now i can reveal that i changed the units in the "rate of expansion" calculation.
i had a bias that matter mass such as protons do not move faster than speed of light. so i copied the amounts of expansion from the physics book, and exchanged the units, i called the units meter instead of light year, to remove this bias and measure the volume.
background and consequence: when i read a physics book that claimed the rate of expansion in the first second (when the young universe started expanding called big bang) might have been 4 light years in less than one second it conflicted that idea. and i had a problem which to believe? also another issue related: i had thought that the idea of "oscilating universe or expanding" were only "unknown possibilities beyond science" until the physicist mentioned those two ideas as "possible models".
that gave me the idea that i could define the size of the oscilation based on the limit of speed of light.
once you computed that the expansion rate was ">1m" in both expansions, and truly meter was truly light-years we can define that the repeated cycles of oscilation were never smaller than 180 light years volume. as i will explain.
1, "if the universe expanded from infinitismally tiny volume" that model
must include "protons moving faster than the speed of light" 4 ly and 180 ly in less than one year, therefore we can not only prefer oscilating model but even define "not less than 180 light years radius of volume". as i will explain in story form. the preceding cycle of oscilation the volume of mass "contracted" [+ my claim: caused by cold causing contractions see below], until the mass of the universe was concentrated in a smaller volume around 200 light-years radius. then the density and pressure, can and did generate heat as we know it can. the heat caused expansion as we know and from the volume of 200 l.y. the expansion started (due to heat causing expansion) and not less as you proved mathematiccaly, mass scattered until NOW the year we call 2021 when galaxies are speeding apart from each other and the universe continues cooling.
the intense coolness could cause a contraction, as we know cold contracts, to repeat the oscilation.
all i needed to compute was the rate of expansion < or > one l.y.
on this background your computation seems to PROVE oscilating model of repeated expansion and contraction while defining the point of reverse, and while rejecting even PROVING false the model that the universe "started" from tiny volume less than one cubic meter or one liter!! which would include many expansions where protons "needed to move apart" faster than the speed of light which would be impossible according to physics.
in other words we can look at the past when mass was nearer each other but never less than the point when mass such as protons would move more than one l.y. in less than one year.
i had a bias that matter mass such as protons do not move faster than speed of light. so i copied the amounts of expansion from the physics book, and exchanged the units, i called the units meter instead of light year, to remove this bias and measure the volume.
background and consequence: when i read a physics book that claimed the rate of expansion in the first second (when the young universe started expanding called big bang) might have been 4 light years in less than one second it conflicted that idea. and i had a problem which to believe? also another issue related: i had thought that the idea of "oscilating universe or expanding" were only "unknown possibilities beyond science" until the physicist mentioned those two ideas as "possible models".
that gave me the idea that i could define the size of the oscilation based on the limit of speed of light.
once you computed that the expansion rate was ">1m" in both expansions, and truly meter was truly light-years we can define that the repeated cycles of oscilation were never smaller than 180 light years volume. as i will explain.
1, "if the universe expanded from infinitismally tiny volume" that model
must include "protons moving faster than the speed of light" 4 ly and 180 ly in less than one year, therefore we can not only prefer oscilating model but even define "not less than 180 light years radius of volume". as i will explain in story form. the preceding cycle of oscilation the volume of mass "contracted" [+ my claim: caused by cold causing contractions see below], until the mass of the universe was concentrated in a smaller volume around 200 light-years radius. then the density and pressure, can and did generate heat as we know it can. the heat caused expansion as we know and from the volume of 200 l.y. the expansion started (due to heat causing expansion) and not less as you proved mathematiccaly, mass scattered until NOW the year we call 2021 when galaxies are speeding apart from each other and the universe continues cooling.
the intense coolness could cause a contraction, as we know cold contracts, to repeat the oscilation.
all i needed to compute was the rate of expansion < or > one l.y.
on this background your computation seems to PROVE oscilating model of repeated expansion and contraction while defining the point of reverse, and while rejecting even PROVING false the model that the universe "started" from tiny volume less than one cubic meter or one liter!! which would include many expansions where protons "needed to move apart" faster than the speed of light which would be impossible according to physics.
in other words we can look at the past when mass was nearer each other but never less than the point when mass such as protons would move more than one l.y. in less than one year.
No comments:
Post a Comment