Jump to content

Supermassive Black Holes Created Through Rapid Expansion Of the Universe


Bez

Recommended Posts

Supermassive Black Holes are caused by and necessary for the rapid expansion of the Universe and are proof positive the Universe is expanding faster (and has been from origin) than the, "speed-of-light!"

This traveling faster than the speed of light is supposed to be impossible but what is seen and perceived is only relative to this motion system.  Our perceptual senses are located in our bodies and our bodies are on this planet going approximately 67,000 mph around the sun and the sun is cruising around the center of the galaxy at about 140 miles per second. The galaxy is hauling across the Universe. We are going places very fast yet we don't notice that motion. All that we perceive then is relative to this uniform motion system.  

Therefore any system (or Universe) with even a slight difference in motion (since mass and energy is interchangeable) could not be perceived.

Then exists the possibility that the entire construct we perceive is an illusion (a veil) which wouldn't make it any less real yet all our measurements concerning the, "speed of light," ( among other things ) would be wrong because our base measurement (due to our perceptions) is limited only to this uniform motion system.

My view of this disk shaped Universe is as a small part to all there is. I see a spherical near ellipse made up of a near infinite number of Universes with new ones being born nearly continuously as older ones fold in on themselves through eventual combining super duper massive black holes. The disk shaped Universes are from nearly parallel to perpendicular to this one and each one is moving at a slightly different speed (right through us now) and since mass and energy is interchangeable we cannot perceive their existence as our perceptual senses can only perceive things relative to this uniform motion system.

These supermassive black holes are not only necessary in Galaxy building but also as a result of the expansion of the Universe faster than the speed of light. If it wasn't so we should be able to see to the other side of a black hole but we can't.

Even a Supernova created black hole has caused enough energy to puncture the membrane between the Universes. All these other Universes flowing around us and through us are the dark matter (missing matter) and dark energy.

It should be quite obvious that when disk shaped (as the Universe is) and is spinning and expanding that black holes would form (not unlike whirlpools in a stream) from the expansion. Look and you can see!

As the Universe expands it should increase in speed. The reason the surface of the sun is hotter is another clue to these increased speeds from what is now known as is simple friction causing super-heating.

If our measurements are off do to limitations in our perceptions due to this uniform motion system then also our measurements concerning distance and even time itself are off.

The fact we view a construct veil (illusion) does not make it any less real!

I'm here because the other major science site closed my thread after many complaints (just an hour ago...my membership there was about a half hour...lol) as apparently they do not appreciate theoretical stuff. Kinda funny as have a BS degree myself and when a purported science site doesn't even adhere to the, "Scientific Method", (Formulate a Theoretical Hypothesis and set out to disprove it) then something is wrong.

Glad Einstein thought out of the box or we wouldn't be where we are now! If a bunch of stuffed shirts want to hold on to the perceived, "status quo"', then they are doing more harm to science then good.

Bez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol

on to the next site!

evidence: the visual formation of galaxies, surface of sun hotter, parallel Universe theory and theory of relativity with regard to perceptions

Edited by Bez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bez said:

Supermassive Black Holes are caused by and necessary for the rapid expansion of the Universe

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

As black holes are a tiny proportion of the mass of the galaxies they are in, how can they have a significant effect on the expansion of the universe?

11 minutes ago, Bez said:

proof positive the Universe is expanding faster (and has been from origin) than the, "speed-of-light!"

Expansion cannot really be described as a speed. It is a scaling effect. This means that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are. 

This does mean, as you say, that there will be points far enough apart that they are operating at the speed of light. And two points that are further apart will be moving apart at more than the speed of light.

16 minutes ago, Bez said:

This traveling faster than the speed of light is supposed to be impossible

No. It is a standard part of the Big Bang model.

16 minutes ago, Bez said:

Therefore any system (or Universe) with even a slight difference in motion (since mass and energy is interchangeable) could not be perceived.

And yet we are able to measure the movement of the Earth around the Sun, of the Sun around the galaxy, the galaxy relative to other galaxies, the expansion of the universe, etc.

So I am not sure what you are claiming we cannot measure.

18 minutes ago, Bez said:

My view of this disk shaped Universe is as a small part to all there is.

Why do you think the universe is "disk shaped"? What evidence do you have for this?

18 minutes ago, Bez said:

I see a spherical near ellipse made up of a near infinite number of Universes with new ones being born nearly continuously as older ones fold in on themselves through eventual combining super duper massive black holes.

Evidence?

19 minutes ago, Bez said:

If it wasn't so we should be able to see to the other side of a black hole but we can't.

Why do you think we can't see the other side of a black hole?

For example, if you were to observe a black hole with an accretion disk you would not only see the accretion disk that was in front of the black hole, you would also see the part of the accretion disk that is behind the black hole. (See the images from the movie Interstellar for example: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/)

And we have observed gravitation lensing caused by a black hole that allows us to see what is behind it: https://www.space.com/8830-massive-black-hole-bends-light-magnify-distant-galaxy.html

Quote

I'm here because the other major science site closed my thread after many complaints (just an hour ago...my membership there was about a half hour...lol) as apparently they do not appreciate theoretical stuff.

I'm not too surprised. There is a difference between theory and just making stuff up.

Theory requires mathematical model and evidence. Making stuff up is simpler, but not as useful.

 

10 minutes ago, Bez said:

lol

on to the next site!

You may want to try some sites that are not science-based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the big bang everything up to now is traveling faster then the speed of light with regard to expansion of the Universe. You don't know what you are talking about as that is not part of the current model. Also google shape of the Universe. Discovered it was disk shaped many years ago so again you don't know what you are talking about.

A gravitational lens is hardly the other side of a black hole and other article questionable.

I saw the Universe as disk shaped over 40 years ago (again do your own research as as discovered as disk shaped maybe 10 years ago). I also told people there was a black hole at the center of all galaxies way before it was discovered. I was telling my Nephew who has a PHd in Astrophysics some stuff a few years ago and he blurted out it was just discovered and was so new it wasn't even in print yet. My doctor brother was a witness. How could i know these things?

There is much in the Universe that you are unaware of...go read another book...lol!

 

Edit: Also apparently you don't recognize Einsteins parallel Universe theory and Theory of relativity

Edited by Bez
lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bez said:

After the big bang everything up to now is traveling faster then the speed of light with regard to expansion of the Universe.

The is clearly not true. The initial evidence for the Big Bang model was the fact that recessional velocity is proportional to distance. So most galaxies we see are moving away with less than the speed of light. But, obviously, we can see galaxies that are moving away at more than the speed of light.

1 minute ago, Bez said:

You don't know what you are talking about as that is not part of the current model.

I'm not sure what you are saying is not part of the current model, so I can't really provide any further information. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit.

3 minutes ago, Bez said:

Also google shape of the Universe. Discovered it was disk shaped many years ago so again you don't know what you are talking about.

It is up to you to provide evidence to support your claims. If I google "shape of the universe" I don't find anything saying it is disk shaped. So, over to you ...

3 minutes ago, Bez said:

A gravitational lens is hardly the other side of a black hole and other article questionable.

Why is it not the other side of the black hole?

What do you mean by "the other side" in that case?

And why is the other article questionable? The simulations were created by Kip Thorne, one of the leading experts on GR and the physics of black holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that everything traveling faster than the speed of light since the big bang is not part of the model. You said speed of light was!?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

I googled and found 5 pages!?!!?

You obviously are not even reading my posts or your reading comprehension is really bad!

Obviously you didn't google, "shape of the Universe," which makes you a troll and a waste of my time!

Later...or not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bez said:

I'm here because the other major science site closed my thread after many complaints (just an hour ago...my membership there was about a half hour...lol) as apparently they do not appreciate theoretical stuff. Kinda funny as have a BS degree myself and when a purported science site doesn't even adhere to the, "Scientific Method", (Formulate a Theoretical Hypothesis and set out to disprove it) then something is wrong.

If a bunch of stuffed shirts want to hold on to the perceived, "status quo"', then they are doing more harm to science then good.

Bez

Understandable why you have been banned or threads closed on other sites, as your rhetoric is peppered with unevidenced claims and some bizzarre nonsense, as Strange has raised. Why do you claim the universe is disked shaped? We are the center of our observable universe for logical reasons that light approaches us at the same equal speed, from all directions. Why do you claim BH's are causing the universe to expand? Why would that even be the case? BH's are an example of the power of cumalitive gravity which only attracts...you get the picture? And why would we see through a BH? For your information and education I hope, no light escapes a BH, nor anything else for that matter. Your other point re expanding FTL, is also based on ignorance as the maximum speed limit applies to anything with mass only.

In essence your claims are just rhetorical made up fairy tales.

 

6 minutes ago, Bez said:

From your own link.....

" The observable universe consists of the part of the universe that can, in principle, be observed by light reaching Earth within the age of the universe. It encompasses a region of space that currently forms a ball centered at Earth of estimated radius 46.5 billion light-years"

So  much for your silly disk claim.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bez said:

I know that everything traveling faster than the speed of light since the big bang is not part of the model. You said speed of light was!?!?

Not everything is travelling faster than light. Obviously.

However, the fact that we can see galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light has always been part of the model. (For obvious reasons: Hubble's Law.)

"We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests."

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

11 minutes ago, Bez said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

I googled and found 5 pages!?!!?

Nowhere on the linked page does it say that the universe is disk shaped. 

If you disagree, please provide an exact quotation from that page which supports your claim.

11 minutes ago, Bez said:

Obviously you didn't google, "shape of the Universe," which makes you a troll and a waste of my time!

Obviously I did, because I have already read the same page you refer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol...I shouldn't have looked back here...but did!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

the above link was at top of list of google search with 5 more pages so go look yourself.

You should already know the the Universe is disk shaped as was discovered years ago.

I never said black holes caused the Universe to expand (reading comprehension again?!?!?). I said they were caused by the expanding universe and are necessary.

You my friend are obviously the one that hasn't a clue and suspect my writing way over your head and obviously beyond your undersatnding!

 

edit: won't let me post anymore today.

You guys hate Americans huh!

click link above and go down to #2 on shape:

this it what you see;    Flat (no curvature), open (negative curvature), or closed (positive curvature)

that is a disk...lol!

There are 5 freakin pages of links beside the one I gave you (which was at top of list) so can't understand simple English or too lazy to research yourself or just like being a troll Mod.

I've been a member of many sites and have never expeienced a mod like you...maybe you just a kid!

Edited by Bez
lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bez said:

lol...I shouldn't have looked back here...but did!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

the above link was at top of list of google search with 5 more pages so go look yourself.

You should already know the the Universe is disk shaped as was discovered years ago.

That does not say the universe is disk shaped.

4 minutes ago, Bez said:

said they were caused by the expanding universe and are necessary.

But you have provided no model or evidence to support this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bez said:

 

 

1 minute ago, Bez said:

lol...I shouldn't have looked back here...but did!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

And yet you persist with your ignorant claims.

Quote

 

the above link was at top of list of google search with 5 more pages so go look yourself.

You should already know the the Universe is disk shaped as was discovered years ago.

 

The observable universe is a perfect sphere centered on the observer, that being us on Earth. If you are simply misinterpreting the illustration at your link, that is the data as delivered by WMAP, and other then evidence that the topography of the universe is flat [meaning two rays of light emitted parallel, will remain parallel] 

 

Quote

I never said black holes caused the Universe to expand (reading comprehension again?!?!?). I said they were caused by the expanding universe and are necessary.

Either way you are wrong. Expansion has nothing to do with BH's.

 

Quote

You my friend are obviously the one that hasn't a clue and suspect my writing way over your head and obviously beyond your undersatnding!

Delusional also I see.  :D 

1 hour ago, Bez said:

Even a Supernova created black hole has caused enough energy to puncture the membrane between the Universes. All these other Universes flowing around us and through us are the dark matter (missing matter) and dark energy.

Wrong also. The universe has no membrane, no center [other then the center of one's own observable universe] and no edge to speak of. We also as yet have no evidence for any other universes although some speculative hypotheticals have raised that possibility. And finally the DM and DE you speak of are of course part of this universe...the only one we have any evidence of.

 

Quote

Glad Einstein thought out of the box or we wouldn't be where we are now! If a bunch of stuffed shirts want to hold on to the perceived, "status quo"', then they are doing more harm to science then good.

Before you attempt to think outside the box my friend, know what is inside the box, which you painfully and obviously do not. Einstein of course knew thoroughly what was inside the box, and what he was expanding on.

37 minutes ago, Bez said:

You guys hate Americans huh!

Why would you arrive at such a dumb conclusion? That is too silly to comment further on. 

Quote

 

click link above and go down to #2 on shape:

this it what you see;    Flat (no curvature), open (negative curvature), or closed (positive curvature)

that is a disk...lol!

 

When the data from WMAP says the universe is flat, it means simply that Euclidean geometry applies and as U mentioned earlier, two rays of light emitted parallel, remain parallel.

Quote

There are 5 freakin pages of links beside the one I gave you (which was at top of list) so can't understand simple English or too lazy to research yourself or just like being a troll Mod.

I personally see it as misunderstanding of the articles on your part, a misinterpreting of those same articles and a pinch of ignorance. That opinion is far more likely then multiple science forums being unjust, unfair and unscientific of your ignorant claims.

 

I

Quote

've been a member of many sites and have never expeienced a mod like you...maybe you just a kid!

And they all have banned you? Conspiracy you think? :rolleyes:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bez said:

this it what you see;    Flat (no curvature), open (negative curvature), or closed (positive curvature)

that is a disk...lol!

That does not mean that the universe is a flat disk. After all, it obviously isn't: we can see the universe is homegeneous and isotropic (ie. the same in all directions). So not a flat disk.

It is referring to the geometry of spacetime. As it says, that the universe overall has no curvature. For example, if the universe is flat it means that if you draw a triangle, the angles will add to 180°. If the universe had positive or negative curvature, then the angles would sum to more or less than 180° and would vary with the size of the triangle.

(You could have followed the "curvature" link from that article and found this out for yourself.)

As you obviously don't have a high opinion of people on this forum, here is a link to more information:

Quote

when we say the universe is flat it is not in the same sense that a piece of paper is flat, but rather means that the geometry of the universe is such that parallel lines will never cross, the angles in a triangle will always add up to 180 degress, and the corners of cubes will always make right angles. We call this kind of geometry (the kind you learned in school) Euclidean geometry.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/103-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/geometry-of-space-time/606-how-can-the-universe-be-flat-we-re-3d-beginner

1 hour ago, Bez said:

I've been a member of many sites and have never expeienced a mod like you...maybe you just a kid!

I am not posting as a moderator, just as an interested member of the forum. (Apart from initially moving the thread to the correct part of the forum.)

 

p.s. It would make things easier if you used the Quote function so it is clearer who and what you are responding to. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bez said:

I've been a member of many sites and have never expeienced a mod like you...maybe you just a kid!

!

Moderator Note

Those sites aren't this one. Here, we don't bother to discuss speculative science unless you can show something worthwhile, or at least more than your ridicule and waving hands.

We require more rigor here. So get off your high horse and follow the rules we've developed to make science discussions meaningful. We attack ideas here, not people. So far, your ideas lack rigor. Show us, persuade us with your evidence and reasoning, because acting like an asshole is failing miserably.

If you care to come back tomorrow when the five post spam limit is removed for new joiners, please do so civilly. And try not to label everyone who questions you a troll. It doesn't help you learn anything.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bez said:

I checked the referenced page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe and I find a picture representing some properties* of the universe. The picture is has the form of a disk or ellipse: 

image.png.2532cbcccf685b7be52d156d2b92b7e6.png

Is this the source of your confusion? The picture is a Mollweide** projection. Have you been mislead by this and similar pictures and therefore developed incorrect understandings and drawn wrong conclusions about current models and cosmology? It seems unlikely but possible?  As @Strange already said:

12 hours ago, Strange said:

That does not say the universe is disk shaped.

 

*) map of the CMB

**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting strategy.
Introduce in the OP that you've been kicked out of other sites because of bias against your 'facts', so that you have a backup when you introduce nonsense to explain things and effects already explained by the accepted science. If we balk at your 'facts' you can claim we are just like the rest ( conspiracy ) and move on to the next site.
All the while calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'troll'.

Are you also gonna claim you were booted from the other sites because of your friendly disposition ??
( its not that we don't like Americans; I loved to party in the Buffalo area in my younger days.
We just dislike arrogant/ignorant Americans; Your president for one.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, Trump's an idiot!

I'm sorry if you don't like my approach! I have no strategy and don't believe their is a conspiracy (not sure how you read that into what I wrote).

I'm sure many nuts show up here with wild concepts and off the wall stuff and you guys are used to running them off.

The status quo is a tough nut to crack though I will give you that. But conspiracy?!?!? I wouldn't go that far. Was it Galileo that they almost burned at the stake?

At least my model of the Universal universes is creatively thinking abstractly about what lies beyond this universe. Most people don't have enough creative energy to produce a decent daydream much less about what is beyond this universe. Go ahead give it a try and see what you come up with. Ya, I thought so...nothing! A scientist without insight and creative thought process is destined to be unpublished pushing a pencil behind some desk (or running or working as a mod or tutor at a web site..lol).

What really brought me here was to instill some thought about this and help things along with a model and a theory (which is basically Einstein Parallel Universe theory and his Theory of relativity as it relates to our perception and why my model works). Einstein already did most of the math for me.

I have been working on this model since I was age 17. I could never figure out how (the mechanism) for the universe to flow back into itself (not collapse) at the end of it's expansion and when they recently discovered mid size black holes I had an epiphany! Theoretically, supermassive black holes could eventually swallow the universe (especially when they combine and become bigger and if I am right that as the universe expands it will expand faster and everything will speed up dramatically the closer to the end of the final expansion.  

I could do the math but would have to relearn half of it as haven't done it in 30 years. Also, I don't have the time as I am a landscape artist and have an oil painting I need to finish up.

It's unfortunate we got off on such a bad start as I could help in the Religion and Philosophy sections as have studied all the major, minor and many tribal and Native religions from around the world. Also, I am a Zen Master and have tried and true techniques that are better and faster at development than counting breaths in Chan Zen meditation. I know and have written and spoken of a level beyond no thoughts at another site (that I did not get banned from..lol). I have been shutting off my internal dialogue since I was 16 and am 59 now. 

In Zen..."no thoughts", are the highest level whereas there is actually a level beyond no thoughts that everyone can have access to. I wrote in detail how to get there on another site.

Anyway, back to this peculiar model I call the, "Universal Universes".

Here is a link and below is a section copy and pasted from the article in that link:  https://www.space.com/34928-the-universe-is-flat-now-what.html

"But average all those small-scale effects out and look at the big picture. When we examine very old light — say, the cosmic microwave background — that has been traveling the universe for more than 13.8 billion years, we get a true sense of the universe's shape. And the answer, as far as we can tell, to within an incredibly small margin of uncertainty, is that the universe is flat."

So now that we have established that the universe is flat let's look at a simple observation.

From the micro to macrocosm (from smallest particles to largest planetary systems) we see mostly spheres, elliptical, and circular in formation and motion!

So now you want to throw a square or rectangle into the middle of it!?!? lol

I understand the two parallel lines not intersecting giving us flat but not round (disk shaped).

One could do the math and still have round and flat and not square edges (disk shaped).

Is it a stretch from a purely observational standpoint to wonder why it's flat and perhaps it is flat because there are a universe on either side of this one....and so on.

Now, here is an interesting thing I didn't put in first post.

So, the model is nearly spherical shaped made up of a near infinite number of universes positioned from near parallel to perpendicular (forming the sphere) with new ones being born (big bangs) almost continuously and older universes folding in on themselves through accumulated combined multiple giant supermassive black holes.

Now since our perceptual senses (according to Einstein) can only perceive those things that are part of this uniform motion system and since each universe in my model is moving at a different rate of speed we then can't perceive them except if where the other universes intersect this one have differentiation in speed from center to edge of that universe and coincides with the speed of this one.

If that was possible then that would mean many galaxies, etc. actually belong to an intersecting universe (not our own).

Ya I know science fiction! But if it gets you thinking and you see a part you can run with well who knows. If I am correct and someone does all the math then they get the credit!

Now having a disk shape (rounded corners) or a membrane at edge of universe is hypothetical as no one knows what is at the edge of the universe...yet!

Purely from an observational standpoint it would appear there is a membrane and that currently black holes have already penetrated that membrane! 

My above theory describing my model uses Einsteins Parallel Universe Theory and his Theory of Relativity (many will see that outright). So my model does fit with Einstein!

Also, as evidence I offer the super heating of the surface of the sun due to unseen friction and the observational view of galaxy formation.

There is other evidence I can't remember (getting old does that) so know their is more.

I also put forth that my model makes more sense than a square or box if just from a purely observation standpoint with respect to the micro and macrocosm (as squares are not usually found in the Cosmos or even nature here).

Just as there are more than one solar system and more than one galaxy then does it even make sense that there is only one universe? Only one big bang?

How about nearly continuous Big Bangs knocking out new universes all the time?

According to Einstein we would never know because our senses and perceptions are limited to only being able to perceive those things of this uniform motion system (this is derived from Einsteins Parallel Universe Theory).

Think out of the box a little!

I likely won't be back and thanks for letting me post!

Sorry if I ruffled some feathers (I have that way about me..lol)!

Bez

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bez said:

I'm sure many nuts show up here with wild concepts and off the wall stuff and you guys are used to running them off.

Most science forums certainly have there share of nuts, and as I like calling some of them, "would be's, if they could be's"

Quote

The status quo is a tough nut to crack though I will give you that. But conspiracy?!?!? I wouldn't go that far. Was it Galileo that they almost burned at the stake?

Any new scientific hypothetical needs to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, just as Einstein's theories of SR and GR did. In Galileo's time of course, it was not science or scientists rubbishing him, it was the church and its particular brand of us, Earth, all being the center of some mythical creationist idea.

Quote

At least my model of the Universal universes is creatively thinking abstractly about what lies beyond this universe.

You don't have a model, only a unsupported invalid half arsed hypothetical. 

Quote

Most people don't have enough creative energy to produce a decent daydream much less about what is beyond this universe.

Yeah, probably correct, and thus they will logically go to those educated and professional in that discipline for answers, rather then take any notice of any Tom, Dick or Harry, on a remote science forum, imagining himself on some mythical podium. 

Quote

What really brought me here was to instill some thought about this and help things along with a model and a theory (which is basically Einstein Parallel Universe theory and his Theory of relativity as it relates to our perception and why my model works). Einstein already did most of the math for me.

Firstly you have failed miserably in that endeavour, and again, you do not have a model, only some hair brained idea that will in time be lost in the realms of cyber space.

 

Quote

It's unfortunate we got off on such a bad start as I could help in the Religion and Philosophy sections as have studied all the major, minor and many tribal and Native religions from around the world

I for one would love to hear your take on any mythical creationist or religious beliefs, as you certainly lack any scientific know how, but of course in the correct sections, OK? 

Quote

Now having a disk shape (rounded corners) or a membrane at edge of universe is hypothetical as no one knows what is at the edge of the universe...yet!

Again with the rest of your misinterpretations and lack of understanding of science articles, the universe is not a  disk shape, nor are there centers or edges to speak of according to the current overwhelmingly accepted model we call the BB.

Quote

Purely from an observational standpoint it would appear there is a membrane and that currently black holes have already penetrated that membrane! 

 Which observations are that? :rolleyes: And why isn't any of these observations highlighted in reputable mainstream cosmology? Or are you just making up stuff?

Als

Quote

 as evidence I offer the super heating of the surface of the sun due to unseen friction and the observational view of galaxy formation.

Super heating of the surface of the Sun due to unseen friction? :D More made up stuff? Galactic formation is explained admirably via the BB and minute variations in the general uniformity of the CMBR.

Quote

There is other evidence I can't remember (getting old does that) so know their is more.

That's conveniant.

Quote

I also put forth that my model makes more sense than a square or box if just from a purely observation standpoint with respect to the micro and macrocosm (as squares are not usually found in the Cosmos or even nature here).

Again you do not have a model, and the universe does not need to adhere with what you believe makes sense. 

Quote

 

Just as there are more than one solar system and more than one galaxy then does it even make sense that there is only one universe? Only one big bang?

How about nearly continuous Big Bangs knocking out new universes all the time?

 

All that is nothing but speculative ideas...some good, some not so good, but all unevidenced and entirely speculative at this time.

Quote

According to Einstein we would never know because our senses and perceptions are limited to only being able to perceive those things of this uniform motion system (this is derived from Einsteins Parallel Universe Theory).

Any reference to Einstein's parallel universe theory? First I have heard of it.

 

Quote

Think out of the box a little!

But first, know thoroughly what is inside the box. And secondly most scientific theories were at one time purely hypothetical and outside the box.

Quote

 

I likely won't be back and thanks for letting me post!

Sorry if I ruffled some feathers (I have that way about me..lol)!

Bez

 

No ruffled feathers at all, rather as I see it, rejection of your hypotheticals by reputable people here and else where, which have made you come back with your version of obvious pretense and pretentious laughter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad your last post was more friendly.
You'll find that if you treat people and their ideas with respect, they, in turn, will treat you and your ideas with respect.

Now let's move on to some of your ideas...
You've mentioned Einstein's parallel universe theory, several times.
I, and the others, know of no such theory, perhaps you can provide a source for this idea.

There are, however, a few multiverse/many worlds concepts/interpretations kicking around.
Some are strictly interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, but some others are very similar to your idea.
An off-shoot of inflationary theory originally developed by P Steinhardt, and later filled out by A Linde, had inflation ending in many 'hot bubbles'  ( universes ), while the original 'universe' continued its inflation. These 'hot bubble' universes multiplied in space as well as time, and have been termed Chaotic or Eternal inflation.
The thing to keep in mind though, is that these multiple 'universes' are causally disconnected.
They are unobservable, and cannot affect each other.
So why do you propose they  determine the shape or extent of our universe ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

The OP has indicated he isn't interested in discussions requiring the SFN level of rigor, and won't be responding to the excellent questions posted regarding his idea. The thread is closed.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.