Stosh

Space- is a poorly, as of yet described material within which ,those irregularities may occur ,which we call forces and matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Neverending_Story_characters I dont know what Doragon refers to .

Thats a prelude to a sequel. Or death.

The NeverEnding Story (German: Die unendliche Geschichte) is a 1984 West German (English language) epic fantasy film based on the novel of the same name by Michael Ende, about a boy who reads a magical book that tells a story of a young warrior whose task is to stop a dark storm called the Nothing from engulfing a fantasy world. The film was produced by Bernd Eichinger and Dieter Giessler and directed and co-written by Wolfgang Petersen (his first English-language film) and starred Barret Oliver, Noah Hathaway, Tami Stronach, Moses Gunn, Thomas Hill; and Alan Oppenheimer as the voices of both Falkor and Gmork. At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film produced outside the USA or the USSR. The film was later followed by two sequels.[2]

Back to the donut analogy, and the three things , The donuts hole is where the donut is not. Space is not nothing , it actually has properties of its own which determine things like humans can exist in it. Thats why there is nothing supernatural. Havent you ever heard that stuff expands to fit the space provided? and the theory of 'conservation of mass energy and space ?' Its all here with none of that aggressive crunching going on. Its like pulling a glove off, inside out. Yes its all a big soup , just not chaotic , it has rules of its own. Even chicken soup is not chaotic , it has no pork chops in it ,, carrots dont merge with celery , and it doesnt fly out of the bowl on its own. Though it would run out a hole.

Silly man, the empty space rushes out right along with the matter.. duh

Darn, I prefer the other , If the spread of the universe strains its ability to remain coherent , I could see it tearing and everything rushes out as a new universe. Then everything doesnt have to turn around for no apparent reason. .. and then we know what happened before the new beginning ,, since we are in it.

It spread until it popped?

Who would ever have guessed that Tits would drink milk?

1600 replies? whoa, that is a book.

Someday we may end up with a better answer than We dont know, Mh, but for now that answer is the best because it leaves open all the possibilities. IMO DARK stuff, to me seems like an attempt to re use, the old ideas, even though they dont actually add up. Perhaps all the stuff is beyond the threshold of the observable universe and its actually normal stuff. Or maybe Michael is right and the universe twists back on itself six times so that everything is actually falling back to a big crunch. and the effect is multiplied by six universe worths. The ideas can stack up like a house of cards if not held to the strictest standards of proof, and even then may not ever form a unified view.

That could be true , I dunno , but I figure that there is this difference between actual data , and the conclusions people attribute to even the best of data. One must take leaps into the unknown ,, knowing one may not be correct in the long scheme of things. I also think too many people who excel at the maths lose sight that the math is supposed to be a reflection or quantification of a model that the universe exhibits. Its not science to postulate stuff that Cannot ever be proven. Just like its not science to predict the likelihood of life on other planets whith only the one data point ,, of our own planet. You cant legitimately draw any trend whatsoever from a single data point. And if the origins of the life on our planet , was Mars , then one cant even use Mars as a second data point!

Im not saying any of that stuff may not constitute legit models , its just that the folks who generate these things don't even have faith in these ideas ,, and they are either unproven as of yet OR possibly will be unprovable FOREVER. I don't see how any of that can be considered firm enough to constitute evidence of anything , though it may provide theoretical fodder.

Re: Dark matter , from your own post ... "(with different Laws of Physics preventing us from detecting them)."

Gravitons with reversed spin would constitute legit 'anti-gravity' BUT "Generally these attempts tried to "quantize gravity" by positing a particle, the graviton, that carried gravity in the same way that photons (light) carry electromagnetism. Simple attempts along this direction all failed, however, leading to more complex examples that attempted to account for these problems. Two of these, supersymmetry and the relativity related supergravity, both required the existence of an extremely weak "fifth force" carried by a graviphoton, which coupled together several "loose ends" in quantum field theory, in an organized manner. As a side effect, both theories also all but required that antimatter be affected by this fifth force in a way similar to anti-gravity, dictating repulsion away from mass. Several experiments were carried out in the 1990s to measure this effect, but none yielded positive results.[13] In 2013 CERN looked for an antigravity effect in an experiment designed to study the energy levels within antihydrogen. The antigravity measurement was just an "interesting sideshow" and was inconclusive.[14]" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjeiNC_8fjMAhVL2oMKHS28BI0QFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnti-gravity&usg=AFQjCNFhxJb0K5F3hl-RW3tZenjxGADyJg&sig2=qpLIv9u3hQ1YHBJg-a_Hzw&bvm=bv.122852650,d.amc

Paragraph 2 ..." "Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy." I saw no need to go any farther than that.

Yeah!, the idea is a compromise between a crunch- bang universe , and a long dreary dead end. I dub it , the Tidal model.

I don't go with the multi-universe thing yet , it just seems a Leetle too conveenient , EX Oh , ! <, My dark matter calculations constitute a fudge factor it would take six universes to off-set? Well then ! theres got to be more universes , because my math doesnt work in this one.

Mh reminds me that its ok to be inconsistent with other folks expectations. He is a self acclaimed anarchist .

Are you contending that the universe is turned back on itself , like a balloon surface ? a balloon has a circumference , and though one can go round it more than once , and though the circumference may be growing , it would still be possible to fully circumnavigate it depending on the rate of its expansion. So I would say that it is indeed finite at any given instant ,and finite again in the next instant . But the complication of the time issue Is a valid consideration not much addressed by anyone., and a good thing to introduce, such as you have., though you are umm not calling it that

Ill be dead either way , but I was considering whether it is the very process of approaching incomplete total homogeneity which provides the fertile ground for the birth of a new universe somewhere when a non-homogenous event happens to it.. perhaps from another remnant of this universe,, then I picture this sea of a new universe sloshing back into the emptied sea bed. But for sure that's just imagination. I dont contend that I'd defend this as some actual known eventuality.

I dunno maybe I am , I'm comfortable with it either way, figuring all will never be known , or that someday all will be. Theres stuff I don't know every day , I don't see why I should be concerned about that, but It would be nice if some more were understood,, and better yet if more 'particular' things were cared about. I'd say it was the finite limit of that which we can count to, but that the actual limit may vary.

Dont believe that , I need convincing on this.

I'm not concerned whether one can see it , I cant see through the wall , but cars are still driving by. Yes , we may still see light arriving from an exploded star long gone , and yes we may not see light arriving from the edge of the universe ,, both due a time lag. But negate the time lag , and either the universe does have an edge .. a maximum extent , or its not finite. If things are so far away , that light hasnt gotten to me yet from it , I cant know that its there, so , Im thinking an end to whats visible doesn't constitute a valid reason to say there isn't anything there. Another means by which one can determine the distribution of stuff ,, and how much stuff ,constitutes the universe, is required .

I wasnt saying it isnt , just that its , counterintuitive to say its finite yet having no center... but Ive never heard exactly how it has been decided that it has an 'edge'.