Origin of the universe

[lw1990]

the origin state of the universe is all matter in a plasma-like state (not rigid at all, like a fluid) with varying density, from a greater density at the center, to lesser density (forever and ever) out in every direction

the fundamental property of universal formation was that this fluidic density can attract to the center, increasing finite regions of the universe in density until maximum density is reached, and then rigid formations are created and interact with the primordial plasma (or other rigid structures that are subsequently created). So, there is no 'date' of the origin of the universe, the origin has to be defined by a state of all matter being at its most primitive, and the universe will go on forever from that state, getting exponentially larger numbers of formations as time (interactions) take place.

When there is no rational justification for something existing (such as reality in the first place), we have to use occam's razor as our proxy. What I proposed is as simple as it can get, a homogenous universe would never interact/do anything, even though it may be considered 'simpler'.

So the origin state of the universe looked exactly like this, except it was infinite in diameter and the shades of white to black are infinite, white representing greatest density of the fluid and black representing least (of course there would not be a larger black square outside the sphere, the sphere is all there is)



the images you create resemble more of rigid matter formations - which is how rigid bodies (everything above the primal state of matter) interact with one another. There are no perfect rigid shapes in the universe, such as stars, planets, etc. Even gaseous formations are rigid and contain imperfections in symmetry because they are not the primordial state of matter. The primordial state of matter is so far undetected by science, but functions like a true fluid, while fluids we know of are actually quite rigid, containing spherical formations with space in between them, and can be broken up. Even atoms and subatomic elements are rigid examples of matter. What subatomic particles are ultimately consisted of is the primordial substance depicted in the graphic above.

the imperfections in nature creating the seeming chaos of the night sky are not the result of intelligent design, it is a mathematical property of something going from infinite fluidic symmetry to a rigid state trying to achieve symmetry, but cant, because once something takes on a finite size and interacts with other finite bodies, you have 3d spatial errors in symmetry that just can't be resolved; like trying to evenly place 100 bb gun pellets on a bowling ball without holes over and over again while the bowling ball constantly grows in size - you will get an infinite number of patternless iterations much like the digits of pi.

when you look up at the night sky and see the erratic placement of stars what you are seeing is a tiny glimpse of those fractal iterations, after they have been exaggerated by further interactions, if it was all homogeneous there would be no formations at all, or at the very least every formation would be exactly identical to every other, the imperfections start out very small, at the boundary of the central sphere of mass of the universe, and this creates all the complexity in the universe. everything we see is moving away from this central sphere, including us and our galaxy. Even if you knew where the central sphere was relative to us and took a space ship toward it, you would still be moving away from it, because our entire region of the galaxy is like a train moving away from it, even if you walk on the train to the rear car, you have still moved further down the track as the train speeds down it. We will constantly expand out until there is so much space between subatomic particles in our region of the universe that everything in our finite region will deconstruct back to our elementary subatomic particles (trillions of trillions of years from now). In between those particles, even now, there is primordial 'true fluid' flowing toward the center of the universe (the flow is just increase in density), to further the creation process ad infinitum

if you knew the sheer size of our (material) universe already (universe is not increasing in size it was always infinite, but rigid formations are increasing in number hence the size of material universe is always growing) it would make your head spin, and the sheer size that it will become is enough to make someone lose their mind. there have been entire legions of lifeforms on legions of planets that have come and gone before us and an infinite number that will come and go after us, everything we will discover has in all mathematical likelihood already been discovered elsewhere, it is just that big of a mathematical existence. and the sheer distance between us and all of these other happenings is also mathematically just as astounding

[maadim]

First of all, thanks for your comments.

So, there is no 'date' of the origin of the universe,

I agree here there is no 'date' of the origin of the universe. The big bang theory, for my opinion is wrong!

he imperfections in nature creating the seeming chaos of the night sky are not the result of intelligent design, it is a mathematical property.

I agree here as well, there is no intelligent design. only mathematical property.

start out very small, at the boundary of the central sphere of mass of the universe, and this creates all the complexity in the universe.

In my opinion there is no smallest point, it is always the middle of the point of view.

took a space ship toward it, you would still be moving away from it, because our entire region of the galaxy is like a train moving away from it,

It seem like there is no moving at all. only the point of view change.

if you knew the sheer size of our (material) universe already (universe is not increasing in size it was always infinite,

Agree here!

The universe is mathematical, and it is prior to the physics, which should fit to it as we progress.
Physical way:
Let us say that a function f(s) is a one Superman in a rest, and s^pi is a Superman flying. One can think that, the entire thing that makes superman is in the same direction when flying, but in Superman, there is some particles that moves (“back”) in all direction. I was thinking how much from is quantities of a one Superman is going to all direction, and how much is going to the upside in all direction and answer. less from the quantities that he was in rest, dived from the time he was flying, And this two make a one Supermen.
"Just replace the name Superman with the name Universe".
Please Try this function: i use open source software Xaos.
c^2=E^π-m/E^π

same equation only in math :
f(z)=(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+....

Last part was to check if the geometry of the outcome fractal, corespondent to the universe geometry.

1.the first equation, torus inside a torus. (z^π)-(z/z^π)

2.two equations, plasma discharge.
(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)

3. three equation is coming back to a tours shape in all of the odd numbers. (z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+z^π)-(z/z^π)

4. 4 equations or more, the final out come. not that it is final but the picture does not look like it is changing any more.
(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)

It is looking like that the C from the C^2 is the only constant, (will not change the overall geometry), it is the "force spin in". when will look at the outcome fractal we see it as standing still,we do not use this force C^2 as a "spin in". this is why.
But we are see the primordial solar system with this fractal, so mean as far as we look thing for us looking like "not moving or spinning"

Thank you

Liav

[lw1990]

It is difficult to understand you because our English is different but regarding movement: our galaxy and nearby galaxies are collectively moving mostly in the same direction, even if they are moving away or toward one another, they both share an overall movement away from the center of the universe which is hidden by illusion, because everything is moving in that fashion, therefore it relatively seems like we just sit still until something moves us, then we don't stop until acted upon, but it's not true - we are constantly "eating" like pac man primordial fluid in front of us, and expelling it behind us, in whatever direction we move. There is no such thing as empty space or emptiness, something has to be processed geometrically and mathematically around an organized structure for that structure to move (other than rotation which is a totally separate type of motion, hence why they act separately in space), and everything except the center max-density finite region of the universe is in some form of movement all of the time.

the universe as a whole is not spinning, from a zoomed out perspective it is a giant machine converting fluidic, shapeless matter from the infinite ambient aether into elementary subatomic particles, which then organize themselves in different configurations depending on the ambient density and the ambient proximity to other elementary particles (in other words, the ambient location in the density-gradient that is the universe). These structures can get large enough to be atoms, then molecules, and so on.. large structures like planets, stars, galaxies act with new seemingly independent behaviors due to their new size and configuration, but all things are made of one elementary substance. Different atoms/molecules just have different geometric configurations of the same building block. All elementary particles have a spherical shape because that is the only finite shape that is equal in all directions (force acts in all directions on everything). The primordial fluid flows between these tiny spheres, in the gaps. Imagine a million spherical balls all together - there are many gaps to flow between, but the gaps are not empty, that is the channel for the lifeblood that feeds the machine for further generation process.

[maadim]

I fully agree about the different English My English is not so good.
And yours is to much good.

I think, if you will look at the equation in a fractal software you will see, what i mean. when you go from two equations to 4, 6. you will maybe see the "spin-in" that i was talking about.

[maadim]

If you see what i mean, the C^2 is the amount of spin into itself. this system weirdly is from the landscape side, philosophy kind of thinking, i think that is the life make the landscape be active. you can call it maybe consciousness, I do not know.
But if we going back to math, i think that c is the only constant. and the pi is driven from it.
maybe it the number, e and maybe Euler's formula connected to all of this.

Thanks

[Bin-Ra]

Why does the Universe need an Origin, or even a theory for it's Birth? Personally, one tenant of general EU practice is that the origin is not in question, and does not need to be explained, and does not require a theory to answer for it. If it even does exist. There's no point in even worrying about it. Unless you like to play games with wormholes and alternate universes. Next we'll have entire college departments working on, 'what existed when the Universe didn't exist?'. Bah humbug.

Setting out an 'answer' generates the journey-sense of the 'quest-ion'.

What is the question?
I doubt it can be asked.

You notice resonances in the structural patterning of energetic expression. But of course!

But if everything is in effect an expression of fluctuating charge differential in relation to zero point - then zero point is really All That is - in All that is. This sort of thing may be intuitively useful - ie to tangibly stir the recognition of field and 'form' as the same and yet the particular instance is an embodiment or expression of the whole, and so the whole is in that sense 'first' or perhaps better - prior to any differentiating definitions of qualities or relationships - and un-experiencable. You only 'know; what you are through everything 'else' or 'relation'. All awareness of existence is in relation to something! But now you know who you accept yourself to be in terms of what you give it. A separate mind gives separation to its 'universe' and defends it against a universe that is also the mind of its experiencing - by persisting in the re-enactment of a separating or segregating intent of narrative continuity or control.

While intuitive appreciation is no use for definitively mapping the 'Universe', it is a great point of re-cognition from which to engage in the purpose and relationships of our living - which may include working models of coherence and significance in place of dissociative denial. The moment of a fresh appreciation of the 'Word' of a consciously accepted definition is the other polarity to the sense of eventually arriving somewhere presumed to be 'else'.

I feel this is important - as the flip from trying to get somewhere (else) to letting into what is already true - as a movement of desire and fulfilment - one.

I don't see that 'Is' can be added to or taken away from - and yet of course self-definition opens experience. Perhaps the fear of the loss of being in attempt to separate it from transformation - hence the fixation in image and form?

If you mind something - it matters to you. The structural matrices through which any idea is experienced reality are of course the delivery system, and any conscious resonances speak to you of who you truly are and stir you to be curious.

[Cargo]

I have no idea what you are going on about or how it relates to what I said. But thanks.