Science Forums

# Bang/Crunch Revisited

## Recommended Posts

Please explain and document (this is a formal request) how seven of the eleven "dimensions" in String/M-theory (after 3-D space and "elapsed time for all movement"... 4-d) are derived and what there referents in the observable cosmos are.

For a detailed explanation will require more math than I think you are willing to bear

(or I am able demonstrate with proper authority). You might consult a book by Michio

Kaku on M-Theory (though I admit, I have struggled to get past page 30).

I will say the following: the Space(s) as a Subspace of a larger Vector space are treated

together as a Direct Sum when with respect to Dimension as follows

For M an 11-dimensional Vector space can be broken into V a 4-dimensional space and

U a 7-dimensional space. So the larger space can be formed as Direct Sum

M = V + U => 11 = 4 + 7

You can create a vector space when the underlying basis can form a group.

Our 4-dimension space (3 space, 1 time) is Isomorphic to the Quaternion Division Algebra (1, i, j, k).

Equivalently 7-dimensional space is Isomorphic to the Octonion Division if adding 1

dimension (Octonians are of order 8). Octonians along with other order-8 Alternative

Algebras (E8 for instance) are all Isomorphic to Tensors (often used in GR).

So for 11-dimensions (in order to work with Supergravity - which is a Supersymmetric

Gravity representation) for strings (or M-Theory).

BTW one of the variants of String Theory is Heterotic (E8 x E8) String which is the closest

String Theoretic representation of Gravity.

I learned from a book by Roger Penrose that recently Ed Witten has considered adding

one more dimension an to consider using the Group F12 (order 12 group) yielding a

12-dimensional Theory.

Alternately Ed has considered as of 2005-2006 to incorporate Twistor Theory in with

String Theory (M-Theory). Twistors is a representation where the coordinated are

Complexified (each coordinate is complex value instead of Real).

The above does not really do M-Theory justice and would require a whole thread itself and

an actual String Theorist to give the results.

Sad for you is it will require more math than most are willing to stomach (let alone

comprehend). This is the best I could do. :thumbs_do :thumbs_up

Moderation Note: Responses concerning math's place in physics were moved to 19480 because they are off topic in this thread

• Replies 121
• Created

#### Popular Posts

Fortunately for all of us we live in a time of fantastic growth in scientific quest to understand such huge and fundamental issues. IIRC there are good models of high energy states in only tiny fract

As opposed to your sure insight in what is true, correct and right. The Big Bang is a theory, Michael. And until such time as another theory with better explanatory powers come to the fore, it's the o

WOW! I just got another "infraction" for telling the truth about my firsthand lifelong experience of GNOSIS.

I probably will soon be banned. If science can not even let a mystic/gnostic speak his truth...

I doubt the infraction was from your claim of a personal Gnostic Experience. Usually

infractions are from "not following rules", or personally attacking someone. However,

Michael the moderators have maybe added one just for 'you' -- that is your Cosmic

level Arrogance.

And I always add the disclaimer that this source of knowing (the omnipresent NOW in this case) is not presented as "science."

Maybe if my every comment acknowledging this gnosis were posted in the theology forum...

Like... not allowed to say this here, so here is the link to the proper forum....

That might be true. Gnosticism can be construed as a Religious experience, that would

put it in Theology.

Quite an inconvenience... and seems absurd... but scientists disdain mystics, and they have the "power over' here to ban us at their whim... or as violating the rules against honest expression of gnostic knowing.

I wouldn't think "Science" has disdain of Mysticism per se. Just unfounded claims or

something on the order of "I was abducted by Aliens". Not very credible in a science

forum.

I can see the trend here. I don't even know hoe many "infractions" a guy gets before he is banned. I've lost count. If anyone has anything besides smart *** remarks, this is probably the time for serious science. Mostly my whole life this IQ thing has made people use whatever "credentials" they have to get the upper hand and try to "slay me."

this place is no different. One in ten million. Am I lying? Does the guy who accused me of lying get an "infraction."

I'll tune in tomorrow to find out. Waht a drama.

Oh, there goes the Arrogance meter again. Really ... How do you keep that Ego in

check ? And you profess to be a Psychologist.... I wonder what your patients think of

you... Or do you even have a practice anymore.

Waht about serious cosmology. The old Bang/Crunch is not dead yet, and my intention in this thread is to make an *intelligent argument* to resurrect it from the dumpster designated by the 'expanding space' theorists.

Biggest hurdle I think is how to explain evidence from WMAP and other CMBR satellite

data.

##### Share on other sites
• 3 weeks later...

While I'm waiting for Qfwfq to reopen the spacetime thread and allow my last two posts there (or for hell to freeze over), I would very much appreciate some feedback on what seems to me the most central and fundamental issue in cosmology:

If the cosmos is not cyclical (oscillating... Bang/Crunch wise) then how did all cosmic material/energy/plasma come into existence? If it is cyclical, then the answer is obvious. It all has always existed and will always exist (nothing created or destroyed but only changing form.) It goes "bang" and expands until gravity reverses it and brings it back to "crunch" and immediately go "bang" again... over and over perpetually.

Whether or not there exists enough mass for such gravitational reversal is still an open question.

Also See the "entropy..." takeoff from the "spacetime" thread for arguments pro and con on entropy as a spoiler for perpetual cycling.

Anyway a co-related question concerns the "linear thinking" alternative to a perpetually cyclic cosmology. Does anyone here believe that there was a "beginning of time" at the moment of the Bang (regardless of whether or not it eventually reverses and crunches again?)

And finally, how do advocates of an "everything out of nothing" cosmos and a "beginning of time" distinguish such a belief from Creationism as a miraculous creation of cosmos out of nothing?

Any takers?

Michael

##### Share on other sites

Some aspects of brane theory suggests the universe is a much bigger than we know and is made of a multidimensional "bulk" space. The 3d space we live in is a 3d brane floating in this "bulk" space. It has at least one other 3d counter part that it is attracted to by gravity which is the only force that can leave the 3d brane. These to branes are like sheets on a clothes line. They attract and collide in an endless time scale many orders of magnitude longer the age of the universe now. The collision results in an apparent big bang that occurs everywhere not just a point. the energy of the collision causes all matter in each brane to turn into energy much like what we think the big bang was like. the resulting energy drives the branes apart and each 3d brane cools back into hydrogen much like the big bang we think of now. with each collision the 3d branes expand to infinity from the view point of a 3d observer but they stay finite from the view point of an observer of the "bulk" space.

G'day Moontanman

##### Share on other sites
G'day Moontanman

I've never heard it called that pluto, do you have a link?

##### Share on other sites

G'day Moontanman

Search under

Magnetic reconnection

and

solar flares

If the links are too big in number than do a search by year starting from 2009 down.

Rather than me giving you links that I have chosen. Read through and get the gist of it.

Right now I'm off to play with the kids and smell the roses.

When I come back, I can post the links that I Have read.

##### Share on other sites

Pluto, none of those things have anything to do with multi dimensional bulk space, brane theory, colliding branes, gravity crossing into other dimensions or anything even remotely similar.

##### Share on other sites
Some aspects of brane theory suggests the universe is a much bigger than we know and is made of a multidimensional "bulk" space. The 3d space we live in is a 3d brane floating in this "bulk" space. It has at least one other 3d counter part that it is attracted to by gravity which is the only force that can leave the 3d brane. These to branes are like sheets on a clothes line. They attract and collide in an endless time scale many orders of magnitude longer the age of the universe now. The collision results in an apparent big bang that occurs everywhere not just a point. the energy of the collision causes all matter in each brane to turn into energy much like what we think the big bang was like. the resulting energy drives the branes apart and each 3d brane cools back into hydrogen much like the big bang we think of now. with each collision the 3d branes expand to infinity from the view point of a 3d observer but they stay finite from the view point of an observer of the "bulk" space.

This does not even address my most recent questions. Oh well.

How do you see string/M-/Brane theory with its imaginary membranes clashing as more reasonable than the model I presented in the opening post... with further commentary later, as follows?:

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon. This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.

...

Anyway, we can't even "see out of the rubber" (the visible cosmos) let alone see the *yes* empty space within or beyond the bubble.

And, again as I asked you in posts 7 and 10, as an advocate M-theory:

Please explain and document... how seven of the eleven "dimensions" in String/M-theory (after 3-D space and "elapsed time for all movement"... 4-d) are derived and what there referents in the observable cosmos are....

In your own words explain even one of those 11 dimensions after the familiar four I mentioned above...

and if you can explain all seven extras you will win the prize as the only one through several forums of my asking, to explain them.

So, counting the questions in my last post, that's a lot of unanswered questions.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

I am not trying to debate your model, you asked for an alternative. i gave you one, if you don't like it ignore it. You seem to more than willing to ignore everyone else who doesn't follow your drummer. My puny IQ doesn't compare to yours.

##### Share on other sites
I am not trying to debate your model, you asked for an alternative. i gave you one, if you don't like it ignore it. You seem to more than willing to ignore everyone else who doesn't follow your drummer. My puny IQ doesn't compare to yours.

It was not my intention to beat you over the head with my IQ but to stimulate dialogue on the subject of this thread. Dialogue is about exchange of ideas in a respectful manner. If I ask a question, then you either answer or explain why you can or will not, and vice-versa.

So there was a long string of them and you dodged them all.

I had hoped for a real conversation with you on the subject,

I'll get over it.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Moontanman said

Pluto, none of those things have anything to do with multi dimensional bulk space, brane theory, colliding branes, gravity crossing into other dimensions or anything even remotely similar.

I did not say that.

I agree with you.

##### Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzz

Just sharing the reading on this.

Beyond Inflation: A Cyclic Universe Scenario

Neil Turok et al 2005 Phys. Scr. T117 76-85 * doi: 10.1238/Physica.Topical.117a00076*

Neil Turok1,3 and Paul J Steinhardt2

1 Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK

2 Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

3 Talk given at the Nobel Symposium `String Theory and Cosmology', Sigtuna, 14-19 August 2003

=========================

Could cyclic universe explain mystery? - Space.com- msnbc.com

Could cyclic universe explain mystery?

Theorists suggest Big Bangs and Crunches lead to cosmic balance

One of the biggest mysteries in cosmology could be explained by a controversial theory in which the universe explodes into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.

Called the cyclic universe theory, it could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant," which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

=========================

'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant - space - 04 May 2006 - New Scientist

'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant

A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant, physicists suggest.

The cosmological constant represents the energy of empty space, and is thought to be the most likely explanation for the observed speeding up of the expansion of the universe. But its measured value is a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than that predicted by particle physics theories. It is a discrepancy that gives cosmologists a real headache.

In the 1980s, physicists considered the possibility that an initially large cosmological constant could decay down to the value measured today. But this theory was abandoned when calculations showed that it would take far longer than 14 billion years - the time since the big bang - for the constant to reach the level seen today.

Now physicists Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University, in New Jersey, US, and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, are resurrecting the idea. They point out that if time stretches back beyond the big bang, the problem could be solved. At that is just what is predicted by their cyclic model of the universe - an alternative to the Standard Big Bang theory - which the pair first developed in 2002 (see "Cycles of creation").

=============================

There are some important issues at hand and one form of a cyclic universe not as a total but as individual parts that can be explained by physics may have something to offer.

=============================

and this paper is interesting

[0801.2965v1] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

##### Share on other sites
Maybe you are not yet familiar with how i see the cosmos, as re-stated yet again in post #26 of the "Bang/Crunch Revisited" thread, as follows:

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon. This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.

...

Anyway, we can't even "see out of the rubber" (the visible cosmos) let alone see the *yes* empty space within or beyond the bubble.

Me thinks you're taking the analogy an order of magnitude or two too far. The rubber sheet (or the balloon) is not a description of the universe. It's an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe. Let me repeat that:

The balloon is an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe.

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon.

The rubber sheet and the balloon have no thickness. They are both 2 dimensional otherwise the analogy breaks down. The balloon is a manifold, not a 2-sphere. If you care to represent our cosmological horizon on the manifold then it must be a circle. It can't be a "bubble".

This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.

The balloon in the analogy represents the infinity of space. Saying that the balloon expands into the infinity of space wouldn't make sense. It's best to understand that astronomers are answering physical questions. Astronomy is a physical science.

How far is RD1 from earth? How long did it take the light from RD1 to reach us? How fast is RD1 moving relative to us and in what direction? Those questions have physical answers that persist regardless of the semantics of the balloon analogy or how real or not real we consider space.

Modest:
If you have 4 people each grab a corner of the sheet and stretch it apart then you have effectively modeled the manner in which galaxies move away from one another. One of those dots on the rubber sheet has every other dot moving away from it and the further the other dots are from it, the faster they move away. This is true for any dot.

The above is a two dimensional rubber sheet... a plane. My expanding balloon is a 3-D sphere... and the "rubber" is the "stuff" of cosmos... with a thickness containing the whole mini-sphere of visibility which is our cosmic event horizon.

So, naturally cosmos appears isotropic/homogeneous in all directions

as the whole balloon expands with our little visible cosmos as one tiny bubble in the rubber of the balloon.

Can you understand what I am saying?

Do I understand what you're saying? Yes. You're saying that the surface of a rubber balloon expands isotropically in 3 dimensions which is demonstrably false. The surface actually gets thinner as the balloon expands. Clearly our universe is not expanding in one direction and contracting in another.

The balloon analogy is meant to relate an aspect of cosmological theory... that there is no center to a two dimensional spherical manifold, and if the manifold expands, it's not expanding away from anything.

The expansion of the universe is very similar. Saying "space is expanding faster than the speed of light" means that the distance between two objects on the metric is increasing faster than c. This is an inevitable conclusion given two things:

1. The further away one galaxy is from another the greater the rate at which their distance increases.
2. The universe is infinite in size.

Space is infinite emptiness. Cosmic "stuff" exists in specific locations within unbounded space.... reference balloon cosmology above.

Nothing... none of this cosmic "stuff" travels faster than light, and space is lack of 'things', emptiness... no-thing-ness, the *volume* in which stuff exists, and "it", being nothing, does not 'travel" or expand at all.

It doesn't matter if you think of space as emptiness, nothingness, volume, or whatever. It doesn't matter how you interpret cosmological theories—you either agree with the physical answers or you don't. If you disagree then you'll need to provide a different theory which gives predictions that can be falsified. That's the way the scientific method works.

If nothing can recede faster than the speed of light then how old (from the last big bang) and how large (to what you call the "cosmic event horizon") is the observable universe? Big bang theory gives a comoving radius of 46 billion lightyears and an age of 13.7 billion years. Clearly 46 divided by 13.7 is greater than 1 so BBT does indeed give answers greater than the speed of light. If you disagree then you should give different specific answers and a theory for finding them. Otherwise, what is there to discuss?

To give one example, if an object is moving away from us *through space* then we expect it to exhibit a redshift which can be calculated with and is due to special relativistic Doppler shift. If, however, space is expanding SR doppler shift will not give the correct redshift results. Cosmological redshift must be used. Wiki summarizes the difference:

I may introduce a very important criticism of all assumptions surrounding the redshift paradigm, but this is not the "place or time."

I'm not sure what you mean by "redshift paradigm" or what your criticism of it could possibly be, but cosmic redshift is very-well handled by a scale factor in standard cosmology (aka "expansion"). Cosmic redshift as a measure of expanding space is verified by the Tolman surface brightness test, time dilation in Type Ia supernovae light curves, and the temperature of CMBR as a function of redshift. These things are a means of distinguishing expanding space from other models and extensive observation shows they are consistent with the former and rule out the latter.

The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion.

So, again, unless you have a theory which explains that data...

I am not "wondering" at all "what difference it makes if we say something is moving through space or if we say space is expanding between things."

It is my most profound understanding that space is empty volume in which all *observable/detectable* phenomena exist and move.

Space is emptiness. It has no properties... being the *void* in which things with properties exist. Space does not expand. Things move away from other things in space... emptiness/volume.

You're missing the issue. When an astronomer says "expanding space" (such as the paper I just linked) they are characterizing the way things move—the way the universe evolves. It doesn't matter if you want to interpret space as "emptiness" or if you want to say it doesn't have properties. That's not what "the reality of the expansion" is referring to. It refers to something very specific: the Robertson Walker metric, and the fact that the kinematics of the universe on large scales is very well modeled by that metric.

Your objection to "expanding space" is semantics. It's like someone saying that a football field is 100 yards and you objecting that a yard isn't a real thing with physical properties... it just misses the issue.

I will study it at another time.... and get back to you on prevalent dissent on redshift as the basis for the "inevitable conclusions"... what you believe are indisputable "facts."

A fact is an honest observation. As such, redshift is a fact. I'm not sure you understand why I wrote "inevitable conclusion". If the speed of something increases with distance (Hubble's law) and distance can increase to infinity (open universes are spatially infinite) then an inevitable conclusion is that speed will increase beyond some finite value. An informed counter proposal to that logic would be the Milne model.

Before you get into the "prevalent dissent on redshift" I'd be interested in hearing about the physics of redshift. How is it measured? What does the measurement refer to physically? What theory could I use to predict the sun's redshift? I think this is important because I have a hard time judging the relevance of something until I understand it.

I don't think "volume" is that bad of a word to substitute for "space" in the setting of astronomy and cosmology. We could say that the volume between galaxies increases over time rather than saying the space between them increases...

But the reason for more volume between objects over time is that they are simply moving away from each other as in the expanding balloon... not that "space itself" (as if it were an entity) is expanding.

Yes, like the balloon. Consider this as a mental exercise. Blow up a balloon half full of air. Draw latitude and longitude lines on it (a grid). This grid is what astronomers call comoving coordinates. Mark a spot on the surface of the balloon and call it "Milky Way" and another spot a good distance away called "RD1".

Now we imagine 2 bugs which you're going to drop on RD1. These bugs are trained to crawl directly to the Milky Way spot from RD1. You start blowing up the balloon slowly and consistently and drop the first bug and it starts crawling with it's tiny little legs. A second or two later you drop the next bug and it starts crawling the same speed as the first. Now you have 2 bugs crawling along the surface of an expanding balloon. You use a ruler to measure the distance between the bugs and it's one centimeter.

The balloon continues to expand and the bugs continue moving toward the Milky Way. When they get there, how far apart do you suppose the bugs will be? Because the balloon expanded they will indeed be more than 1 cm. As I'm sure you've guessed, this is an analogy for light moving from one galaxy to another in an expanding universe. The bugs represent two crests in a wave of light. The wavelength is shorter when it is emitted versus when it is detected.

The physics model of the expanding universe is very much like this analogy except it is in 3 dimensions while the surface of the balloon is only 2 (there would be one more set of grid lines in addition to the latitude and longitude we drew). Also, space is very-nearly flat at large scales so the grid lines wouldn't be spherical. But, the point is, neither of these dots are moving relative to these grid lines. Every galaxy is at rest relative to the universe as a whole while the distance between points on the metric expands. This has very specific observational consequences which must be taken into account in order to correctly predict astronomical observations.

If you describe something different with different observational consequences then you'll no doubt be describing a very creative and interesting universe, it just won't be our universe.

~modest

##### Share on other sites

Modest:

Me thinks you're taking the analogy an order of magnitude or two too far. The rubber sheet (or the balloon) is not a description of the universe. It's an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe. Let me repeat that:

The balloon is an analogy for how distance behaves in the metric which describes the universe.

Me thinks you don't see my model cosmos as I am presenting it...

And it is theoretical "envisioning" at present way beyond over-all evidential confirmation... tho it fits with the isotropic/homogeneous universe we observe with everything moving away from everything else.

I'll elaborate further on my above summary:

Our cosmic event horizon is just a small bubble of visibility *within* the thickness of the "rubber" of the good old cosmic expanding balloon. This mini-cosmos within the maxi-cosmos, the Whole Balloon, is cycling through bangs and crunches even as the whole balloon keeps expanding.... *Yes*... out into the infinity of space.

...

Anyway, we can't even "see out of the rubber" (the visible cosmos) let alone see the *yes* empty space within or beyond the bubble.

The above (your four people pulling on a rubber sheet) is a two dimensional rubber sheet... a plane. My expanding balloon is a 3-D sphere... and the "rubber" is the "stuff" of cosmos... with a thickness containing the whole mini-sphere of visibility which is our cosmic event horizon.

So, naturally cosmos appears isotropic/homogeneous in all directions

as the whole balloon expands with our little visible cosmos as one tiny bubble in the rubber of the balloon.

Make that one tiny sphere of "rubber molecules", galaxies and such(as far as we can see), within the over-all expanding sphere of the balloon.

Of course the thickness of the rubber membrane will be thinning as the maxi-cosmos, the balloon expands. But since we can't see beyond the small sphere of the tiny part of the balloon membrane we are in... we will prpbably never be able to verify whether this mini-sphere is part of the maxi-sphere.

But the "rubber molecules" in this analogy represent the actual "stuff" of cosmos... phenomena we can observe.

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...

envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

If imaginary clashing membranes can be taken as serious cosmology... based on very esoteric math/metrics positing 11 or more "dimensions"....

Well, I could reasonably ask for some slack on "my evidence"... even tho I am not famous like the M-theory boys (with the scientific community hanging on their every word.

Nearly late for an appointment, Gotta go.

Michael

##### Share on other sites
But the "rubber molecules" in this analogy represent the actual "stuff" of cosmos... phenomena we can observe.

Yeah, the problem is that the stuff in the cosmos expands at the same rate in all directions. The rubber material in a balloon quickly expands in a direction tangent to the surface and slowly constricts in a radial direction... not really the best analogy for our cosmos.

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...

envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

I'm just trying to impress upon you that balloons and branes are an effort to envision a physical theory which successfully describes the cosmos. You seem to be interpreting a nonexistent theory—which is fine, but worth pointing out—very far removed from the interpretation of FLRW or M-theory which actually can model the universe.

~modest

##### Share on other sites

Modest:

Yeah, the problem is that the stuff in the cosmos expands at the same rate in all directions. The rubber material in a balloon quickly expands in a direction tangent to the surface and slowly constricts in a radial direction... not really the best analogy for our cosmos.

That is not a "problem" if you understyand my model... which you obviously still do not "see." *If* our visible cosmos is *within* the "rubber" of the big balloon and it is expanding and thinning in thickness... all galaxies and 'stuff' we can see are spreading apart exactly as we can observe just like rubber molecules in all directions. (Laterally as the molecules of the balloon membrane and in the outer direction of expansion with the outer surface expanding faster than the inner surface... neither of which is within our range of cosmic vision...the 'cosmic event horizon.' And we certainly can not "see" beyond the "rubber" in either the direction of expansion or the direction of origin... so there is no way to verify the 'empty space' beyond or within this maxi-cosmic ballon. Tough situation! Science can not verify all cosmological visions! that does not keep us from seeing... or "envisioning" all possible cosmologies.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As far as your challenge goes... to show evidence or shut up...

envisioning is a legitimate part of science and certainly of cosmology.

Modest:

I'm just trying to impress upon you that balloons and branes are an effort to envision a physical theory which successfully describes the cosmos. You seem to be interpreting a nonexistent theory—which is fine, but worth pointing out—very far removed from the interpretation of FLRW or M-theory which actually can model the universe.

I have "envisioned" the above cosmos since I was a very young child. I do not present my mystic vision as confirmed by evidence in over-all pertspective. Science can not "see" beyond the membrane of the expanding balloon (if the vision is true.) However what we can see is consistent with this model in as it is all expandng (at an accellerating rate!) and within our local sphere of visibility the cosmos (galaxies and all are rubber molecules in the metaophore) it all looks like homogenious 'rubber' with everything moving apart from everything else.

I'll be taking a break from the science section now until my last two posts in 'spacetime' are released from censorship. That was the epitome of unfairness... whomever read the two posts in question left unanswered by Q's heavy authoritarian hand in sympathy with Maddog's inflamatory ("over and over and over") post in reply to my summary of the thread.

See you in "transpersonal psych' if you are interested.

Michael