Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: could the universe began with complete zero?no mass/energy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6

    could the universe began with complete zero?no mass/energy?

    without any mass or energy ,with zero at all point?
    what do you thing?-i was writting what i thing at the site
    www.icarus5.com
    could you tell me what do you thing about this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6

    could the universe began with complete zero no mass/energy

    could the universe began with complete zero no mass/energy?
    that is the base of my theory www.icarus5.com
    what do you think? could he began without any mather or energy?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,800

    Wink welcome

    Quote Originally Posted by cohen avshalom View Post
    without any mass or energy ,with zero at all point?
    what do you thing?-i was writting what i thing at the site
    www.icarus5.com
    could you tell me what do you thing about this?
    Welcome to BAUT, Cohen. The universe has to give us clues as to how ~1080 particles came to be from energy alone. So far, not one physics experiment can do that. Equal matter and anti-matter...yes. Unequal, no. And, it had to have that energy inordinately smooth. Pete.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,417
    could the universe began with complete zero no mass/energy?
    Hum,
    yes, it is possible, imho.


    The Icarus 5 theory claims that in the Universe, new energy and mass are created at the creation point. Therefore, at the edges of the Universe the mass and energy is youngest and the centre of the Universe holds the oldest mass and energy.
    This is similar to what the old steady state theories proposed (i should add that that theory was discarded because it did not match up with our observations of the background radiation from the early universe, etc)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,800

    Cool conservation laws

    I disagree. Conservation laws were dearly won. It took most of the 18th century to disprove phlogiston, caloric, and other inane ideas,and prove Conservation of Mass. It then took most of the 19th century to carefully prove Conservation of Energy. Empty space doesn't yield anything, it's another inane idea. Pete

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    I like the way Phill used to put it. And I use it to explain how we started with nothing, and then had something.

    "If you're standing on the North Pole, and ask what's North of the North Pole... the question is moot."

    If you could go back before the big bang (as only an observer with no mass or energy yourself theoretically) you would find nothing. You would be nowhere in no time. You wouldn't even see blackness. It is impossible for us to comprehend there being nothing at all... especially no time or space. Or even a complete void.

    The best way I can try to explain it to my own mind is that it is like Your existence before you were born. It just didn't exist. You weren't there, and then you were. (I'm speaking in terms of memory here)

    For you, there is no BEFORE you. You Started, and are here. And no one really knows what will happen when you are not here.

    Or if there will be a there....

    I know I am amaturish in my way of trying to explain it, but it's the best I can do with my limited education.

    If there was no space and no time... then the WHERE did it come from doesn't mean anything. And the WHEN only matters now because we can look back.... just as you can look back now after you are born to your own history....and beyond.

    I guess a different version of Phil's question would be...

    What do I remember before I was born?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    What do I remember before I was born?
    I remember when I was a Hershey bar in my father's back pocket.

    Um, no. But, I do remember when I first heard Laurie Anderson sing that lyric.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Welcome to BAUT, cohen avshalom!

    As your idea is very much against the mainstream, I have moved this thread to the ATM section.

    I have also merged the two threads you started, as they are on the same topic.

    BAUT is somewhat different from the internet discussion fora you may be used to, so it's probably worth your while to familiarise yourself with the BAUT rules.

    I hope that you enjoy your stay here.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by cohen avshalom View Post
    could the universe began with complete zero no mass/energy?
    that is the base of my theory www.icarus5.com
    what do you think? could he began without any mather or energy?
    to my mind both energy/matter and volume(space) is a simultaneous resultant. the existance of energy cannot exist without volume and volume would not exist without energy. or imagine energy existing without volume. not matter how mi-nute. and what would be the imputus of the existence of space if energy/mass was not there?

    which is why I think that volume(space) energy/matter and these states are infinite in their existence.

    so could the Universe begin without energy/matter? no.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6

    in page 3-i was telling that hubble(the astronum)see

    the picture of the universe began with mass/energy 'the reson it is because he didnt consist option that mass/energy could be created,if he was taking that option he was getting to a first piont without any energy or mass,jest enptyness.
    cohen avshalom charly

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by cohen avshalom View Post
    without any mass or energy ,with zero at all point?
    what do you thing?-i was writting what i thing at the site
    www.icarus5.com
    could you tell me what do you thing about this?
    The idea has come up before. The notable example is the paper in Nature by Edward Tryon. I haven't been able to find any good links about it. What Tryon noted (though he wasn't the first) was that the rest mass energy of a body is about equal to the sum of its gravitational potential energies with all the other masses in the universe. To Tryon it suggested that the universe could have arisen "out of nothing" as a vacuum fluctuation. There has been some follow-up on it over the years.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6

    the general idea of icarus5-explain

    the question was:could the universe began without any mass/energy?

    first thank you for remark,my general idea it is that the location its in the edge of the universe,on the jacket of the universe,second in page 3 i claim that if hubble (the astronom) wasn't take the picture of the universe began with mass/energy ,the reason it is because he didnt consist option that mass/energy could be created,if he was taking that option he was get to a first piont without any energy or mass,jest enptynes
    in addition-if you might post my web site to a friend -this will be a great offer and inportmane for me,that i could get as many as passible attention.

    by cohen avshalom charly
    www.icarus5.com

    if you like to remark-it will usefull !!!!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6

    could the universe began with complete zero?no mass/energy?

    Now i am collecting remark about this question for might publish my ipion that call icarus5-unlimited energy creation at the edge of the universe?
    I have some good remarks,and some bad remarks,i am more looking then posting a remarks for now,and sometimes i had a good topic exsmple from Ireland forum.(the site adress is www.icarus5.com)
    My general idea is the location for creation mass/energy, is the edge of the universe,on the jacket of the universe,more I claim that if Hubble (the astronomer)didn't take the view that the universe began without mass/energy ,the reason it is because he didn't take option that mass/energy could be created. If he was taking that option he would have arrived at a first point without any energy or mass just emptiness.
    so if you like,you could express your opion

    thank you from avshalom charly cohen isreal/haifa
    www.icarus5.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    [Moderator Note]

    cohen avshalom, please read the PM I sent you.

    [/Moderator Note]

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,417
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpErdMann View Post
    The idea has come up before. The notable example is the paper in Nature by Edward Tryon.
    Hum,

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=41636
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=37443
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36222

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,417

    Free lunch

    There is no such thing as a free lunch, some say, but they would be wrong. In fact, the entirety of the universe defies them. According to Stanford physics Professor Andrei Linde, one of the architects of the inflationary theory, our universe (and all the matter in it) was born out of a vacuum.

    "Recent developments in cosmology have irreversibly changed our understanding of the structure and fate of our universe and of our own place in it" - Andrei Linde, who will discuss the inflationary view of the universe at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    Read more

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    630
    The universe could not have started from zero mass and energy. I tried to develop a mind experiment that explains a starting point of absolute entrophy as a monism or single body system. The absolute entrophy decayed on a universal scale that allowed electrodynamic systems to develop locally throughtout the universe. The entropy of these dynamic systems is the reorganization of the system into a "greater" state of absolute entrophy which is ironic in my opinion.

    What has more order than a single bodied system and yet entropy which tears down the organization and generates a many-bodied system through decay then breaks down the sub-systems to a state of greater entropy that leads back to monism. It is as if the Universe cannot find rest. Pure entropy breaks down and decays giving us dynamic systems which entropy then breaks down to give us the most organized system of all. It is circular. The question I tried to confront is whether a decayed single-bodied system can ever return to the exact single bodied system without a loss? But that is another question.

    If a theory violate the laws of conservation, they will have a hard time finding any form of legitimacy

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    All the "CLUES" have been put forth to answer the OP and mainstream has done an outstanding job of identifying the main components, which are...

    1. That high Energy Gamma Radiation (high Gev-TeV) creates particle pairs
    2. SMBH's are in the cores of galaxies
    3. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter does exist and binds galaxies and galaxy clusters together.

    And #3 starts the universe as MASS with "Potential Energy" "Locked in" that tiny little Planck length particle. But Trinitree is right above when he says that NO experiment has been able to properly measure and define it.

    Now why do I say that it's Energy is 'locked in'? Because Non-baryonic DM is absoleutely collisionless with itself or baryonic matter, and is going right through the earth and our bodies in prolific amounts right now and throughout the hystory of the universe.

    Think of this...how much gravity does a Hydrogen atom have? You have a protron and and electron right? And it has been said many a time that the other space in that atom is HUGE (like a universe itself) and supposedly empty, right?

    Well guess what, it is "FILLED" with gravity!!! How much Non-baryonic DM would fit in that empty space???

    That 'extra gravity' (Traveling at "c", and so is inertial gravity?) is helping to hold those electrons in place, just like it is helping to hold stars in place in galaxies and galaxies in clusters.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    28

    Lightbulb observing gravity’s action in the astronomical arena

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Think of this...how much gravity does a Hydrogen atom have? You have a protron and and electron right? And it has been said many a time that the other space in that atom is HUGE (like a universe itself) and supposedly empty, right?

    Well guess what, it is "FILLED" with gravity!!! How much Non-baryonic DM would fit in that empty space???

    That 'extra gravity' (Traveling at "c", and so is inertial gravity?) is helping to hold those electrons in place, just like it is helping to hold stars in place in galaxies and galaxies in clusters.
    EUREKA! Gravitation and the Continuum...

    As the Ancient say: there is no such thing as empty or void space. The space is Spirit in its attenuated form; while matter is crystallized space or Spirit. Spirit in manifestation is dual, that which we see as Form is the negative manifestation of Spirit--crystallized and inert. The positive pole of Spirit manifests as Life, galvanizing the negative Form into action, but both Life and Form originated in Spirit, Space, Chaos! Chaos is not a state which has existed in the past and has now entirely disappeared. It is all around us at the present moment. Were it not that old forms--having outlived their usefulness--are constantly being resolved back into that Chaos, which is also as constantly giving birth to new forms, there could be no progress; the work of evolution would cease and stagnation would prevent the possibility of advancement.

    Bye.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Utad3 View Post
    EUREKA! Gravitation and the Continuum...

    As the Ancient say: there is no such thing as empty or void space. The space is Spirit in its attenuated form; while matter is crystallized space or Spirit. Spirit in manifestation is dual, that which we see as Form is the negative manifestation of Spirit--crystallized and inert. The positive pole of Spirit manifests as Life, galvanizing the negative Form into action, but both Life and Form originated in Spirit, Space, Chaos! Chaos is not a state which has existed in the past and has now entirely disappeared. It is all around us at the present moment. Were it not that old forms--having outlived their usefulness--are constantly being resolved back into that Chaos, which is also as constantly giving birth to new forms, there could be no progress; the work of evolution would cease and stagnation would prevent the possibility of advancement.

    Bye.
    Uh, translation into something that resembles physics please.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    [QUOTE=RussT;932941] All the "CLUES" have been put forth to answer the OP and mainstream has done an outstanding job of identifying the main components, which are...

    1. That high Energy Gamma Radiation (high Gev-TeV) creates particle pairs
    2. SMBH's are in the cores of galaxies
    3. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter does exist and binds galaxies and galaxy clusters together.

    And #3 starts the universe as MASS with "Potential Energy" "Locked in" that tiny little Planck length particle. But Trinitree is right above when he says that NO experiment has been able to properly measure and define it.

    Now why do I say that it's Energy is 'locked in'? Because Non-baryonic DM is absoleutely collisionless with itself or baryonic matter, and is going right through the earth and our bodies in prolific amounts right now and throughout the hystory of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Think of this...how much gravity does a Hydrogen atom have? You have a protron and and electron right? And it has been said many a time that the other space in that atom is HUGE (like a universe itself) and supposedly empty, right?

    Well guess what, it is "FILLED" with gravity!!! How much Non-baryonic DM would fit in that empty space???

    That 'extra gravity' (Traveling at "c", and so is inertial gravity?) is helping to hold those electrons in place, just like it is helping to hold stars in place in galaxies and galaxies in clusters.
    Russ

    wouldn't the charge of both the proton and electron "fill" the space between the two.

    as well , why would not this Non-baryonic DM be capable of colliding with each other? since they are of the same state. also, from what direction does this Non-baryonic DM come from?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    [QUOTE=north;933457]
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    All the "CLUES" have been put forth to answer the OP and mainstream has done an outstanding job of identifying the main components, which are...

    1. That high Energy Gamma Radiation (high Gev-TeV) creates particle pairs
    2. SMBH's are in the cores of galaxies
    3. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter does exist and binds galaxies and galaxy clusters together.

    And #3 starts the universe as MASS with "Potential Energy" "Locked in" that tiny little Planck length particle. But Trinitree is right above when he says that NO experiment has been able to properly measure and define it.

    Now why do I say that it's Energy is 'locked in'? Because Non-baryonic DM is absoleutely collisionless with itself or baryonic matter, and is going right through the earth and our bodies in prolific amounts right now and throughout the hystory of the universe.



    Russ

    wouldn't the charge of both the proton and electron "fill" the space between the two.

    as well , why would not this Non-baryonic DM be capable of colliding with each other? since they are of the same state. also, from what direction does this Non-baryonic DM come from?
    See here...

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...19&postcount=9

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=15

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,358
    [QUOTE=RussT;933584] so how does DM interact or affect electromagnetic energy?

    perhaps I'm totally wrong here, but in a sense could you be thinking that quarks or gluons are DM?

    the reason I say this is that in order to affect electromagnetic energy, in this case light, wouldn't DM have some electromagnetic aspect to it? even if it is a fraction of the total electromagnetic field? of which quarks do 1/3 if I remember right.

    we can detect quarks in a controlled lab experiment but can we do this in examining the Universe. or have we tried? to look for free quarks?

    I find that I might be stretching things abit, but I'm just thinking.
    Last edited by north; 2007-Feb-26 at 11:43 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by north
    so how does DM interact or affect electromagnetic energy?
    Planck length Non-Baryonic Dark Matter is "GRAVITY". Gravity is not a force. The 3 forces are EM, Strong and weak nuclear (So, all that 'extra gravity', DM traveling through the atoms at "c", *May be* the weak force).

    SO, Dark Matter is either 'gravity trapped' in the elements; electrons and protrons OR 'gravity traveling through' all the atoms making up all baryonic matter.

    Einstein and many others have tried to marry gravity to electromagnetism, it simply does not work!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    37

    Smile

    My view:
    Space-time, energy, matter are linked together.
    There is no such an absolutely empty space. It must be filled with something.
    If all started with a single point, then energy and matter must be properties of Sapce-time, ie. expansion creates more and more space, that in turn creates more and more energy-matter.
    Thus, universe is self created.

Similar Threads

  1. mass/energy of the universe
    By trinitree88 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-08, 10:01 PM
  2. why couldnt the universe began with complete zero??
    By icarus5 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-24, 11:50 AM
  3. why couldnt the universe began with complete zero??
    By icarus5 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-22, 05:28 PM
  4. Universe began with only Dark Energy?
    By coliver in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-16, 12:34 PM
  5. How The Universe Began
    By bossman20081 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 2004-Oct-10, 04:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •