The Expanding Universe, Big Bang, E=MC2

[Excubis]

Well I have seen these topics up for debate but most of my post are usually to try and clarify terminology, and explain as simply but accurately as possible. I did read through some of the debates but figured I would just post a few things so people can get a better understanding of these theories. I will say this, the far majority of complex theories like these do not make sense but the mathematical proof is quite strong and our the observations of what we can see currently also indicates they are correct. I should also state much of these high level physical theories came before we observed them.

Q.1) Why do we accept the universe is expanding?

A.1) First off, yes it is 100% percent true we don't fully know all the universe is expanding, but not only does the math work observation of the observable universe coincide with them. I cannot go into the math far to complex for here, but if you have a head for algebraic formulas go here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... ding-univ/.
Now second we can compare Hubble's(and many others) measurements of where galaxies were to today and and extrapolate rate of acceleration. Simple, yes it is. Yet, this is only 100% definitive for our observable universe, but the math strongly suggests the universe is uniform in nature and shape. No you cannot just accept the math, we need to observe all but the trend shows it is so, and the far majority of these theory stem from the big bang theory.

So what I guess what should be said is we accept the mathematical proofs of a uniform universe, these proof's coincide with what we can observe, but because we cannot see the universe in it's entirety we cannot be absolute about what we cannot observe.

Q.2) How can it be expanding faster than the speed of light?

A.2) Well, this is a tough to really grasp I will do my best to explain. First off the speed off light is the maximum speed a physical object can move threw space. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of space itself not an object travelling threw space. This is why it can be faster and not fit the rule of a physical constant (speed of light) because it not a physical object, it is space itself expanding.

The best analogy I remember is a raisin in bread dough. This can be found throughout the net here's one I found http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ubble.html I didn't read through this thoroughly but did skim I picked top one when I searched raisin in bread analogy for expanding universe. You may also want to check the balloon analogy as well.

Q.3) What is the Big Bang?

A.3) Well first off this theory contains a lot and I will not be able to explain it completely in analogies or in lay terms, so there may still be some puzzling questions. It truly is quite the opposite of common sense.

Well first of all the big bang was not an explosion like we want to think it is. Why? Well for one there is no center of origination, all the observable universe is expanding the same. In a typical explosion the rate of expansion is relative to its origin. This means that the force of the explosion is greater near the center and weaker the further you get away from the center or source of explosion. This is true for explosions in space as well. As per yet no observation of weaker or stronger areas have been found and yes cosmologist have and are looking. It is all expanding at the same speed as per current findings.

Now lets see hmmm ahhh actually I cannot explain beyond the no center, it is unfortunately is all math and there is really nothing earthly lol to compare it to. Sorry I have been racking my brain, I even searched but yeah I don't want to rattle off a bunch of equations that just perplex and confuse. The math works but yes we cannot prove it at this time. There is a nice article on site called space.com just enter big bang in their search bar at their site if you want to read it. It talks about light and ect...at the time of the big bang.

Now I won't do this in a Q&A format but just want to shed light on E=MC2 and it's implications. For most part people grasp it but what many don't realize you can do this M=EC2. What does that mean? Well it means you can figure out how much energy it takes to create mass as well. Hmm interesting hey I think it is.

Now there is much more and I will continue to make more posts. I posted here to chat about this kind of stuff not to debate it. If you have an interest in physics and have been left wanting ask I may be able to help. Or if you can even expand or clarify some point I've made please do but please no debates just a general discussion. If you do not accept/believe these theories please post you arguments in debate topics not here and I will more than likely come join.

I have for many years been working on something myself and I feel I am close to a breakthrough. My next post probably tomorrow I will present my hypothesis/concepts and perhaps someone might help me with it. I can do the equations(takes me sometime though) but am finding it difficult to come to my own equations, I have some but will not post those freely but my concepts I will and will even ask for assistance on the areas that have me stuck. This will be the first forum I will post so I have proof they are my idea's before I contact an actual physicist for help but I am at a point I need to, my algebra just isn't strong enough. I do it all on paper or use of calculator not in my head.

[Excubis]

I will still post my illustrations. Just because, and I am not taking a point against Einstein at all.

[Excubis]

Okay I will first like to say I suffer from some psychological impairments due to my former excessive drug use and violent lifestyle I once led. This is self evident in my posts, some are verbally astute others not so. I have moments of complete absence of memory recall, although these are small and usually never last longer than a 2-3 minutes at a time ie. at times I cannot remember my name. Weird I know. I also suffer from slight form of personality disorder, although who I am does not change my thinking does. I have had multiple tests and have no indication of a degenerative condition, these are consequences from a former way of life I lived.

So why am I saying this well at times I have great difficulty remembering or expressing my ideas. Although I will contact admin soon to remove this post I want to clarify a bit better on my STb hypothesis. I used an analogy as elastic band these bands are not like elastic band they are fluidic 1 dimensional tensors to clarify for those who know what tensors are.

I also would say thank you to Divine Insight for saying naive to me. I like that actually because all my heroes in science were told they were naive as well, so for me it means I'm on the right track. I am removing this post because the boss(wife) got mad that I posted anything on this hypothesis. If it was not for her support for last 8 years I truly do not know where I would be, she has empowered and forced me to believe in myself because she believes in me. Sorry emotional at the moment. Well we have decided that I should stop my social studies and focus on working on my proof and who knows what may come. Oh my wife is 3 rd year at U of S in Engineering Physics. She helped me through mine know it is her turn, nothing like having a supportive partner in life.