The size of the universe is never smaller than 30000 km

[Tiapan]

Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato were all great philosophers.
They were typical of the time, and some of the many, as was the fashion to state worldly claims and assume it was right for the Universe. Many of their concepts have been proved correct, but a great deal more were shortly proved wrong. The few that cracked the odd truth are now household names. I point this out to show the difference between a philosopher and a scientist. A philosopher postulates a scientist proves with experiment observation and evidence. Most Greek philosophers did absolutely ZERO proper scientific analysis of a postulate relying solely on their ability to self impotence their ideas.

On the other hand a scientist can have the best idea in the world but the world will tell him to disappear until he has proof. Yet science cannot begin without the idea, the imagination. the lateral thinking prior to the setting of the experiment and setting of the proof.

As a scientist my self I have been busying my life with this circular approach, but there are limits. One such example is my early work on neuromuscular blocking drugs which paralyze a patient during anesthesia. On odd occasions it is possible for the anesthetic to wear off and the patient to be fully awake but paralyze during the procedure and therefore enduring a lot of pain and anguish. I believe through scientific (rather than religious wishful thinking) we have resolved this problem to a vast extent using valid scientific approach.

Now consider those things I have pondered with my life long experience as a scientist and for which I do not have the capital or backing to pursue. I must become a philosopher to state a postulate for those with resource to pursue and prove or disprove because finance is now my primary flaw. I cannot afford the modern cost of proof. So lets start with my classic ultimate philosophical question and answer.

Where did we come from?

Where did the universe come from?

From Nothing?
From some where?
Or did some super dude put it all together overnight because he was bored and lonely?

Ok what evidence have we got?
Absolutely NONE of a super dude, so what are we left with?
A gazillion teratonnes of stuff suddenly appears out of no where, for no apparent reason or cause?
Or is there a consistency of constants and equilibria similar to that found in every other attribute of the natural universe?

My postulate
A. The smallest the universe could possibly have been is around 30,000 km (+/- 15%) in diameter it can never have been smaller or a singularity.
B. The law of conservation of angular momentum is the first proof of a physical property evidence of the existence of another universe prior to the big bang.

I believe I am the only scientist (requires evidence) in the world to claim this significant conclusion (maybe the last too )

Proof conceptual basis

1. The universe is constantly oscillating in an equilibrium between energy and matter. Probably along the lines of ...(start at any point)

Big bang, expansion, late term slow down, stop, collapse, gravity well , instability or quantal point reached, expansion, next big bang, and off we go again. No beginning or end, a closed system, so no loss or gain simply and oscillation between energy and matter, and of course that other set of equilibria ie that between entropy and enthalpy.
2. The universe if a closed system will always exist and has always existed (no need for any creator dude).
3. The universe is huge I mean it is really big, but even so there is a remarkable consistency of the laws of physics and therefore chemistry as far as the 13 billion light years we can see so far. let me push the boundary.
4. The laws of conservation of energy and matter are conserved
5. The laws of angular momentum are conserved.
6. The speed of light is constant and inviolate
6. Observationsone of several)
Nature 298, 451 - 454 (29 July 1982); doi:10.1038/298451a0
"the Universe is rotating with an angular velocity 10^-13 rad yr-1"
that was 1982.
Like the whole universe is rotating at a couple of centimeters per sec.
Big Deal! Thats nearly stationary!But consider the law of conservation of momentum.

Consider a spinning mass of diameter 1 metre whose radial velocity is 1 metre per second. Think of a spinning ice skater spinning on the ice with arms out stretched. She brings her arms in folded against her body so half the diameter. In order to obey the law of conservation of angular momentum the ice skater now spins at twice the speed.

The radius is inversely proportional to the change speed. half the distance, double the speed.

Now lets look at the evidence applying the law of conservation of momentum following the same line of thought.

When the universe was 1 year old ie 2 light years in diameter, using the law of angular momentum the outer edge was turning with a velocity of 0.5 m/s (Still pretty slow in real terms). Now lets look between .1 -.2 seconds after the big bang diameter equals around 30,000 kms. at this point in time using the law of conservation of momentum, the edge of the universe must have been spinning at v=c ie the speed of light. Since this inviolate I postulate the minimum diameter of the universe has a minimum diameter around 30,000 km. Otherwise it would void the universal law of conservation of angular momentum and violate the speed of light law. Hence my postulate. I realize that relativist considerations have been ignored but the difference in result is negligible ( when i use the same logic to our sun, I get an answer of around 4-6km very similar to the Schwartzchild radius determined for the sun via a more complex physical relativistic proof, and for which a Nobel prize was awardedn. ( am I a genius in my own lunchtime or purely deluded?)

Happy willing and would be grateful to be torn to bits by any physicist as my idea only took 50 years to develop, but I am a scientist and happy to accept logical contrary argument, and as and evolutionary process that tends to the truth comply and accept.

Second Postulate, if the above is accurate then where did this angular momentum come from?

The implication being that the universe has always existed, inheriting its current rotational momentum through the big bang through conservation of momentum and hence the first evidence of a physical understanding of something before the big bang.

Contradictory evidence. Current observation suggests the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, an apparent contradiction to the concept of a slowing and collapsing universe.

Consider briefly the following. The big bang begins ... lots of light E=hv emitted at the speed of light c.
Matter and antimatter form from hot soup of quarks
They annihilate shortly after leaving a net matter (not antimatter) universe but generating vast qualities of light (more E= hv)

so somewhere ot there is a massive shell of photons which although tiny individually as a total represent perhaps 90% of the mass of the universe in the from of light energy.

Is it possible that the current universal expansion we have observed is simply the heavy inner solid mass based core shells accelerating toward the now collapsing mass equivalence super massive light sphere? Nett velocity of universe is positive collapse and the so called 90% dark matter is simply that 90% matter converted to energy by E=mc^2 and therefore can be considered fully as mass. explains a lot of observed phenomena and answers some ultimate questions .... at least in my life time.

I welcome you to criticize and knock to bits, these concepts. So go for it. Otherwise give me a Nobel Prize and I will be happy. (Just Joking )

Possibly there are a few relativistic flaws in my philosophical conclusion or is it simply a miss understanding of the real physics involved?

So far as I can determine the law of conservation of momentum is universally inviolate. Happy to accept evidence if I am wrong.

I have posted this in this non-believer forum seeking criticism from like minded qualified peers. Criticism is a tool to be accepted to hone an idea, not a negative.

I will not accept argument based on the supernatural unprovable phenomena.

My question is am I now a scientist or philosopher, through this process, are my conclusions sound because they have profound philosophical significance if true?

Cheers

[tumbleweed41]

If the Universe is rotating, what is it rotating in relation to?

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

If the Universe is rotating, what is it rotating in relation to?

Excellent point Tumbleweed.

I believe the original article quoted earlier explains this in detail. However I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of Quasars, very distant extremely bright astronomical objects that emit more light than millions of galaxies.

Might I suggest they could be extra-universal, possibly other local "Big Bangs". So if true we could use them.

Whilst the universe can appear complex, fundamentally it is just complexity generated using mostly extremely simple sub processes.

String theory makes the most sense to me, but co-existing parallel universes makes me wonder.. Intuitively it appears artificially more complex than nature tends to be.

Also the following paper may be of interest.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608389

But again excellent question.

Cheers

[Just_me_Mike]

I like the multi-verse world as described in Michael Crichton Timeline book

It discusses that since we see particles pop in and out on a quantum level, and they can also be at two places at one time, like when light is sent through a glass ball, it appears at two places at once, that this is evidence of a multiverse.

Fun book anyway!

[tumbleweed41]

If I understand this correctly. The rotational theory only works in relation to string theory. And is used to explain certain discrepancies in the universe that do not fit into current models of physics.
Correct?

Also, in relation to quasars, I fail to understand how we could even see, much less measure, something not within our own space/time universe. In order to "see" something that is not a part of our universe, that something would have to interact with our universe by emitting detectable radiation within our universe.

[Tiapan]

A valid question thank you, but given the consistency of the laws of physics and chemistry, why would a second third forth local universe not obey the same laws. Of course they would be visible if they are close enough. Are you implying the physics must be different if it is not our own universe?

No I did not mean to link string theory with my postulate, simply when we consider the reverse of the achieved side of the E=mc^2 equation I believe it has the best potential to answer the interconversion model.

Energy + Large Gravitation field -> Matter

find that in your text books


Cheers

[Beyondo]

My postulate
A. The smallest the universe could possibly have been is around 30,000 km (+/- 15%) in diameter it can never have been smaller or a singularity.

Well why can't matter transform into virtual particles under conditions such as an extremely dense black hole? If it does then the size of the universe could easily reach atomic levels.

[Beyondo]

Is it possible that the current universal expansion we have observed is simply the heavy inner solid mass based core shells accelerating toward the now collapsing mass equivalence super massive light sphere? Nett velocity of universe is positive collapse and the so called 90% dark matter is simply that 90% matter converted to energy by E=mc^2 and therefore can be considered fully as mass. explains a lot of observed phenomena and answers some ultimate questions .... at least in my life time.

I see; as some kind of dark rain? What I have a problem with is a closed universe. You see to escape a black hole or any gravitational body you must reach an escape velocity. If you do reach escape velocity then you never return to that gravitational body. So if the universe expands out at escape velocity, which happens to be faster than light, then it should never return to its former condition.

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by Beyondo

I see; as some kind of dark rain? What I have a problem with is a closed universe. You see to escape a black hole or any gravitational body you must reach an escape velocity. If you do reach escape velocity then you never return to that gravitational body. So if the universe expands out at escape velocity, which happens to be faster than light, then it should never return to its former condition.

Which begs the question is the speed of light inviolate?
Can we really determine that we are not on the inside of a black hole?

Cheers

[Beyondo]

Originally Posted by Tiapan

Which begs the question is the speed of light inviolate?

The universe did expand faster than light when it started out.

Originally Posted by Tiapan

Can we really determine that we are not on the inside of a black hole?

Black holes do not expand.