- #1
mee
- 213
- 1
Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.
kurious said:Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.
Metallicbeing said:OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.
mee said:Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.
Metallicbeing said:Could you please elaborate. Some of this may answer vague areas of my theory.
Prometheus said:Why would your idea be silly, even if it were not commonly accepted.
Space is not a container for matter. Space is matter, as you suggest.
The only suggestion that I would make is to recognize the importance of time as well. All of space must be in motion through time, as space-time. There is no such thing as space by itself, independent of time.
Metallicbeing said:OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.
kurious said:Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.
mee said:Could the decrease in volume be gravity?
Metallicbeing said:Gravity in a nutshell...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).
2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.
3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)
4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).
5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.
6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.
7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.
8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.
What I propose is that the force of attraction between matter and antimatter is actually something like the electro-weak force, and that "gravity" is probably not a "force" at all. "Gravity" is most likely just a property of space-time (curvature).
Here's an interesting note: Imagine if the cycle repeated itself until the barrier could no longer resist (the grand-daddy of all black holes). Matter and antimatter would finally meet and create a "Big Bang".
2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.
mee said:Yes, perhaps in a nutshell. :) No disrespect intended.
mapper said:If it were possible to see the antimatter plane (say someone made anti matter goggles for ex) could we see matter in the same plane. What would that look like, for both planes and a single plane?
Metallicbeing said:Gravity in a nutshell...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).
2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.
3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)
4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).
5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.
6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.
7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.
8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.
___________________________________________
Define the plane of observation of gravity,is it the north pole(Canada) or the south pole(Australia) and which is right and why.? there is a plane of direction. and if there is why does not each direction cancel themselves leaving neutrality. what plane of rotation do we start at?
___________________________________________mee said:Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.
north said:Define the plane of observation of gravity,is it the north pole(Canada) or the south pole(Australia) and which is right and why.? there is a plane of direction. and if there is why does not each direction cancel themselves leaving neutrality. what plane of rotation do we start at?
Metallicbeing said:I believe that gravity could be observed on both planes. On the "matter" plane, matter gravitates towards other matter. On the "antimatter" plane, antimatter gravitates toward other antimatter.
Please keep in mind that, according to this theory, matter and antimatter occupy the same space, but exist on separate planes of existence. The barrier is space-time.
If we were somehow able to view the "matter" plane on the North hemisphere and the "antimatter" plane on the South hemisphere, we would see that both masses were rotating in the same direction. Since both masses are rotating in the same direction, there would be no cancelation.
I hope I answered your question.
Metallicbeing said:A cheap shot none the less...
If you try to visualize it, it will make sense. Why be so dismissive?
north said:___________________________________________
think about this, each are 180 degrees in perspective and are opposites,lets imagine this again.
mee said:Sorry, I couldn't help it. :) I am not wise enough to be completely dismissive, but something doesn't feel right in spite of its symmetry. I would be happy to be proved wrong.
force5 said:Dark matter = energy state a ...very dense/low volume
Space = energy state b ......less dense/high volume
normal matter = energy state ab ...elements/mass
gravity = energy state b^x ......X = source systems input
gravity = space density
Chronos said:The anti-planes have no theoretical underpinnings. Specifically, they are not required to explain current observations.
Metallicbeing said:Something? Can you narrow it down a bit for me, please?
mee said:Sorry, I just think that in spite of its good points, the theory is unlikely. I'm just not sure I believe in parallel universes occupying the same space as us.
Metallicbeing said:Yes, and the world's leading scientists once "believed" the world was flat. I know, new ways of thinking are always hard to swallow.
But it doesn't matter, it's not like I'm trying to write a TOE or anything. I'm just here to collect ideas for my sci-fi novel. As long as the readers think it's interesting enough, that's good enough for me.
I believe this to be so. Do you have an explanation for how this could be so?Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.
mee said:I think it might be interesting enough for a scifi novel. Although I hear that few people have actually thought the world was flat since the greeks discovered that it was round. :)
Metallicbeing said:Yes, and the world's leading scientists once "believed" the world was flat. I know, new ways of thinking are always hard to swallow.
But it doesn't matter, it's not like I'm trying to write a TOE or anything. I'm just here to collect ideas for my sci-fi novel. As long as the readers think it's interesting enough, that's good enough for me.
UltraPi1 said:Getting back to the original inquiry.
I believe this to be so. Do you have an explanation for how this could be so?