COSMOLOGY

Thankyou, the analogy is there to assist in trying to grasp a fundamentally different cosmos. Analogies cannot make predictions, they are only a way to see the unfamiliar or difficult concept using an everyday object that you may [or may not] extrapolate.I can't publish as I am far from finished, to do so would be pointless, I use these boards to assess how much flak I will get when I finally do.I know this much for certain, even with a complete work it will be utterly detested by the vast majority of scientists around the world, it will make a mockery of much of their lifes work, to explain something that someone was searching for was there all the time and they were for so many years blind to it will not go down well.For almost 20 years we have delved and dug deeper into particle physics, we have buried our heads in the ever smaller particles and not looked up.I know what you mean about assimilating the FTL cosmos, it is difficult even for me, but in the last year or so I have been able to with increasing ease, I see everyday events and now 'see' it in 'FTL terms.

I try to use simple English where I can, cusp simply means the point of change, the cusp is the border between the cosmos and the greater universe or void.

Cluttered or not it remains popular and for good reason, I think that the ennui in the other threads is indicative of the state of this particular branch of science, it has reached deep into a cul-de-sac of ever increasing detail in the hope of finding that nugget of gold, but the finer the search the less likely you are to find a nugget as big as gravity.It's just my opinion, no offence to anyone.I[we] may be flaky to your eyes and you may be right for all know but us 'flakes' remain polite and never insult anyone or call them names.Just my observation, no offence to anyone.

"...us being carried away by the expansion of the space-time fabric of the universe... ""...red shifting is really the stretching of space-time itself."What are you actually saying when you use the terms 'space-time and 'space-time fabric'To me 'space-time' is short-hand for all the energies that fill the cosmos, but 'fabric' implies a substance in and of itself, an aether by another name, which we know is not the case, there is not one cohesive singular space-time fabric, there is no difference in 'expansion', 'inflation' or stretching of space-time, it is merely a complex interaction of energies and that it is in constant motion, this motion is seen as red or blue shifts when we view them from here [or elsewhere] I'm sure you agree and that it should be pointed out as often as possible that there really is no 'substance' that is space-time.Space-time only curves or bends [or anything else for that matter] because the word space-time is a coverall word for a multitude of complex interactions of various energies some of which are in the form of mass, light, gravity etc etc.I personally find the word space-time the most mis-understood in the lexicon of cosmology.

I note that you use a quote from Carl Sagan in your bit at the bottom, he was not y cup of tea, but he was very accurate in some things, he used the term cosmos for what the lazy call the universe and his thinking on that was very clear, we do not know what is beyond what we know to be existing, this is the cosmos, it is a deceit to call this the universe, it's not.The universe includes the void beyond the cosmos as well as the cosmos itself and the universe includes the FTL cosmos in it also.The universe you write of is actually a very blinkered view of the real universe and is bettered referred to as Sagan did and would himself as the cosmos.All the words you wish to use mean the same, the cosmos is increasing in size, it is finite and is expanding into the infinite [nothing] of the void.As to thinking outside the box, that description is far closer to your written statements than my own, can you see that?I studied GR and SR from about the age of 11 and refer to it regularly so as to not get a slanted perspective of more 'in the box' thinking.You must accept this, the cosmos is expanding, growing, inflating, stretching into the void, there are no parallel universes, just the single infinite one, there are no time warps and the only other dimension is the FTL cosmos which effectively wraps all the four dimensions we have into a single 'force dimension'.So there are just 5 dimensions, not 10,11,20,22 or 23, they are simply tensors to allow us to conjure sub-light maths to explain FTL action, accept FTL cosmology and they fall by the wayside, just like the aether of old, flogiston and all the theist clap-trap that exists to help the scared, perplexed and bewildered of this world cope with their lives.

Hi DA.I meant to type 'my', as in 'Not my cup of tea.'The 'balloon' of the visible is within the 'balloon' of the mathematical conjecture and is right, I see the cocmos as being that larger balloon, our visible bit is tiny in comparison.But the larger balloon is expanding too, we just can't be accurate enough at this time, for something so vast we have to be very accurate for us to note the expansion of just 100 years!But it is certain that it is expanding into a void, unless it has come up against another expanding cosmos, but if you think about that you soon realise that there can be no 'other' cosmos out there, the event that caused the existence of our cosmos would have to have been the one and only event in the endless void.This needs explaining, any two or more events within a void are going to be separated by an infinite emptiness also, so even if there were 100 or a million Cosmos' such as ours each will be separated by an infinite 'gap' and can never be encountered in all the endless time, that is the only conclusion of two or more events in a void.Once you 'see' this you know'll that I am right.You have mis-understood me, there is no true void in the cosmos, within any part of cosmos that has 'dimension' there is only near vacuum between objects that have mass.I have always contended this on here since day one, and outside of here since reading GR and SR at age eleven!There is some difficulty in proving the existence in an FTL cosmos, by it very nature we live in the sub-light cosmos and it is very like that film analogy, there is 'evidence' but it is vestigial at best, but it is there, the best hope is only with Gravitation and Gravity which is the only constant day to day connection to the FTL cosmos, we feel gravity, things have mass, things interact at the smallest scales without diminution all because of the FTL cosmos.When a single photon strikes an object and returns to our eye without any diminuation of its velocity that is because there is a moment when the interaction between the surface atoms and the photon is massively 'powered up' by the exchange of gravitation and the 'vestigial' effect is that the photon snaps back as fast as the sub-light cosmos will allow and in the right circumstances that means it strikes at 'c' and leaves at 'c' the impetus for this is the day to day effect of the FTL cosmos here in our sub-light cosmos.The evidence is there, we just need the eyes to see it.For 15 years I have worked on this entirely alone, at first I was as skeptical as CD, perhaps more so and just thought of it as a bit of a mind exercise, but after about a year it dawned on me that perhaps I ought to take the idea a little bit more seriously, I did and despite the ridicule of my peers at the time I am glad I have.The FTL cosmos is real, it works, is all around us and is the entire force for the way, manner and the physics of the sub-light cosmos.We wouldn't have a sub-light cosmos without the FTL one to power it.Edited by V-Bird, : Missed a bit.

...and I agree with you, we have visible cosmos and we can fairly accurately extrapolate the full extent of it.But the larger balloon is not the universe, it is still the ordered and conforming cosmos.For clarity I will refer to the larger balloon as the Greater Cosmos [GC] and our visible cosmos as VC and the FTL cosmos as the FTLC.The 'void' is the nothingness into which the GC is expanding, which is finite but expanding so that every second since time began it has grown in volume. I used to call the void 'Negative Space' but hated the term from day one, but it might help you grasp the concept. I will use NS for the void from here on in.Before there was a cosmos, there was NS.But don't be fooled that NS has no properties, it may not have any of its own, but it has properties imbued upon it once something happens within NS.NS is infinite, it is not '0' but in reality NS is -0.0>inf<1 one"]In the beginning there was only NS, then within the NS the GC formed from some movement that amounted to no more than 0.0>inf<1 [GC] and what did not [NS] this ramp imbued the NS with a very important but negative property, it became a force acting on the newly formed speck of GC a vacuum force of infinite power, we are used to only positive vacuums on earth and even the vacuum of 'space' if far from a true vacuum.The negative vacuum of NS pulled the juvenile GC in all directions, there were no directions in NS, the directions are now within the GC, which was still just a speck, by pulling it apart more energy was produced and as a result the speck became a small ball and because all motion is energy the motion of expansion became self-sustaining.It was not as such an explosion, it was expansion as a result of the huge vacuum of NS.This expansion of the GC is still occurring [we can be confident of this because NS is by definition infinite]So there are the following constituent parts to the Universe.There is the VC which is part of GC and throughout the GC there is the FTLC these two last elements are expanding into the Universe.The universe has to include NS otherwise it is not the correct term, universe is 'all' not every'thing', it means all, including NS.Hawking if he holds to what you have written is wrong in naming things as he does, it is a blinkered and wrong view. Even the analogy you attribute to him shows the blinkered vision, north of the north pole is [approximately] the North Star, because a pole is really an axis and an axis continues in another plane when conjoined to other trajectories. It is an analogy based only on words not logic.So succinctly put, this 'void' is -0.0>inf to be forced to form mass by 'rounding it up' or corraling it around itself.It's all you need to start.Edited by V-Bird, : An 'inf' posted incorrectly.

I appreciate it is odd but '0' simply won't do. it implies something that NS is not.Negative space is a true negative in that it is literally '0' minus an infinitely small '1'.But that is of no consequence, because for the maths -infinity works ou the same in NS, it was a trick of sorts, sort of like the old Feynmann track of giving his students all the base info and hoping in the end one of them might realise the trick and short-cut the math to zero.The FTL cosmos is very difficult to get a handle on, it has all four dimensions wrapped into a single force dimension, and because of this force dimension '0' also equals a positive number.My new math for this force-dimension is not complete, but the above is definitive and the bridge into it from conventional maths.The FTL cosmos starts all its maths from -0.0...01 [in your notation] as does the math for NS.For a few years this was a 'problem' for me and a huge stumbling block to progress as it implied that the FTL cosmos was out beyond the cusp of the GC and present in NS, but 7-8 years ago I found the answer to why this wasn't the case, it was simply part of the equilibrium of the negative and positive of the Universe, it 'closed' the maths.