So who is going to take the first step into this new Bangless infinity of continuous creation, of light streaming every which way, carrying subatomic particles to new locations, unfettered by man's desire to contain it. within his tiny radius of technological vision.

'One giant step for mankind' will have a totally knew meaning, on the day that the bubble bursts.

We'll be free to look at the solar system in a new light and see that Mars is possibly 3 billion years older than earth and Venus 3 billion years younger. And maybe Neptune could be 20 billion years old. And the sun? – We've got a lot to learn.

The Dark Energy is the Vacuum.
Vacuum is not a dead space.
Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space as the
Quantum Theory says.
The Energetic Vacuum itself is ‘ The Dark Energy ‘.
The physicists only invent new word ‘Dark Energy ‘ instead of
to say ‘ ENERGETIC VACUUM ’.
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
========== . .
Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being – Vacuum: T=0K.

To understand this ‘speculation’ we must know:
1. What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
2. Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
3. How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
==========..

Just by accepting what we see and understand, and realising that what exists beyond is beyond the limit of the visible from our vantage point, why not simply accept that it is all part of ONE infinite mass.

There is no reason for a beginning, but only a reason for constant change and recycling, which can all be summed up as CREATION, be it the formation of a star, a planet, or one small stone from a volcanic eruption.

David

How about dropping all the complicating mystery and just accept that light has a visible content that allows us to see it for its journey of approximately 13 billion years. At that point it has run out of red and becomes the dark matter, energy, that continues on its way for some more billions of years.

Isn't it easier to accept that we are simply in the middle of our 'light visible' part of the universe? Perhaps we ought to call the so called edge of the universe the 'boundary of cosmic visibility'. BCV for short.

Yes, I know that would be the demise of Big Bang and a 13.7 billion year old universe, but if there is no boundary we just may have to accept that the universe is infinite in size and age. There's nothing upsetting about that except that all the text books will have to burned, [Not a problem, that's been done before]. A lot of scientists will be devastated. – And the church?

Not really. if Creationists feel threatened by such a possibility, don't worry. – Creation is happening all the time. The arena is almost certainly boundless, and all the ingredients are there, so why did it have to have a beginning? Why would it ever come to an end? Why is there confusion about what is meant by beginning and what is meant by creation? And we do understand enough of the physics involved to know that a recycling creational activity exists. And if God did the creation bit, then He had to come from somewhere, – didn't he?

Genesis Continuous had it's [beginning] in 1972 and I've been [creating] it ever since. But 'Beginning' in that sense, doesn't mean that the paper, the pen, and the ink, had to also have a beginning.

Cheers

David

Kind Regards,
Dan Visser (ingE, cosmologist, PhD* and artist).

I invite journlists to contact me to write about my new cosmology.

Note: http://www.darkfieldnavigator.com (juridical terms applied, all rights reserved, first contact me by email)

October 20, 2008

About 700 million light-years in from the upper edge of your circle there is one of the youngest galaxies in the universe – put the point of your dividers on it, about 2 mm inside the boundary and describe another circle.

A galaxy shines its light globally. Since we are 13 billion light-years from it, we would assume that its light will reach within and almost equally beyond the so-called containment of the universe.

But since that galaxy is racing away by what is called expansion, it cannot be now, where it was when the light we see shone from it. So, place the point of your dividers on the upper edge of your upper circle and describe another circle. And the upper edge of your third circle will be a minimum of 39 billion light-years away from us.

The word, containment, derived from the belief that there was a beginning, expansion, and an outer limit, or edge, of the universe, has to be absolute nonsense.

Creation, is an ongoing, eternal, recycling phenomenon. Stars come and go – planets come and go – we come and go, etc. etc. Nothing is lost and nothing is gained.

David

Reading many opinions on this report one gets that feeling, that we here on earth are right in the middle of a created universe, whether by God or a singularity suddenly flying apart, and that some new stuff is embarrassingly discovered just beyond what was thought to be the 'bladder'. And for the sake of accepted cosmological science, that's it. The boundary, created be a beginning and its expansion has to be there to protect this crazy BB philosophy.

I have put this question far more than once:-
[1] Light from a galaxy at the presumed edge of the universe takes 13 billion years to reach us. Stars shine globally, so where is their light going to that shines beyond the perceived boundary of the universe a mere 700 million light-years away?

[2] In an expanding Big Bang scenario, and since the light from those most distant visible galaxies has taken 13 billion years to reach us, where are those galaxies now if not 13 billion light-years further away or more? And that's probably more than 12.3 billion light-years beyond the perceived bladder.

So add these three rational probabilities together and you get 13 plus 13 plus 13 billion light-years.

That is:-
[a] Time that their light has taken to reach us plus,
[b] Expansion from where those galaxies were to where they are now, plus
[c] Light penetration distance from where they are now away beyond them. equals
Probably far more than 39 billion light-years.

We cannot have expansion and in the same breath say, 'those galaxies are still there'.

We cannot say that there is a bladder 700 million light-years beyond those farthest light visible galaxies whilst conservation insists that light from those galaxies is being bounced back into the universe – not unless someone can convincingly prove that a mirror, or something similar, exists to do just that.

But, since the perceived age of the universe is based upon the visible radius of light, and in light of this new discovery, surely it's time for Big Bang and its foundational cosmology to bow out and give eternity a chance.

David

For example, the stars radiate throughout the energy of waves with particles of nature! Particles moving mode, which is already in place and at the same time, the region can move particles emanating from the various starfish, and they continue the movement quite the same direction away from the area in which the stars is!

The visible universe outside is truly massive concentration of energy which radiate energy waves, which have the nature of quasars. the same region can become the galaxy from several different angles, so that the business continues to quite the same direction, at the same time, when the first stars emit flammable Light. As a dark flow phenomenon can be explained logically!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AewKGNIZpuE

When we gaze at it or its light is shining on us, we are absorbing some of that star.

And another thing – If our sun is only 5 or 6 billion years old, its light hasn't gone halfway out to the edge of the visible universe yet.

David

To satisfy the law of conservation there should be an equal quantity entering our visible portion of the universe from beyond.

To satisfy reason, that 13 billion light-years has to be added to the 13 billion that it has taken for their light to reach us. Plus expansion within that same period. Mathematicians, do your stuff.

David

How about this:

big bang – start of what we consider time and matter

everything directionally is now moving toward the end of time – what ever that may be

Dark matter – actually light from stars just bouncing back and forth around the universe from the beginning to end to the end of time but diffusing to the point of not displaying anything.

Think about it , we use light to see things but what would light look like if it was simply reflected back from the edge of the universe back at us. It wouldn't show anything but just be essentially energy flowing around in random patterns affected by the normal laws of gravity etc…

light = energy
energy = mass
mass = gravity

Probably all wrong but about as good an explanation for dark matter as any of the others I've heard

Some will collect into a growing nebula and thus into a star again. Implosion whilst forming into a star, recreates possibly the full range of elements within the atomic table. So, the star appears to be the alchemist and source of all those elements we know of. Each star gives birth to a family of planets, moons, other solids and gases.

Yes, that's basically my cosmology. There is nothing in the universe that can't be explained if the universe is of infinite capacity, and that we are right in the middle of a visible portion of it. How could we be anywhere else?

I suspected many years ago that there would be wandering planets – ones that had broken away from their gravity shrinking star mother. We now know that they exist, even though without official explanation. And I think it is they, that already have an atmosphere, that will continue to build on that base and finally become nebular and new stars. And maybe the 'slingshot' of each one breaking away from its orbit will be what is thought an expanding universe. As we know now that the universe is expanding in every direction and not from some mythical center point, gives credence to that theory. One only has to look at the shape of a galaxy to see this pattern.

But, to expect all of this to occur within thirteen billion years, or a hundred, is sheer nonsense. So the suspected hole in the bubble, as I call it in this forum, has to be the beginning of the end of Big Bang Confinement.

David

"Cosmologists view the microwave background – a flash of light emitted 380,000 years after the big bang"

What event caused this flash?

Is the CMB not a consequence of the Big Bang itself?

IT CAME FROM BEYOND THE UNIVERSE!