Infinity Hypothesis

[Mordred]

If the contributors causing expansion and the contributors causing gravity was equal and opposite precisely there would be no expansion. The universe would be static. It's not. Neither is there just one contributor to expansion. As Strange already mentioned.

[andreasjva]

 

If the contributors causing expansion and the contributors causing gravity was equal and opposite precisely there would be no expansion. The universe would be static. It's not. Neither is there just one contributor to expansion. As Strange already mentioned.

Space is infinite, so it keeps expanding outward. The reaction is contraction, which leaves a universe in the middle. Those are the particles left behind in the wake of the expansion process, and they lean negative or positive. Massless particles move towards expansion or the positive force, and mass particles move towards contraction, or the negative force. The expansion and contraction is the constant in the process. It's difficult to imagine, I know. I'd like to re-post my thoughts in a more comprehensive thread, and just have this one thrown in the trash. This will make sense.

 

I can show how time is wrapped in the same line as motion and it will make sense.

 

Yes, the universe is static, sort of, but it's also infinite, and our universe is probably more of an isolated event. I think our existence may be based more on a slice of time, but I'm not sure yet. There are more than likely an incomprehensible quantity of universes, but always a finite quantity at any given slice of time. I don't like to think multiverses though (too complicated), so I try to stick with us. Sure, there's a lot more though. I think it goes without saying in all honesty. Against infinity, the entire sum total of our existence is just a touch more than nothing in the whole scheme of things.

 

I would disagree to multiple contributors to expansion. There is only one expansive force.

[Strange]

Space is infinite, so it keeps expanding outward.

 

There is currently no evidence that universe is infinite. Unless you have some .... ?

 

I would disagree to multiple contributors to expansion. There is only one expansive force.

 

There is no force causing expansion.

[andreasjva]

 

There is currently no evidence that universe is infinite. Unless you have some .... ?

 

There is currently no evidence to suggest it isn't infinite, so it's a mute point.

 

 

There is no force causing expansion.

 

You don't know that Strange, so please try to refrain from claiming you know the answer to things you do not. That's not helpful. Respectfully, that's by definition, arrogance.

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I happen to consider the possibility fundamentally more palatable. If you keep your mind open and consider the possibility, you might just see exactly what I'm seeing right now and trying to explain.

 

I would like to start a new thread on the subject, and just re-post some of my more recent thoughts. I think they're better formed than what i have here right now. I've taken some of your input and made a few tweaks.

[Strange]

There is currently no evidence to suggest it isn't infinite, so it's a mute point.

 

It is not a moot point, because you are making a claim, and therefore you need to supply some evidence.

 

You don't know that Strange

 

Sigh. I kind of assumed that the phrases "according to our best theory" ... "there is no evidence that" ... "does not appear to be" etc were implied because this is a science forum.

 

So let me try again: according to the theory that explains expansion there is no force causing expansion.

 

This is a very accurate and well-tested theory that makes precise predictions, and unifies a number of different phenomena. You have a long way to go from your vague statements to something that improves on GR.

 

That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I happen to consider the possibility fundamentally more palatable.

 

That is a very unscientific approach. You should be concerned with what best fits the evidence. But if you can make equally good, or better, calculations of the CMB, the proportions of elements in the universe, red-shifts, etc. then go ahead.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

We would prefer if you keep it all in one thread please. If it is radically different then start a new thread - but a re-working of this thread's ideas should be here

 

[andreasjva]

Okay, let's talk about the redshift for a moment. Would you agree that the same observational results would be yielded if matter was condensing over time versus moving away from one another?

 

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

 

 

.

[Strange]

Okay, let's talk about the redshift for a moment. Would you agree that the same observational results would be yielded if matter was condensing over time versus moving away from one another?

 

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

 

 

Possibly. (Although I'm not sure what you mean by condensing.) There are many alternative ways of describing the same thing. However, you have to make all the changes associated with making a different coordinate choice (e.g. varying speed of light, or whatever).

[andreasjva]

Strainght up contracting to a smaller state. Is it possible?

There is no ambiguity in the question. There is mathematical evidence that proves it is possible, exactly as I'm suggesting. Although, the work is not peer reviewed. I seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it though, so we'll just have to assume it is accurate for now. He's a well known reputable theoretical physcisit, and he's a professor. I doubt anyone will find errors in his published work. Although, they may reject what it implies.

[Bignose]

I seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it though, so we'll just have to assume it is accurate for now.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how science works. You assume and idea is incorrect until a preponderance of evidence matches the predictions made by the idea.

 

He's a well known reputable theoretical physcisit, and he's a professor. I doubt anyone will find errors in his published work. Although, they may reject what it implies.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The agreement between measurement and prediction makes an idea correct. Not how reputable the idea creator is. If this person is truly as reputable as you say, they should agree completely.

 

What you need to do is demonstrate how correct an idea is by demonstrating the predictions the idea makes and them showing up how closely those predictions agree with what is actually measured. No "I seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it", no "so we'll just have to assume it is accurate for now". This level of handwaving and dodging is not science.

[andreasjva]

Don't give me this bull about credentials being irrelevant. They are relevant in all walks of life, especially science. Scientists live and die by credentials. A professor has no stock in publishing fables for a few laughs. The odds of him being wrong in his calculations are fairly slim.

 

From an idealistic standpoint, you would be 100% correct in your statement, but that's not the reality we live in.

 

It is reasonably safe to assume the calculations are correct for the purposes of this thread.

 

This is a forum, not a peer review process.

Edited January 15, 2015 by andreasjva

[swansont]

Okay, let's talk about the redshift for a moment. Would you agree that the same observational results would be yielded if matter was condensing over time versus moving away from one another?

 

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

 

 

If masses were increasing over time, this would affect orbits, conservation of energy, and probably other things. I'm not sure why something that obvious wasn't mentioned, unless there are other increases that are supposed to be occurring as well.

[andreasjva]

It was a question specifically addressing the redshift, nothing more. If the universe was truly contracting, I think it would be safe to assume it would be doing so in such a manner that it would fit either perspective and would be diffuclt determining which direction you were headed. Or maybe, contraction would answer other questions we haven't been able to understand with the current model, like galactic spin and dark energy.

Edited January 15, 2015 by andreasjva

[Bignose]

Don't give me this bull about credentials being irrelevant. They are relevant in all walks of life, especially science. Scientists live and die by credentials. A professor has no stock in publishing fables for a few laughs. The odds of him being wrong in his calculations are fairly slim.

 

From an idealistic standpoint, you would be 100% correct in your statement, but that's not the reality we live in.

 

It is reasonably safe to assume the calculations are correct for the purposes of this thread.

 

This is a forum, not a peer review process.

I concede that science in a human endevour, with human failings. However, none of the above changes the fact that you still are asking us to believe in something because of a logical fallacy via appeal to authority and without presenting any supporting evidence.

 

If I told you that Stephen Hawking has some math that was "reasonably safe" showing I had an invisible dinosaur living in my garage, would you just assume it was correct? He's got credentials. And this statement above has as much supporting evidence as you've given to date. Do you see my point?

[andreasjva]

 

asking us to believe in something

 

To be very clear, I believe almost nothing, and would never ask anyone to believe anything I say. I've actually worked very hard to shed the word from my vocabulary over the past 20 years. I reserve all beliefs to friends and family, and myself.

 

This is a curious possibility that I just can't shake, and it's been 30 years in the making. I get nothing out of this except the sheer pleasure of thinking. I am a nobody in science, and will die a nobody in the field. This idea is for others to ponder. I used a simple logical approach to assemble the pieces, and looked for a theory that would weave its way through the observation until it made logical sense. I have been developing an abstract to a theory, or an idea. It's not a theory.

 

I think the odds of it being correct are much greater than the current model. Unfortunately, it is merely a fundamental understanding. This is a 0 or 1 approach.

 

If you keep an open mind and listen, you might find something useful. Maybe not. Who knows?

 

 

If I told you that Stephen Hawking has some math that was "reasonably safe" showing I had an invisible dinosaur

 

We aren't talking about invisible dinosaurs, we're talking red shifts. I would think the professor is capable of making a fairly routine physics calculation. I'm not worried.

Edited January 15, 2015 by andreasjva

[Bignose]

If you keep an open mind and listen, you might find something useful. Maybe not. Who knows?

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

 

― Carl Sagan

 

All I am asking for is some evidence to support what you're saying. Is that really so hard to produce?

 

I would think the professor is capable of making a fairly routine physics calculation.

So, the calculation went from "seriously doubt you or I are capable of reviewing it though" to "fairly routine". Which exactly is it?

 

Look. I am trying to keep an open mind. I am trying to understand what you're saying. But you're not really giving me much to go off of, are you? I mean, you are telling me I should agree with your idea because some supposedly reputable dude did some calculations (of indeterminate difficulty, apparently), and we should just all assume they are correct.

 

I want to read more. But you aren't providing any more. I am just pointing this out. If you can't or won't provide more, then I guess I do have my answer. I would have thought that if you cared enough to actually discuss this idea that providing evidence to it wouldn't have been that onerous of a task. But, I could be wrong.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Bignose

[andreasjva]

 

All I am asking for is some evidence to support what you're saying. Is that really so hard to produce?

 

Well, the article in the link some proof, which is the minimum requirement of proof for the thread to exist. It shows what I am saying is plausible, and not in an invisible dinasour sort of way. It will work mathematically if we trust the numbers worked out by Professor Wetterich.

 

Perpetul expansion is not provable.

 

An equivelance between expansion and gravity may be possible to prove. That's difficult given the relativistic nature of the universe though.

 

I will touch on motion, and time. None of the math needs to be reworked. It is simply a fundamental understanding of what's going on.

 

Acceleration of the universe should be provable mathematically.

 

I would be very curious to see what would happen with galactic spin.

 

What would be needed was a reference point for time, because I see time accelerating with contraction.

 

You want proof, but you really haven't heard the full explanation.

 

What you get out of this thread is up to you, not me.

 

Judge for yourself.

[hoola]

andreasjva...I agree with your unitary fundamental value....I also see this as a theoretical value of the void. When I say "void", I mean "a" void, or (1) void, a default (theoretical) bit of information. Since it is more logical to have one void rather than 2, 33, or some fraction of void, I see the one theoretical bit as the default content of any void. This virtual bit existed, in my model, as an "impetus without form", as the maths hadn't developed yet to allow a proper description. From this impetus, I see the chaos forming, out of which a region of logic "froze out" within this domain. This necessary underpinning of the maths, along with the spherical geometry of the point, went on to eventually describe the universe as a mathematical object. I see the BB emanating from a point as an expression of the underlying information generated from this series of linear events...

Edited January 15, 2015 by hoola

[Mordred]

Straight up I don't see how you can possibly have a homogeneous and isotropic universe with this model. Your model describes two preferred directions. We can observe directly how matter expands and your statement of mass moving one way while massless particles move the other way makes no sense as your model also describes a preferred location. Center of contraction for example.

 

30 years in the making? Surely you looked up the cosmological principle in all that time. Did you bother looking and studying the FLRW metric?

 

If you did you would have learned that Cosmology is compatible with the ideal gas laws.

 

Certain contributors in energy density has an equation of state that has a pressure influence either positive or negative. However guess what these positive and negative pressure influences are homogeneous and isotropic.

 

[latex] w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex]

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

the crux is you spent 30 years on your idea without even learning how the existing model works. If you did you would have realized the preferred direction issue with measurements.

And if you claim there is no preferred location and direction post the math to prove otherwise

[andreasjva]

Here's a more comprehensive explanation. I also have a few more posts regarding matter, time, gravity, time perspectives, and expansion/acceleation.

 

 

The sum total of all the mass in the universe could be represented with a value of 1 as a set. If you chose to look at it as a set, than the energy that mass set contained would also have to be defined as 1, because there is an equivalence between between mass and energy as Einstein proved in E=mc^2. That leaves us with a fairly meaningless truth of, 1=1. So what?

Logically though, this should be a valid way to look at all the mass in the universe, as a singular set labeled mass. What that value means in comparison to the little pieces we arbitrarily (but meaningfully) use to define the universe, is irrelevant at that point. The sum total of the energy in all mass is equal to the sum total of the mass set. Coincidentally, that simple perspective also roughly defines the theoretical singularity before the big bang. The maximum value of the pre big bang state was 1, and we are fractionally less than that beginning or original state.

Like I said, the actual value in comparison to elements within the current state of the universe is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, that singularity was the universe, and it was undeniably equal to itself. It was simply, more than nothing, and 1 atom in the current state of the universe is a lot less than that original something.

When I look at Einstein’s formula, and plug in those set values, 1=1c^2, what I see is a potential universe born of precise equivalence, not randomness. The reason I see that is because there are only two logical answers to the problem, c=1 or c=-1.

A constant needs to be a physical property that makes mathematical sense. The result of that physical property must produce a constant static value. For example, the speed of light. It is an unchanging physical property of photons based physically on time and the distance traveled in a vacuum. The result of that phenomena is generally accepted as 299792458 m/s. I’m not trying to get into a discussion on light though, so I’ll just leave that to the professionals. It’s a usable constant within the universe based on an observed physical condition converted to a logical numeric value. That defined value or result could also be considered somewhat arbitrary on a more fundamental level, but it is constant in nature. We can’t use this constant as a set value in the formula though, because its value is based on arbitrary assignments which are only meaningful to specific problems using those same arbitrary values. There’s no way to make sense of it in terms of a set as we currently understand velocity.

That does leave me with a larger question. Is there a legitimate set value we can use as a constant? It would more or less be defined as the mother of all constants within the universe, and its set value would be precisely definable as 1 or -1, irrespective of individually observed phenomena within the universe. The constant I’m looking for is one that could have also potentially exceeded the presence of our universe, but still be present within the universe in some physical form.

One mental exercise I’ve done repeatedly over the years, is imagined empty space without a universe as we currently understand it. Basically I’m looking at the universe in it’s simplest form. Logically, this is all there really is on the most fundamental level. This is the primary ingredient of existence, so it must logically possess a tangible property of energy that can convert to mass or matter and light, etc. I see it as an infinite state of emptiness, and I try to imagine how this state could be responsible for a universe. When I think about what that represents, I keep seeing that emptiness in a constant state of expansion. To me, it implies a potential motion outward in a perpetual manner. There’s always more. It’s like reaching out to the furthest reaches of space to touch a fixed point, but never quite being able to physically touch it. That point perpetually remains just out of reach.

When I look at our universe and ask, what has it been doing since it began, I see expansion. It never really hit me until recently, but it seems to me expansion may possibly be a natural force within this infinite vastness I have been imagining all these years. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, so the obvious reaction to expansion would be contraction. And contraction would look a lot like gravity. Actually, it would be definable as gravity.

I know it sounds like a simple answer to a very complex problem, but why not?

Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force. If these two forces were overlaid upon each other, and working in opposite directions, they would meet in the middle at 4 pi r^2, or the surface area of a sphere. I just see this perpetual tug-of-war between these forces in my mind. And because pi is imperfect, the forces release energy along the imperfection in the middle, or point of equilibrium. At that point I can see things twisting and spinning and folding in a circular manner creating twist and bends. It would create a natural spin or torque along the fracture because it stems from a radial imperfection. I see our universe existing within the surface area of a sphere. If absolute equality were allowed to exist, the universe would be a stagnate void of complete emptiness, because the forces would simply cancel each other out in the middle.

What it also leads me to see, is that there is possibly an equivalency between expansion and gravity. They are equal and opposite forces working in complete unison. What happens to one, happens to the other, and the energy gets release in the middle. The result is a universe. The two forces are precisely equivalent, but the geometry that lies between them is imperfect, which allows the energy between the two forces to be release and create a universe. The universe is more or less a pi calculator. Randomness, evolution, and uncertainty is a result of this ever changing value of pi. We can never know what the future holds with absolute certainty, because that value has not been defined. Once defined, it becomes a finite reality within the universe. The universe gets left behind as a finite result of this perpetual resolution of pi. Our existence lies precisely between these forces.

Now here’s the hard part that no one will ever accept, but I really don’t have a better way to express it mathematically. Because there is a precise equivalence, we can express mathematically -∞/+∞=-1, without actually knowing the values. It’s irrelevant in the contexts of a set value. Infinity isn’t an abstract conceptual idea, it’s actually a physical state.

The set constant is -1, and the universe itself is the physical set constant as defined by infinity. Infinity represents a potential positive and negative force, and that potential between those forces is realized as a universe.

1=1*-1^2

This will be a difficult theory to prove in terms of absolutes, and the overwhelming majority are going to flat out reject my use of infinity within a mathematical calculation. I understand that fully. I don’t really care on a number of levels though, because it is what it is, and it is exactly as I see it. If you don’t like my use of infinity in the expression, then just use an e and g for expansion and gravity. There is also a prediction to be had. Expansion and gravity are equal and opposite forces. What’s happening to one is happening to the other in an opposite manner. So more expansion leads to more contraction or gravity, which might possibly be seen as higher mass. Acceleration might be seen as an acceleration in mass gain throughout the universe. Increased expansion, increases gravity, which is seen as an increase in mass throughout the entire universe. The deeper question I seem to ask myself is whether or not the expansion is the true physical reality, or contraction is the true physical reality. Or maybe it’s a little of both. I tend to consider we are physically contracting to an ever smaller state, and expansion is more of an illusion in the process. It could be more like a discreet perspective change, and that perspective always remains static because -/+ always equals -1. Yes, there is more space between distant objects, but the expansion is realized through the contraction process, not the actual expansion of space. This is where I began this line of thought nearly 10 years ago, but I just couldn’t quite put all the pieces together in a sensible manner. I don’t know. Seems very difficult to prove considering the relative nature of things.

To me, this seems to possibly answer a lot of questions of the hows and whys though. For instance, motion may not be exactly what it appears to be. Things only move in or out, or it’s more of a 2-dimensional reality. Although we see things moving left to right, and up and down, what that could really represent is moving towards or away from expansion or contraction. The forces are omnidirectional, so your 2-dimensional journey can occur in a 3-dimensional manner from an observational point of view. The faster we physically move in any direction, the closer we move towards the expansive force. The slower we go, the faster we move towards the contractive state. Technically, there really isn’t an at rest state, only a relative point somewhere between expansion and contraction. Motion is the energy constant. No motion, no energy. Massless particles move towards expansion. Mass particles move towards contraction. Something like that anyway. But we don’t really move in a strange sort of way, although I do have a little trouble getting a handle on the interpretation. I sort of see it though. It’s like a 90 or 180 degree bend between the forces. Move towards expansion, and matter expands. Move towards contraction, and matter condenses. You can’t exceed the forces that created and sustains you though, so we have a speed limit which we define as light speed. Those values are also offset, and they want to be balanced at -1, but there isn’t truly a middle point. Everything moves in one direction or the other. That’s why nothing can exceed the speed of light. Motion is more about resistance and capacitance, and the space that lies between destinations acts more like a superconductor of sorts. Increase resistance to contraction in one direction, and the capacitance naturally increases in the opposite direction, and you have motion. The force always wants to balance at about -1. Something like that anyway. Maximum value in either direction is the defined value for the speed of light. It’s not really about velocities on a more fundamental level though, it’s about offset energy values. I think the real core of the problem lies in a perception of + and - velocity, which is more a manipulation of the natural expansive and gravitational forces. The idea of negative velocities is something that won’t be well received though. Mass wants to move in the negative direction, and light wants to move in the positive direction.

[Mordred]

This breakdown might be easier to understand than the wiki article

 

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll2/Carroll2_1.html

From your post above

 

"Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force"

 

 

Think pressure. Which is how it's treated In the FLRW metric. There is your key

Edited January 15, 2015 by Mordred

[JohnSSM]

Nice read...I'd say its a pretty good speculative theory with a flow unto itself...You seem an intelligent person with a passion for the subject...but I feel that you're short on some very important explanations and maybe redefining some terms to fit your theory...not fully...

I really liked how you saw the universe as "one mass"...i can see it in terms like that...

I can relate to making infinity something finite yet undefined...although in its strictest definition, infinity is different...

Looking at e=mc2 like 1=1c2 was a new pespective for me...

I like how you see pi as linked with the infinite changing nature of the universe...

But there's many assumptions in your writting and ideas...it seems...

If you can't show more or less precisely how your ideas differ from the current models, describe how they are different and what features they share, then youre basically making a new model...and no one is going to go along with a new model, against models that have soooo much testing a proof by soooo many very smart folks who proved them with math...

Math is like light...the only invariant for differing perspectives...math will always tell the truth...math does not change...So, having a reference frame all your own, you will need math to show anyone in a different reference frame that what you're seeing is also truth for them and math is the only way...

I see your harmonius simplicity and I dig it...but the "tugging" and "equality of expansion and gravity" and some of the assumptions made about energy without ever mentioning fields and their different interactions with particles...There's so much more involved than what your discussing, but it isnt all a part of your discussion...its like the slice of a complete idea...and in that regard, I enjoyed reading it...

These guys in the forums impressed the shit outa me...although some have misquoted and made some small errors in thought because they arent perfect at thinking on the fly and typing, but the responses they give you are not their own. These guys know the terms and the history of the theories and how they have all grown...so they cant see this like you...they know what the most provable and trusted theories are, and their expertise is in knowing them and following them...Any variance of thought from what is "known" and youre gonna be asked to compare it to what it known, and you have to know it, cuz these guys do...i mean...no one's perfect, but this is a science and a study of much more with your own thoughts...so you dont even get to have them until you know what is known...and the theory is, in that process, youll learn for yourself why your ideas dont work...and youll have new ones built on a stronger foundation...

Keep thinking...and taking in what is known...

[Strange]

Well, the article in the link some proof, which is the minimum requirement of proof for the thread to exist. It shows what I am saying is plausible, and not in an invisible dinasour sort of way.

 

Ignoring the problems with that paper, you have done nothing to show that it bears any relationship to what you have claimed. It is not clear what you have claimed as it is very vague, so the problem is you can claim almost anything supports it.

 

Perpetul expansion is not provable.

 

It depends on the overall energy density in the universe and, now, apparently the nature of dark energy. Currently it appears that nothing will stop expansion.

 

An equivelance between expansion and gravity may be possible to prove.

 

They are already know to be exactly the same thing, so I am not sure what there is to prove. I though you were claiming they were not the same thing.

 

None of the math needs to be reworked. It is simply a fundamental understanding of what's going on.

 

If none of the math needs to change, then I don't see much value. Also, if you are saying that your idea uses the existing standard mathematics of relativity then it is not enough just to claim that, you need to demonstrate it. Otherwise it is just another unsupported claim.

Acceleration of the universe should be provable mathematically.

 

You want proof, but you really haven't heard the full explanation.

 

Then give us the full explanation.

 

What you get out of this thread is up to you, not me. Judge for yourself.

 

So you are happy if we just dismiss it as unsupported nonsense?

The sum total of all the mass in the universe could be represented with a value of 1 as a set. If you chose to look at it as a set, than the energy that mass set contained would also have to be defined as 1, because there is an equivalence between between mass and energy as Einstein proved in E=mc^2. That leaves us with a fairly meaningless truth of, 1=1. So what?

 

The value of c is 1 in Planck units. But in those units the mass and/or energy of the universe (which is unknown, and may be infinite) is not 1.

 

You need to show that there is a meaningful and consistent set of units where the total mass of the universe can be 1 while c is also 1.

 

 

The reason I see that is because there are only two logical answers to the problem, c=1 or c=-1.

 

A constant needs to be a physical property that makes mathematical sense.

 

In which case, c cannot be -1 (as that is not a physically meaningful speed).

 

 

Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force. If these two forces were overlaid upon each other, and working in opposite directions, they would meet in the middle at 4 pi r^2, or the surface area of a sphere.

 

So you are assuming that these two forces originate from, or act towards, a single point? Where is this point? How would we identify it? This contradicts the apparent homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. (Which has been measured very precisely.)

 

 

Because there is a precise equivalence, we can express mathematically -∞/+∞=-1, without actually knowing the values.

 

No. That is mathematically undefined.

 

 

This will be a difficult theory to prove in terms of absolutes, and the overwhelming majority are going to flat out reject my use of infinity within a mathematical calculation.

 

Note that it is your use of infinity that is rejected, not the use of infinity. There are ways of using infinity in equations, just not the way you do it.

 

 

I don’t really care on a number of levels though, because it is what it is, and it is exactly as I see it.

 

And that is the problem: you don't care that what you are doing is mathematically invalid. You don't care that your claim of a centre of the universe is contradicted by evidence. You don't care about science. You only care about people accepting your idea despite the obvious flaws.

 

 

Increased expansion, increases gravity, which is seen as an increase in mass throughout the entire universe.

 

If anything, the opposite appears to be the case (based on those pesky observations): the energy of empty space is causing expansion to accelerate not slow.

[JohnSSM]

So you both agree that gravity and expansion in the universe are equal values? the same thing? Why does expansion seem to be winning? IS gravity gonna snap it back? color me confused...

[Strange]

So you both agree that gravity and expansion in the universe are equal values?

 

Not equal values. But the same thing - the same mechanism.

 

 

Why does expansion seem to be winning? IS gravity gonna snap it back?

 

It depends on the energy density of the universe. It used to be assumed that an eventual collapse and "big bounce" was a possibility, but the discovery of dark energy makes that seem unlikely now.