Solar System of Universes

[ryan2006]

Hello Everyone,

The reason why I am writing this is to let you all know that this idea of a solar system of universes is just a theory. I have tried to come up with way you would think to prove that it is correct but I am swamped with information that mostly I do not understand. I am an artist I think in images and I think my credentials of an artist have extended to many things including pondering the universe. My hypothesis of the universe or universes may or may not be but at least I was able to offer people an alternative investigative process aside from flattery it has given me more person satisfaction than anything and I am happy that I have come this far. Anyone with a great idea knows that getting recognized for their idea is like getting a donkey to come so I feel pretty humble as well.

To recap on my imagination; I thought the universe was in a solar system with other universes orbiting around what I called a sunburst or that which supplied energy to the other universes that were within the sunburst's orbit.
Because I was also looking at electrons orbiting around a nucleus I wondered if they were negatively or positively charged because electrons have been known to jump out of orbit (disappear and reappear) and based on this atomic level model of nature I thought perhaps our universe jumped out of orbit went through a wormhole and ended up exploding in this time and space that is when yesterday I began to wonder what was here before timeandspace if there was none that according to my theory is what we are looking for. Reminence of a former space and time.

Sincerely

Ryan J. Henningsgaard

[ryan2006]

If there is an energy source like our sun but let's say a google times larger than our universe (exageration?)/math then one of two things is plausible one) the sunburst emmits light and two) it emmits something totally different

Since it doesn't emmit light because we can not observe light in one specific region of the universe as a rotational cycle may indicate then what if this energy source emmitted quarks supposedly there are 11 of them in parallell universes assumming the energy source exsists. This may also explain how two parallel universes collide.

Ryan2006

[InfiniteNow]

Uhmmm... Can I buy vowel?


Ryan, I don't have a degree in this stuff or anything, but I've read a bunch and frankly have absolutely no idea what you mean. Don't get me wrong... I want to, but need you to perhaps put your thought into clearer terms, better sentences, and into context. Thanks mate.


Cheers.

[ryan2006]

Infinite,
Quarks have been established as the stuff underlying everything. Of combination 1-11 the odds of having an energy source emmitting energy that doesn't emit light is plausible. I don't have a degree either. I am being taught about quarks from my neighbor.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by ryan2006

Since it doesn't emmit light because we can not observe light in one specific region of the universe as a rotational cycle may indicate then what if this energy source emmitted quarks

Theory predicts and observation evidence confirms that quarks cannot exist in ordinary interstellar space except as composite particles, such the protons (1 down quark, 2 up quarks) and neutron (2 down quarks, 1 up). Theory suggests that very dense forms of matter may permit very large numbers of quarks to exist in more complicated arrangements (see quark stars).

For a ”free quark” to exist long enough to traverse even modest astronomical distances, they would have to be accelerated to very nearly the speed of light, so that relativistic time dilation causes only a very small amount of time to pass within the inertial frame of the quarks. Because quarks have mass, the energy required to do this is very great.

In any case (as composite particles, in large, very dense bodies, or free at speeds very near that of light), quarks would be very detectable. Observations don’t support the hypothesis of any of these existing as significant sources of radiation.

supposedly there are 11 of them in parallell universes assumming the energy source exsists.

I’m unaware of any such supposition. There are 6 known quarks, each with an antiparticle. Of these 12 particles, 2 comprise nearly all in existence: Down quarks and Up quarks. The other 4 ordinary quarks have been observed only in very short-lived (on the order of 10^-8 seconds) particles, typically in high-energy cosmic rays and particle accelerators.

A number of sources, including the several wikipedia links above, provide good introductions to quarks, and the Standard Model that predicts them.

[ryan2006]

Let me ask you something. My neighbor holds 10 degrees and is a very intelligent person. Me being on the other hand have just come up with this stuff on my own and with a little help from people. My hypothesis remains the same until I can understand quarks yet I have other projects. Do you take one man's word that this is the way it is or the value of many opinions if they are opinions at all. My neighbor says we are behind in our understanding of quarks.

[ryan2006]

The only other option I can say that would explain why we can not observe light from a sunburst is simply that we are too far away from it. Can we observe light from pluto for example or x1. The temperature of the universe is 2.7 degrees Kelvin and if I am not mistaken is an average not of any particular region of a sphere. As far as the universe expanding perhaps but that does not mean that outside our universe there is no space or dimensions. I believe there is some kind of space between the ordered Grand system or the universes that orbit around the sunburst much like the earth and other planets rotate around the sun.

Ryan

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by ryan2006

Do you take one man's word that this is the way it is or the value of many opinions if they are opinions at all.

It’s best, I think, to be skeptical, and treat the opinion of anyone, regardless of their intelligence or educational level, more as a guidesign for your own research and education than as a sure fact.

An important tool for the smart skeptic is a “baloney detection kit” – a collection of easy-to-remember and use techniques for deciding if a particular claim should be trusted. Though I think everyone must develop their own personalizes kit, ”Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit” is a good example to start with.

Originally Posted by ryan2006

The only other option I can say that would explain why we can not observe light from a sunburst is simply that we are too far away from it. Can we observe light from pluto for example or x1.

Since the intensity of light depends on distance in the same way that the force of gravity does , if an object’s too far away for its light to be seen, it stands to reason that it’s also too far away to have much gravitational influence. A more obvious explanation would be that the supermassive “sunburst” in your hypothesis doesn’t/didn’t emit light, or any thing other than gravity (whether it's sensible to speak of gravity as being emitted is debatable, but not of importance in this discussion).

The real problem with the hypothesis, as I understand it and the observed data, is that, although such motion is within our current ability to detect, and would be obvious in current astronomical data, there’s no evidence that the visible mater in the universe is orbiting a common center. There’s strong evidence that it’s collecting into rotating galaxies, and that clusters of these galaxies are orbiting one another and forming even larger “superclusters”, but none that there’s a central, “sunlike” supermass about which everything is orbiting.

[ryan2006]

Can someone please change Solar sytem of universes to Solar System of Universes I made a spelling error.

[ryan2006]

Solar System of Universes in a galaxy with universes orbiting around sunbursts. Patterns we find in our own universe applied to the cosmos in an infinite or eternal fashion.