[baudrunner]

If you have read my posts parts one thru etc then you will have some grounding in what I am about to propose as to the actual shape of the Universe. I have just finished reading one of Stephen Hawking's lectures, well, about 80% of it, but the gist of it which prompted me to write this was really all that I needed to explain my take on the actual shape of the Universe, that's right, the actual three dimensional shape of it, were we large enough to see it from far enough away, yet close enough to get personal enough to appreciate it. And after reading this post, you can conclude for yourself just exactly what shape it might represent.

The concept of the Big Bang is in some respects accurate but not in all respects. I am of the opinion that there were many big bangs, that creation is an ongoing process, which fact can be ascertained from the logic that the Universe is an acellerating, expanding Universe that had a beginning, therefore it must be a perpetual motion machine of its own accord - ie. it is continuing to do so at its periphery, create that is. This does not contradict any of the precepts that dr. Hawking subscribes to. In fact, quite the opposite. It only expands on them.

This post is limited to a discussion of the actual shape of the Universe, nothing more, based on all the given evidence which need not even to be gone into with any great detail, but mostly based on the idea that there were more than one big bang, that the big bang that everyone is excited about is really the precursor to all those other big bangs. The first big bang is the moment of creation. It is when all those precursor sub-particle string-type entities order themselves into some semblence of rational particle, whether compatible with the current order in the cosmic scheme of things or not. Their compatibility with the maintenance of the continuum of reality is what determines their place in it and since there were many that were not compatible the random and chaotic coagulation of these particles of energy reductions continued to gather together and big bang it up until only those particles that were compatible with the beginnings of creation as we know it maintained their presence and ultimately defined the elemental structure of matter. The banging process continued up to the point where we find ourselves.

And that is the point. What we are analysing in all those cosmic background radiation experiments and so forth are the residual effects of our local big bang, and all the experimentation and testing and analysing that has gone into defining our Universe is the result of the extrapolation of data through experiments that were designed to predict what we thought we knew about the Universe. And as a matter of fact, they have surprised us, and that is to be expected.

The fact is, after the first big bang, that first moment that realized the separation of space and matter from nothing, the aggregation of matter was totally random and somewhat chaotic. Therefore the concept of a spherical Universe is somewhat defeated. In fact, visalize if you can, many local aggregations of varying mass and orientation all assembling and banging at different times, some very massive, some not so massive, and so on. What we have is a very distorted Universe, where space-time is unpredictable from one place to the next, where even the history of its development is non-homogeneous. And yet we are still studying the local influence of creation. That just goes to show how great and voluminous the Universe really is. After all, it evolved life to tell you this, and that really is quite something. It is very, very old. Much older than anybody could possibly tell you. Much older than can be measured in years.

[hanzoganz]

For the thoery of multiverses I recommend reading: David Deutsh, Martin Gardner, Paul Davies, Andrei Linde, Martin Rees.

[whoami]

But don't this disturbances propogate in any way. Don't we get influenced by this. So where does your thery explain this. As you are saying we should not be influenced by the events in the cosmos?

[HappytheStripper]

And just to think Baud... it took you around 13 or so predicted years for you to tell us that... that really is something eh! Keep at it mate... your doing a fine job...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

The fact is, after the first big bang, that first moment that realized the separation of space and matter from nothing, the aggregation of matter was totally random and somewhat chaotic. Therefore the concept of a spherical Universe is somewhat defeated. In fact, visalize if you can, many local aggregations of varying mass and orientation all assembling and banging at different times, some very massive, some not so massive, and so on. What we have is a very distorted Universe, where space-time is unpredictable from one place to the next, where even the history of its development is non-homogeneous. And yet we are still studying the local influence of creation. That just goes to show how great and voluminous the Universe really is. After all, it evolved life to tell you this, and that really is quite something. It is very, very old. Much older than anybody could possibly tell you. Much older than can be measured in years.

I like this Baud. You, Dave, Socratus, HBD, and myself all have similar wave structured matter ideas. Do you know of others to add to this list...? Have you read Dave's journal on absolute fundamentals? It's worth the read. Even though I accept most of your ideas, I still can't accept creation without proof. Do you know of any? I'm working with people on other sites on this one. I also can not accept space-time as necessary. I definitely see them as separate concepts, space as substance and time as descriptor of substance movement.

regards

[baudrunner]

Even though I accept most of your ideas, I still can't accept creation without proof. Do you know of any?

Any proof of creation? What an odd thing to ask.

The fact is that we are substance with a finite function, merely the residual hysteresis product that will ultimately peter out into a reduction toward nothing, no matter doesn't matter and poof it's all gone, eventually.

In the meantime we can analyse until we are blue in the face because we are but spun off little crumbs therefrom who have the time to be around to appreciate their place in it all.

Time was created at once with the establishment of the potential of existence and the difference that that establishes with the potential for nothing to have always existed, when that staggeringly awesome notion of being first presented itself. Premonition is the master of time and is that the greatest paradox of all?

Maybe, maybe.

[mkirkpatrick]

The pressure of intention swirls ever out,its involuting sequence brought to
a momentary pause,then with firm intent evolves toward our meeting here
in the eternal now,what shape are you,now,asks intent!Why the shape of
warmth on a job well done?He replies!



kind regards michael.

[dleviwing]

The one thing so many fail to recognize is that we cannot add or subtract anything from matter except matter itself. We do not exchange motion, energy, or force of any kind between physical substances. When it is said that energy is absorbed or emitted, there is nothing absorbed or emitted; there is only a change in how motion is distributed within the physical systems. The total quantity of motion remains constant for all systems of structure or the universe as a whole.

Once you can comprehend this, you will understand the dynamics of physical waves and physical substance.

[baudrunner]

Dave:

The thinking that we share in general diverges at this point because I know from having read your posts that you believe in a void that always existed to support, ie - contain, absolute motion.

My thinking aligns itself along the idea of a perpetuating creation front wherefrom new space and new matter are constantly created. We can still maintain your conservation of mass and energy principle if we consider that space and matter are mutally exclusive, but that would mean that you would have to discard your always existing void theory, since space becomes a creation just as much as the matter which ocuppies it. This is new thinking, and difficult to accept.

Lloyd;

If we need an equation to satisfy the concept of creation, we require three essential components for the formula, and we are already provided with two of them and they are - first, the fact that the Universe is expanding; and second, the fact that the expansion is accelerating. In order to satisfy the requirement for a perpetual motion machine that subscribes to this formula we need only presume the third component - the fact that it must have had a beginning, for these three factors fulfill the requirement of a perpetual motion machine which starts of its own accord, and that it accelerates as it continues for perpetuity. With respect to the Universe, given that we are already presented with two factors based on actual observation we can therefore assume that the Universe had a beginning, ergo - creation.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

Dave:

The thinking that we share in general diverges at this point because I know from having read your posts that you believe in a void that always existed to support, ie - contain, absolute motion.

Baud, how about these quotes from Heisenberg;

"Space is not a concept, but a form of intuition." H.
"We cannot imagine that there should be no space, although we can imagine that there should be nothing in space." H.
"Insistence on the postulate of complete logical classification would make sceince impossible." H.

regards