My Hypothetical Universe

I guess it was more important to cut & paste wikipedia links all day than to take the 2 minutes necessary to get those pesky teeth fixed, huh?

 

Hey Guy? If you are interested, I have another theory posted, but it's in a private conversation. I'm maxed-out on invites, but I could ask one of them to leave the conversation so you could check it out. I don't think some of them will mind, as they may not be interested.

It's a hypothesis on how the moon orbits the Earth, but is vetted to a point where there may only be one or two ideas that don't suck. I'm not interested in posting it publicly at this time, mostly 'cause I'm not as confident about it as I am with this one.

 

A few things:

angie828 posed this question some time ago:

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/quick-poll.3359/

pk_boomer and I had an interesting discussion. I bring it up here, now, because I neglected to mention my hypothesis that energy has a finite life, but I'll get into that later.

Recusant created a thread to discuss faith in science:

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/faith-in-science.4286/

In it, we discuss some points relevant to this thread. I'm particularly proud of this comment:

Except me, of course lol

Another quote of mine:

I was referring to people who support the Big Bang theory.

You political people will enjoy this comment I made:

A significant point:

A day or two ago I found this:

http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

I appreciate the confirmation of my claim.

Here are three other sites:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/...which is the same group, with the same grievance.

http://www.factmonster.com/cig/theories-universe/big-bang-alternative.html...which also questions the Big Bang, though my take differs from their's.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm...which is also an alternate theory site.

Guy, and anyone who is interested, check out the stuff above, and you'll see that I am not alone, that many people, astronomers included, agree with me that the Big Bang theory is FAILED.

 

btw, I had tooth issues back then too, while I was doing this stuff. I don't want to do this stuff if teeth are what's giving me insights lol.

Another tooth, opposite the three I pulled two three weeks ago broke an hour or so ago, meaning I now have to chew with my incisors, which also, at some point, must be pulled. I can't catch a break.

I wasn't going to mention it until I saw what I wrote back then.

 

I noticed just now that I failed to give the proper links in post #23. That's been fixed now. Sorry 'bout that. I can literally feel myself getting dumber, after that damn tooth broke. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it lol

 

This is something I remembered only after posting the OP. I intended to put it in, so may as well now:

 

I'll throw this in to support my hypothesis. Again, I intended to at some point, may as well be now.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2billion.html



My hypothesis states that our known universe is organized much as a segment of a galaxy is. Take a look at the map above. Notice how groups of galaxies are clustered? I'm proposing that the map above is a segment of an "arm' that rotates around the center of G2.

 

Here's what a galaxy looks like. Remember, I'm proposing ALL of the known universe is a segment of G2.


Here's a segment of the galaxy above:


And finally:


In the image above, the content of the lighter boxes would equate (roughly, mind you) to the known universe in my hypothesis.

Images copied from: http://galaxymap.org/drupal/node/45

 

In my hypothesis, the known universe is a segment of an arm or arms of a G2. The size of the known universe on a map like this is probably very small, maybe the pixel on the tip of the arrow, or maybe a very small chunk of an arm, maybe the "S", maybe the "n". I say this for perspective only. G2 is massive, and in five billion years we've moved a pixel or two, max, around G2, less than one degree.

 

I suppose I should kill th premise of an expanding universe, as believers of my hypothesis may have questions about it.

I contend that it is a misinterpretation of data, caused by a desire to vet the Big Bang. I contend it's a failure to properly vet cause and effect.

This is in conjunction with the idea that energy may not be infinite, that over 14 billion years or so we cannot "see" properly, do to unknown reasons. I suggested a variety of possibilities can affect energy waves (energy can be looked upon as a frequency wave), diffusion being a big one, gravitational effect would be another. In that, as energy travels through space it will pass near objects, affecting it's properties.

A way to vet tat would be to look at regions of uncluttered space to see if you can "see" further than in clustered space. Easy peasy for astrologists to vet, or should be anyway. I'm asking them to do it, but the majority of them will not, because of funding consequences.

I disagree, of course. If anything, my hypothesis could be used to gain even more funding, should a sufficient number of scientists convert to my side. This would be seen as a major major breakthrough in astrology, but only if they make the attempt to vet it properly and without bias. That means getting rid of their preconceived notions, and that is tough for anyone to do. Then there's the funding issues I've outlined.

I deserve a Nobel for this, but I doubt I'll ever get it. I posted it to get the information out there for people like me, who know the Big Bang is FAILED. Someday I'll be proven right, or I should say my hypothesis will be accepted as standard, and become a theory.

 

I'll add that in post #27 I provide a map of the local region of space, one billion light years from us in all directions. I'm contending we are in a region between two "arms", in a region much less crowded than the arms. Look at the map again, and you'll see what I mean.

 

Soon, I'll pretty all this info up and post it on science forums. That should get the ball rolling, so-to-speak. Bye-bye Big Bang, may you rest in pieces....literally.

 

lol...I suppose I should add that "arms" may not entirely accurate to say (in reference to some of my posts). The image in #27 (click to expand), where it appears we are between two "arms" may actually be filiments of a larger "arm", as these structures tend to split off and congregate along smaller "arms", but are also considered to be part of a larger "arm' system. I know confusing, but I'll pretty it up later lol

 

Your biggest obsticle is your theory is not new. In fact it dates back and is credited to the man who discovered and first smoked weed.

 

Provide a link to your claim.

 

Again, to be clear: I accept the possibility that someone has already posed this hypothetical.

I can't find one. If anyone can find a similar hypothesis, post a link.

But thank you for allowing me to psychoanalyze your response. The more you post, the more I will know about your general state of mind.

 

I'm tempted to say your dog has to take a dump, but it'd be a lie.