Universe Race

you can't be serious?rotation of systems is a continual falling.can you elaborate?do you mean that larger systems are incapable of actual moving as a single system?final clarification:in expansion of the greater body, if the outer wall is lets say 2/3rds the depth and attraction of matter, and matter is 3/3, then a conversion of the outer body into matter would swell the outer lining faster than matter produced within the area, meaning that matter cannot reach the outer lining as long as mater is still being produced, because the expansion would be 1/3rd faster than any movement of the matter towards it, and matter being caught by inner bodies would also keep the created matter within its locality.observe the data of a proposed merge of galaxies within vicinity of each other, this shows force of attraction and actual movement of the greater body by the collective of separate matters within a larger body.conclusion : there should be greater study done and the theory of the existence body appears to fit all known data within a different explanation, more understandable within understood dynamics than current theory.and as far as this portion of the theory, how much of the data to support this theory is conclusive? what data was reviewed to come to this conclusion?let me propose how i see the main systems of the collective smaller systems within the boundaries of matter attraction:a smaller attractive force relative to only certain matters; is magnetic attraction. if i took a round large magnetically charged room and in the center, placed about 5 also magnetically charged balls, and then threw in smaller magnetically attractable balls of different magnetic attractions, what would happen?if the balls were introduced of course, within specific ranges of the outer attraction and the inner attractions.we would see a balanced setting of the balls by the pulls from the outer core and the inner attractions, as long as the polarities were maintained by either spinning, or a balanced setting.the attraction of matter behaves similar, but does not need the enforced spinning to maintain a balanced attraction. with out being able to view the attraction of the outer lining of the inner bodied universe within the main body of existence, we cannot judge the attractive force of that body against the attraction of matter for proper mathematical formulas for the prediction of greater body movement, which I'm wondering if what data we do have of the greater bodies movement has shown any acceleration or deceleration or stagnant, and how long this has been studied needs to be checked for any even slight variation, because in the time of light years any small variation means greater variation over time.do you understand what I'm driving towards cavediver? where would this experiment and data analysis fit with current data?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : final argument and conclusions.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Except for the fact that dark matter isn't postulated to hold the universe together, and that the scale of the large-scale structures you mention is relatively small, your list is okay. Three things are apparent from your list:

1. There is much that science doesn't know. Of course, we knew this already. If this weren't true there would be nothing for scientists to do. The job of scientists isn't to come to message boards to lord it over laypeople. Their job is to conduct research into those areas we don't yet understand. To indict science for there being things we don't yet understand makes no sense at all. It would be like calling a 1st grader stupid because he can't yet do calculus.
   ​
2. You think the list contains contradictions. It doesn't.
   ​
3. It's easy for those first approaching the subject to make mistakes, often the same ones over and over again.

The most significant thing you say is this: This contains the most fundamental misunderstanding of all. The Big Bang isn't science because it's what scientists want to believe. It's science because it's what scientists have uncovered about the universe through observation, analysis, prediction verification and replication. Whether or not we ever figure anything out about the how of the Big Bang, we still know it happened because when we look out into the universe that's what we "see", where "see" is only in quotes because our eyes on the heavens are all technology these days.So if tomorrow it is discovered observationally that the universe really isn't homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, then we'll just have to accept that and adjust our theories accordingly. It would be difficult to reconcile with what we already know of the Big Bang, but facts is facts.You, of course, would draw from such a discovery the conclusion that something's rotten in the Denmark of science. You've examined the processes of science and discovered (gasp!) that science is tentative and doesn't know everything.You seem to think we're claiming that we already know everything. We're not. We're just pointing out that not knowing everything is not the same thing as not knowing anything. If it did, then the fact that you don't understand cosmology when it comes to dark matter and galaxies must mean that you don't understand anything at all about cosmology. But you don't buy that, right? Well, we don't either. So why are you pointing to things science doesn't know, indeed acknowledges freely it doesn't know, as if it calls into question things science has strong evidence for.We have a pretty good idea of what happened back to about T=10^-43 seconds, and we have some good theories about how it happened, but of the time before that our knowledge and understanding is extremely limited. Them's the facts.--Percy

Imagine this grid represents all of space, note the two stationary objects "x" and "y" in opposite corners: Now space grows by a factor of two and looks like this: "x" and "y" haven't moved, but space has expanded between them and they are now more distant.This is the way in which Cavediver meant that nothing is moving. Space is expanding and carrying the objects along for the ride. The objects themselves are not moving with respect to space.--Percy

no, the issue I'm having is although many scrutinizing science will agree they do not know everything, but are unwilling to accept observations contrary to data that's been accepted under one understanding, can fit to another for a possible greater understanding.dark matter is a theory because we know something embodies the body because nothing exists outside of a body to exist in. so the universe by all data, has some embodiment that it moves in. but its never been observed. it is a question that an answer is sought for. science is asking the right questions.dark matter is in the same lines as God; cant see it (yet) but its as potential the truth as is dark matter, since neither have been put in a lab to study.so by logic and observation and debates for the truth, we can seethe potentials of both, and combine knowledge of the many to ave an understanding for all (hopefully) at the end. but if some possibilities are fully rejected when they have just as much potential for the truth, it is a dogmatic science that wishes to dismiss what they do not want reality to be, instead of searching for the truth of the science and reality of our universe's origin and current existing state.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi ICANT,Let me just address the end of your post, where you say: I already explained. I said in the very message you replied to, Message 292, "The structures you mention are also far from a large scale, as people have been telling you."Rather than replying with yet more news excerpts about the Botes void and the hole in the universe and asking, "Please explain," why don't you engage the discussion and ask meaningful questions.Perhaps you could ask, "If the scale of these structures isn't large enough to affect the large scale homogeneity and isotropism of the universe, how large would a structure have to be then?"Good question. Cavediver? Son Goku?--Percy

well done. i understand this theory well. but also is another path just as possible:...........
.x.........
...........
........x..
...........both X's became from:...........
...........
...........
....XX.....
...........
......................
...........
...X....... the L and Y are forces from implosion/explosion
....LY.....
.......X...
...........X and X are re-attracted to each other causing minor slowing, and other X's within area's start to affect the attraction of X's towards themselves but the initial force still carries with a very very slow slowing of the attraction back to each other. but the outer wall expands as matter is created from the outer wall at at 2/3rds to 3/3 ratio, meaning the matter never catches it.lets back up the view.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..............................................~~~~~~
.....X....X.ox..X..........X..................~~~~~~
..............x...o.X.........................~~~~~~
....o....X..............X..O..................~~~~~~
..............................................~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the ... and the ~~~~ are the same energy at different densities also the X's ar the same energy at a greater density ... being least, X being greatest.the two smaller x's are our original two X's of scrutiny.the O's are points of matter production or reduction from the main body: ~ also known as black or white holes.with all data, doesn't this have just as much possibility, as the current theory?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

matter production or reduction of changing the X into ~ or ~ into X gives off background radiation as a by product by my model.which means the density loss of a white or black hole would be evident by the production of the background radiation, which is also the only way we "see" a black hole, but i wonder if we can tell a greater mass or lesser mass by things within proximity? its probably beyond our current technology.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Let me rephrase your question: Is it possible that our data can be explained by the explosion of matter and energy into preexisting space instead of by the expansion of space itself?The answer is no, it cannot. The most obvious evidence against it is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (see CMBR at Wikipedia) which would not have its unique characteristics if our current universe where the result of matter and energy exploding into preexisting space.--Percy

Good question and believe it or not these scale related question tie in with what is known as renormalization, but that's for another thread.Basically imagine the universe as whipped cream (a fairly homogeneous substance) in a bowl. Take a bowl about 15 centimetres across. Then the Bootes void is only about four millimetres across. A four millimetre bubble of air in a 15 centimetre bowl hardly spoils homogeneity and won't really affect the motion of the cream.Basically an inhomogeneity is too big if it actually affects the overall motion.

Thanks Percy, You do realize that empty billion light year diameter void is equal to more than 1% of the entire universe. It is equal to the Great North Wall and Great South Wall clusters of galaxies.Percy you have constantly reminded me to study before putting my fingers into gear. So as a reason for my statement on dark matter holding the universe together I present the following 4 pieces of evidence. If they are wrong please correct.http://www.ur.umich.edu/9495/May08_95/phantom.htm Dark Matter - Celestial Objects on Sea and Sky Just a moment... h2g2 - Dark Matter - Edited Entry I don't know how you get this: From this: Then you continue with: If creation happened like this:T=O = The energy that was there spoke and everything begin to come into existence until creation was complete.Expansion = This energy then streached out the universe.Dark Matter, Dark Energy = This energy holds the universe together.Would you please explain the difference in what you see from the Big Bang point of view and what I see from a Genesis 1:1 point of view. I have a pretty good idea where everything came from.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

you misunderstood me.the area for the expansion , and the expansion, was when the main body began the matter production. when the universe was pea sized the expansion was equal to the amount of matter it became with a 1/3rd greater variable. for instance.before pea sized:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (continuous on all edges without measure)pea sized:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~.................~~~~~~~~
~~.................~~~~~~~~
~~.......o.........~~~~~~~~
~~.................~~~~~~~~
~~.................~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~do you now understand the proposal of how the force of the separation was like: x x x x x
^^^^^^^^^^^^^x x x x x
x<~~~~~~~~~~x o x~~~~~~~~~~>x
x x x x xvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
x x x x x xdifficult to display in this format, but i think you understand what im trying to say?it was a force similar to explosion and velocity points pulling to and from after the separation and a continuous expansion of the body's edge within the main body by continuous production.(as is my proposal of course)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Son, Is the Universe like a bowl of whipped cream which has substance throughout.Or is it like the balloon where the universe is on the outside edge of the balloon with the galaxies like the ants crawling around on the outside.Thanks,God Bless,

what is that your using for an avatar a picture of?I'm fascinated by the "cube" that exists within it, is that just a flaw of the device that took the picture?the smaller picture also has an apparent cube. id like to see other angles, it could also represent a 4 sided pyramid diagram. it would be consistent with Egypt and other pyramid cultures, and could be used for dating since pyramids seem to also represent times of ages.the great pyramid is a star in Orion's belt, is this Orion's belt?more info please, I'm fascinated !Edited by tesla, : elaboration, further scrutiny.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I'm glad you asked. The answer is no.
Now that we cleared that up may be we can star talking about the actual BBT?

ok, why not, and this is the BBT just at a different angle.the BBT doesn't explain what our current universe is expanding IN without just grabbing science fiction and slapping it out as acceptable theory. your answer to this would be probably : 'nothing" but if "nothing" nothing could be. because at T=0 there is a limitless "existence" without change and timeless and singular. this proposal i give you corrects this greatly overlooked fact.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides