grimmy

OK, first things first. Klaynos, I apologize for reading into what you said. Second, I must admit that I have been having second thoughts, not only about how to develop this idea of mine into a true theory, but also on its fundamentals. I recently have taken all of your ideas and put them together, and have seen that there are some significant errors in what I posted as a "theory." I intend to begin work on a new idea, hopefully one that can be proven more easily, and also that does not cause as much negative controversy. Thank you all for your input.

"idiotic troll"...is that the technical term? or are you this mean to everybody that has a belief that differs from yours? guess what buddy...not everyone is going to agree with your crap anymore than theyll agree with mine. ive learned to accept that...maybe you should consider it....

Let me say these things: 1. I meant that no one has given me evidence AT ALL that the universe is NOT stationary. I apologize for the screw-up in my typing. I will accept INDISPUTABLE evidence to counter this. 2. I do not accept "redshift" as a reasonable counter to that "fact" that the universe is stationary, as one may use redshift to explain that when we see a planet, star, etc. moving away (hence observing redshift), it is merely moving away from us in its cycle of revolution. It will, in time, be moving towards us again during the course of the revolution. 3. After reading neonblack's post that explains what I must do to indeed make my statement a true theory, I am not only drawing back on the concept that it is a theory, but am also questioning the mere fact that the universe is expanding, thanks to the information provided to me by a friend who is heavily into science. I know that this renders my idea nule and void, but this "stationary idea" seems like something worth investigating. 4. Though the universe may not be stationary with the fact that it may well be moving through "space" which is not an actual part of the true universe, my definition of stationary (in this context) is that it is neither contracting nor expanding.

Ok you said, "they don't apply at all at a sub atomic level, " refering to Newton's laws, However isn't it apparent that our subject is not anything on the sub atomic level; we are talking about to universeal level. Also, thanks to neonblack for giving me constructive critizism instead of not even giving what I have to say a chance. Finally, just because an imperfect, doesn't-know-everything human says that we need to eliminate some theories when we have too many already, doesn't change the fact that you have not yet given me sufficient evidence to prove to me that the universe may actually be stationary. Yes, this may mean that i need to revise my theory, however shooting down an idea without finding some way to test it, as I recall, is not science.

OK, you say that science is not there to be interpretted. But, to question this, I'm actually going to go against my theory, just to get an answer from you that I must say I'm very curious to hear. How do we know that the universe is actually expanding? Maybe it's shrinking. Maybe it's stationary and the motions we see in the celestial bodies are merely them revolving around another celestial body. These are all subjective arguement. None are objective seeing as no matter how hard we try, until we go out there, we cannot prove or disprove any of these ideas. That means that science, or at least this area of it, are open to intrepretation. What would your thoughts be on that?

"newtons laws are inaccurate. it's still taught because they are extremely simple and allow an easier transition to einsteinian mechanics later on." One question: if these laws are in any way, shape, or form inaccurate, why would they still be taught? It cannot be for the sole purpose that they are simple. If they are still taught, then there must be at least some truth to them.

"Thigs don't need an edge to be finite, like the surface of a sphere or taurus." Is an edge only a sharp corner? On a sphere, the outer layer is still an edge. It's just a flat edge.

To my statement that the universe would never reach thermal equilibium, you said: "Do you have any quantitative evidence suggesting this? Considering that according to standard models that don't involve this force, it's not supposed to be happening for a few million years." My question for you is, does a model make it true? Guess what? Before the 1500's so-called models "proved" the Earth to be flat. That turned out wrong. I'm just using the way I interpret science (which is just as good as any other way, at least in this field) to propose a theory so others can see things my way. Maybe your models are wrong. Maybe mine is wrong. Isn't that what science is about? Testing theories?

For one thing, I believe we have an issue as to what "reasoning" means. Reasoning is using a thought, true or otherwise, to 'reason' until you arrive at an answer. Mathematical reasoning uses math. I did exactly that. Secondly, maybe it's not a black hole. Maybe it's something else. Either way, there is a force in the center of the universe that is keeping your so-called universal thermal equilibrium from occuring. Third, kiddy physics? Is that the techical term? Newton's laws are in effect at the universal level. Remember, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. The universe is an example of that. Is that "kiddy physics?" If so, why does one of Newton's laws apply but the other does not? Finally, non-existant edges of the universe. That would make the universe an infinate object, whereas I believe (though I might have heard wrong, but I still believe it) that nothing at all is infinate. I have seen no proof of anything in the universe being infinate, why should the universe itself be aby different?

That's not the mathematical reasoning i refered to. This is: "this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. " "if the force of "M” raises to “M>0”, it may..." "It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true." I also refered to "M" as "the result of the equation “’m’ + ‘-m’ = ‘M’”" Please take this into consideration>

"Also, this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. Not only is “M” the total momentum of the universe (0), but it is the variable which, if changed even the slightest bit, may have dire repercussions on the universe. If the force of “M” raises to “M>0”, it may result in the expansion of the universe to becoming an uninhabitable area. It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true. This would result in the universe’s central black hole possibly “sucking in” the universe." I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "mathematical predictions," but it does present these situations using mathematical reasoning.

I have devolped this theory based on my interrpretation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, along with other theories involved with this area of space. I welcome any comments regarding it to see what you all think and how i may improve/elaborate upon my theory. Here it is: I would like to take this time to introduce my newest theory. This theory not only states that the outer edge of the universe is expanding, but that it’s core is pulling it in. To understand this, we must first understand how the outer edge of the universe operates. In theory, whether through a “big bang” or otherwise, the universe is expanding. I agree with this theory. There is ample evidence to support it. Telescope images have shown galaxies, stars, etc. to be moving apart. However, my theory uses this as a base, as well as Newton’s third law of motion. According to Newton’s third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Now, if we give the outward momentum of the name of “m”, we must conclude that, as is stated in Newton’s third law of motion, that an equal and opposite movement, which we shall refer to as “-m”, must exist. What might cause such a force? There are several options. One is, as is widely believed, that there is a massive black hole at the center of any given galaxy, holding it together. This belief may also be applied to the universe. There may well be a massive black hole at the core of our universe. It does not, however, pull the universe against the force of “m”. It actually “blocks” the force of “m” from expanding the universe to the point of “stretching” or “breaking”, in which case it would be no longer inhabitable. This black hole protects the inhabitants of its universe by holding it together, mush like the rotation of a star’s core keeps the star from falling apart. Also, this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. Not only is “M” the total momentum of the universe (0), but it is the variable which, if changed even the slightest bit, may have dire repercussions on the universe. If the force of “M” raises to “M>0”, it may result in the expansion of the universe to becoming an uninhabitable area. It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true. This would result in the universe’s central black hole possibly “sucking in” the universe. Out of all the forces known to man (and even of those not known), “M” (the result of the equation “’m’ + ‘-m’ = ‘M’”) is the most important due to the significance it plays it keeping the universe inhabitable. Thank you for your time. JC "Omega" Alz