COSMOLOGY

The cosmos is simply expanding faster than all the objects within it, so everything* appears to be diverging spreading out in 3D.The only proviso is that * there will right across the entire cosmos in whatever local relative proximity some 'bits' that will blue shift toward you.The fundamental thing is that word 'relative', it means that sitting on some far off planet you may indeed observe some 'things' that are blue shifted but to me sat here some distance form you all in your area appears redshifted.Relativity is not an ordinary word, in this context it allows the cognizent to make sense from something that appears to be non-sense, it is one of the few words that is a key to a tricky mental lock.I'm not sure I've helped or added to all the replies you've already had but please stick with it, to become aware of the truth of relativity is the first great hurdle and its there contiually holding up almost every other one, so grasping and deeply comprehending its full meaning is essential.V

The following is NOT accepted as correct by science in general.The two phase 'exp'/'inf' explanation is brought about due to the generally accepted story of the beginning of the cosmos.There are other explanations, the one I am now firmly convince is the correct version in simple language follows:-Before there was anything there was nothing, somewhere within that nothing a quanta of energy appeared, the quanta was infinitely small and in a void that was itself an infinite nothing, something even as minute as infinitely small was effectively and truthfully everything that could be said to exist, this tiny amount of energy was then subject to the greatest force in the universe, that of an infinitely huge and infinitely vacant vacuum, a vacuum unknown to us now within the cosmos.Nature truly abhors a vacuum.This infinitely small quanta was then forced to expand in all directions, this created more movement/motion, which is the root of all energy, so as the void tore at the edges of this first quanta of energy which was forced to expand and as it did so it produced more energy, which also expanded as it was subject to the infinite negative force of the void.This differs from the accepted idea that all the energy present in the universe was present at the beginning of the cosmos, it is this back tracking to a singularity of an infinitely dense point that causes the 'exp'/'inf' the maths don't work otherwise.By accepting the infinite negative energy of the void, all this 'exp'/'inf' theory is discarded.This explanation also explains very simply the continuing expansion and means that the expansion is and has been uniform throughout the history of the cosmos.

Onsager is good enough, excepting that at the cusp [edge] of the expansion the laws of thermodynamics don't exist, it is at the point where 'something' touches or reaches out to the void energy is created simply by the action of the motion itself.The laws of thermo dynamics work within the cosmos but not at its cusp or [obviously] beyond.This hypothesis disposes of the need for some 'mysterious' dark energy to 'balance the books' mathematically also, dark matter [naturally] as well.

If I may I will answer for JCHardy as he is new to the hypothesis and I have been at it for quite some time.1/. The implication is only one imposed by your current thinking, an absolute vacuum is the void beyond our cosmos, it is boundless and absolute as only a nothingness can be.You ask what is the cause of nothingness, that is asking what is the cause of non-causality and the answer is there is no cause.2/. It is in the detail that the answer lies, think of the number 10 it is effectively the same as 9.9 recurring, but somewhere within that infinite series of nines there is a point at which there is 1 minus 0.9 recurring, if we were to wait long enough eventually in these conditions something will happen, call it a vibration if you like, it is enough to start a cosmos.The cosmos came about simply because eventually within an infinite nothing there was an an infinitely small something.That is all it takes to produce our cosmos, that and a long long time for it to grow to the extent it is now.3/. Within that small amount of movement/motion Onsagers rec. existed, on the cusp it doesn't, simply because there are two sides of the cosmos, everything within and the still infinite void beyond, the other side, so to speak.4/. This tiny amount of energy did not have within it all the energy of the cosmos we find around us today, all the energy comes from the expansion at the cusp, the energy is a result of any existing energy at the cusp being pulled into the vacuum creating energy where there was once nothing, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply at either the cusp or beyond, they don't have to, only when the new energy is generated does it have to conform to the state of existence, at the cusp it is being made literally from its own energy of motion touching a true void.5/. No, as above the amount started out as infinitely small, very rapidly it became the size of [say] a tennis ball, it did not have the mass or energy of todays cosmos at that point either, the void as a negative energy forced from the small amount of energy in that tennis ball sized cosmos more energy as it tugged mercilessly at it.6/. I won't answer this as I believe your explanation of energy and forces to be fundamentally wrong and would divert the thread hugely.7/. Pressure differential does not need points in space, pressure differential requires only that, a differential, within the cosmos we cannot form a vacuum without some form of containment, the void has no containment it is an infinite nothing, a boundless seemless nothing, there is no need or requirement for any containment.8/. It doesn't, hence the disclaimer. You say though that there are no voids outside the Universe, that is true, the Universe is both the cosmos [that is everything that is matter/energy] and the void itself. You may be saying there are no voids outside the cosmos, this wrong also, the cosmos is expanding, expanding into what?If it were to be expanding into 'something' it would be in constant contact with this 'something' and that would mean some form of collision, and if that were so then there would be evidence all around us of it, in fact such a massive collision that has lasted 14billion years would almost certainly mean we would not be able to exist, no, the cosmos expands into nothing, an infinite void.

Both 'darks' are there in the present theory to 'make up the numbers' for the present common held belief on the origin of the cosmos, they are not required with my hypothesis, the cosmos is in perfect balance with self-generation, it is only with infinite density singularity and inflation then expansion that the figures go out of true, its too clumsy.The cosmos is self-generating and self-sustaining.The expansion rate did vex me for a while but the inevitable conclusion is that the expansion is limited by the speed of energy itself, the rate at which it can ultimately travel within the cosmos and that is 'c' and it is not an equal 'c' across the cusp, the energy is formed in one place and in others it is captured by other energy and forms mass, the process doesn't slow the expansion but the actual presence of mass does from within the newly formed cosmos and this is 'caotic' in nature and this explains the 'random' but fairly even distribution of mass across the entire cosmos.So just as 'c' is moderately variable in our local experience the expansion of the cosmos is also slightly variable, if we could it from out there in the void I guess it would resemble the skin of an orange or quite possibly the photosphere of the sun.Edited by V-Bird, : Deleted a bit of text as I hit the submit button.

Stretching... expanding... growing in size, they are all the same fundamental action, things are moving away from each other.Stretching would imply a bunching up at the periphery it also has undertone a of a cosmos is an overall stasis and I no of no-one that holds to that in the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.There was and still is a centre, but because of relativity we simply cannot pin point it or even approximate it.The universe is infinite, but the cosmos is not, it is an ever expanding entity within the universe.Nomenclature:Universe means the known and unknown and the void as a single entity.Cosmos means all that has existence in the form of energy/motion/mass.We exist because there is a planet, a habitable planet exists because there is a sun, the sun is part of a galaxy of similar and different suns, the galaxies exist because they are a tiny part of the cosmos filled with billions of them, the cosmos exists because there is a universe a vast empty nothing that allows this wonderful chain of existence to continue unhindered.The cosmos is anachronism, but in the face of a continual timeless nothing something had to eventually happen and so in another respect it is not an anachronism at all.

It is a side effect of relativity that each of us can [with a little stretching of things] consider ourselves the centre of the universe, simply because we each receive as a central body all we know.It is no wonder that because of this little trick of relative time that we see the world and cosmos in such a self-centred way.We are the centre of the universe, but in the most inconsequential way imaginable, I realised this thanks to understanding relativity and moderate my thoughts to suit.The great irony is this, if we could, perhaps, through measuring tiny differences in the redshift patterns find the centre of the cosmos, it would be absolutely no different to any other part of the cosmos except the cusp!It would be interesting but we'll never go there [unless it was found within our perview of travel] and plant a flag like at the similarly nebulous North Pole. Edited by V-Bird, : Added disclaimer!

We don't agree about much, so fair enough.Your accepted version of the 'event' [can we agree to call it that?] requires there to be no centre, whereas my unaccepted version does.Your cosmos has no faster than light elements [is that still true?] whereas my version requires it for the cosmos to exist at all!Your cosmos requires 'virtual particles' whereas mine does not.Your cosmos still needs unfound particle[s], mine does not, mine only needs to accept the evidence of faster than light phenomena for precisely that.Your cosmos need single pole magnetism or magnetic like attraction, mine does too but I have found it in that FTL interaction.Your cosmos lives on uncertainty, chaos and happenstance, mine just removes HUP, makes sense of what appears chaotic and removes happenstance from it except in that initial vibration in the void.Your cosmos is so aloof that it can't explain an electron cloud as the maths fall apart, mine does not, the same FTL phenomena that keeps the stars rotating about other bodies of equal or greater mass, explains the electron cloud'We don't just 'differ' we are polar opposites!Still, it makes for a good debate.Edited by V-Bird, : Thought I'd add a few more for good measure.

The mathematics that prove my hupothesis is in its infancy, I started this more than 10 years ago and I have a new maths, I struggled for a while with the existing maths but it isn't suitable, it was like doing algebra using only the numbers 0-9.Even on its completion it will be greeted with derision, the same sort of derision Feynman received when he presented his diagrams, he at least had existing maths to work on to show proofs, my maths doesn't have that luxury, almost every term would be unfamiliar to any living scientist/mathematician.Infinity for example does not exist in this maths, what appears in conventional maths as infinity is a variable number as a factor of energy, but even energy is not anything to do with 'work' it is part of a quantifiable gravitational force, which is itself the co-efficient of the finite number given for what was previously infinity.In simple terms I doubt if you would understand even the basics of this maths because it would need a paradigm shift from the given maths of the sub-light world. It has to be so, the FTL world just touches our lives through one medium and that is gravity and gravitation which is the bridge to the FTL world or maths.I could write down the symbols I have [for all the FTL elements] to explain events, but every one and more importantly their compounds and resultants would be entirely alien to you.It is literally another language in maths. Edited by V-Bird, : bad english last paragraph.

CD I joined this site for good reason, it is about evolution and you will know that evolution has many dead-ends, the mathematical route you describe in your post is a dead-end, liken it to a creature that has evolved an eye, an eye that requires no cross-over for of nerves to compensate for a reflected image that is a finer grade of internal interface [rods etc] that is wired with no blind spot and has a superb lens far superior to anything else around, but this poor creature just puffs out jets of water to move, has no arms and legs and has almost its entire brain devoted to this fabulous eye, but it is an eye that is in a creature that is at a dead-end evolutionarily speaking.Your eye is much the same, in your case though it is not an eye it is your maths that is at a dead-end, you see great intricacies and the more you look the more intricacies you see.You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't.My maths is not even vaguely interested in electron g-factors, such knowledge has been about for a while now and yet with this intricate knowledge you cannot explain the instantaneous blinking out in one place with the same moment appearance elsewhere, my maths does, I know exactly why it does this, my maths confirms the energy that is left over after the interaction that causes the instantaneous blinking out and on and how this forms mass and why it appears to have 'weight' when then interaction is less intense and we witness gravity.Evolution has many dead-ends and maths and science suffers them too, I believe, no, I KNOW that you are stranded on one of those peaks in the evolutionary hinterland that Dawkins describes in one of his books.You are not alone, but then the Nautilus isn't alone either!

Really? I know that you cannot explain the phenomena, please if you can tell me, no-one has to date, they get close by saying 'when we observe' after that everyone gets it wrong, you are no different.I have a huge body of maths, a working hypothesis that is gradually being confirm by the new maths, I have predicted much, I can tell you that in the course of my recent work on the maths that there really is a 'mono-pole magnetism' in the FTL cosmos, I know how it appears to us in the sub-light cosmos, and how the energy from the FTL cosmos that leaves the residual in the sub-light cosmos is returned to the FTL cosmos, conclusions are too early in my work, there is no FTL 'E=mc^2' from me as yet.There are cranks out there all convinced of the correctness of their crackpot hypotheses, sadly I am not in their league of self-assurance, I am beset with dead-ends regularly and then find an answer elsewhere that changes subtly something I worked on perhaps 7 or 8 years ago, I have the humility to admit that my nomenclature for what is in the FTL cosmos is likely to need revision and some of what I think is right will be later proved wrong due to later findings I make, I envy fully-formed crackpot ideas, they have to e easier than the angst I suffer regularly.You simply would not comprehend the maths, it would be like me trying to show a nautilus the breast-stroke in swimming, it is simply not equipped to make sense of what it saw, and all that would also need a common language and we don't even have that!Your training in maths will stand you in good stead, but the maths itself won't, the only ability that you and I share in this that will assist one day is the ability to see patterns in maths, because at least half the FTL maths has in common with sub-light maths, is that some of it has that beautiful and revealing closure.The other half seems to be either incomplete or purposefully assymetrical, the mono-pole being a startling case in point. Edited by V-Bird, : called away mid-flow and retyped a few words making a sentence incomprehensible.

Had to go and find the Null Physics insanity, worthless.OK the first thing that you have to take in is that there is not a single energy in the FTL cosmos that is like any energy in the sub-light cosmos, there is no mass and dimensions are irrelevent as is velocity.Energy is not transferred in the FTL cosmos, there is no thermal, conductive or any other form of transfer, the only transfer of energy is to the sub-light cosmos where it is [for want of a better term] 'made use of' and then through mass itself returns to the FTL cosmos through the monopole.Can you grasp that?

The FTL cosmos is [for all intents and purposes for the time being] the same size as the cosmos we exist in and occupies the same volume and the same space in the void as our sub-light cosmos.It's been easy so far but now we look at the FTL cosmos alone, you have, to in your minds eye, remove all that we have in the sub-light cosmos, the easiest way to do this is to take the image of our own star and our planet and moon as if they were alone. so first encapsulate that little set of orbits in its own little bit of 'space' you have three object rotating about each other, we have now to give some familiar image for the FTL 'mini-cosmos' and I use light, it just is easier that way, we are familiar with light at all sorts of levels of brightness, so that enclosure is not totally black it is a low luminescence background, perhaps like the sky on a moonless night but with no stars, for each of the three objects now rotating in that enclosure substitute a point of light a tiny one, and as the gravity of each is different give the three points of light greater brightness to reflect the greater gravity, then at what would be the surface of each object imagine a ball halo that is only slightly brighter than the background level.Now from the pinpoint of light that is the centre of the 'sun' project a thin stream of light to the centre of the Earth and do the same for the 'earth' to the 'moon'That is simple to imagine, but we now have to fill in detail somewhat.The reason is simple, on earth we are familiar with 'things' [apples fall to the ground, single triangles add up to 180 deg internally etc etc] we have no such experience of the FTL cosmos and I have short-cut us to a model that will give something akin to familiarity.Details... first the background light was even, well it isn't, between the three objects it is slightly brighter as we approach the ball halo of each object and somewhere in between it reaches equal brightness, so about 6/7ths the distance between the 'earth' and the 'moon' the light is at a median and at about 99/100ths the distance from the 'sun' to the 'earth' it is of equal brightness, so the background is now quite a variable element of light., the ball halos now need to be filled in but they are evenly lit right up to the pinpoint of light within the objects.When you have conjured this image, you have a model of gravitation which is the all pervasive force in the FTL cosmos and those streams of light that join all three together are the monopole.The monopole is present within every object that has mass no matter its size/shape density.I need to sleep, early start tomorrow.I will get to the earth alone next and then we'll assemble some sort of maths to make this work.Remember... no velocity, no mass nothing you've ever encountered before, unless you have a decent image of the transfer of gravitation [tomorrows post] the maths will be impossible to understand, not even then if you'll get it, but it's worth a go.

I did warn you!You are familiar with the everyday world around you, the FTL cosmos is so unfamiliar to us that even grasping an image of it is difficult.You asked about the difference between the sub-light cosmos and the FTL cosmos, I use this analogy as it is the simplest.Make a movie, the movie shows a locomotive travelling along a track, the locomotive is [off camera] fired upon with an artillery shell, with normal film you won't, even by inspecting each frame, see the shell approaching and hitting the loco.We only receive, send perceive what we can at the speed of light as a maximum.The analogy works in that our sub-light cosmos has a 'top-speed' it is 'c', in the analogy the standard fimstock which records at 25fps and 'is' the sub-light cosmos.Looking at this movie the explosion has no cause, if you didn't know about the shell being fired it would appear to have no causality, no matter how closely you look at each frame.The same scene is filmed by a second camera, but it is a highspeed one.The FTL cosmos is the equivalent in the analogy to high-speed film, that runs at [say] 1000fps, now looking at this film frame by frame will show the shell entering the frame and travelling frame by frame toward the loco, suddenly we have cause for the explosion, what had no causality... suddenly does.Can you see this in your mind?Now just to illustrate the point I earlier posted in reply to CD that I can simply explain why we see only a cloud when we view an electron, and the above analogy may help you visualise what we are really seeing.But to do that we have to modify the effect of the shell hitting the loco, imagine instead of it destroying the loco it instead just made it jump to a parallel track, with the normal filmstock [25fps] the train for no apparent reason jumps from one set of tracks to the other and it is instant, in one frame it is on track 'a' and in the next it is on track 'b' and with no apparent causality. But if we take a look at the highspeed film we see everything, the shell entering then striking the loco the loco being lifted onto the parallel track, we have causality.The same analogy can be used to explain the 'spooky action at a distance' that stumped Einstein, the particle-wave duality is resolved perfectly and detectably by the actions from the FTL cosmos and countless other unresolved physics conundrums.There are huge amounts of evidence of the presence of an FTL cosmos, but it is not explained with sub-light maths.I'll use another analogy to explain why, think of those two types of cameras we recorded the loco on, the film is not really that different but the cameras are, our present maths is analogous to a standard 1905 type film camera, its workings are simple and basic, now look at the 1995 camera that made the high-speed film, the precision and design is far superior, the 1905 camera couldn't film at highspeed, it would just fail to operate and the same applies to the existing maths, it is simply not suitable, its functionality fails at every level.[I chose 1905 for very good reason btw, as I did also the 1995 as that was when I started on my new maths.]This is not difficult to understand at the moment, we are not even in the foothills of the mountain [of maths] that has to be climbed, we are just looking at the mountain to gain perspective.Please bear with this if you can, as along the way there are wonderful insights to be found in FTL maths.Edited by V-Bird, : Clarity, it needed more of it.

You are correct, the internal ramping of energies is the clue to how the cusp operates, the cusp is similar to a huge accelerator, where on earth we find greater and greater energies as we tear apart the smallest items, it is this that allows for perpetual expansion and the perpetual production of energy from what appears to be a finite amount.The definition of 'absolute zero' is also quite suitable for the void, we define it [correctly] as zero motion, and of were observe anything we need motion to get that info back to us, so we can't ever observe absolute zero and nothing within the cosmos is truly stationary, outside the cosmos in the greater universe there is nothing and 'nothing' has no motion [naturally] so it is at absolute zero, the cusp is very hot but it is not radiating our way all the radiation is pulled by that huge vacuum into the void, that is why the cusp is not some shatteringly bright boundary, it is also confirmation that the greater universe [the void] is empty and always has been.The void is the 'engine' of this huge accelerator and the energy of the cosmos expanded from the previous point of the cusp the subjects of further tearing apart to form the same low grade fuel for the ongoing reaction, self-feeding and perpetual.