Two questions that may interest you:

My take: 

Two questions that may interest you:
-Why isn't the spot the Big Bang occurred considered the center of the universe? When we say the universe has no center, doesn't this counter the uniform spherical distribution of matter from the start? Well, as the scientific research updates us, the uniform distribution is being disrupted by the mysterious matter called dark matter. In my opinion, I can hypothesize the reason for this may be the empty space being created continuously as the materials move further apart may be filled by "dark matter", for the sole purpose of compensating for imbalance in uniform distribution. As such, the Big Bang spot may have more dark matter just to fill in the ever increasingly vacating space devoid of matter.
According to NASA, black holes are formed as follows: "Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space. Scientists think supermassive black holes formed at the same time as the galaxy they are in."
Does it mean the Big Bang is caused by a collapse of something big? We can observe almost everywhere nature emulates itself. Even a collapse of a soap bubble creates a short lived dip on the liquid it floats. I can confidently say in a way that doesn't require a scientific proof, we are the replica of our own origination.

-What is the universe expanding into? The answer may lead to the existence of an infinite space beyond our universe. If that is the case, the possibility of encountering something like the parallel universes may be eminent. Is it possible parallel universes merge just as galaxies do? How can we tell if there is any merger taking place? Or is it beyond our capacity? In fact that may be why we don't hear about it. If it's true, it would be where the gravitational waves are the strongest.

Although it was short of mentioning the expansion of the universe causing the drop in the density of matter and gases around the center of the universe where the Big Bang occurred, the following links touched on its effect:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-did-not-dominate-early-galaxies/
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/briankoberlein/files/2016/09/M33_rotation_curve_HI.gif?

More on this subject: Most recently I have been thinking about the space time conundrum. The space time curve being modeled for explanation purposes is showing as if it is curving like a stretched blanket with some mass on its center. I have a hard time taking this as a preferred representation for a 3-D space. If it portrays a cross section of a sphere of space time curved around a massive object, I may understand, but if the curve is treated as if some material is holding the assumed massive object from only one side, my question is which side is it and how does one decide on the orientation?

Why is dividing a number by zero infinity?

Zero is another expression for nothing. Physically, it can be as saying “I don’t have it “. This mainly identifies local expression for having nothing in hand. It’s a relative view of a physical situation. When one goes beyond our planet into space, it can mean the vast cosmos occupying nothingness, another word for absolute vacuum.
In a real sense, dividing a physical quantity by zero doesn’t make sense, the reason why there is no bound to how many each “nothing“ gets. Mathematically, it is called infinity. In actuality, when we approach the zero point on a number line, it gets infinitesimally smaller and smaller. Dividing any number by any such number is extremely high.

1/0.000000000000000000001 = error

The calculator can’t be wired to compute the above division. What this means is the share such a small number gets is so astronomically high, it is physically impossible. Mathematics simply gives it the name infinity.

Mathematics works in real as well as in an abstract (imaginary) world. You can’t apply an abstract idea unless the boundary of the real world is surpassed. We are limited to a 3D world, but science including math are always open ended; we just don’t have the capacity to see it in order to make sense of it. That’s why playing algebraically around zero is equivalent to wasting your infinitesimally short time on this infinitesimally small planet of ours.

My previous article can be applied for this situation:

So I was wondering about vacuum. I googled “absolute vacuum” and got ads listed for all kinds of vacuum cleaners. Aha! That’s where the moment the cleaner creates a partial vacuum, every dirt rushes into it. Nature every where, including our own planet mimics the Universe. Wow! So does the the answer for many intriguing questions lie in the fact that creating an absolute vacuum is virtually impossible because the moment one  or, naturally speaking, some mishap tries to create a vacuum, everything else rushes into it.

Does this ring the bell?
Ding! Dang! Dong!
I think I got it but I won’t say Eureka! I haven’t done the necessary research to confidently say someone hasn’t already had a good grasp of the idea.

So I just brush and pass it to you by asking the question of the day: Does the black hole concept ring the bell?
Time to think about it.

My take on consciousness

The physics, chemistry and biology of consciousness.

My personal thought about mathematics is, it’s the natural rule by which all the three disciplines: physics, chemistry, and biology work together. By default, they happen to work in a mathematically correct way because there must not have been any other way during the formation of our Universe. Historically, all we do is discover the already existing mathematical relationship that makes nature work.

Mathematics out of the way, the way the other disciplines work in sync to make consciousness work, can be analyzed in the following way:

Consciousness is the result of electrical signals making their ways through a networking of closed circuits connecting the neurons of the brain to the brains of cells-the nucleus (where genetic materials and reproduction, among others are controlled) of each cell in a human biological system. To make consciousness work at its fullest¸ there should be a continuous information exchange between the neurons and the cells in the closed circuit. The smoother the path, and the better flow the signals get, the more conscious a person is. Whenever and wherever there is resistance to the flow of information (current flow), there tends to be some cells that are either bypassed for some reason, or somehow left to die. The frequency of this happening determines the person’s health, and as a result, his/her aging status.

Fixing the broken or bypassed circuits, when technology permits, is not only the solution for curing diseases, but also to permanently resolve the trends of aging.

My thoughts on this subject is solely my own and there is a possibility it can open up a new field in the future of technological advancement in discovering consciousness as the solution for major issues surrounding our being.
Definition: Neurons (Nerve Cells) - A type of a cell that receives and sends messages from the body to the brain and back to the body. The messages are sent by a weak electrical current. Also called nerve cell.

My conversation about dark matter

"Dark matter — non-luminous material in space — is understood to constitute 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Unlike normal matter, it does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, making it difficult to detect.
Physicists are certain dark matter exists, having inferred this existence from the gravitational effect dark matter has on visible matter. What they are less certain of is how dark matter interacts with ordinary matter — or even if it does." 

How do they give such a name for something they don't know exits. Everything said doesn't qualify it to be classified as matter.

The name matter, as we know of, is made of well known atoms which are then made of sub atomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. I don’t want to go deeper than that for now. Scientists believe a different kind of matter can exist. If this is true, then an entirely new field of study needs to be established. Until then, naming them in their early stages needs precaution.

The other belief is the instruments that are being newly developed measuring visually undetectable signals ahead of researches. I still think it’s too early to speculate the outcome.

Anything can interact weakly, or not, with a particle. If one cannot determine what dark matter is made of, how can it qualify as matter? The name, for what scientists believe exists is very controversial. They know it exists. Vacuum exists too for that matter, but it’s not matter. Vacuum can also weakly influence matter.

I’m not in a position to scientifically prove my hypothesis, but I believe it should be considered in the scientific researches.

I think the space the universe expands into can't be anything other than vacuum. This should mean there's plenty of empty space. Which in turn means the vast empty space may account for the majority of the volume of the universe due to bits and pieces of empty spaces between, for example galaxies, and planets. This simply means it has it's own force of suction that devoured most of the matter since the big bang. If this is what the instruments detect as interacting with matter deep inside the earth, then is it appropriate to call it dark matter? 

To recap on my conversation, I want to stress the significance of my attempt to explain what dark matter isn’t. It’s not matter. My firm belief is, it has something to do with the curvature of space. Deep into the cosmos, the complexities of space curvatures involving galaxies,  stars, planets and black holes, may have created a delusion of gravity and space curvatures as a barrier to the path of light as if it is caused by dark matter. This opens up a new question: What is the difference between gravity and dark energy?

One more point I would like to make is, the new phenomena that emerge as the universe gets older. One of them is the galaxy formation that wasn’t evident long after the Big Bang . This maybe because, as the universe expands into the empty space(vacuum), and the entropy gradually loses strength, more space is being created between stars thus causing the curling up of their trajectories. This is in an attempt to find a corrective response to the availability of more space, and as a result, the expanding of the universe, including other encounters whenever there’s a new feature appearing as the universe ages. The debacle around the existence of dark matter and dark energy is one of those newly created issues whose true understandings need to be resolved.

HIGHER DIMENSIONS

         HIGHER DIMENSIONS

Lately, I have become obsessed with extra dimensions.
I felt like putting their understandings in perspective, in the following way.

Instead of dealing with the intricacies of combining earthly shapes to form higher dimensional, rather imaginary objects, my method involves spinning and rotating subsequent shapes starting from a point to the higher dimensions. This method helps us utilize symmetry, and convergence of all shapes into circles in one dimension, disks in two dimensions, and three-dimensional spheres that emulate the behaviors of our universe and possibly its emergence into being.

At the beginning, there was a point. Infinite number of points lined up to make a straight line or a bending line, where in case the two ends meet, they make a closed curve. The circle is a perfect example of a symmetrically closed curve. It is formed by connecting a complete circle of points equidistant from a center point. Swiping all points of a line (radius) around a center point makes a disk - a circular plane. This is a two-dimensional shape in space. If we rotate a circular plane on itself (spin) one complete round, it will make a sphere. A sphere is a three-dimensional object. We are limited to a three-dimensional space. So far, we can describe a three-dimensional space in a two-dimensional plane, for example on paper, a monitor, or a blackboard. A fourth dimension in my opinion is a sphere rolling and creating a curvature in space. That is like a three-dimensional scale leaving an imprint on an imaginary canvas.

All other geometric shapes can be inscribed, or circumscribed around a circle, a two-dimensional disk, or a three-dimensional sphere. 

All of them converge to their corresponding symmetrical shapes as the number of sides infinitely increases (polygons and polytopes alike) to infinite points. The exceptions are triangles and quadrilaterals, pyramids, and polyhedrons, as they present subsets of polygons. Like polygons, all can be decomposed into triangles and quadrilaterals of the same area and vice versa, which means all of the regular earthly shapes are the decomposed versions of the higher dimension. https://youtu.be/ysV6iF3Rmjo

We can present a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional plane using xyz axes perpendicular to each other. An imaginary fourth dimension can also be drawn but it looks like two separate systems touching each other. To present a fourth dimension on a true three-dimensional space instead of a plane would show the hidden sides we cannot see. But the possibility of doing it is very dim. As dimensions increase, we lose the sense of imagination about what they should look like, let alone try to present them on a two-dimensional plane. Or we need to learn how to draw higher dimensional figures over a three-dimensional sphere.  Otherwise, I guess we need to leave it to those who can see us but we don't.

Every space needs its own clock to measure time.

Why does time seem to slow down when traveling at the speed of light?

This has been a controversial issue because no one experimented by traveling at the speed of light. It simply is not possible. So where do we come up with the idea that time dilates as we speed, and considerably, as we speed closer to the speed of light. It was detected when a clock that was observed on an Earth orbiting plane slowed by a billionth of a second compared to that on Earth. So, it is safe to say the clock slowed because it wasn't made for that radius of revolution. By that I mean a clock different from the clock that is invented to meet the earth's full spin on itself (24 hrs.) which adds up to weeks, months, and a full year when the earth completes one revolution around the Sun would read differently.



We can deduce from the above clock of our time measurement that all time measurements can be made according to the duration of a full cycle of something moving around another center of mass (Sun). We can also say with confidence that our universe is all about making cyclical motions around a certain frame of reference. We can fairly say there are planetary, solar, galactic, and universal reference frames where the clocks that measure their respective times work optimally. If that is the case, then our clock may not work the same way if we took it somewhere far into space, let's say Jupiter. It will try to count a year's time of revolution as on earth, which actually comes short of measuring Jupiter's year; its full revolution around the Sun. I believe it will move slowly to make up for the shortage. Does that mean on Jupiter we need a different type of clock made to measure the time it takes to complete a revolution around the Sun? I say yes because that way its days and years can be aligned accordingly.

So if we took earth's clock to Jupiter, what would change? Obviously, the radius from the Sun changed compared to that of Earth. That leads to the next question. If  the radius (distance) from the sun changes at or close to the speed of light, what will happen to the Earth's clock we hypothetically travel with? Change in space means change in the radius(distance) from a certain reference point, around which every moment the clock has to adjust its complete cycle to make Earth's year. It can only accomplish this by moving extremely slow, to the extent that it seems it has stopped counting time.

If humans went with this clock, can we say they will be younger than if they stayed on Earth all that time? I can understand the clock's speed slowing, but not what it does to humans until it is practically proven? 

One more point about the need for the term space time in physics is the alternative conclusion that can be made from the above analogy. It looks like time is a choice where it's required when the occupants of space (us) need to take track of time. Otherwise, I think things just happen no matter what time it is. If I can't schedule a meeting at a certain location without agreeing on the time to meet, it may not work here on earth, but I don't think the stars collide with a predetermined time and space of their own. In fact they don't even care. Things just happen in the outer space by objects in space simply obeying natural law, according to physics. Time applies for the occupants of objects the that have managed to interact gravitationally, thus forming the curvature of space. For any object that is wondering in an empty space without any gravitational influence, it’s no other choice but use the speed of light as a reference point to make sense of time. This situation is obviously an example of why time doesn’t exist in an absence of gravitational attraction between objects, as light isn’t affected by it.


My take on this subject:

The present and the future in our universe are repetitions of the past until a symmetry breaks. Symmetry is infinite and eternal. Where ever symmetry breaks locally, a short lived phenomenon occurs. Spiral galaxies, black holes, space time curve, gravitation, and lifeforms are some of the short lived phenomenon that exist until the eternal symmetry created after the BIG BANG wins its uniformity back. That is why there is a constant extinction of stars and formations of super novae, all happening to obey the command of a symmetric momentum in order to overcome(heal) the irregularity.

In conclusion, singularity is the only moment when the term "NOW" can be used in a perfect fit. Time after that belongs to the beholder, where my moment of now doesn't match your moment of now unless we're the same entity, revolving around the same frame of reference.

           Why it is important to analyze before critic

In this multifaceted and diverse world of ours, there are usually many ways of looking at any issue we are facing in our daily life. In some cases the issues may be too local to be complex enough to draw ones attention. More often than not, the issues are not as easy as adding one to one to get two. Issues involving the destiny of a significantly large area or population can be a daunting task to decipher, because as large as the size is, the complex nature of the situation compels one to look at the big picture in order to come to conclusions that demand oversight.

There are so many issues we need to resolve to improve the conditions of life in general. Global issues are actually the compilation of the local or regional realities that need equally important attention. Be it the climatic, poverty, leadership, or systemic issues, one has to approach them locally as well as globally to tackle them. All of them lead to political tensions if not dealt with appropriately by the concerned. That is the reason why everywhere we go we find those who lead and those who have to watch the appropriateness of the leaders.

As one goes to different places, one can easily observe the striking differences be it in  culture, literacy, scientific progress, landscape, natural resources, etc. But all of those differences are the constituents of the beauty of this world by making it ever diverse. Our planet is one, and can only be seen by a stranger (alien) as one. So, however diverse we are, the global outlook unites us whether we like it or not.

All those diversities mentioned above persuade us not to look at things at a face value. Things are deeper than some of us like to make them look. Those of us who like to simplify things and give a simpler answer, or pose simple questions to an otherwise complex situation, not only display ignorance, but also lack responsibility. As such, comments or critics that lack deep analysis about major issues that beg for answer always lead the observe to ask: Would they be capable enough to accomplish a better job if given chance, or are they just playing a destructive role because they may think they may not be affected by whatever consequence follows their immaturity. Or may be they are worried the analytic approach to mutual problems may either benefit their opponent or classify them as a proponent.