Eternal Universe Concept - The Successor to the Big Bang Theory

[kmarinas86]

The universe is eternal.<br />It only seems like the universe is expanding.<br />There is a no big bang, and there is no center in time or space.<br />There is no center of the universe.<br />The universe is without bounds. It is the only one.<br />The universe: a multiverse.

 

[nacnud]

Any evidence to suggest this over the big bang theory, i.e. are there some predictions made by this theory that differ from the big bang and that can be tested?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Any evidence to suggest this over the big bang theory, i.e. are there some predictions made by this theory that differ from the big bang and that can be tested?</font><br /><br />The Dark Hyper-Galactic Mass, bends all light approaching the Milky Way. To test this theory, we will use telescopes and our scientific instruments, and computers, to determine the Milky Way's distance from the Dark Hyper-Galactic Mass. We will know the distance between, blue, young and gold galaxies.<br /><br />This model of the universe predicts, that the Milky Way galaxy is aligned north and south with the curvature of space time caused by the Hyper-Galactic Mass. Not necessarily due to their polarity, but by chance that they are somewhat parallel. Other galaxies are not parallel with the Milky Way.<br /><br />Sometimes, we will take a picture in the direction of Hubble Deep Field North and see close-up galaxies but no far-away galaxies, with the exception of very-very-far away "traces" of galaxies.<br /><br />There is a void between the close-up galaxies and this distant radiation. This void is the perimeter, the outer edge of the Hyper-Galactic Cloud, which surrounds the Hyper-Galactic Mass. If we take a zoom-in picture with our telescope, we will see more red galaxies with redshifts increasing more rapidly per distance than they do in the zoomed out picture.<br /><br />Light from Hubble Deep Field North heads out into to perimeter of the Hyper-Galactic Cloud causing maximum red-shift. There is some gravitational blueshift thereafter. In sum of the graviational redshift, gravitational blueshift, and the doppler redshift, photons coming from Hubble Deep Field North are extremely redshifted.<br /><br />There will be an area of the sky where there are red galaxies, behind these blue galaxies.<br /><br />Look at the very faint wisps, they are red:<br />http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~zoltan

 

[jcdenton]

That's really difficult to read. It's better to use paragraphs.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

That type of formatting usually happens when it is copied and pasted off of an html page with lots of graphics. I wonder, did this come from "Rael.org"? I've noticed similar formatting when text was c+p'd off of there.<br /><br />Is this a "Great Attractor" theory?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

The formatting is by no means similar. The varation in the line length should tell you that. <b><i>No it's not from Rael.org.</i></b><br /><br /><font color="orange">Is this a "Great Attractor" theory?</font><br /><br />It is no longer a word I use for the Cyclical Multiverse Theory. I'd rather not have that phrase mentioned at all.<br /><br />edit: p.l.z. look at the post again. better formatting. new info.

 

[igorsboss]

One of the postulates that leads to 'mainstream' cosmology solutions is the condition that physics be the same everywhere in the Universe.<br /><br />The Cyclic Multiverse theory appears to break this postulate, I believe. If I'm wrong about that, let me know...<br /><br />That's not to say the Cyclic Multiverse is wrong, however. Maybe the postulate is wrong. I don't know.<br /><br />However, if one rejects this postulate, it seems to me that there would be a very large number of workable cosmologies, as the laws of the cosmology can be moulded to fit the various regions of space. It appears to me that the Cyclic Multiverse theory is one of this kind of cosmolgy.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Hi! How are you?<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />"This model of the universe predicts, that the Milky Way galaxy is aligned north and south with the curvature of space time caused by the Hyper-Galactic Mass. Not necessarily due to their polarity, but by chance that they are somewhat parallel. Other galaxies are not parallel with the Milky Way."<br />OK, see my north is up thread.<br />I do not understand how space-time would have a north and south.<br /><br />I understand how space does - it would be north of our solar system's plane of the eccliptic.<br /><br />Can you explain?<br /><br />You also refer to Hubble deep field north.<br /><br />Is north the same as with the plane of the solar system eccliptic - how does the direction of the Hubble deep field from us relate to north?<br /><br />Now, the red shift is not directionally different at those extreme distances, is it?<br /><br />I know we are moving very fast towards a great attractor along with many other galaxies - but I didn't think our mobile Milky Way skewed the red shifts that much.<br /><br />It should have an effect, though.<br /><br />Anyone know what the effect is - as observed in redshifts from all directions at great, and similar, distances?<br /><br />Thank you for posting a different model which we can compare the popular model with.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">I do not understand how space-time would have a north and south. <br /><br />I understand how space does - it would be north of our solar system's plane of the eccliptic. <br /><br />Can you explain?</font><br /><br />Yes. Well suppose you have a spinning mass such the Hyper-Galactic Mass (huge black spot seen in the first picture in this thread). If the central core of the Hyper-Galactic Mass has particles that have both a north an south, like the core of the earth, there would be a sort of current flowing in, through, and out the axis. However, we do not know if the Hyper-Galactic Mass is spinning. Let's suppose for a moment, that, like many things in the universe, that the Hyper-Galacitic Mass is spinning. And then lets postualate that that mass is being ejected out of one pole and then into another.<br /><br />Think of the sun. The sun has a north pole and a south pole. Matter is ejected all around the sun, but much of the fire that is spouted out is pulled back into the flames. Much is the same in the Eternal Universe Concept. The future observations of the James Webb Telescope are in demand. Deeper looks in the universe would help us to rule out various behaviors of the Hyper-Galactic Mass. The Eternal Universe Concept is subject to change. The H-G Mass may not be spinning after all, or the cycle of galaxies may be torriod, spherical, and even triangular. The Eternal Universe Concept doesn't cover everything. There needs to be data and deeper looks into the universe, otherwise, there remains actually thousands of ways the Eternal Universe Concept could be arranged. We don't know how Hyper-Galactic Masses (as seen in the picture in the first post) would "dance" around each other, so to speak. Do they collide? Do galaxies loop around them in different ways? Does the speed of light vary among these Hyper-Galactic Masses depending on their size, mass, direction, and proximity? In retrospect, the speed of light does not se

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - First, note that I do not believe our universe is eternal in the past - though it is eternal in the future.<br /><br />Second- isn't calling the universe a multiverse a contradiction in terminology?<br /><br />Third - I didn't mean north magnetic pole, but north of the plane of the eccliptic - hence a rotational and revolutionary north.<br /><br />Fourth - Hubble deep field north is north of the plane of the galaxy eccliptic or north of the plane of the solar system eccliptic?<br /><br />Fifth - The sun's magnetic pole or rotational pole (north)? Note that the sun has many magnetic fields floating from near the interior to the surface and on to heating the corona.<br /><br />It is very complex.<br /><br />However, that being said, the sun does have a north magnetic pole. I understand that it flips regularly - was it every 22 years or 11 years?<br /><br />BTW - earth seemingly also flips its field - and the field on earth is weakening probably as a prelude to a flip.<br /><br />I didn't see the Hyper-Galactic Mass - is it visible or invisible? OK - I need to check your first picture.<br /><br />Meanwhile - take care,<br /><br />Paul

 

[newtonian]

jcdenton and a_lost_packet - OK, what did I miss?<br /><br />I didn't see anything that had formatting or lacked paragraphs.<br /><br />Or was that in the Hypergalactic Mass which cannot be seen by ordinary telescopes?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">isn't calling the universe a multiverse a contradiction in terminology?</font><br /><br />Yes. However the notion of mutiple universes is also a contradiction in terminology. In the Cyclical Multiverse Theory (another name of the Eternal Universe Concept), The universe could be defined as as a cloud of galaxies and their central Hyper-Galactic Mass, while the universe "as a whole" could be defined as the infinity of particles composed of smaller particles that is represented in the image on the first page.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hubble deep field north is north of the plane of the galaxy eccliptic or north of the plane of the solar system eccliptic?</font><br /><br />I think so... I wouldn't think that Hubble Deep Field South would be in the Northern Eccliptic.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The sun's magnetic pole or rotational pole (north)?</font><br /><br />The sun's changing magnetic pole.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Note that the sun has many magnetic fields floating from near the interior to the surface and on to heating the corona.<br /><br />It is very complex. </font><br /><br />True.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">However, that being said, the sun does have a north magnetic pole. I understand that it flips regularly - was it every 22 years or 11 years?</font><br /><br />If its magnetic, which it is, then yes it has a north magnetic pole.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">BTW - earth seemingly also flips its field - and the field on earth is weakening probably as a prelude to a flip.</font><br /><br />True.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I didn't see the Hyper-Galactic Mass - is it visible or invisible? OK - I need to check your first picture.</font><br /><br />Invisible with today's technology... just like what use to be the invisible cosmic background radiation, which has now been revealed by COBE and WMAP.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Meanwhile - take care, <br /><br />Pau</font>

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - sense of humor or did you misunderstand the following question- it is multiple choice, not true or false:<br /><br />Hubble deep field north is north of the plane of the galaxy eccliptic or north of the plane of the solar system eccliptic? <br /><br />Or did your answer mean both?<br /><br />Oh, and the magnetic north pole is not necessarily in the rotational north pole area - on Saturn and Jupiter it is opposite!<br />Can you link where you found the terms Hubble field north and Hubble field south?<br /><br />Thank you, btw.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hubble deep field north is north of the plane of the galaxy eccliptic or north of the plane of the solar system eccliptic? <br /><br />Or did your answer mean both?</font><br /><br />Both... because I think that our sun is aligned north with the galaxy's axis...<br /><br />http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MgS70-cg4L0J:www.gaiamind.org/solstice.htm+axis+galaxy+sun+aligned&hl=en<br /><br />Strength of the Galaxy's Magnetic Field<br />http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RebeccaRudberg.shtml

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86- It would be quite an amazing coincidence if the plane of the solar system eccliptic is aligned exactly with the plane of the galactic eccliptic so that north is exactly the same!<br /><br />Are you sure???<br /><br />I know when we look at the Milky Way we do see it edge on, and I know we are near the galactic arm- we periodically pass through it.<br /><br />But when I look at the Milky Way (we are in a dark location, it is easily visible) it does seem to point north and south - but that would mean up would be either east or west wouldn't it?<br /><br />Or have I been looking up to long so my head is spinning!!!<br />BTW - I am currently researching why north is up in astronomy - hence my interest in this detail of your post.<br /><br />As a totally way off tangent you might find of interest:<br /><br />The Bible speaks of the residence of Jehovah as being North.<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">It would be quite an amazing coincidence if the plane of the solar system eccliptic is aligned exactly with the plane of the galactic eccliptic so that north is exactly the same! <br /><br />Are you sure???</font><br /><br />I highly doubt that the actuall axis'es of the moon earth sun and galaxy were perfectly aligned. They might have looked parallel from one angle, but looking from another angle they might lean away from each other.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The Bible speaks of the residence of Jehovah as being North.</font><br /><br />aye.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Thank you. Of couse, I would like a more definitive answer - so I may have to ask this question elsewhere - i.e. the plane of the solar system eccliptic compared with the plane of the galactic eccliptic.<br /><br />Meanwhile, am I correct in assuming you reject the big bang theory - or are you just posting a possible alternative.<br /><br />If the former, what weaknesses do you see in the big bang theory?<br /><br />I also assume you believe our universe always existed - am I assuming correctly, or did you simply mean longer than popularly believed?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Meanwhile, am I correct in assuming you reject the big bang theory - or are you just posting a possible alternative.</font><br /><br />Just a possible alternative.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I also assume you believe our universe always existed - am I assuming correctly, or did you simply mean longer than popularly believed?</font><br /><br />Always existed. Suppose that every quark contains miniature galaxies, and if every galaxy is a miniscule part of a mega-large quark. In such a case, there would be countless civilizations living inside these galaxies. These galaxies loop around the Hyper-Galactic Masses that make up our quarks, which make up our electrons, protons, and neutrons, which make up our atoms, molecules, and us. The rate (time) at which new civilizations form and the rate at which older civilizations dissapate is much faster as smaller levels of infinity (these miniscule galaxies) than at larger levels of infinity - by several, if not many, orders of magnitude. Our galaxy, according to the Eternal Universe Concept, is a tiny part of a huge atom that exists in its own level of infinity, where there are stars, galaxies, and life.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86- I thought that theorized hypergalactic mass was far out.<br /><br />I see now it (or:they) could be far in!<br /><br />Yes, I also doubt quarks are truly fundemental. The transmutation of quarks makes that seem likely to me.<br /><br />Now, how do you define infinity?<br /><br />You are correct in noting there are different levels of infinity. In that I must congratulate you - most posters here get caught up in semantics rather than actual mathematical observations.<br /><br />A simple example is assigning numeric units to an eternal universe. For now, I will stick with what we agree on: eternal in the future. That would involve an infinity of time.<br /><br />However, expressed numerically in minutes the number equivalent of that infinity will be exactly 60 times less than the infinite integer expressed in seconds.<br /><br />I.e. the infinite future time of our universe expressed in seconds divided by the infinite future time of our universe expressed in minutes equals exactly 60.<br /><br />There are other orders of infinity also. My belief that our universe is eternal only in future time and not in past time would mean that the existence of our universe would be the infinity from the present moment (which can be defined precisely) in future time plus approximately 13.7 billion years of past time.<br /><br />However, according to your belief, the infinite time of existence of our universe is infinitely longer than the infinite time of existence of our universe according to my belief.<br /><br />That is - your model has infinite future time plus infinite past time. My model has infinite future time plus 13.7 billion years.<br /><br />BTW - the Bible does allude to, or imply, something similar to your model in larger sizes -however, the universes in quarks is not touched on. It would, of course, simply be the same effect but in the opposite direction size wise.<br /><br />Here is the Scripture upon which I have theorized the similar model:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) .

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Could it be that some energy forms, like dark energy, can exist in more dimensions simulaneously than just our 3 dimensions (plus time as a 4th dimension)?</font><br /><br />Maybe, but I'm reluctant to "believe" in parallel dimensions at this time, because if they existed outside of space-time, it would be "complicated." I think many things are possible with just these 4 dimensions alone.

 

[kmarinas86]

Cyclical Multiverse Theory "found in the fields"<br /><br />http://ellisctaylor.homestead.com/garsingtoncropformation.html <br /><br />http://ellisctaylor.homestead.com/garsington_crop_circle_shadow_diagram780.jpg<br /><br />When I look at this diagram, I see the Cyclical Multiverse Theory.<br /><br />The first circular and triangular "fields" I see on the top might represent hydrogen atom of one proton and one s-level electron. In the center of this proton is a sort of gravity well where much of the mass is located. The proton may turn out to be as complex as biological cell of much smaller dimensions.<br /><br />The arching lines mean "zoom in" while the diagram below is an "inset."<br /><br />Below the top part of the inset is the fabric of space time.<br /><br />There are many flow lines representing the perpetual movement of energies embedded in a spherical space-time shell.<br /><br />That's basically the bare minimum which I can infer from the diagram.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - I need to study your last post.<br /><br />On your former post, I didn't mean parallel dimensions as in, for example, parallel universes.<br /><br />I meant intersecting dimensions- not parallel.<br /><br />If they could not intersect, then how could energy, such as dark energy, move from one plane (dimension) to another?<br /><br />BTW - I agree this can get too complicated for our limited knowledge - but it can be important in understanding how our universe and other universes were created.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If they could not intersect, then how could energy, such as dark energy, move from one plane (dimension) to another?</font><br /><br />I don't believe in dark energies moving from one dimension to the other. Everything can be simplified into 4 dimensions. There is no need to decribe smaller vs. larger dimensions or linear vs. flat dimensions. <br /><br />IMO, everything can be explained in 4 dimensions, height, width, length, and time. The only other "dimension" would be the dimension of perception. Because of the Hyper-Galactic Mass I described earlier, the distance between galaxies that are tens of billions of light years away are closer together than we think - at least in this theory. Since we see so many blue galaxies very far away, then this would mean that the sphere(?) of these blue galaxies surrounding the large Hyper-Galactic Mass(es?) is beyond a hundred or more billion of light years in circumference. If the Hyper-Galactic Mass were smaller than tens of billions of light years in diameter, then we wouldn't be able to see so many small blue galaxies. If there exists a sort of Hyper-Galactic Mass that is much smaller than ours, then blue galaxies surrounding that one would form very differently than those around *our* Hyper-Galactic Mass. Would that mean smaller blue galaxies being closer together? who knows?<br /><br />According to the Eternal Universe Concept, there is a sort of mathematical relationship between the size, mass of the Hyper-Galactic Mass, and the distance from which blue galaxies are being tubulently ripped.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Relax - I know I don't know what I am saying.<br /><br />Er, I mean I don't mean to let you think I think I know what I think is known. (if you know what I mean - or see what I mean!)<br /><br />I get silly when I'm tired, btw.<br /><br />Seriously, virtual particles appearing and disappearing would seem to be delusional - yet, if I am correct, this has actually been observed.<br /><br />Are they simply coming from vacuum energy? Most scientists agree that the law of conservation of matter and energy is not being violated, and I concur.<br /><br />There are theories to account for these observations. String theories are among the possibilities, and extremely tiny dimensions are among the String theories.<br /><br />I didn't dream this up - it is actually published in Scientific American!<br /><br />I simply am engaged in independent outside the box analytical thought.<br /><br />Of course, I didn't mean to imply String theory is more tenable than your posted theory.<br /><br />There are many models. Most are science fiction - I happen to like science fiction.<br /><br />At most one model is correct (unless two or more are in harmony and/or complimentary).

 

[kmarinas86]

Well considering that every particle is made of small ingredient particles - according to the Cyclical Multiverse Theory - then everything in the universe is hollow or "fuzzy." This includes atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, etc. Because of this the actual density of the universe approaches 0 - nothing. Not by weight, but by the actually occupied volume of photons, neutron, electrons, positrons, protons, antiprotons, quarks, and all other universal particles. The existence of virtual particles may be so, because density of these infintely small particles is zero... giving a whole new *meaning* to the term everything=nothing.<br /><br />As for the truth of this, here is the proof.<br /><br />lim[ a ] = a<br />lim[ ab ] = aa<br />b- />a-<br />lim[ ab-aa ] = 0<br />lim[ a(b-a) ] = 0<br />lim[ a(b-a)/(b-a) ] = lim[ 0/(b-a) ]<br />a = 0/0 = anything, everything<br />anything, everything * 0 = 0 = nothing<br /><br />the volume of infintely small particles is zero, nothing.