A new theory of the creation of our universe: the Big Bubble.

Consider a boundless Universe in which voids form, for want of a
better analogy, much like bubbles form in Swiss cheese or cavitation
occurs in water. Further, consider our universe to be like one of
those bubbles into the vacuum of which matter outgassed from the wall
of the expanding void disperses, and we have everything we need to
very satisfyingly answer three long-standing, nagging questions:
Where is the missing matter?, Why does the red shift increase with
distance?, and, Why is there a horizon beyond which we can't see?

In order to answer these questions, three propositions need to be
accepted; the first being that the Universe isn't homogeneous (it's
gravitationally lumpy (maybe because it's full of bubbles like ours)),
the second being that the Universe (of which our universe is a part)
exerts attractive gravity everywhere, and the third being that gravity
follows an inverse square law.

Now, If we consider the Universe to be infinite and anisotropic, then
the matter dispersed in our universe will be differentially attracted
by the lumpy gravity behind the wall, and the matter closest to those
attractors will be attracted most strongly. Its acceleration as it
heads for them will, therefore, increase more and more as it gets
closer and closer to them and its red shift will increase until it
hits the wall and is absorbed by the Universe. When that happens it
will disappear, will cease to exist in our universe and will be
perceived as missing.

Then, since it's gone and we can no longer detect it or any of the
other matter which has been absorbed by the Universe, we know where
the "missing" matter went, why the red shift increases with distance,
and why the horizon is where we can't see past where the missing
matter went home.

This is just a rudimentary conjecture and I haven't worked out any of
the details yet, but I'd welcome any serious critique outlining
anything I've missed.

Of particular interest to me would be any data relating to the
disappearance of stellar objects (like Novae) if their red shift was
known when they blew up. Seems to me that if far red shifted Novas
blew up before less far red shifted ones did, then the bubble is
collapsing.

Thanks,

John Fields
--
John Fields

Dear John Fields:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

Consider a boundless Universe in which voids form, for want of a
better analogy, much like bubbles form in Swiss cheese or cavitation
occurs in water. Further, consider our universe to be like one of
those bubbles into the vacuum of which matter outgassed from the wall
of the expanding void disperses, and we have everything we need to
very satisfyingly answer three long-standing, nagging questions:
Where is the missing matter?

Doesn't answer it, as matter "outside" our bubble is not where the missing
mass is located. It is co-located with each spiral galaxy, near the rim.

Why does the red shift increase with
distance?

It doesn't answer it well, since expansion is NOT kinetic motion.

Why is there a horizon beyond which we can't see?

Because we have difficulty resolving long wave radio waves into images?
Because the intensity is so low you have to expose for *days* to image
them?

Who is to say that some of those images out there are not the Milky Way in
an earlier age?

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:

Dear John Fields:

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

Consider a boundless Universe in which voids form, for want of a
better analogy, much like bubbles form in Swiss cheese or cavitation
occurs in water. Further, consider our universe to be like one of
those bubbles into the vacuum of which matter outgassed from the wall
of the expanding void disperses, and we have everything we need to
very satisfyingly answer three long-standing, nagging questions:
Where is the missing matter?

Doesn't answer it, as matter "outside" our bubble is not where the missing
mass is located. It is co-located with each spiral galaxy, near the rim.

Why does the red shift increase with
distance?



See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

On Tue, 18 May 2004 07:24:20 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear John Fields:

"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .

Consider a boundless Universe in which voids form, for want of a
better analogy, much like bubbles form in Swiss cheese or cavitation
occurs in water. Further, consider our universe to be like one of
those bubbles into the vacuum of which matter outgassed from the wall
of the expanding void disperses, and we have everything we need to
very satisfyingly answer three long-standing, nagging questions:
Where is the missing matter?

Doesn't answer it, as matter "outside" our bubble is not where the missing
mass is located. It is co-located with each spiral galaxy, near the rim.

---
Then the reason for the "dark matter" conjecture has come to an end?
---

Why does the red shift increase with
distance?

It doesn't answer it well, since expansion is NOT kinetic motion.

---
Putting the notion of the big bang and expansion aside for the moment,
If one considers that the mass outside of our bubble is attracting
everything in our bubble to it, then objects closer to the wall will
be hurtling toward the wall with a much greater velocity than those
farther from the wall, resulting in a greater red shift from the
objects closer to the wall.
---

Why is there a horizon beyond which we can't see?

Because we have difficulty resolving long wave radio waves into images?
Because the intensity is so low you have to expose for *days* to image
them?

---
Because there may be a wall beyond which we _cannot_ see? With a
density great enough to stop radiation from emanating past it, the
Universe on the other side of our bubble may well be like a black
hole.
---


Who is to say that some of those images out there are not the Milky Way in
an earlier age?

---
Certainly not I!

--
John Fields

On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:34:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

---
Thanks, but those links presuppose and support the big bang, which my
theory doesn't.

What I'm proposing is that our universe (lower case) is composed of
matter which "outgassed", if you will, from the walls of a bubble into
the vacuum of the bubble which popped into being in the Universe
(upper case) for some reason. Or for no reason...

--
John Fields

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:34:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

---
Thanks, but those links presuppose and support the big bang, which my
theory doesn't.

What I'm proposing is that our universe (lower case) is composed of
matter which "outgassed", if you will, from the walls of a bubble into
the vacuum of the bubble which popped into being in the Universe
(upper case) for some reason. Or for no reason...

--
John Fields

John--Does your theory make a testable prediction that is a different
prediction than the big bang theory?

o If so, please elaborate.
o If not, are they mathematically equivalent?

"John Fields" wrote in message
...

---
Putting the notion of the big bang and expansion aside for the moment,
If one considers that the mass outside of our bubble is attracting
everything in our bubble to it, then objects closer to the wall will
be hurtling toward the wall with a much greater velocity than those
farther from the wall, resulting in a greater red shift from the
objects closer to the wall.
---

The expansion is observed to be isotropic, which would imply
that an attracting force would need to be likewise (i.e., not
"lumpy"). In other words, the attraction would come from what
would appear to be a uniform shell of attraction surrounding
our cosmic horizon.

Now, what is the net gravitational field inside a uniform
spherical shell? It's nil. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:06:43 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:34:02 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

---
Thanks, but those links presuppose and support the big bang, which my
theory doesn't.

What I'm proposing is that our universe (lower case) is composed of
matter which "outgassed", if you will, from the walls of a bubble into
the vacuum of the bubble which popped into being in the Universe
(upper case) for some reason. Or for no reason...

--
John Fields

John--Does your theory make a testable prediction that is a different
prediction than the big bang theory?

---
Not yet, but I'm working on it.
---

o If not, are they mathematically equivalent?

---
I think so, but in truth, I don't know.

This is a new endeavor for me and as time goes by, hopefully I'll be
able to put the pieces in place which will prove me right or find that
I was wrong, put the thing to rest and go on to the next challenge.


--
John Fields

On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:11:50 -0400, "Greg Neill"
wrote:

"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .

---
Putting the notion of the big bang and expansion aside for the moment,
If one considers that the mass outside of our bubble is attracting
everything in our bubble to it, then objects closer to the wall will
be hurtling toward the wall with a much greater velocity than those
farther from the wall, resulting in a greater red shift from the
objects closer to the wall.
---

The expansion is observed to be isotropic, which would imply
that an attracting force would need to be likewise (i.e., not
"lumpy"). In other words, the attraction would come from what
would appear to be a uniform shell of attraction surrounding
our cosmic horizon.

Now, what is the net gravitational field inside a uniform
spherical shell? It's nil. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

---
I know, and that would mean that for a net gravitational field to be
exerted upon the contents of the bubble, the shell would have to be
nonuniform. Not necessarily permanently statically gravitationally
"lumpy", but changing enough to attract a little more here than there
for a while, then a little more there than here, then... Kind of
like gravitational "noise", so to speak.

--
John Fields

"John Fields" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 May 2004 13:11:50 -0400, "Greg Neill"
wrote:


Now, what is the net gravitational field inside a uniform
spherical shell? It's nil. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

---
I know, and that would mean that for a net gravitational field to be
exerted upon the contents of the bubble, the shell would have to be
nonuniform. Not necessarily permanently statically gravitationally
"lumpy", but changing enough to attract a little more here than there
for a while, then a little more there than here, then... Kind of
like gravitational "noise", so to speak.

Your epicycles are becoming unmanageable.