Newest Posts My Friends | MarketplaceHermann Brain DominancePosted on January 27, 2010.  Nothing the Theory of UniverseThe Nothing Universe By the Offense of James of Dennis Introduction In this paper, I will discuss and will furnish logical proof for a new theory of how the universe began. A that is supported by the whole proof to the support of the Theory of the big bang. This theory is called, "Nothing the Universe" the theory. During my years of education, I learned the three most of the popular theories of the day. The most popular one of which was, and always is, the Theory of the big bang. The only credit that I can bring to give to the Theory of the big bang is that the this is a possibility. I do not do this declaration lightly, I meditated and followed the theory of the big bang for a lot of years. What keeps the Theory of the big living bang is the scientific proof that the points to him as the explanation more plausible. The question that needs to be considered is, "the logically plausible East, or plausible by lacks a better theory"? Just as the legal proof can indicate sometimes to the bad suspicious one, therefore to be able scientific proof. Just as I am sure that there is more than someone men and the innocent women in prison, I am as sure as there is a theory or two that remains today popular, simply based on the good attributed research to the bad conclusions. The one point sinking for me with the Theory of the big bang is the "Before Period". Existed Qu'a-t-il before the exploded oddity? If the this was not for this point sinking, I would have had an easier time accepting the Theory of the big bang; and the "Nothing the Universe" the theory would not exist. The theory Oscillating Universe is pleasant, but it has the same problem; suppose it never was in fact a beginning. If the universe always existed then it this is a plausible theory. Nevertheless; I find it difficult to believe, because something would have must regulated this never curls end in the movement. This is not necessarily a true declaration. I have a hard time conceiving of how the universe could increase and could contract continually without having been begins to some point in the past. This notion indicates to a beginning to some point in the past. The even taken true one for the theory of Universe of Constant State. The notion that the universe always existed and always will exist the manner that it has for all eternity is also a difficult thing to conceive. The big problem with this theory is that we know that the universe is not invariable. It increases and changes continually on a daily basis. Someone suggested that although it increases the general picture remains the same. I am at odds, the stars were born and dies, the objects enter in collision, are sucked in the black holes, etc. We live in a very active one and changeable continually the universe. I will furnish a general general idea in depth of all the three accepted currently of the theories followed by "Nothing the Universe" the theory. I will furnish also a brief discussion of God, simply because I believe that the subject cannot be discounted. .. Irregardless of how not very probable the existence of the one can be. I know that God is a subject that a lot of no one cannot want to touch on. I believe that in Seen the beginning of all things that the subject has, all at least, briefly is covered. What I am about to to propose in this paper is an idea that I considered for a lot of years. The this is a theory that I believe in, and helped came me to a better comprehension of our universe. I spent almost 15 years in Seen, and the development of this theory. It goes beyond the point sinking of, "the Before Period". The time before the oddity or the existence of a God. In my opinion there are only two current theories that are sensible. There is the "Nothing the Universe" the theory, and there is the theory of God. The concept of God always suffers of the "Before" the problem, but that could be just to design. Do not import how hard I tempest my brain I cannot come just to any other conclusions. Or the Nothing theory is correct, the correct theory was not written, or God is responsible of all. I will explain also this point more. I will do this while sketching a plausible argument for the existence of a god, and why it this is so difficult for the science of never to destroy the notion of a God. I do not believe completely in a God me, but the nature of a brands of God it practically impossible to discount his existence completely. These were the choices that I gave, and for the moment I will sink with my conclusions. My objective is now to divide my theory with the world, and try to furnish a full comprehension and in depth of this new theory. I believe that this theory secures properly together the whole loser of the ends of existence. With a clear comprehension of our beginnings, we will be able to win full insight in the internal functionings of our reality. I would like to say also, "the Pride of Paternity". Keep this present to the spirit as you read this paper. The new ideas are not easily or easily admitted because of a lot of factors. The pride of Paternity put is simply; the absolute refusal to believe in a new ideas or in the subject if it threatens an individuals a current body of structure of work or conviction. The denial of a new idea based on the human emotions is not a good manner to approach the subject. I would like simply that my ideas to be considered, as I considered other ideas and the other works. I would like to add also as the earth was once flat one, the edther was responsible of the fire, and the plate tectonics was an absurd concept. "Nothing the Universe" the theory can seem to be also an absurd concept, nevertheless; I do not look for the conviction. I look for only the consideration. The Theory of the big bang The theory of the big bang first was proposed by Georges Lemaitre. It formulated his based theory on the observations of the structure of the universe and theoretical considerations to the time. The change doppler was one of these observations, first measured in 1912 by Visto Slipher. It observed that the galaxies seemed to be far from the earth. The result was "the change Doppler". As the objects move away us from, varying footages of waves become lengthened and we attains as the red light. The this is how we know that our universe increases. Lemaitre considered "the Change Doppler" and in 1931 concluded that if the universe increases today then it it would be logical to suppose that the universe was once very small. You could reverse the expansion until you attained a "the essential atom". This atom came to be known as the oddity. As approach us this time in the past the current laws of physics stop existing the further of return let us go us. If we should obtain the more as possible to this oddity then our laws of take of true physics. When we attain this moment, we attain a point where nothing but the oddity exists. Of this point forward the traditional laws of physics do not apply. I believe that this point is named as the "the Epoque of Planck". Once the oddity is attained the agreement is that we would perceive an infinitely small infinitely dense point of pure energy. Person can explain necessarily what existed beyond the borders of this oddity. A lot believe that nothing existed, but the oddity. We cannot go anywhere also beyond the point of his existence. We do not know where the oddity came from, and we do not know so does not import what existed before it. The popular view is:
This is a very important point to consider. A lot suppose title of the theory that the universe began in an explosion. That could have been the conviction in the past, but not today. A lot tend to look at the "Big Bang" as a sudden expansion of the oddity and not an explosion. Imagine a perfect circle on a paper piece with a 8 diameters of thumb. Now to imagine itself that this circle increased in outside in an instant to a diameter of 80 thumbs. This would represent how the universe began. The oddity increased to create our current universe. Since we know that the universe always increases today; the one could suppose that the big bang always intervenes today. It could be also as the expansion of space stopped, but the equipment momentum has not. We could suppose also as it slows down, but the recent observations appear to show that the expansion presses, and not slowing down. The two bigger discoveries that gave the force to this theory is than the universe increases, and that bottom radiance exists all around we. This bottom radiance (cosmic radiance of bottom) is thought to be proof of a big explosion/The expansion, lending the support to the theory of the big bang. The other proof supporting was discovered, as;
That is not a good party of a list, but these two ideas and the two mentioned one seems to be beforehand the subjects supporting major for the theory of the big bang. A lot more of work was done where the conclusions adjust in the framework of a universe of big bang. This work does not prove directly the big bang, it simply is revealed and arrives also not then, contradict the big bang. For example, I want to discover how an object appears on a kitchen table. In this example the object is a glass. Supposing that a glass will appear again to some point in the future, I await about. Finally, I observe that a person between the piece and places a glass on the table. Now I know that the glass came to be on the table. , Leave to suppose now that there is also a popular theory as we live on a planet. The discovery of how the glass came to be where the it was has nothing to do with the theory that we live on a planet. Since the glass appearance arrived on this planet, it adjusts well with this theory of a planet, but we expose to prove how a glass came to be at this location. We proved that the hypothesis without threatening our planet theory. This is one on the simplified explanation for a not subject so simple. We to allow considering the proof for the theory of the big bang. We know that a mass of our universe is composed from simple question as hydrogenates it and of helium. The majority of our periodic table of elements is composed from elements that form a very small percentage of our universe. This is because the more complex elements must be formed in a high environment of energy, in this case a star. The element evolution in our universe would seem of this;
This is a simplistic view, but paints a clear picture of how the question evolved as early as the beginning to today. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, that is enough time for the elements to evolve. Especially when you consider that it took only life 3 billion years to obtain us here. That is only a fifth one of our existence of universe. The other 4 fifth one was used in the star creation, of death, and of evolution of elements to bring us to a point where the elements could begin a new evolution. The life evolution on Earth and the maybe other planets. Cosmic radiance of Bottom was observed by us all that never listened a station of radio of air, or looked at a canal of television of air. The sound whistling that you hear on the radio is caused by bottom radiance, and same manner with the down on your screen of television of air. It was discovered in fact as the noise that could not be eliminated for an experience. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson worked for the laboratories of Bell in 1964 when they did the discovery. They used an Antenna of great sensitive Horn to detect waves radio that rebounded of satellites of ball of echo. They must eliminate all intervention, and were succeeded mostly. They could not seem to eliminate a low level whistles the sound, does not import how hard they tried. This low level whistles solid proved bottom radiance to be Cosmic that left it on birth of our universe. This was hailed as the fingerprint of the theory of the big bang. It indicates to a massive event that created our universe. An event that relaxed unbelievable quantities of energy. Although that can be true, and we know of his existence; the it is possible that another event could represent bottom radiance. A lot of research was done on the subject of the big bang. As with any theory there are some wrinkles that need to be smoothed. All theories have wrinkles and sink points, again that of others. The Big Bang remained strong, because it has of less wrinkle that the other theories and the proposed hypotheses. This does coupled with the proof that was attributed for him, there will remain the principal theory a long time to come. The this is not the first one, and will not be the last theory that is held to be true. Although the it can be bad. The Theory oscillating Universe Maybe the second believed more the theory for the beginning of our universe. It was conceived by Alexander Friedman in 1922, and remains today rather intact. The point sinking major with this theory is the assumption that we live in a universe closed. Soon, most of scientist believes that we do not live in a universe closed. I say more, because "I knew a science professor once that believed that if you had an enough fort condenses could see you the back of your own head"! The manner more easy to look at this theory is to think about the Big Bang arriving many and many times again, every time the end in a big creak, followed by a big bang. To some point in the past that the oddity increased takes to the universe creation. Finally, the universe began slowing down and then to contract. Finally this universe would finish in a big creak, and then finally would increase again; take to a new universe that would finish in a big creak, and so on. The major reason why this theory was did not accept also as the theory of the big bang is, that a lot do not see a difference between this theory and the big bang. Why to consider the possibility that we are a lot of universes side issue in the cycle? When we can look at simply this universe, and his beginning and his possible end. The conclusion is, that we do not need to set up itself on a model repeating. We can be in the first universe or the 100 in the cycle, it has not any importance. What we interested in is how this universe began, that it is old, and how it will finish. This cycle has us importance because we live in him. Then, also to attempt as the is to consider as this universe is only the one in a long line of universe; we have the stay set up itself on this universe. For this reason, a lot chose only to consider the theory of the big bang. In the reality the theory of the big bang would be one under together Theory of Universe Oscillating. Assure To Declare Theory This theory takes a universe view as; always having existed, and always will exist. The universe exists today as it did million, billions, trilled them years there is. There is not the beginning, and there is not end. Developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Adhered and the Gold of Thomas, it was proposed as an alternate one to the theory of the big bang. It proposes that the new question continually is created as the universe increases. This treated the notion that our universe increased and it so new question would be necessary for the universe to remain comparatively it same. This theory could not escape the observation fact. The universe changed, increased, and it had not anything "assures the state" of him. The it was an interesting concept that had its supporters. It always suffers of the same questions that all theories of his type do. Was there a beginning? Even if the universe always existed, from which all came? How something always can it have been when we know that our universe is dominated by the beginnings and the ends? In the conception it tried to treat these questions. We would should not let us consider a "before the time" if there was no such time. The even can be said for the end. You cannot have one if the universe never will finish. Etrangement, "We can conceive of an infinity after a beginning, but not an infinity with no beginning that has also an end". Do result-t this of our linear habit of thought? This concludes the three big theories for the beginning of our universe. The Big Bang is the clear one feared the racer with the other two having only a minority of bear left. There are a lot least other theories known out their that can be found with a small research by the persons interested. The Nothing Universe This theory is not a famous or admitted theory, because the this is a new theory. I call it a theory instead of a hypothesis, because the proof that exists for the theory of the big bang supports also this theory. That is to say that; "My theory represents a good party of that the theory of the big bang does, just like certain of that the theory of the big bang does not represent". If I am rather articulated, I will be able to transmit the forces of this theory, and why it should be considered (all at least) As a friend running with the theory of the big bang. Maybe the day will come when the "Nothing the Universe" the theory will hold itself only, but I know that it is difficult to depose convictions currently of the admitted ones and generally held. We are all familiar one with our human concept of nothing. When a bottle is empty, we say; "nothing is in the bottle". We know that this is not in fact the case. What we refer ourselves to is the Fact that that we thought should be in the bottle no longer is there. In the order for nothing truly to be in the bottle, the bottle himself would must contains an emptiness. An emptiness is the absence completes question. The only thing that can exist in an emptiness is energy. An emptiness is the true concept of nothing, but this is not the true form of nothing. "What I propose am that our concept of nothing and the true state of nothing is two things different". The true state of nothing is neutrality. A balance between the loads in a perfectly arranged atom. This perfect atom I named the Nothing Atom. (To see the fig. 1)
Keep present to the spirit that the above mentioned face cannot be the exact structure of the nothing atom. The this is simply a representation of how it nothing atom could have, or could have existed. The point key to take of this face is; that the nothing atom was composed from question and of antimatter. Every was kept of destroy the other by the neutrons with the edlectrons and the positrons taking care of the lob different orbitaux. The arrangement of this atom could have been moved away more complex than this model than I proposed. I will explain this atom in the amplest detail in a moment. It can be also as these particles did not exist in an atom. Nothing Universe could have been composed from a sea of particles closed to key together in a manner in order not to destroy the one the other. The antimatter and the question are separated by the neutrons. I take the view point that the Nothing Atom existed, and will do if in this theory. The this is so important to note as this atom is the same existence, the structure, and the substance of nothing. There was not the beginning, because this atom was the true state of the universe, before the universe creation that we know today. When I say that nothing existed, that I mean am really that nothing but the perfect atom existed. The nothing atom that penetrated all space. In a direction, the universe that we live in representative today the same definition of something (the existence), while the pred-univers (Nothing the Universe) represented the same definition of nothing. Imagine these atoms in an arrangement that held the account of the so small free space as possible between them, and occupying the whole pred-univers in all directions. In contrast to the theory of the big bang and the oddity, not not to liberate existed energy in this Anything the Universe. All energy was contained in this sea of nothing atoms. Then, instead of an oddity increasing out in the space, we rather has our universe increasing in a pred-univers. A perfect one nothing universe. Our universe contains free energy and a ton of space and is limited by a universe with no liberates energy and not liberates the space. The nothing atom that exists beyond our universe is composed from question and of particles anti- question united itself and separated by the neutrons. The nothing atom is composed from the proton, the neutron, the edlectron, just like their counterparts anti- question. They all are locked and together are kept of destroying itself by the neutrons. I do not know exact arrangement of these particles in this perfect atom, but that is without report. All that is important are the concept that they are locked at the same time in this a perfect one Nothing Atom. The edlectron and the positron do not annihilate themselves, because they take care of the lob different orbitaux. Again, I do not understand completely exact arrangement of this atom; only that it existed. Although perfect arrangement is, this perfectly neuter one Nothing Atom is the only thing that existed in the pred-univers and the infinity calms completely. There was not movement and therefore no time, but we can use the infinity concept to give ourselves an idea of the state of the universe in top to the event not at all. So now we have the perfect one nothing universe composed completely of the neuter one and perfect of Nothing Atom. All energy is closed to stretched key in the form of a particles not this forms anything the universe. Trilled on trilled them, on trilled them, on trilled them, of these atoms. An infinite sea of atoms in can which to collapse. One of these atoms in a sea of destabilized infinity and took to the "Evednement" and the creation of our universe. Something must arrives in just one of these perfects nothing the Atoms to cause the to destabilize. Something must creates a destabilization of one of the particles in the atom to take to a reaction in irreversible chain that would take to the universe birth known. I this refers itself as the EVENEMENT. This rifle smoking well being very one of the even responsible forces of radioactive deterioration. I refer myself to one of the forces Quantique that dictates how the particles behave on a level under atomic. These are the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and the Force Electrostatique. An insignificant change in an of these forces could have taken to the destabilization of an of these perfects nothing the Atoms. The consequence of this was a reaction in chain that would create our universe and continuous on forever.
The Evednement
The event represents the exact moment when the chaos began. I proposed a theory to explain this based on the probability concept. Statistiquement to speak, the one would must supposes that when you treat the infinity; the probability of 1 arrival of event is 1 in the infinity. That is to say that if an event can arrive, nevertheless improbable; a chance always exists for his event when the infinity is taken in the consideration. I will quote now one of my former professors of geology, Dr. Eastler, because I believe these quotation sums on my event concept well. It said, "It be done, but it must arrives". Simply to put, it arrived because all exists, and if it did not arrive that we are not about knowledge the difference. Since we are here, the it is sure to suppose that something arrived and the "Evednement" could have been one of those such things. This Evednement could have been caused by a change in one of the Forces Quantique. Once this a neuter one Nothing atom destabilized, it regulated in does signs a reaction in chain that would take to the biggest only explosion that never will arrive in the reality history. During this Evednement more of energy was relaxed than all the energy contained currently in the whole question in our universe. Some call it "the Big Bang", I call it; "THE Evednement". (To see the fig. 2)
This is not an oddity explodes in the existence, this is an atom releasing a reaction in chain in a sea of perfect atoms. The it is not only an expansion of space, the this is a space explosion. This reaction is instantaneous and is, I believe; the only event arriving currently in our universe to a bigger speed than that of the speed of light. There are some possibilities to consider for this. The nothing atoms if are arranged closely together that once the reaction in chain begins to it is instantaneous. This is why we do not see that the light emanating of this expansion of our universe. I propose that if we could travel quickly enough and far enough out in the space would come us finally to an energy wall moves away us from. I would call this it "the Horizon of Evednement" but this name is already taken if I him will refer itself as the "the Wave of Creation". This energy wall is the border between our universe and the nothing universe. On the other side of this wall of energy is the universe as it existed before the event. An unending sea of perfect one nothing atoms awaiting their bend to be annihilated by the imminent one "the Wave of Creation". This means that our universe was born as we speak, and will continue to have been born for eternity. This can explain also observations as our universe does not slow down, but accelerating as it increases in outside. The creation wave pulls essentially the question behind him in outside because of the expansion continues, and or immense seriousness of the nothing universe on the other side of the wave of creation. Another possibility is that the further out in the space go us, the youngest our universe is. This means that the center of our universe is the oldest, while the exterior edges are the youngest one. Since the creation wave went through this space region enough recently, the exterior regions always appear to accelerate. The this can be that the most near we arrive to the creation wave; the question flies far of ourselves to the biggest ones and of bigger speeds. This creation wave is a never wave of end of destruction moves away from the center of the universe known to the spirit disconcerts speed. This expansion helps also to explain why there is as much emptiness the space outside. The universe that we know increases in outside to fill the space empties, where to empty the space never had existed. A universe a lot of question and the energy in our universe and has importance of the and the energy in the anti- universe. That supposing that a universe anti- question was created with the question universe let us live us in today. I consider this possibility. It can be also this question been more numerous than anti- question in the nothing atom, take to the massive explosions of question interactions anti- question little apreds the event. Finally the question won out, and anti- question was destroyed to leave we with a question universe. I have possibilities to offer as for why we did not blind by and sprayed by the energy is relaxed by this process. A possibility is that the mass of the nothing universe on the other side of the wave of Creation is infinitely big. This causes the event light to be withdrawn towards the nothing universe as the movements of wave of Creation dispatch. The second possibility is that the wave of Creation is if to the far of us now that the emitted light of this event cannot attain our region of longer space. The only proof left the behind is in the form of a radiance of Cosmic Bottom. A third possibility is, that the creation wave moves itself so quickly; to the quicker speeds than that of light, that the luminous waves become if lengthened that they do not appear in our range known. These the unbelievably long waves far can be found to the left, on the Range Electromagnedtique. These are not any waves radio, they are waves radio great. The true only proof for this event can be found in the form of a Radiance of Cosmic Bottom. The this is the characters of thumb of this ultimate atomic explosion. That is of not to say that if we develop the capacity to look at far enough out in the space that we cannot take a general idea or some proof of this light, but I doubt it extremely. We can be able to detect the waves radios unbelievably long that can emanate through spaces it. This wave of Creation traveled in outside to a bigger speed than that of the speed of light for well more than 15 billion years now. It cannot be possible to detect the exterior border of our longer universe directly. We can be able to detect it always indirectly. The amplest proof supporting for Nothing the theory of Universe can be found in the atom evolution through the universe. The most near towards the center of our universe than we will find form more of the evolved question. We should find older stars and the celestial bodies. There should be the groups of more of galaxies and galaxy indicating than this region of space had longer to cross the necessary processes for these formations. The most near we arrive to the youngest ones to the exterior regions of the universe, we should find less galaxies and the galaxy groups. That is because this space region is younger and had not the necessary time to develop also moved away side issue as the older region and central of our universe. The one would imagine the universe center containing big groups of galaxies, to disperse itself the further far central point that we move themselves until we attain the big ranges of clouds of hydrogenates that occupy the exterior edge. This, the youngest region of space would contain of the trilled clouds of hydrogenates light years through. In these big clouds exists of the nurseries where of the stars of young ones form and animate. Another event arrived to the exact moment that the wave of Creation began his long trip in outside and forever. To the exact moment that the reaction in chain did not begin just the one, but two universes could have been created. This supposes similar quantities of question/anti- question and that immediately that the nothing atom separated that his question components anti- question took care of the separated universes. The first universe is the universe of question and the second universe was the universe anti- question. These two universes exist on two had separated that I like to refer myself to as the "above" and "to the under" airplanes of existence. The "the Central Airplane" is where it nothing universe existed in a dimension and in the perfect harmony. Immediately that the Evednement arrived the majority of anti- question introduces in a new dimension, or an existence airplane. Of even the whole question in our universe known introduces in his own airplane of existence. I designated the question universe as the above to have mentioned, and I designated the universe anti- question it to the under airplane. This strictly is done to furnish a view of how these two universes can exist. This cannot be, in the reality, the true or exact structure. These are two separated universes, one of which is composed from question, and the other of anti- question. (To see the fig. 3)
Another manner probably to imagine these two universes as to exist would be simultaneously to envision the whole question arranged the this in a manner is in our question universe. Then to imagine itself that the anti- question that is arranged in the universe anti- question occupies the pockets empty space in our universe. Then, if you look at out in the space now in our universe will notice you that there is a lot of empty space outside. The same is true for the universe anti- question. The question in a universe occupies the space empties other universe and inversely. We perceive it as empties the space, because the other universe exists on a different airplane of existence/a dimension different. This is another possibility. This model can help also to explain why there is not enough question to represent seriousness. The dark question was suggested attributing for this disparity of gravitated/visible question. The this can be that although anti- question exists in another dimension, his gravitational influence always could be felt in our dimension and inversely. A link can exist also between these two airplanes. This link can be found in the form of an a black hole. A black seriousness of holes is itself excessive that it hits literally a hole in this other dimension. Just as anti- question out is spat in our dimension of question of a black hole; I believe that this question is spat forward same black hole in the space anti- question. A black hole can represent a bridge between these two dimensions. If you can imagine a question a relay of black hole the gap and create a wormhole that is linked up to his counterpart or his black hole anti- question. Maybe they are one and it same or maybe they occupy the same space at the same time. One these two black holes are linked up by a stable wormhole or the maybe black holes are connected to the white holes. The maybe white holes exist in the question and the universes anti- question as the gone out or the transfer between the two universes. (To see the fig. 4)
The black holes divide also a very common link to the universe state in the very first one and that is his gravitational very excessive field. This field exists because of the pure quantity of contained question with in a small quantity of space. The difference is that there was not liberates energy in the neuter universe, all energy was closed to key in the contained particles in the perfect atom. If there was the free space in this neuter universe, without any doubts seriousness is of a force that we never have before observed. A great black hole would become pale in the comparison. Clearly these are possibilities to be considered. The state of our today of universe is that of chaos in an unbalanced universe. The same is true in the universe anti- question, if it exists. The universe that we know today tries to return to this neuter state. That is why the atoms strive for the balance. It can explain also why the elements look for a lower state of energy. As the elements become heavier and heavier, they take a radioactive nature. The elements as the plutonium and as the uranium look for a state of lower energy while emitting the alpha, the quantums of silly, and the rays gammas. An internal event of energy or external is all that it takes to regulate radioactive deterioration in the movement. Once it is completed, a lower energy particle of the state is behind left. The first is referred to as the Nuclide of Parent with the Nuclide of Girl of lower energy left in his place. The physical quantique governs this process. The three forces that govern the world subatomique are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electrostatic force. One of these forces could have been responsible of the "Evednement" that was started with the destabilization of one of the perfect one Nothing Atoms. The elements that exist today are thanks to this destabilization. A lot of the same manner one of the 3 forces under atomic are responsible of the certain types of radioactive deterioration. The process would go as this;
What was left behind were protons, the neutrons and the edlectrons in this universe, anti- protons, the neutrons, and anti- edlectrons in the anti- universe. If one anti- universe does not exist that maybe this region of space only is dominated by the question with the other galaxies is composed from anti- question. Our universe would contain then groups of galaxies and galaxy composed from question, while of others are composed from anti- question. Or the manner, the question evolution would play the same manner. The it is reasonable to suppose that the physics laws would remain the same for the two a question or a universe anti- question. Since anti- question is nothing more than the particles of mirror with straight out load. The protons and the edlectrons would come together to form of hydrogenates it. Hydrogenates it would condense to form stars. Helium and the other elements would form in these stars, creating the universe as we see it today. In a direction our elements were the first things that began evolving in our universe, finally to take to the necessary elements for the life evolution. Of this manner a clear picture can be drawn with the particles forming elements, the elements forming planets, and the elements combining in a new manner and in a new environment to generate life. On the earth, the elements came together to form the organisms of only celled and of their evolved life. It takes big quantities of energy to create the highest elements on the periodic table of elements. The elements continually look for a state of lower energy. The state the more of low energy for any element is the proton and the edlectron. Yes, hydrogenates it. These components were closed to key once as the party of the nothing atom. Since we know that hydrogenates it and helium are the elements more abundant in the universe than the it is sure to suppose than the big quantities of energy were necessary to take to the creation of the highest elements. Why then to do we suppose that a particle created and then detected in a laboratory existed at the start of the universe? Yes, they exist, but not necessarily independent of the Nothing Atom. The theory of the big bang supposes that an oddity existed. This oddity was of the nothing but energy and the this pure ones were little apreds the expansion that these exotic particles existed and disappeared as the universe cooled. That is a possible view. Another seen can be that, the universe was very cold at the start. All free energy was closed to stretched key, and these exotic particles existed only as the constituent subatomiques of the particles that formed the Nothing Atom. Themselves they exist today we can find the emanating stars or high others events of energy intervenes in our universe. Somewhere, where the sufficient energy is available to create these exotic particles. The possibility remains that the particles that we create in a laboratory do not take ourselves necessarily to the conclusion that they existed during the birth of our universe. We know of their existence because we create and the observe in a laboratory. We as the human beings created a lot of things that did not exist until we arranged their elements to do them if. Wood always existed in the form of a trees, but it took humans to create a log hut. We know that the particles subatomiques exist, but because we detected them in a particle experience. We know that they exist, because we know that the protons, the edlectrons, and the neutrons has the smallest parties of constituent one. I maintenances that exotic every particle that we detected can exist, and can exist, could not have existed just at the start of our universe as liberates particles under atomic. The particles subatomiques that existed were closed to key in the nothing atom in the form of a question and anti- question. The Fact that we detect them in a particle accelerator can be because of nothing more than the Fact that they can exist in an independent way, and we furnish the environment to create them for the detection. The particles subatomiques at the start of our universe were closed to key in the perfect one Nothing Atom. Why God can or be proved or refutes I does not believe myself personally in God, but I know that the possibility always will remain, regardless of the manner in which illogical it can seem. If a god is an all knowledge and all powerful one is that the it is reasonable to suppose that it could foresee the current debate of today. If faith is as important as it is supposed to be then it would be so reasonable to suppose as any God would want to regulate things on the manner as they are today to try this faith. A God can establish the universe for that the proof on the contrary of his existence would overwhelm. This would demand an extreme quantity of faith of any one believing of this God. Someone would call it blind faith, the reality is this faith is that the this is. There is not concrete proof for such a existence of God. Why Greek gods someone can indicate to the Bible or to the other piece of old work, but I would like to ask are relegated to the mythology when enough old writings exist of them? Just as the theory of the big bang is the theory more popular while the other theories exist, even can be said it for Christianity, and the Islamic religions. They are the theories the most generally held while other theories of religion exist also. It has not any which importance proof a points of scientist to as the proof against the religion. The fact remains that a God could have established the universe exactly it this in a manner is to try Faith. A God could have created the fossil report, the plate tectonics, carbon dating, the red change, and an entire host of other scientific popular proofs against the religion. Damn, a god could have created the universe to this very immediate one and we never would know it. All our history having been planted as the memories on our creation. It very well being also as these even scientific discoveries not anything more it are discovered it of how a God conceived and established the Universe. This is major dilemma that the science does facing and never will be able to overcome truly. The same type of argument can be done for the religion against the science. Since there is not solid or concrete proof for the existence of a God. The scientists can indicate to the fossil report, carbon dates, etc and we go in round. This argument between God and the science will remain forever as a dead end. Or the side can prove completely or can refute the other arguments. Conclusions I cannot say that the universe never will return to the neuter state of the nothing universe. The fact remains that 15 billion years can be only a fraction of second after the "Evednement" on a universal calendar. We can always observe the very first steps of our existence of universe. Maybe an events of day will intervene in the universe to hold material or the neuter question to the account of a pocket of nothing to form. Maybe it will grow slowly, creating progressively a new interior of neuter universe of a universe never growing, surrounded by the first neuter universe. Maybe this wave of balance and of chaos continued a long time, and the space that we know exists between one of these waves. This Oscillerait the application of Universe of the Nothing theory of Universe. All existence is balanced as the pockets of nothing have importance in our universe that growing in the first nothing universe. These processes intervene on such a ladder that we cannot begin understanding even the quantity of time that we treat. I believe personally that we live in the first universe and the only one a that will exist. Why to treat Oscillation in this case, when we did not do with the Big Bang? The question and the universes anti- question probably existing on had separated them, exchanging the question and anti- question with the one the other by the various processes as the black holes. I cannot conceive of this universe never returning to a neuter balance nothing universe again. My conviction is that we live in this small universe, the first one to exist in the infinity, and will exist in the infinity from now on. As I declared before although, you never can eliminate possibility. The possibility that the question in our universe will begin collapsing in on himself can arrive to some distant point in the future. If the wave of Creation obtains far enough far of the center of the universe then maybe his gravitational influence will fall to the under that of influence closely by the galaxies and all question in the middle. The universe could begin collapsing then in on himself, reform the neuter universe and it the event would arrive to some point in an equal one more distant and to the disconcerting spirit the future. As I said, I envision our universe as increasing the interior of the neuter one (Nothing) the universe. At the same time the universe anti- question does it same thing of his own airplane of existence, if it exists. Two universes, the one representative the universe of question that we live in, and the other in the universe anti- question. The one would must supposes that the physics laws would exist in a lot it same manner in the two universes. I suppose that it does based on the Fact that anti- question reacts mutually a lot it same manner that this question does in our universe. This is my theory of functioning of the beginning of the universe. This not to be concrete, but represents which could have been the universe state before the beginning. As with the theory of the big bang, the this can be and could be improved on as the continuous time. I believe also as the same proof that can serve to prove the theory of the big bang can serve also to prove my hypothesis. The proof has not wrong, they are scientific methods that were directed many and many times only to come to the same conclusion. The proof is completely correct; I maintenances that the conclusion that the proof is attributed to is wrong. Cosmic Radiance of Bottom would be foreseen in the Nothing Theory of Universe. This big explosion of our universe in the nothing universe would leave this bottom radiance behind. The Fact that the universe always increases today also crises in my Nothing models Universe. It furnishes also a possible explanation for why our universe accelerates in outside and not slowing down. Since the reaction arrives still in the utmost reaches of space, the center of our universe would move itself slower than the exterior reaches of our universe. Then, when we look at more out the quicker things move themselves in outside. The Nothing Universe represents also the distribution of elements in our universe. Apreds the event that we were leave with the big quantities of protons and of edlectrons. These particles came together to form of hydrogenates it. Hydrogenates it formed stars and generated helium, the second element more abundant in our universe. At last, the evolution and the question distribution also can be represented by the Nothing theory of Universe. The big clouds of hydrogenates came together to form stars. Helium and the highest elements are formed. For this whole time there these stars one mustered itself together in the based galaxies on the distance and the distribution. Rather given to time finish us by with our current state of the universe. THE THEORIE OF THE BIG BANG IS ACCEPTS BASES ON THE CRITERES THAT I have SKETCHES AND HAVE SHOWS ALSO TO SUPPORT THE NOTHING THEORIE OF UNIVERSE. The only logical conclusion would be that it, all at least; is allowed being held on the equal ground with the Theory of the big bang. Possibilities Through this paper that I put forward a lot of possibilities as for how the events could have played when the universe was created according to Nothing the Theory of Universe. I did then, because the it would be irresponsible for me to present only a concrete series of events. The piece must have left in Seen a theory that treats the creation of the Universe. In the case of Nothing Theory I had first considers the general sequence of events, and then to try to transmit how these events played. With this, I had also considers all the a lot of possibilities that could have intervened during every step criticizes in the theory. I believe that I did if while always transmitting the general theme of the theory. Who is said that to follow it is the outline, as I see it, for the Nothing Theory of Universe. The possibilities did not include.
Dennis James Blows 2008 CommentsThere are no comments.Leave a Comment |
