Recent content by voxilla

One day I may make a GPU simulation out of it, to show how it can work.

At least it can explain the acceleration of expansion, because of attraction to surrounding A2, A3, ... without need for dark stuff, isn't that a simplification ?

You obviously don't get my point. Call our accelerated expaning bubble of galaxies 'A', picture it in space and surround it with 'A2', 'A3', ...

Right, and what about this 'bounded' universe to be surrounded by similar universes ?

It's very fashionable to call anything we don't get a grip on to be dark.

What about getting a grip on gradients ?

With the same logic infinity can shrink to 0, so infinity == 0.

Proof your point.

No need to tell me about explosions see my site

If a 2D balloon surface makes sense for a 3D thing, wouldn't make an explosion make even more sense ?

The ban is lifted on me, would I get an infraction for telling ?

I know I annoy some people here, so you please just ignore my posts. Calimero, there is one subtle difference because my 'dynamite' snapshots are taken from a point of view outside of the explosion. Your snapshots are taken from a 'molecule' which is part of the explosion.

Please don't get angry, I more like the reasoning of Calimero.

I mean more like trace back averages, ok this might sound confusing, let me explain. If you have a molecular explosion like dynamite, molecules undergo turbulent motion paths. If you would take a snapshot 1 second after the explosion, and another one a little bit later to calculate the motion...

I'll just get back to on thread topic. Simply search Wikipedia for 'cyclic model'