Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

[David-J-Franks]

A sad fate for the universe but IMO we are just 1 universe and heat death won't happen when we run into our bubble friends all around us and expansion comes to a halt.

Spot on

and distant mystery galaxies are now starting to come into view at much older than our universe age.

There aren't any galaxies in the contents of our big bang older than the big bang. The oldest galaxies are just over 13by old but they are 30b+ light-years away because the space between us and that galaxy has been expanding faster than light speed, as per Hubble Constant, as per IG in post 18

and distant mystery galaxies are now starting to come into view

I don't think any more galaxies will 'come into view' in our life time, more like a few million years time. It's probably just down to better telescopes

 

[David-J-Franks]

Galaxies of 48 by just has no possible answer in our universe that's only 14 by old and a few others from 30 by and up.
Only real solution i can think of is they are neighbor galaxies on the edge of that universe.
Maybe already in collision mode with our universe and we wont get to find out for another 10-15 by.
Odd also that dark flow in our universe points in the direction of them.
Probably each region of dark flow points to a neighbor universe. JMO
It might be a very grand universe that just keeps going full of universes forever.
The final frontier might not exist.(kirk was wrong). LOL

I agree the universe is wonderful to think about and we should be humble in our understanding of anything since everything we think we know is probably wrong.

If we have collided with another big bang contents I still don't think we'd see anything (old galaxies), because the latest figures put a minimum size of the whole big bang contents at 1 million times the size of the observable big bang contents (due to measurements of the flatness of the observable big bang contents). But who knows you might be right

 

[David-J-Franks]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030917072015.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20new%20model%2C%20the,emerging%20from%20a%20white%20hole.

Great stuff, keep it coming

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That sounds a lot like the Big Rip theory. This says that if dark energy and the expansion of the universe keeps accelerating, then the force of dark energy will eventually overcome all other forces including those which hold atoms together. So everything will be ripped apart.

And it's not at some unthinkable length of time away, it's only 22by away if true

Big Rip - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think concept of why the universe is accelerating faster is wrong.
Dark energy creating new energy runs into two problems, the creation of new energy and eventually the creation of infinite energy.
Easier solution is neighbor universes gravity now has more gravity influence on our universe than our universe has on itself.
No need to throw away the rule book for dark energy/matter.
They could be as simple as temp energy/matter as a balance of fluctuation.
They both exist but not really.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

If we have collided with another big bang contents I still don't think we'd see anything (old galaxies), because the latest figures put a minimum size of the whole big bang contents at 1 million times the size of the observable big bang contents (due to measurements of the flatness of the observable big bang contents). But who knows you might be right

Big bang microwave radiation say about 13.8 by ago the big bang happened.
Seeing things older than that for sure is either some very odd quirk of nature or we are looking at something that isn't part of our universe.

Humbling to think that everything we think of as the universe is probably just 1 of an infinite number of them.
Even more humbling to think that a big bang might not even be a universe but just an event in one.

 

[Catastrophe]

Or maybe just that some test methods are inappropriate or imperfect

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

or maybe the pig that just flew by my window . . . was not a pig.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Easier solution is neighbor universes gravity now has more gravity influence on our universe than our universe has on itself.

Spot on again. I wrote to the new scientist suggesting this 7 years ago. They didn't publish it, but at the same time a man wrote in to say that maybe there's something outside our universe pulling it (without any suggestions as to what) and they published his. My letter; -

Dear New Scientist



Could it be our universe is sitting in an infinite space which contains evenly distributed matter(evenly as there are no boundaries) producing a prevailing gravitational field.



The increasing expansion rate of our universe may not be caused by dark energy pushing, but by this field pulling on the contents of our big bang until they (once again?) match the average matter distribution of the infinite space.



Unless the contents of our big bang are totally isolated it's surroundings will have an effect on there behaviour, great or small. It would be strange if there was just our big bang then nothing for the rest of infinity.



I say once again above as what came out of our big bang went in.



David Franks 21/5/13


So, for now, it looks like only you and I share this idea.

They both exist but not really.

??????

 

[David-J-Franks]

Big bang microwave radiation say about 13.8 by ago the big bang happened.
Seeing things older than that for sure is either some very odd quirk of nature or we are looking at something that isn't part of our universe.

Humbling to think that everything we think of as the universe is probably just 1 of an infinite number of them.
Even more humbling to think that a big bang might not even be a universe but just an event in one.

Galaxies of 48 by just has no possible answer in our universe that's only 14 by old and a few others from 30 by and up.
Only real solution i can think of is they are neighbor galaxies on the edge of that universe.
Maybe already in collision mode with our universe and we wont get to find out for another 10-15 by.
Odd also that dark flow in our universe points in the direction of them.
Probably each region of dark flow points to a neighbor universe. JMO
It might be a very grand universe that just keeps going full of universes forever.
The final frontier might not exist.(kirk was wrong). LOL

I agree the universe is wonderful to think about and we should be humble in our understanding of anything since everything we think we know is probably wrong.

Seeing things older than that for sure is either some very odd quirk of nature or we are looking at something that isn't part of our universe.

Galaxies of 48 by just has no possible answer in our universe that's only 14 by old and a few others from 30 by and up.

Where does it say we see older things than our Big Bang - 48by?

Humbling to think that everything we think of as the universe is probably just 1 of an infinite number of them.
Even more humbling to think that a big bang might not even be a universe but just an event in one.

Yes it is. What I find more humbling (and depressing to be honest) is when I see pages of equations on Wikipedia for every topic I research

 

[David-J-Franks]

Well, being 20 billion lightyears ago doesn't mean that it is 20 billion years old. You have got to take the Hubble Constant (it's inconstant though) and check how far it's going and then only you can say how old it is.

I love the universe. It always amazes me.

Did you mean "being 20 billion lightyears ago away" ?

 

[David-J-Franks]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030917072015.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20new%20model%2C%20the,emerging%20from%20a%20white%20hole.

From the article;

"In the standard model of cosmology, the universe burst into existence with the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Universe means 'everything that exists'. I find it a colossal and unscientific assumption that the Big Bang created 'everything that exists'. How can anyone possibly know that there's nothing beyond the contents of the Big Bang?

Also from the article;

"Since then, the universe, which contains an infinite amount of matter and is infinite in extent,"

Sounds good, until;

"and is infinite in extent, has been expanding in all directions."

Something that is infinite CANNOT expand in all directions! It's already full! Also, ALL things that expand, expand into something, including the contents of our Big Bang.

In the new model, the Big Bang is an actual explosion within a black hole in an existing space.

Why not an explosion of a black hole?

The shock wave of the explosion is expanding into an infinite space,

What! an infinite empty space? more rubbish. However, it's nice to see a scientist describing the BigBang as an explosion rather than an expansion of space, so a grain of common sense there

I wish scientists would make more sense

 

[IG2007]

Did you mean "being 20 billion lightyears ago away" ?

yeah. I meant away

 

[Catastrophe]

From the article;



Universe means 'everything that exists'. I find it a colossal and unscientific assumption that the Big Bang created 'everything that exists'. How can anyone possibly know that there's nothing beyond the contents of the Big Bang?

Also from the article;



Sounds good, until;



Something that is infinite CANNOT expand in all directions! It's already full! Also, ALL things that expand, expand into something, including the contents of our Big Bang.

Why not an explosion of a black hole? What! an infinite empty space? more rubbish. However, it's nice to see a scientist describing the BigBang as an explosion rather than an expansion of space, so a grain of common sense there

I wish scientists would make more sense

You quoted me and replied re Universe definition:

"Universe means 'everything that exists'. I find it a colossal and unscientific assumption that the Big Bang created 'everything that exists'. How can anyone possibly know that there's nothing beyond the contents of the Big Bang?"

This is a non sequitur. You may not have seen my (well in the sense of I posted the ideas) posts with the eggtimer analogy?
Our region of the Total Universe (which is unknowable to us) came through what we call the BB (I also have issues with the socalled BB) so the 'other part' of the eggtimer would of course be part of the Universe. There may also be what others call "universes" which of course can only be part of the Universe.
You have omitted all these possibilities from my post.

The difficulty is semantic. We do not understand and do not have the words to describe these things, which is why I usually avoid getting into such discussions.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

AND just because I quote a (IMO) silly stupid article does not mean that I agree with it or subscribe to any part of it.

There is an expression "hold up to ridicule" which (had you considered?) may have been my intention.

Have you heard the expression "Give a dog a bad name, and hang it"?

 

[David-J-Franks]

You quoted me and replied re Universe definition:

"Universe means 'everything that exists'. I find it a colossal and unscientific assumption that the Big Bang created 'everything that exists'. How can anyone possibly know that there's nothing beyond the contents of the Big Bang?"

This is a non sequitur. You may not have seen my (well in the sense of I posted the ideas) posts with the eggtimer analogy?
Our region of the Total Universe (which is unknowable to us) came through what we call the BB (I also have issues with the socalled BB) so the 'other part' of the eggtimer would of course be part of the Universe. There may also be what others call "universes" which of course can only be part of the Universe.
You have omitted all these possibilities from my post.

The difficulty is semantic. We do not understand and do not have the words to describe these things, which is why I usually avoid getting into such discussions.

Cat

I can't understand what's wrong with my universe statement, I'm merely trying to show that these scientists shouldn't assume the Big Bang is everything that exists.

You said;

"You have omitted all these possibilities from my post."

You didn't mention any 'possibilities' in your post, you only gave the article link. Why should I have mentioned your egg timer analogy whilst criticising the scientists for wrongly using the word universe?

 

[David-J-Franks]

AND just because I quote a (IMO) silly stupid article does not mean that I agree with it or subscribe to any part of it.

There is an expression "hold up to ridicule" which (had you considered?) may have been my intention.

Have you heard the expression "Give a dog a bad name, and hang it"?

I didn't think for a minute you were agreeing with it.

No, I had not considered that, I thought you were just showing it for our consideration or discussion.

No, I have not heard that expression, how does it apply here?

I thought you would be pleased that someone took the time to review an article link you posted. No one else bothered

 

[Catastrophe]

So now you know why I usually do (and wish I had done this time) keep out of any discussion involving those semantic issues. I repeat:

The difficulty is semantic. We do not understand and do not have the words to describe these things, which is why I usually avoid getting into such discussions.

I will not make that mistake again

 

[Atlan0001]

I can't understand what's wrong with my universe statement, I'm merely trying to show that these scientists shouldn't assume the Big Bang is everything that exists.

You said;

"You have omitted all these possibilities from my post."

You didn't mention any 'possibilities' in your post, you only gave the article link. Why should I have mentioned your egg timer analogy whilst criticising the scientists for wrongly using the word universe?

I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also that, because infinite exists, then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity more) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity more), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity more). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what, YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (an extremely unique type, as every individual of every species or kind of life is). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else, or anything else, but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in, in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

(*I found an article on "Mirror Universe hiding in Space-Time" that made me think I might have left out some things from my own look of BB, while getting the direction of time backward, maybe, from even own previous descriptions. My universe traveler would neither see nor time travel the times as I tried to describe them here. So I scrapped my BB description. David is still right in my opinion in what he says above on this particular matter of BB that got me started. And in the article I cited as having found and read, there are too few dimensions and too little Universe for me. They think they see so much and I feel sorry for them, but what they see is practically barren. I like richer more dimensional paintings, not flat dark age-like poverty stricken ones. Some things in the article showed me I'm on a right track for my own realization and satisfaction, but I'm just not there yet. The material substance of my mirror doing the mirroring, as I see it, is gravity's waves.*)

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Or maybe just that some test methods are inappropriate or imperfect

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

or maybe the pig that just flew by my window . . . was not a pig.

Quite possible data isn't right.
Guess we will find out pretty soon.
If the numbers are right it sure puts a new spin on our universe and it's fate.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also, that because infinite exists then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (unique type). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

The Big Bang is associated with 'Time' and 'Energy', not, actually, 'Space' and 'Mass'. I keep having the sense that, maybe, this thing exploded / explodes this way from the direction of the future...not the past. From future into past (this way, ... from the future). That maybe they have things backward...as well as, maybe, forward. A 'Time-Energy Mirror'? A time-energy wrap that wraps into itself? A constant?

I broke the pigeon hole idea that infinite universes = infinite copies of everything.
Unique Location of each individual universe and it's unique place and interactions in infinity can never be repeated.
1 of everything and an infinite number of close but no cigars.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Where does it say we see older things than our Big Bang - 48by?Yes it is. What I find more humbling (and depressing to be honest) is when I see pages of equations on Wikipedia for every topic I research

If the data stands the test of time then my only real thought would be we are seeing things on the edge of other universes.
Tried to wrap my head around another solution but cant think of one other than we are an endless onion skin universe and some oddity allows light to make it back that far, or a distant layer/skin is returning.

 

[Atlan0001]

I broke the pigeon hole idea that infinite universes = infinite copies of everything.
Unique Location of each individual universe and it's unique place and interactions in infinity can never be repeated.
1 of everything and an infinite number of close but no cigars.

There you couldn't be more wrong. It is only from a trunk that branching occurs. Each branch then becomes a trunk for more branching .... expanding out to infinity. In quantum mechanics every particle will take every possible path always, which includes repeating exactly the same paths (whether just one particle or a countless swarm of particles (ergo the entirety of certain horizons, of course those duplications being infinite distances apart; something like "spooky action at a distance")). In information, and life, decision points are for all time as well as each and every possible same or different decision made being for all time, having redundancy to infinity. Therefore all of the particles pathing, all of the decisions being made, will duplicate exactly...to infinity. But the proportion will be an infinitesimal number, comparatively speaking, to the infinite number of slightly different possible paths / decisions, running, in infinities, to the farthest possible limit of difference in different paths / decisions.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

There you couldn't be more wrong. It is only from a trunk that branching occurs. Each branch then becomes a trunk for more branching .... expanding out to infinity. In quantum mechanics every particle will take every possible path always, which includes repeating exactly the same paths (whether just one particle or a countless swarm of particles (ergo the entirety of certain horizons, of course those duplications being infinite distances apart; something like "spooky action at a distance")). In information, and life, decision points are for all time as well as each and every possible same or different decision made being for all time, having redundancy to infinity. Therefore all of the particles pathing, all of the decisions being made, will duplicate exactly...to infinity. But the proportion will be an infinitesimal number, comparatively speaking, to the infinite number of slightly different possible paths / decisions, running, in infinities, to the farthest possible limit of difference in different paths / decisions.

I had a long discussion with a few people that held belief that eventually in an infinite number of universes that things will repeat an infinite number of times.
Gravity, regional influence and location in infinity broke that math puzzle.
The gravity of me in my universe makes it impossible that in my location another me can exist anywhere else.
If I'm not in my location I'm not me.
Same rule applies for universes if an infinite number exist.
Infinite universes=infinite differences.

Parallel universes can't exist either for one reason, infinite energy in one region of space with parallel universes.
Quantum decision just won't work in a finite space.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I didn't think for a minute you were agreeing with it.

No, I had not considered that, I thought you were just showing it for our consideration or discussion.

No, I have not heard that expression, how does it apply here?

I thought you would be pleased that someone took the time to review an article link you posted. No one else bothered

Sorry missed the part on info. discovery channel (the universe) went into detail about galaxies well beyond the visible universe . They were puzzled on how that could be.
Probably lots online also.

Data needs checking for sure to make sure it's not a fluke but if it hold true then a rethink of the real universe/s is needed.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I enjoy reading your posts as you hang onto to the existence of "infinite." Also that, because infinite exists, then with it everything that can exist, exists, has existed, and will exist somewhere though not at all, of course, in any single finite of an infinity of finites (such as an infinity of finite universes (u): "infinity of..." because though there are exact duplicates, an infinity of them, there are far more (an infinity more) that aren't exactly duplicates, and even far more are even more different (an infinity more), progressing to far, far, more that are radically different (an infinity more). There are many (an infinity) rich in life. There are many (an infinity) where life, as we know life, could not even exist. There are many (an infinity) where YOU made the same decisions that, or different decisions than, you made in this universe. There are many (an infinity) where YOU lived in different time periods than in this universe. Maybe even on an Earth, or on a similar planet, ranging thousands of years ago Earth standard time, to so far in a possible future that YOU roam the interstellar horizons, or even the intergalactic horizons, (universe horizons / horizon universes) like a Han Solo or a Captain Kirk. In all, there is one thing I'm certain you could bank on; no matter what, YOU would be YOU in all the possible infinities of same and different space and time universes YOU could possibly reside in. YOU are a type of personality, uniquely YOU but still a type (an extremely unique type, as every individual of every species or kind of life is). Therefore you couldn't be anyone else, or anything else, but you in whatever the range of possible spaces, times, and conditions you could exist in, in an infinity of finite universes. Biologically and semi-religiously that means you die an infinite number of deaths, live an infinite number of lives, and as simply put as I can put it, YOU simply continue (there is no afterlife or reincarnation involved in an infinite Universe of infinite many universes). Have you ever experienced anything like de ja vu?

So I get long winded again. I was dealing in a satirical response when I said that bubble universes might smash into one another and either fuse together or fission apart, the Universe (U) losing and/or gaining universes (u). As both you and I have said before, in an infinite Universe (U) everything that can exist, exists. It doesn't gain anything or lose anything as far as its own infinity is concerned. Nothing is created or destroyed at those levels that are infinity and that deal in infinity. That includes the Universe (U) as its own infinity of finite universes (u). You liked my analogy about the forest and the trees. Well remember that it goes a little further than I took it. The trees are in the forest, and the forest is in each and every tree. [This] forest can't create or destroy any of its trees. And no tree or group of trees in this particular forest can create or destroy the forest. In this realization of infinite Universe, as I see it, no gain or loss of a finite universe ever happens (in form, they are infinite themselves (an infinity of infinites / infinitesimals at the same time they are an infinity of finites)). Why? How does that happen? Because we aren't talking about loose floating bubbles in some kind of sea of bubbles, we are talking finite universes as finite horizons (even in the way I described Chaos Theory's multi-layering: As different look or dimensional form of horizons). We are talking an infinite Universe (an infinite Horizon) of an infinite many universes (an infinite many horizons). Whether banked (closed up) to a 'naked singularity' of infinitely dense Horizon (Universe), an infinite mass of Universe (Horizon), or accordion-like extended out into their infinite many of horizons (universes), (I'm talking a dual existence here, both at once here, not any sequential existence closing up and opening up alternatingly), that Horizon (Universe) neither gains nor loses horizons (universes). So the horizon of each and every one of these finites is infinite, is infinity, up and out through the infinity of the macro-horizons, and down and in through the infinity of the micro-horizons. Ours is but one horizon constant of all that infinite many horizon constants. All the same 'Horizon' constant. Singularity! Duality! The constant of the one infinite Horizon / Universe is then the constant of each and every finite horizon / universe.

(*I found an article on "Mirror Universe hiding in Space-Time" that made me think I might have left out some things from my own look of BB, while getting the direction of time backward, maybe, from even own previous descriptions. My universe traveler would neither see nor time travel the times as I tried to describe them here. So I scrapped my BB description. David is still right in my opinion in what he says above on this particular matter of BB that got me started. And in the article I cited as having found and read, there are too few dimensions and too little Universe for me. They think they see so much and I feel sorry for them, but what they see is practically barren. I like richer more dimensional paintings, not flat dark age-like poverty stricken ones. Some things in the article showed me I'm on a right track for my own realization and satisfaction, but I'm just not there yet. The material substance of my mirror doing the mirroring, as I see it, is gravity's waves.*)

Sorry for the delay in responding. To help me express my oppinion I first need to say something about infinity. I've done this by answering the thread 'Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?'

Page 2 - Question - Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

If interested please read this while I get something to eat. Then I'll come back and continue

 

[Atlan0001]

Sorry for the delay in responding. To help me express my oppinion I first need to say something about infinity. I've done this by answering the thread 'Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?'

Page 2 - Question - Can one infinity be larger than another infinity?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

If interested please read this while I get something to eat. Then I'll come back and continue

It's because when you are dealing in infinites you are dealing in quality not quantity. Quantity of numbers, no matter its number or even runaway number, is intrinsically finite. When a mathematician or physicist runs into a runaway he might [qualify] it as an infinite, then stop it...bang(!), intrinsic finite quantity (it was never anything but finite). You and I deal in a high, far richer quality to the Universe. It might not expand the Universe but it expands the mind's view and realization of the Universe: And I guess that in itself is quite an expansion of the Universe. Most people are seeing, dealing in, a very much poorer quality of Universe. Infinite thinkers and seers have quite a different mind set, and mind's eye, than that kind of person. They will have more dimensions to their thinking, see things in more and greater dimensions, than that kind of person. They will walk among the (mind) blind...concerning the Universe at large if nothing else. And it, that walk among, will sometimes be damn hard to do.