Theory of + and - | Exploring the Universe

[Wings of Pegasus]

My theory is this: For everything in this universe, there is an opposite- (life, death)(protons, electrons)(air/atmosphere, vacuum)(positive charge, negative charge), and I wondered not only if "matter, black holes" (or am I missing a key point here?) fits into this theory, but also if you could give me info back. If this sounds really stupid, forgive my ignorance, I, like I'm sure some others here are, am only 14.

-Thanks

 

[franznietzsche]

My theory is this: For everything in this universe, there is an opposite- (life, death)(protons, electrons)(air/atmosphere, vacuum)(positive charge, negative charge), and I wondered not only if "matter, black holes" (or am I missing a key point here?) fits into this theory, but also if you could give me info back. If this sounds really stupid, forgive my ignorance, I, like I'm sure some others here are, am only 14.

-Thanks

Why should there be opposites? Why is anything necessarily an opposite of anything else? Why is life the opposite of death? They are both 'states' of organic matter. How is an electron the opposite of a proton? They are both fermions (spin 1/2). There is a fundamental flaw in this point i think, this idea that things necessarily have antithetical opposites. Good and evil are not even necessarily opposites, but rather are relative.

With that out of the way, there is no matter-black hole dichotomy. A black hole is matter that has been highly compressed into a singularity.

 

[Wings of Pegasus]

I see your point, and it makes much sense. Thank you for clearing that up, now I can dwell on other things.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I see your point, and it makes much sense. Thank you for clearing that up, now I can dwell on other things.

There are a lot of symmetries that show up in our physical theories, so I wouldn't completely give up on your ideas (though maybe delay them till later in your education). If I could make a suggestion, though, perhaps you could start a bit simpler. You could make theories explaining the behavior of everyday objects and then study their physics (or come to us) to see if your theories have any grain of truth. As long as you maintain the humility you've displayed here, I think people will be very gracious and you could learn a lot in the process.

 

[Chronos]

There are more than a few scientists who suspect the net energy of the universe is, and always has been exactly . . . zero. You may find this interesting:

A Universe from Nothing
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

[Mike2]

There are more than a few scientists who suspect the net energy of the universe is, and always has been exactly . . . zero. You may find this interesting:

A Universe from Nothing
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

The trouble is that we don't know how big the universe actually is. We can only see 13.7billion lightyears away to our cosmological event horizon. Past this point space itself is traveling away from us faster than light so that any light emitted beyond that distance will never be able to reach us.

But it is said that the complete universe may actually be e⁶⁰ times that 13.7Gly. That would make our observable universe just the tiniest of specs in the universe as a whole. If so, then how can we ever know how much entropy or information was contained in the whole univerese?

 

[mijoon]

The trouble is that we don't know how big the universe actually is. We can only see 13.7billion lightyears away to our cosmological event horizon. Past this point space itself is traveling away from us faster than light so that any light emitted beyond that distance will never be able to reach us.

But it is said that the complete universe may actually be e⁶⁰ times that 13.7Gly. That would make our observable universe just the tiniest of specs in the universe as a whole. If so, then how can we ever know how much entropy or information was contained in the whole univerese?

Forgive me, but I believe that this is incorrect.

See this paper.

 

[rea]

I have the idea of all from nothing and nothing from all also from some time now, not necesarily mean that a+b=0... is that a exactly the oposite b, also, we have 0 elsewhere like a start and end point but not need be all the time in the same place, even mean the same, thus... :roll:

 

[Wings of Pegasus]

Rea, could you reword your question, I don't understand exactly what you mean (sorry!).

 

[rea]

It was not a question, I don't write goo english.


I say, that a 0 is only a starting point and for maintain it you don't need the oposite all the time, for example 1+2+3=6, tought mathematics say that one side equal the other, and if you pass them to the same side they "eliminate" themselves, is only about equilibrium (<--correct word?) see that you can have a zero elsewhere, the fact is that you don't need exactly the oposite for have zero.

 

[Integral]

I will remind you that we do not premit disscussions around personal theories. If you have theory that you have developed, you can post questions about the current understanding in order to confirm or deny your concepts but please do not post your theory as if it were fact.

 

[Wings of Pegasus]

Oops! Sorry.