cremdelacrem

Martin, I feel your response is really quite childish, for at no point in this thread have I claimed to offer something that is logically absolute, I even stated that I hastily and far from thoroughly shared the particular idea in question. Indeed, if I were to heed your criticism I would never state anything ever again without knowing it were completely sound, however that was not my purpose herein. Hence it would be better for you to apply your far reaching knowledge of unsound logic to that which actually claims to be sound, because we all know there are many questions in science still to be answered, so what are you wasting your time with such a comprehensive critique when surely your talents are capable of solving those dilemmas. With regards to your poetry and mysticism jibe, for sure Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity, but he was unable to explain why those laws worked, he just knew they did. Now considering gravity has been the stumbling block to the unification of the four forces, do you not think it would useful to understand why those laws worked? Oopps sorry I forgot, we are only dealing with data not comprehension! (P.S. I did not Title my first post - Cremdelacrem's path to knowledge - I assume one of the moderators added that to try and take the mickey, so to other users beware, these people only wish to glorify themselves and if you challenge their self glorification, well...) Talk about turning sour, gone is my motivation to discuss anything with this world.

Could you express your ideas mathematically, they are a bit wishywashy atm, and don't make falsifiable predictions. A bit like string theory then huh! When I am ready to offer a full and detailed explanation I am afraid it will probably not be here, but I would like to state that I think using the language of mathematics alone severely limits your capacity in solving the matters you seek to solve. I have read (in Lee Smolin’s - The Trouble With Physics) that there wasn’t a single equation in the notebooks of Niels Bohr for example. Your comment about "looked away from the surface of the balloon, and not along it" the surface of the balloon in this analogy is our 4D space-time, we cannot look away from the surface, it is simply not possible. This is ignoring that some current ideas do say that you can look at higher dimensions using high enough energies in particle accelerators but you can't do this just by observational cosmology.. I know full well you cannot ’look away from the surface’ it was not me who offered an analogy that didn’t reflect reality, as iNow stated, hence I merely proceeded to offer an explanation that better reflected reality. I am a believer in the statement that - The secrets of the universe can be found in the most insignificant things - and so the way I attain knowledge is very different from the way you do, for I believe that if one were to truly understood a wild flower, which is in fact growing in its natural habitat, and hence is only called wild because it has been uncorrupted by human beings, then one would be able to understand the laws the entire universe obeys.

Don’t worry about the idea statement, as it was meant in a general context. Also, gravity carries throughout the universe, so your pocket idea ("there is no gravitation link with other groups of galaxies) doesn't seem to stand up to the empirical test. While the strength of that gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance it still carries throughout the universe. To be honest I am more worried about how I would get around the fact that all galactic groups would presumably be pushed away at the same rate, which I may be able to solve by stating that, in relative terms, a group next door is only pushing away from the galaxies immediately in its vicinity, whereas galaxies further away are pushing off many galactic groups in between and hence they would recede away at a faster rate. Now to address your query, indeed my pocket explanation was hastily and not thoroughly expressed, seen as though I had only just come up with the concept. However with my own perception of gravity, which I have yet to share with you, there is no flaw.

Thank you for your effort, however I am unable to accept your explanation in its current form, if I may expand slightly... If the balloon analogy is to be compatible with phenomenon such as the horizon problem, then as you say it is incorrect to say the Big Bang happened over there, and if it happened everywhere at once, then I would prefer to say each pocket of energy shrank into its own pocket of space, hence on a large scale leading to the perception of expansion, due to the fact that the shrinking led to the other pockets moving further apart. This way I do not become perplexed with the fact that if I looked away from the surface of the balloon, and not along it, there would be an inconsistency in the distribution of energy. I would also have a possible solution to the dark energy dilemma, in that those pockets of energy/space (that have now evolved into galaxies) are actually pushing each other apart, as it is only possible to shrink away from the unified state that represents the Big Bang. Just to follow up... Gravity only takes effect within each pocket and hence the perceived expansion that I have termed shrinking is due to the fact that there is no gravitational link as such with the other groups of galaxies. By the way... Whether I am right or wrong time will tell... But to address those who would steal ideas to further their own cause, do you not think the train of thought that leads to the solving of the problems you have stolen from, will not trump you down the line? Like taking credit for the answer to a sum that you have no knowledge of how to solve, and then been asked to solve the next, slightly harder sum, of which you haven't got the foggiest idea how to approach.

Can someone please help me with a query I have. If the energy released at the time of the Big Bang has not been slowed down by interacting with anything and hence is travelling at the speed of light, how is it possible to observe the beginning of creation since that energy would have already travelled beyond us, even if we observed a point at the other side of the Big Bang?