe?