From Wikipedia
The Euclid parallel postulate
If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.
In a newtonian world, given infinite distance, this holds as we either have parallel lines the sum of the internal angles = exactly 180 degrees, or a triangle with vertex on the side with the lowest sum of internal angles. Now Special relativity says we have curved space time geometry. This space time curve can be open, flat or closed. If it is open then we just keep expanding, diluted into a future of the cryogenic deep freeze.
If it is flat it is static much like our parallel lines, the universe expands assymtopically approaching a limit it never quite reaches, but future cold and dead universe again.
If it is closed then we expand slow down and contract again, possibly repeating the same process over and over. I believe we have a closed universe, Einstein's second view was that the universe is closed rather than static view, The Hartle and Hawking No-Boundary Proposal propose a closed universe. See
http://web.uvic.ca/~jtwong/Hartle-Hawking.htm
As pointed out recent observations would indicate to the contrary that the universe is open. In fact some evidence shows the expansion is accelerating, rather than slowing. This means the present observed mass of the universe is insufficient to provide the gravity needed to slow and cause the eventual collapse. This has led many to look for the missing mass. Dark matter/energy. observing a variety of galaxies has indicated that their rates of rotation about their galactic centers can only be accounted for if dark matter exists. Because we can see the effects of this "invisible" matters mass on visible stars and galaxies orbiting their respective centers of rotation. this missing matter can be inferred. Because it appears it is non-Baryonic in nature, normal methods of direct observation fail. It could be like neutrinos, or leptons such as muons and electrons. It could even be the light in my gamma photosphere where if we consider Energy and matter eg matter is a standing wave of energy, then the energy at present gamma radiation will have a high mass equivalent. Even though most regard photons as massless, the fact that gravity affects them and that they can be drawn permanently into a black hole, suggests a minuscule "mass" may be present.
In a closed universe this mass equivalent must be a part of the total. If it is great enough then perhaps it along with galactic dark matter/energy will be the mass necessary.
My own interpretation of the evidence suggests local dark matter/energy to explain what we observe in observed visible galaxies. Second, that the gamma photosphere from the initial expansion phase can be considered mass through E=mc^2 equivalence.
Thirdly my interpretation of current obsevations that the universe has a rotational velocity. This would indicate a substantial angular momentum. Since Angular Moment is concerved a fundemental physical law, this would indicate the protouniverse was spinning . Given the huge inertia of the universe in the small volume of the space it occupied at the time of the "Big Bang", then it must have been spinning very fast at or less than the speed of light. Where did this angular momentum come from. One explanation that obeys the natural laws of physics could be the legacy of a previous spinning object for example a prior collapsing universe after the Big Crunch, implying a closed oscillating universe. No beginning or end.
I believe I am the first to postulate that this residual angular moment, is evidence of a massive pre-big bang object and another argument for a closed universe. Not many others have offered evidence of anything before 10^37 seconds after the big bang. At least I have offered something to measure and ponder.
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (
A) and observed (
B). Dark matter can explain the velocity curve having a 'flat' appearance out to a large radius
For interested parties, a reasonable intro to dark matter see Wikipedia
Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Current view of cosmology
This graphics is from WMAP's site. They seem to be pretty sure about universe starting with quantum fluctuation.
Now if I chill liquid Helium to almost 0K I get a Bose-Einstein condensate, that has quantal properties on a macro scale. The large hadron collider (LHC) is attempting to make very large subatomic particles, that may have been present during the Big Bang Expansion phase. If we have an analogous situation a quantal progenitor of the big bang it would make more sense than a singularity commonly envisaged. This is because a quantal singularity could not exist as a single defined point. Quantum physics says we cannot determine both position and speed at the same time as they are probability curves of standing waves. However we could have a quantum fluid a finite volume behaving similar to liquid helium.
Next point that I find contradicts an intelligence behind the big bang. As a singularity or quantum fluid the big bang proto-blob is very simple It has no information it is homogeneous it has no structure it is a single simple entity. It is the starting point for entropy to go in only one direction, ie entropy can only increase from here.
An unknown event occurs causing proto-blob to expand and cool then we get increased chaos entropy and complexity. Then after 13.7 BY we get something as complex as our selves that is just gaining the knowledge of the universe enough to allow us to manipulate our environment and ourselves. So I don't think we are any where near advanced enough to have the omni-knowledge yet, a product of entropy and complexity to actually derive a god type creature, maybe in another 13 BY perhaps.
Void is Immanence *religious label),has many scientific?
Immanence=nothing?
Planet is getting Bigger Video by Zero Point John - MySpace Video
An interesting theory, cute and a little simplistic, but it seems to misinterpret much of the geological evidence, such as diamond formation. The graphic was well done, however if the earth was half the diameter 65 million years ago would we not see some evidence of matter density change. If we halve the diameter we reduce the volume by a factor of 8, this means the same mass in smaller volume density is 8 time greater. This does not compute. But cute video anyway.
Cheers
