I won't go too far down this road at the moment but I have had some extremely unusual, detailed experiences with what one might call the supernatural, which either means I am nuts (doesnt feel like it) or there is much more to be discovered about the true nature of existence. I feel it's not all Out There. Much of it is Right Here.

One thing I feel I have learned is that an openness to new knowledge and a humility before the great mysteries is somehow the key to incredible discoveries and leaps of mind. I am open to all possibilities.

Recently I've been looking at alternative theories of cosmology and physics and am leaning towards a infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist. One that is not expanding, though there is a horizon beyond which we will never be able to see or know anything about, ever.

The 3 dimensional universe is bounded by a 4th dimension that isn't infinite. And while it's useful sometimes to think of "time" as a "one way dimension" it's actually isn't a dimension at all, so the 4 dimensions are all spacial dimensions and are the only dimensions that exist.

Matter and energy is the intrusion of this finite 4th dimension into the 3 dimensions we know and forces are part of how these intrusions are played out in 3d space (which is a very simplified concept, but gets the point across). Under this model, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity actually dovetail with each other, rather than conflict as under current dogma – they are simply unified as part of the same phenomenon.

The biggest difference mathematically is the concept that "null" is a real value and represents a value that is as real as any other value and has meaning (IE- nothing is something too…).

I've posted on this site before that I think the next big breakthru in physics and cosmology will be "dimensional physics", just like the last big breakthru was "electromagnetic physics" and before that was "kinetic physics". Einstein touched on this concept in General Relativity, with the idea that gravity was simply warped space.

The infamous Michelson-Moreley experiment was a failure due to applying kinetic physics to an electromagnetic physics problem. I firmly believe that we are applying electromagnetic physics to a dimensional physics problem, and the aether of the Michelson-Moreley experiment is the dark energy of today, and neither exist except in our misunderstanding of the nature of the universe.

You may have guess that I favor a particular alternate theory, and I do. It's the only one I found incorporates what I call "dimensional physics" into it's solutions.

I can't totally buy in to the universe as a whole expanding from the 'big bang'; however it is hard to dismiss what the doppler affect is displaying. To me, I still wonder why in the large scheme of things it looks like the universe is stretching out, however at a (relatively) smaller scale we don't see galaxies, dark matter, galaxy clusters etc stretching out equally. I don't think gravity alone can keep the small things in check the way things currently are.

It's good to be critical and not believe everything you hear. You don't have to totally dismiss something, but if your gut tells you something isn't right… then you should seek out an answer. Sooner or later, it will get proven; even if it takes a millenia.

Part of the problem with the "Big Bang" is that is it trying to explain why everything is traveling out-wards. Except that much of the recent work is starting to show that it may not be. The only real "evidence" of an expanding universe is the "standard candle" supernovas that aren't really standard and the red-shift of galaxies.

The first one is like trying to measure the size of the universe in cubits – there is no standard length of a cubit, it changed depending on who you were talking too. And it was measured in terms of things that had no standard lengths themselves (the Romans measured the cubit as the measure from a man's hip to the fingers of the outstretched opposite arm).

The second one is the real problem. While 'tired light' has been discounted, it's not the only hypothesis on why the red shift might occur. Given a recent experiment where light was slowed down to 38MPH (yes – MILES PER HOUR) in a laboratory under conditions similar to deep space, how can we say that light traveling 8 billion lightyears won't be affected in ways that create a blue or red shift?

seems like the big bang will be hard to dethrone on the whole, not that it needs toppling. how else to account for the expansion of matter in all directions if not some 'bang' at the start, whether or not it was from a singularity or some branes clanging together.

it continues to astound me how some of the ideas/forces that underlie the universe are so simple (like gravity) while others are so complex and strange (like quantum particle behavior).

one way or the other though the universe exists for the propagation of life. whereever life is able to exist, it does. it gets wiped out in massive waves, then starts again. at least until all the stars go out. or maybe we can slide out through another dimension. ok i'm rambling now.

Now, go and try to question "climate change…"

I also want to point out that a LOT of money gets spent on research that is popular. So even when the research tends to demonstrate that the assumptions of the theory or hypothesis are wrong, don't expect the researchers to embrace the facts. It's hard to pay your mortgage and send your kids to college when your career is in a discredited scientific field (something we are seeing now in the AGW field).

Think of the universe (just after the big bang) as a compacted sponge. Pick your shape… square, cube, circular, rectangular, pony shape etc.
As time goes by, the sponge expands. No matter where you are located inside this sponge everything is moving away from you; current theory suggests this… with the exception of objects which are gravitationally affected by one another; such as local groups of galaxies.
With this being the case, then certainly voids are created over time.

Take into account that about every 5 years or so, we seem to find out we are misjudging distances somewhat, and the universe is a different age than we previously thought.

Every time we find technology to see something new or better we do come up with new answers, however we come up with a lot more questions!

do we really even have a sense of how big the universe is to presume that the nature of gravity and the electromagnetic forces is uniform?

hope my questions make sense. i've got a limited vocab with this stuff.

Thanks for the great article. If it has done anything, it has given me some directions and things to look up, study and, hopefully, understand and learn about more. It would be great to one day see a follow-up article that encapsulated respected cosmologists' reaction tp and critique of Tomothy Clifton's publication. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to comment on its correctness, but a description of the debate would be fascinating.