Inverse Universe Theory

[DeArros]

In the center of the universe is ONE black hole where gravitational waves span out from. These gravitational waves affect the direction of and speed of light; causing light (and matter) to accelerate away from the center. The outer boundary of space is the Earth surface; the outer boundary of the entire system is the Earth's Core; like a molten shell. Contrary to the current model, the surface of the Earth is concave, encasing the entire cosmos into the same volume value as the Earth in the current model; 260 billion cubic miles. The rotation of this universe, as evident by the magnetic field of the Earth, forces matter towards Earth; which gives us all of our liquid water and Ozone layers; unique to any other mass in suspension.

 

This theory also suggests a new mathematical concept that explains the Big Bang and the birth of matter.

[Klaynos]

There is no centre of the universe as you'd have a centre of say a pie. The universe started everywhere at once.

[DeArros]

Which is one of my arguing points versus the Theory of Relativity. The rotation of the universe creates a centrifugal void in the center where all matter and energy are pushed away from. As light slows down towards the center, the image sent outward, along the expanding gravitation wavelengths, creates the optical illusion that the boundaries of the universe go outward forever.

 

I'm not a scientist, I know my lack of credentials discourage most people from listening past half of my thesis. But try to understand the idea I'm trying to get across here. I created a website to better explain this. I'm constantly updating it for more simplified explanations and better terminology. Go there with an open mind, it's only going to take one person with the necessary credentials to make this take off. www.InverseUniverseTheory.com.

[ACG52]

 

Contrary to the current model, the surface of the Earth is concave, encasing the entire cosmos into the same volume value as the Earth in the current model; 260 billion cubic miles. The rotation of this universe, as evident by the magnetic field of the Earth, forces matter towards Earth; which gives us all of our liquid water and Ozone layers; unique to any other mass in suspension.

 

This is simply complete nonsense. Not even worth discussing.

[Spyman]

...The outer boundary of space is the Earth surface...the surface of the Earth is concave, encasing the entire cosmos...

If the Earth is hollow and the whole Universe is on the inside then how can we take pictures like this?

 

"The Blue Marble" photograph of Earth,

taken from Apollo 17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

[michel123456]

In the center of the universe is ONE black hole where gravitational waves span out from. These gravitational waves affect the direction of and speed of light; causing light (and matter) to accelerate away from the center. The outer boundary of space is the Earth surface; the outer boundary of the entire system is the Earth's Core; like a molten shell. Contrary to the current model, the surface of the Earth is concave, encasing the entire cosmos into the same volume value as the Earth in the current model; 260 billion cubic miles. The rotation of this universe, as evident by the magnetic field of the Earth, forces matter towards Earth; which gives us all of our liquid water and Ozone layers; unique to any other mass in suspension.

 

This theory also suggests a new mathematical concept that explains the Big Bang and the birth of matter. scan0016.JPG

Is that you Steve?

[DeArros]

If the Earth is hollow and the whole Universe is on the inside then how can we take pictures like this?

 

"The Blue Marble" photograph of Earth,

taken from Apollo 17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Because this is how light travels from the sun.

[Spyman]

I am sorry, but I am unable to understand your drawing, could you be so kind and provide an explanation for it?

[Bignose]

DeArros, on 03 Feb 2013 - 22:17, said:

Which is one of my arguing points versus the Theory of Relativity. The rotation of the universe creates a centrifugal void in the center where all matter and energy are pushed away from. As light slows down towards the center, the image sent outward, along the expanding gravitation wavelengths, creates the optical illusion that the boundaries of the universe go outward forever.

 

I'm not a scientist, I know my lack of credentials discourage most people from listening past half of my thesis. But try to understand the idea I'm trying to get across here. I created a website to better explain this. I'm constantly updating it for more simplified explanations and better terminology. Go there with an open mind, it's only going to take one person with the necessary credentials to make this take off. www.InverseUniverseTheory.com.

DeArros,

 

You seem reasonably grounded and friendly, so I hope that you don't take any of the following personally:

 

Your idea here doesn't seem to jive with the wealth of information that we have about the Universe.

 

For example, you may have "arguing points versus the Theory of Relativity", but have you ever looked at something like: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 ? This is a published paper that details the predictions made by the theory of relativity and how amazingly close those predictions agree with what is actually measured.

 

This is how science works -- it is a constant check between observations and predictions. That is, when an idea is put forth, the most important judgement of that idea is what predictions can be made based on that idea and how closely those predictions agree with what is actually observed.

 

You say above that you're not a scientist and that your lack of credentials is holding you back. This isn't quite right, it is the apparent lack of predictions and those predictions' agreement with measurement that are holding you back. Your presentation here so far is words and pictures. Words and pictures are only story telling, not science.

 

For example, when you use a phrase like "causing light (and matter) to accelerate away from the center" this needs to be made specific with a prediction. Namely, at what acceleration? At what time? Accelerate in what direction? Answering all these questions allow specific predictions to be made, and then an experiment can be set up to see if those predictions are observed.

 

The ideas we have at the moment, like the theory of relativity, became the ideas we have at the moment precisely because the predictions that came from them have been shown to be quite excellent at agreeing with measurements.

 

And any improvement or replacement for the current ideas will have be demonstrate that they can make predictions at least as well as or hopefully better than what the current ideas can do. That is, specifically, if you want to argue against the theory of relativity, you need to demonstrate an alternative that is at least as good as the theory of relativity. Otherwise, why would we reject something that is more useful at making predictions for something that is less useful?

 

Lastly, the above is not to say that the current ideas have all the answers. Because we certainly don't. The current ideas are almost certainly wrong, or at the very least incomplete. There are many open questions we have today. But, you do need to understand that what we have today didn't just come about because Einstein declared it so, or a conclave of emeritus professors met in their ivory tower and voted in it. No, the ideas we have today came about because they were better at making predictions than all the ideas that came before them. And, in the future, the ideas that replace today's ideas will be even better at making more predictions than today's are.

 

So, all the above boils down to: what predictions can your idea make? And how do those predictions compare with the predictions made by today's ideas?

 

I guarantee if you can show that your idea makes better predictions, you will have quite a few scientists interested in your idea -- whether you have 'credentials' or not. In effect, your credentials aren't what degrees you've completed, but how well your idea makes accurate predictions of what is observed.

 

If you don't have predictions based on your idea, then science is not interested. Science is in the business of making predictions that agree with observations. Accurate predictions is the currency, credentials, and influence in the scientific world.

[DeArros]

The origin of light (in this example, the sun) serves as an equal sign for a 3 dimensional equation (also for the example; simplified to just 2 dimensions). What is done to one side must be done equally and opposite to the opposite side. As the speed of light is accelerated towards earth, it is also decelerated towards the center-black-hole. A horizon boundary is created due to the elevation of said light source, which must be less that 50% of the Earth's surface, because on one side light is being accelerated downward, the opposite side must be decelerated. The closer a light source is to the center black hole, the closer it can be seen from 50% of the Earth.

The perpendicular lines spanning from the Earth's surface in my drawing represent elevations where the sun can be seen beyond it's sunset at sea level. eventually when the sun is directly across from an elevated observer, the earth will appear to eclipse the sun. This is also my explanation on why the sun appears to grow in size as it descends beyond the horizon and ALSO why the sky is blue during the day and changes colors during a horizon event.

[Bignose]

This is also my explanation on why the sun appears to grow in size as it descends beyond the horizon and ALSO why the sky is blue during the day and changes colors during a horizon event.

This is another good example of what I wrote above.

 

The blueness of the sky is pretty well understood using the idea that air scatters short wavelength light more than the long wavelength light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation

 

But you've got a specific prediction there. What experiment would you perform to differentiate between the currently accepted idea and your idea?

[DeArros]

This is another good example of what I wrote above.

 

The blueness of the sky is pretty well understood using the idea that air scatters short wavelength light more than the long wavelength light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation

 

But you've got a specific prediction there. What experiment would you perform to differentiate between the currently accepted idea and your idea?

Two possible experiments. Since this theory challenges the centrifugal affects on wavelengths and the speed of light I've got a few experiments thought of.

First, a mechanical experiment to test wavelengths. A turn table with a signal sender on the outside connected to either one or several sensors. Once the table starts spinning, the frequency received along the radius inward will be compressed into a higher frequency than that on the edge.

 

Another experiment will give evidence to my prediction that each star, excluding the sun, is only a single electron. This one may require help from NASA.. You take an object and measure it with an optical measuring device. You then increase that objects elevation, perhaps to the top of a mountain. As the objects elevation increases, the gravitational wavelengths will be come compressed, sending the illusion downward that that object has increased in size. If the difference in elevation isn't significant enough, a trip to the moon would surely prove this. measuring that object while on the same elevation, such as measuring the moon from an orbiting satellite, would counter this phenomenon because the observer and observed would be on the same wavelength. Since our instruments are calibrated to the speed of light being what it is on Earth, all physics would be affected equally and the moon would still measure incorrectly. A physical lap around the moon would be the only way to measure it accurately. Even with changes in elevation and a less than perfect path around the circumference the difference between observed and actual would be astounding.

[Bignose]

I don't see how this answers my question at all. I want to see how your proposed experiments would result in a blue sky.

 

BTW, this will probably require some math. I want to see specific testable objective predictions here.

 

Another experiment will give evidence to my prediction that each star, excluding the sun, is only a single electron.

This extraordinary claim is going to take some extraordinary evidence. E.g. we've taken an awful lot of data observing the stars in the sky, and an awful lot of data studying electrons. You need to demonstrate how these two very disparate sets of data are one in the same.

[DeArros]

I don't see how this answers my question at all. I want to see how your proposed experiments would result in a blue sky.

 

BTW, this will probably require some math. I want to see specific testable objective predictions here.

 

This extraordinary claim is going to take some extraordinary evidence. E.g. we've taken an awful lot of data observing the stars in the sky, and an awful lot of data studying electrons. You need to demonstrate how these two very disparate sets of data are one in the same.

That is why I'm applying to every astrophysics school in the country right now..

[Bignose]

That is why I'm applying to every astrophysics school in the country right now..

It will be good for you to learn all you can about the current ideas and why they are the current ideas. This will give you a good perspective to compare your new idea with the status quo.

[SamBridge]

So what exactly is this "inverse" universe theory? I was particularly interested in it because I am doing research on inverse shapes in hyper-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, but I was disappointed when I found that it said something about the rotation of the universe, which there are several reasons for why that does not make any sense whatsoever. The first is that the universe does not have a definite shape or boundary, so there is no 3 dimensional manifold of which to observe the reference of a change in different locations according to a rotation transformation of the entire universe itself, and then inertia, there's trillions of interactions that would cancel out the rotational force at some point, and third, what is transmitting the force anyway? Even though there is a phenomena of space-time dragging, there would have to be something with a mass large enough to observably pull matter of the entire observable universe, but it is reasonable to think that a black hole of such size would devour half the observable universe anyway.

Edited February 5, 2013 by SamBridge