The Beginning Of The End Of BB Theology

If its by red shift or other observations the galaxies are rotating and moving, by this observation we must assume something is driving them. Galaxies just dont decide to move without an external force, what is it?

whynot: That depends on their age at observation, which depends on their distance from us at observation. Obviously, if we don't have an accurate distance measuring process it will be difficult to ascertain which mechanisms are responsible for their movements. If the galaxy or cluster of galaxies were observed at or near their initial stage of formation then the forces driving them are centrifical as they were formed from the hot gases slung from the event horizon of a blackhole. If they were observed at later stages of their evolution then the forces responsible for their trajectory and possibly even their velocity are electro-dynamic and inter-galactic gravitational forces. If they were observed during a phase where the quadrant of space they occupy has reached critical stage equilibrium, then they are being drawn towards the event horizon of a newly formed and active blackhole.

I do understand we are looking at ancient history but that does not exclude the idea that they are moving in certain direction.

whynot: This is correct.

When I said the universe is flat, it appears flat to our immediate perspective but taking a more distant view it is tubular, much like the segment of a life belt or torus.

whynot: This is one possibility.

Im sorry but Im not realy sure what your universe looks like or how it is constant and sometimes infinite.

whynot: I suppose, for those folks who judge a book by its cover, describing the universe we live in becomes a necessary evil. To begin with, our universe has no distinct topological shape. With multi-dimensional space being infinite we have very little to work with in getting our heads around this issue. However, the "multi" in multi-dimensional space provides a few clues. The primary dimension of space is found between the ideals of largeness and smallness. In this model largeness is infinite, so we have nothing with which to derive any geometricity from. That being said, in the opposite direction, the direction of smallness, we have somewhat more of a toehold to begin a description from. This being due entirely to the logical conclusion that smallness cannot be infinite. We reach a point where smallness ends and anything beneath it is non-existent. We can use Plank's Length as the approximate value for this point. Next comes the hard part...since we have posited space as infinitely large that means it has no outside rims that normally give us a means of identifying shape, therefore we have to attempt a determination from other factors. In normal geometrics we use outside dimensions to find the axis of any given shape. The axis would be the center of the shape in question which, in the case of large surfaces would also be the equilibrius balancing point. But since we're working with a non-geocentric surface we can infer that its point or axis must be the only identifiable property of shape we have to work with. This being the case all we can reasonably say is that the universe has a center or axis beyond which space eminates outward of 360 degrees infinitely. Using 360 degrees means we're working with a shape very similar to a globe or egg. It might be perfectly round or elongated or even almost tubular or none of the above. I would venture a guess that it, like all the existents it contains, is always changing shape somewhat, kind of like a droplet of water floating in freefall that is constantly shifting its perimeters such that no defineable shape materializes but it still retains somewhat of a globular condition. And, too, its actual shape would also depend somewhat on where the observer is positioned in the determination. If the observer is inside this glob things might look quite different from an observation made from outside same. However, since we're describing an outside of infinite proportions, getting outside of infinity might be quite a trick.

You appear to be creating empty space without the necessary mass to make it possible.You have invented nothing .

whynot: Nope. No can take the credit for that. Nothing has already been invented long before I came along.

My alien life would be capable of manipulating space and time having discovered those ellusive worm holes. They are intelligent enough to have secured this secret without destroying themselves. So where are they?

whynot: I have it from a reliable sorce that there are Klingons on Uranus...so you might want to check with a local physician for a resolution to that problem.

How big is your universe if it's not infinite?

whynot: Relevance?

Is it not big enough to make the laws of average create me again and again without ending?

whynot: I certainly hope not.

Im sorry but by disputing the means to arrive at the BB theory does not therefor conclude any other theory is valid

whynot: And you actually think I am basing my theory on such flimsy claims? I hope any future criticisms from you will have some cogent and robust connection to the theory I've articulated...otherwise I can but conclude you're grinding an axe too big to swallow.

I can only repeat my opinions as I am not convinced either way on this subject. We have two set of experts expressing their views. I understand your argument on the red shift and its failings and agree with you but after that your speculations are not very convincing. Im inclined to look at the conclusions rsther than the path it took to get there. If the conclusions are illogical then I question the reasoning. The BB is not logical nor the constant static universe. The BB has been modified and adjusted. It is not the standard model we all have accepted. It had no centre as such but occupied a space created by its appearance. The questions are complex and hard to reason. The idea that the universal constants that had to be so finely tuned by the value of 1in a trilion of 1% in the first few seconds of the universe are damned hard to explain. What can we mortals do with so much information and so much conflicting evidence? We choose a model that we find logical and argue its values. Mine is a torus .

I can only repeat my opinions as I am not convinced either way on this subject. We have two set of experts expressing their views. I understand your argument on the red shift and its failings and agree with you but after that your speculations are not very convincing. Im inclined to look at the conclusions rsther than the path it took to get there. If the conclusions are illogical then I question the reasoning. The BB is not logical nor the constant static universe. The BB has been modified and adjusted. It is not the standard model we all have accepted. It had no centre as such but occupied a space created by its appearance. The questions are complex and hard to reason. The idea that the universal constants that had to be so finely tuned by the value of 1in a trilion of 1% in the first few seconds of the universe are damned hard to explain. What can we mortals do with so much information and so much conflicting evidence? We choose a model that we find logical and argue its values. Mine is a torus .

whynot: I understand your position Xris...and respect your integrity and courage in continuing your search for a reasonable understanding of our reality. I have deduced from our exchanges that the primary "conclusions" you've taken issue with, in my theory, revolve around the infinities and "no beginnings". This helps me to determine the weak spots in my theory where I need to improve articulation and supporting argumentation. For this I am indebted to you. Like you, I am equally driven to find a reasonable explanican for the reality in which I exist. Having been unable to do so by appealing to other authorities, (they always ended up becoming matters of opinion or interpretations of existing data), I finally decided to embark on the journey of developing my own perspective on these issues. And that, my friend, is the basis of philosophy...is it not?