Singularity State Of Universe?, wavicle stuff and waffle.

If the universe arose from a singularity, then what type of singularity might it have been?

For many years I've 'had a bee in my bonnet' regarding the very nature of particles, an obsession which ultimately led me to imagine a 'mechanism' which could be applied to all particles, even the very nature of our own universe.

The 1st model I arrived at, was the humble photon - propagative energy, of a cyclic trans-dimensional fashion. One in which convergence produces a point 0-D singularity via an event horizon. I soon realized dimensional condensation beneath an event horizon could logically create a simultaneous out-riding recursive component, a duality in other words, by means of an energy based Lorentz transformation type of process.

The photonic cycle is one of 720° (360° positive/ 360° negative) one in which convergence and expansion co-exist simultaneously.

Expansion/condensation above the event horizon can be thought of as the magnetic component. Similarly, expansion/condensation beneath; the electric component. Thus this duality operating with 180° phase differential perfectly describes electro-magnetism, with each swapping identities @ the event horizon boundary.

After this, I modeled the electron, positron pair on a ring singularity to hypertorus cycle.

Ultimately, I feel our universe is just another cyclic (wavicle). However, the order of its singularity state must be most multi-dimensional.

Anyone have a clue?

Would all the mass in the universe end up in one place eventualy? What makes you so sure its not already? My thoughts... all the mass is already in one place basicaly... And what we see in the universe is not mass but energy possibly magnetic flux? All created by the effect of mass at the center of it all shrinking and become more compact as more mass pops into existance. Yep mass just pops into existance.

- fucketh off, you wankstain.

Perhaps with excessive brain training, your IQ could surge to 53.

I think it just comes naturally to him:-

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=250075

Need I say more? ....... perhaps only congratulations! Thats @ least 40 more than that poor old Confused2 fucker.

I took an online IQ test about 7 years ago and scored a 121. I have recently gone back to school after a lot of ... life, and I took an IQ test at 3smartcubes-dot-com and scored a 135. It says I am extremely visual. What do the tests really test though, memory? So, how do we know that there isn't an Einstein out there who has never had the chance to learn anything to describe what it is that they "see?" A two year old scored 157 on a scaled MENSA test, she's knowledgeable, but does she have any experience or wisdom? It's just a number.

Don't twist this into me saying that I am in any shape implying that I am Einstein or anyone else for that matter. I am however suggesting, that there is nothing wrong in hope of being something better. Why should I not imagine myself able to at least try to be like him? I think he's a better role-model than Kobe Bryant, Ossy Osbourne, or G-unit. I'd rather my brain get fried from thinking too much than anything else.

This post has been edited by Meem on Jun 14 2009, 05:09 PM

The science on this forum is often primitive. It often evolves quickly from interesting topics such as a singularity on through profanity and intelligence test scoring to useless argument. Previous posts by the usual participants indicate they should be able to do far better.

Of course science may not be the objective. Maybe it's about who can put up the best thing for all the world to see.

This post has been edited by sporacle on Jun 29 2009, 04:24 AM

Hi all

When I saw the opening statement, I thought this might go somewhere. but it was followed up pretty quickly by profanity....Why?. You had a good beginning.

For my two cents, Science is pretty keen to make behaviors "laws" and then go on to ignore them at will. One such law is energy creation and destruction. Since science claims that energy WAS in only one place at SOME time, it seem inconceivable to hold two very different actions to be true.

That energy EXPANDED from this singularity
That energy cannot be created or destroyed

Unless something affects the energy being able to be created, the first statement should be true in all cases.

That energy was at some time in ONE place

So the question should be "how could energy APPEAR to expand from one place while not breaking the energy creation rule".

This is not as hard as it seems since nothing ever occurs twice. The universe is NEVER in the same place/configuration at the same time, nor ever was. Time is just a notation of space and distance and positions that we follow (such as light from stars) haven't existed for light years. Even as we look the position is constantly updating through the motion of the star relative to everything else.
It could never be put back right , EVER. So time occurs only once for each quanta of energy that we perceive. So if it doesn't need to be in a constant 'forwards moving' stream' (that we use to measure it), then it needs no space to occupy. Every time we look , there is only one measure of energy.
HOW we choose to look is why we perceive the universe as we do.

Here's a fairly simple thought experiment. When we track the earth through the solar system, How many times is the same energy ACTUALLY moved/carried through space. If you think the energy is simply carried forwards, why can't it be tracked or if you prefer, Why does space ALWAYS have to involve motion. There is NOTHING that is not in motion.

Cheers
Iseason

Hi iseason

Thanks - good post -

"Nothing ever occurs twice"

Yes - like we previously have been saying that Universe occurs only once.

It is essentially about re-configurations and of scales. Our definition in calculating energy is related to "how much change of how much within a certain period of time"

A singularity is bound to its scale - and what we as humans see as a singularity is just something that cannot be further refined in our scale - it is seen as an object of sameness in our scale.

A singularity can change into a highly dynamic and re-configuring universe if it is looked at from a deeper scale - and our universe is about how we as humans perceive the surroundings. So when looking at BB with this kind of eyes it is not strange that "all energy was together in a singularity" - but it is close to be meaningless.

Because energy is according to how changes are being perceived. Changes have to be perceived by an observation in order to be recorded as energy. Observation implicate sampling of changing events by an observer and the construction of a time-line.

And this is something which may easily be overlooked - that energy is intimately being related to time.

Time is intimately related to observer

There exist no G*d's eye to record time, so the pace by which changes occur is always relative to the observer.

Observer cannot sense the fundamental pace of changes of Universe, observer is a part of the everything - so observer can only observe and measure relative changes related to the observer.

It is not a simple procedure to back-calculate from our present observer status how the universe was before we were in a position to observe - and which kind of complexion the universe had back in this process - but the idea of a singularity seen from a human perspective and dated back to the time of BB is in my eyes a very odd way of looking at this process. It is like making a separation between what is being observed and by whom and at which time.

Stephen Hawking reversed his position on there being a singularity at the beginning; the Planck length is the limit of the small.

Try googling the term "singularity". There are lots of definitions, and as always, the terms we use can be slippery. There are lots of ways to explore the general concept of singularity, some sort of oneness, and it usually involves change. (If a singularity just sat there doing nothing, it would not be very interesting.)

I like to play with a definition of a singularity as a single infinitely small entity (no dimension and eternal) with the single attribute of unlimited change of position (infinite "velocity" throughout infinite "space" if you like). Exploring it's possible local interaction (actually avoiding direct interaction because it can be only one) in any and all arbitrary local three dimensional coordinates is a fun challenge. It appears that it all depends on the probability of the geometry of each specific interaction (avoiding itself by an infinitely small change of direction). There is a huge proportion of noise, but it is not hard to figure out two classes of interaction that can be stable (parallel and infinitely close to perpendicular are limits), each with two subclasses.

So far I can't find any previous description of how waves might evolve and interact in a process ether. Betcha they do.

This post has been edited by sporacle on Jul 1 2009, 06:55 AM

sporacle

[QUOTE]So far I can't find any previous description of how waves might evolve and interact in a process ether. Betcha they do.[/QUOTE]

When you say waves - are you then referring to waves in the ether - and if so - are you then indicating that "singularities" are being involved in the definition of waves - that "singularities" constitutes the "points" that define the waves.


[QUOTE] like to play with a definition of a singularity as a single infinitely small entity (no dimension and eternal) with the single attribute of unlimited change of position (infinite "velocity" throughout infinite "space" if you like)[QUOTE]

How do you envisage to define / describe change of position of a single infinitely small (dimensionless) entity -


[/QUOTE]There is a huge proportion of noise, but it is not hard to figure out two classes of interaction that can be stable (parallel and infinitely close to perpendicular are limits), each with two subclasses.[QUOTE]

Imagine that a "singularity" or we can also call it "Object of sameness" is being defined by a sort of repetitive pattern - a repetitive pattern that is being observable in the frame of observation - then you are left with two options if you look at change of position as your marker for definitions, straight and bended. And Yes - I agree that there are two extremes - parallel and infinitely perpendicular.

Let us now assume that everything which can be measured (de-coded - interfered with) in a repetitive fashion, must be perpendicular in its frame of observation - and everything which is not repetitive will be seen as straight - parallel.

In such case all changes of position showing perpendicular patterns can be classified as fermionic and all changes showing non-perpendicular patterns can be classified as bosonic - within its frame of observation.

Our physical world is limited to perpendicular changes of movement - we can call them standing circular waves - which show repetition in the frame of observation (involving said volume of space and said period of time observation takes place). However, our physical world is also being limited by the accuracy by which our observation / measurement can be accomplished. And when I say our physical universe, it is strictly being bound to the observer - in this case human being. Human being is limited in what can be interfered with and de-coded in a physical context - limited by our physical senses - approximately defined out from photon / electron scale of accuracy. Electron is close to being our "scale of singularity".