Equations known

[space101]

Equation to prove age of universe

Equation to quantify space time

Equation to disprove standard model

 

[COLGeek]

Do you plan to share these equations?

 

[space101]

Yes, but I am having doubts about this site, and all astrophysicists I have contacted have declined cooperation

Any advice?

 

[COLGeek]

Yes, but I am having doubts about this site, and all astrophysicists I have contacted have declined cooperation

Any advice?

Have these equations been peer reviewed?

From your other posts, if you are going to through something out for serious consideration, you need to show your work. When doing so, clearing define your objectives and ask for input.

Be sure to be consistent in terminology and measures.

 

[Catastrophe]

COLGeek: Be sure to be consistent in terminology and measures.

Of course I agree with that. However, as I am sure you are aware, there is a most inconvenient obfuscation regarding the meaning of universe. Unless use of the still referred to definition as all that there is is officially modified, this confusion will only get worse.

There is, imho, only one allowable case where universe may be spelled with a lower case "u", and that is in the appellation observable universe. This term is really short for "an observable part of the Universe" - meaning, of course, that part of the Universe which is observable by any observer at any specific location. Not much different if we are restricted to the immediate environs of Earth, but maybe more important in future. Because "observable universe" is obviously not the whole Universe, it correctly has a small "u". It literally means only a qualified part (by observation) of the whole.

However, this has given rise to the idea that there are all sorts of other "universes", and universe without the qualifying observable (or other such allowable qualification, should one arise) is become rampant. Indeed, just to make matters worse, universe is often used without the observable when, in fact, it is actually observable universe which is intended.

Again, to introduce more complication. the very methods of observation are changing over the years. Unaided sight was first boosted by the telescope, and then opened to include almost any other form of electromagnetic radiation, such as IR, UV, X-ray etcetera, even to include specific combinations - and then, of course, recording by various types of camera. Not to mention increasing space flight in the future.

The nomenclature really needs complete updating. We really do need to take into account what part of the Universe we are able to select to observe - perhaps our "selectoverse". Another species/alien would have their own selectoverse available from the same total. Likewise, aliens would have their own selectoverses based not only on location, but on input methods (including senses). Selectoverses would open more opportunities to limit view of the total Universe. Perhaps other and better choices will become apparent.

Please excuse my letting off steam on this occasion, but it was occasioned by your suggestion to be consistent in terminology Perhaps we all might try to be aware of possible improvements.

Catastrophe

 

[Atlan0001]

Of course I agree with that. However, as I am sure you are aware, there is a most inconvenient obfuscation regarding the meaning of universe. Unless use of the still referred to definition as all that there is is officially modified, this confusion will only get worse.

There is, imho, only one allowable case where universe may be spelled with a lower case "u", and that is in the appellation observable universe. This term is really short for "an observable part of the Universe" - meaning, of course, that part of the Universe which is observable by any observer at any specific location. Not much different if we are restricted to the immediate environs of Earth, but maybe more important in future. Because "observable universe" is obviously not the whole Universe, it correctly has a small "u". It literally means only a qualified part (by observation) of the whole.

However, this has given rise to the idea that there are all sorts of other "universes", and universe without the qualifying observable (or other such allowable qualification, should one arise) is become rampant. Indeed, just to make matters worse, universe is often used without the observable when, in fact, it is actually observable universe which is intended.

Again, to introduce more complication. the very methods of observation are changing over the years. Unaided sight was first boosted by the telescope, and then opened to include almost any other form of electromagnetic radiation, such as IR, UV, X-ray etcetera, even to include specific combinations - and then, of course, recording by various types of camera. Not to mention increasing space flight in the future.

The nomenclature really needs complete updating. We really do need to take into account what part of the Universe we are able to select to observe - perhaps our "selectoverse". Another species/alien would have their own selectoverse available from the same total. Likewise, aliens would have their own selectoverses based not only on location, but on input methods (including senses). Selectoverses would open more opportunities to limit view of the total Universe. Perhaps other and better choices will become apparent.

Please excuse my letting off steam on this occasion, but it was occasioned by your suggestion to be consistent in terminology Perhaps we all might try to be aware of possible improvements.

Catastrophe

I'm not that picky but I liked your post anyway! A very good post (don't have a seizure, Cat)!

Observable universe (u), equals a discreet quantum of Universe (U). Our observable universe (u) is a discreet quanta all of its own! Unreal ("the map is not the territory"), but a nice big hologram anyway.

 

[Atlan0001]

Sheez! Out from every local-relative 'here and now' point center of universe the universe is going to appear to grow denser, and ever denser, going away 'there and then' toward the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB 'Mirror Horizon'! Again, Sheez!

Astronomers say we may live at the center of a cosmic void 2 billion light-years wide that defies the laws of cosmology

If this gigantic cosmic void does exist, it could help astronomers solve one of the greatest mysteries of our universe.

www.businessinsider.com

------------------------

"An infinite density doubles as, is, an infinite Abyss . . . an absolute void! . . . Everythingness / Nothingness!" -- Atlan0001.

("The total of matter and energy in the universe(s) equals (reduces to) zero." -- Stephen Hawking, among others.)

 

[COLGeek]

Sheez! Out from every here and now point center of universe the universe is going to appear denser, and ever denser, there and then toward the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB 'Mirror Horizon'! Again, Sheez!

Astronomers say we may live at the center of a cosmic void 2 billion light-years wide that defies the laws of cosmology

If this gigantic cosmic void does exist, it could help astronomers solve one of the greatest mysteries of our universe.

www.businessinsider.com

I am not convinced with the soundness of that article. More than a bit of wild speculation and click baiting.

 

[Atlan0001]

The more I think about the above, the more realize it directs to what I've been arguing for, modeling and picturing, all these past decades since I first realized that the closed system of universe (u) has to have a fully equal but opposite (meaning, in full, not subordinate in any way) in the open system of infinities of discreet quanta universes, the multi-dimensionality of an Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)!

In the end, all I have to do to force the open system -- and the equality of the open system -- is realize and apply the "inverse square law" to gravity and the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U):

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, however counterintuitive it is to the many, gravity's ultimate center of gravity ('SUPERPOSITION' center of gravity) is in the "Nowhereland" of the "infinite density" of the outer boundary-land of universes, the direction of, the magnitude of, the mass entity of, "dark energy" I again realized above in post #7 of this thread! Sometimes it has been right there in front of you all along without you directly realizing it until someone and something hits you over the head with it:

("Sheez! Out from every local-relative 'here and now' point center of universe the universe is going to appear to grow denser, and ever denser, going away 'there and then' toward the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB 'Mirror Horizon'! Again, Sheez!")

("An infinite density doubles as, is, an infinite Abyss . . . an absolute void! . . . Everythingness / Nothingness"! -- Atlan0001.")

("The total of matter and energy in the universe(s) equals (reduces to) zero." -- Stephen Hawking, among others.)

 

[Catastrophe]

Is not the void considered to be the norm?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Is not the void considered to be the norm?

Cat

Quantum mechanics tells us, and shows us, the void is a particle, among other things, production facility. It is also the magician's hat trick that disappears rabbits. What would you think when it has duality with infinite density . . . is infinite density? Everything / nothing / something! Emergent SPACE (emergent gravity).

 

[Catastrophe]

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

Quantum vacuum state - Wikipedia​

I don't know. I just thought that there was more void than anything else. No matter.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

I don't know. I just thought that there was more void than anything else. No matter.

Cat

We are also told it may all be just a hologram, and nothing but a hologram.

 

[space101]

Equation to prove age of universe

Equation to quantify space time

Equation to disprove standard model

This is not for the faint hearted

Math only, or the subject matter that the math will be plugged into

Based on astrophysicist publications.....universe is AT LEAST 46 billion years old, and I am proposing it is much much older, proven with MATH and subject matter equations

 

[Catastrophe]

Math only, or the subject matter that the math will be plugged into

I am proposing it is much much older, proven with MATH and subject matter equations

We await with anticipation . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

To wit, #519 of "From a drop of water....":

Page 21 - From a drop of water....

Page 21 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

"Endless Beginning!"

 

[Catastrophe]

From post #7 reference:

Storing and utilizing methane can be tricky and poses potential problems that may exacerbate the global warming issue we are currently facing today. It is highly flammable, which increases the risk of combustion given ideal conditions. [3] In addition, methane is considered to be 20-30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide. [4] Therefore, with the impending rise of temperature around the world, it is not too difficult to imagine a scenario when permafrost and methane hydrates will begin to thaw, releasing trillions of cubic meters of methane into the atmosphere and consequently accelerating global warming.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

From post #7 reference:



Cat

You lost me completely, post #7, my post, of this thread?????

 

[COLGeek]

This is not for the faint hearted

Math only, or the subject matter that the math will be plugged into

Based on astrophysicist publications.....universe is AT LEAST 46 billion years old, and I am proposing it is much much older, proven with MATH and subject matter equations

You keep mentioning equations. Show your work, as your teachers/professors would say!