boomdart

boomdart t1_j1gjpo4 wrote

Thanks!

I'm going to take a look at everything I can, I will look at your suggestions post haste!

The manifold is interesting - I'm definitely going to look at that carefully. I think it can help describe this general leftover of mass/matter I want to have, it seems immeasurable now but that hasn't stopped our pursuits before or yet.

The reverse time idea is interesting for sure as well... very interesting. I hadn't considered it but I'm going to look at the details, see if there's anything I can use. edit: I've seen similar stuff to this extent, I think usually involving niel degrasse tyson. It's all very interesting. I need to look at the actual works because through NDT's eyes it sounds like comic book stuff.

Thank you again!

2

boomdart t1_j1fsdbe wrote

I have an out-there theory, if you're up for hearing it. I promise a good award.

I believe each galaxy has it's own cycle, we know they have their own black holes (maybe not all of them?) But I believe that black holes condense matter to a point that it is torn apart right down to the muons and quarks and eject those bits back into the universe alone, so there are free quarks or maybe smaller floating around in the space of a galaxy, these free floating quarks or smaller eventually find themselves partners and become matter again, or it doesn't, I don't have anything to say it can or does, but I presume it either does or doesn't but ultimately it doesn't create enough matter to keep the universe from it's ultimate death, but the universe does fill up with these quarks without homes so to speak. The cycle continues as the black hole will repeatedly take these in and eject then again but it doesn't have any gain, the cycle isn't fast enough.

I'm sorry for the way I communicate, it's very hard to get what's in my mind on paper without more effort than most. I can continue on and flesh it out more but I need to be on my computer and a keyboard to start lol

I have been proposing this since 1992. I keep getting "keep working on it" as a response and little else.

2

boomdart t1_j1fqsz6 wrote

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I was blown away that you referenced the langoliers, that's my favorite Stephen King movie.

You've closed the book as far as I'm concerned, I have no more questions at this point and I'm very satisfied with what you've said. I only wish I did have a question because you would be the man to ask it.

I'll see if I can't muster up an award for ya, just not this moment.

1

boomdart t1_j1dt5ek wrote

We're on the same page about outside the balloon, it's non-existent.

So you would say, there is no traveling outside the "rubber layer.". What is under the rubber layer, the "inside" would be... The past. But that's a little simple to say isn't it? Is that to say yes you can travel there but there will be nothing there when you get there; we are for sure no new matter is being created anywhere.

And if we're on a balloon, we are only seeing a tiny tiny spec of the part of the surface we are on, we aren't assuming we can see through to the other side of the balloon, right? Like I can't see China from where I am even if earth was invisible. But we know that area exists and there should be stuff there?

I have trouble thinking our observable universe is it's own balloon, I believe we would have to be a part of a much bigger balloon.

1

boomdart t1_j1dmdeo wrote

I know the balloon thing.

My question is, what about inside the balloon. Is there nothing new arising from the middle of the balloon center, or is there, or is there something dormant waiting to start creating again.

Are we really on a layer that is spreading apart, so we live on kind of a flat ish plane that only goes so far up and down? What is outside of the "balloon" compared to inside the "balloon" one is space that is yet to exist the other is space that exists but has very little in it.

I'm in the latrine and that's all the time I have

0