Big Bang Theory and Anti-Space Theory

[!smash]

Space has been expanding in all directions at the speed of light from the time of the big bang, when light interacts with negative-space it creates positive-space! negative space is infinite yet we can never measure it because it only exists outside the realm of what is possible for us to explore! Light does not seem to lose its luminosity while traveling through anti-space as there is no actual matter to hinder its journey therefore it is almost certain to assume that the universe is unable to stop itself from expanding, if however the front line light source from the big bang is in fact losing luminosity over time then that would mean imminent doom for this version of the universe via implosion however this does not mean the universe is going to die it simply means it will be reborn once the all mass combines back into a singularity and sparks a new big bang! #MindBlown

[!smash]

Anti-Space equals the absence of space as a measurable area that cannot contain matter!
Positive-Space equals the presence of space as a measurable area that can contain matter!

[andrew s]

Are these your own thoughts or based on some peer reviewed research?

1 hour ago, !smash said:

Space has been expanding in all directions at the speed of light from the time of the big bang,

From observation of the Hubble flow and CMB this is incorrect.

Regards Andrew

[!smash]

6 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Are these your own thoughts or based on some peer reviewed research?

From observation of the Hubble flow and CMB this is incorrect.

Regards Andrew

These are my own views on the expansion of the universe.
I believe that the universe cannot be expanding slower or faster than the speed of light!

[andrew s]

2 minutes ago, !smash said:

I believe that the universe cannot be expanding slower or faster than the speed of light!

Have you thought through the observational consequences of this belief? How does it explain the observations that led to Hubble's law etc.

Regards Andrew 

[!smash]

Hubble records red shift at the edge of the observable universe which would point to the universe expanding at an accelerating speed however Hubble does not take into consideration the creation of positive space at the edge of the universe meaning that by the time Hubble views the edge of the universe there is already much more space for light to travel through in order to reach the edge, this will always result in red shift

[andrew s]

Hubble's law relates the recessional velocity of galaxies (i.e. red shift) to their distance. The galaxies are not at the edge of the observable universe or any other cosmological horizon.

I don't know if you have researched the currently accepted theory of the Universe but I think it would be good to understand what your theory is up against if you want it to be treated seriously.

Regards Andrew

[!smash]

also the universe cannot expand faster than the speed of light because of the travel law, light governs the area in which all other particles can exist meaning if light has not traveled through the outer reaches of space then it is impossible for an object to exist there before light has had the chance to travel there first this is where my theory of of anti-space and positive was born!

[!smash]

ahh yes i have seen documentaries on galaxies moving away from each other suggesting that somehow they seem to be creating space between each other which could in fact be the case however i do not think that is what is happening, the universe is expanding from the outside and all that is contained within is simply being spread further and further apart equally in proportion to its position in the universe!

[!smash]

it is fair to assume that the light caused from the explosion in the big bang far exceeds that of any other explosion after it in terms of luminosity! that light is still traveling through anti space right now creating positive space and i dont think there is anybody who can prove this to be untrue! 

[!smash]

also when i refer to space expanding at the speed of light i am only talking about one direction! if you multiply that expansion in all directions then the space created overall will exceed positive space being created at the speed of light by many times! i guess i need a better way to explain that xD this is first time in a forum talking about this kind of thing.

[andrew s]

Some mathematics would help relating your ideas the the current model based on General Relativity and the metrical expansion of space.

Until then I will refrain from further comment.

Regards Andrew

[!smash]

would much prefer a constructive discussion on the subject as i am new to talking about space on any sort of platform or even just talking about it in general as my peers are far removed from this sort of subject matter

[coatesg]

Constructive discussion cannot take place if you have a belief in a theory that is clearly contradicted by observation. That is not science (and again, as per the other thread, does not belong in a forum related to theory).

I'm out.

[!smash]

On 5/16/2018 at 08:28, coatesg said:

Constructive discussion cannot take place if you have a belief in a theory that is clearly contradicted by observation. That is not science (and again, as per the other thread, does not belong in a forum related to theory).

I'm out.

the value of a constructive discussion is based on personal perspective, obviously your perception of [my] topics and their content differs from mine!

[Stu]

On 15/05/2018 at 12:05, !smash said:

would much prefer a constructive discussion on the subject as i am new to talking about space on any sort of platform or even just talking about it in general as my peers are far removed from this sort of subject matter

I suspect your ideas are far removed from any that are backed by academically accepted, peer reviewed theories backed by observational evidence.

Please bring something more to this thread other than pure flights of fancy or I will close it, and any similar ones you start.

Thank you.

[!smash]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

I suspect your ideas are far removed from any that are backed by academically accepted, peer reviewed theories backed by observational evidence.

Please bring something more to this thread other than pure flights of fancy or I will close it, and any similar ones you start.

Thank you.

scientists are hostile creatures indeed lol thank the creator i did not become one xd

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, !smash said:

scientists are hostile creatures indeed lol thank the creator i did not become one xd

I think we could tell from your posts that indeed that is the case.

Many thanks