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, 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

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 moves, 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?

--
John Fields

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.

Why is it people who get drunk one night, get a harebrain idea the think is
brilliant, but are unwilling to do any work to see if their idea holds
water, always think others will do the analysis for them?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/
************************************

"CLT" not@thisaddress wrote in message
...
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.

Why is it people who get drunk one night, get a harebrain idea the think
is
brilliant, but are unwilling to do any work to see if their idea holds
water, always think others will do the analysis for them?


Because they will end up doing the analysis anynway.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:48:40 -0700, "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote:

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.

Why is it people who get drunk one night, get a harebrain idea the think is
brilliant, but are unwilling to do any work to see if their idea holds
water, always think others will do the analysis for them?

---
I see. You have no idea how much work _was_ done prior to the request
for critique, yet because the idea wasn't yours it's harebrained, not
brilliant, and you therefore choose to offer derision and destructive
criticism instead of the requested critique.

The winnowing gets easier as the chaff gets blown away...

--
John Fields

John That bubble idea has been kicked around. read it in an Scientific
America mag a few years ago. Now another theory uses membranes(much like
a bubble),and it has two membranes coming together to create a BB
John this membrane is in another dimension so its a good guess that
these ideas come out of the string theory. Bert.

John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 20:48:40 -0700, "CLT" not@thisaddress wrote:

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.

Why is it people who get drunk one night, get a harebrain idea the
think is brilliant, but are unwilling to do any work to see if their
idea holds water, always think others will do the analysis for them?

---
I see. You have no idea how much work _was_ done prior to the request
for critique, yet because the idea wasn't yours it's harebrained, not
brilliant, and you therefore choose to offer derision and destructive
criticism instead of the requested critique.

The winnowing gets easier as the chaff gets blown away...

Even if you had not done any work on it in my oppinion you still should have
posted it. It stimulates thoughts an idea's in other people which is good. I
think this group is just going through a dip at the moment with all the
fanatical religous spam and other general crap such as what I post

I see. You have no idea how much work _was_ done prior to the request
for critique, yet because the idea wasn't yours it's harebrained, not
brilliant, and you therefore choose to offer derision and destructive
criticism instead of the requested critique.

Actually John, It was obvious that little work had been done prior to
posting. It is also obvious that the math ability to do the analysis is
absent.

The biggest problem with Alt.Astronomy is we have a bunch of people who post
harebrained ideas, thinking they are brilliant. Bert is the biggest
offender --- he enjoys trolling and regularly reels them in with his
nonsense.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/
************************************

"John Fields" wrote...
in message ...


'Lo John --

Don't mind those of us who are frustrated Big Bangers. g

What any new theory must do is to explain observations made up
to now at least as well as, or better than, existing theory does. And
it also helps to explain some of the observations that cannot be
easily fitted into the popular models. Reading it again...

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, 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

I have to ask --
How is this theory so different from the presently accepted model?
Are you "adding to" the model? or are you trying to replace it?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp without oil,
Love without prejudice,
A tool without toil--
World without soil.

Paine Ellsworth