Universe expansion

Maybe our entire universe or (sub-universe) is actually revolving around
something much bigger in a super-universe. Therefore making the stars look
as if they aren't moving, when in actuallity everything we see is moving.
But then again, does it really matter? We have to understand our own
universe. Maybe we're expanding into the super-universe.


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
....the answer remains the same - there
is no center, there is no edge.

Example - define the center and/or edge
of the surface of a sphere.

The analogy applies to the sphere of our visible cosmos. But who's to
say our visible cosmos isn't simply embedded in a larger, flowing
Process? As in the refrigeration cycle analogy, a cluster of freon
molecules embedded in the flow felt the 'bang' of its sudden expansion
as it flashed to a gas. Eventually it'll feel the 'crunch' of being
re-ingested back into the compressor.

Not subject to empirical proof? Well, the notion that our visible cosmos
is an accurate, universal model of "all that is" is likewise pure
philosophy, as is the void-space paradigm.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote:

Maybe our entire universe or (sub-universe) is actually revolving around
something much bigger in a super-universe. Therefore making the stars look
as if they aren't moving, when in actuallity everything we see is moving.
But then again, does it really matter? We have to understand our own
universe. Maybe we're expanding into the super-universe.


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...


....the answer remains the same - there
is no center, there is no edge.

Example - define the center and/or edge
of the surface of a sphere.


The analogy applies to the sphere of our visible cosmos. But who's to
say our visible cosmos isn't simply embedded in a larger, flowing
Process? As in the refrigeration cycle analogy, a cluster of freon
molecules embedded in the flow felt the 'bang' of its sudden expansion
as it flashed to a gas. Eventually it'll feel the 'crunch' of being
re-ingested back into the compressor.

Not subject to empirical proof? Well, the notion that our visible cosmos
is an accurate, universal model of "all that is" is likewise pure
philosophy, as is the void-space paradigm.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote:

Maybe our entire universe or (sub-universe) is actually revolving around
something much bigger in a super-universe. Therefore making the stars look
as if they aren't moving, when in actuallity everything we see is moving.
But then again, does it really matter? We have to understand our own
universe. Maybe we're expanding into the super-universe.


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...


....the answer remains the same - there
is no center, there is no edge.

Example - define the center and/or edge
of the surface of a sphere.


The analogy applies to the sphere of our visible cosmos. But who's to
say our visible cosmos isn't simply embedded in a larger, flowing
Process? As in the refrigeration cycle analogy, a cluster of freon
molecules embedded in the flow felt the 'bang' of its sudden expansion
as it flashed to a gas. Eventually it'll feel the 'crunch' of being
re-ingested back into the compressor.

Not subject to empirical proof? Well, the notion that our visible cosmos
is an accurate, universal model of "all that is" is likewise pure
philosophy, as is the void-space paradigm.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

thanks for info. mutiverse
"matthewwinston" wrote in message
...
the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote:

Maybe our entire universe or (sub-universe) is actually revolving around
something much bigger in a super-universe. Therefore making the stars
look
as if they aren't moving, when in actuallity everything we see is moving.
But then again, does it really matter? We have to understand our own
universe. Maybe we're expanding into the super-universe.


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...


....the answer remains the same - there
is no center, there is no edge.

Example - define the center and/or edge
of the surface of a sphere.


The analogy applies to the sphere of our visible cosmos. But who's to
say our visible cosmos isn't simply embedded in a larger, flowing
Process? As in the refrigeration cycle analogy, a cluster of freon
molecules embedded in the flow felt the 'bang' of its sudden expansion
as it flashed to a gas. Eventually it'll feel the 'crunch' of being
re-ingested back into the compressor.

Not subject to empirical proof? Well, the notion that our visible cosmos
is an accurate, universal model of "all that is" is likewise pure
philosophy, as is the void-space paradigm.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

thanks for info. mutiverse
"matthewwinston" wrote in message
...
the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote:

Maybe our entire universe or (sub-universe) is actually revolving around
something much bigger in a super-universe. Therefore making the stars
look
as if they aren't moving, when in actuallity everything we see is moving.
But then again, does it really matter? We have to understand our own
universe. Maybe we're expanding into the super-universe.


"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...


....the answer remains the same - there
is no center, there is no edge.

Example - define the center and/or edge
of the surface of a sphere.


The analogy applies to the sphere of our visible cosmos. But who's to
say our visible cosmos isn't simply embedded in a larger, flowing
Process? As in the refrigeration cycle analogy, a cluster of freon
molecules embedded in the flow felt the 'bang' of its sudden expansion
as it flashed to a gas. Eventually it'll feel the 'crunch' of being
re-ingested back into the compressor.

Not subject to empirical proof? Well, the notion that our visible cosmos
is an accurate, universal model of "all that is" is likewise pure
philosophy, as is the void-space paradigm.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Err, multiverse.

typo exterminator now activated

Darrell wrote:

thanks for info. mutiverse
"matthewwinston" wrote in message
...


the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote:

Err, multiverse.

typo exterminator now activated

Darrell wrote:

thanks for info. mutiverse
"matthewwinston" wrote in message
...


the term is mutiverse i beleive it has been hypothesized

Darrell wrote: