Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe

  • 50 Replies
  • 12555 Views
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« on: August 02, 2006, 06:44:34 AM »
I figured that although this piece of alternative science closely ties in with FE theory itself, it probably belongs in this forum since it does not specifically deal with the Earth itself.

I'm going to present my own hypothesis on the creation of the universe, because as far as I know it has not been considered in a non-religious light by Flat Earthers on this site.

Firstly, it is my conviction that the universe began from not one, but two seperate, infinitely small points. Why is this any less likely that RE Big Bang theory?

I believe that the fundamental differences between dark matter and "normal" matter are down to their seperate points of origin. Both simultaneously and spontaneously exploded in corresponding directions - both explosions headed towards eachother. Do not ask me to explain why this happened - RE Big Bang theorists have no idea why their Big Bang occured either. The matter of why is more a matter for philosophical debate than scientific consideration.

The blankets of dark matter and matter, then, headed towards eachother, accelerating and expanding constantly. It would only be a matter of time before they would collide.



For some reason, normal matter was the first to cave in against the other.  This was just down to the chaotic and random nature of the primal universe - it's the same sort of arbitrary occurance as the success of matter over "anti-matter" in conventional cosmology's Big Bang universe.



The blanket of dark matter remained firm, while the normal matter spread out over its surface.



Eventually, the UA (the universal accelerator - the blanket on the dark matter side) would have reached the point of emission for normal matter.



The emitter would have collided violently with the pile of matter heaped on the UA, scattering the matter briefly into space...



...of course, Universal Acceleration means that the UA would quickly collide with the matter, "flattening" it out again.

I hypothesise that this collision event is the source of "background radiation" which RE scientists claim as proof of the Big Bang theory.

With the normal matter of the universe in a state of relative stability, and the UA on a never ending course of expansion and acceleration, the tendancy of matter to react, form compounds and interact in other ways caused larger conglomerations of matter to accumulate. Irregularities in the flatness of the UA would also have "funnelled" matter together in its troughs.



Which leads us almost to the present day. Planets form and life evolves on them.

This is only my own personal hypothesis based on observation and logic, it doesn't represent FE theory as a whole, which has no standardised explanation for the origins of the universe.

Thoughts? Questions?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2006, 07:00:44 AM »
theThe mention of "dark matter" and the creation of the Cosmos immediately brought to mind a substance called ether.

- Dionysios

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2006, 07:10:52 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
The mention of "dark matter" and the creation of the Cosmos immediately brought to mind a substance called ether.

- Dionysios


I believe that "ether" and "dark matter" are essentially synonymous.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2006, 10:14:49 AM »
wow, and wow.

I don't even know where to start with this. All I need to say really is "WHERE IS THE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE?" Yes you do need some of that, unless you are a talented scientist and phyisicist of many years that can come up with elegant and mathmatically correct theory. (higgs field is an example)

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2006, 10:29:08 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Firstly, it is my conviction that the universe began from not one, but two seperate, infinitely small points. Why is this any less likely that RE Big Bang theory?


It's not less likely because it's less meaningful.  The RE Big Bang theory does not postulated that there was a big universe, empty except for a super-dense point of matter in it.  It postulates that the universe itself was a single point.  As in, the greatest distance between two points in space was zero.

How do you work this into your theory?  Do you suggest that there were two universes, each infinitely dense and small, which expanded?  If so, how did they come into contact with each other?  If they are different universes then it's not meaningful to talk about them ever coming into contact since that implies they are both moving through some "larger" universe, which is obviously nonsense since we defined the two expanding things as universes.

The other option is to suggest that there was in fact a big universe, empty except for two small points of super-dense mass-energy.  The problem with that is astronomical evidence shows that this contradicts not only the hypothesis of the Big Bang theory but also the evidence that backs it up.

It sounds to me like this latter option is the proper interpretation of your hypothesis, thus implying that your hypothesis is less likely than the Big Bang hypothesis because it contradicts the available evidence.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Re: Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2006, 03:14:37 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Firstly, it is my conviction that the universe began from not one, but two seperate, infinitely small points. Why is this any less likely that RE Big Bang theory?


It's not less likely because it's less meaningful.  The RE Big Bang theory does not postulated that there was a big universe, empty except for a super-dense point of matter in it.  It postulates that the universe itself was a single point.  As in, the greatest distance between two points in space was zero.

How do you work this into your theory?  Do you suggest that there were two universes, each infinitely dense and small, which expanded?  If so, how did they come into contact with each other?  If they are different universes then it's not meaningful to talk about them ever coming into contact since that implies they are both moving through some "larger" universe, which is obviously nonsense since we defined the two expanding things as universes.

The other option is to suggest that there was in fact a big universe, empty except for two small points of super-dense mass-energy.  The problem with that is astronomical evidence shows that this contradicts not only the hypothesis of the Big Bang theory but also the evidence that backs it up.

It sounds to me like this latter option is the proper interpretation of your hypothesis, thus implying that your hypothesis is less likely than the Big Bang hypothesis because it contradicts the available evidence.


Well said. Also it was a super-dense point of energy, not matter. It wasn't cool enough for matter to form until a little ATB (after the bang).

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2006, 03:20:14 PM »
if the world is flat, and everything is pushed against the "universal accellerator", then why can we see objects above us? why was the earth so special as to be smashed against this accellerator, but not all the other objects we see in space (stars, planets, comets, etc). It seems to me that the universe would of become 2 dimensional a long long time ago with this accellerator mashing all of the mass onto a flat plane. Moving at much faster then the speed of light (which it would have to in order to emulate earth's gravity, which doesn't work in general relativity) it would quickly move across space and time and smack all of the matter it ran into into a flat plane.

I haven't see any evidence that we live in a 2 dimensional universe.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2006, 03:33:50 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
if the world is flat, and everything is pushed against the "universal accellerator", then why can we see objects above us? why was the earth so special as to be smashed against this accellerator, but not all the other objects we see in space (stars, planets, comets, etc). It seems to me that the universe would of become 2 dimensional a long long time ago with this accellerator mashing all of the mass onto a flat plane. Moving at much faster then the speed of light (which it would have to in order to emulate earth's gravity, which doesn't work in general relativity) it would quickly move across space and time and smack all of the matter it ran into into a flat plane.

I haven't see any evidence that we live in a 2 dimensional universe.


The Universal Accelerator is not a perfectly flat plane. We see other planets and constellations "ride" up on the crests of the UA.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2006, 02:42:08 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "troubadour"
if the world is flat, and everything is pushed against the "universal accellerator", then why can we see objects above us? why was the earth so special as to be smashed against this accellerator, but not all the other objects we see in space (stars, planets, comets, etc). It seems to me that the universe would of become 2 dimensional a long long time ago with this accellerator mashing all of the mass onto a flat plane. Moving at much faster then the speed of light (which it would have to in order to emulate earth's gravity, which doesn't work in general relativity) it would quickly move across space and time and smack all of the matter it ran into into a flat plane.

I haven't see any evidence that we live in a 2 dimensional universe.


The Universal Accelerator is not a perfectly flat plane. We see other planets and constellations "ride" up on the crests of the UA.

you havnt answered the question relating to the 2 points being seperate universes, but also being a part of some large univers(by your own rekoning)
in others words
dog.platter.justgotowned.com

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2006, 11:37:40 PM »
The fact that you believe in black matter is pretty inconsistant in 2 things.

1) Black matter is a theory, made by the RE scientists, of explaining some unnatural occurances that currently do not fit in the RE (simulation) model.

2) The general idea of the theory is that black matter creates a force of gravity. Your FE theory states that the earth does not have its own gravitational field. That would mean that it cannot interact with gravity forces, so how does the black matter affect earth?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2006, 11:57:38 PM »
Quote from: "The Brick"
2) The general idea of the theory is that black matter creates a force of gravity. Your FE theory states that the earth does not have its own gravitational field. That would mean that it cannot interact with gravity forces, so how does the black matter affect earth?


Why does an object need to have a gravitational field in order to interact gravitationally?  Nonferromagnetic iron does not have a magnetic field, yet it interacts magnetically.  Leaves on the surface of a river do not have a velocity field, yet they are advected with the flow of the water.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2006, 12:08:58 AM »
Gravity is likely caused by a subatomic particle called a Graviton (yes I know it\'s just a theory and isn\'t proven yet). Gravitons create the gravitational field. You gave an example of non-magnetic iron. Iron (like any other metal) always has magnetic particles (I actually don\'t know the details on this). If most of them are alligned they create a magnetic field. If a magnetic field flows through non-alligned magnetic particles (Nonferromagnetic iron) it allignes them so it creates a similar magnetic field too. Those two fields interact.

Gravity has no direction, so if something does not create a gravitational field, it doesn\'t have any gravitons (generally means no matter at all).

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2006, 12:26:17 PM »
Subatomic particle is an oxymoron. There aren't "particles" (actual, physical, massive objects) smaller than an atom which can interact with the universe. (I know about splitting the atom, quarks, etc., but contend that these can't be considered particles).
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

britishgent

  • 409
  • Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2006, 05:02:41 PM »
however ur debate is fixated on incorrect terminology the point is essentially the same ur double big bang theory was interesting although flawed but thru an erroneous model several interesting arguments arose which i am sure was dogplatter's intention all along
Global warming: Liberal hoax
The earth is not getting warmer after all; the effect is really just the prevalence of air conditioning. It just seems warmer when we go outside.

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2006, 05:49:46 PM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Subatomic particle is an oxymoron. There aren't "particles" (actual, physical, massive objects) smaller than an atom which can interact with the universe. (I know about splitting the atom, quarks, etc., but contend that these can't be considered particles).


What about the neutrino (now called electron-neutrino) discovered in the 1950s by Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan?  According to Brian Greene, "they are ghostly particles that only rarely interact with other matter..."

What about the muon?  This is similar to a heavy electron.  There is also another relative (even heavier) of the electron called Tau.  And to go with them there is a Muon-neutrino and a Tau-neutrino.  What about all those?
ooyakasha!

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2006, 05:52:52 PM »
Dogplatter, you are truly bizarre.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2006, 05:55:53 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"

What about the neutrino (now called electron-neutrino) discovered in the 1950s by Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan?  According to Brian Greene, "they are ghostly particles that only rarely interact with other matter..."

What about the muon?  This is similar to a heavy electron.  There is also another relative (even heavier) of the electron called Tau.  And to go with them there is a Muon-neutrino and a Tau-neutrino.  What about all those?


Those sound like dodgy pseudoscience to me. I'm sure they're theoretical at best.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2006, 06:22:38 PM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Those sound like dodgy pseudoscience to me. I'm sure they're theoretical at best.


Sure, claim that it's pseudoscience without further investigation into the matter.  Good scientific mind you have.  Now I'm beginning to see how you're going to bring down every cosmological belief since Copernicus.

Quote from: "Brian Greene"
But a great deal of evidence indicates that the universe itself has additional particulate ingredients.  In the mid-1950s, Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan found conclusive experimental evidence for a fourth kind of fundamental particle called a neutrino--a particle whose existence was predicted in the early 1930s by Wolfgang Pauli.  Neutrinos proved very difficult to find because they are ghostly particles that only rarely interact with other matter:  an average energy neutrino can easily pass right through many trillion miles of lead without the slightest effect on its motion... In the late 1930s, another particle called a muon--identical to an electron except that a muon is about 200 times heavier--was discovered by physicists studying cosmic rays (showers of particles that bombard earth from outer space).


Quote from: "Brian Greene"
[Scientists] have searched for new fundamental ingredients to add to the growing list of particles.  Here is what they have found: four more quarks...and another even heavier cousin of the electron, called the tau, as well as two other particles with properties similar to the neutrino (called the muon-neutrino and tau-neutrino to distinguish them from the original neutrino, now called the electron-neutrino)... Each of these particles has an antiparticle partner--a particle of identical mass but opposite in certain other respects such as its electric charge...
ooyakasha!

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2006, 06:27:09 PM »
Ok. I never studied physics beyond secondary school, so I have no idea. The likelyhood of those particles existing doesn't make the graviton anything more than a pipedream, right? Has one ever been observed?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2006, 06:30:26 PM »
A graviton has never been discovered by man.  But that's not to say that a graviton has never been discovered.  To that question I don't have an answer.
ooyakasha!

?

britishgent

  • 409
  • Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2006, 07:25:13 PM »
wel if u cannot answer as 2 there existence u musnt rule out their existence/non-existence but u also shouldnt even think about using them in a "how the world works" model
Global warming: Liberal hoax
The earth is not getting warmer after all; the effect is really just the prevalence of air conditioning. It just seems warmer when we go outside.

?

GeoGuy

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2006, 07:28:07 PM »
Would you mind terribly posting in plain english please? Or at least use some form of punctuation? Nobody wants to respond to a post that looks like yours.

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2006, 07:44:23 PM »
I agree with GeoGuy.  Besides, I don't even know who he's talking to.
ooyakasha!

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2006, 08:36:15 PM »
Can anyone tell me in one scentence exactly what dark matter is?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2006, 08:59:10 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
A graviton has never been discovered by man.  But that's not to say that a graviton has never been discovered.  To that question I don't have an answer.


If it wasn't man, who discovered it?

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2006, 09:12:24 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
If it wasn't man, who discovered it?


I never said it was discovered.  The graviton is a theoretical particle.  Nobody's really sure if it exists.  What I said was that man has never discovered it (to anybody's knowledge).  I can't speak for any other creature though.  It could be that some alien race has discovered the graviton and we just don't know about it.
ooyakasha!

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2006, 09:20:13 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "Rick_James"
If it wasn't man, who discovered it?


I never said it was discovered.  The graviton is a theoretical particle.  Nobody's really sure if it exists.  What I said was that man has never discovered it (to anybody's knowledge).  I can't speak for any other creature though.  It could be that some alien race has discovered the graviton and we just don't know about it.


.....well yeah, but you could argue that about anything:

We don't know the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean some alien race doesn't know the Earth is flat... :shock:

Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2006, 09:54:44 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
.....well yeah, but you could argue that about anything:

We don't know the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean some alien race doesn't know the Earth is flat... Shocked


I hope you're only saying this as a joke.  Otherwise, you're still misunderstanding the point.
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2006, 01:49:40 AM »
Quote from: "Steven Longinus"
Can anyone tell me in one scentence exactly what dark matter is?


Well, I think it's matter that is "dark" in the sense that it does not interact electromagnetically with other matter, but it does interact gravitationally.

In other words it adds to the mass of galaxies in which it occurs (like stars) but doesn't glow (unlike stars).
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Dark Matter Cosmology: the Creation of the Flat Universe
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2006, 03:20:43 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Steven Longinus"
Can anyone tell me in one scentence exactly what dark matter is?


Well, I think it's matter that is "dark" in the sense that it does not interact electromagnetically with other matter, but it does interact gravitationally.

In other words it adds to the mass of galaxies in which it occurs (like stars) but doesn't glow (unlike stars).


This is a bit misleading, because dark matter may not be inherently dark in the sense that it is invisible, but merely in the sense that it gives off/reflects too little light to be seen from our vantage point. Dark matter may well be baryonic in nature, i.e., normal matter, like rogue planets dead stars, or even black holes. In that case, it would indeed give off EM radiation, simply not enough to be seen from our vantage point, thousands of light-years from the galactic halo (where dark matter is largely supposed to reside).
the cake is a lie