kristalris

Oh well that's also possible without drinks. And, I'm not claiming to have solved it, or that I can. What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having a spiraling galaxy and that the cake scenario isn't. The first is easy to envisage the later impossible. If not please show me. What I am claiming is that the bubble scenario is consistent with having large cosmological structures such as the great wall and that the cake scenario isn't. If the later is, please show me. The cake scenario is in fact belief in magic given an infinite (or even not infinite) universe filled with something at the BB suddenly everywhere expanding. Then you say it is what we observe. Well no it isn't for there still is a possible common sense explanation of bubbles. (Edit: taking an infinite universe filled with something all over the place expanding, means logically that then our volume of observable universe has infinitely thick walls. That can't expand. So then the universe must be finite and like a cake needs a boundary. Is the Higgs field from before or after the BB? If you don't know how then so shore it's a cake scenario? If Higgs was there than the expansion going > c is impossible to understand, for we have never observed even light doing that other than a photon being able to hold c in a curve. If Higgs formed after the BB you also exceed c and then even locally. It has to form prior to the rest following. Not very elegant. having a stable universe with bubbles is much and much more simple eleviating these problems.) The "show us the math" ploy is like looking at the water streaming upwards from Escher and saying - rightly so - that you've got the math's proving that. I without further math's say that the math's are correct concerning the height of the respective towers (in effect nicking your math's) , yet the conclusion that the water streams upwards is wrong. Asking you to join me in your minds eye walking to the side of set structure seeing then in an axiomatic way that water streaming upwards simply can't be. And, I provide you with an alternate simple common sense scenario. The later in no way evidently at odds with anything known to science. The more so that if one assumes as I do - and I guess you too - that there are a few basic deterministic starting points of it all that logically interact in a way that will ultimately fit a set of simple mathematical formulas like E = mc2 then one should expect these formulas to shine through, as they do at the scale we look at it. (Analogies like: Normal distribution, yin and yang all over the place etc. Nowhere something from nothing, except with illusionists and people believing in magic etc.) Well then don't expect magic on the large scale. I'm only pointing out that there is a simple common sense scenario that hasn't been look at - at all. Ergo first try and integrate what you've got and only then venture in detail or start extrapolating mathematics.

Thanks, I think I've finally arrived. A curved geometry (= 2D) would thus entail that which ever way I go 3D I'll always come back where I started if I were to travel in a straight line. Okay the universe with bubbles is then indeed IMO best described as being flat geometry. That then leaves us with the question how to best describe what we do have on data concerning what we already have observed, in order to see if the observed law of Hubble is due to the galaxies accelerating themselves (my position) or due to expansion of the space in between (Big Bang). IMO the best (even only correct) way of doing that is naively taking all observations in their purist essence i.e. most simple form and roughly combine them to see what pictures / analogies spring to mind in comparison thus to everything we think we know. Working thus with pictures and thought experiments attempting to bring all observations on one denominator. So not at all trying in this inductive faze to get better predictions, but at first simply try to organize it all in one or more integral pictures with what we have so far. Because if there is one set of basic/ simple rules and constants at the heart of it, the deterministic part of it as the mathematics of that should shine through at all levels. (As does ying and yang, statistics, normal distribution etc. etc.) So must then an elegant picture arise, that should point the way as where to start looking further. No speculation thus, and no predictions as yet either. Just laying the ground work.

From the Wikipedia page I gave earlier I read this part as showing an observed anomaly with Hubble that can't be corrected with gravity or any other correction. I see now that it can also read it to mean that there is no such anomaly observed. The Local Group (a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies containing, among others, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy) is part of a supercluster called the Local Supercluster, centered near the Virgo Cluster: although they are moving away from each other at 967 km/s as part of the Hubble flow, this velocity is less than would be expected given the 16.8 million pc distance due to the gravitational attraction between the Local Group and the Virgo Cluster.[133] Edit: had this of course been an anomaly that fits bubbles: i.e. curvature then that would of knocked the flat universe for six. Now the discussion remains open either way for we simply then can't get good enough measurements to cleanse the issue. Bubbles probably needs a whopping sphere from which the bubbles emerge. Easily perceived as flat. Quote They are not the same, as I have pointed out. The underlying math, should it exist, would thus not be the same. End qoute This I don't understand. Hubble only describes what we observe out of our bubble / raisin (?). Whether due to the cake expanding or the bubbles / raisins moving what could be the mathematical difference? Also the corrections of time would in both instances be the same. It should be the same from every observed bubble or raisin. The only difference is that it is inconceivable that all bubbles stem from the bubble from which others are then observed: hence the need for curvature. The cake scenario doesn't have that problem. That doesn't in itself provide any advantage. If there are no observations / data to cleanse it either way both scenario's are equal. Neither or both Big Bang and bubbles scenario are then speculative. The one with the more math or support by cosmologists doesn't thus become more probable. The one that best fits an integral scenario best incorporating all known data does that, math or no math. That is the ground work that is to be done.

That it got a bit off topic okay, and I'll show that the discussion isn't speculative. Apart from that, part of the discussion is still in the old thread. No worries I'll react to some of it in a general way: The expanding space cake with raisins when one takes any raisin in the center of it as long as the sphere around that raisin isn't outside the cake is an excellent analogy of the Law of Hubble as I understand it. Being 3D as such superior to the 2D balloon surface. The reason of preference in both cases I guess is the general idea that we can observe no center in the universe and that most cosmologists believe the cosmos to be flat as far as we can observe. What I'm saying with the Champagne bubble analogy is that you can see the Law of Hubble in a different way namely that the raisins in the cake move in all directions, like non expanding bubbles from the observer. I don't see why this doesn't fit the mathematics of the law of Hubble. The problem lies not with that law but with other observations. Namely it then requires having a center in the universe, which hasn't been observed. Now if we only take the Law of Hubble sec, then both the cake and the bubbles are on paradigm par. Same mathematics, same evidence only two different ways of looking at it. They then stand in science equally side by side. Both just as good. Then looking at further evidence should show one being better than the other still doesn't make one speculative and the other not so. There are but three pieces of further evidence as far as I know: 1. the fact that radiation of the Big Bang / beginning is all around us and 2. the measurement of a flat universe within 1% margin of accuracy as depicted in the first OP and 3. the observed lagging behind of raisins (i.e. galaxies) to the sides of our galaxy. Because it isn't possible to reconcile the observed movement in point 3 of all raisins in the cake to our sides falling away with the Big Bang, when the latter is seen as something that happened everywhere. It can't be explained to gravity because that should then effect our galaxy as well and we observe that it doesn't. This already falsifies the position that there is no center in our universe. This is even more so because it is possible to at least dream up a way to reconcile point 1 with having a center in our universe via having many sources of radiation below us when given that we are moving at the points where the bubbles originate. That this is then speculative is immaterial because point 3 has already falsified the position that there is no center. The speculation bars the counter of non falsification so to speak. And further more the measurement of flatness needs to be shown to have been done in all axes and that bubbles requires more curve than fits 1 % accuracy. That too doesn't bar the falsification. The argument of the comunis opinio of cosmologists held in such a way as to state all equal or other views speculative is an argument of authority. In science and even in cosmology and physics several conflicting views can stand side by side without calling all but one speculative. The bubbles BTW is based on the same mathematics as the cake.

I would take all positions of galaxies indeed with the correction astronomers make I guess on the time traveled by the SOL. I'm working on a same sort of sketch, with your point A in the center of a cartwheel. A singularity from which the bubbles stem. If you let several start at the same time on every axes and they accelerate you can draw (virtual) circles through the dots at t1, t2 etc every time exponentially further away: i.e. a 2D picture of the law of Hubble in 2D. Now this isn't what we observe. For that we need to go to the say t2 position on the y axes. There we again make a spoke wheel this time however as our observation lines (the bubbles (galaxies) still coming from A). The bubbles that started with us are then on the circle and are observed to recede. Yet are also accelerating away from us along the x axes at the level of t2 on the y axes. This is what we observe in our larger or smaller observational circle (that doesn't include A) from view point t2. By moving point A further down on the y axes the circle will more and more straighten out. and become more flat. Not the bubble of t2 but t3 (or what ever higher number) will be to the right of us with an acceleration away from us closely resembling Hubble. This we observe via red-shift. However the residing we observe of seeing what we might think when assuming more than one bang is a t2 yet is a t3 bubble both slowly lagging behind. This lagging is not observed via red-shift but via the place it holds in our sky. That fits that observation => ONLY that fits both observations and the OP providing they measured all axis and the curvature fits the 1% margin. The further away A and the larger A is the more parallel the spokes will become. A simple model then for what we observe in our visible circle (our visible universe). So what we need to do is get all observations on the same denominator within that visible circle so to speak. We also know that our bubbles are traveling trough a field (Higgs or what ever) and interact in part with that field in a "same stuffness" something from nothing way. We also observe that the field is best seen in a Euclidean way and the bubbles are best described in a non- Euclidean way. We also observe a curved space around our bubbles. Having them suck the same stuff in creating gravity nicely fits this model via the same existing model of GR (for bubbles) and SR (for light). Edit further more having bubbles also leaves an unchanged (Higgs etc? We know there is at least a Higgs field in need of stretching when we hold a Big Bang cake view) field for else how come that stays the same and also GR stays the same, and not stretch or fade away? What we in our integral intuitive inductive model also need to incorporate is the observational machine "brain" and the interaction of that machine with other not quite similar brains (or personalities). You can build this one denominator view out in the same open-minded naive way until all known observations fit in our observational circle and later on 3D sphere. Only after that you determine what is the most simple way of doing that. This is where Occam is to be applied and not later (or sooner for that matter). And only after that do we start extrapolating, further modeling, and guessing and testing via more rigorous checking in the non naive deductive way. Edit 2 the fact that we can't ascertain where the big bang/ bangs are coming from on basis of the radiation can have several explanations, like if you're submerged in water in the dark it is difficult to know what is top and what is bottom. In this case we know, we are moving up along the y axes, and so are the rest of the observable bubbles in our observable circle ergo the other way is down.

It indeed says that you can't observe the future. Yet you can influence the future. And, when I'm the first bubble I can only influence the past, which is impossible. Because how does then what happened in the past catch up with me? I even accelerate away from that. So I need to trow something ahead of the bubble that comes back at me after having been changed by something after I threw it. Edit: the problem lies in the concept of relativity and the fact that it works so miraculously well - in certain areas- but not in others. GR and QM not being married. Time IMO is a convention and is thus what the clock you use reads. Time doesn't stop when you drop a sand clock. Nor does it slow down by accelerating an atom clock, it slows the clock down in such an accurate way that you can adjust your (atom) clock to is a far more common sense way to see that. And then it doesn't touch the mathematics involved in GR/ SR or what not. It all works when used where it applies. Edit 2 Even when I was to see your parallel bubbles as an old cardiogram written with parallel needles on a paper roll that moves past then the lines must converge in order to influence one and other. Then indeed you only see the past. All change happens in the now. Further more it doesn't explain the difference of what happens in the non expanding bubbles in reference to the expanding gaps between the bubbles i.e. galaxies.

It is strange to see the apatite for the bizarre in stead of simple common sense. If we are the first bubble not being able to look into the future then I wonder why when we are in our bubble i.e. galaxy that we can interact with the past creating our future?. I..e like an international phone call via an old ocean cable. I speak to you after a while you receive my info you react to it and later I react on that. If we are the first bubble as a galaxy such an interaction with other older and younger galaxies wouldn't be possible. On the way our brain works: there was a brilliant BBC documentary years ago with psychiatrist neurologist Oliver Sacks (can't find it any more) where he talked about a born blind patient that had received successful eye treatment yet couldn't see. So Sacks was asked to see what was wrong. He took the guy to the zoo and said look a gorilla. He saw nothing. Then he let him feel around a bronze gorilla for the blind. This he was used to. As soon as he got that analogy he spotted the gorilla in the cage and soon after that trees, Sachs etc.. At the moment there are also nice documentaries that show how our brain is tricked by illusionists. Our brain corrects the input with the wrong analogy. Which of course usually works out well correcting what we see, towards what actually is.

Because it can be integrated in one picture. It is the only way and thus the simplest way to do so. BTW it is a scientific / neurological fact that our brains can only make head or tales out of anything only via analogies. So the Lex parsimony forces you to first concentrate on integrating all observations that we have and making one picture out of it comparing that to what we already think we know = via analogy. Only then are you allowed to start modeling. Because much of what we have observed is contained in models we already have much of the mathematics on yet to be integrated part issues. Such as the law of Hubble. There are thus two ways of looking at Hubble 1. expansion => extrapolated to impossible to integrate yet even via analogy big bang or 2. bubbles => easily integrated analogy and readily available different mutually at odds with each other models. BTW more smaller bangs per time frame is easier to deal with that one big bang in order to explain the subtleties that we subsequently observe, via one mechanism. A blunt big bang is less elegant in explaining the elegance we observe than champagne bubbles are. Do that differently and predictably your not integrated modeling and extrapolating on part issues will more and more complicate the picture. Making it harder and harder to spot the integrated picture yet indeed acquiring more relevant data in the process. As we have observed the past 100 years with DM, DE et cetera. I.e. complicating in stead of simplifying matters. This I don't understand. Where do your bubbles originate? Every where? And do they subsequently fly in all directions? In my analogy I simply describe exactly that what the model of Hubble as I understand it describes: the further the galaxy is from us (in all directions) the faster it moves away from us. The only observed hiccup / anomaly is that we are not stationary in reference to all galaxies around us. We are moving ahead of the ones next to us. (Edit this is thus not hypothetical but observed. Not having our galaxy accelerating faster than others that started at the same time needs a curved space, that is sufficiently flat as not to infringe the OP observation, yet sufficiently curved to get the angular momentum to fit Hubble) That observation is not only at odds with SR but also with Hubble. If I understand that correctly. It can only be integrated if all bubbles start off from the same dome like floor at different times. That is then consistent with Hubble. That can also be married with SR. Angular momentum also provides the needed / observed acceleration in the way Hubble requires. The further off the more acceleration. And it provides the observed lagging behind. Providing thus the only integrated way to reconcile all observations. Subsequently that shows you where to put your time and effort in further investigating this.

Exactly, the only problem with the OP is then that bubbles need also to accelerate at the same rate sideways (= Hubble). That is only feasible if they start off from a curved i.e. dome shape in the "floor" so to speak. This dome must thus have a curvature that fits the needed angular momentum. This then would fit the observed lagging behind of the "bubbles" to our sides that should of started off at the same time. (And when it has all been built up by some basic particles under a mathematical simple set of rules the fact that MN provides us with this illusion of an expanding universe isn't due to chance. I.e. built in from the start.) The bubbles could come about the same way as a CME from the sun. Shooting a galaxy off every now and then (long time) like a slowly swiveling AA gun providing thus a picture like the night sky over Bagdad when the shock and awe bombing attack started, with all the tracers arcing the sky. Yet then tracers as bubbles that keep on accelerating. Thus creating the pillar like structures we readily observe. This is a much more simple and elegant analogy then one with a Big Bang. It is much easier to integrate that into one model then any other way. A mathematical model / models that we BTW already have if you ignore all extrapolations built in to the current models. As one should. First integrate all observations also via analogy and only then make the choice where to extrapolate and / or guess where to look next. (The further analogy that it then thus resembles things we know like a cutaway of earth with a sky a crust, magma and core is then easily spotted. Albeit then as metaphysics. Not metaphysical is then given bubbles as a fact that this is trough the crust of the Higgs field providing actual mass to the bubble providing thus more momentum and thus having it accelerate trough the crust/ Higss medium = DE. Mass out of medium = under pressure in medium = gravity. The higher v the more mass per time unit => DM. Medium moving in at same rate as bubbles move out. No beginning no end. Simple integrated analogy picture. Providing thus an easy bases for further integrating it all such as GR & QM in a testable way. Easy to see lot of hard work to do. => quickly puts you in the right direction where to start looking. )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pQHX-SjgQvQ The medieval help desk https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=601817826572591&set=a.157796790974699.40772.157750900979288&type=1&relevant_count=1 When you use it on your feet you'll certainly also believe that you are able to walk on water.

Ah I get it, the depiction I gave of the universe is some sort of Aitof projection. So the if indeed all furthest galaxies are roughly at the same distance from us then indeed our observable universe is a sphere. The geometry is then dependent on the question whether this observed universe is flat in all three axes. I'm trying to find the Wikipedia page where it was stated that observations show that we are moving in a direction via a vector straight through the black hole in the center of the Milky Way. This due to the observation that the galaxies to the sides are slowly falling back. This would entail a dome shape geometry with our Milky Way at the top of the dome moving up. The geometry on the both other axes should then be flat when cut at a right angle to the dome. You then inherently observe thus a slightly curved thick crust. Even when the radiation measured from the big bang comes from all sides so that we can't ascertain where the bang took place isn't inconsistent with such a center existing. If these field lines arc like a huge magnetic field and cover a great deal of the "floor" then we would be emerged from all sides by this field. This then doesn't imply only one big bang but is also consistent with a continuous banging of bubbles with adjunct debris that didn't form into strings / SM particles, after the bang. How far we can observe light (etc) also depends on the question whether light even outside any gravitational field travels in a straight line. I guess not so that would inherently mean that there is a maximum observable limit. Seeing a top or a bottom then depends on the thickness of the crust in relation to the curve of a photon that travels then only in a seeming straight line. So this begs the question do we indeed observe galaxies to the sides of our Milky Way slowly drop back as I understood we did? Being thus at odds with the OP unless it falls within the 1% measurement error. Edit found it, this means IMO that the geometry with the disk of our galaxy flat on top must be dome shaped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Velocity Velocity[edit] Although special relativity states that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the Milky Way, the Galaxy does have a velocity with respect to cosmological frames of reference. One such frame of reference is the Hubble flow, the apparent motions of galaxy clusters due to the expansion of space. Individual galaxies, including the Milky Way, have peculiar velocities relative to the average flow. Thus, to compare the Milky Way to the Hubble flow, one must consider a volume large enough so that the expansion of the Universe dominates over local, random motions. A large enough volume means that the mean motion of galaxies within this volume is equal to the Hubble flow. Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second with respect to this local co-moving frame of reference.[131] The Milky Way is moving in the general direction of the Great Attractor and other galaxy clusters, including the Shapley supercluster, behind it.[132] The Local Group (a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies containing, among others, the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy) is part of a supercluster called the Local Supercluster, centered near the Virgo Cluster: although they are moving away from each other at 967 km/s as part of the Hubble flow, this velocity is less than would be expected given the 16.8 million pc distance due to the gravitational attraction between the Local Group and the Virgo Cluster.[133] Another reference frame is provided by the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The Milky Way is moving at 552 ± 6 km/s[11] with respect to the photons of the CMB, toward 10.5 right ascension, −24° declination (J2000 epoch, near the center of Hydra). This motion is observed by satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) as a dipole contribution to the CMB, as photons in equilibrium in the CMB frame get blue-shifted in the direction of the motion and red-shifted in the opposite direction.[11] end quote: Seriously? Yes. You can read it in your own books on the subject. In effect I've nicked all your observations and mathematics, and provide an other way of looking at it without infringing on them. (= a true paradigm on par) Although I then don't and the other does have mathematical testable predictions really doesn't come into play. I don't extrapolate just compare to what is observed. (Although I can of course provide testable predictions without the mathematics as yet. As said not my job to do that.) The protocols of science must adhere to the fundamental rule of Occams razor i.e. the Lex Parsimony. In that comparison my bubbles are on par with your big bang yet more simple. Occam then rules what is the only valid view in science, which you can read in this thread. And that goes before you start off doing any sort of extrapolation or prediction. The protocol of science depicted in the Lex parsimony dictates this as the ground work to be done before doing that.

Ah, no, the Bubbles have reached paradigm par with the Big Bang. Not having to predict anything as yet. No speculation an exact scientific fact thus. This would only be different if the big bang theory is based on measurements done - in - other galaxies. We know that isn't the case. That is a yet to be proven prediction indeed that all came about in just one bang. Now the OP with its measured flat (= 2D) space (=3D) can only thus be seen as a thick flat crust. Depicted in the squashed sphere with the black bit in the middle because our Milky Way bars the view. (Edit: for otherwise if you see it as flat in all directions then it is an Euclidean cube space containing an also observed non Euclidean curved space as I indeed believe it both at the same time to be, yet I doubt to be already measurable because at a vastly different scale both larger and smaller. So I guess the measured flatness of the OP is only in one axes? (= a much smaller scale namely to our furthest observable galaxies) And the lot of work to be done is for a great part already done of which part was given in a closed thread. The evidence is BTW the same evidence you are using. So then I can claim parity.) Well that can be infinite indeed yet then at odds with the also measured observation of our galaxy moving in relation to the rest frames. Galaxies far away to the sides are dropping away slowly contrary to the ones in front and behind. We are - observed - to be moving to one of the flat sides. => slightly curved space BTW also consistent with the claimed 1% accuracy of the OP. So if the OP fits the big bang theory it then is at odds with this other measurement. Bubbles isn't, it is married to - all - observations. But then it is a slightly curved crust with two flat convex and concave sides. Well to shift this paradigm into gear extrapolate that. You can dispense with the formalities I guess, to see what you get. Then you get to the question which to choose from the infinite flat space of the OP or what you get when you extrapolate a - scientifically observed - flat slightly curved thick disk.

Yes and no. New galaxies as the bubbles could be born all the time. This doesn't mean that all of the universe / cosmos wasn't there all the time. It only means it is probably cyclic. Owing to the way you measure it the Big Bang is seemingly at the same moment in time. Yet you don't need a big bang at all to describe all we observe. Only our Milky Way was banged into existence at that moment. If you look at the depiction I gave the black bit is our Milky Way and it is traveling / accelerating - we observe - towards the flat bit above or below in that same picture. It is broader to the sides because there you have more galaxies and large clusters of them perceived as only galaxies because of the distance. That these are persieved moving away and falling behind a bit at the same acceleration away from us in all directions can only be explained in a flat crust of a sphere. Also explaining the measured flat geometry. Like the flat earth it only seems so.

The visual universe to the naked eye is indeed a sphere, yet I guess the model corrects this putting all objects where they should be given the time that light needed to travel. And I guess using advanced instruments to look further we end up with a flattish universe that is portrayed in most depictions resembling a rugby ball spinning on the ground or squashed sphere: http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/scientists-unveil-3d-map-of-the-universe-complete-with-43000-galaxies/ This I can reconcile with a flat universe notion. The sphere flattens out. So I guess there are mathematical models / a model that sec describes what we observe and the accelerations and vectors without extrapolating anything. Just simply describing what we observe. Only after that should you try and extrapolate. Otherwise I'm at a loss why talk about a flat universe at all, unless you are extrapolating beyond what we observe. The problem with a sphere expanding the way that is depicted is part of it will very quickly hit c. Now I guess the model doesn't want that to happen. Having bubbles you don't have that problem. Apart from that a bubble scenario also extremely nicely fits the observed super clusters http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif Like looking into a glass of Champagne.

exactly, cheers!

Well if you have a model depicting what we observe mathematically and only that what we observe without extrapolating that, then you have a boundary, namely the observable limit. Which rises the further we can observe. If the model doesn't have a boundary then it is extrapolating further than our observations. This model has as I understand it curvature and deals with a 3D space and movement i.e. time. Edit: so a 2D analogy is not up to scratch unless 3D which is possible with the balloon as shown. Because the observed curvature can be extrapolated to a sphere or balloon then. All bubbles are not at the same speed yet accelerate, not exactly as Champagne bubbles but with a constant acceleration and, the bubbles don't expand but are like raisins. The curvature of the model is needed for the observed lagging behind more and more of the bubbles/ raisins to the sides. => we observe that everything is moving in one direction albeit slightly curved as I understand. If indeed our universe is a large sphere with a skin like stable crust the historical rise in observations is consistent with that. The further we can observe up or down will yield no new galaxies. For the simple reason then there are none there. Only to the sides will this then continue at first like the OP seemingly more flat and then becoming a bit more down curved again. That then will probably be the maximum observational limit assuming no light can travel outside the crust.

Okay, that then begs the question in what respects the two analogies fail, given that these two analogies can be combined to better represent the given single model? A model inherently only dealing with observed interactions. And what the OP changes in the former single model other than making it more flat. So in what does a Champagne bubble analogy fail to represent this in a slightly (less curved due too the OP) stationary cake shape? You at least then have a better single analogy of your unchanged model. Edit: And might I add the way in which our observations have grown in time from a sphere like observable universe to a more and more (due to the OP as well) flat curved space cake form in which un-expanding raisins (DM) accelerate like Champagne bubbles (DE) from the bottom to the top of the cake, and away to the sides due to curvature of the cake as well. BTW 2 mathematically extrapolating this rise in observations from sphere to a flatter cake still (OP) makes for a very large un-obervable hollow sphere.

Begging the question whether we have one model in part explained with two analogies explaining parts of that model or two models with each an analogy cake and balloon respectively? I thought that both analogies concern the same model. Anyway even given two models then both clearly only deal with part of combining all observations, otherwise you would only have one superior model. Combining the analogies given that the analogies fit mutatis mutandis also combines the models each in part combining all modeled observations. BTW the combined analogy doesn't entail an observed center or what not outside our observed universe with us inherently in the center (exit 2D as a complete / superior model). I thought (given two models) the "cake" model not explaining the observed lagging what the "balloon" model does explain. I.e. it is curved yet expanding. This curved bit isn't covered by the "cake" model. Yet the "balloon" model has then given the correctness of the OP become a larger balloon or improbable, begging the question how the OP deals with the observed lagging at the edges.

Well 2D or 3D and having boundaries, if we take the position that we not assume anything then the boundaries are "visible" to the extent that that is as far as we can observe. So the cake has become larger and larger the last hundred years even without the also observed expansion. We can observe further. I thought the balloon analogy takes care of another problem concerning the space cake (this cake depicting thus the visible universe) namely that this rising cake is also "thrown / big banged" in a specific direction. In a way that resembles a balloon being blown up, of which only part is visible. I.e. if you take a paper hole puncher and perforate the balloon the tiny bit punched out will then depict the space cake. So I don't see how they must be two different entities. Only the skin of the balloon is also expanding (like a cake in the oven) as is the balloon itself. We only observe part of the balloon of that analogy if I understand that analogy correctly. So the complete balloon and the multiverse analogies are indeed inherent speculation, one that is held BTW by most scientists, the latter is a fact. Not speculative is combining the expanding balloon to the rising space cake and having the raisins move like the bubbles in a Champagne glass. Then the cake and the balloon don't have to expand any more. Same observation. Yet superior on Occams razor. More simple. Exactly the same observations and mathematics combining the two analogies at the same time. No speculation. edit: the Champagne bubbles then act like every time seven trains accelerating out of a station at nearly the same time on seven different tracks. If you are in the middle track and the rails all are at a circular angle then the sensation of observation will be the combined space cake balloon analogy. We are stationary and everything seems to expand, with the outer trains lagging behind some as we observe, hence the balloon analogy, if I understand correctly. BTW a paradigm shift entails seeing the same observation differently.

As I understand it our visible space is viewed by astronomers in general as an expanding half backed flat space cake with raisins in it. The raisins depicting the galaxies. We are in the middle. Then we have this cake as part of an expanding in part invisible balloon having the skin of the balloon thus a thickness. Difficult to see like the non flat earth is also difficult to spot. This then would be at odds with the existence of a multiverse that most scientists also hold for true. Being probable because a one off is improbable. But then somewhere along the line they must collide if they all are expanding. The question is thus does the OP already provide a paradigm shift in so far that it is thus possible to see the same evidence in a different way: i.e. a non expanding universe in a stable multi-verse. It only seemingly expands because the galaxies are actually going places, yet all in the same direction (i.e. outward of the balloon) in different stages of acceleration. When it is a non expanding balloon then you will observe angular momentum, that might be the same as the difference in acceleration, thus creating the illusion of an expanding universe. Which is consistent with the observation as I understand it that the time frames don't exactly add up => we are all on the move relative to each other. The fact that we are in the middle of the cake could then be explained because it takes time for life to form and that it will also be snuffed out before we get out of the middle of the cake, being the skin of the balloon. That we get snuffed out, is consistent with the rise in entropy we observe and the current view in science.

The only conspiracy that I first disbelieved and was later proven to be true has been the Rainbow Warrior blown up by the French secret service. This indeed proved to be so unbelievably stupid, yet true. One conspiracy that I did think to be true has recently been shown to be untrue in a for me convincing way in a NG documentary. The hole in the sign shows on the film where the missing bullet went and a marksman should to be able to hit the target in the prescribed way with the Carcano gun leaving the spent cartridges in the way they show on the police photo's. This doesn't exclude the possibility that more people were involved and that there might still have been a conspiracy to kill JFK, yet one to cover that up because more than one shooter was present I don't buy anymore. There was some time ago a beautiful BBC documentary knocking the (several) conspiracy theories of 911 for six. I guess there are creative people at work who like to dream up these schemes that subsequently are taken over by unstable characters who actually start believing in them.

Imatfaal and Ed have IMO nailed this one to the specific question. To the further point of the OP another extra point I think arises from the fact that politicians in a democracy are inherently forced by the system / their constituents to sell more than can be delivered. I.e. they have to state that say when they get into power they will close down Guantanamo bay. When in power this then proves impossible in reference to other more important goals. This is subsequently viewed as corrupt / a lie. When a politician where to very accurately say what he means it will be stated that he/ she is wavering and unclear. Losing thus the needed votes. This then is indeed a Catch 22 paradox. In fact this goes back to the dilemma the Greeks already knew of between democracy in peace versus dictatorship in times of crises. I guess only when you find the Yin and yang balance between these two extremes at all times in all important issues can a democracy survive in the long run. Otherwise it will become more and more unstable and polarized as you can see in the US with republicans vs democrats and in the Netherlands between the PVV and the SP which two parties are at the extreme left and right of the political spectrum. We Dutch had / have a long tradition of group think called poldering. This is not at all bad as long as wisdom prevails. People always tend to follow the leader as long as it hasn't turned all bad. I.e. the paradox then lies in the taking of an on average on stated goal correct decision that usual will thus work out good. Or when it doesn't to have been very careful on what was sold. Te latter becoming more and more difficult given mass communication. A great majority of people want to hear a Yin or a Yang certainty from its leaders.

Don't feel bad, I could of stated it better. Taking things literately is not at all bad or good, it is good and bad at the same time dependent on the problem at hand. (As Bayes would say.) And I fully agree with you. Dependent on the point of view of your paradigm and the power you have you will want to arrogantly trash un-befitting points of view. Before you know it you might arrogantly trash Bayes or the other way round arrogantly elevate Bayes to the point where you try and solve all problems via Bayesian nets and think yourself a genius in either case. Especially when you in fact are scared of a real debate. The 80% gorilla's make the norm that it is treason to publish the secrets. But they don't have it all their own way. Say 50% of the populace is or fits well in a chimp suit i.e. is potentially creative (BTW this is dependent on the chosen norm ). So if things go wrong and the apes become scared it isn't a run race what the total group of apes will decide in a democracy. That is mostly decided by the baboons steering the emotional discussion. The latter, would you believe it, even in science. (Edit: Wikipedia BTW does it in principle correctly by every time the paradigm is stated to ad infinitum state the - scientific - objection, even by a minority as principle. Wikipedia is thus not an arrogant but a genius site, though it to has its problems. So you don't run into the arrogant gorilla style of believing the majority rule as correct for glossing over any objection. ) Come to think of it I guess that indeed your point provides me with the new insight that what is arrogant or genius is dependent also on the goal one has. Say my goal in life is: to live an as long as possible happy life, infringing the least as possible on others reaching that goal, including future generations. Some would say this is a naive goal. To them I'd say read it properly. Others would say they agree in true baboon style yet greedily - if given the chance - infringe on its meaning. So I then say don't give them the chance. Arrogance has the inherent connotation of being bad, I've given examples where this isn't necessarily the case although the context is indeed always bad. The same goes for evil genius and normal genius. They all contribute or detract on the stated goal and can thus logically (given agreed context) be derived to be good or bad. It also depends on the scope you want to take into consideration. Chimps take broad scopes, and gorillas take the scope only so far as the book/bible goes or just only a bit further. Baboons take the scope to where everybody agrees. When this becomes unbalanced then extremism (even by the State) becomes the norm and political polarization ensues. This is what we observe more and more. Everybody becomes more and more arrogant and crying for genius. History shows that usually some sort of arrogant baboon (suited) ape will come along and as an at first perceived genius dictate what should be done, and at first also accepted for fear of disorder. Scary times. Unless IMO you get it organised. Agree

You in effect are saying that the non scientist public can not ask science to put more effort into say finding a cure for MS in stead of say finding a cure for cancer. It is for science to provide advice what best to fund yet when a choice is to be made that is a political problem that requires the public to be heard. It is the public who run the real risks, and pay thus both in money and in getting and staying sick and dying. So the public should decide how much risk they want to run and in what area's. For science to inform and provide advise, yet the public should decide. And THUS the public should also decide what the norms should be to warrant further funding. The risk the involved scientists run is only that of loosing face and funding. The former is something that should and can be dealt with, because doing research has to be done in a safe environment. The point that research is thus at the moment not conducted on the proper norms can not be refuted by stating that they are correct because the public doesn't understand research. That is a circular argument and thus a fallacy. The public doesn't have to understand research other than to decide how much failures and cost are acceptable et cetera. That has nothing to do with knowing how research is conducted in any specialized field whatsoever. Further more it is a strange way of pretending to do a scientific debate and not accept that it is possible to disagree especially on the norms that are required. And thus pretending that there is only one correct scientific view on subjects such as stated in the OP. It is a bit like Jeremy Clarkson in Top Gear asking what is best? A tractor or a Ferrari? (Him knowing full well it is a question for nine year olds,) and subsequently puts the question to the very unbiased BTW test. The OP doesn't constitute an unchallenged view of science, even within science. The OP logically contradicts it self in effect proving itself wrong even taking the estimate to be correct of verbal logic not - probably - being able to provide the answer or a good start in finding that answer. An answer science hasn't been able to answer the last hundred years by going at it in an illogical way. Even though science will probably get there in the end assuming that there is a simple set of formula's and constants at the heart of it.

Eh, you got me wrong on the baboon being the natural leader according to MN. What I'm saying is that in our current internet society this will more and more become the case. Natural leaders through the ages have on average I guess been in balance on all three traits. In crises usually the chimps become the natural leaders and when it is going well the gorillas usually will become the leaders. Both critically especially in a democracy having a good baboon suit to wear. What never has been seen in human history is the mass communication becoming ever more direct and fast as internet. One wrong word and you loose the election. That is where baboons naturally both in verbal and non verbal communication excel without having to work hard at it. So they will become dominant. Not only as a guess but it can be observed in politics more and more. Not what you want but how you are perceived becomes more and more critical. I don't quite follow your moon and earth metaphor. Not all arrogant people are narcissistic or have large ego's. Yet being narcissistic or having a large ego does I guess always imply the thought that everything revolves around the own ego. And that indeed has a repelling and attracting effect on others. It is not the dynamics I'm talking about per se. I.e. what I'm saying is just a rule of thumb, yet a crucial rule of thumb that is in effect already current psychological paradigm. So yes, there is much more to psychology then with this rule of thumb. Yet if you don't cater for it the historical rule that what is forward will become backward will apply. Take for instance NASA. It no longer is the bold daring organisation of the Apollo program but a bureaucratic arrogant organisation. Gorillas and baboons have taken over the lead. It is a well documented natural phenomenon in all large organisations. Other much smaller enterprises are now taking over parts led by chimps and gorillas in well fitting chimp suits feeling safe to take risks, already showing genius at a fraction of the cost. What I'm saying is, if you know this you can cater for it.