WAS THE UNIVERSE CREATED BY GOD OR WAS IT SOMETHING ELSE A THEORY OF COSMIC EVOLUTION.?

I'm the king of the swingers jungle VIP............ DIRAC .Simple theory of evolution.

Prior to the big bang there may have been a big crunch but we know it could not have occurred in a universe like our own where expansion is accelerating.
It may have occurred in a Godel 10 dimensional universe where atoms are unstable.
If atoms are unstable the electrons will collapse into the nucleus in a big crunch.
Creating a new state of matter.
Opposite particles X and Y cannot be in the same place in the same state at the same time except prior to the big bang.
Four states of matter are one and as a result the four forces are also one superforce.
If we get the penrose equation for a black hole in a Godel universe and reverse it to get the big bang in our universe it will be non contradictory..............when we reverse non contradictory in a Godel universe we get non contradictory big bang in our universe.
That means the maths for the theory of everything can be worked out.
Also when we convert 10 dimensions with circular obits to eliptical orbits with three dimensions such as we get in our universe.
We get an equation for time/space.
The Godel universe with circular orbits in ten dimensions has a reverse direction of time and as time runs backward it is deterministic.
So you can use Einsteins dice 1 odd+ 1 even= 2 odd.
and 2 odd+ 2 even= 4 even.
To make predictions about that previous universe predictions that will determine the properties of our universe................

A new question..............
If big bangs and big crunchs are like a bouncing ball then they loose energy with each cycle.So 2+2=4 does not equal 2+2=4 for a cycle.
That means if energy is lost with each cycle then mass must increase over time to make 2+2=4 balance.
So if we go back to an infinite number of cycles the mass of the universe will be infinite.
And infinity is a deal breaker according to Einstein.
The universe must have got energy from outside from another dimension.
We will call this dimension ex-nihilo.
And then the 2+2=4 energy equation balances over four cycles...............
The universe must balance for energy and mass according to E=MC^2.
And the opposite of E=MC^2 must balance also there must have been enouigh energy to create the matter.http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/

Atoms in a 10 spacial dimension universe with circular orbits are unstable the electrons either fly off into space or spiral into the nucleus.
This non nuclear matter is held togther by exponentially increasing gravity.
Until the opposite charged particles are in the same state at the same time in the same place.
Then they explode as they are very unstable which provides a mechnanism for the big bang.
And nanoseconds after the potential energy is converted to kinetic matter is a quark gluon plasma.

Harold Jeffreys thoery of probabilty states that the simplist explaination is th eone that mathematics uses because it is the easier to make predictions.
But it may not be the best or most probable explaination.
This explaination of ten large spacial dimensions and circular orbits that result in a big crunch of matter is the easiest explaination to make the mathematical prediction of a quark gluon plasma but it may not be the most probable explaination of how the universe came about.Hi,

Current versions of string theory suggest that we may live in an 11 dimensional universe with all but four of these dimensions being very small, or compact. We currently do not know if string theory is correct or not, but there is a lot of research going on to try and understand the theory. It is not clear how string theory would behave if the compact dimensions were as large as the three spatial dimensions that we are familiar with, so it is not clear to me how your theory would fit into the string theory framework. However, if you are interested in pursuing your idea keep reading and keep thinking about it. When you are happy with your idea then I suggest submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. That is usually the best way to get scientists' attention with a new idea.

stephen & Ira
for Ask an Astrophysicist




On Dec 6, 2011, at 3:24 AM, aircloud@bigpond.net.au wrote:

> Topic: Cosmology
> Level: I am an adult with some college level physics and have a serious interest in astronomy.
>
>
> The big crunch may have happened in a ten large spacial dimensional
> universe with circular orbits so that atoms are unstable.
> Electrons either fly off the nucleus into space or spiral into the nucleus.
> The equation is.
> 2 nuetron+ proton - 2 electrons+ 3 nuetron+ proton+ electron+ 2 free
> electrons + strong gravity+ potential energy=7 quark Gluon plasma+ kinetic
> energy.
> This is the simplist equation for the big bang that can make maths
> predictions but it is probably not correct it needs to be more complication
> perhaps information added in.
> Balance this equation for mass and energy........so I can give it to CERN.
> I could give them this but it would be inadequate explaination.


A 10 dimensional universe with circular orbits is always unstable.
and it results in a big crunch.But when dimensions crunch they become closed and curled up.So all but four dimensions are closed and curled up.
But what if all ten dimensions are curled up as the universe is on an ineviatble course towards a big crunch.
And oblitaeration buit it is rebirth since it is a new universe that is being born in four dimensions.
The dimensions open during the big bang which results in stable orbits and stable atoms.
It is the result of going from a low entropy condition to a high entropy condition.
The possibility that only six curl up during the last stages of the big crunch and that would remain open and large spacial dimensions probably is too simple.
But the fact that one started in ten large spacial dimensions the big crunch becomes exponential and cannot be stopped even if the dimensions curl up.


The big crunch is driven by the engine of non atomic matter under supergravity.
This non atomic matter is all in the same place in the same state at the same time.
That makes for annihilation of opposite charges to produce energy.........
The non atomic matter is the engine for the six large spacial dimensions to close and curl in on themselves.
So that only four dimensions are large spacial dimensions in the big bang.
I hope this makes sense there is an unknown mechanism that converts the engine of the big crunch to dimensional change.String theory is incompatable with relativities four dimensions of space/time.
So it needs a modification to have it make sense for Einsteins theory of relativity.
Also QM and GR are incompatable with each other yet we can use both theories in tandem 2+2=4.
So maybe we can use this new theory in tandem with QM or GR.?
I don't know how to frame this as a question I have trouble with that.
But would you agree that incompatabity with the standard explaination need not rule a new theory out.
Otherwise we would have no new thoeries and science would grind to a halt because you have to use the scinetific method to make predictions with a new theory and then test them.
It doesn't happen in just one second.Maybe it is the test of whether string theory agrees with Einsteins 4D/space time equations if you can't convert one to the other then it doesn't work.
And maybe should be disgarded since EInsteins thoery passes every test even the recent test of the speed of light and nutrinos.But you offer no proof.I have offered proof of the equation
I have offered the proof of the anthropic principal that if we have stable atoms in our universe the big crunch prior to our big bang must have been unstable.
Therefore there must have been higher dimensions probably 10+ 1 of time according to string theory.
The dimenions would have been open and large spacial for them to be closed in our four dimensional universe.
And circular orbits would mean unstable atoms.
And electrons would fly off into space and be free electrons or would spiral into the nucleus and be closely associated with the protons and nuetrons we can draw an equation for that with the result the same as CERN of quark gluon plasma................


The question of thermodynamics means that the big crunch the universe increases in order and not disorder not would be a low entropy state.Of course penrose is off on his own tangent saying the big crunch would be high entropy.
But it would not.

Einsteins theory should be compatable with string theory so if we reverse the equation to make 4D space time in 10 dimensions plus one of time.
It should work for Einsteins equations if string theory is right.
Einsteins thoery has past every test so it should be compatable with string theory if string theory is right.Design software to compare and contrast Hugh Ross testable creation model of the big bang and my testable evolution model of the big bang...........Run Both Hugh ross model through Cosmos of the big bang ex-nihilo and my mass energy equivalence equation for the big bang.I think you will be able to prove Hugh Ross right and Harold Jeffreys wrong because it is called harold Jeffreys because the simplist model is not always correct or probable Hugh Ross model may be more complex but it is more likely to be an adequate explaination for creation wheras I can demonstrate why my evolutonary model is inadequate I have a certain satisfaction with my modelIs that your theory is incompatable with string
theory and standard physics.
String theory is incompatable with relativities four
dimensions of space/time.
So it needs a modification to have it make sense for
Einsteins theory of relativity.
Also QM and GR are incompatable with each other yet
we can use both theories in tandem 2+2=4.
So maybe we can use this new theory in tandem with QM
or GR.?
I don't know how to frame this as a question I have
trouble with that.
But would you agree that incompatabity with the
standard explaination need not rule a new theory out.
Otherwise we would have no new thoeries and science
would grind to a halt because you have to use the
scinetific method to make predictions with a new
theory and then test them.
It doesn't happen in just one second.Maybe it is the
test of whether string theory agrees with Einsteins
4D/space time equations if you can't convert one to
the other then it doesn't work.
And maybe should be disgarded since EInsteins thoery
passes every test even the recent test of the speed
of light and nutrinos.But you offer no proof.I have
offered proof of the equation
I have offered the proof of the anthropic principal
that if we have stable atoms in our universe the big
crunch prior to our big bang must have been unstable.
Therefore there must have been higher dimensions
probably 10+ 1 of time according to string theory.
The dimenions would have been open and large spacial
for them to be closed in our four dimensional
universe.
And circular orbits would mean unstable atoms.
And electrons would fly off into space and be free
electrons or would spiral into the nucleus and be
closely associated with the protons and nuetrons we
can draw an equation for that with the result the
same as CERN of quark gluon plasma................


The question of thermodynamics means that the big
crunch the universe increases in order and not
disorder not would be a low entropy state.Of course
penrose is off on his own tangent saying the big
crunch would be high entropy.
But it would not.

You say my thoery is nothing but it is about something rather than nothing.
That something is the unstable state of a big crunch universe.

I have come a long way since 2+2=4 and Einstein proved wrong I have learned form Hawking and others.
My dice Einsteins dice is nothing to be afraid of.
It gives two answers for everything just like modern physics does and if physics is something to fear then so be it.
The dice add random equations QM AND GR 1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.
and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.
By subsitution random odd and even values into random equations.
And this can produce 10^500 sets of random equations.
And finally solve the question of whether the theory of everything for our universe can be generated by chance.
And it can be generated by chance.
And it cannot is the thoery of creation.
If we cannot generate a grammatically correct equation using this method then evolution could not have produced the intelligent design and fine tuning of our universe.
So the dice are just evolution there is nothing to fear excet Darwins curse.
And that is a bit like the curse of the mummy.
Anyone who tries to make up a new thoery of evolution is under Darwins curse.
Unless they were told to do so by God then it is a blessing in disguise.
And Einsteins dice may prove to be a blessing in disguise.
Anyway it is too late to destroy the dice and the clock.
They are a theory of everything on a supercomputer.
And maybe no one has taken any notice of the dice.
And maybe that is for a reason that they are very very evil.
And that is fear.
There is no reason not to program a computer with a dice that is just binary and odd and even numbers.
Maybe the interpretation of the dice that are two answers is not really correct it is the most simple explaination.
But odd and even numbers are ore complex than just two answers....................
aircloudenator@gmail.com Continue the banter on this address
>

Dirac predicted a reaction where a proton and an electron annihilate to form two protons.
Dirac could be right in a black hole or a big crunch where supergravity overcomes the strong nuclear force between particles and the electoweak force so that opposite particles X and Y are in the same State and space(place) and time.
And it can only occur where gravity is a strong force.
A nuetron star is very dense.And electrons and protons are in the same supermassive state at the same time in the same place.
and as a result supergravity overcomes the strong replusive force between electrons and protons this is both strong nuclear and electroweak..............
The electrons and the protons annihilate giving two protons that are also supermassive and kinetic energy..........
So much gamma radiation is produced that the universe would be cooked.
Like a hamburger double fried.
The same would apply to the cosmic background radiation if it were to apply to the big crunch it would be as bright as day................

We can test the energy produced by the dirac equation on a supercomputer simulating the big crunch.............

So you can do the equations for the big crunch on a neutron star.
There are three possible outcomes from a nuetron star which may be determined by the dirac equation.
The nuetron star doesn't explode but remains supermassive the star goes supernova or it collapses to form a black hole.
Conditions may not be right for electron proton annihilation.Hey Buddy Stars cores collapse when they have protons and nuetrons and electrons.

And the result is a nuetron core and a supernova or a black hole.

Now it gets interesting we have protons and electrons opposite particles and extremely strong gravity.

If they are in the same state and space and time the electrons and the protons will anihilate.

Diracs equation must be wrong and instead of two protons being produced by this annihilation two nuetrons are.

This is a stroke of genus if it works with diracs math on a supercomputer......................

Hey lets talk about this this produces a supa nova and a netron core which can further collapse by gravity into a balck hole.

But a nuetron core cannot explode into a supa nova it is the product of a supernova the annihilation of electrons and protons which oppenheimer proved wrong.

But lets be sceptical about oppy he never considered that supergravity is a strong force stonger than the strong nuclear force or the electroweak force....................

So do you think this could also be the explaination for the big crunch.

The the product of the big bang would be two neutons and the intense heat and energy would produce a quark gluon plasma out of the two nuetrons...................................

So my theory has evolved with the help of wikkapedia.

Protons cannot change into nuetrons because of supergravity they must change into neutrons by electron proton annihilation diracs equation must produce two neutrons rather than two protons............

So neutrons must undersupergravity and the extreme heat of the big bang form a quark gluon plasma.................

If dirac is right and electron proton annihilation produces two protons and not two nuetrons then under supergravity of the big crunch protons must spontaneously change into neutrons.

Diracs equation doesn't say two protons it says two photons that doesn't mean two photons are not produced like other annihilations.Or two nuetrons it makes common sense to believe the energy of a supernova must require annihilation and antimatter is not invloved.So the product must be nuetrons that is an obervational fact.
So maybe when charges cancel there are two protons + two nuetrons.................
It is a guess but running diracs equation through a supercomputer under supergravity will give us the answer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

Dirac also predicted a reaction e− + p+ → γ + γ, where an electron and aproton 
annihilate to give two photons. 

So I had it wrong but maybe dirac had it wrong and it was two neutrons that were produced and not photons...............The "Dirac equation" doesn't talk specifically about protons and electrons.  The strong force isn't repulsive.  I'm very sorry to say that this theory violates a number of basic physical laws including conservation of baryon number, conservation of lepton flavor, and conservation of charge.
The process you're talking about here doesn't seem to correspond with anything Dirac wrote.
-Physicist

AskAMathematician	6:21 AM (2 hours ago)
to me

Read the section under "hole theory".  Dirac had some ideas about electrons and protons, but they were proven false.  After a lot of work, he postulated the existence of anti-particles, specifically the anti-electron, which was the first discovered anti-particle.
Again, electrons and protons don't annihilate.

Under some conditions you find that a proton may decay into a neutron and anti-electron (and neutrino) in a process called "beta+ decay".  However, this is also a very well understood process, and it unfortunately has nothing to do with the big bang.
-Physicist

The "Dirac equation" doesn't talk specifically about protons and electrons.  The strong force isn't repulsive.  I'm very sorry to say that this theory violates a number of basic physical laws including conservation of baryon number, conservation of lepton flavor, and conservation of charge.

The process you're talking about here doesn't seem to correspond with anything Dirac wrote.

-PhysicistThe "Dirac equation" doesn't talk specifically about protons and electrons.  The strong force isn't repulsive.  I'm very sorry to say that this theory violates a number of basic physical laws including conservation of baryon number, conservation of lepton flavor, and conservation of charge.

The process you're talking about here doesn't seem to correspond with anything Dirac wrote.
-Physicist