Strange

And therefore it is not wasting time on those that have no evidence.

It is always possible that a pink unicorn is following you around but whenever you look to see if it is there it moves so you can’t see it. And no one else wants to admit it to you. Anything is possible, but we should probably stick to things that there is evidence for.

You seem to be just inventing all sorts of ad-hoc forces to make your model work.

Welcome to the forum. You have already broken several rules! Also, I would recommend that people do NOT download a Word file from an unknown source. This is a serious security risk. You should post your idea here and, if necessary a PDF file to support it. Anyway ... VERY bad start. After a rambling and largely incomprehensible introduction to black holes we get to: Do you have any evidence or theory supporting this claim? (The correct answer is "no".) What is a Scycle Hull? It is not at all difficult. Anti-matter is well understood and even used in medicine and technology. Nonsense. Antimatter interacts with light and with gravity in exactly the same way as normal matter. It has absolutely nothing in common with dark matter. Also, if this antimatter was formed inside a black hole then it cannot escape and so cannot be the dar matter we see around us. The whole point is that dark matter does not emit light. This is all in the first page. I can't be bothered to read any further. I doubt there is anything of value here.

Depends on their relative motion. They could end up moving apart or orbiting one another.

Was this translated by Google or something? It is pretty incomprehensible and, as far as I can tell, doesn't explain what "build learning" is. So: What is "build learning"? I guess "Golden Ration" is supposed to be "golden ratio", but what does that have to do with AI? What is "Ezekiels Temple" and what does it have todo with AI? What are "uniformed and non-uniformed places"? What does "Environment Logistical" mean? I see you have added to the original post. That is even more incomprehensible. Reported. I will let the moderators decide what to do with this drivel.

What is "build-learning"?

It's complicated. And I don't fully understand it myself. It is related to the equation of state of matter vs energy and what this means in the LFRW equation. But one way of describing it is that dark energy corresponds to negative pressure. Pressure can be defined as the increase in energy as volume decreases (like when you compress a gas and it gets hot). But in the case of dark energy, the energy increases with increasing volume and so it is equivalent to negative pressure. Hence it "pushes" things apart. Gravity follows an inverse square law and so it extends to infinity (but obviously with smaller and smaller effect). You can use Newton's equation to calculate the force at any distance: [math]F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math] (r is the distance from the centre of the mass, the black hole in this case). Or, if you want the acceleration due to gravity: [math]g = G\frac{m}{r^2}[/math]

Antimatter exists and has normal mass and gravity (as does dark matter). And there is no such thing as negative or anti-gravity.

Adaptation. Humans, and their ancestors, have been exposed to multiple evolutionary pressures over millions of years. So the human body is adapted to breath oxygen (at a level of about 20%), eat a wide variety of plant and animal products, process language, produce art, invent and use tools. Functions like fighting exploit the features the body has. But if a body were adapted (designed) specifically for fighting as the primary evolutionary driver then I suspect it would be very different: scales or some other protection for the skin, no exposed genitalia, thicker skull, venomous teeth, and so on.

Dark matter does not have negative mass. (And dark energy is not negative gravity)

The conditions in the early universe no longer exist. One possibility is that was caused by the collapse of an earlier universe (“big bounce”). That would certainly destroy our universe if it happened. Although accelerating expansion makes this unlikely. Another hypothesis is the collapse of a false vacuum state. If that were the case the false vacuum is gone so that can’t happen again. In eternal inflation models, where universes are constantly created, they are causally disconnected from us and so cannot affect our universe.

OK. But GR predicts the current big bang model. If you are saying that prediction is wrong then you need to explain why it is wrong (even if everything else in GR is the same).

The current Big Bang model is a prediction of GR. You are suggesting an alternative explanation and are, therefore, that the current explanation is wrong

Sounds about right. But I’m not sure what the point is. You need to produce a mathematical model from this and show that it produces the results we observe. You also need to show why the behaviour predicted by GR doesn’t happen.

I am not a mathematician and am not qualified to comment on the content of the paper, but I dod have a (perhaps naive) question. The paper says: As the reals are uncountable, can one make a statement comparing the numbers in one subset with those in another like this? Just curious...

Given the SNMP context, I'm guessing OID is an Object IDentifier: https://www.paessler.com/info/snmp_mibs_and_oids_an_overview Which doesn't really clarify what the question is.

What? What's an "oid"?

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" literally; we have this thing in English called the "generic you" as an indefinite pronoun. In other words "one must ..." (People have picked me up on this before!)

Are you saying that this is not your paper? (Just curious, I assumed it was, and that was the reason you posted it.) The paper is here: http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0557 (also not sure why you posted an image, which is hard to read and quote from) The references are: [1] http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0234 [2] http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

The characteristics of the expanding universe (isotropic expansion meaning that every galaxy is moving away from every other, distribution of red-shift/velocity with distance, etc) does not match an explosion. Fir example, you would need to explain how an explosion can cause objects to recede with velocity greater than the speed of light. Also, if it is an explosion then you need to explain why GR is wrong. (Or, perhaps, why the cosmological constant is so finely tuned that the universe is not expanding.)

We are in the centre of the observable universe but we have a very slight motion relative to the CMB. But the important point is that expansion is not away from some point but all galaxies are moving away from one another.

Ah. I was trying to find something like that by using words like "structure". The word "shape" never occurred to me! Well done.

That is one explanation (and currently the best). There are others. Which peer-reviewed journal are these "correct" calculations published in. Given your previously displayed ignorance, I am highly sceptical. I am not going to download a potentially hazardous file from an unknown source. And I would strongly recommend that no one else does. Please comply with the rules of the forum and present your idea here.

Perhaps you need to think of some way of checking each step of your calculation individually to find the error. (You do know there is an error, yes?)