Hole in the Universe

[chardin]

It is not the hole that may contain something we don't yet understand, it is the universe as a whole that the majority of today's scientists do not understand due to their conceptual limitations (eg the notion of dark energy etc). <br /><br />If the hole is what I think it is, it is definitely void -- in the sense that there are no stars or galaxies or matter in it, but not in the sense that there is no energy in it. Space is the minimum state of energy, as one would say.

 

[MeteorWayne]

And it has never been said there is no matter there, just that it is less dense than elsewhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[chardin]

MeteorWayne,<br /><br />When you say "it is less dense than elsewhere," I think your "it" refers to a particular area in the sky, not the hole itself.<br /><br />It is just because that area is less dense than elsewhere that one calculates there must be a large empty space somewhere in the direction of that area, between the galaxies closer to us and those farther away.

 

[h2ouniverse]

GOOD NEWS: this hole might doom the dooming dark energy concept!!<br /><br />http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12574-swiss-cheese-universe-challenges-dark-energy.html

 

[robnissen]

I hope so. Dark Energy (and Dark Matter, for that matter -- pun intended) sux. If we really only know what 4% of the universe is, we don't know anything. It would be nice if the 73% that is allegedly Dark Energy did not exist.

 

[Kalstang]

We are still in our infancy. I would say that we dont know anything when you consider the universal picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[chardin]

H2Ouniverse,<br /><br />The swiss cheese universe is not the answer, hence it doesn't constitute good news for me.<br /><br />The real good news had taken place years ago -- in 1997, to be exact. I am referring again to Sternglass' work mentioned above in my first post here.<br /><br />Sternglass had presented a comprehensive and synthetic cosmological model that makes perfect sense of everything we have known or observed, and more. It pains me to see that such a genius, who has single-handedly figured out an extremely beautiful, simple, and rational theory, is simply ignored by the so-called mainstream scientists.<br /><br />However, Sternglass has failed to achieve two things: first, he hadn't thought out the solid conceptual foundation for his theory, and, related to this, he didn't realize the fundamental conceptual problem underlying current cosmologies; second, he failed to understand completely his own model and thus missed the opportunity to come up with a complete theory. This is why I said above that he only got half of the picture. Nevertheless, thanks to his work, we can now see the whole picture.<br /><br />This is obviously not the place to go ino details, but I'll be happy to provide more information -- particularly regarding solutions for the two problems Sternglass failed to answer -- to those who are interested.

 

[ashish27]

yes you are right chardin. i don't like dark energy myself, its a escapist expression-- you can't explain something properly so you start calling it dark. <br /><br />Theoritical Physicists have a disease of generalising everything, rather than classifying.

 

[alokmohan]

You require dark energy to understand the universe.Hole does not bar.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="cyan">Why do think the universe is expanding then?...(if there is no dark energy) </font><br /><br />In my 'dumb' opinion, to know why is the universe expanding we also have to know what is outside the universe. And I'd not hold my breath to know that.<br /><br />Sitting inside a balloon we can put forward theories all we can, but none would be exactly correct until we know what is outside the balloon also.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Chardin,<br /><br />Actually I have no shares in Swiss Cheese Universe corp.<br />It's just that as many I do not like the notions of dark matter and especially dark energy. From darkness to obscurantism...<br />They look like ptolemaic epicycles.<br />What are the main reasons why you prefer Sternglass theory to the Fractal one?<br /><br />Best regards.

 

[chardin]

H2Ouniverse,<br /><br />That is good news indeed, that you have no shares in SCU corp.<br /><br />As for your question, please allow me to answer in a most superficial way for now. If you think of all scientific discoveries and observations accumulated throughout human history as different pieces of a huge puzzle, then the Theory of Everything must be the one which can not only put all the discovered pieces together in a fitting way, but also predict the shapes of missing pieces. In terms of explaining the currently expanding universe, Sternglass' theory has just done that -- putting all known pieces together and predicting missing pieces. His theory could have been falsified numerous times by new astronomical discoveries, and yet the opposite is happening -- for example, the recent finding of massive galaxies in a very young universe (dubbed crisis in cosmos by a reporter), and this seemingly impossible huge Hole, etc, can all be deducted from his model.<br /><br />Another handy example is the fact that he has done away with all those so-called fundamental particles that seem to have no relation with each other by using only the properties of electron (and its positively charged counterpart, positron) to account for these particles.<br /> <br />Our understanding of reality, be it called religion, philosophy, or science, necessarily starts with and rest upon fundamental concepts. I was working on such fundamental concepts when I discovered Sternglass and knew that he has got it -- except for the two failures mentioned above. Although Sternglass didn't work out the correct conceptual foundation, he happened to be working on a right assumption.<br /><br />The "dumb" opinion expressed by emperor of localgroups (see his post above) is a relevant topic here. With regard to what's outside of our universe, Sternglass' answer is "ether". <br /><br />When the time is right, I shall give you a full and complete reply. Thanks.<br />

 

[publiusr]

Any infor on textures?

 

[nimbus]

"When the time is right" ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>