I am a fantatical guitar-playing computer programmer who just happens to be obsessed with the rapidly growing understanding of our universe. But what is dark matter, and what is dark energy, and just what the heck is gravity. I woke up one might around 2:00 a.m. and couldn't go back to sleep, and here's what I was thinking about.

Consider the following possibilities:

Could it be -- is it possible -- that our universe is a multi-stranded bubble of matter and empty space floating within a vast and perhaps (for lack of a better term) Infinite Ocean?

If so, maybe this "Infinite Ocean" is composed of the basic particles that make up all known matter. Within the Infinite Ocean there are ripples and currents created by the random concentrations of the basic particles into greater or lesser volumes of mass. As random concentrations of particles accumulate they somehow become extremely densely packed and hot until a point is reached to where the hot density erupts - and an instantly expanding universe is created.

Maybe Dark Energy is the effect of the Infinite Ocean pressing on and squeezing our multi-stranded bubble universe ever outward. As the squeezing of our universe continues, the outer fringes of the strands comprising our universe are pinched off into smaller mini-bubbles of matter, where the matter becomes more and more condensed within the mini-bubble and ultimately swirls into the last remaining super massive black hole within the mini-bubble, and back into the Infinite Ocean.

In this case, gravity might be the squeezing effect of the Infinite Ocean upon matter in our bubble universe. The center of the mass of an object or group of objects becomes the point at which all other matter is squeezed toward within it’s area of effect, thereby creating a “center of gravity” for any given object or group of objects. The bending of what we know as space/time, and the effects we see as Dark Matter, are the indentation of matter into the boundary between the Infinite Ocean and our bubble universe.

Under this "possible" scenario, the voids we see in our universe can perhaps be explained as areas where the layers of the Infinite Ocean have come together, squeezing out all matter.

Is any of this possible? Or is there direct scientific evidence that disagrees with the above-stated possibilities? I'm just curious.

Thanks

Lindon,

I'm going to take you in the direction of your thinking? I know this question may seem to be unusual but it may help find the source of your ideas.

Why do you think that the universe is a complicated place rather than just a simple place?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Actually, I was thinking that (my hypotheses) offered a far more simple explanation of the universe than what I've been seeing/hearing -- Parallel universes, string theory, etc... Hey, it was just an idea. Not being a scientist or phsyics specialist, I was just wondering if there was any possibility this idea might hold water. Thanks for your feedback.

It's nice to imagine alternatives to existing knowledge, but science is a demanding taskmaster. Any new theory has an incredibly difficult barrier to overcome: It must match the predictions of the "old" theories in every correct case (that's a lot of experiments!), and then provide new correct predictions where the old theory fails. The "it feels right" or "this one feels simpler/more elegant/etc." criterion is largely irrelevant.

The ATM forum is for someone who feels his/her ideas are sufficiently well-formed to present to an audience for critical review. If you're still at the "I'm just musing about the universe" stage, this probably isn't the right forum for that.

What and/or where would have been a more appropriate forum? The universe website said if I had a question about the universe, this was the place to do it. And it was a "is it possible" question, not a new theory. If there's no evidence to directly contradict my "what if" scenario, then I guess that's all I was looking for. Thanks again.

There is a Q&A forum, where you can get answers to questions. The purpose of the ATM forum is for you to propose an ATM idea, and for the mainstream to shoot at it. With nukes. If you're still standing at the end, then your theory looks good.

For more on what the ATM forum is (and is not) about -- and why -- read the various stickies at http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/

For example, the ATM forum is emphatically not for folks who are looking for help in developing a random ATM idea further.

That's a big "if." You seem to believe that the "if" clause has been satisfied. Reading over the few responses, I can see no evidence in support of this belief.

Please re-read. Do not assume facts not in evidence. Weak logic is brutally punished in science.

Reading over the few responses to my original post, and responses to other posts in this group, it's easy to see why nobody would publicly suggest that my idea had any merit, even if they secretly thought it did. I mean, why expose yourself to the ridicule? I'm not a scientist, just a guy wondering about the universe who wandered into the wrong place and got the smack-down treatment when I asked an honest question. The experience has been interesting. I guess I'll just mosey along to another forum now... But don't be surprised if someday far in the future it is discovered that gravity is in fact the result of external pressure on the bubble universe, and that dark energy is simply that external force constantly pressing on and stretching our universe. I do appreciate the deep thinking and constant effort you physicists and astronomers are doing to figure this awesome universe out.

Well, part of the "smack-down" was because you didn't bother to read the rules of the forum, either before posting, or after the welcome message that specifically asked you to do so. I guess you haven't read the stickies yet, either. The history sticky provides ample context for why things are the way they are. The ATM forum was abused in the past by an endless stream of delusional self-promoters seeking to use the forum for free advertising. The rules were tightened up in response. So, for people wondering about how the universe works, there is a Q&A section. Ask questions there, and there are many bright and helpful folks who would be more than happy to try to answer them. The ATM forum is for people who believe they already know how the universe works, AND ALSO believe that the mainstream has it wrong. Such an assertion needs to be examined critically, and this is where the critics hang out.

Yeah, I can see that I've landed in a nest of critics here . Let's add fuel to the fire. Imagine that first homo sapiens who scratched his head one day and thought to himself, you know something, I think this world is round, not flat. How much math and rigorously proven lab results did he (or she) have to back up his/her observation. Answer: none. But it was still a reasonable and ultimately correct observation. Point is that many of the most profound observations about our universe only require common sense and the innate human capacity to deduce in order to arrive at the correct conclusion. Back to my original "theory" of the universe. Science has no answer for what occurred prior to the Big Bang event, so science (and tv science programs) present us with The Singularity as fact, and we are asked to believe that the entire universe was compressed into a point smaller than an atom immediately prior to the Big Bang -- which is in my opinion an absurd speculation -- but which is in fact speculation and nothing more. My "theory" also offers speculation about what occurred prior to the Big Bang, but my theory is much more plausable -- an eruption of space and matter created the universe in an instant. Science has no explanation for the constant and rapid expansion of our universe, so we are offered Dark Energy (use echo chamber and deep voice when saying that) as a posssible explanation and it is speculated by science that Dark Energy is yet another undiscovered particle. My "theory" also speculates about the rapid expansion of the universe, but my speculation offers a much better answer that fits with my basic premise, and that is, the universe is expanding because it is being squeezed. Science can't figure out what gravity is (yet), so science speculates that there must be yet another undiscovered particle -- a graviton -- that somehow magically sucks matter toward a central point -- or science speculates that as yet unidentifiable virtual particles self anniliate to create gravity. All just pure speculation. My "theory" offers a more reasonable (speculative) answer to what is gravity, and it is an answer that fits in very reasonably with the basic concept -- the squeezing of the universe by the outside force is the source of gravity. And what about black holes? Science speculates all over the map about what goes on inside black holes, but my "theory" offers a simple and reasonable explanation that fits with the basic concept, and that is that matter is squeezed into the black holes where it swirls "down the drain" and back into the fluid/plasma/whatever that the universe is suspended in, and getting squeezed by. In summary, you (Geo) are correct that I don't have hard core scientific data to back up my "theory". But in my opinion, in this case, none is needed. My theory is plain and simple and offers reasonable explanations for everything that we see happening in the universe -- it's what a reasonable person can deduce to be true -- like that first person who figured the earth must be round. But mainstream science, on the other hand, is fixated on particles and over-speculating on the theoretical particles that must answer some of the most profound mysteries yet remaining in our universe. Well, that's how I see it. I'm going to grab my fire extinguisher now and wait for the inevitable flaming messages to pile on. Thanks for your attention.

Do you not see a fundamental logical inconsistency here? What we see exactly is contained in the hard core scientific data. You don't know what this is, so how can you claim your theory is adequate?

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

So you would have us behave as if we'd learned nothing over the past few thousand years and simply make random guesses?

You don't get points for making random guesses which might eventually prove to be correct. You get points for reasoned arguments and observations that can be verified to be true. It's like getting the right answer in an exam based on faulty reasoning.

I supposed just like SR, GR and QM were intuitively obvious and common sense notions.

I'm glad you put 'theory' in quotes, because what you presented certainly doesn't fall into that category.

__________________
Conscious reasoning is an attempt to justify the choice after it has been made.

Something simple or 'makes sense' to you does not necessarily mean a) its true or b) it will hold up to any scrutiny. Okay so it sounds nice but can it withstand some basic inquiries about it? Can it withstand a slew of questions/tests? The reason we have the theories we have now is due to testing, rigorous questioning, insane amounts of really complicated math, etc. Does your theory withstand this? Does it offer up predictions that are testable? Or is it just a thought you had?

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

There are so many elementary errors in what you post that there may be little point in replying at this point. What I do urge you to do immediately is to read the rules of the forum, history of the ATM forum, and advice to ATM proponents, as directed earlier. After you've carefully considered all that, come back.

Before you start celebrating about the lack of directly contradicting evidence, you need to ask yourself if you theory can be directly contradicted. You've got a vague description of a multi-stranded blob in a big ocean of stuff. How could your idea be disproven? What predictions does it make that can be compared with real measurements?

Your given example of the roundness of the Earth...a round Earth would always cast a circular shadow on the moon in a lunar eclipse. A flat one, even if circular, would only leave a perfectly round shadow at precisely midnight. The same stars would be visible across a flat Earth, while moving north and south on a round Earth would let you see different parts of the night sky. At noon on a given day, the sun will appear at different elevations in the sky from different locations depending on whether the Earth is round or flat...this was actually used by Eratosthenes around 240BC to measure the size of the Earth.

You've been given a taste of what to expect if and when you come back. Just to give you a bit more to ponder, consider what is, and is not, a scientific theory. Everybody has a theory (small t). A Theory is different. It must make falsiable predictions, and make them correctly. It's not just an ad hoc collection of guesses that feel good to you.

I have a theory that everything is due to the action of nano-gnomes. NGs are omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. They are invisible, but they make the universe work.

Prove me wrong.

I know where one lives!

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin | Meet the OOONG TOE.
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
'No, mad's when you froth at the mouf,' said Gaspode. 'He's insane. That's when you froth at the brain.'

You can't possibly know that it was a reasonable observation unless you know how this person came to that conclusion. Guessing the right answer based on faulty reasoning is not the correct answer. I think Aristotle was the first person recorded in history to provide observational evidence to support the idea of a spherical earth. cjameshuff mentioned two observations that Aristotle used in his argument. Eratosthenes applied mathematics to derive the circumference of the earth; his estimate was very close to the known figure. He also calculated the tilt of the Earth's axis with amazing accuracy.

Can we use idealized spherical NGs in our arguments?

Well, I brought a knife to a gun fight in this forum, it appears. Lesson learned. It has been fun though. Now I'm hanging out on the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum. If you want to thump any of my ideas or questions, you'll have to go over there to do it. BTW, I totally agree that nano-gnomes control everything that happens in the universe, but I thought that was my original idea -- and way to controversial for this forum...:-) Constructive criticism is good.

Yes, in the canonical introductory presentations of NG-theory, one begins by assuming spherical NGs.

\

You shouldn't experience any thumping over at Q&A -- that's the place to learn, with lots of impressive folks who are eager to share their hard-won knowledge with others.

I believe you, but no one else!

Dark Secrets Revealed
(this is an excerpt from my own blog...I can't put the title, or I might violate some rules, or if I'm hijacking this atm portion, not really, it is only a simpler version of your atm hypothesis)

The vision of understanding gravity through the initial assumption that the earth along with the rest of the universe expand, three-dimensionally is getting stronger with the recent discovery of the possible existence of dark matter and dark energy.... Then, in 1998, the supernova reports confirmed the accuracy of Friedmann's prediction. But more than the confirmation, the results also show that the Universe is expanding in an inflationary rate, indefinitely, meaning, the Universe will expand forever. These only lead to more confusions rather than create concrete answers.

Is It Space that Expands?

One of the confusing issue in dealing with this notion that galaxies are moving apart from one another is the question of an 'expanding space'. There are people who are insisting that space is not a material thing (or substance), such as a dough or a rubber and it is not capable of expanding. It is the 'metric' or distance function of galaxies that expands (to be specific, the measures of the gaps of space between receding galaxies), which is nothing more than a 'mathematical value'. But there was also this hypothesis (or theory), postulating that during the Big Bang scenario, 'space' along with time, matter and energy were all been simultaneously created. In that case, it is valid argument to say that space is also expanding as the universe matured (since both time and space are directly proportional).

Different Behaviors of Space?

There are people who are reconsidering Einstein's idea of cosmological constant as the right answer to the problem of what pushing galaxies apart. Does this means that there are portions in space where gravity is positive and other portions having negative gravity? Our most fundamental understanding of an atom is that it consist of negative electrons, positive protons and non-polarized or neutral neutron? Isn't possible that one day we might discover a neutral gravity? Or are we just complicating our understanding of the Universe?

Are Dark Matter and Dark Energy Related?

Another issue that facing the modern-day scientists is about the question of the relation of dark matter and dark energy. Are they connected or two separate entities? String theorists believe that dark matter is another type of 'supersymmetric particles' that has no relation to dark energy. Other scientists, on the other hand are trying to connect the two as due to a kind af 'scalar' field called "k-essence" (short for, kinetic energy driven quintessence), in which dark matter and dark energy are inversely related. The explanation is that, as the universe expands, the dark matter's 'piece' of the k-essence decreases, falling below the density of the dark energy's 'piece' of k-essence (believed to be constant), leading to behave more as dark energy. A more complicated hypothesis, try to connect this issue to M-theory. The idea is to confine all forces in the universe in a four-dimensional 'brane' and let gravity escape into a fifth dimensional plane (or brane), perpendicular to the four-dimensional brane. The effects of the dark matters are then the gravitational influence of the other branes on ours. Again, are we just complicating things?

Secrets Revealed

The truth lay behind this Copernican philosophical belief - "God created our world in simple ways". Dark matter and dark energy do exist and they are indeed, connected to one another. Like the fragile lens of the Hubble Telescope, which are solids but transparent and colorless...like a pure water which is a liquid but also transparent and colorless too, dark matter is indeed, more refine than any kind of gas in the universe, much perfectly transparent and extremely colorless. We do not see it directly but we can glance it. Like the swaying of trees caused by the blowing winds, we can view (or detect), its effects. Dark energy is pushing the galaxies apart because these galaxies are immerse in an ocean of dark matter that constantly producing from its source. A simple way of understanding the secrets behind them.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

I'm a little confused, sirjon. Are you posting as Lindon's proxy, or are you now introducing your own ATM ideas?

I'm not Lindon's proxy, I just want to share my own view about gravity and soon I'll present my ATM ideas in my own thread. I don't wish to make it appear that I'm hijacking this thread started by Lindon. Consider it as a positive comment.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Sorry Geo, is nano-gnomes scientifically accepted fact, or your own terminology alone? Pardon, it's the first time I encounter such word. Is it in relation to the Higgs?

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Geo, I just searched it in google...nano gnomes are very very tiny dwarfs...well, sorry to say, it isn't science...in my personal view.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

But this is hardly original, just a variation on the medieval idea that angels push the planets round their orbits. Somebody has to do it. That coupled with the notion that you can fit quite a lot of them on the head of a pin. Given that they are so small, you could be forgiven for thinking they are gnomes.

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Ah but do they have pointy hats?

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---