Sleeping Troll

OK, so how do we figure the unverse is a bubble in a multiverse?

Has anyone ever considered what the universe would look like to an observer that was not trapped in space/time? Try this: Picture two balloons at some distance apart inflating at an accelerating rate, one observer is receding at the same accelerating rate the other is stationary. What can we say about their observations?

Since the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html a parabolic function) wouldn't it follow that if we try to look back to the "Big Bang" we would see a false horizon? If you view a parabolic curve with limits of infinity at x=1 (y=x^2) there appears to be a right angle. Is the "Big Bang" actually at x=1? If so, the universe has no beginning and the "Big Bang" is an illusion. If we could travel back 13.7 billion years, we would still perceive a "Big Bang" that occured 13.7 billion years ago!

There would be limits on variations of the (let's call the "dance" a system) system. If the system were not within these parameters the atom would not be coherent. (sorry, no, I don't have the parameters) My realization was not only that electrons were falling though the nucleus, but rather that in a rythmic system we might detect electrons moving at high velocities through the nucleus and some of the associated protons as different particles with a slightly greater mass than that of the proton and electron, namely "neutrons". Actually no atom would be permanently coherent, given enough time even the most stable, simplest atom would eventually fall apart I think that average time for a given element is called "half-life"? Also in my current model, protons are free to repel each other away from the nucleus, there is interaction between the electrons and the nucleus and the whole thing is a pretty loose conglomeration of particles, I think perhaps bound states are the only hope for a working rythmic system that can be called an atom or molecule. Perhaps the strong force is our perception of this rythmic system of energies and particles? I say my "current model", that was then, now I have a much different view on things. At one point I was ready to call quantum physics hog wash... now I think I may be seeing Higgs in all its colors... and the source of Dark energy! But our discussion is still at "then".

What is the universe expanding into? A little experiment... looking to the north you spot a super nova near the edge of the observable universe, looking to the south you spot another super nova near the edge of the observable universe. Would super nova (a) exist for an observer on super nova (b)? http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html T = 0 is a point in ... ? I don't know, what? If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate then 13.8 billion years old is an erroneous figure. The beginning of time is an oxymoron. doesn't the universe include that "what"? These aren't stupid questions, they are questions that need answers! I tend to agree with Aristotle, "The universe has always been pretty much as it is now and it always will be." The consequence of this is that the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite then there could be no Big Bang. The only way we could perceive a big bang is if the universe and everything in it were expanding at an accelerating rate. If we look back from a point on a parabolic curve we will perceive at the limits of our instruments of observation a beginning... this would be an illusion!

OK, then I have some questions... If there is no center is there an edge? When did time begin? If the universe is a finite entity, where is the back pressure?

I believe I have found the source of (Dark Energy), but we are still a long way from that... I believe it will be worth your while to bear with me! If gravity were so strong as you say, then the Big Bang would have collapsed before it started! Ahh, the strong and weak nuclear forces have saved us all! Grip that pen (or pencil) between your thumb and forefinger and let it go... If everything in the universe were expanding at an accelerating rate, things would seem to attract one another. Also 78 km/megaparsec (3.26 million light years) is static... http://www.nobelpriz...2011/press.html

So says our present understanding... of course our present understanding also says that force extends to infinity at a strength determined by the inverse square... well that is except for the strong and weak nuclear forces. do you have a pen or pencil?

If the universe and everything in the universe where expanding at an accelerating rate, how could you detect that?

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html

So glad we got to this! Yes, gravity becomes a huge problem! I cannot tell you how long I suffered trying to find the answer... Suppose that gravity rather than being a force acting within this universe was a force acting upon this universe?

No, not dodging the question, I just thought that the "dance" explanation answered your inquiry also. This "dance" does not need to be perfect, but it has to be close enough that the atom holds together, hence bound states. Also the "dance" becomes more critical with heavier atoms, so, no need for the weak force to account for atomic decay.

A better question is how does collision occur at the subatomic level, being that what causes ordinary objects to appear solid is the electron cloud. I had begun modeling my atom with directx when that question occured to me, what I found (quite by accident) was that it was possible that there are no neutrons and that what we perceive as neutrons are actually electrons in close proximity to a nucleus of protons. I realized at this point that the "dance" that I described above was more complex, and that electrons were periodically falling through the nucleus. I accidently created a model in directx which demonstrated such a dance, unfortunately it was much to slow to garner much understanding from. I am back to the mind experiment.

So in 1983 I began trying to compose an atomic model that did not require them... That has lead me to some very interesting places! Rather than restate all that I have found, let me propose my first model and confront the arguments against it. I think it will keep you quite entertained! As an example of my model of the helium atom, we can start at a point where there are 2 neutrons residing together in the nucleus. At two distant points we have 2 more neutrons: n nn n Gravity pulls the 2 distant neutrons to the nucleus where they collide with the 2 neutrons there. The neutrons "at rest" gain energy from the colliding neutrons and decay into proton electron pairs which repel each other. The electrons travel at a greater velocity due to their lesser mass. At some point the repelling forces of the like charges diminishes with loss of proximity and the pairs recombine to become neutrons, which fall back to the nucleus and the process repeats. I didn't say this was correct! I said it was where I started... Hit me with your arguments, I think I have them all covered! (I have a few that you probably haven't thought of)

there are not different types of energy, just different manifestations of energy, in fact matter is just a manifestation of energy. That we perceive the two as separate is just a measure of the limit of human comprehension.