Dark matter mystery.

Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
What is dark matter?
An incomprehensible substance evenly scattered throughout the Universe, or is it the border of the Universe behind the Oort cloud, from where the sunlight is simply not reflected?

Astronomers Use New Data to Create Extraordinary Dark Matter Map


The distance to the most distant galaxy is supposedly 13.4 billion light years. This means that the light travels all the distance without hindrance. This is supposedly a straight line, along which there are no objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, dust, gas - nothing blocking light in a straight line 13.4 billion light years long ... This is hardly possible.
 
Feb 8, 2021
57
24
35
Dark Energy leaks into our visible Universe through MDM -massively dense matter-like galaxies, clusters, BH's and creates drag and increases density in the MDM's locally.
Our visible Universe is expanding slower within the Inflation expansion and this causes drag and spin....this is my theory Tension Dark Energy....still working on it....
 
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Redshift shows finite universes have tendency to break up. Generational pressures pressing from the depths of the Great Abyss ("from out of 'Nowhereland'"), I claim, combined with infinite Universe's infinite of non-local rim, outland, or "from out of 'Nowhereland'", gravity's tendency to pull things apart. Relativity, I've always understood to be the case, predicts its own break down.
 
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
I will check it out, you must have read Ouspensky....peace
Have not read Ouspensky. Will check it out.
My several other thoughts to this topic.

1) The actual (real) structure of the Universe is the key to a correct understanding of the origin of life, its nature, as well as the essence of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, so called "aliens", and the key to the correct worldview.

<<Content removed by moderator>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
Redshift shows finite universes have tendency to break up. Generational pressures pressing from the depths of the Great Abyss ("from out of 'Nowhereland'"), I claim, combined with infinite Universe's infinite of non-local rim, outland, or "from out of 'Nowhereland'", gravity's tendency to pull things apart. Relativity, I've always understood to be the case, predicts its own break down.
1) Is the Universe local?
Yes. Moreover, it is absolutely local. This comes from the name itself. If besides the Universe there is something else, then without this something it is no longer the Universe. Within the framework of the Universe, the existence of something local is impossible, that is, absolutely without any interaction with the rest of the Universe. In short, this supposedly difficult question, in fact, is a priori very unambiguous: the Universe is absolutely local, within the Universe, conditionally (relatively) local phenomena or regions (space) can exist, for example: a soundproof room, an airtight container, water-air, etc. .P. impermeable containers. But it is impossible to create an absolutely impenetrable space within the framework of the Universe itself for absolutely nothing. In short, the Universe is an absolutely local space, within which the existence of any other absolutely local space is impossible.

2) Is it possible to know the future?
No. Knowledge of the future itself influences (changes) this future. Example. You find out that something bad is about to happen, even if you try to do nothing to fix it or avoid it, then at least your behavior and thinking will change. In short, it is impossible to know the future, because knowledge of the future itself affects the future, that is, changes it. There are certain trends and expectations of the future, but nobody knows 100% of it, although it is likely that it can be 100% predetermined.

3) The only infinite parameter (in the full sense) in the Universe is time. Energy and matter, like consciousness and space, are limited, but indestructible ... in short, here you need to understand well the Law of Conservation of Energy and its consequences, because this is essentially one of the fundamental properties of the Universe: Nothing appears from nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but is only redistributed and / or transformed from one state to another.

<<Content removed by moderator>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Not only is there zero movement, zero "out of sight", in your local only universe, you've violated everything having to do with quantum mechanics. The micro-verse of quantum mechanics cannot possibly exist in the local only, relativistic only, universe you describe.
 
Feb 8, 2021
57
24
35
Redshift shows finite universes have tendency to break up. Generational pressures pressing from the depths of the Great Abyss ("from out of 'Nowhereland'"), I claim, combined with infinite Universe's infinite of non-local rim, outland, or "from out of 'Nowhereland'", gravity's tendency to pull things apart. Relativity, I've always understood to be the case, predicts its own break down.
Atlan I just can't follow you, my knowledge isn't up to par..."redshift shows....", explain..."relativity predicts it own breakdown..." explain...
You don't have to explain, but for the sake of debates it makes it easier...

My point before was that "dark matter" doesn't exist, or is a form of "dark energy"....
 
Feb 8, 2021
57
24
35
Have not read Ouspensky. Will check it out.
My several other thoughts to this topic.

1) The actual (real) structure of the Universe is the key to a correct understanding of the origin of life, its nature, as well as the essence of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, so called "aliens", and the key to the correct worldview.

<<Content removed by moderator>>
I'm afraid I can't follow you here Alex...but you should enjoy Ouspensky, "In Search of The Miraculous" is his best book...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Atlan I just can't follow you, my knowledge isn't up to par..."redshift shows....", explain..."relativity predicts it own breakdown..." explain...
You don't have to explain, but for the sake of debates it makes it easier...

My point before was that "dark matter" doesn't exist, or is a form of "dark energy"....
Think of energetic cells, particularly life cells as best example, that acquire energy only to divide into, break up into, two or more cells, thus to stop the glut of energy to the one, conserving energy in the spread. "Redshift" showing the increasing possible-potential break up (the growing apartness) into many embyonic cells. Of course the "potential" of break up is pre-fulfilled, already fulfilled, in the infinity of finite universes. But "finite" doesn't deal in "infinity", it only deals in a "potential" of it.

The above would also mean the break down of relativity between the many older pieces developing enlarging chasms between them. But those enlarging chasms are not enlarging voids. They will be filled by a following, somewhat younger, generation of universe, a somewhat younger generation itself being pressed from the depths of the Abyss (a.k.a. "from out of nowhere") by still younger generational waves. All the generations are gradually being eaten alive along the way by black hole sharks (over the stretch of all the generations, keeping the balance of nature from opening ("string vibration" / Planck level hot blue-white hole jet / quantum field fluctuation (here one instant, gone the next)) to closure in the last tidbit of the oldest generation, a blackhole itself gobbling up its own horizon in closing out).

"Gravity of the infinite Universe" -- or the gravity from "Nowhereland". For that I would have to go back to my analogy of the forest and the trees, or go to a bigger explanation you might get lost in. In this analogy, each tree is a center of gravity. All the infinity of trees make up the forest. But the forest of the trees is not those constituent trees that make it up. It is a separate entity of its own, only symbiotic, or 'superposition correlative', with the trees (the trees are in the forest (but are not the forest); the forest is in each and every one of the trees (but is no constituent tree of the forest)). "The set of all constituent elements will be no constituent element of the set" (at least not herein). Setting aside analogy: It has its own gravity, effectively the non-local gravity attached to "nowhere", meaning everywhere outside of every center of gravity, effectively (again) the gravity grouped to the rim, the gravity of outland horizon, a gravity that pulls all apart, or works to, rather than pulling all together.

Brian Greene described gravity as a "pusher"; pushing things together or apart, depending on where you stand, with the forest or with the tree(s). He prefers gravity "pushing" (I suppose), I prefer gravity "pulling".
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2021
57
24
35
Think of energetic cells, particularly life cells as best example, that acquire energy only to divide into, break up into, two or more cells, thus to stop the glut of energy to the one, conserving energy in the spread. "Redshift" showing the increasing possible-potential break up (the growing apartness) into many embyonic cells. Of course the "potential" of break up is pre-fulfilled, already fulfilled, in the infinity of finite universes. But "finite" doesn't deal in "infinity", it only deals in a "potential" of it.

The above would also mean the break down of relativity between the many older pieces developing enlarging chasms between them. But those enlarging chasms are not enlarging voids. They will be filled by a following, somewhat younger, generation of universe, a somewhat younger generation itself being pressed from the depths of the Abyss (a.k.a. "from out of nowhere") by still younger generational waves. All the generations are gradually being eaten alive along the way by black hole sharks (over the stretch of all the generations, keeping the balance of nature from opening ("string vibration" / Planck level hot blue-white hole jet / quantum field fluctuation (here one instant, gone the next)) to closure in the last tidbit of the oldest generation, a blackhole itself gobbling up its own horizon in closing out).

"Gravity of the infinite Universe" -- or the gravity from "Nowhereland". For that I would have to go back to my analogy of the forest and the trees, or go to a bigger explanation you might get lost in. In this analogy, each tree is a center of gravity. All the infinity of trees make up the forest. But the forest of the trees is not those constituent trees that make it up. It is a separate entity of its own, only symbiotic, or 'superposition correlative', with the trees (the trees are in the forest (but are not the forest); the forest is in each and every one of the trees (but is no constituent tree of the forest)). "The set of all constituent elements will be no constituent element of the set" (at least not herein). Setting aside analogy: It has its own gravity, effectively the non-local gravity attached to "nowhere", meaning everywhere outside of every center of gravity, effectively (again) the gravity grouped to the rim, the gravity of outland horizon, a gravity that pulls all apart, or works to, rather than pulling all together.

Brian Greene described gravity as a "pusher"; pushing things together or apart, depending on where you stand, with the forest or with the tree(s). He prefers gravity "pushing" (I suppose), I prefer gravity "pulling".
Thanks for the effort it will take a while to translate it into my branial capacitator but the last part fits right into my current flow... Electricity pushes and magnetism pulls but the 90 degree flow of force comes from EM hitting a wall of resistance which bends and folds the field lines back into itself creating magnetism....the "wall" EM hits is the Tension Dark Energy field that is faster than lights speed...that our visible universe is expanding into at a slower expansion rate.
 
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Rabsal, I swear you and Rod are the darnedest people to have dialog with on this forum. Not that others don't stimulate thought but you two cause me to have the craziest, most plausibly implausible thoughts about space and time.

You can't travel than light. No one can prove that, but such as me have submitted observational obviousness as equivalence to that proof that cannot be proved.

So is our universe (u) expanding faster than the speed of light? And if so where to? Or is that the wrong question? Should the question be when to rather than where to? As an amateur major in history since age 7, many more times than once I've used the phrase that other deep thinking students of history have used deliberately redundantly for emphasis, "The past is the future, the future is the past"! Now let me see if I can describe this so you can see it:

The past has been futuristically coming, contracting, following a so-called "arrow of time", into each and all of the center points of the bubble-globe universes, such as where we are "superposition correlative" with everything else material in the universe(s). But is that entirely [Multiverse multi-dimensionally] true!?

I've visualized (finite) generations of (finite) universe youth pressing up from the depths of the Abyss (from out of "nowhere" (virtual particles (primordial material))) only to eventually with time entropically or otherwise return to the primordial source infinite from which they came... and keep on coming, and keep on returning (keep on reversing (re-'verse' (can you get it? Understand the deep of the double definition and meaning I intend herein?))).

Now to what I've been building up to. The genius mathematician and logician Kurt Godel was one of the first, was maybe the first, person to see an anomaly in his best friend Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. To wit, the possibility of "time reversal" existing if one could travel faster than the speed of light, maybe even to possibly include the universe [expanding] faster than the speed of light. The first part of that means reversing the flow direction of the [same] line of the [same] 1-dimensional arrow of time. I say that can't and won't ever happen. But... in my own modeling I've been dealing steadily in different types and conditions of time reversal, or as some here have since called it, "cycling". The only problem I've had is observation of it. Even I've said repeatedly that you can't observe the future.

But along comes Multiverse multi-dimensionality and maybe its no longer true that the future can't be observed... that is, maybe versions of it can be observed "superpositioned" outside of just the one 1-dimensional arrow of time, overlaying it, and inlaying into it as "the past is the future, the future is the past". Maybe the "cycling" can be observed as both past and future in one binary dimension, both at once as one and the same. Not a line of oncoming generations from the constant of the distant collapsed (a.k.a. BB) horizon that can be traveled, but the line of oncoming future generations that are at the same time being observed as past generations (as histories). "Fractal self-similarity" that can be, and is being, observed without realizing exactly what is being observed (a double dimensional helping, both past and future... but these two, neither can be traveled.... as observed! Because that future is not centered in the globe universe; is not center or 0-point in the bubble universe where we are, where every traveler is and will be, where everything material that is local, relative, "here" and "now" is -- everywhere here and now is (in other words, that past / future is dimensionally a parallel universe that 'evolves' in mass and energy, therefore in space and time, when we would travel toward it from here and now).

Even I tend to forget I'm modeling paralleling physicality when I model the infinity of finite universes. I am modeling, among the other things, an infinity of paralleling pasts (self-similar all the way to vastly differing) and an infinity of paralleling futures (self-similar all the way to vastly differing), in my model. That we might be able to actually observe fractal self-similarity in simultaneous dimensional being (herein of a non-physical, historical, past going away in light-time and a future in actual physical being oncoming) between certain parallels of universes never occurred to me.

It's to bad that certain physicists cannot see Multiverse multi-dimensionality the way I see it. They envisioned the Multiverse to begin with. Then caricatured it taking the map to be the territory. But then I've understood that the map is not the territory since I was a kid in the 1950s. It's been known since the days of the cave dwellers, to those of common sense wisdom, that the map is not the territory. Kurt Godel caricatured time in raising the possibility of traveling an arrow of time backward in time, only following what had already been done to time when relativistic Einsteinians took the relative traveler in the light to be the real traveler in fact. I still can't believe what I watched of Brian Greene, concerning Multiverse multi-dimensionality, in that video. You don't pile it on or shovel dimensional manure into it, you change the colors, or the flavors, or the spins, and therein the map appears less jungle underbrush and more visually representative of the real territory. In my modeling of the 'Cosmic All' what Brian Greene was doing was pointing out the buildup of complexity to systemic seizure and implosion and collapse. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.

I went off on a tangent in the above, but I guess better here, since you caused me to think about it -- in a way I had not yet done -- with some of things you've been pressing here, than starting a new thread.
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2021
57
24
35
Awesome but BH's travel FTLS because they can trap lights energy....my conjecture comes from that and leads to inflation and multiverses if a maximum density is found for BHs which was spoken of before as in the equations...
Oh and every time we look at a BH we are seeing the future
And if inflation exits it is FTLS which could mean the cyclic or future is the past models and that this could be feeding the finite bubble universe quantum foam is awesome but uneccesary if BHs have a max and further collapse.
My theory also proves inflation or BHs prove inflation.
I hope you continue describing your views and when I get the math and more understanding this should get better...
 
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Awesome but BH's travel FTLS because they can trap lights energy....my conjecture comes from that and leads to inflation and multiverses if a maximum density is found for BHs which was spoken of before as in the equations...
Oh and every time we look at a BH we are seeing the future
And if inflation exits it is FTLS which could mean the cyclic or future is the past models and that this could be feeding the finite bubble universe quantum foam is awesome but uneccesary if BHs have a max and further collapse.
My theory also proves inflation or BHs prove inflation.
I hope you continue describing your views and when I get the math and more understanding this should get better...
Good luck to you in your quest for greater understanding of the engine. It's what I went for and what I've achieved to my own satisfaction.... which was all I really asked of it. I don't think I can any longer be disappointed in my most basic views, unlike three of my great favorites, Einstein, Godel, and Hawking. Anything more now in my modeling, to me, is just gravy (as the saying goes). Just refinement.

And I forgot to add upstairs, the additions in superpositioned dimensionality you made me think about, the heightened or increased dimensionality into a hyper state (which I already had in place but didn't realize the full implications of) means the light is never going to go out: Means the lights are never going to go out. Never were out. Never will be out.

We humans are a complex spatially minded species. If astronomers and physicists tell us the lights are going to go out in a trillion years (say), that is time just around the corner, and declinist deathwatch is the order of the day here, now, exactly like a thousand to fifteen hundred years ago to western civilization. History repeating. I'm a man of New Frontiers / The New World. I've modeled a "Cosmic All" in which the lights never go out. They never were on, and never will be on, in the energyless, timeless, dark of the infinitely flat, non-local, (source) Universe (U). But in the infinity of finite local, relative, universes (u) they were never out, and never will be out. To me, a gift of entropy's nemesis, an unrecognized set, or animate, of life force, of which the principle constituent material body element is the macro-micro-verse (sic) of QM.

By the way, anything so bright as the Big Bang is supposed to be would instantaneously 'black out'.

Hawking's talk of beginning migration (exodus) and the need for it to keep [local] life from mass extinction was right on, and I've modeled, to my satisfaction, the local universe (u) for it he spoke of. The universes (plural!) are far, far, richer, including in frontiers for life, than even the greatest astronomers and physicists have ever detected or imagined. I can't describe what I see of it, what I visualize of it, at all well enough. Maybe one you will. Who knows. And, like Hawking, I can't emphasize it enough. Can't emphasize life's need of it, enough. And with our human evolution's pointing straight toward it or self-destruct, Earth-life's hard pursuit of expansion out to it for ultimate survival and prosperity.

Damn, there I go again, working for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren (of which I'll get to see one of our six 'greats', coming to visit us, in a few days)!
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS