Many years ago, I started this thread. Recently I had another insight and it explains nearly everything that's thus far observed (accept dark matter). I still believe our whole understanding of the universe is wrong. What is observed as dark energy is observed in how very remote galaxies appear to skew towards one direction as I understand it. Here's my thoughts on the matter. What if the initial big bang is indeed the event horizon of a black hole. Then, what we observe as dark energy skewing the direction of galaxies is indeed caused by the rotational direction of the material about to enter the black hole. Due to the effects of the black hole, as you approach an event horizon, time itself will stop (as observed remotely). As you are further away from the event horizon, time gets faster until we get to where we are. It would also explain why it appears galaxies are moving faster and faster away from each other as time continues on as already being observed. The black hole idea explains everything. It also means we are talking about one heck of a black hole. lolol

The difficulties in science are a source of endless adventure. At school, we were taught much in history and science as if it were indisputable fact only to find out years later that the pros think very differently given all the new evidence that has come along and, being the philosophical type, I had to ask myself "how much do we actually know?" Scientific theory is like philosophy on a cosmic scale and I ventured once to ask somebody who knew better than me a question whereupon he proceeded to explain relativity to me and set me an image concerning movement. My meditations on that image turned my brain inside out. I couldn't possibly dispute your reasoning because I don't know or understand enough but I can understand your fascination with the subject.

I believe what he is saying is that the flow of time as we see it is influenced by our relational distance to one another (galaxies, star systems etc.) and the relation that each object holds relative to a super massive black hole. Thus galaxies will form from from nebulous material faster on one side of our galaxy, than they will on the other. Conversely, the rate of entropic gain will be higher on side of us than it will be on the other. If I am interpreting this correctly, it has interesting ramifications on all theories of stellar travel. Speed of travel, and rates of acceleration, would be different depending upon the direction of the travel. For distances within a star system the visible differences in speed would be negligible, but in travel between the stars, it would become a factor which have to be dealt with.

Interesting theory lylejk. I too am not knowledgeable enough on the physics to understand all the implications, but the ones I see up front make for a good think!

I feel that given our technological limitations at this time. That we have a very long way to go. When compared the age of our galaxy, we are a mere speck.
There is much knowledge to be gained and it will take 100 lifetimes, or more, to fully understand and even more lifetimes to comprehend.

Isn't Griatch an astronomer or in that field in some way? I would love to hear his input on your musings, Lyle. I find all things 'astronomical' fascinating.

There is a theory that our universe is just a figment and indeed we are actually part of a 2D (flat) hologram and we just perceive the 3 dimensions (along with time). The event horizon apotheosis would mean that indeed our universe is really just a hologram.

Figment, or filament?

Some credence to my thought experiment. But, instead of a 3D black hole, think of a 4D black hole.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/575297- ... -big-bang/

Hi,

Why I am not surprised that lylejk here is an expert in cosmology as well?

To asnwer your question in gimptalk:



Because the Universe is expanding, the lights are "dragged along" its expansion. So the distance between two galaxies is continually increasing, and very distant galaxies have recession velocities greater than the speed of light. Besides, cosmologists have not reached a definitive conclusion what happens at the Big Bang itself; for example whether our Universe indeed starts from a point (zero size) or it has finite size (Planck length). The moment of Big Bang itself is difficult to explain scientifically because at that time the Universe is extremely dense and extremely small, so to explain it, we need quantum theory of general relativity, which we don't have yet (string theory is one candidate, but it hasn't produced testable predictions, so we don't know whether it is correct or not).

Anyway this is a paper to explain common misconceptions about cosmological horizons, superluminal expansion of our Universe, etc:
Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

I love this stuff but it makes me crazy to think about, because we don't really know.

Yeah; sort have addressed this in my originating thread at GIMPTalk a few years back.

http://www.gimptalk.com/index.php?/topi ... riatch-or/