It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

BogieSmiles
That is a point that I disagree with when I talk about the infinities. If I understand you, you are saying that because matter forms within an environment that features infinite energy and infinite time, the amount of matter is finite. I am saying that even though matter forms from wave energy, because wave energy is infinite, and the circumstances that cause matter to form are part of the natural laws that are in place across the infinite space of the greater universe, there is always an infinite amount of matter throughout the infinite energy of the medium of space.

The infinities, combined with the finite aspects of a Big Bang, and the associated big bang arena wave, form the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, a landscape that is unbounded, and thus contains a potentially infinite number of action big bang arenas at all times, in my model.


Hehe, I asked you to comprehend but you didnt. You say, "Because matter forms within an environment that features infinite energy..."

We have some misunderstandings between us, and so I am sorry for being crass, it is understandable you not comprehending. I use the term energy to mean matter, so that is my bad, I use the term energy to mean the ultimate substance, that I suppose matter is made of, so thats why I refer to matter, or, the totality of all things as energy.

The quantity of matter/energy is finite. This is because you cant get get something from nothing. If you mean energy to strictly mean, motion, or em radiation, then I suppose you mean, energy is infinite as in, if an electron existed forever and your arm existing for ever and you can hold the electron you could shake it back and forth and create EM radiation forever, so you are say, 'there is infinite energy'.

What I am saying is, there is always and always will be a finite quantity of stuff. See the example above is one of time, not of the quantity of energy, there is not an infinite quantity of energy/stuff. There is an infinite amount of time the finite amount of stuff, can be used. But when you say the quantity is infinite that means, if we were to measure the total reality that exists right now, ok can we imagine that, that if we paused everything, there exists a total reality of stuffness? Whether its waves or fields or matter, all of it, all that exists right now, (first of all my point is that it is a finite amount, and if we un pause it and pause it later, it will be an unfinite amount and you can argue about the unliklihood of pausing, but its a point to show reality operates cause and affect and energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, from pause to unpause to pause to unpause, from frame to frame, from planck second to planck second the reality over, energy is transforming, but its always the same amount) is a finite amount.

An infinite quantity is a paradoxical concept. The real number line is an infinite quantity and it is paradoxical or impossible to actually exist. The nature of time, the progression of transformation of energy, is infinite. But the energy itself that is being transformed, cant be an infinite amount, quantity. Well I should ask, what you mean by the term infinite. But yea, it must be a theoretically countable amount, tautologically itself. Not energy coming from nowhere constantly more and more, unaccounted for, that imo would be infinite. Imo, infinite would be the most amount of energy multiplying by itself by multiplications of itself infinity times every second and that would still be nowhere close to infinite quantity.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


The term space-time is terrible. The idea of space actually being an positive energy field manifold that can be curved by mass is not that terrible of an idea. I think its the most immediately intuitive solution to the question "How/why does this massive object follow/swirl around that more massive object?". The answer, "What if 'space' is not the 'nothing' we intuitively with little thought or evidence are compelled to imagine it to be, but is actually a less dense, or lets say, different type of 'field', energetic medium then the other energetic mediums that go into forming atoms and such? Is it possible that when bodies exist in this energy field they displace the medium as a ball displaces the medium of water it is submerged into, and that causes the surrounding energy field (gravity field) to be of different values of density closer to the body then further away from it, and can a body moving through this energy field, then by proxy of disturbing and making a wake, and changing the local density and perhaps even velocity/momentum of other near by bodies that may enter its wake of influence? To me that is the most classically comfortable solution. There are problems when questioning the fundamental nature of things, as there are regardless.

edit on 12-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
No, matter displacing the medium, what ever the medium is, is not what my model is about. In the post that I numbered #6, I said don't look for spacetime in my model, so any discussion of spacetime is about a completely different theory. I explained what replaces spacetime, and that is the gravitational wave energy density of the medium of space.

In earlier content posts I described what energy was in my model, so if you are still wondering how I describe energy, energy is carried by waves that traverse the medium of space. Matter is composed of wave energy, where there are standing wave patterns of energy waves. Once the presence of a particle is established as a stable pattern of waves, those patterns are composed of wave energy converging from all directions, and are maintained by inflowing and out flowing wave energy components.

A particle is matter compose of wave energy. Particles and objects move through the medium as stable complex wave energy patterns. They move in the direction of the highest net inflowing wave energy density. That is the cause of gravity in my hobby-model. Though the inflowing wave energy component has a net directional aspect to it, the out flowing wave energy is spherical in all directions from the particle or objects. I'll try to tie that all together in future content posts.

I enjoy discussing various scenarios and concepts, but I want to try to stay on the topic of my hobby-model in this tread if possible. Read my numbered posts, and that is the model content. I'm working on the next series of content posts and will post them to the thread as they are ready.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

I know, terminology and intended meanings are often confused. But as for everything being finite in total, you didn't get the meaning of my content post #2. I spoke about the axioms or premises that are "given" in my model. Go back and you will see what I call the "three infinities" that are at the heart of my model. They replace the "three FINITES" of current consensus models. If you are talking about finite space, finite time, or finite energy, you are talking about a different model from my layman hobby-model
.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I said the term space-time is wrong. You use the term space medium, that is the term I used. As in, the dark area between planets and galaxies. We are agreeing that this is a medium of energy density? Just of a different type of structured energy then the sun and planets?

Object A = Mass 10
Object B = Mass 100
Object B is moving in this direction -------------->
Object A is orbiting it

A B---->

How does your model express the how/why object A is 'forced/compelled' to follow/orbit object B? What are the parts required to get that outcome? And how do the parts form the mechanics of a cause and effect relationship? (same question, just want to be thorough)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

BogieSmiles
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

I know, terminology and intended meanings are often confused. But as for everything being finite in total, you didn't get the meaning of my content post #2. I spoke about the axioms or premises that are "given" in my model. Go back and you will see what I call the "three infinities" that are at the heart of my model. They replace the "three FINITES" of current consensus models. If you are talking about finite space, finite time, or finite energy, you are talking about a different model from my layman hobby-model
.


You dont seem to understand that your 'Givens' can be illogical, false, impossible in any reality/universe, and that if one of them were, for example if you were not clear about terms, that it would equal a blemish on your hobby-model. I am telling you, very clearly and as expressive as possible; If you say that there is an infinite quantity of energy in reality, as in there is an infinite amount of matter, that statement is false.

Define the meaning of the term infinite you use.

What I am saying how the total energy content of reality is not infinite, is because, lets say the total energy of reality equals 100... well what im saying is it equals a finite quantity. A simpler way to put this is, if you took all the energy that existed and converted it into atoms, and every time you made an atom it would be stable and stay, you would not be able to create infinite atoms. There is a finite amount of energy, END OF STORY. It can transform infinitely. Think of a circle that is blinking black and white alternatively. Lets say it blinks black and white infinitely, this is time, but the 'stuff' of the circle, its area, is finite amount. Maybe the circle is densely packed, and it can be unraveled and unpacked and create more and more circles, but it will never 'change' the total quantity of its amount, just change density and formation, just transform. Its not the truest, largest, unachievable form of infinity, because there is always the potential hypothetical for there being more, if it was really infinite why isnt it infinitely more then it is now, and infinitely more then that, and infinitely more then that, and infinitely more then that, and infinitely more then that, and infinitely more then that, and infinitely more then that. Well, it cant be any more then it is, because it cant make from naught. Time is infinite, because the potential hypothetical for their being more is what time is, and the fact there will always be more, is why time is infinite. There will always be more formation of energy and matter, but there will not ever be 'more' energy or matter. This is perfect logic, your comprehension of these true facts are lacking. I am right, please argue my points, or continue being wrong.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I said the term space-time is wrong. You use the term space medium, that is the term I used. As in, the dark area between planets and galaxies. We are agreeing that this is a medium of energy density? Just of a different type of structured energy then the sun and planets?

Object A = Mass 10
Object B = Mass 100
Object B is moving in this direction -------------->
Object A is orbiting it

A B---->

How does your model express the how/why object A is 'forced/compelled' to follow/orbit object B? What are the parts required to get that outcome? And how do the parts form the mechanics of a cause and effect relationship? (same question, just want to be thorough)
I'm with you on spacetime not being part of my model, and if not wrong, at least incomplete from our mutual perspectives.

The next bit of an issue between us is that I see matter composed of wave energy, and I'm not picking up on that from you. Just to clarify, gravity causes objects composed of complex standing wave patterns to move in a particular direction, i.e. in the direction of the highest gravitational wave energy density that is flowing in from all of the distant objects that are emitting it spherically. Closer massive objects will have more influence than equally massive objects further away; the inverse square law.

To answer your question about the force compelling gravitational motion that results in orbiting objects, I am making an assumption that you mean orbiting as opposed to just crashing into each other. The answer is the time delay of gravity, i.e. gravity waves travel at the speed of light. Objects are therefore falling to the place where the distant gravitational object was, not where it is. For example, the time delay of the sun's gravity is about 8 1/2 minutes, so the earth is always falling to where the sun was 8 1/2 minutes ago.
edit on 12-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: spelling



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I think it would be much easier if you were to draw, in even ms paint, a simple and crude diagram. Draw 2 objects, and then make marks in the 'empty space' surrounding them to show what you think exists there that is causing the 2 objects to be attracted to each other.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

I might have to take you up on that challenge. while I consider the best way to illustrate that, I should probably continue to try to present the package of concepts that give an overview of the model, and then start describing the mechanics of wave action in detail. Over the years I have done some drawings that do a good job of illustrating some of the concepts, but they need to be reworked.

If I can just get a rhythm going with adding some content each day, I consider that a good pace. This model is full of some really very "alternative" hypotheses, and the concepts are pretty hard to grasp at first. But your challenge to draw a picture of how gravity works is a tall order. I haven't even presented it verbally in enough detail for you to really visualize it yet. This series of content posts is really just the executive summary. There is a lot to cover, which you will realize if this thread actually plays out to completion. I'm sorry to say that sometimes my approach, as well as the content itself, is not very interesting, and often I am alone on the thread long before the content is complete. The benefit is only to me personally then, because each time I update the content, new ideas get incorporated that add to the internal consistency and to how it corresponds to scientific observations and data.





edit on 12-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
#7. 4/13/2014
Associated with variable clock time, and with the variable rate at which particles function, given the particular wave energy density of their locality, is a phenomenon that keeps the waves from being perfectly equal in all places at all times. This model defeats entropy, but one might expect, in some other model that allows entropy to become complete, that the waves would ultimately become perfectly equalized into a regular pattern across all space. In this model, the waves traversing the medium cannot become perfectly regular or "equalized" across all space. Their frequency of passing a given point is forced to fluctuate by a mechanism that defeats entropy, and at the same time conserves and perpetuates fluctuating wave energy.

Of course, such a mechanism must have limits and thresholds that enable those fluctuations to avoid the equalization of wave energy across all space. To the extent that the trend toward energy density equalization is a force, gravity is the opposing force.

The most important limit in the process that defeats entropy is a maximum possible wave energy density that can be reached in any given space; a natural limit imposed by the laws of nature that the model predicts occurs immediately following what I call the critical capacity of a big crunch.

An important threshold on the way to the reaching that critical capacity limit is the presence of particles. Particles and gravity emerge from the foundational medium together as the wave energy density reaches a level sufficient for particles to exist. Interestingly, in this model, the limit at which particles form occurs as the wave energy density declines from that maximum density limit. It was that limit that destroyed all of the individual particles that were left in the crunch, so it is not surprising that as the density declines, particles will reform.

Here is how entropy is defeated and the fluctuating nature of wave energy across the medium of space is perpetuated. That maximum density can only occur in the presence of particles, because the presence of particles is a stage, or threshold, on the way to reaching that natural limit. The limit ultimately occurs only at the core of a big crunch which is the natural and ultimate result of the presence of particles and gravity.

In order for the maximum to occur there is another threshold, and that is the density at which particles can no longer function individually. That threshold leads to the collapse of a big crunch. When the particles cease to function individually, those particles are forced by gravity to give up their individual particle space, and they collapse all at once, causing the local density to reach that natural density limit allowed by nature at the core of the collapse.

The limit that is achieved at the heart of the collapsing big crunch, causes the collapsing crunch to bounce off of that incompressible ball of wave energy density that has maximized the sponginess of the medium, and burst into expansion. The collapse is more appropriately called a collapse/bounce (or collapse/bang), and in terms of this model, that is a big bang.

The big bangs are local events that send out natures greatest wave of high density energy, an expanding ball of wave energy with its lowest state of entropy restored. That wave, as it expands, is what I call a big bang arena wave, or arena for short. It expands right back out into the space containing the high entropy matter and wave energy left behind by the collapse.

The collapse and bounce into expansion of the arena wave of energy is the completion of the process called "arena action" in this model. The new arena waves that form across the landscape of the greater universe begin the process of arena action all over again. As you follow along, you will see the beginning of the arena action process which features the parent arenas that expand and overlap to create the big crunches that precede the collapse/bangs. That description will round out the detail of the mechanisms that defeat entropy.

To be continued ...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I think it would be much easier if you were to draw, in even ms paint, a simple and crude diagram. Draw 2 objects, and then make marks in the 'empty space' surrounding them to show what you think exists there that is causing the 2 objects to be attracted to each other.
Are you still around ImaFungi?

I have kept up my cosmological thinking, and took the idea to heart to do some images. I used Grafio and Vidra to do an "explainer video" about my model, at least the macro view. I hope some members will look at it and post some comments about the content. It is kind of long, 20 minutes, so use the "pause" button if you need a break, lol.

youtu.be...
edit on 6-2-2015 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!

You might be saying that "tongue in cheek", but I do have a response based on the fact that I have thought about that possibility.

My YouTube video deals with the macro realm, and at the end I say, "stay tuned" for the next video, "Toward the Infinitesimal". There is a pretty wide gap between being able to describe the hypothetical mechanics of something like quantum gravity, or to even come up with anything that sounds practical in regard to the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In my way of thinking, it is another step "beyond" those endeavors to then find traction with the idea of universes contained within atoms or particles. But nothing can be ruled out, lol.
edit on 6-2-2015 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BogieSmiles

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!


You might be saying that "tongue in cheek", but I do have a response based on the fact that I have thought about that possibility.



My YouTube video deals with the macro realm, and at the end I say, "stay tuned" for the next video, "Toward the Infinitesimal". There is a pretty wide gap between being able to describe the hypothetical mechanics of something like quantum gravity, or to even come up with anything that sounds practical in regard to the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In my way of thinking, it is another step "beyond" those endeavors to then find traction with the idea of universes contained within atoms or particles. But nothing can be ruled out, lol.


Well according to some old vedic scriptures there are infinate universes within the very atoms themselves, not only physical but astral heavens and casual realms as well.

Note CERN has found micro black holes in atoms which may lead to other realms too.

Heck we may even be in a black hole now known as the milky way.

The BIG BANG may be on the other side of a black hole as well. . .



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: BogieSmiles

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!


You might be saying that "tongue in cheek", but I do have a response based on the fact that I have thought about that possibility.



My YouTube video deals with the macro realm, and at the end I say, "stay tuned" for the next video, "Toward the Infinitesimal". There is a pretty wide gap between being able to describe the hypothetical mechanics of something like quantum gravity, or to even come up with anything that sounds practical in regard to the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In my way of thinking, it is another step "beyond" those endeavors to then find traction with the idea of universes contained within atoms or particles. But nothing can be ruled out, lol.


Well according to some old vedic scriptures there are infinate universes within the very atoms themselves, not only physical but astral heavens and casual realms as well.

Note CERN has found micro black holes in atoms which may lead to other realms too.

Heck we may even be in a black hole now known as the milky way.

The BIG BANG may be on the other side of a black hole as well. . .

We're not ruling any of that out,
, but when I put on my thinking hat, I go right to where physics and cosmology leave off, and just try to hypothesize how those things might work together.

I'm probably getting to serious about all this for most people, but I have found that there is a workable methodology for trying to reconcile what science knows and can prove, and what theoretical physics says seems to be the consensus about what we don't actually know yet. I use some real science, like the raw redshift data that points to a Big Bang, and then speculate what preconditions it would take to cause a Big Bang. See my video, if a layman's ideas about preconditions is of any interest.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I watched most of the video and shares my interest and ideas. But, I
see it as Foam not a Sponge. Expanding bubbles are developing in
an area beyond our observable bubble.

Someone did a thread on the galaxy alignments . Galaxies do
seem to align as if they were on the surface of a bubble.
(Sorry was Quasar alignment)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At this point I am pondering the new theory of " Gravitys Rainbow".
phys.org...

Hawking changed from the Event Horizon
to the Apparent Horizon last year.


edit on 6-2-2015 by TucsonOne because: Added quasar link

edit on 6-2-2015 by TucsonOne because: Added link



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BogieSmiles

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


originally posted by: BogieSmiles


originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!




You might be saying that "tongue in cheek", but I do have a response based on the fact that I have thought about that possibility.







My YouTube video deals with the macro realm, and at the end I say, "stay tuned" for the next video, "Toward the Infinitesimal". There is a pretty wide gap between being able to describe the hypothetical mechanics of something like quantum gravity, or to even come up with anything that sounds practical in regard to the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In my way of thinking, it is another step "beyond" those endeavors to then find traction with the idea of universes contained within atoms or particles. But nothing can be ruled out, lol.




Well according to some old vedic scriptures there are infinate universes within the very atoms themselves, not only physical but astral heavens and casual realms as well.



Note CERN has found micro black holes in atoms which may lead to other realms too.



Heck we may even be in a black hole now known as the milky way.



The BIG BANG may be on the other side of a black hole as well. . .



We're not ruling any of that out,
, but when I put on my thinking hat, I go right to where physics and cosmology leave off, and just try to hypothesize how those things might work together.



I'm probably getting to serious about all this for most people, but I have found that there is a workable methodology for trying to reconcile what science knows and can prove, and what theoretical physics says seems to be the consensus about what we don't actually know yet. I use some real science, like the raw redshift data that points to a Big Bang, and then speculate what preconditions it would take to cause a Big Bang. See my video, if a layman's ideas about preconditions is of any interest.





It may be all about resonance and frequency, if we consider this is a kind of simulation there may be other more advanced simulations coexisting with us or moving our universe along sorta likened to heaven affecting the material universe, being seperate but still one and the same place.

Now if there are universes within atoms and dark matter and dark energy may be the evidence that there are due to infinate expansion of all things even atoms, meaning we are expanding with the universe just we dont see it because its all expanding infinatly.

We really have to get into the science of infinate atoms or infinate universes if we want to get it as a grand theory.

Makes sense that the universe we are in is the size of a particle, the BIG BANG tells us that.

Superposition tells us its everywhere and every time as well, meaning everything is the BIG BANG quite literaly.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TucsonOne
I watched most of the video and shares my interest and ideas. But, I
see it as Foam not a Sponge. Expanding bubbles are developing in
an area beyond our observable bubble.

Someone did a thread on the galaxy alignments . Galaxies do
seem to align as if they were on the surface of a bubble.
(Sorry was Quasar alignment)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At this point I am pondering the new theory of " Gravitys Rainbow".
Do a google search. Hawking changed from the Event Horizon
to the Apparent Horizon last year.

I hadn't heard of the theory, but I found a link to a related paper arxiv.org... I do agree with the distinction between an apparent horizon, and an event horizon as it is defined in Big Bang Theory.

And I appreciate your perspective when it comes to the bubble universes outside of ours. I spent some time on that a few years ago, and found a paper by Laura Mersini-Houghton, called "Is Eternal Inflation Eternal", arxiv.org...

They conclude that inflation theory cannot have an eternal past, and so my model is not consistent with the bubble theory or String Theory it is sometimes associated with, because I base my model on the premise that the universe has always existed.

Thanks for looking up the link to that thread, which I will look at.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: BogieSmiles

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


originally posted by: BogieSmiles


originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



lets not forget the atoms are infinate spongy universes too!




You might be saying that "tongue in cheek", but I do have a response based on the fact that I have thought about that possibility.







My YouTube video deals with the macro realm, and at the end I say, "stay tuned" for the next video, "Toward the Infinitesimal". There is a pretty wide gap between being able to describe the hypothetical mechanics of something like quantum gravity, or to even come up with anything that sounds practical in regard to the Hidden Variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In my way of thinking, it is another step "beyond" those endeavors to then find traction with the idea of universes contained within atoms or particles. But nothing can be ruled out, lol.




Well according to some old vedic scriptures there are infinate universes within the very atoms themselves, not only physical but astral heavens and casual realms as well.



Note CERN has found micro black holes in atoms which may lead to other realms too.



Heck we may even be in a black hole now known as the milky way.



The BIG BANG may be on the other side of a black hole as well. . .



We're not ruling any of that out,
, but when I put on my thinking hat, I go right to where physics and cosmology leave off, and just try to hypothesize how those things might work together.



I'm probably getting to serious about all this for most people, but I have found that there is a workable methodology for trying to reconcile what science knows and can prove, and what theoretical physics says seems to be the consensus about what we don't actually know yet. I use some real science, like the raw redshift data that points to a Big Bang, and then speculate what preconditions it would take to cause a Big Bang. See my video, if a layman's ideas about preconditions is of any interest.





It may be all about resonance and frequency, if we consider this is a kind of simulation there may be other more advanced simulations coexisting with us or moving our universe along sorta likened to heaven affecting the material universe, being seperate but still one and the same place.

Now if there are universes within atoms and dark matter and dark energy may be the evidence that there are due to infinate expansion of all things even atoms, meaning we are expanding with the universe just we dont see it because its all expanding infinatly.

We really have to get into the science of infinate atoms or infinate universes if we want to get it as a grand theory.

Makes sense that the universe we are in is the size of a particle, the BIG BANG tells us that.

Superposition tells us its everywhere and every time as well, meaning everything is the BIG BANG quite literaly.
Thank you for that video. It presented different perspectives and was interesing.

The way you describe infinite expansion is exactely what was presented in a self published book I read called, Total Field Theory
Kaidukai
www.scribd.com...

This link takes you to the site hosting the free on-line book. Close the ad pages and you will be able to read it on-line.

I was chatting with the author, a fellow member at SciForums at that time, while I was reading it, a few years ago. It is quite alternative, and as you might expect, he defended it nicely but took a lot of grief. I enjoyed reading it. I mention it because it has a very good correlation to what you just described about expansion; eternal expansion that never had a beginning. Every point in time past, the universe was proportionately smaller, but still observed as it is now, by us.

edit on 6-2-2015 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BogieSmiles

My theory has the same idea, the Universe has always existed. Events like the
Big Bang events are happening all around us and at very extreme distances.
They would not be viewable or verifiable by the extreme distances involved.
The Universe is a medium that always has existed. Big bangs are just bubbles
In that medium, not new universes.

Would the Big bang be a spherical event if the universe always existed?

WISE imaging shows a picture of the viewable matter in the universe. It looks like a dixie cup.
Glue those cups to a sphere , you might get 100% .

Would it be double conical?

We can only account for what we see.

Added a link for the Gravitys rainbow.
phys.org...

edit on 6-2-2015 by TucsonOne because: WISE

edit on 6-2-2015 by TucsonOne because: Edit



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TucsonOne

Thanks for the further reading on Gravity's Rainbow. I'll enjoy that.

Is this the WISE image you are referring to?
The red areas are the amount of pictures taken of that space, and not what was seen there.

wise.ssl.berkeley.edu...

In addition, you've probably seen this view:
www.nature.com...

I do think that a big bang event would be a spherical expansion of a finite amount of energy emerging from the Big Bang.







 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join