I've come to the conclusion that Hubble, though he was correct in noticing that the Universe appeared to be expanding infinitely, was wrong in using a Big Bang to explain the expansion:
Hubble was partly wrong about the Universe's expansion, which has galaxies all racing away from each other. Instead of the entire Universe expanding, what is expanding is the Interplanetary Magnetic Field produced by this worm hole we call the Sun, which acts as a wide-angle gravitational magnifying lens. What we perceive as increasing separation is really nothing more than increased magnification. This is a much simpler explanation for the expansion Hubble observed, but it also means that we may have no idea how far away these galaxies really are until we're someday able to either observe from some point beyond the influence of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or grind the proper telescope lens to correct our presently compromised vision. This also means that the Big Bang is no longer necessary because the entire theory depends upon and was built upon the Universe expanding indefinitely such that at some point in Time all galaxies would essentially be alone with nothing but space and darkness in between. Not a pretty picture, but also, thankfully, false.
The Wiki link below has an excellent artist's depiction of the IPMF, and also a nice animated display of the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with that of the sun:
We are looking through at least two of these fields, maybe more if you count the folds and ripples, whenever we view galaxies far, far away...and as the field grows like an evolving wide-angle lens, so is the distortion magnified. So what role does Earth's field play in all this? Perhaps that of a corrective lens which keeps the objects in our vision field in focus while the rest kinda fades off into the background. Works on the micro scale with my glasses and camera, so why not on the macro?
So in conclusion, as I see it, my theory does these four basic things:
1. Removes the necessity for thermonuclear reactions inside the sun, or any other star for that matter, to explain the heat and light.
2. Explains why the sun's interior (because it really has no core) is cooler than the exterior as the heat is dissipated by the worm hole.
3. Removes any necessity for a Big Bang.
4. Explains the observed expansion of the Universe in terms not nearly so drastic or pessimistic.
Anyway, it's something to think about!
Thanks to all who read this stuff...and most especially, thank you, Grateful Dead, for giving me a forum to post it.
"Marmalade.........I like marmalade" from Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast ..............Atom Heart Mother. Byrd and early Floyd; there's a time warp for ya.
Letters between myself and SDO have proved absolutely useless. The head of the show there only asks stupid, pointless question such as: Why would we need a worm hole ( to explain what we already think we know)? And this from a PhD - probably from Grenada, with apologies to Grenada.
The Pi-eyed Piper
I have no idea what you are on about Byrd, but I greatly appreciate your taste in breakfast preserves. That was always a favourite....somewhere I think I still have the 45.
Perhaps this might explain the jam we're in: Good song, by the way, and the graphics on this old analog, black and white video give excellent representations of my ideas:
If you think of optics in two dimensions, something like a contact lens, with due consideration for curved space, reflection- which apparently shows us the exact opposite of whatever stands before it - and refraction which distorts, you might see how Earth could easily be hidden in a blind spot as viewed from the Sun, and as you can see if you count each concave and convex curvature, there's an unbalanced 3 to 4 ratio between the object and the perceiver. Nice place for a problem to hide unnoticed, by everyone except maybe Jimmy Buffett, because apparently, we're all - Livin' and Dyin' in 3/4 Time:
The moon looks smaller because we're looking both through and into what essentially is a telescope's eyepiece. With our smaller moon in relation to both however, the curvature of the lens is more pronounced than either the Earth's or the sun's. As such, the moon's convex curvature facing Earth might well effectively both block us completely from view from the sun's perspective and, also convex on the side facing the sun, distort the sun's perception of Earth. Remember that all three bodies are two-dimensional convex lenses, so the light we perceive is always in some form of convection, contraction and refraction, while the stuff we never see is either directly reflected or absorbed into the opaque. If you first increase the font sizes relative to the Sun. Moon and Earth, and then draw a few lines through the figures, you should see how that might work.
Another way to consider this in two dimensions is to add a third blip to one side of a Pong game which always covers the blip behind it. The light from other blip would never reach the one left behind, who is now little more than a spectator.
I don't know if there's a rhythm to this process, but on the quantum level we know that conditions exists where electrons exchange orbits, so I don't see any reason that same principle can't be applied to the macro level I'm working on here. This might explain why we have both solar and lunar eclipses: There may be a quantum shift occurring between the Earth and the Moon that we've somehow failed to notice., so that their orbits through space in unison look like the numeral 8 - which if turned on its side, is also the symbol for infinity.
So now, marye, I'll join you in saying: To infinity and beyond!
had a way with words.
Well, what do you know?! I have a nearly pristine, absolutely reasonable facsimile of a Planet Drum right here in my cd files. Who would a'thunk it! Think I'll play it with the doors open - maybe do my own little photon double-slit experiment, but with sound. Just knew those French doors would come in handy someday ..once I adjust the stereo balance correctly...for the time.
I’ve never seen a night so long
When time goes crawling by
The moon just went behind a cloud
To hide it's face and cry
The silence of a falling star
Lights up a purple sky
And as I wonder where you are
I'm so lonesome I could cry
And as I wonder....
If I were to select a target star, or some other light/energy producing entity other than the sun to link to in this Universe we perceive, it might be a pulsar, which seem to be the ones out there trying to attract the most attention, waving their ion flags back and forth as they do, kinda like a lighthouse beacon...warning of hidden rocks that lurk beneath the waves? Wonder if quasars are any more friendly? Someone once told me that Moses has been known to come riding upon one...spurs a jinglin', and all that kinda stuff...
But then Gamma bursts are interesting too. Wonder what really happens when you get caught up in one of those outrageously high-energy beams...Scotty? The other advantage to the gamma choice is that these bursts apparently originate from beyond our Universe and, quite frankly, I don't trust a darn thing in this one. For all we truly know, gamma bursts could originate in worm holes and all we're actually seeing is a ricochet or a reflection.
And then there's black holes, which may be nothing more than one-way street worm holes, requiring nothing more than a one-way ticket - which is the only kind I can imagine even considering when the train finally pulls out of this particularly derelict station.
Wave that flag, wave it wide and high
Summertime's done come and gone, bye, oh my.....!
If this thing we call the Sun operates on a strict binary system using only zero and one, and we, with our base ten system continually answer with "two", would the Sun's binary system be capable of recognizing, or even noticing, our reply?
It's entirely plausible that this Sun, star or worm hole may not even know we're here.
If you think back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden we know that initially they had no knowledge of this thing we call evil and everything was either yes or no. But then this snake showed up and introduced a third factor into the program, which you might think of as "maybe", and the two systems were no longer able to talk to each other, something like trying to play a digital cd on a phonograph turntable - just can't seem to make that connection work and can't hear an intelligible sound within all the scratchy, annoying static.
So it would appear that one system is in dire need of an upgrade, but the question is: Which one? The quantum computer solution introduces an uncertainty factor that could be problematic for something like running a train system, but entirely useful in something like music where you can throw in a note here and there that you find curious, just to see how it sounds. But in music, even though a particular note may not work in this current song at this particular time, it may well fit nicely when you hit the bridge, or start a new song.
"It's not the Sun you're trying to find
Something else is on your mind
You need a little space in Time to breakaway..."
the grateful dead.......................... absolutely lovin "ollin arageed"