or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › MarcUK rewrites inflationary theory!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MarcUK rewrites inflationary theory!

post #1 of 72
Thread Starter 
I have been thinking about a few cosmological problems in the standard theory, and came up with this. The 2 major problems I've considered are the entropy/time direction theory, and the problem that some recent measurements of the age of the universe measure it to 8 billion years old, while clearly some of the oldest stars are measuring 13+ billion years old Which is why we believe the universe to be 15.2 billion years old.



Briefly, what this graphic shows - note it isn't to scale!

in red, this is the current explantion of how the universe evolved after the big bang, using current inflationary theory, which is backed up with some pretty good experimental evidence giving us very good reason to believe that this model is largely correct. Note that in this model, time runs forwards from the big bang expansion point (singularity)

in light blue, we have my modified alternative to the standard inflationary theory

and in solid green/blue we have the projected age of the universe in 'absolute' time.

What I propose, is that after the big bang, time runs backwards for a while! This is not too crazy IF (this is the predictive element of my hypothesis) the passage or direction of time and entropy IS EXPLICITLY related to the forces of gravity.

Currently science knows that gravity ISN'T always an attractive force. In the early stages after the big bang, gravity was a repelling force for some time.

I am suggesting the the 'polarity' of gravity dictates which direction time will appear to flow - and this has consequences for understanding entropy. When Gravity is a repellant, time will flow backwards and entropy will decrease, and when gravity is attractive, time will flow forwards and entropy will increase (as we know it from the universe as it is currently).

After the big-bang, gravity was repellant, so the universe expanded in negative time under the influence of this repellant force. A by-product of this is that entropy decreases and 'flattens' the universe so that in all directions the universe looks the same , a possible solution to the 'horizon' problem - as confirmed by the COBE data and requiring the 'current rapid inflation theory' to explain. The universe continues to expand in negative time until the force of gravity flips to be an attractive force - But at this point we are still in negative time from the big-bang - so time has to flow forwards somewhat to re-reach the zero-time of the singularity - while this happens, as entropy is increasing, stars and galaxies begin to form simply from the jitteryness of the quantum fluctuations, so that by the time we have reached - in the current model - the period when rapid inflation ends, we have achieved the same size of universe. - But we have done this without rapid inflation. So a problem is solved in not having to discover a reason or force for this era of exponential expansion. It is all possible using known forces.

By looking to Absolute time - the negative time and positive time added together to give a result only in the positive, we see that the measurements of the universe's age can infact be 8 billion years old - so as not to conflict the 'odd' measurements, but that stars and galaxies have in actually, had the 15.2 billion years to form as we currently measure them.

*We have also solved the 'flatness' and 'horizon' problems without needing 'rapid inflation'
*We see that we have a viable explanation of why we always see entropy increasing in the current universe
*We reconsile the conflicting measurements of the age of the universe against the age of stars
*We have resolved the need to discover a new force that explains how the universe 'inflated rapidly'
*We can make a prediction and falsify the hypothesis, if we can discover if the direction of time flow is explicitly related the the 'polarity' of the force of gravity.

Anyone like to comment?
post #2 of 72
I really don't know what to say. What caused you to think of this? What support do you have for your theory that gravity and time/entropy are "explicitly" related as you said?
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
post #3 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maimezvous

I really don't know what to say. What caused you to think of this? What support do you have for your theory that gravity and time/entropy are "explicitly" related as you said?

I went to see my 'witchy' friend and her boyfiend, she believes in telepathy whilst her boyfriend was sceptical, so I made an attempt to tell him how telepathy is perfectly possible under the current understandings of quantum mechanics. Infact its quite trivial really. So I had a 2 hour drive home, and so, after I had spent some time contemplating the transmission of information forwards and backwards in time - I saw Apollo rising on the horizon, and he revealed a secret of the universe to me

I don't know if time/entropy is explicitly related to the polarity of gravity - this is my conclusion of the hypothesis- like Darwin concluded that there would be a mechanism for the transfer of modified genetic information, something predicted by the theory but not known until science to discovered DNA.
post #4 of 72
Fuck, if you win a Nobel Prize invite all of us to the ceremony.
post #5 of 72
The way I think of the universe is something like that Windows screensaver that has the little sphere explode, come back together, and explode again ad infinitum.
post #6 of 72
Dont I feel like a loser. All I have done so far today is cut the grass, eat lunch, shower, check my bank account, and sitting down to check AO.

MarcUK is my hero.
post #7 of 72
Marc, although this is hardly my cup of tea...(I'd actually prefer a Jack and Coke to the latter)

I'd be interested to see you spark a debate like this on a scholarly website (i.e. JSTOR). I think you'd get a bit more feedback, and perhaps even nastier arguments, on your hypothesis.

Plus, I always thought it was great when I could stick it to my professors. Scholars jump all over the opportunity to prove someone wrong.

Just a thought...
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #8 of 72
Thread Starter 
what is this JSTOR website. I'll give it a go - for a laugh

]edit] - have found site - what is it for, I am getting the message...

"We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location"

so I guess I cant. If there is a Science forum anywhere, where I could submit my theory for critique, let me know, and i'll do it for a laugh. I know some of us would love to see me shot down in flames...
post #9 of 72
Your theory has a major flaw.
The big bang is the time zero, by definition. Even if there was something before it, we humans canno't know what was there before : it will be just wild guess.
Perhaps there where bazillions of pulse " inflation and deflation" before our universe time.
Perhaps there will be an illimited inflation and the universe will cease when the entropy will reach zero. All matter have disappeared, and perhaprs it's possible that after this point a new singularity will happen ?
Who knows

So the question is : why a second big bang, will make a different result than the first one. Why the second big bang will have a faster inflation than the first one ?
post #10 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Your theory has a major flaw.
The big bang is the time zero, by definition. Even if there was something before it, we humans canno't know what was there before : it will be just wild guess.
Perhaps there where bazillions of pulse " inflation and deflation" before our universe time.
Perhaps there will be an illimited inflation and the universe will cease when the entropy will reach zero. All matter have disappeared, and perhaprs it's possible that after this point a new singularity will happen ?
Who knows

So the question is : why a second big bang, will make a different result than the first one. Why the second big bang will have a faster inflation than the first one ?

sorry mate, I guess it doesn't translate into French, you seem to have completely misunderstood. There isn't a second big bang on this graphic. Its the same one. Do you understand the programming concept of 'ABS' of a number?

Say ABS(-4)+10. The result is 14, not 6. The negative sign becomes positive. So in my graph, my say my negative time is -7 billion years and the positive time is +8 billion. Using the ABS function, -7 +8 still gives 15 billion.

But you raise an interesting point about what is 'before' the big bang. I was somewhat at pains when writing that as to define time. I decided to go with forward and backwards - as this is a concept most people would understand - but it is not necessarily so. The distinction that needs to be made is the 'opposite' time - thinking in terms of forwards and backwards time is slightly 'flawed' - because it is a human perception. The distinction is really 'opposite' or 'inverse' time - not forwards or backwards - but this is quite a hard concept to grasp as a mental image.

However, if we are talking in terms of forwards and backwards - then I am showing a way we can 'see' things unfolding 'before' the big bang - but only 'after' it has happened. A definiate mind-fuck
post #11 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

what is this JSTOR website. I'll give it a go - for a laugh

]edit] - have found site - what is it for, I am getting the message...

"We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location"

so I guess I cant. If there is a Science forum anywhere, where I could submit my theory for critique, let me know, and i'll do it for a laugh. I know some of us would love to see me shot down in flames...

JSTOR is a huge database of scholarly articles from thousands of professors/researchers from universities here in the states. I myself used JSTOR a lot to get primary sources for my research projects.

Can you even access the main page of the website? If so, I will get you a login this week. Although I hope you don't mind being a student of California State University Sacramento.
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #12 of 72
Just to make this thread more confusing, could I kindly ask where consciousness comes from?
post #13 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

JSTOR is a huge database of scholarly articles from hundreds of professors/researchers from universities here in the states. I myself used JSTOR a lot to get primary sources for my research projects.

Can you even access the main page of the website? If so, I will get you a login this week. Although I hope you don't mind being a student of California State University Sacramento.

Yes, I can get the main page. I can get a log-in in the UK using 'Athens' - I have no idea what that is.

How does this place work? Does this place have a forum like here? It would be good if we could all see them rip me a new one.
post #14 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

Just to make this thread more confusing, could I kindly ask where consciousness comes from?

Does anyone know? You would have to read some of the great philosophers, some great psychology, and some great religious stuff, like gnostic christianity, Sufism, Koran, Bible, and Buddhism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5329486.stm
post #15 of 72
Here is one far better theory Mark.
The time is positive 8 billions of years and negative 8 billions minus 6000 years. The sum is 16 billions of years approximatively, but the realt time is 6000 years, like the bible teach us
post #16 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Here is one far better theory Mark.
The time is positive 8 billions of years and negative 8 billions minus 6000 years. The sum is 16 billions of years approximatively, but the realt time is 6000 years, like the bible teach us

Yes i understand that if this got into the hands of the Creationists then there will be all sorts of twisting and lying to make it show that God created the world 6000 years ago. However the persuit of truth should not be stopped by the potential of evil to pervert it.

Im probably completely wrong, we all know that, but some day, for every crazy million people, one crazy one will hit upon a secret no-one else thought of. Its what makes us human.
post #17 of 72
Thread Starter 
While I await a pass to the experts at JSTOR, I have put this thread up over here

http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-rev...t.php#img_4422

Hopefully they'll be enough knowledgeable people there to pass a decent critique. Keep watching
post #18 of 72
Um.

Good try marc.

Unfortunately, the expansion of the early universe (assuming the big bang hypothesis to be correct) by definition causes the entropy to increase (as does any gas expanding into nothing even if that nothing doesn't exist).

I think it is far more likely that if there was a rapid expansion it was due to the shear energy of the process of 'creation'.

Take my current view for instance: We have truly empty space which is a low entropy system, the instant any particles of non-degenerate energies form the absolute change in entropy is far closer to infinite than it is to zero. Indeed, an empty universe is a high energy universe, in fact much higher in energy than that required to cause the big bang.

An empty space has a tendency to decay into an energetic space (proportional to its absolute size). The event-one of all of this would occur in a small corner of the empty space where twists and turns in the fabric cause more and more empty space to convert to energetic space. We get an effective expansion of the universe. In fact, once the areas of where the empty space has converted to energetic space have cooled sufficiently (a entropy lowering event often due to separation of particles and conversion of the kinetic energy into potential energy), the edge of the energetic space may catalyze the conversion of empty space into energetic space, so the edge of our universe is on fire so to speak (perhaps this is the source of the cosmic background radiation? (and not left overs from the big bang))....
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #19 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Um.

Good try marc.

Unfortunately, the expansion of the early universe (assuming the big bang hypothesis to be correct) by definition causes the entropy to increase (as does any gas expanding into nothing even if that nothing doesn't exist).

I think it is far more likely that if there was a rapid expansion it was due to the shear energy of the process of 'creation'.

Take my current view for instance: We have truly empty space which is a low entropy system, the instant any particles of non-degenerate energies form the absolute change in entropy is far closer to infinite than it is to zero. Indeed, an empty universe is a high energy universe, in fact much higher in energy than that required to cause the big bang.

An empty space has a tendency to decay into an energetic space (proportional to its absolute size). The event-one of all of this would occur in a small corner of the empty space where twists and turns in the fabric cause more and more empty space to convert to energetic space. We get an effective expansion of the universe. In fact, once the areas of where the empty space has converted to energetic space have cooled sufficiently (a entropy lowering event often due to separation of particles and conversion of the kinetic energy into potential energy), the edge of the energetic space may catalyze the conversion of empty space into energetic space, so the edge of our universe is on fire so to speak (perhaps this is the source of the cosmic background radiation? (and not left overs from the big bang))....

Indeed, I like the idea of the ring of fire. I have been reading that we are in a low density area of the universe, and far from us, the universe is denser where it is expanding, like the ring of fire - But I am not so sure this is correct because it is the space that is expanding, not space expanding into something (even if that is nothing).

I am a bit unsure of whether to follow the convension that the expansion of gas will increase entropy when time is running backward when time is explicitly linked to the polarity of gravity as I am proposing.

Im envisioning this as the singularity being a state of maximum entropy, (similar to conditions in a black hole) and the expansion into 'negative' time adds regularity and order to this to lower the entropy, down to the scale of planks length - dispite the fact that in 'normal' time entropy would increase as a gas expands. And the subsequent flipping of gravity, - IF it is explicitly related to time and entropy, flips the laws of thermodynamics, so that we get the effects we measure today.
post #20 of 72
I want to see the formulation for the negative time.

if we had mikowski space-inverse time would the metric be:

1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1

?
post #21 of 72
Hey Marc...

Fuck Billco.

(I wonder what that guy looks like, btw?)
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #22 of 72
My problem with your theory is a rather simple one, I'm afraid. If I've understood your graphic correctly, big bang happened 8B years ago. To explain stars being 15B you are proposing a negative time, right?

But by definition at Big Bang all matter was a single point, so there were no stars around. So in the forward time (ie now) any negative time a star accumulated would have been 'lost' in a sense (as the star ceased to exist at big bang).

So there is still the problem of stars appearing to be 15B, and the Universe 8B.

David
post #23 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMac David

My problem with your theory is a rather simple one, I'm afraid. If I've understood your graphic correctly, big bang happened 8B years ago. To explain stars being 15B you are proposing a negative time, right?

But by definition at Big Bang all matter was a single point, so there were no stars around. So in the forward time (ie now) any negative time a star accumulated would have been 'lost' in a sense (as the star ceased to exist at big bang).

So there is still the problem of stars appearing to be 15B, and the Universe 8B.

David

no! what you aren't understanding is that just because the inflation of the big bang happens in 'reverse' time, then when gravity flips and thus time runs forwards, doesn't mean that everything is lost as it retraces itself back to the same point of singularity it came from.

I knew making the analogy 'forwards' and 'backwards' time would bit me on the ass!. If you know Hawkins, then his model is that everything from the singularity is forward time, whatever the direction - like everywhere is South, when standing at the north pole. I am proposing that when gravity originally was repellant, then time ran on a different axis, not forward or backwards, just opposite to what is is now - like if you stood on the North pole, but travelled South through the Americas - Its still South, but a far different route than travelling South through Europe and Africa. Therefore the amount of time after the singularity is correct if we measure through the centre of the Earch between the poles - its the shortest distance - and this tells us the minimum age the universe can be - But Im proposing that the real (absolute age of the universe) is longer, because time didn't take the shortest route between the poles, but travelled along a differnt path - analogous to travelling North to South over the surface of the Earth.
post #24 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Hey Marc...

Fuck Billco.

(I wonder what that guy looks like, btw?)

what a sad git! If he's the pinnacle of Scientific exploratory thought, God help us.

I managed 4 posts before I got a likely ban
post #25 of 72
LOL...a rude old fart he is. I've seen more personality in a betta fish.

At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack. I was actually hoping you'd throw in a Cunt Jesus reference in there. That would have gotten the 'ol bones going...
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #26 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

LOL...a rude old fart he is. I've seen more personality in a betta fish.

At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack. I was actually hoping you'd throw in a Cunt Jesus reference in there. That would have gotten the 'ol bones going...

yes, exporting the culture of AI everywhere.

Indeed they do have a religion section, I wonder how well Cunt Jesus would go down in there
post #27 of 72
Interesting hypothesis Marc but where's the evidence? Where are the independent predictions based on your model? Don't get me wrong...it was a fun read and it is definitely intriguing but it can't go beyond that without evidence. We don't want to stumble into the realm of belief without evidence. I think we know how you feel about that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #28 of 72
Quote:
At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack.

I read the thread title as "MarcUK rewrites inflammatory theory!".
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #29 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR

Interesting hypothesis Marc but where's the evidence? Where are the independent predictions based on your model? Don't get me wrong...it was a fun read and it is definitely intriguing but it can't go beyond that without evidence. We don't want to stumble into the realm of belief without evidence. I think we know how you feel about that.

BR, if I had my time again, I would have gone to Cosmology school and learned how to write scholorly papers and how to do the math, and then I would be able to provide the evidence.

Unfortunately all I can do is what I have done, which is to read as much as possible, understand the problems in the current model, learn how the laws of nature work, and suggest how these problems might be resolved whilst trying to be consistant to scientific methodology within my capabilities.

It was just a bit of fun. If I stumbled across something, then hopefully by showing the world, then someone who has the ability to take it further would come across it and do so, and if it is the mindless drivel of an idiot - It doesn't matter and I dont care, life goes on and tomorrow I start again and try to make a better idea.

I think it does predict something though. It predicts that gravity and time are explictly related like electricity and magnetism is. We know that gravity and time are related - Im saying that time is a 'directly proportional byproduct of the polarity of gravity', and you cant have one without the other. This is testable.

If Science would tomorrow prove that wrong. Great. If it proves that right, you can come to the ceremony with Hassan.
post #30 of 72
Thread Starter 
for those of us crazy enough to follow this thread it seems like I have p3wnD the lot of them over at the science forum . See my post in this thread

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...?p=35767#35767

Morans. Let me know if anyone knows where there's a serious Scientific forum, where them menbers have functioning brains. I could do with some stimulating conversation.
post #31 of 72
Billco = director of NASA (1969)
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
"If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress." - Mickey Mantle
Reply
post #32 of 72
So MarcUK Bilco is not a serious scientist ?
post #33 of 72
Heya Mark,

I couldn't be bothered making an account over at scienceforum but perhaps you could run this by them...

If the hammer and feather are diametrically opposed (as you suggested) wouldn't the gravity of the hammer also be affecting the feather, causing it to accelerate faster towards the moon?

Woudn't that negate the advantage the hammer had gained by moving the moon closer to it?

It seems to me that the feather might actually strike first as the hammer's pull on the feather would be stronger than it's pull on the moon with a net gain in favor of the feather.
post #34 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^

Heya Mark,

I couldn't be bothered making an account over at scienceforum but perhaps you could run this by them...

If the hammer and feather are diametrically opposed (as you suggested) wouldn't the gravity of the hammer also be affecting the feather, causing it to accelerate faster towards the moon?

Woudn't that negate the advantage the hammer had gained by moving the moon closer to it?

It seems to me that the feather might actually strike first as the hammer's pull on the feather would be stronger than it's pull on the moon with a net gain in favor of the feather.

That is a really 'class' argument. Brilliant thinking! Im at work now, I'll run it by them when I get home tonight - and it gives me a few hours to think about it.
post #35 of 72
The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. You can't just add the effects as if they were the same distance apart. If the hammer is the same distance away from the moon as the feather is to the moon, the feather is twice as far away from the hammer than the moon and thus the force of gravity is four times weaker.

So to answer Aslan's question: no.

I actually ran some calculations really quickly to see the acceleration due to gravity from the various objects involved:

If we were to place the hammer, moon, and feather all in a line like so:

hammer------------MOON------------feather

The moon is 1770km in radius approximately so I used 2000km from the center of the moon for the placement of both objects to make the numbers nicer. I also said a hammer weighed 1kg (2.2lbs) and the feather weighed 0.01kg.

The hammer feels an acceleration to the right from the Moon and the feather. The formula is:

Accel due to Gravity = Gravitational Constant * mass of source / radius^2.

So the Accel from the Moon on the hammer 2000km away is 1.23 m/s^2 and the accel from the from the feather on the hammer 4000km away is 4.17 * 10^-26 m/s^2.

The Accel from the Moon on the feather to the left is the same 1.23 m/s^2 and the accel from the hammer on the feather 4000km away is 4.17 * 10^-24 m/s^2.

Now, the moon is being pulled in opposite directions from the feather and hammer so the accel to the left from the hammer's gravity field is 1.67 * 10^-23 m/s^2 and to the right from the feather is 1.67 * 10^-25 m/s^2 for a net accel 1.65 * 10^-23 m/s^2 to the left. The moon accelerating to the left is just like the hammer approaching at that acceleration and the feather receding at that acceleration. So, let's add that to the totals thus allowing us to pretend the moon is sitting still.

Net effective accel of hammer to the right: 1.227 + 1.65417 * 10^-23 m/s^2
Net effective accel of feather to the left: 1.227 - 1.233 * 10^-23 m/s^2

See how the square of the distance affects things?

Of course, since the Gravitational constant is TINY as well as the mass of the moon being quite large, you saw how freaking small the effects of the hammer and feather compared to the moon itself were. For all intents and purposes, both of them fall at 1.227 m/s^2 and hit at the same time.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 72
Hello, is safe for a lady to to appear here? Can I comment that the suggestion in the first post is refuted by Stephen Hawking? - Not being a Theoretical Astro-physicist myself I would not know which of you is correct. Also the latest 'age of the iniverse is around 15.755Bn Yrs (Nasa this week) ,so my man tells me. Though it seems to be getting older by the day, (pun intended). If the article is 'dodgy' in any sense I'd just ignore it. Apologies if the Author is reading this, Have you sent it to Stephen? - No reply? Never mind... Perhaps next time.
post #37 of 72
Thread Starter 
Alas, I have learned something I guess I knew all the time. If you cant 'prove' the hypothesis, then the idea is essentially worthless. Too bad the world works this way, but it is this way for a reason, and is something I have infact strongly argued for - so I have to accept it whether I like it or not.

Personally, im not trying to overthrow current theories - as I believe they are essentially correct, what I am trying to do is look at the current theories though a differernt Perspective and see if they can be resolved in a different manner that might give us some useful insight, whilst still holding to the laws we currently accept.

It is probably because Im arguing from a position of ignorance, that I dont see that my theory changes anything thats already well established, except (possibly, hopefully) giving a deeper understanding of what happens/has happened on the most fundamental level.

I'd guess that as our understandind is refined, we will continue to age the universe longer and longer, infact, essentially I have faith that although the big bang happened, we will eventually age the universe as infinite, while we also find that is does not exist at all from its own perspective.
post #38 of 72
As with any theories on creation, all is speculation with tiny amounts of evidence. Like god, really.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #39 of 72
Thread Starter 
there was a greek philosopher who believed that the solution to any problem could be found with purely mental thought alone. Trouble is I cant remember his name. Anyone?...
post #40 of 72
If he's right, just keep thinking and it'll pop up!

Powerdoc - are you the same Powerdoc on Science Forum?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › MarcUK rewrites inflationary theory!