Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

I have studied Humphries' theory, with many laughs, and feel that I can contribute something to the discussion. But when I try to sort my own ideas out, I come across a few dilemmas.I have myself used the analogy of an expanding balloon to describe expansion without a centre. But there seems to be only 10% of the required mass to close space. Even inventing 'dark matter' to account for the motion of stars in galaxies does not add enough mass.
So all the evidence to date indicates that the universe is not closed, and is either flat or hyperbolic. So much for the balloon analogy.Assuming that the redshift-velocity-recession interpretation is correct, we then have two possibilities. Either the universe is finite in an infinite space, in which case it has a centre, as supposed by Humphries, or else we have an infinite universe in an infinite space, and the expansion is purely a local phenomenon (local to the immediate 12 billion light years).In the first case, with a centre, there would be a general gravitational force pulling towards the centre. There would be a gravitational potential caused by the mutual attraction of all the galaxies, just as in the 'closed' universe model, but this force would be an additional feature of a finite universe, just as Humphries claims. Assuming a relatively uniform distribution of matter, the force would increase as one moves out from the centre, and would be zero at the centre. The force would reach a maximum at the outer reaches of the universe, and then fall off exponentially.
If the universe was small and dense enough (very early stage in it's evolution), then it would be contained within its Schwartzchild limit, and an event horizon would surround it.At this point the theory collapses. Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov has shown that a white hole would rapidly convert into a black hole. Nothing escapes an event horizon, and the universe would collapse into a singularity. I do not accept Humphries' claim that the collapse could 'bounce back' when it reaches his timeless zone. Within the event horizon time points to the centre, and there is only one way to go. There is no other future.Anyway, time is frozen at the event horizon, so matter could not pass out through it (from an outside point of view).To put another nail in Humphries' coffin, when the early universe expands to the point where the maximum gravitational field (the outer limit of the universe) reaches the event horizon (assuming this is all possible, contra to Relativity theory), the conditions for the formation of an event horizon disappear. The event horizon would not contract, it would cease to exist. The only way around this is to assume an extremely non-uniform distribution of matter, with the universe much denser at the centre. No observations support this.Yet another nail - the event horizon would disappear very early in the evolution of the universe - certainly within 10 million years, and not within the last 6000 years (I have done the calculations, and can produce them if required).I guess I have demolished the expanding finite universe in an infinite space model, so that leaves the infinite universe with local expansion, and the closed universe - if only we could find that missing matter. The closed universe, of course, has a gravitational potential (which causes/is caused by the space curvature), but no net gravitational field and hence no event horizon.Well, are you all going to shoot me down, or applaud? (not just ignore, I hope).Mike HollandNB. One way out of these dilemmas is to reject the Hubble interpretation of redshifts, and follow the lead of Halton Arp. But that would have to be in another forum.

Sorry, Brad, but you have too many 'what if's. What if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden? You need theories backed up by evidence. Einstein's is the best one going, and has not failed any of the tests yet. No-one has come up with an alternative.I love science-fiction and fantasy, and wish we could find a way around the light barrier to visit the stars, but so far all the evidence is against it. Pity.But you can pass through an event horizon - but only one way. But you must leave my universe to do it!The moment you move relative to me, or occupy a place with a different gravitational potential, we are no longer in the same frame of reference, and your Time is not the same as my Time. As you move towards an event horizon, your clock slows down in my time frame, while mine speeds up in yours. I see you slow down, and never get there - until my clock reads 'infinity'. You see me speed up, and the whole outside universe speeds up and becomes blue-shifted. Just before you get there, the whole outside universe completes its evolution, suffers a heat death (if that is what the far future holds)and finishes in blackness. You have now left my universe - at the far end of time. You are in a different universe, which has no contact with mine, but only for a few seconds as you collapse into the centre of the singularity at the speed of light.So, whether time at the event horizon is frozen or not depends on one's point of view. From the point of view of our universe, it is! You can only prove different by leaving our universe. Unless someone proves that General Relativity is wrong.Some Theories-of-Everything propose 10 or 11 dimensions - much worse that your 4-D or 5-D, but the extra dimensions are all folded up very small, and cannot get you around the Relativity restrictions. Worm-holes? I dunno, but as a science-fiction fan, I can dream too. But matter flying out of an event horizon? Naahhhh! In your dreams, Humphries!

No, Brad, I do not think like you. Judging to other responses to your posts, I don't think anyone does. Have you discussed this with your analyst?I tried to continue the discussion on an issue where I thought we were talking the same language, the possibility of passing matter through an event horizon, but I don't seem to have made any contact with your thoughts.Better luck next time? Why should I want 'luck' in my attempt to communicate with you, when you make no attempt to respond?I find your posts fascinating and entertaining, but mostly incomprehensible. I guess I have to post comments for other readers, and ignore your babblings.May the force be with you.
Mike.

Someone remarked that the astronomers are still too busy laughing to reply to Humphries.I agree, Graedek. That's why my library includes 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Lerner, 'A Different Approach to Cosmology' by Hoyle etc, 'Seeing Red' by Arp, and other such fringe topics. But they all have to stand up to reason, mathematics and evidence.I would love to see some of the scientific edifices toppled, just to make science exciting again as it was 50 - 150 years ago. The merging of all the sciences into a unified view of the universe is satisfying, but it is all just crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's. The Big Bang is just about the only area left where conjecture can go wild (maybe Schrodinger's at and parallel universes too).Mike

Sorry, that should be 'Schrodingers Cat'.

Hi, Brad, That was the most lucid contribution of yours that I have read yet. I can empathise to some extent, as I got involved in scientology during my Uni days, and was also regarded as a bit weird.
At that time I was into all sorts of mysticism - buddhism, sufism, Rodolf Steiner, zen, etc. After seeing the light about scientology, I spent years studying philosophy, science and religion to sort out what I could accept. Ended up an atheist and sceptic, but still have a lot of unanswered questions.
But your contributions give me the impression that you get one idea, from something you have read, say, and your mind shoots off in a hundred directions at once building up associations. Not a nice straight line direction of logic. A mild dose of schizophrenia? As you say, I don't think the way you do.
I don't like Asimov. Prefer Niven and Brin.OK, so this has nothing to do with Starlight and Time. Nobody has discussed this subject seriously yet, or answered or criticised my postings on this subject, so I am switching to something else - geology, or something.[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 12-31-2002][This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 12-31-2002]