Pages Navigation Menu

UK Primary Education!

Theory of a Nothing Universe

Posted by on Jul 15, 2018 in UK Universities | Comments Off on Theory of a Nothing Universe


My entire existence has been dominated by one simple question, “How did all of this begin”? By all of this I of course am referring to our entire universe. I have pondered this question for over 25 years, and I am 31 years old now. Science was always my favorite subject. when I was growing up. I used to spend hours in high school discussing my own thoughts and theories with my science teachers after school. I continued to do so even when I attended the University. I learned the three most popular and accepted theories of the day. The most popular of which is the Big Bang Theory. The only credit I am willing to give the Big Bang Theory is that it is possible, however; improbable it may be. What keeps the Big Bang Theory alive is that there seems to be scientifically proven evidence that points to it as the one and only explanation. I would argue that all of the very same evidence that seemingly supports the Big Bang could also support other hypothesis. The one sticking point for me is the “Before Period”. What existed before the singularity exploded? Where did all of that energy come from? We are talking, after all, about all of the energy contained within all of the matter in the universe; as well as all the free energy traversing this expanse. The Oscillating Universe Theory is nice, but it suffers the same problem; assuming there ever actually was a beginning. If the universe has always existed then it is a plausible theory. The same holds true for the Steady State Universe Theory. The notion that the universe has always existed, and will always exist as it has forever and ever. The only change in this model is the distances between galaxies, and other objects increases with new matter being created; so that the universe continues to look the same in all directions The big problem with this theory is that we know the universe is not unchanging. It is expanding and does change. We know that stars explode, exhaust their fuel and fade away, or crush themselves down into a singularity. This universe we live in is a very dynamic place. Galaxies collide, solar systems collide, planets and moons, and a whole host of objects can smash into one another at any moment. All of it dancing to the gravitational music of the heavens. All of which points to anything but a steady state.

What I am about to propose in this paper is an idea that I have dwelled upon for years. It is a theory that I believe in, and has helped me come to a better understanding of our universe. It also goes beyond the sticking point of, “What came before”. In my opinion there are only two current theories that make sense. There is my theory of the nothing universe and there is the theory of God. No matter how hard I rack my brain I just cannot come to any other conclusion. Either my theory is correct, the correct theory has not been written, or God is responsible for everything. These were the choices I gave myself, and for now I am going to stick with my conclusions. My goal now is to share my theory with the world, and hope that it is a good one. I believe that this theory neatly ties together all of the lose ends of existence. I also believe that it is every bit as good as the Big Bang Theory. With a clear understanding of our beginnings, we will be able to gain full insight into the inner workings of our reality. I would also like to add that I refer to my hypothesis as a theory because I believe most, if not all, of the evidence in support of the Big Bang can also be used to support my hypothesis.

The Nothing Universe

We are all familiar with our human concept of nothing. When a bottle is empty, we say; “Nothing is in it”. We know that this is not actually the case. What we are referring to is the fact that what we thought should be in the bottle is no longer there. In order for nothing to truly be in the bottle, the bottle itself would have to contain a vacuum. A vacuum is the complete absence of matter. This would be a perfect vacuum. Space is not a perfect vacuum, and it is difficult to say if a perfect vacuum can even exist. Regardless a vacuum is the true concept of nothing, but it is not the true form of nothing. What I am saying is that our concept of nothing and the true form of nothing are two different things. The true state of nothing is neutrality. A balance between charges in a perfectly arranged atom. This perfect atom I have named the Nothing Atom. This nothing atom is composed of both matter and anti matter particles joined together and separated by neutrons. The nothing atom is composed of the proton, the neutron, the electron, as well as their anti matter counterparts. They are all locked together and kept from destroying each other by neutrons. I do not know the exact arrangement of these particles in this perfect atom, but that is irrelevant. All that is important is the concept that they are all locked together in this one perfect Nothing Atom. The electron and the positron do not annihilate each other, because they occupy different orbital lobes. Again, I do not fully understand the exact arrangement of this atom; only that it existed. Whatever the perfect arrangement is, this perfectly neutral Nothing Atom is the only thing that existed in the pre-universe and composed infinity entirely. No free spce existed between these atoms. There was no motion and there for no time, but we can use the concept of infinity to give us an idea of the state of the universe up until the point of the event.

So now we have the perfect nothing universe composed entirely of the neutral and perfect Nothing Atom. All energy is locked up tight in the form of particles making up this nothing universe. This is the state of the pre-universe (Nothing Universe) in all directions to infinity. Now, here comes the major dilemma of my theory. Perhaps it was Nuclear Fission or some unknown process native to this one particular form of matter? Something had to happen in just one of these perfect Nothing Atoms to cause it to destabilize starting a chain reaction. Is the Nothing Atom a very heavy element, inwhich fission would make sense or is it smaller and some other reaction took place? Of this I am not sure. What I do know is that something had to create a destabilization of one of the particles within the atom to lead to an irreversible chain reaction that would lead to the birth of the known universe. I refer to this as the EVENT.

The Event

The event represents the exact moment when the reaction began, and our universe began to grow within this sea of atoms. Since the laws of physics do not exist, as of yet it is difficult for me to state conclusively that nuclear fission lead to the event. Spontaneous fission tends to be less common among lighter elements. If it is responsible then the nothing atom is most likely a heavier element. If not then some other process had to cause the event. Whatever the case may be, I have come up with a theory to explain why it had to happen based upon the concept of probability. Statistically speaking, one would have to assume that when you are dealing with infinity; the probability of one event occurring is one in infinity. That is to say that if an event can occur, however improbable; a chance still exists for its occurrence when infinity is taken into consideration. As one of my former geology professors, Dr. Eastler, used to say, “It didn’t have to happen, but it had to happen.” Once this one neutral Nothing atom destabilized, it set into motion a chain reaction that would lead to the greatest single explosion that will ever occur in the history of reality. Some may call it “the Big Bang”, I call it; “The Event”.

This is not a singularity exploding into existence, this is an atom setting off a chain reaction in a sea of perfect atoms. This reaction is instantaneous and is, I believe, the only event currently occurring in our universe at a speed greater than that of the speed of light. This is why we do not see the light emanating from this expansion of our universe. I propose that if we could travel fast enough and far enough out into space we would eventually come to a wall of energy moving away from us. I would call this the “Event Horizon” but that name is already taken so I will refer to it as the “Creation Wave”. This wall of energy is the boundary between our universe and the nothing universe. On the other side of this wall of energy is the universe as it existed before the event. An endless sea of perfect nothing atoms awaiting their turn to be annihilated by the impending “Creation Wave”. This means that our universe is still being created as you read this, and will continue to be created for eternity. This may also explain certain observations that our universe is not slowing down, but accelerating as it expands outward. The creation wave is essentially pulling the matter behind it outward due to the ongoing expansion, and or the immense gravity of the nothing universe on the other side of the creation wave. Does gravity even exist yet? Do any of the laws of physics exist in the nothing universe? If that were true than our universe would in no way interact with or feel the nothing universe on the other side of the creation wave. Even if there were an infinite amount of mass on the other side. I am supposing that the laws of physics are nullified by the form of the nothing atom. Whatever the case may be the creation wave is a never ending wave of destruction moving away from the center of the known universe at a mind boggling speed. This expansion also helps to explain why there is so much empty space out there. The universe we know is expanding outward to fill empty space, where empty space had never existed. A universe full of matter and energy in our universe and matter and energy in the anti universe. If an anti universe exists. In this theory i would have to account to the lack of anti matter v.s matter in our universe. One has to ask the question, “Where did all of the anti-matter go”?

I have possibilities to offer as to why we are not blinded by and vaporized by the energy being released by this process. One possibility is that the mass of the nothing universe on the other side of the Creation wave is infinitely great, that the energy and light from the event is bent back towards the nothing universe as the Creation wave moves forward. In that scenerio there would have to be some interaction between our two universes beyond the creation wave. The second possibility is that the Creation wave is so far away from us now that the light emitted from this event cannot reach our region of space any longer. Leaving behind nothing more than background radiation as the thumb print to this event. That is not to say that if we develop the capability to look far enough out into space that we may not catch a glimpse or some evidence of this light, but I highly doubt it. This Creation wave has been traveling outwards at a speed greater than that of the speed of light for well over 15 billion years now. Assuming the universe is 15 billion years old.

Another event may have occurred at the exact moment that the Creation wave began its long journey outward and forever. A the exact moment the chain reaction began not just one, but two universes were born. The first universe is the matter universe and the second universe was the anti-matter universe. These two universes exist on two separate plains that I like to refer to as the “Above” and “Below” planes of existence. The “Central Plane” is where the nothing universe existed in one dimension and in perfect harmony. As soon as the Event occurred the majority of anti matter phased into a new dimension, or plane of existence. Similarly all of the matter in our known universe phased into its own plane of existence. I have designated the matter universe as the Above plane, and I have designated the anti-matter universe the Below plane. These are two separate universes, on of which is composed of matter, and the other of anti-matter. Again, I would like to only deal with one universe in my theory, but I have to try and explain what happened to all of the anti-matter. There would have to be equal parts of matter and anti-matter to account for. Then again could only matter compose the perfect atom? Protons, Neutrons, and electrons linked together to form the nothing atom? Perhaps, but I can’t shake the feeling that anti-matter is involved somehow.

Another way to possibly picture these two universes as existing simultaneously would be to envision all of the matter arranged the way it is in our matter universe, and then imagining that the anti matter that is arranged in the anti-matter universe as occupying the empty pockets of space in our universe. So, if you look out into space now in our universe you will notice that there is a lot of empty space out there. The same is true for the anti matter universe. Matter in one universe occupies the empty space of the other universe and vice versa. We perceive it as empty space, because the other universe exists on a different dimensional plane of existence. This is one other possibility.

A link could exist between these two planes. This link can be found in the form of a black hole. A black holes gravity is so intense that it literally punches a hole into that other dimension. Just as anti matter is spewed out into our dimension from a black hole, I believe that matter is spewed forth from the same black hole into anti-matter space. A black hole may represent a bridge between the two planes. If you can imagine a matter black hole warping space and creating a wormhole that is linked to its counterpart or anti matter black hole. Perhaps they are one and the same or perhaps they occupy the same space at the same time. These two black holes being linked by a stable wormhole or perhaps black holes are connected to white holes. Perhaps white holes exist in both the matter and anti matter universes as the outlets or the transfer between the two universes.

Black holes share a very common link to the state of the universe in the very beginning and that is its very intense gravitational field. This field exists due to the sheer quantity of matter contained with in a small amount of space. The difference is that there was no free energy in the neutral universe, all energy was locked up in particles contained within the perfect atom. If there were any free space in that neutral universe, no doubt the gravity would be of a strength we have never before witnessed. A super black hole would pale in comparison.

The state of our universe today is that of chaos in an unbalanced universe. The same is true in the anti matter universe. The universe that we know today is trying to return to that neutral state. That is why atoms strive for balance. The elements that exist today are thanks to processes that took place in stars. In a sense our elements were the first things that began to evolve in our universe, ultimately leading the elements necessary for the evolution of life.


I cannot say that the universe will never return to the neutral state of the nothing universe. The fact remains that 15 billion years may be only a split second after the event on a universal time scale. We may still be witnessing the very early stages of our universes existence. Perhaps one day events will take place in the universe to allow for a pocket of nothing material or neutral matter to form. Is this what a black hole is? Perhaps it will grow slowly over time repairing itself and creating a new neutral universe inside of an ever expanding universe, surrounded by the first neutral universe. Perhaps this wave of balance and chaos has been going on for some time and the space that we are familiar with exists between one of these waves. Perhaps the whole thing exists balanced as a wave of existence and neutrality. These processes taking place on such a scale that we cannot even begin to comprehend the amount of time we are dealing with. I personally believe that we are living in the first universe and the only one that will exist. The matter and anti matter universes existing on separate dimensional planes, exchanging matter and anti matter with one another through various processes such as black holes, and white holes.

I cannot conceive of this universe ever returning to a balanced neutral nothing universe again. My belief is that we live in this relatively infant universe, the first to exist in infinity, and will exist in infinity from this point on. As I stated before though, you can never rule out possibilities. The possibility that matter in our universe will begin to collapse in on itself may occur at some distant point in the future. If the Creation wave gets far enough away from the center of the universe then perhaps its gravitational influence, if there is one, will drop below that of the influence of near by galaxies and all matter in between.

The universe could then begin to collapse in on itself, reform the neutral universe and the event would occur at some point in an even more distant and mind boggling future. Like I said, I envision our universe as expanding inside of the neutral universe. At the same time the anti matter universe is doing the same thing on its own plane of existence. Two universe, one to represent the matter universe that we live in and the other in the anti matter universe. One would have to assume that the laws of physics would exist in much the same way in both universes. I have not begun to ponder that question as of yet. I assume it does based on the fact that anti matter should interact much the same way that matter does in our universe. This is my working theory of the beginning of the universe. It is not concrete, but represents what may have been the state of the universe before the beginning.

I also believe that the same evidence that may serve to prove the Big Bang theory may also serve to prove my hypothesis. The evidence is not wrong, I am not saying that. The evidence was gathered using scientific methods that have been conducted over and over only to come to the same conclusion. The evidence is entirely correct; I maintain that the conclusion that the evidence is attributed to is wrong. I plan on writing a more comprehensive paper presenting the Theory of the Nothing Universe if this Hypothesis is moderately well accepted. I will then provide the scientific discoveries that I believe will provide a great deal more support for my conclusions than for the Big Bang conclusion.

3/29/2008 by Dennis James Huff

Article Source:

Read More


Posted by on May 20, 2018 in UK Universities | 32 comments


————————————-This Video Contains———————————-
The UNIVERSITIES I APPLIED FOR TO GO TO IN 2017. I want to do a degree in economics and finance or something like that. My uk university choices 2017. I am going to go to Cambridge University in London or Oxford University in London. JOKING. I wouldn’t get into the best Universities of the world such as the University of Cambridge,Oxford,USA University.FIRST YEAR UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE UK | 2017 Will becoming next year for sure! British VS American Universities.

University of Keele!
University of Swansea!
University of York!
University of East Angleia!
University of Sheffield!

These are the Universities i applied for. I would like to go to University in America on a sports scholarship. How to get a USA University Sports scholarship from the UK. I don’t know! :L

Instagram –
Donations –

*Never feel obligated to donate. It’s only there so I can afford to buy new, more up to date equipment. However If you do donate you can HAVE YOUR NAME AND SELFIE ON MY CHANNEL BANNER!*

P.S i would be very grateful if you did donate…

#mygcseresults2016 #gcses2016 #mygcseresults #GCSE #alevel #asrresultsday #alevelresultsday #2016 #MyGCSEResultsVideo #MyAlevelResultsVideo




Gone Wrong, Gone sexual , danger , lol , these arnt really , my tags , are , you , still reading this, why?, subscribe!!

alevels school “school life” “student life” “whats in my school bag” “as results video” “alevel results video” “student vlogs” “gcse results” “my gcse results video” 2017 funny jokes “pokemon go glitch” “pokemon go hack” mewtwo ricegum comedy teenagers teens news
Video Rating: / 5

The Top 10 Universities in the UK 2018

Out now: QS World University Rankings 2018. Get the full results at #QSWUR

Who rules? Meet the world’s top universities with the brand new edition of the QS World University Rankings. To get a preview of the UK’s top 10, watch our video! To find out where your university ranks, take a look at the full results:

Discover the top universities around the world, with QS’s dedicated rankings of the world’s finest higher education institutions. Each QS university ranking has been developed with regional priorities and challenges in mind, aiming to facilitate meaningful comparison and highlight excellence in higher education across the globe.

Join the conversation with #QSWUR!

Keep up with the latest higher education news, resources and more:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Read More

The value of UK universities

Posted by on Apr 22, 2018 in UK Universities | 8 comments

The value of UK universities

This animation, narrated by broadcaster Gabby Logan, showcases the many ways in which universities contribute to the UK economy, society, and to people’s everyday lives. By developing highly skilled graduates, helping businesses innovate and carrying out life-changing research, universities provide the building blocks for a successful society.
Video Rating: / 5

Read More

How to apply to a UK university: all entry requirements you must know about

Posted by on Dec 31, 2017 in UK Universities | 20 comments

How to apply to a UK university: all entry requirements you must know about

Today I am going to explain how to get into a UK university and I will talk about all admissions requirements you need to know about in order to make a successful application.

The link to download documents checklist

How to write a successful personal statement

How to prepare for IELTS in one week

The list of documents is not as long as some may think. First of all you will need a filled-in application form and a good personal statement.
You will then be asked to provide certificate and transcripts from your previous place of study. Make sure that your grades are good and meet GPA requirements of your chosen uni.
All UK universities will ask for references, they also called recommendation letters. Most universities will ask for two, especially if it is a master’s programme.
Students, applying for MBA or who are over 25 years old will need to produce a CV, as the university will expect you to have work experience at that age.
If you want to apply for a PhD in the UK, you will also need to write a research proposal.
It is also worth mentioning that if you are applying to study a creative course, such as fashion, design, photography, architecture, you will have to provide a portfolio of your works for the application.
And, of course, don’t forget to enclose your passport!
If English is not your first language, you must demonstrate that your English level is good enough to understand lectures, write assignments and communicate with other students.
This is why you need to take an IELTS test.
If the university likes your application, they might invite you for an academic interview. It is more likely to happen if you are applying for master’s, all medicine programmes, and some top universities.
Most universities in the UK don’t have entrance exams as such! You will be judged based on your previous high school or university grades.
If you are planning to apply for certain types of courses (like medicine, law, MBA and master’s in finance) or to top universities in the country (by top universities we mean 10 highest rated universities in the UK) you might have to meet some extra requirements or to take additional exams.

Thank you for watching!

Subscribe to our newsletter about education in the UK

You can contact us at

FasTrack Education website:
Video Rating: / 5

Read More

UK vs USA: University Differences! • Lingo, Class Structure, etc.

Posted by on Nov 5, 2017 in UK Universities | 40 comments

Here are some differences I’ve found between American college/university and university in England/the UK. Feel free to comment and let me know what you’ve experienced! (also, I’m sick in this video so sorry about that lol)

TWITTER • @kenziexbrielle
INSTAGRAM • @mackenziebrielle

Hi, my name is Mackenzie. I’m a 22 year old grad student living in London! I love city lights, beautiful flowers, Chipotle, concerts, photography, food, and being creative. Want to know more? Let’s be friends!

Video Rating: / 5

Read More

The Universe Is Not There As We See It

Posted by on Oct 8, 2017 in UK Universities | Comments Off on The Universe Is Not There As We See It

The universe is the name that we gave to the vastness of everything that we know and we don’t. When people could not define the boundaries of the heavens above them, they called it collectively. From the first time the word was used, the universe has had a lot of different meanings, dimensions and ingredients. Now we are at an age where we think we are in the most advanced stages of understanding the universe. We also think that we hold the most advanced technology to probe through the space with equipments to comprehend more than our ancestors did. So what really is the universe? How big it is and how vast it is in its extension? I don’t know how big it could be, but I think it is not as big as we think.

The key element that is used to measure the universe and its contents is the size of things. The distances between elements are so huge that we adapted to use the light years as the measurement units for distances. Everyone knows what a light year means; it is the distance that light could travel in a year. Light travels a little more than a second to reach the moon. There are exact figures and I don’t want to go too scientific so that the concept is being diverted into formulas.

There is one thing that everyone seems like missing in the measurements. The stars have an estimated lifespan. The lifespan of a star depends mostly on its solar mass. They could range from a several million years to a several billion years. If a star on the other side of the known universe did begin to exist, the light would have started travelling ever since. If we fix a life span for that particular star, then we can imagine when the light will stop being emitted from the star. We also would calculate the time it would take the light to reach us based on the distance between us and the star.

Let’s fix the lifespan of this particular star to 100 billion years. That means, after 100 billion years, the star is not there. Let’s fix a distance from the star to us. Let’s say it is a 100 billion light years. A hundred billion light years might seem like a huge distance but is a very normal distance in the universe. With these two assumptions, what we can know is that when the first lights of the star reaches our eyes or telescopes, we will see the primitive star but in effect, there is no star at all. When we see the brighter emissions of light due to the explosion of the star as it disintegrates, the star would have been extinct for a hundred billion years. Why? Because the light took a hundred billion years to reach us and when we see that light, it has been 100 billion years after the event has happened.

When we first saw the primitive star, then we should expect the light to be coming in continuously for the next 100 billion years because we know that the star’s lifespan is 100 billion years. After those 100 billion years; that is after we had seen the star exploding, the light would stop. If we continued to receive light from that particular star for more than a 100 billion years that would mean that the star has a higher lifespan. So the time limit for which we can receive light from a star is exactly the time limit of the lifespan of that star. If a star lived only a million years, then we cannot receive light from the star for more than a million years.

This is where it gets tricky. We have limitations to the lifespan of stars. There is a maximum time when a star could exist. The real problem is that we are receiving light from stars that are too far away so that the light took too longer than the lifespan of the star to reach us. This means, all the stars that are beyond a certain distance are not there!

Even the stars within the distance boundary that would define the border of the maximum lifespan of a star that light could travel in, will still be in various stages than what we see them now. What we see as primitive stars a million light years away would really be hosting planets as we see them. When we look in the skies, we are only seeing the past. When scientists look at the center of the galaxy for a black hole activity, they are looking into thousands of years in the past. When the scientists are looking into the furthest edges of the universe, they are looking into something that is not there. When we see distant galaxies that are millions of light years away, there might actually be not a single star at all. They all could have become extinct at the time when the light reached us.

Not only we are seeing things that are not there, but we are also not seeing things that out there. Imagine the star light coming from a very bright star towards the earth from a hundred light years away. Now please imagine that a planet sized cosmic body started traveling through the earth from the same direction. Can you imagine what happens if that cosmic body came into alignment with the light that was travelling towards earth? The light would still be travelling towards us and then there is this cosmic body in the middle of the light beam blocking the rest of the light beam to come to us. Will we see the cosmic body yet? No, we will not; because we will still be seeing the star as all what we receive is the light from the star. If the cosmic body blocked the light some two light years away from earth, then it would take us two years to see that cosmic body. And it is not just light and visibility to the telescopes. Whatever device you use and whatever ray you are looking for, you will not see the body yet because the light from that body has not reached you. If that body was travelling closer to the speed of light, then when you realize that there is something, that thing would already be closer to you.

So we don’t really see everything in our vicinity. We are living in the present but all what we see in the skies are past events. The universe is a tale telling book for us to say what happened. It does not allow us to know what is happening right now.

It becomes even confusing when we know that the light does not essentially travel in linear paths. Forget about your science teacher; they just taught you the syllabus. Light bends over larger objects with larger masses. It was proven that light bent over the sun when it came by it from some distinct star. This is because the gravity is so big near the sun that even the light travelling closer to it would be pulled a bit in.

If we imagined a star from around a hundred billion years away from us; then how many stars are there in between? How many masses would the light have to pass by? The weirdest of all aspects of astronomy and the most important elements of the entire universe are the black holes. They are the power houses of galaxies. They are the ones that limit the star formation in a galaxy and they manage the mass of a galaxy by eating the mass and also pushing the gas dust away from forming new stars. These black holes are so dense that they hold around half a percent of the entire mass of a galaxy. Imagine a galaxy with some hundred million stars. Then the black hole in the middle of it should weigh the equivalent of at least around five hundred thousand stars. The volume of the black hole is so tiny that the gravity in it is almost infinitive. Can you imagine how much a beam of light travelling by a black hole would bend?

Think of the comets that come by the sun and how their paths are changed. It is exactly what would be happening to light that falls near the stars. The closer the light goes by, the more the bending effect would be. Like the comets hitting and disintegrating into the sun, there will be light that hits the black hole and gets consumed. There would also be light that is closer enough to be pulled by the black hole but not close enough to be consumed. These beams of lights will have largely varying trajectories. Some beams that were coming towards the earth would even turn back and travel away from earth just like the comets do upon coming closer to the sun.

The closer the galaxies are to us, the more that they are going to reflect the cosmic light away from us. This will again hide much of the contents in the universe that we think we know. Again; it is not just light, the X-rays, the gamma rays, the radio waves and photons of any kind would be affected in the same way. We are not allowed to know what is happening out there right now.

Our own galaxy has a black hole in the centre of it. Anything that we see in that direction that does not belong to our galaxy is not where we think it is. Our black hole is tremendously pulling light and causing curvature in the path of the light. So, all what we see as coming behind our galaxy is not really from behind our galaxy; those are to the sides of galaxy. It is only the light from them are diverted to come to us in a way that we think that the light is coming from right behind the galaxy. And all what seems to be in the sides of our galaxy are not really there because they are too far from us and they are being interacted by too many pieces of masses before reaching us.

The only way to find out the real path of light from one star to us would be to know exactly all the masses that are on the way of the light. Our current way of understanding the masses in between involves measuring the light emitted by those stars in some forms always. This only loops it up to us seeing only the past and the illusion of the universe and not the real one.

There is a way. We have to start mapping from the earth. We have to take the earth as the center of the universe once again. Back to the square once again; we have to perceive that the earth is the center of the universe. Why? Because everything else we see in the heavens are not there. We have to take a 3D map which is possible now with computers. Then we have to mark the center of the map as the earth. Then we have to go with the objects that are closer to us; starting from our moon. Mapping first object would only be in a 2D perspective if we did take the earth as a dot in the map. Here comes the wisdom; we should not mark the moon where it is now but we should mark the moon where it will be in the next one and a half second. That is where the moon is right now, but we will only see it after one and a half second because the light takes one and a half second to travel from the moon. We have to do this to all the cosmic bodies we have to map. We have to project the trajectory of the bodies and find out where they would be in the next unit of time that light would take to reach us from them. So when we mark the sun, we should mark it where it would be in the next eight minutes and twenty seconds; because that is where the sun is right now and we will see it only in eight minutes and twenty seconds. When we build up the map from inside, then we can see what we have been missing. There will be some bizarre revealing that the planets were not where we thought that they were. This would explain why we thought we had mathematical mistakes and anomalies in the universe. They were not just mathematical mistakes; they were epic failures of ours not to find out that we are looking for something that is not there.

The weirdness of the story does not end up there. The universe is like a hall fitted with mirrors all over the walls, floor and roof. When you stand inside this hall, what you are going to see is not what is really there. There are too many clouds and objects that are in the interstellar and intergalactic spaces that can act like mirrors and change the direction of light and other energy forms by various means. To the worst case, what we see as in one direction might really be a reflection of something in the other direction. We could be seeing instances of events took place in a single location but yet treat them as different objects.

For example, if you take a star that starts to form, the light from it would be travelling in all directions. If we took four particular directions that the beams were travelling then we can understand why the sky might be showing one object twice in different locations but at the same time. Consider a star that is a hundred million light years away from us. Now consider only two directions of light coming from the star; the one beam coming directly towards us and the other beam going directly away from us to the opposite direction. We will be seeing the star in a hundred million years. Now imagine that the light travelled in the opposite direction went close to masses that bent it here and there and made it bend in one direction all the time. The light would at some point, turn around and come back in the direction of us, but not exactly from where the star is. It would have travelled a few degrees away from that direction and is now coming from a few degrees away in the sky. What would we see is that these two light beams would be portraying two different ages of the star. The first beam would hit us first. The second beam will definitely come later. If it took the second beam to spend one million years in bending and turning before reaching us, then the two beams are separated by one million years. That means when the first beam carries light from a particular age of the star, the second beam would be carrying light from a million years younger star; because the second beam delayed a million years. This means not both of the beams will show us the same object. Also we will perceive these as two different objects because the lights are coming from two different locations separated by a few degrees in the sky.

What our astronomers with telescopes are going to find out is a younger star that has planets forming around it another older star that has planets orbiting around it; but in fact these are two events that happened to the same object in two different time frames. Sounds weird? This is not the worst part. Imagine the galaxies that you see all over the skies; of course with your telescopes. How many of those are repeated reflections and different videos of the same guy?

To me, the universe is a panoramic video of how we came into existence. It is not billions of billions of stars galaxies out there. The numbers are limited. There could only be a certain number of planets around the sun at maximum and the formation and retention of planets around the sun ceases. Well, let’s start from the smaller things. There is a limit for the number of electrons to be in an orbit around a nucleus in an atom. There is a limit for the maximum number of protons, neutrons and electrons to be in a stable atom.

There is a limit for the number of stars a galaxy can form and hold. There are limits for the local group and other galaxy clusters. There must be a limit for the universe. The universe is not infinite; neither is a black hole. The density and gravity of black holes could be measured when attempted in factuality. Things that were once science fiction had turned into real science and now science is turning into science fiction. This will stop when people realize a few basics that they put it wrong in the first place. The facts like “where Alpha Century is; is not where you think it is” have to be dealt with. The biggest problem with scientists is that they need proof to understand. No, that is not what science requires; you need evidence to proof but you don’t need proof to understand. All what you need to understand is apply some logical arguments.

The most intriguing of all things in the world is the boundary of the universe. Where is the boundary of the universe? Or is there even a boundary? The universe is not a 3D object. Our comprehension of a boundary is limited to a 3D space. Could there be physical boundaries to the universe? Definitely yes; and we can even calculate how long from the earth could the boundary be. To shed light on the physical boundaries of the universe, we need to turn on to the light once more.

There is a limit to mass of a star. A star could only weigh so much until it gets unstable and split into different bodies. There is also a limit to the minimum mass a star. If a star gets less than that mass, then it cannot produce the nuclear reaction that qualifies it to be a star. Based on the limits of the masses, we can also derive a maximum life span for a star. Let’s say it is around 1000 billion years at maximum. Then the universe could hold its boundaries at a maximum of 2000 billion light years from the earth in any direction. Is it that simple to calculate the physical boundaries of the universe? I think yes. Why?

We have to start from the big bang. Whenever in the past the big bang took place the entire universe started to expand. The reason why we have blue shift is because some stars rotating their galactic centers move towards the earth faster than the galaxies moving away from us. Necessarily all energy brought about by the big bang were distributed around the center of the bang. The energy, space and time expanded. That is a whole new set of theme to follow. I am not going deep into it. I have explained some of those in different articles of mine. I will stay on with the boundary of the universe.

So; when the universe expanded, the center of the explosion should have become more diluted when everything started to move apart. It is the space where we are that is the most diluted. We think that we are at the edge of our galaxy. We may be, but we are not at the edge of the universe. We are at the centre. There is no proof until you find out the boundaries of the universe. To find out the boundaries of the universe, let’s take this as an assumption because I know that nobody is ready to even think that the earth is in the centre of the universe. When the universe started expanding, all what it contained was pure energy in the beginning. Let’s say the universe had expanded to a few billion cubic kilometers when the first particles of mass started forming. The important thing is that all the particle formation should have been uniform all over the universe as it started; because the universe was closer to singularity and everywhere was similar. The basic particles should have been travelling back and forth into energy and mass for a while. Once there were stable mass particles, then the drama should have begun.

Mass would have affected the energy and vice versa. Now the particles are attracted towards each other and propelled away from each other by various forms of energy in the universe. As a result of the expansion, there would have been less density of energy and mass in the middle and the concentration would have been towards the edges. When the expansion gave enough space for the energy to slow down into mass, the particles formed. When particles got into each other, they started forming the first atoms all the way to galaxies. The most galaxies that were formed should have been formed at the edges of the universe because that is where the particles had been travelling to. The universe is still expanding, but it should be slowing down in contrary to the popular belief. Almost all of the first batch of galaxies should have formed in the same time. There should have been more galaxies at the edges of the universe; whatever shape the universe was.

The baby universe with the first batch of galaxies should have been full of light that if we would have been there, then there would have been no night. It would be day all day. As the galaxies fell apart and moved away from each other, the space expanded with them and the energy was distributed so that there would be gaps between light and energy. The galaxies were not moving in one direction. They moved at all directions but away from the center. The speed should have been higher as they were forming. There is one thing about the galaxies; they are massive bodies of mass. When there are two bodies of mass separated by distance, there comes the gravity. Once these massive bodies started forming, they should have pulled each other together. Since there were galaxies flying in all directions, the collective force of gravity would pull everything towards that center of the universe; but there is no need for a mass to be in the center. When all the galaxies are travelling away from each but then excerpting a pull towards the center, the only anticipated result is that they will all slow down. At one point, they will all stop from falling apart from each other and start coming back to the center.

This gives a conceptual physical boundary to the universe. There definitely should be a physical boundary to the universe. And by the way, since mass formed it has been excerpting gravity, the only form that the universe could have taken is spherical. We can only speak about shapes when we consider only the physical elements of the universe. The physical universe in the beginning should have been perfectly spherical and would have remained closely spherical all over the process. It will become perfectly spherical again when it hits its boundaries where the gravitational pull makes the masses stop travelling away in opposite directions. Once it gets perfectly spherical, then it will start shrinking back again. So what caused the last big bang? It might have been a big crunch the ended the universe before us. And the universe could be recycling again and again over given periods of time; recycling everything including time.

When the universe hits the maximum point of expansion or anywhere near there the light from the youngest forming stars would start travelling towards the earth. Let’s say a star with the maximum life span was formed there, and then the last light from the star would reach the earth in double the time of the lifespan of the star. So the distance to that star would be the so many years but into light years. As in my example above, if the maximum lifetime of the star was 1000 billion years, then the maximum distance of the star from earth would be 2000 billion light years. But what if the star moved beyond 2000 billion light years?

It could have, but if we are receiving light from a star that is more than 2000 billion light years away from us, then at the time when we first saw the star, the star was not there. It is dead and gone 1000 billion years ago. If we take the maximum lifespan of a star as 1000 billion years then everything that appears to be coming beyond 2000 billion years disappeared 1000 billion years ago.

What if there are stars beyond 2000 billion years away from us and we haven’t started to see their light yet? It is possible, but if it had happened, that will mean that universe had expanded beyond 2000 billion light years into the space. The fact that we are now seeing disintegrating stars billions of light years away means that they did so billions of years ago. Like how all the matter became into existence simultaneously, all the matter will hit the edge of the ages simultaneously and will start collapsing simultaneously. Simultaneous in the vast measurement of the universe would be a few million years. All the stars in the universe should have formed within a few million years of time frame and then star formation should have ceased. There cannot be new stars forming; not when the universe is expanding because the energy and matter consisted in the universe came from a single source; the big bang. The universe is not indefinite; it has a definite amount of ingredients. We only think it is infinite because we haven’t measured everything in it. We probably might not be able to measure everything completely at all.

The fact that we are seeing collapsing stars means that the process has begun. When the stars started collapsing, it means there is no more star formation. There cannot be any stars forming beyond 2000 billion light years away from us (if we consider 1000 billion years as the maximum lifespan of a star). Since we have started seeing the collapsing stars, there have been at least a few stars that have been through their life spans. This means we shouldn’t be receiving light anywhere away from twice the lifespan of the longest living star in light years that shows a star formation. If we did receive one, then that light has probably travelled around the universe before hitting us.

Another way to calculate the physical boundaries of the universe would be consider the maximum speed the galaxies could travel and the gravitational pull between them. If we consider that the galaxies started to fall apart at the speed of light, and then calculate the gravitational pull between two galaxies separated by 2000 billion years, which would be the least pull, then you can see at which point, the galaxies would cease to move apart. This will give the exact boundary where the universe will cease to expand. I am afraid that it will be the longest lifespan of a star.

I can only write up to 5000 words in a single article in here. So I had to cut the rest of the article to another place. It is another 1500 words of insanely intriguing thought process posted at for you.

Article Source:

Find More UK Universities Articles

Read More