Should, or How Must I turn my Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis into a Science?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kmarinas86

Guest
I have spent much of my spare time pondering the question concerning content of the universe. There is the idea that our galaxy is part of a huge atom. Which part? In which particle? Next to what?<br /><br />What happens when a cloud of trillions of galaxies packs so densely that it bends radiation towards itself forming a quasi-galaxy object? What particle in the Standard Model does this represent in a fractal universe? The electron? The proton? The quark? The photon? The neutron?<br /><br />What happens when you have mutiples of these clouds coming together? Do they behave like electrons? Do they behave like protons? Do they behave like photons? Is there a way to know?<br /><br />What are the physical quantities of smaller fractal levels and larger fractal levels? What is the size and difference between them?<br /><br />Is the universe connected by a single fundamental force? Is the volume of the universe maintained by another fundamental force? How many fundamental forces are there?<br /><br />Does our universe happen to be located in an atom of a living creature? Is there an greater affinity for life inside the subatomic particles of living things than in non-living things? Is this related to the mathematical simplicity of the equation for this fractal?<br /><br />Does our universe run on imaginary numbers, the same numbers that run fractals such as the Mandelbrot set, and the Julia set?<br /><br />The first questions have more certain answers and the last questions have the least certain answers.<br /><br />My investigation of many of these questions began around a time when I was really deep into reading the messages during May 2004. It has been almost 23 months since then.<br /><br />Over the past few weeks I have been making massive changes to my hypothesis. It seems to have qualitatively somewhat-defined predictions, but none are quantitavitely specific to a certain, existing, data set in particular. It is clear that I must make quantitative predictions. I only have one <</safety_wrapper>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Interesting hypothesis, some parts of which I have heard before. That being the idea were inside a single atom of some larger being. I've also heard of the idea that if we could see deep inside atoms, we would see whole other Universes.<br /><br />About the only way I can see to turn your hypothesis into a little bit harder science is to gain access to that which you do not have now. Still, even the cosmologists who study the more conventional hypothesis such as BB may be touting some other theory 20 years from now. So to me, its almost a situation where one persons hypothesis is as good as anothers so long as its a reasonable one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
F

fingle

Guest
To answer the question posed in your subject line.<br /><br /> I don't know.<br /><br />But here is a topic from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum that contains good advice and many links.<br /><br />I'm an independent researcher, how can I get my work published?<br /><br />good luck in your studies and have fun.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
I have spent much of my spare time pondering the question concerning content of the universe. There is the idea that our galaxy is part of a huge atom. Which part? In which particle? Next to what? <br /><br /><br />Your hypothesis is interesting. I've read thru some of it (non-mathematical) on wikia.com. My advice is to treat it as a "Hobby". Have fun with it, change it, keep asking questions (on or two at a time please), read, research, but don't spend all your spare time on it. Have other hobbies. Life is too short! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
Then there's Plan B. Get a Physics Professor/Researcher partner and SHARE your idea. Most of the theories I've seen have more than one person listed as the author. This may be the only way to get your theory published. I would however get some type of copyright protection ($$$$.$$) so that physics partner (XYZ) doesn't steal your idea! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
I have made a new visual that is a derivation from one of the old visuals. Enjoy!
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Kmarinas86 - Parts of your hypothesis remind me of hints in the Bible which incite scientific research into accurate models for our universe and other universes.<br /><br />For example, your posted illustration (graphic) showing a possible extention beyond our visibilty horizon both North and South.<br /><br />Do you remember my old thread on Bibical astronomy questioning why we choose a specific direction for North - i.e. - why North is up? [and south = down, etc.?]<br /><br />One possible hint:<br /><br />(Job 26:7) . . .He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;<br /><br />Now, earth is hung upon nothing in space - that part which was Scripture when written by Moses c. 1513 BCE is now science as proven much more recently.<br /><br />However, North being over or up, while common in scientific reference works, notably astronomy sources, and also in the Bible, is not actually proven science yet.<br /><br />One would naturally ask if God is North of our solar system - or, at least, was in 1513 BCE.<br /><br />God would, of course, be in another universe or heaven.<br /><br />Do you remember the Biblical hint on that which, like your hypothesis, is not yet proven science? <br /><br />To wit:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) 27 “But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; . . .<br /><br />One interpretation, and also scientific hypothesis, of this verse would be:<br /><br />Our universe (= heaven) is but one of many universes (= heavens, multiverses) contained within a much larger universe ( = heaven of the heavens). However, God cannot be contained even in this much larger universe, i.e. the heaven of the heavens.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the Bible God is spoken of as dwelling in a heaven (= still another universe.)<br /><br />One would naturally scientifically ask why a much larger universe containing our universe and many other universes could not contain God. <br /><br />It could s
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Another new visual of the Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY