• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

help.. is the Cyclical Multiverse Theory feasible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kmarinas86

Guest
My Cosmological Theory, if feasible, could turn the world of Cosmology. I believe that the theory can adapt to whatever empirical evidence (cosmological observations) that supports the Big Bang theory. I contest that what supports the big Bang theory also supports the Cyclical Multiverse theory. In the Cyclical Multiverse theory there is no "origin" of the universe, nor any beginning in time. Yet, despite being and infinite time, infinite space cosmology, the theory does explain the redshifts over galactic distances without resorting to changes in physical laws. According to the Cyclical Multiverse theory, Gravitational redshift is a major component of redshift of far away galaxies. All that and more is explained in the Evolution of the Cyclical Multiverse theory found at my Xanga site (this page has been updated)... http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=kmarinas86&tab=weblogs&uid=220940900<br /><br />If it is feasible, what would the next step be in order to verify it? I have some ideas, however, we would need something like the James Webb Telescope and maybe a higher-res Hubble-like telescope. If feasible, to verify (or falsify) the Cyclical Multiverse theory, the many corners of the deep universe would have to be photographed - especially at the areas of the sky which are obscured by the Milky Way. The universe would have to be mapped at all angles, not just the places where observation is convenient. Photos of faint blue galaxies outside the traditional hubble deep fields would have to be sought for.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html<br /><br />Correlations between WMAP and the Cyclical Multiverse Theory:<br /><br />Could the hotspots be the areas of the sky where these very large "black-body" masses are located?<br /><br />Predictions: It seems that if I cover the Milky Way part of the WMAP (the middle layer), with my two longest fingers on each hand, what I see is relatively more uniform distribution. The coldest spot in WMAP is what's left when the emissions from the center of the galaxy are bypassed. Suppose we are able to see through the dust of the Milky Way with Hubble or any other telescope. If the Cyclic Multiverse Theory is to be verified, we could check to see any inconsistencies in what is normally thought of as the isotropic early universe and see if the distribution and distance of the faint blue galaxies is any different where the brightest red patches are on WMAP. Maybe the blue galaxies are 1 billion light years closer where these red patches are in the sky. And maybe if we could look through the stars in the center of the galaxy (where we see the bluest patch in WMAP), we could see that the transition from the regular galaxies to blue faint galaxies on the other side are 1 or 2 billion light years further than normal. That could spell feasibility for the Cyclical Multiverse Theory.
 
C

cygnusx1111

Guest
"If it is feasible, what would the next step be in order to verify it? "<br /><br />Get a Phd in astronomy from an accredited university.<br /><br />There are some interesting ideas and I can see you put a lot of work into it. Good luck!
 
N

newtonian

Guest
kmarinas86 - Sorry, but I am way past bed-time here.<br /><br />To be way to brief: <br /><br />You have multiple attractors which should give a variation in attraction with direction - am I on the right track?<br /><br />But we do not observe this.<br /><br />However, if the multiverses are far enough away and numerous and reasonably equally distributed in all directions within a much larger universe then we wouldn't observe the variations easily.<br /><br />Note I said easily.<br /><br />That is my model, btw, based on 1 kings 8:27 <br /><br />Feel free to distinguish clearly your model from mine, as borman suggests - btw, my model is also changing (evolviing, being created, hopefully intelligently designed).
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">You have multiple attractors which should give a variation in attraction with direction - am I on the right track?</font><br /><br />yes<br /><br /><font color="yellow">But we do not observe this.</font><br /><br />not right at this moment.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Can it be wrong?</font><br /><br />possibly
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
http://uplink.space.com/attachments//197734-WMAP-cyclical-multiverse.jpg<br /><br />In the WMAP, red means hot and blue means cold. However, hot temperatures correspond to high frequencies, and cool temperatures correspond to low frequencies. Therefore this is a sort of mix up.<br /><br />So the areas of red correspond to microwaves with smaller wavelength, and the blue of longer wavelength. According to the Cyclical Multiverse theory, the Microwaves coming directly towards us, from the very large masses (in the "hot" areas), are less Gravitationally redshifted since they travel less distance. For example, light coming from the loops around the sun's perimeter as seen from earth are Gravitationally redshifted more than light coming straight from the sun's frontmost magnetic loops. The difference is so subtle, but it's there.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">Most important is to also state how the theory can be falsified. Otherwise it will go down as pseudotheory that can't even be wrong.</font><br /><br />If the universe really came from a single point, then the Cyclical Multiverse Theory is falsfiable. The idea of the universe emerging from a single point might be verifiable by today's evidence, but today's evidence isn't whole nor complete, and some facts are up to interpretation. The universe that we don't know yet can be discovered. The Cyclical Multiverse Theory is a bet on what evidence might support it tommorrow if a few (just a few) assumptions about the universe many have are not the absolute reality.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In addition to looking for support for your idea, it also important to look for predictions that will distinguish it from other theories or else nothing much is being accomplished.</font><br /><br />The theory predicts that doing a survey of the majority the unobscured galaxies beyond 10 billion light years would reveal some suprising results. The starting distances of the Deep Field blue galaxies in different parts of the sky could vary around 11-13.5 billion light years. If there is a billion light year difference, that would suggest that the what the Big Bang Theory calls the "early" universe (or simply the deep universe) is not isotropic enough - that is unless if the Big Bang theory can explain how blue galaxies in different parts of the early universe started dwindiling at different rates.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Gravitational lenses distort light. The Cyclical Multiverse Theory may apply gravitationally repulsive dark energy (positive vacuum pressure) existing in form that can alter how light travels through space in a way that sharpens our view of the universe and also making everything appear farther away from us and amongst each other. This is a quintessence idea. According to this, the effects of quintessence dominate in interstellar space - and especially between galaxies where the voids are even larger.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
 
N

nexium

Guest
I think we do observe variations in attraction with direction, but we explain them, by wresting the data etc.<br /> That does not mean I endorse the Kmarinas hypothesis. It is way too theoretical for me. Neil
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
In addition to that, the presence of the very large masses would slow down the time near it significantly, meaning that the galaxies would evolve at a slower rate. However, in this theory, evolved galaxies may move toward these masses which is where the faint blue galaxies are, which would explain why evolved galaxies are seen as far as they are. Dark energy might explain how galaxies escape from this orbit, but a solution for that remains to be forseen. Maybe there are disturbances in the very large masses themselves which "release" the blue galaxies away from the mass causing it to follow a trajectory towards the mature galaxies. The blue galaxies themselves might be orbiting in many different directions which may lead them to crash into each other every now and then.<br /><br />http://hubblesite.org/discoveries/10th/photos/graphics/slide40high.jpg<br /><br />An image simulating the power of the Next Generation Space Telescope:<br />http://www.roe.ac.uk/roe/support/pr/pressreleases/040326-miri/jwstview.jpg
 
I

iron_sun_254

Guest
<font color="yellow">My Cosmological Theory, if feasible, could turn the world of Cosmology. I believe that the theory can adapt to whatever empirical evidence (cosmological observations) that supports the Big Bang theory. I contest that what supports the big Bang theory also supports the Cyclical Multiverse theory.</font><br /><br />Unless your theory says something different than the Big Bang theory there's no reason any scientist would give up what they're already working on plus your theory seems to be that the universe creates the illusion that a Big Bang occured through some complicated mechanisms so because of the simplicity of it the Big Bang wins.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
However, a simple model like the heliocentric theory doesn't really explain what goes on outside. Wins matter only if there are rules to deciding which theory must absoulte truth. If Theoretical Comsology is a game about finding absoulte truth - no one can win. If it is game where the the strongest theory of the time wins, then is would be standard cosmology (not that it will continue to win, but that it wins at moment). The periodic table is so much absolute truth, but it's not the theory of everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS