xersan Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Posted February 19, 2009 Balloon analogy is logic and consistent. Quote
Hasanuddin Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 I must say that I am extremely impressed by the level-headed and informed caliber of discussion that takes place on this forum. There were many things said that I profoundly agree with. I especially like the counter-intuitive statement made by Tormod There is no "expanding velocity of the universe" (the universe on the whole does not appear to have a motion in any direction that we can know of). I especially like these words because it seems to contradict the observations of red-shift, yet at the same time makes perfect and clean sense given an idea of the stretching of the fabric of space-time. Now the theoretical points of this thread that I "disagree" with I do so, not because of those points themselves, but because I know of an alternate, cleaner, and simpler solution to the question of the known ever increasing acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. The solution comes through the consideration of one hypothetical premise: the idea that matter and antimatter gravitationally repel. Long story short, that led to a self-assemblage of material very early on and resulted in the organization of the individual galaxies. These galaxies self-assembled into an alternating pattern of matter-based/antimatter-based (much like the self-assemblage of positive vs negative ions during ionic crystallization.) As a direct result of this configuration and gravitational repulsion, the ever increasing rate of acceleration of expansion results. As I said initially, there is a lot of brain-power displayed on this thread. I would love for you to consider this new model, the Dominium, which is currently being considered on the “Alternate theories” board of the Physical sciences index. The title of the thread is “The Dominium Model by Hasanuddin.” Please before you begin posting, familiarize yourself with the new model by going to Hasanuddin <dot> org and read the articles (my apologies that they are organized in reverse order.) Quote
Tormod Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 The problem with the current view is that scientists refuse to give a shape to the universe This is most definitely not true. Here is a good introduction to theories about cosmic shapes. Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Google "shape of the universe" for more, including some fantastic images. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.