The Universe

[soup]

assuming a uniform dark background, it seems possible that a collision caused some sort of spherical expanding wave that accounts for the distribution of light and dark banding. that scatter from particulates causes the lighter portion of the sky which is traveling outward and leaves a spherical area behind it of lower particle density having lower scatter, appearing darker.

another possibility is a uniform light background with a uniform round cloud of absorbing material inbetween us and the clusters, this cloud isn't able to attenuate the bright light of the cluster center. here the background temperature of 3k comes to mind - i would expect dark matter to reveal a temperature depression but don't find any mention of it. is the apparent temperature of a black hole less than 3k, or is the intermediate medium enough to boost its appearance to 3k?

in this case another assumption seems that the space between us and the deep sky objects we observe is empty but it may not be, it may be filled with particles of about 3k temperature which skews our understandings somewhat.
in my case, my understanding seems highly skewed regardless.

[soup]

if a person has two watches that tell a different time, then is it possible to understand time to a higher degree than if the person had simply one watch?

if a person has three watches this might be an advantage over two, because if two of the three watches agree to a greater degree than the third, this might suggest that the third watch has malfunctioned.

if a person has many watches and averages their indication of time, there may be some sort of gaussian curve found which yields a lower uncertainty in the mean value than the accuracy of one watch alone offers.

so by metaphor, interpreting reality from perspectives of multiple dimensions may offer advantage over a simple perspective of rudimentary dimension.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

be well, be love.

david

this web page is designed to give everyone an idea of what our universe actually looks like. there are nine main maps on this web page, each one approximately ten times the scale of the previous one. the first map shows the nearest stars and then the other maps slowly expand out until we have reached the scale of the entire visible universe.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/turo...k07_index.html

be well, be love.

david

"in recent years, the search for the fundamental laws of nature has forced us to think about the big bang much more deeply. according to our best theories — string theory and m theory — all of the details of the laws of physics are actually determined by the structure of the universe; specifically, by the arrangement of tiny, curled-up extra dimensions of space. this is a very beautiful picture: particle physics itself is now just another aspect of cosmology. but if you want to understand why the extra dimensions are arranged as they are, you have to understand the big bang because that's where everything came from."

the cyclic universe [5.17.07]
a talk with neil turok

neil turok holds the chair of mathematical physics in the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at cambridge university. he is coauthor, with paul steinhardt, of endless universe: beyond the big bang.

neil turok's edge bio page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the cyclic universe

[neil turok:] for the last ten years i have mainly been working on the question of how the universe began — or didn't begin. what happened at the big bang? to me this seems like one of the most fundamental questions in science, because everything we know of emerged from the big bang. whether it's particles or planets or stars or, ultimately, even life itself.

in recent years, the search for the fundamental laws of nature has forced us to think about the big bang much more deeply. according to our best theories — string theory and m theory — all of the details of the laws of physics are actually determined by the structure of the universe; specifically, by the arrangement of tiny, curled-up extra dimensions of space. this is a very beautiful picture: particle physics itself is now just another aspect of cosmology. but if you want to understand why the extra dimensions are arranged as they are, you have to understand the big bang because that's where everything came from.

somehow, until quite recently, fundamental physics had gotten along without really tackling that problem. even back in the 1920's, einstein, friedmann and lemaitre — the founders of modern cosmology — realized there was a singularity at the big bang. that somehow, when you trace the universe back, everything went wrong about 14 billion years ago. by go wrong, i mean all the laws of physics break down: they give infinities and meaningless results. einstein himself didn't interpret this as the beginning of time; he just said, well, my theory fails. most theories fail in some regime, and then you need a better theory. isaac newton's theory fails when particles go very fast; it fails to describe that. you need relativity. likewise, einstein said, we need a better theory of gravity than mine.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

doh! i posted this at joseph's posting. lets hope larry can erase it. ;-)

here's some earlier work from fintan dunne's site where neil is mentioned;

http://www.treeincarnation.com/inside-out-universe.htm

be well, be love.

david

note that this material is from september, 2002.
it lays out the core ideas which have really come
together in the latest articles. see: part 1 and part 2

the mirror mind of the cyclic universe
it's the structure of creation.

the latest big bang theory proposes a cyclic universe --driven by colliding membranes. the new model supports analysis that a human-like mirror mind created our universe. the wall in science is coming down.

17th september 2002
by fintan dunne,
author: treeincarnation.com

big bang researchers have developed a landmark theory, with just-glimpsed implications which dethrone established scientific views of the world. princeton's jeremiah ostriker has called the theory "..the first new big idea in cosmology in over two decades."

were louis pasteur alive he would be overjoyed. the new theory intersects with his conviction that the left-handed twist of amino acids in living tissues held the key to the mysteries of creation. he was right.

in 1851 pasteur wrote: "i am on the verge of mysteries and the veil which covers them is getting thinner and thinner." but it has taken another 150 years to fully dissolve that veil. let's examine the new theory, then see how this links back to pasteur.

the most recent breakthrough has come from princeton university's paul j. steinhardt and cambridge university's neil turok. the two leading cosmologists have confirmed the applicability of string theory to a cyclic universe. according to this view, universes are created and then disperse into space, one after another, with each cycle lasting trillions of years.

a variation of this concept known as m theory, proposes that the universe consists of two parallel sheets, or membranes, in a higher dimension. the two so-called 'branes' are separated by another dimension only nanometers wide. when the membranes slap together, they trigger the big bang and begin rapidly expanding like stretched latex.

on the membrane which holds the known universe, this bang generates the particles and forces which form our milky way. the other membrane contains "dark energy."

over trillions of years the membranes continue to expand, growing darker, colder and more diffuse. when the 'branes' eventually become flat and featureless they collapse and come together for another cosmic bang.

[soup]

that seems perplexing in some way. i would imagine this is what it appears like assuming light travels in a straight line, but does it? for example the light that goes by the local stars could be gravitationally bent and so what is behind the star gets distorted and/or occluded. the same goes for the opposite side of the galaxy - it seems difficult for me to comprehend what is on the other side of the galactic center from us, let alone what exists at the galactic center, mysterious as it is. the galaxy subtends such large angles. it seems easier for be to visualize we have better understanding of what the universe appears to be outside the plane of our galaxy where the density of stars is lower and we can better see without interference of neighboring stars. this line of wandering brings me to question the plane of the solar system, in relation to the plane of the galaxy - it just doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the universe may also have a dominant plane andwe just can't see it well.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0705.../070528-7.html

be well, be love.

david

space telescope spies dark matter

triangulation technique spots object at the edge of our galaxy.
geoff brumfiel

astronomers have used telescopes on earth and in space to nail the precise position of a mysterious, dark object at the outer edge of our galaxy. the work could be an important step in understanding so-called dark matter — mysterious material that makes up about a quarter of our universe.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/sc...nt&oref=slogin

bewell, be love.

david

the universe, expanding beyond all understanding
by dennis overbye

when albert einstein was starting out on his cosmological quest 100 years ago, the universe was apparently a pretty simple and static place. common wisdom had it that all creation consisted of an island of stars and nebulae known as the milky way surrounded by infinite darkness.

we like to think we’re smarter than that now. we know space is sprinkled from now to forever with galaxies rushing away from one another under the impetus of the big bang.

bask in your knowledge while you can. our successors, whoever and wherever they are, may have no way of finding out about the big bang and the expanding universe, according to one of the more depressing scientific papers i have ever read.

if things keep going the way they are, lawrence krauss of case western reserve university and robert j. scherrer of vanderbilt university calculate, in 100 billion years the only galaxies left visible in the sky will be the half-dozen or so bound together gravitationally into what is known as the local group, which is not expanding and in fact will probably merge into one starry ball.

[Robert Riedel]

let us ponder the following, from those hubble folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbv-cxvwfw

having grown up in cleveland, i've come to reguard cwru as, well, less than a credible source of anything significant, due to their being taken over by a bunch of academic loosers.

bob

[donald@newdirectionscs.com]

i was rambling around trying to find information about gamma ray bursts in a time line fashion to see if they were increasing and stumbed uon this. it is a set of phos of a star collapsing, but look at last picture, is this not a beautiful picture of a torus field. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...challenge.html

by the way does anyone know of a site that tracks gamma ray bursts so that you can make sense out of the information and see if it is intesifying?
thanks donald by the way david wow, just read your post today about next tuesday, hope this really shakes things up and brings others into awareness. peace be unto us all.


gamma-ray burst challenges theory

03.08.07


in a series of landmark observations gathered over a period of four months, nasa's swift satellite has challenged some of astronomers' fundamental ideas about gamma-ray bursts (grbs), which are among the most extreme events in our universe. grbs are the explosive deaths of very massive stars, some of which eject jets that can release in a matter of seconds the same amount of energy that the sun will radiate over its 10-billion-year lifetime.