John Fields writes, > [snip] my hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a "big bubble" which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid.
> All of the matter in our universe would have "outgassed" from the > other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been > being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion. Much as I like the basic idea, it is clear from observation that there are numerous "loci" or centers of attraction, spread uniformly throughout the universe, but no "common" center-of-attraction (or repulsion) for all of them. It also glosses over the most important basic starting point - the distinction between an "open" and "closed" universe. The real beauty of your idea (is it original?) on the other hand, is that the bubble "wall" may itself be a "dimensional" wall, instead of a "physical" wall. To expound on this a little. Almost all the mass in our visible sky (that being the mass which is blue-shifted wrt to our solar system) is moving towards our "great attractor," located in the night sky at about Sagittarius, 14 degrees and two minutes. This "local" or blue-shifted mass (wrt to our solar system) consists of our "local group" and a few thousand other galaxies - all in the Virgo supercluster. This is one factor that must be explained by any larger scale model. No galaxy which is red-shifted to our local group, which is "supposedly" over 99% of the rest of the universe, is moving towards our great attractor. All those other galaxies have their own superclusters (about 10,000 supposedly) and therefore they all have their own individual "great attractors." It is really a two-tier system, gravitationally. The only way to salvage your main point is to say that all of those individual "great attractors" are themselves moving outward towards the bubble wall, BUT not for the normal reason. The normal "reason" is also what is to be expected in the "open universe" of the standard model, and it is indeed what the bulk of observation now tends to show - which is that the 10,000 or so superclusters are all moving away from each other. The "open" universe model cannot be disproven yet, however, despite the apparent "continuity logic" of a closed universe model (which many of us "prefer" if only because of our meager brains needing the same kind of psychological "closure," so that we are dealing to some extent with transference). Without some evidence of a closed universe, then, what is there to distinguish a "bubble" from a "big-bang"? IOW they become just two similar ways of expressing the same thing ... without the factor of gravitational closure, that is ... The factor which would bolster your theory would be to find both 1) evidence that the universe is indeed "closed" (gravitationally) and not open AND also 2) evidence that despite (1. above) that the individual "great attractors" are nevertheless all still moving away from a common center, as if the universe was "open" Note that 1.) is incompatible with the current standard cosmological model (which to be honest is based mostly on 2). But both 1) and 2) are necessary for your hypothesis to be valid. Do you see the subtle distinction, or am I not clear on the details of your hypothesis ? Jones
