Please take a moment to read this. Try your hardest to understand.


Space is relative. In the event of the big bang, something commonly defined as nothing more than a "point" in empty space that contained all of the mass of the universe in the form of super-hot energy suddenly expanded at a rate of a trillion times in a millionth of a second. Under the theory that space expanded at a rate, the universe is not infinite as some scientists have suggested. The universe is expanding, still, at a rate of a trillion times every millionth of a second. The size of the universe even at this immeasureably huge size is still infitessimately small if one looks at it in terms of infinite space. If one were to theoretically move out far enough beyond the edges of the universe, I believe they could get to a point where the seemingly endless amounts of empty and full space in our universe could only be defined as a "point" in empty space. A super small, super dense plot on an imaginary multidimensional graph (possibly misconceived as energy? Disregard... tangent.)

By this theory of mine, I have a created a way of relating the speed of light to the speed of empty space expanding to the speed of infinity.

Speed
Light< expansion of empty space < forces = infinity.

Infinity is best defined as a force rather than a speed. Infinity is constant, yet un-moving. The only way to describe in an amount is: always more, no matter what.
The "speed" of infinity in comparison to the speed of empty space expanding may be expressed like this

One million, Trillion times a second as compared to infinity may as well be 10 to the negative million, trillion times a second.

Multiply the denominator by any imaginable and the result will still be much larger. Infinity is indivisible.

The universe as we know it will continue to expand at its incredible rate until the end of time, but in the end (if there is one) the result will show that the universe, from a perspective, will still only be a plot on a multidimensional graph, not even worth of being given a definitive amount of mass.

A bit of a side note, if the amount of energy found in the initial point was "infinite", it will never catch up with the infinity of the empty space surrounding the universe because that is a force, while the expansion of said energy and empty space is bounded by it's rate of expansion.


I am 17 years old, I am just a senior in high school. Please bring your input, I would like to hear it. I feel that this theory holds merit, so please bring your feedback about lightly. I would like to hear INPUT PLEASE!

There is no such thing as a "speed of infinity" or "speed of empty space." There isnt really a true definition of "empty space," if you consider the background radiation present throughout the universe (at a temp of ~2.4 kelvin I think it is?).

And the universe is certainly not expanding at a rate of a trillion times every millionth of a second.

And to conjure up a theory about going outside of the universe... good luck m8 its not gonna happen.

Im sorry but you a) dont know what you are talking about and b ) should go read some wiki pages on actual science before postulating things such as this.

not that its wrong to speculate, but it helps to have at least a slight understanding.

This post was edited by khemist on Oct 22 2013 11:34pm

I know there is not a speed of infinity, I said that. It's better described as a constant force. I don't think there is a speed of empty space either, but rather a rate that it expanded at the big bang (which would still be the current rate because there was/is no matter for the matter of our universe to be slowed down by). An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it.

First, infinity is nothing but a mathematical construct that is a result of equations, essentially, not working (I think its more complex then that, but its the basic idea. And some might argue that infinity really does exist, but thats a different argument).

By speed of empty space, it appears you mean the expansion of the universe. Because we can DIRECTLY measure this rate of expansion through the dopplar shift in light; light that is being "stretched" by the expanding universe is red shifted.

And thanks for the Newtonian lesson.

Consider this (some metaphysical ideas I have had):

The universe, to our knowledge, is essentially uniform. That means if you measure radiation coming from every direction, its approximately the same. Now, the funny thing about the universe is that this radiation measurement holds at other points in the universe, suggesting that there is no center, but rather every point is the center. Now one must consider the finite nature of the speed of light. What if, instead of being on earth, you were 10 billion light years away? What would the universe look to you then? The "edge" of the observable universe is measured to be about 13.7 billion lightyears away. I would argue (off zero experimental data) that the universe, 10 billion light years away, would look EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! I like to state it as such: The universe is an expanding hypersphere (4 dimensional sphere), where the "radius" of this sphere is time (but think about what the radius of a 4 dimensional sphere would be o.O), and as time progresses this radius increases, thus increasing the surface area of the sphere, and THUS allowing us to view more of the universe.

Now as an analogy, consider a regular 3d sphere. If you sat on it and looked around, you would see a finite amount of space. However, if the radius of the sphere itself increases, then the amount of area you can view from your point on the sphere increases. That is the general idea, of well, my idea.

Take this all with a grain of salt. I have a degree in physics but I dont claim to know much. If you are really interested, I always tell people to watch Leonard Susskind's physics lectures on youtube. He has at least 4-5 different FULL SEMESTER series, including quantum mechanics, general relativity, and string theory. Wiki is also a fabulous start - much of the scientific information on pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity is accurate (and if you dont believe the text, refer to the citation). Physics is awesome and there is lot to be learned. And the best part is that there is more to learn and always new discoveries waiting!


Edit: as an aside, I really dont know what the point of your post is. What do you want to explain? You need to define the speed of infinity and speed of empty space.

This post was edited by khemist on Oct 22 2013 11:58pm

The point of my post is to provide an alternative theory to the big bang theory. Matter and energy are interchangeable, yes? Many scientists theorize that the big bang happened, the energy dispersed and cooled and then matter was formed. What if this "plot" of energy wasn't energy at all? It is all a matter of perspective. From our coordinates in empty space, looking back as far as we can are we not that theoretical person who went through empty space far enough to observe the universe as if it were no bigger than just a plot? I realize my wording may be a little iffy, sorry

Also, I'll look into Susskind's lectures, thank's for the tip.

That said I'm not trying to make assumptions based off of other people's theories. I am creating my own theory.

No. Matter and energy are NOT interchangeable. There is a way to convert one to the other, but it aint easy.

If it wasnt energy, what would it be?

And you need to understand current theories. Realize a theory is a theory for a reason. There have been countless experiments to strengthen the argument (calculate a baseball's trajectory, then throw it at those values. It will come within many, many decimal places). Something doesnt just become a theory because they call it one. The theory of relativity was tested, tested, tested, and I am pretty sure tested again, and the speed of light if one of the most tested theories in the history of science. How would one test your theory?

your formulation/wording shows this but no objection to that
it is laudable that you try to think about those issues
but it is not laudable that you miss a lot of the basics
before you try to create your own theory my recommendation would be:

try to understand some of the accepted cosmological theories
and learn at least a decent amount of the physics and especially mathematics involved
otherwise you will never be able to establish any basis of a theory worth a peer review

The measured expansion (per year) is about:


However the expansion you've given is about:


So your idea disagrees with experiment by about 32 orders of magnitude, and that is a problem that is too big to sweep under the rug.



This post was edited by Azrad on Oct 23 2013 05:52am

khemist was talking about Susskind's online classes. Here is part 1 of a series based on what you're interested in:


This post was edited by Azrad on Oct 23 2013 06:16am

This is a quick video that might clear up/explain alot and give you some more insight into the theories.

I would watch their other videos aswell, very interesting stuff.