Spacetime, Inflation, Multiverse and Spiritual Integrity

[r6r6]

Finite infers/implies systemic and structural integrity

Infinite infers/implies no systemic and structural integrity
------------------------------------------------------------------

There exist some discrepancies regarding the speed of a gravity aka gravitational spaceteime{?}.

It is generally concede/believed in scientific community that gravity is or should be the same speed as speed-of-EMRadiation, and some experiments to verify that have shown gravity to be same speed as radiation with a 2% chance for error in the data taken at that time.

However, with inflation scenarios by Alan Guth in the 80's to help cosmolgist fix bugs in Big Bang and curren Universe observations, he introduced the inflation scenario that fixed many Big Bang bugs in theory.

Inflation means spacetime--- gravitational spacetime{?} ---very early on and for brief time expanded at speeds far beyond speed-of-radiation, and then that speed stop to what we observe now with speed-of-radiation limit.

This same faster than speed-of-radiation of spacetime-- gravitational spacetime{?} --occurs also in multiverse scenarios, wherein two seperate universe's burst forth within the gravitational spacetime, but there moving away from each other at speeds greater than speed-of-radiation.

( ((u)) )<----inflation speeds----->( ((u)) )

Ergo, any EMRadiation emitted from either of these universe's can never reach the other universe, because there moving away from each other at speeds greater than speed of radiation.

To me, in all three cases listed above, we have a contradiction;

1} gravity within our universe is alledged to be same or very close to speed-of-radiation,

2} yet in our early universe, gravitational spacetime{?} caused this brief faster the speed-of-radiation bursting,

3) gravitational spacetime{?} from which and or within two universe's emerge, is carrying those two away from each other at speeds faster than speed-of-radiation.

( ((u)) )<------inflation speeds---->( ((u)) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So putting aside the seemingly contradictory speeds of graviational spacetime{?}, I want to make clear what I belive regarding gravitational spacetime{?}.

1) our observed finite, occupied space Universe( U )--irrespective of how large it may be or may be in the future, has a finite systemic and structural integrity,

2) irrespective if we have multiple local universe's( u )<->( u )>-<( u ) as a finite set within a finite graviational spacetime{?} still sum totals to a finite.

Spirir-1, spirit-2 and spirit-3 and spirit-4 are each finite and sum-totally are finite, and 2, 3, and 4 have systemic and structural integrities.

Spirit and spirtuality is based within a set of finites ergo systemic and structural integrity.

r6

[ianalexanderr]

What are you, the "architect" from the Matrix?

[engellstein]

I haven't heard about the two universes, but space expanding seems like a cool idea.

I don't think the universe we live in is infinite. I think it's like the surface of the earth where it wraps back on itself. We can probably see the Milky Way in deep space somewhere and don't know it yet.

And I think planets and stars expand and space may as well do it too. It may be because of initial thrust of the big bang but I think it's expanding to fill something like a drop of die would fill a cup of water. So the big bang could be just space/mass/energy getting dropped into the center of a space-less vacuum.

Science wouldn't like that idea because where does the empty structure come from?, but I like to live dangerously. If there is a multiverse then where does the space between universes come from?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by ianalexanderr

What are you, the "architect" from the Matrix?

Who are you talking to?

r6

[r6r6]

engellstein--I haven't heard about the two universes, but space expanding seems like a cool idea.

Multiverse began with ideas of Wheeler and parrallel universe's. Andre Linde was the final champion of multiverse scenarios that got a big boost last year, until planck satellite put brakes their intepretation of data from other sources.



I

don't think the universe we live in is infinite.

Yay, , at least one other person with access to some rational, logical common sense....

I think it's like the surface of the earth where it wraps back on itself. We can probably see the Milky Way in deep space somewhere and don't know it yet.

And I think planets and stars expand and space may as well do it too. It may be because of initial thrust of the big bang but I think it's expanding to fill something like a drop of die would fill a cup of water. So the big bang could be just space/mass/energy getting dropped into the center of a space-less vacuum.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces our finite, occupied space Universe. Few grasp this, less acknowledge this and rare few accept this scenario. For some reason people seem to think as long as they believe in infinite this or that there is hope the extterrestrials will come and save Eartlhlings from their stupidity.

Science wouldn't like that idea because where does the empty structure come from?, but I like to live dangerously. If there is a multiverse then where does the space between universes come from?

Macro-infinite non-occupied space and finite occupied space both exist eternally. Rational logical common sense tells us so. Most do not like to access rational logical common sense.

Supertition and infinite possiblities allows them to carry on with illogic, unrational and with less than common sense as they live their lives.

It is just easier that way for most. Critical thinking is not a neccessity for most everyday living.



r6

[engellstein]

I see what you're saying. It's like different colored drops of die are getting put in the cup of water in different places and they expand to meet each other. In that analogy they then proceed to mix together until it's all uniform.

I'm not sure if that's how I see the universe(s) working but it's a well-thought idea.

It's funny you bring this topic up because I was just thinking of it after watching that latest Crash Course video.

Doesn't gravity make you accelerate until you reach the max speed when free-falling? They say the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That makes me think that space is "falling" and hasn't reached terminal velocity yet. Or it has but looking in deeper space we don't see it as having done so.

That Crash Course video said that space limits the speed of light (I think it did anyways). But obviously space itself can move faster than what travels through it. You'd think a guy could do the math and figure out some numbers about how fast space can move and why it limits light and how.

Million-dollar idea sitting there. I smell a nobel prize.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by engellstein

I see what you're saying. It's like different colored drops of die are getting put in the cup of water in different places and they expand to meet each other. In that analogy they then proceed to mix together until it's all uniform.

I'm not sure if that's how I see the universe(s) working but it's a well-thought idea.

It's funny you bring this topic up because I was just thinking of it after watching that latest Crash Course video.

Doesn't gravity make you accelerate until you reach the max speed when free-falling? They say the universe is accelerating in its expansion. That makes me think that space is "falling" and hasn't reached terminal velocity yet. Or it has but looking in deeper space we don't see it as having done so.

That Crash Course video said that space limits the speed of light (I think it did anyways). But obviously space itself can move faster than what travels through it. You'd think a guy could do the math and figure out some numbers about how fast space can move and why it limits light and how.

Million-dollar idea sitting there. I smell a nobel prize.

Yea - first, things accelerate under gravity, and the terminal velocity is just when wind resistance counters the gravitational force.

The reason that matter does travel faster (with respect to an observer) than light, is the expansion of space. The rule is matter can not travel through space at the speed of light. This means there is an 'observable universe' and the things that are going faster than light (relative to the observer) or not observable. Hawkins wrote all about it and theorises that the universe is indeed infinite, while the 'observable universe' is finite due to light speed relative to the observer. I'm sure he deduced this using common rational logic and common sense (which doesn't mean he is right). He hasn't been awarded a Nobel prize.

They say there is a 'space density', and refer to it as 'the cosmological constant', and I think that has something to do with the constant speed of light. Not sure. I might read a bit about that.

Krauss talks about a 'flat universe' (which is infinite) in his book 'Something from Nothing' and he's given good talks about it which are on you tube (it doesn't mean hes 'right').

[engellstein]

I recently read somewhere that said it is impossible for space to be flat because of mass warping it, so it would always be curved no matter what. And they said that there would be an overall curvature of space much like the curvature of the earth, where it looks flat because the curve is so slight.

And this curvature would be at least one dimension higher than a planet's curvature, so while the universe may wrap back on itself, it wouldn't be like we imagine it in 3d.

And light red shifts as objects recede from each other as they move in space, and on top of that they know that space expands, which adds to the red shift because light loses energy as space expands. IDK how they figure out the difference but I think there's other variables involved. But then they take it a step further and say that space isn't just expanding at a constant rate, it's accelerating in its expansion, which adds even more to the red shift. If the acceleration isn't factored in then measurements are totally off at great distances.

All this makes me want to be an astronomer but it's too late for me, I'm too old. Save yourselves, guys!

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by engellstein

All this makes me want to be an astronomer but it's too late for me, I'm too old. Save yourselves, guys!

A macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces our finit,e occupied space UniVerse. The two together I label as "U"niverse.

Simple concept yet so few can grasp it, fewer acknowledge and fewest accept it as rational logical common sense.

Spacetime is this nebulous stuff that is alledged to inflate at speeds faster that raidiation. Fine, however, what Ive tried to make clear and few can grasp, is that gravity is more than just a primary property of spacetime--- if not the only property ---it along with dark energy is spacetime, or at least the geodesic space aspect.

gravity () geodesics of positive curved space define outer surface of tube

time trajectories inside the tube---the body of tube--vv
time trajectories inside the tube---the body of tube--^^

dark energy )( geodesics of negative curved space define inner surface of tube

Uni - blue for essence of attractive/contractive gravity that coheres cosmos as one,interconnected/interrelated UniVerse

V - red is for set of two inside-the-tube time's ^v^v

erse - dark red is for repulsive dark energy

Uni-V-erse ergo the primary set of two kinds of space and two time lines interrelating to create and sine-wave set of physical reality as the body of the tube.

The tube curves to meet itself as a torus a toroidal tube.

Toroidal tube sets of three or more integrate as one whole particle-- fermonic or bosonic ---. Each particle being somewhat holistic in this respect of two kinds of spaces and integration of two time lines.

There is much more to my speculative scenarios but that is the lastest rational, logical common sense deductions that involve some numerical aspect also.

Who knows because the essence of cosmos and how it coordinates is still a work in progress. My version stems from some very simplistic basics.

Thats because I'm a simpleton for the most part. None have ever offered any rational logical common sense that would invalid my scenrios as presented. I dunno if true, just making sense to me so far, but long way to go before I could make predictions that could be tested scientifically.

r6

[Deepsoul]

We are expanding too......if we allow it.....