On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:46:27 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
---
I don't believe that presents a problem as long as the bubble isn't
spherical and as long as the loci aren't distributed symmetrically
throughout the volume of the bubble.
---
>It also glosses over the most important basic starting point - the
>distinction between an "open" and "closed" universe.
---
It seems to, but I believe that by virtue of its undetectability, the
distiction is irrelevant because it can never be determined.
Consider: If the universe is open, and the bubble expands forever,
mass will continue to accelerate toward the wall and the universe will
seem to be expanding because it is.
On the other hand, if the universe is closed the bubble will one day
begin to collapse. However, the mass on our side of the wall will
still continue to be accelerated toward the wall, we will still see
the rate of red shift increase, and we will conclude that because of
the increase in rate the universe is expanding, when exactly the
opposite will be the case!
On the third hand, if the bubble has ceased to either expand or
contract, the mass on this side will still be accelerated more and
more as it heads for the wall, but we will still see the increase in
the shift with distance and conclude that the universe is expanding.
Consequently, the only thing we will ever be able to detect is the
shift, and since its rate of change will increase with distance, we
will always perceive the universe as being open.
There is one exception I can think of, however, that being that if
stars start disappearing, that may be because they're colliding with
the wall. If they go nova when the collision occurs, and all of a
sudden we start seeing a LOT of novas, then maybe the bubble will be
collapsing...
---
>The real beauty of your idea (is it original?)
---
As far as I know, it is. The lightbulb going off was due to something
of Fred Sparber's or Frank Znidarsik's (sp?) that I read a few years
ago on vortex, and since then I've been looking but haven't been able
to find anything quite like it. A month or so ago I talked to Hal
Puthoff about it and he also thought it was novel, so maybe it is.
---
>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.
---
Assuming that superclusters formed because the distribution of mass in
the universe wasn't isotropic and that the gravitational attraction
between some "clumps" of mass caused them to aggregate to the
exlusion of other clumps, and that the resulting superclusters are
being drawn toward a location on the wall which they find attractive,
then the two-tiered system seems to work. That is, if all the members
of a supercluster are bound gravitationally and are attracting each
other they will all be more or less blue shifted toward each other and
to a gravitational center (their "great attractor") common to the
supercluster, while the entire assemblage hurtles toward a location on
the wall which is attracting them. If we call the local attraction
within the supercluster tier 1, and the attraction between the
supercluster and the wall tier 2, then one supercuster will be red
shifted WRT any other supercluster because they will all be being
pulled away from each other by different attractors in the wall; tier
2 attractors. So the tier 1 attractors will cause mass to clump into
superclusters, while tier 2 attractors will pull superclusters away
from each other.
---
>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.
---
Yes, they're all being separately attracted to the wall and,
therefore, 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 ?
Yes, I understand. Thank you for your comments, they're certainly
appreciated!
--
John Fields
