|
|
|
|
| Posted by
Samuel A. (Sam) Cox on January 06, 2005 at 09:31:49 (Message posted from "unknown" at 64.12.116.195) - explanation In Reply to: "Re: The Protection and Conservation of Complexity in the Universe PS" posted by Charlie on January 06, 2005 at 08:56:55
Interesting thoughts- and I agree except that I don't care for Max Tegmarks infinite number of parallel universes. Max himself well understands the limitations of that idea. Basically I'm on Machs side. I believe the universe is finite in mass (for many reasons...ask Ned Wright! and is infinite only along its primary and perhaps secondary time axes. The term is "eternal", rather than infinite, because only in a completely static universe is time truly spacelike, and it is clear to me just from the math of spherical geometry the mathematical irrationality as expressed in Pi is at the heart of the system. Because of this irrationality the universe develops skins like an onion. Everything remains a part of the whole eternally, and the change overall is very slight, but each time we re-experience the universe, things are slightly different...in the direction of gradually increasing order. Isn't the accelerating universe incredible? If ever there was a proof that the universe exists foundationally in a higher D configuration than 4, that is the proof of the pudding. The dark matter may be just the antimatter side of the 7D model as inferred by Jan Oorts work. David did some great work which showed very strongly that the anomolous acceleration of some of our distant spacecraft can be completely accounted for by the mass of a black hole 10 to the minus 33rd or so of a volume of "space" with a radius of 10 billion miles! Stuff on a higher D universe (from very excellent sources such as the Department of Energy) is starting to hit the net and the emphesis, for mathematical reasons and the Schwarzschild connection (which relates to correct solutions of GR) is concentrating on 7D as the foundational configuration. When WMAP results were first released, 13 papers on the cosmological potential were published on the net, NONE relating to higher D as explanations for the observed phenomena. However NASA fully understood that higher D was a possibility and mentioned same. It was realized that investigating this aspect to everyones satisfaction would take additional time. Now things are beginning to appear, and it will be interesting to see what the final conclusions are! Best, Sam |
| Topic Thread: |
|
Followup postings for this message are closed. |