Cmb

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21828202

 

Some biting remarks back and forth in the comments section of this article. I am pro space exploration myself. I see nothing more important to us as a species than the question of "what are we a part of and how we came to be".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21866464

 

What interests me the most about this study is the temperature deviation and the age adjustment. I'm inclined to think that the temperature issue is a factor of some force or event. Such as two branes colliding or Dark flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

Of course this is just me postulating, but it would seem reasonable that some sort of influence is causing this deviation as opposed to that area becoming cooler/hot on its own. Thoughts?

[Aethelwulf]

''What interests me the most about this study is the temperature deviation and the age adjustment. ''

 

This is exactly what geometrogenesis wants to provide answers to, is by graphing the temperatures required for geometry in a universe. Before geometry existed, matter itself did not exist in this model. It is only when the universe has sufficiently cooled down can matter and geometry appear. Keep in mind, time is nothing but clocks ticking away and if there is no matter there is no time either; this coincides that geometry involves the four-dimensional manifold of the fabric of the universe, courtesy of Einstein no less.

 

In fact, Penrose recently employed this ''loss of time'' in his own variation of the cyclic universe hypothesis. So before the universe was cool, it's gravitational equilibrium would be zero [math]\omega^2 r = 0[/math] but gravitation itself is not really zero because there is present a non-zero curvature [math]R_{\alpha \beta} \ne 0[/math] tensor. Because there is an ever increasing geometry according the relativity and it approaching infinity as you reach a point is usually hard to reconcile for anyone. Counter-intuitively we must think this is wrong, because the degrees of freedom inside a sphere which is approaching a single point, must be finite in space. It seems a shame we will probably never know whether this prediction of relativity is true or whether there is a ''cut-off'' point as this event has happened in an era which is unobservable.

 

The thing about the Dark Flow, which was originally called the Great Attractor is that it is still heavily disputed; but the theory is interesting because it proposes as I am sure you know, that there is some source of gravitational pull outside of the universe. This is in a place where there is no gravitational equilibrium in a very early hot and dense state of the universe if we take the age seriously (before inflation) as mentioned in the article. Inflation of course meant that the universe cooled down quite rapidly and radiation formed into matter causing gravitational equilibrium locally, but on the global perspective, is being influenced towards a certain source of strong ''possibly'' gravitational influence.

 

But there is as you know, a big set of criticisms written in the wiki article which should be read.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

''Outside of the observable universe'' I should have said!