posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:22 AM
"I see no explanation of why galaxies collide (or merge) in you model."
Why would there have to be other causes, apart from gravitational attraction?
"Nor do I see any explanation of why the universe breathes."
No model is capable of furnishing ultimate explanations. Big Bangers have none for the beginning (the existence of the primordial "singularity" and
what started its expansion).
I should've said that the Theory of the Breathing Universe is not entirely original and merely a modern version of the Hindu cosmology. When Brahma
exhales the Universe appears and a Day of Brahma begins, and when It inhales the ditto dissappears and the Night of Brahma falls. I think it's not
clear whether or not the consecutive universes are all different, or exactly the same one. In the latter case then it would be the same idea that the
Stoics had about our being trapped in a time loop, an endlessly repeating cycle. Nemesius, an early Christian philosopher of the Fourth and Fifth
Centuries who was the Bishop of Emesa in Syria wrote a treatise titled "On Human Nature" that describes this Myth of the Eternal Return.
"When the heavenly bodies, in the course of their movement, have returned to the same sign and to the latitude and longitude that each one occupied
in the beginning, there takes place, in the cycle of the times, an utter conflagration and destruction; then there is a going back, from the start, to
the same cosmic order and once again, as the heavenly bodies move just as before, every event in the preceding cycle repeats itself without any
difference whatsoever. In fact, Socrates and Plato will exist again, and every individual with the same friends and fellow citizens, the same beliefs
and the same arguments in discussions, every city and village, will come back. This universal return will happen, not just once, but many times, to
infinity." (De nat. hom., 38)
This is disturbing because the déjà vu phenomenon might be hinting that it's true. The universal and spontaneous foreknowledge of future
events seems to be suggesting that endless repetition has left a sort of imprint of the past, somehow and somewhere. Moreover, if we're forever
going around in a circle then the past and the future are one and the same. When you move in a circle, what lies ahead is something you've already
The Hindu cosmic cycle requires modifications because it might be a simplification. It could be that the "breathing" they describe doesn't imply a
periodic destruction of the Universe and is an attempt at explaining the neverending rhythmic expansion and contraction of the T.E.M.U. (Theory of the
" (…) you are free to suppose that the universe is cyclic, as I am free to suppose that it is fractal."
The two things --cycles and fractals-- are not mutually exclusive. I started to describe an endless pattern when I said that there could be, not one,
but many throbbing "sponges" hovering side by side in space. Taking it a step further, that space with the numberless "sponges" could be merely
one of many such spaces. One can go on and on like this, and again it would be like the dolls within dolls.
"We could debate which concept (an immaterial medium made of nothing but mathematical space, or an ultra-dense, ultra-stiff material medium) is
more worthy to be called physics and which is merely philosophical. I prefer to believe everything is made of something, rather than nothing."
The infinite-density-of-space notion wasn't meant to imply that it was "material". Besides, the borderline between the material and the immaterial
is as yet undefined. Apparently at some point the former blends imperceptibly into the latter. It seems to be a continuum. I know because I've
been there, just like so many other people. It was a spontaneous OOBE. I found myself up against the ceiling, in a corner, looking down at my
sleeping body, as though I had been a balloon full of helium that someone had turned loose. In other words, the walls seemed to be holding me there.
Others go out through the walls.
I'm aware of the thread on this subject here, and the skeptical comments about it being a hallucination. Some people who have gone through these
experiences have been able to prove it's "real". I could describe one such case I know about. It was a woman who suffered an electrolytic shock
caused by certain pills. As she lay clinically dead (no vital signs) in the hospital she could see everybody worried about her as the doctors tried
to revive her. Then she found herself outside, up in the air, holding on to the lampposts, a further hint of the interaction between the
material and the immaterial. She saw her husband arriving in a rush in their car, and he was so agitated that as he approached he drove in the wrong
direction along the one-way street in front of the hospital. Eventually this was confirmed.
"For super-universe space to expand, the number of bubbles must increase; hence, the arrow of time reverses between successive universes." (…)
"(…) the arrow of time reverses from one universe to the next."
That's a non sequitur (the conclusion or inference does not follow from the premises). What do you mean, "hence"? Why would there have to
be a reversal of the timeflow??? It's a needless complication, like inventing up to 24 levels of universes cohabiting in the same space, each one
being unaware of the others because the differences in size are too great. This sounds delirious, I'm afraid, but I know that one man's delirium is
another man's rock-hard reality.
(What movie was that, with the cat carrying around a galaxy and nobody realizing it? "Men In Black" maybe?)