keith

erm , it seems that there are no current hypotheses as to this . A singularity to me is a position in space with no size and indeterminate properties . in this special case , it encompasses the universe we are present in . 1. The universe is observed to be of non-zero size and therefore not a singularity. yes , crazy .... as I said ... we can see it isnt as you rightly say. Current mainstream physics suggest that space consists of matter being created/destroyed in a maelstrom via positive/negative units. my thoughts are that sometimes they survive long enough , the negative units having

Yes Strange . My thoughts are that when positive/negative are created [ there must be a better phrase for the maelstrom of creation/destruction of matter? ] at some point these fail totally to destruct and fly off to create 2 new particles. These units have 4 dimensions , x,y,z,t which are larger than the particulate itself and the positives enlarge the universe . the negatives decrease the size , thus maintaining the Universe size that was at the 'big bang' , hence it remains to an outside observer still a singularity . Time works the same way . Having opposite gravitational energy , one of

Hi , Ive had a hypothesis for years about the start of the universe, nice and simple. Recently I found out about the cosmological redshift and speculation in the press about whether the antihydrogen produced at Cern ? had negative gravity [ too small a quantity to check, apparently] . Both those things come out in my hypothesis and this also becomes obvious that the Universe is a singularity . As Bohr stated , 'its crazy , but is it crazy enough to be true?' , has it ever been thought of and what was the conclusion?