CAE Jones Explanation...

[cajones]

Time is the interval between two events.
Therefore, time is defined only when there are consecutive events.
The speed of time as measured in a universe of a certain speed is irrelevent- time is the interval between events. Is it relative? Is it fixed? Can we shift our position in that interval? You figure it out.

In order for events -- change in the current state of things-- to occur, there must be energy.

Energy is the ability to cause change.

Therefore, time cannot exist without energy.
This energy can be infintesimally small; it doesn't matter, because it is infinite. It is everything physical.

This energy does something. Here, the probability of any one event approaches either infinity, or 0; nonetheless, anything can happen.

But where does it happen? And how is that space defined?

Space is the framework in which simultaneous events occur.

There are no gaps in space; space must contain energy in every point. If a point in space is too small for change to occur, that point does not exist.

However, since change occurs, the energy that fills space is not evenly distributed, and continues to shift.

What comes out of this time=energy=space chain reaction? Well, physical existence, of course, but in what form? The universe? The multiverse? Strings? A can of fried tomatoes?

Here is wisdom: Our equations and models work with systems in which we know the types of energy and/or matter involved. However, here we quite literally have energy in its purest form. How does that behave? All we know is that it does something. How can we guess what? Probability? There are infinite possibilities- therefore, the probability that any one event will occur approaches 0. But it isn't 0, is it? Because something happened. Or, did everything happen? Or are there less than infinite possibilities for infinite energy that fills an infinite space?

Assume then that space is composed at this point in time of 2 points. Why then isn't existence the osolation of the eternal energy between those two points for all of time?

Hence, we return to.


Why?

[Wolfstar]

I've got some stuff to add to that later... but not now.

[cajones]

^_^. I'll be waiting... ;D

[Wolfstar]

Energy and space are the same thing, since neither can exist without the other. If you consider anything that exists in space as matter/anti-matter and you use the Theory of Relativity, you can see that space and energy are at a certain equilibrium and one can be converted to the other at a cost.

I had other stuff I wanted to say, but I can't remember any of it. Oh and to answer your "why?"... Things are as they have to be. Without every part of the puzzle fitting perfectly, the picture would be distorted and therefore would not yeild the same result. Which is why alternate realities/dimensions/realms/any other term you can use to discribe what you all know I'm talking about have similar characteristics, but are not the same. The pieces of the puzzle were put together differently than our own.

[cajones]

Exactly. I think I did a little more indepth thinking on this the other day...

Space and energy are teh same thing, because...

Time needs change, and that change has to be in some value... and it can't be limited to one region of that "direction"... basically that gives way to the other axes, hence, energy=space.

But figuring out how and when space branched off in the different ways it did is more complicated... but it allows for some rather interesting explanations for certain things...

[Wolfstar]

We need to figure out how to cross into an alternate reality, assuming that is 1) possible and 2) that they exist. Can you say Nobel Prize? Better yet, can you say Adventure?

[cajones]

Wicked awesomeness. Angels can probably do that... think we could get one of them to give us a lift?
(Mm, it seems to me that any alternate universe, reality, Etc would have to be in some dimention we normally don't travel in, but that isn't necessarily the case. Only three ways to find out!)

[Wolfstar]

1) do it
2) make someone else do it
3) make a theory that no one can disprove about it
Is that the 3 you were thinking of?

[cajones]

Nope, but those are good enough to make cannan...

[Wolfstar]

So what were your 3?

[cajones]

Uh. I don't know... do it, use equipmental experimentation, ask God... I don't remember. Yours are better.

[cajones]

Ok, Now I'm going to throw something out there for dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Even though I don't really believe that either is actually out there and it's just us assuming that nothing else can explain "redshift".

Ok, so time=change, change=energy, energy requires space. So empty space has to have energy of some kind in order to exist within time. But I think I'll make a calculus-based rule first:

if the energy e of a section of space at time t is given by e(t), and e(x)=0, then e`(x)/=0.
Where e`(t) is the change in energy over time.
So basically, it can't stay 0 for any length of time.

Now, to dark energy.

Notice that the accelerated expansion and all of that is only noticeable over huge distances? (Which apparently don't have any clouds to redshift things. .).

Well, it then follows that Dark Energy only has a noticeable impact if it is centered on huge expances of space with an amount of matter approaching 0.

In otherwords, dark energy seems to have the most power when it exists in a space that approaches, but does not reach a vacuum.

The first thing I thought of was that it accumulates in the lack of matter. But that's kind of strange, eh?

But, if we go with empty space having to do something, we can assign a pressure to a vacuum.

So if P=pressure, we have the pressure of mass and energy on empty space, P[matter], and the pressure of the vacuum on matter, P[space].

So, when P[matter] approaches 0, the space expands, or it pushes everything around it away with an increasing force. It's hard to tell which, isn't it?

But we can say that P[matter] is inversely proportional to P[space] or something like that. So I think we'll go with something like...

The rate of expansion a of a region of space can be defined as
a=k*P[m]*P[];
Or
a=k*P[]/P[m].

I think the second one makes more sense. I.E, the more matter is present in the region of space, the closer a gets to 0.

wait, there is a subscript function in bb, isn't there?

Anyway, there are probably exponents involved, so let's take care of these. We can throw in every element of the universe if we want-- holy crap!
Urm... I'll get to that later. But for now:


a=k*P[]^x/P[matter]^y

Where k, x, and y are constants.
Now, I suspect that the pressure of empty space would be constant, so it's probably just k/P[matter]^y.

But, I think that's too simple. Let's say we do something to involve volume, and maybe some algebra to get negative numbers in there.

And if we can work out those equations, we don't just explain dark energy, but gravity as well.

But... urm... how? We'd probably need Hubble's laws or something. *looks them up*.

Oh, and as for the "Holy Crap!" line, I think the equation of everything or whatever could easily be an equation that includes every necessary variable with a variable exponent, such that you can isolate any aspect of the equation by throwing in a lot of 0s.

[Wolfstar]

Sounds reasonable... if you ignore the fact that neither of us really believe in dark matter. To me, dark matter sounds a lot like the archaic idea of spontaneous generation... "We can't figure out what makes it, so let's just say it makes itself randomly!"

Dark energy, however, sounds convincing. As a matter of fact, dark energy can easily be integrated with ideas of creationism or the existance of ki energy. I define dark energy as the invisible energy that binds the cosmos, sustains life functions in organisms, and fills everything and every one... like the Force, except not fictional.

The prevailing counter-theory to dark matter is one that says that galaxies are self sustaining in reference to gravity, thus, they do not scatter apart and lose all central balance. Makes sense to me... why would stars drift apart when there is a central density of them with a huge mass? Add galactic rotation and common sense, then you have no need to explain galactic formation with dark matter nonsense.

I like doing things qualitatively, so I won't play with equations.

[cajones]

Hey... so do I!
... Hahaha... the members' area script played with your post. .

Eh, the problem with the galactic rotation as evidence of dark matter is... the Galaxies rotate as units. As you get farther away, the velocity has to increase in order to keep the galaxy together. Because it's held together at each segment between objects, not just by the mass of the center. So Dark Matter is utter nonsense.
And if neither of our explanations fits the bill, we can always throw in the space-pressure idea. .

*Burns darkmatter*
*It isn't dark when it burns*
*Forms nothing but a huge ball of oxygen...*
*Galaxies don't slow down*
*Oxygen cloud becomes a green star*
*Oxygen star explodes quickly*
*Resulting supernova causes disruption in faulty equipment and gives a clearer picture of the universe*
*The world is free*
*until the blackhole absorbs the sun...!*

[cajones]

It's about freaking time someone clerified this!

Galaxies have been observed to rotate at a more or less constant rate. The laws of conservation (angular momentum etc) should apply and so stars farther
from the centre should rotate slower than stars closer to the centre but it appears they don't. Rather, galaxies would appear to rotate as if they were
solid discs, but there is not enough matter to permit that. The current accepted hypothesis is that dark matter which we can't see provides the mass to
explain this phenomenon.

Which is, in fact, exactly what I wanted to hear. The one explanation I saw that could maybe get around the idea of dark matter was that Galaxies were a unit... but all ever saw was numbers and bs that didn't explain anything.
But if this random person is to be trusted, then it is as I suspected... *mischievous grin* galaxies are snodisks!
Umm... yeah. More stuff ... and... stuff.