ACG52

I didn't notice, is this in the nonsense thread... oh, wait, I see it is. Carry on.

Word salad that seems to have been assembled by choosing words at random.

But they're not really good ideas. You're coming up with them without knowing anything about the subject. Before you can come up with a good idea, you have to know something about what's going on in the universe.

Here's how it works. When a supernova blows, it radiates photons in a spherical shape. As the sphere's radius increases, so does it's surface area, and so the density of the photons from the supernova decrease. Since we know how intrinsically bright the supernova is, by comparing how bright it appears, with how bright we know it to be, we can derive a ratio, with can tell us how large is the surface area of the nova's light sphere, and so can tell us what the radius is, i.e. how far away it is.

As I pointed out, and as your wiki article points out, and as you ignored, new stars are not born in the galactic center. Most star nurseries are located in the spiral arms, where the gas concentrations are high. So far, your 'reasoning' appears to be of the type, "If A implies B, then D. This is really just empty speculation, and as such deserves a different thread.

There are currently nine different types of multiverse hypothesis.

That certainly does not belong in a science thread. I'd say it should go straight to the trash.

Asking question is attacking you? Not hardly. You still haven't answered any of the question put to you. Well, we have good observations of galaxies in the far past, and they do not support your points. As for 'small bang' generating mass, what exactly do you mean? But stars are not generated in the center, they form primarily in the spiral arms.

Then perhaps you should start a blog of your own, where you can pick and choose what questions you want asked. In the meantime, you haven't answered the question. Here's another one. What is the rate of your proposed matter generation? Why is this limited to the galactic center? Perhaps this thread should be in speculations.

A multiverse scenerio does indeed require another framework to support it. One problem with this being evidence of the Eternal Inflation hypothesis, is that in Eternal Inflation the inflaton field, which is what the universes bubble out of, is undergoing exponential inflation between the bubbles, so there's no way they could ever come in contact. Furthermore, the universes would have to be in contact with ours at BB plus 380000 years to leave an impression on the photon decoupling.

Tough. You haven't answered the question. How does your hypothetical matter generation effect the stars in the spiral arms, 26,000 lys away. You are postulating that matter appears, so your hypothesis should include a mechanism to produce the effects you're looking for. You see, first you make the prediction and explain why, and then you check it against the observational data. You want the data first, so you can then claim it supports your wild ass guess.

In fat, it is. You are trying to find an explanation which fits with your common, daily perceptions of the world. The universe doesn't work that way. Its the way nature is! If you dont like it, go somewhere else.... To another universe, where the rules are simpler Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy Prof Richard Fyenman (1979) .....

Since the universe is all of space, it contains itself. There is no 'outside'. No, it points to holes in our language and spatial perceptions.

Since it's all there is, the question doesn't have any meaning.

Why? The universe as a whole is all there is. There's nowhere else for it to be.

So this hypothetical new matter, (is it hydrogen, or just protons?) generates a repulsive force? Or is it your idea that the 'new matter' crowds things and pushes them outward?

Very large word salad.

How about neither.

"Absolute Relativity'? This is just meaningless word salad.

OK. So, what is the topic?

Why persist in quoting the op? It was old the first time it was posted, and copying it doesn't make it any better.

This thread belongs in the trash and the op should seek professional help.

Actually, from the very far away star, a great number of photons come from it. Type 1a supernovas can outshine the entire galaxy they are a part of.

This is complete gibberish. Are you writing in English?

I have a question, and I'll put it in it's most generalized form. Does any of this have anything to do with anything?