My theory is simple. Ever heard of potential energy? Ever seen coal release thermal energy as it burns? Do you know how electricity actually works? All of these questions, which have been answered mind you, point to a single conclusion: Matter is the physical representation of Energy.

When matter is transformed into different types of matter, energy is either taken up in the process (such as photosynthesis, which uses energy from the sun as an ingredient), or gained as the matter releases it (heat/pressure released from burning coal or gasoline).

When matter comes in contact with anti-matter, neither are actually destroyed. Both are completely converted into the massive amounts of energy which matter itself contains. This is why an anti-matter reactor would be 100% efficient. No matter is left behind, so there isnt any loss. Burning coal and gasoline has loss in the form of gas, namely Carbon Monoxide, which is the byproduct.

Those three things don't really point to the same conclusions and your theory sounds like someone trying to describe mass-energy equivalence without knowing it's already common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

That is likely the case.

But the other question was how it all formed. I dont see the known universe as a bubble o balloon that expands. I'm thinking one very dense object exploded, and that the "expansion" of the universe is really the forward momentum of the materials within.

That doesn't explain why the light emitted from distant objects is redshifted to an amount proportional to its distance from us, or why the universe's composition is so uniform, or the existence of the CMBR. your description doesn't even make sense, though, I don't see how the fabric of spacetime can be "materials" expanding into.. what, exactly?

How about that there is no beginning to energy?
As we (almost) all know, the universe began with the Big Bang. People always associated that as a huge burst of energy, and all our energy came from the Big Bang.
So how did the Big Bang come to be?
Scientists (I forgot who) have said that the Big Bang happened because a lot of energy is compressed, and that energy comes from a previous universe. Our universe is still pretty young, and is still expanding. Maybe somehow, someday, in a very far future, it will collapse into one single point, then produce another 'Big Bang' that creates another universe entirely.
So my theory is, there is no beginning or end to energy. There is only the cycle.

Quote from Kieran.

What... The world decided to not tell us?

Yeah... Sorta :P
Just saying that the we don't know anything unless we need to know it. The world was always like this. Everything comes at the right time, or doesn't come at all. This includes knowledge. (Getting rly deep into philosophy here... Need ter slow down)

So when the paramedics arrive five minutes too late ... ?

Quote from Exilement

I don't see how the fabric of spacetime can be "materials" expanding into.. what, exactly?

A void, composed of dark matter. I don't follow the space-time continuum because I believe time is unidirectional. Essentially, you have to move forward at such a speed that you return before you even left. It is theoretically possible to manipulate space and move so quickly you can shake hands with yourself, though I'm not stupid enough to actually do that.

Quote from Hatchet Haro

How about that there is no beginning to energy?
As we (almost) all know, the universe began with the Big Bang. People always associated that as a huge burst of energy, and all our energy came from the Big Bang.
So how did the Big Bang come to be?
Scientists (I forgot who) have said that the Big Bang happened because a lot of energy is compressed, and that energy comes from a previous universe. Our universe is still pretty young, and is still expanding. Maybe somehow, someday, in a very far future, it will collapse into one single point, then produce another 'Big Bang' that creates another universe entirely.
So my theory is, there is no beginning or end to energy. There is only the cycle.

I always thought to myself "What if we had it all wrong and at least, misunderstood".

I'm just saying, what if our understanding of something to begin with for something to exist is wrong?

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

A void, composed of dark matter.

"the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

nothing you're saying is consistent with the actual properties and definitions of the terms you're throwing around. a void comprised of dark matter is not a void and dark matter is thought to exist based on evidence within our universe, so why assume it exists outside of it? there's no logical basis to assume the universe expands "into" anything at all, that's a misunderstanding of cosmic inflation and what it actually looks like on large astronomical scales.

This video talks about some of the more basic things in regards to the Big Bang. It's pretty interesting to watch, even though it doesn't really explain anything in detail.

I don't think we can think about the very early Universe in the same way we think about the modern Universe. Back then matter existed in its rawest form and everything was so dense our tools and theories break down. As Exilement pointed out, scientists don't fully understand gravity under quantum conditions, and even if we did our current technologies are far from able to provide us with the amount of energy needed to replicate the conditions needed to provide experimental evidence to any theory. Assuming we would manage that we would still only be able to tell what the very early Universe looked like, it would not necessarily solve our problems with what happened before the Big Bang.

Quote from Zero

I always thought to myself "What if we had it all wrong and at least, misunderstood".
I'm just saying, what if our understanding of something to begin with for something to exist is wrong?

Well then, if more people actually thought that way about the Bible, maybe there would be fewer conservative Christians around.
The thing is, people just don't like to accept that what they believe in are wrong, even where there is sufficient evidence to prove they are wrong.
Same thing with our existence and this topic. Maybe energy DOES start from somewhere. Maybe there IS energy loss and gain. However, there is just not enough evidence to prove it wrong or right.
So we just go with what we know as of yet, thinking up ideas and theories that might fit in with the whole nature of the universe thing.

The concept of the Universe and all "Existance" may never be directly uncovered...We may never know the answer to everything, but i will tell you this...perhaps its best to leave that "Universal Question" alone and focus more on "How?"

My only theory of the universe is an unusual one...but here it is...
My inference of the universe starts with the statement that: "Logic is a System"...What i mean by that statement is whatever made the Universe, designed it to be "Logical"...

I somewhat like to take into consideration that perhaps the "Universe is a Code"...The reason why it seems evident to me that the Universe is/very similar to a code is by the features and properties it is made up of.

Think about this, A computer is really just a system of 0s and 1s...yet it appears to be able to create anything by the infinate number of arrangements we (Humans) code into these systems (Computers)

Now just as everything in a computer is made out of Numerical Values and all its properties are divided by these numerical values, seems very similar to how elements work...

Every Element, is just an atom...all the same particle...so what makes the difference between them?
The answer is the difference of numerical values...For example how Hydrogen is one proton and electron or how Carbon is 6 Electrons, 6 Protons and 6 Neutrons.

Then designated to each of these Atoms with different numerical values are their properties...So this is what makes me compare it to a coding system, if every element is divided and given different properties based off differences in numerical values...then the question becomes "What made this code?"

When we move on to molecules/cells, we wonder what is perhaps "Magical" about life...well perhaps life isn't "Special"...but just another coded object in the Universal System.

I theorize that whatever made the universe made it to be exactly as it appears, not an illusion...no twilight zone...just direct and logical...that Atoms are the "Base" codes that synthesize the "Advanced" molecules
(Note "Advanced" to mean "Second", not "Better")

Its also the other features with properties as well...Light, Sound, Dark Matter, Specific things we may still not even know about, and Etc...and just like in a video game...All these are like "Files" in the total "Universal Folder"

Also another crazy idea that comes out of this "Universal Code" idea is the reason why Time-Travel would not be possible, as in this "Code" perhaps time is divided into "Frames"...so lets say you went back in time...it would cause a confliction (Possibly a "Universe-Crash" due to the loss of logic) as it would "Duplicate Energy" by having *"2" of you in the same frame you went back to and the following frames...thus you have broke the law of creating energy by moving the energy. As for going into the future, this would simply not be possible because the "Future Frames" are not even made yet, and every "Frame" is just consistantly created at the same speed (Every frame estimated to be smaller than a Nano-second)
(*"2" Note: Even if you went back in time to when you were not living, you would still duplicate your Matter)
(Time travel is not what i'm here for though, so now that i shared a small opinion on that, lets move on...)

I know i may be crazy comparing the universe to a Coded System...but the idea is very interesting to me...

Back to my Thesis Statement, I said that we shouldn't be chasing the "Great Question" but just the "How?"
The reason I say this is because...to be honest, unless we are given the "Answer" by the "Coder" itself...i don't see how we would ever get the answer...

So maybe its best to just focus on "How?". How can we use all these features? How will our understanding of this code effect us? (Will we ever perhaps learn how to better control Atoms and Molecules to do very specific, awesome, various action in the future? Things we may have never thought possible today, such as "Perfectly Recoding" Cancer Cells with computer guided radiation)


The Question of "How" has been answered many times, yet there are still many more questions out there about our understanding of the universe.

So...in conclusion, perhaps everything did come from what i call..."The Stem-Atom" (The Universe's Coder/The Unknown Factor)...but once again...I'm not sure if the answer will ever be revealed...

Quote from BuddyLucky2

The concept of the Universe and all "Existance" may never be directly uncovered...We may never know the answer to everything, but i will tell you this...perhaps its best to leave that "Universal Question" alone and focus more on "How?"

My only theory of the universe is an unusual one...but here it is...
My inference of the universe starts with the statement that: "Logic is a System"...What i mean by that statement is whatever made the Universe, designed it to be "Logical"...

It sounds like you're just describing mathematics.

Quote from BuddyLucky2

I somewhat like to take into consideration that perhaps the "Universe is a Code"...The reason why it seems evident to me that the Universe is/very similar to a code is by the features and properties it is made up of.

Think about this, A computer is really just a system of 0s and 1s...yet it appears to be able to create anything by the infinate number of arrangements we (Humans) code into these systems (Computers)

Now just as everything in a computer is made out of Numerical Values and all its properties are divided by these numerical values, seems very similar to how elements work...

Every Element, is just an atom...all the same particle...so what makes the difference between them?
The answer is the difference of numerical values...For example how Hydrogen is one proton and electron or how Carbon is 6 Electrons, 6 Protons and 6 Neutrons.

Our fundamental understanding of the universe is based on mathematical evidence, you're not up to some great revelation, you are literally thinking about analyzing the Universe the same way scientists and mathematicians have been doing for thousands

Quote from BuddyLucky2

Then designated to each of these Atoms with different numerical values are their properties...So this is what makes me compare it to a coding system, if every element is divided and given different properties based off differences in numerical values...then the question becomes "What made this code?"

When we move on to molecules/cells, we wonder what is perhaps "Magical" about life...well perhaps life isn't "Special"...but just another coded object in the Universal System.

I theorize that whatever made the universe made it to be exactly as it appears, not an illusion...no twilight zone...just direct and logical...that Atoms are the "Base" codes that synthesize the "Advanced" molecules
(Note "Advanced" to mean "Second", not "Better")

Atoms are far from being the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

Quote from BuddyLucky2

Also another crazy idea that comes out of this "Universal Code" idea is the reason why Time-Travel would not be possible, as in this "Code" perhaps time is divided into "Frames"...so lets say you went back in time...it would cause a confliction (Possibly a "Universe-Crash" due to the loss of logic) as it would "Duplicate Energy" by having *"2" of you in the same frame you went back to and the following frames...thus you have broke the law of creating energy by moving the energy. As for going into the future, this would simply not be possible because the "Future Frames" are not even made yet, and every "Frame" is just consistantly created at the same speed (Every frame estimated to be smaller than a Nano-second)
(*"2" Note: Even if you went back in time to when you were not living, you would still duplicate your Matter)
(Time travel is not what i'm here for though, so now that i shared a small opinion on that, lets move on...)

It's easy to see how time travel could violate some laws of conservation, nothing really 'crazy' about that. Also, you're estimation are pretty arbitrary, and don't make much sense. The smallest possible unit of time is Planck time, that is, the time it takes light to travel the distance of 1 planck length. If you want to theorize about time travel you should at least learn more about the cosmological constant.

Quote from BuddyLucky2

Back to my Thesis Statement, I said that we shouldn't be chasing the "Great Question" but just the "How?"
The reason I say this is because...to be honest, unless we are given the "Answer" by the "Coder" itself...i don't see how we would ever get the answer...

What do you mean? Isn't "How" the "Great Question"? To understand where energy comes from would mean you also know how the Universe came to be.

Quote from BuddyLucky2

The Question of "How" has been answered many times, yet there are still many more questions out there about our understanding of the universe.

Quote from BuddyLucky2

The concept of the Universe and all "Existance" may never be directly uncovered...We may never know the answer to everything, but i will tell you this...perhaps its best to leave that "Universal Question" alone and focus more on "How?"

This seems awfully contradictory. Do you want us to search for an answer we have already found?
Not that we have actually found this answer.