Origin of the universe

[MotionTheory]

I am not sure how this equation related to origin of the universe.

When E = 1 then c = ln(1-m)/2. Speed of light is less than 1 or negative or invalid?

[maadim]

speed of light, is the speed that the universe is "spinning" in, and the more far you look so the slower universe is.
just look at the fractal in some software you will see for your self. i used xaos.

[maadim]

speed of light is in the max "spin" where you are!

[MotionTheory]

Speed gradient relative to distance - Is this another way to look-at/interpret Special Relativity?

Sorry, it would help if you don't mind elaborate more details, since I can't read your mind but I do see/feel you're seeing something and willing to share.

Nature is highly efficient, so it often shown close-packed(hexagon) structure rather pentagon(last image). Close to perfect efficiency is needed to build the universe web. EM doesn't help in such creation process. So, what is spinning by your equation, mass?

[maadim]

Sorry but my English is not so good when my wife will have time to write my mind better then me

about the spinning, so the spin is the c^2 where you are you will "view" the max speed of the universe.
i found it by looking on the outcome fractal and the primordial solar system, where is more far looking it is more "clear" less spin.

[JHL]

Why does there need to be an origin?

Those semantics are troublesome. There doesn't have to be an origin, per se, but the active, energetic nature of existence violates the natural state of things which is why we ask about it. Things do not wind up, they wind down.

Existence violates non-existence, the Void where the Void is simply a natural state for Something to act upon or against or within.

In other words, your question immediately runs afoul of the assertion that

The universe is infinite and perpetual in both time and space.

The universe, time, and even space are not self-sustaining which asks how they came to be self-originating.

[nick c]

Why does there need to be an origin?

There cannot be an origin if we accept the definition:

The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] While the size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[6] it is possible to measure the observable universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

How can we have an origin, when if there was no Universe including time, then there must have been nothing?
So where did the Universe come from.....nothing?
Unless we redefine the term "Universe" there can be no origin as it violates a cardinal rule of science, there can be no creation ex nihilo.
Or as Terry Pratchett once wrote, "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

[maadim]

gays we are talking on the origin definition,
BUT you missing the all the point. the point is that i thinking i found the equation for the universe and it just simple as this: c^2=E^π-m/E^π
and you can input this: f(z)=(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+... equation to a fractal software.
and see for yourself the geometric of the universe.


i found this photo today! (MIT-nebula) and the one above i did with the fractal software a week ago.

[MotionTheory]

Liav,

After dabbled a bit with your equation and looked at pics & links. Clearly, it is a model for creating a star/node rather than a galaxy/graph (filaments/edges connecting stars/nodes). Far from more distributed galaxies in local cluster, in turn part of super cluster.

I could be misinterpreted, if so, please show how this equation generates an outline of a system - says - a local galaxy cluster. Then perhaps, we can set to start/origin of universe at that point of time (sure, there is no such thing as time zero).

[maadim]

Remember that the nature of a fractal is self similarity. Each point on the screen is same as the shape that we see, but not a 100%.
The spin speed is different from here to the end of the universe. The closer we are, we see things spinning faster and when we look far, we will see them spinning slower.

But the best part, i believe that when we will look at it in a 3D view, we will see the cosmic web.

[Aardwolf]

Things do not wind up, they wind down.

Where is your evidence for this?

The universe, time, and even space are not self-sustaining which asks how they came to be self-originating.

Again, where is your evidence that the universe is not self-sustaining?

[MotionTheory]

I agree about self similarity (apply to cellular level as well) however objects growth is based on density, while fractal and bifurcation are edge/perimeter growth.

Sorry, I have yet see what you are seeing/envisioning. To me - Universe formation(from certain starting point in time) is more or less stochastic, far removed from than orderly in fixed patterns.

Remember that the nature of a fractal is self similarity. Each point on the screen is same as the shape that we see, but not a 100%.
The spin speed is different from here to the end of the universe. The closer we are, we see things spinning faster and when we look far, we will see them spinning slower.

But the best part, i believe that when we will look at it in a 3D view, we will see the cosmic web.

[maadim]

I would like to sure with you how i start thinking about this theory.
I was starting with two old assumptions.
The first assumption by Pythagoras that the universe is fully mathematical.
the second assumption was by Immanuel Kant that said that the universe is with out time and space.
Arthur Schopenhauer when read this Immanuel Kant philosophy said that, if the universe is without time or space then it have to be a one thing.

The assumption that the universe is fully mathematical, i was thinking that i can take any of the known mathematical disciplines to create the universe, i decide to use fractal disciplines, with a "makeover" of dimensional analysis.

i start with the equal sigh. the left side of the equal sigh i put the landscape of the universe, from the right side i put one.
landscape=1

Next I decide to start with the size of Planck (h) and i add to it dimension like this: f (h)=h^k
And this function will look like a spiral, When k ≠ 0.
It was not enough to make a complex universe, so i had to add something more, but with the assumption that the universe is a one thing, all i can add is: whatever the universe is not. (-h /h^k)
and the symbol h can be named: f(F)=F ⃗^k-(F ⃖ /F^k ), in a wider perspective.
and you can named it like this: f(h)=h ⃗^k-(v ⃖ /v^k)
or like this: f(E)=E ⃗^k-(m ⃖ /E^k)
Now, I was thinking what can possibly be the size of k, and I assume that k =π. The meaning of π in this sense is “in all directions”. Moreover, π is a natural number. In addition, when you use the power operation, you actually create dimensions in fractal geometric. In this case, 3.141 dimensions or the roughness of a π.
And for the last part when i was plugin the equation to the software i saw that there is only a amazing complexity only when the left size of the equation mast be positive 2,4,6,.....or ^2.

c^2=E^π-m/E^π

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


Thank you

[MotionTheory]

In my view - fractal is about repeat, whereas nature/universe exhibits resonance depend on configuration. So I expect equations per density+structure size range and layout.

[maadim]

you like to see it like this f ʌt/st (E)=(E ⃗^π-(m ⃖ )/E^π )+(E ⃗^π-(m ⃖ )/E^π )+(E ⃗^π-(m ⃖ )/E^π )
when s is space, t is time, and ʌ is the all possible state. same as this a ̈/a no?