|
Could anyone help me try to find a flaw in this theory please? I think it makes much more sense than current consensus and recent evidence seems to points in favor of it. The theory is that relative space-time has generations like parents and children and children get their space-time from their parent. If this is true it explains the expansion of our universe and the cause of our big bang with a very simple model that basically follows what we already see happing around us.
Each of us and every object animate or inanimate gets it own unique line of time. Its own perception of the passing of time from inception until oblivion. Every object's current space time is always provided by its most direct parent inertial frame of reference. For most of us right now the planet Earth is our parent pocket of space-time and provides the space-time that each of our individual relative space-times lay on top of. For some it may indirectly be our planet because their immediate space-time might be provided by a car, train, plane, etc.., which in turn gets its relative space-time from the planet. Our planet gets its relative space-time from Sol, our sun. Our sun is what holds our planetary system together and in order to be considered a part of our planetary system you share Sol's velocity faster than 500,000 mph as she hurls through space dragging all her children along. This inertial frame of reference created by our sun as it hurls through space provides the space time for all its children. That being the planets and comets and indirectly the moons and other siblings and cousins that we share this inertial frame of reference with. Our solar system gets its space time from the milky way. All our sibling planetary systems inside the milky way all share in the milky way's speed in excess of 1,000,000 mph. The next largest inertial frame of reference, the next largest pocket of space-time, our local group of galaxies in turn provides the space time for the milky way and all galaxies that share the velocity of our local galaxy group , over 2,000,000 mph, have the same parent pocket of relative space-time. Their space times are over laid or lay on top of the space time provided by their immediate parent. The local group has a parent named Virgo and a grandparent parent called Laniakea. So just as the milky way obtains its space time from the local group and passes its space time onto its children like Sol so does the Virgo supercluster get its space-time from Laniakea and passes its space-time onto his children. At this point I think the next largest inertial frame of reference is our known visible universe. I theorize that nested inertial frames of reference, nested pockets of space-time, continue outwards and our known universe gets its space time from its parent inertial frame of reference. I theorize our our known universe has a velocity as it hurls through space and likely has an approximate axis of rotation and it might even have an orbital period. Our known universe, our largest measureable pocket of relative space-time , our "post" for short, likely has some finite number of siblings sharing the same inertial frame of reference (also hurling through space). Very likely all or most of the other pockets of space time similar to our known universe sharing the same parent inertial frame of reference came from the same cosmic event that created our known universe. In other words, the big bang that created our known universe likely didn't give birth to one pocket but more than likely a litter of pockets. I theorize that number will never be known. We could never evolve to the point of being able to see from the vantage point of our next largest frame of reference all the different universes like ours created from that same cosmic event. (or could we?) Our post has a finite number of siblings, a finite number of first cousins, but an infinite number of cousins. That is the natural state of nature. If this theory were true then one of the predictions would be that cohesive pockets of space-time from what we see inside our visible universe will loose cohesiveness over time. Even if it were not for the expansion of the universe it is the natural progression of planetary systems and galaxies to dissipate. They grow larger over time and so the space-time of each inertial frame of reference will do the same thing. There is no big crunch coming. There is the big rip and the big freeze. If our post's space-time is coming from a parent that is slowly loosing cohesiveness and that parent gets its space time from a parent that is also slowly loosing cohesiveness then each subsequent nested space time is going to appear to be tearing apart at the seams. We see our universe expanding and the more it grows apart the faster it grows apart because the space-time of our universe is being pulled apart as the parent space time dissipates. That parent's space-time expands and dissipates because it's parent pocket of space time is doing the same thing. We don't need dark matter or dark energy to explain the naturally occurring state of nature. For much much more detail than I can cover in this one post feel free to check out The Natural State Of Nature . But we don't need dark matter because the expansion of the universe is a natural and just happens as each parent's space time looses mass-energy cohesion. Furthermore we needed dark energy and dark matter to explain odd behaviors of galaxies. This was based on an assumption of uniformity. We assume the initial state of our plasma energy cloud that cooled to form our universe was fairly homogenous and isotropic and expect to see things relatively the same. What if instead of being uniform it was chaotic and random. What if instead of singularity being the source of all matter in our post it was instead the collision of two inertial frames of reference and all the subsequent collisions that transpired. If we accept that our Universe may be infinite and thus the number of nested parent pockets of space time goes on and on and on then we have the potential for two of these pockets 10,000 generations or 100,000 generations beyond our known universe to collide. The relative speeds of the posts at our scale of two parents 100,000 times removed begins to approach twice the speed of light and that is not counting any additional momentum due to internal expanding spacetime. Inside our frame of reference we can't exceed the speed of light. But just as the expansion of our universe does not break the law of exceeding the speed of light neither does what happens when talking about two different inertial frames of reference So if our known universe was in fact the result of the collision of prior universes then I would predict the cloud of plasma energy that occurs as matter vaporized into energy when colliding at speeds of that magnitude would have retained momentum and some new velocity and trajectory. And as it was spinning and cooled to form matter that began to attract together because of gravity we would expect to see the spinning eddies form into galaxies that for the most part would share a similar axis of rotation and relatively harmonic inclination of galactic planes. A singularity exploding and expanding we would expect to see a more uniform distribution of inclinations of galactic planes at all different angles but overwhelmingly what we see is that there is a shared harmony to galaxies at all different places inside our known universe. To me that points to a collision as the catalyst for our big bang. So if this were true and our universe was hurling through space inside a pocket that was also hurling through space inside a pocket that was also hurling through space (etc, etc) then what might I expect to see when I try to glimpse inside the atom. What would I expect to see from subparticles as they hurl through space? I would expect to see them moving in waves. I would expect to see resonance, vibration, and oscillation. Why? Because sound and light and radiation and gravity all travel in waves so if subatomic particles were traveling fast I would expect to see particles also acting like waves. Those are just three core theories I cover at the FB group, The Natural State of Nature and I welcome any constructive feedback that can help point any specific flaws in the theory. This is theoretical (for now) and other than observation and logic there is no empirical proof but when the other choice is make believe dark matter and a point singularity holding all the matter in the universe at one point supposedly expanding in size at a rate that makes the speed of light look slow.
#thenaturalstateofnature
All the darkness in the entire vast multiverse can not defeat the flame of a single candle.
|