How dark is the cosmic web?

[Admin]

A dark web ties the universe together. Now, we can see it.

How dark is the cosmic web? : Read more

 

[rod]

A dark web ties the universe together. Now, we can see it.

How dark is the cosmic web? : Read more

"The vast majority of matter in our universe is dark; it does not interact with light or with any of the "normal" matter that we see as stars and gas clouds and other interesting things. As a result, much of the cosmic web is completely invisible to us. Fortunately, where the dark matter pools, it also drags along some regular matter to join in the fun."

If you dig deep enough into the cosmology model, all the dark stuff can give rise to dark stars too, forming about 200 million years after the Big Bang event. So does the model used in this report, also require dark stars to be real?

 

[Stephen J. Bauer]

I find this representation of the cosmic web to be very telling in the furthering of the hypothesis that the universe is somewhat evolved into a working brain. It might be purported as the simplest evidence for promoting a sense of consciousness in the makeup of the universe. This pictorial representation is similar to what has been seen as the structure of neural activity in the brains of organic beings. Furthermore it lends credence to a universe built from a foundation in 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'.

Considering the 'Big Bang' inflation theory, try thinking of the proposed one dimensional singularity as the pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, rather than a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity [liken to a black hole]. Considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a proposed one dimensional determinant, its inception starts with the unfolding perspective of this dimensional determinant for space-time fabric towards existence. The sequence is somewhat understood from an expansion from our one dimensional space-time into a two dimensional space-time fabric, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric, and so on. The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing dark energy medium of space-time. Indeed, the existence of matter would be an intrusion upon this pre-existing universal medium of space-time which maintains a zero sum difference that is the balance of our cosmological continuum. Take away all matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. I would only be logical for the vessel to be one of dark energy; dark energy unaffected by this promulgation of matter.

With this understanding, any perturbation in this medium would engender a warping of this pre-ordered dark energy template of space-time fabric in the evolutionary perspective of its dimensional unfolding. Wherein the creation of matter as a whole induces a complementary displacement, or warping, in the dark energy medium of the space-time fabric, its promulgation is interdependent on its insistence and persistence. For within this warping, there is yet another pertubation in the whole matter created; a dual relationship of newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. The complementary displacement insulates the newly created positive density matter in an envelopment of negative density matter. This envelope of negative density matter, known as dark matter, then infiltrates the spaces in matter, providing it with the ability to interact, bond, and evolve. Indeed it would require much more dark matter to fill the spaces among ordinary matter down to its smallest constituent parts.

So if dark matter is what engenders a force of gravity for ordinary matter to bond, then the accretion and accumulation of ordinary matter is just the resultant consequence of this force. And if the black holes are nothing but dark matter, then it would also follow that dark matter can be accumulated, separate of ordinary matter. It would therefore also follow that the gravitational force is more representative of negative density mass than positive density mass.

Upon this hypothesis then, one can expect that there is a require transition to separate ordinary matter from its complementary dark matter. It starts first with the disintegration of matter, as a whole, as it interacts with the event horizon of the black hole. As the positive density mass is 'squeezed' upon its own gravitational acceleration toward the black hole, liken to the spaghettification effect, its matter changes to allow for its disintegration via transmutation and the massive release of photons due to alpha decay and beta decay. This is the effect wherein positive density mass is collected within the event horizon, into a plasma, increasing its photon density. This 'squeezing' effect is like extracting out the dark matter from the whole matter, allowing for the ordinary matter to be reduced to its smallest constituent components. The dark matter is then absorbed into the black hole, and the remnants of ordinary matter are discarded and radiated out at high velocity back into the cosmos; to start, once again, to reintegrated into the universe via bonding and evolving.

If you're interested in exploring this concept more, please review the alternative theories presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', or even the ramifications of these concepts in the sci-fi fantasy adventure, 'Shadow-Forge Revelations'. The theoretical presentation brings forth a variety of alternative perspectives on the aspects of existence that form our reality. #shadowforgerevelations

 

[rod]

FYI. Cosmology has many problems today, here is an example. How a Dispute over a Single Number Became a Cosmological Crisis The report wraps up with: “There is a small correction somewhere needed to bring the numbers into agreement,” Suntzeff says. “That is new physics, and that is what excites cosmologists—a kink in the wall of the Standard Model, something new to work on.” Everybody knows what they have to do next. Observers will await data from Gaia, a European Space Agency observatory that promises, in the next couple of years, unprecedented precision in the measurement of distances to more than a billion stars in our galaxy. If those measurements do not match the values that astronomers have been using as the first rung in the distance ladder, then maybe the problem will have been systematic errors after all. Theorists, meanwhile, will continue to churn out alternative interpretations of the universe. So far, though, they have not found one that withstands community scrutiny. And there, barring any breakthrough, the tension—problem, crisis—will have to reside for now: in a quasi-unscientific universe harboring a predicted Hubble constant of 67 that belies the observation of 74. The standard cosmological model remains one of the great scientific triumphs of the age. In half a century cosmology has matured from speculation to (near) certainty. It might not be as complete as cosmologists believed it to be even a year ago, yet it remains a textbook example of how science works at its best: it raises questions, it provides answers and it hints at mystery."

H0 67 to 74 using the cosmology calculators shows the Hubble time is 14.252E+9 years for the age of the universe at 67. H0 74, Hubble time is 12.905E+9 years old, using the flat universe model. Using the open universe model, H0 67, Hubble time is 11.869E+9 years old universe. H0 74, Hubble time is 10.746E+9 years old. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

Clearly the Big Bang model has problems.