0
   

Is the expanding universe being pushed or pulled

 
 
bob600
 
Reply Sun 6 May, 2012 07:44 am
The other day I could not stop thinking about nothing so I thought, write it down and get it out of your head, so these are my thoughts on nothing, are they wrong, right, or just stupid?

The more I think about it, one of the most important areas of investigation for scientists should be “nothing” yet it would appear that very little thought or scientific investigation is being focused on “nothing”.
By that I don’t mean they should sit about and drink tea doing pointless crossword puzzles. I mean they should be investigating something that is the very foundation of existence itself. “NOTHING”
The Taoist philosopher Lao Tse wrote.
Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
but the empty space between them
is the essence of the wheel.
Pots are formed from clay,
but the empty space between it
is the essence of the pot.
Walls with windows and doors form the house,
but the empty space within it
is the essence of the house
While Lao Tse’s observations hold a universal truth, they were not scientifically correct. The space he observes is not “empty” it is in effect a less dense version of the spoke, or clay etc. The apparent empty space is awash with dust, protons, atoms, misc life forms and energy, so its not as “empty” at it seems.
However, flawed as Lao Tse’s observation may be it gives support to the observation that it is not the matter/energy construct of the Universe that makes it the Universe, but the “nothing” between the matter/energy that is the true essence of the Universe.
Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something, so even at a “words” level, “nothing” is something.
The philosopher Leucippus (early 5th century BC), basing his conclusions on his observations of everyday motion and change, suggested, quite logically, that there could be no motion without a “nothing” to move in. This in itself makes “nothing” a logical “something” and as such Leucippus was the first to state that "nothing" has some sort of a reality attached to it.
On the subject of philosophers, the old philosophical question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” misses the point that “nothing” is just another form of something, so there is only something.
There are a few states that we might initially consider “nothing”, for example:-
Non existence, this can be confused with “nothing” so best to get this out of the way first. Non existence is not “nothing” in any shape or form, it’s certainly not a “state” it’s simply not existing. This is a truly infinite concept, as there are an infinite number of things that don’t exist. In fact non existence itself does not exist, as it’s simply a human concept, while “nothing” actually does exist as a “state” regardless of the impossibility of human observation. To see it means it contains something in order to make it observational, which instantly destroys its “nothing” status.
An empty space, inside a glass jar with nothing in it, for example, would seem to represent nothing, but as its really full of energy, particles, protons, various molecules, atoms, and minute bits of matter to small for the eye to see it actually contains quite a lot, and can’t be considered as being anywhere close to “nothing”
A Vacuum, this form of nothing is simply a space that has been evacuated of all air and other atom based matter, but just to view it must still contain protons which are passing through it, plus other radiating particles, radio waves, gravity, etc. So again this is not exactly “nothing” as it is a space filled with something, certainly lots of movement of energetic particles.
A Quantum Vacuum, is a sort of vacuum state that contains no physical particles at all, but does contain a seething mass of energy, going in and out of existence continuously and very rapidly, so fast that it does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy that says you don’t get something from nothing. This is thought to be created by particles and antiparticle popping in and out of existence, cancelling each other out creating energy. Again it’s not truly nothing as it contains considerable amounts of energy.
“Nothing”, so take away the air, the particles, and the energy, and you then truly have “nothing” and this is the true foundation for all existence, it certainly is not non existence, as something actually exists in a form ready to receive energy, particles and the like. So true “nothing” is actually “something”, a sort of potential container for all the various “something’s” connected with existence.
I must admit at this stage to the possibility that “nothing” as described above does not in fact exist, and that the state of “nothing” without the energy does not exist. If that is the case then it would be the Vacuum energy that is actually “nothing”, and in that context could not be separated from “nothing” being the same thing.
In many ways it is irrelevant as to whether or not Vacuum energy and “nothing” are one or two separate things, but it would be nice to know which is the true state of affairs.
Based on the law of conservation of energy. Which states that, “energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself, it can only be transformed”. My money is on two separate states, even if only based on the logic that energy can be transformed and as such taken from and added to anything, so logically it can also be transformed and taken from a quantum vacuum leaving only the state of “nothing” ready to absorb more energy.
The consideration of “nothing” may cast some light on the current confusion over the accelerating nature of the expansion of the Universe, with various theories being put forward to explain what is driving this accelerating expansion, something which does fit in with the standard understanding of the “big bang” that allegedly created the Universe. The current prevailing theory being “black energy” is driving the expansion of the Universe, this “black energy” seems to be a companion to “black matter” something which seems to make up 90% of the Universe.
Problem is no one has a clue as to what “black matter” or “black energy” actually is, but the argument goes, “whatever it is it must be there as something is messing up our (scientists) calculations which are based on various unshakable laws of physics”
It’s a bit like Sir Isaac Newton saying that the apple fell from the tree because an invisible undetectable being pulled it from the tree and placed it on the ground. Clearly that theory would fit the facts, should we believe in the possibility of invisible, undetectable beings that move stuff about. But this is the 21st century, and we don’t believe in things like that now, we have moved into a more scientific era, now we believe in the possibility of invisible, undetectable stuff that moves stuff about. Right.
Two possible flaws in the theory that “black energy” is driving the expanding Universe is that it would not necessarily drive an accelerating expanding universe, it would be more likely to drive a de-accelerating Universe as the energy dissipates as the Universe gets bigger. In addition if this “black energy” is relatively evenly spread throughout the Universe then it could be expected that all parts of the Universe would expand at the same rate from the centre to the furthest reaches of the distant visible galaxies.
However, neither of these two states exists, as recent observations confirm. Using Hubble’s Constant (the standard way of measuring the cosmic expansion) the further out we look the faster the galaxies are racing away from the centre. The analysis of the light from distant stars would indicate that the rate of expansion increases by about 1km/h for every 13 light years from the centre, while at the most extreme distant visible galaxies many billions of light years away they seem to be travelling at sizable fractions of the speed of light. And that’s the distant visible galaxies, beyond that again are more invisible galaxies, invisible due to their extreme distance, a distance that would imply even faster expansion speeds. Given that the distant visible galaxies are travelling at sizable fractions of the speed of light with the expansion speed decreasing towards the centre of the Universe, then its logical to assume that any galaxies beyond the distant visible galaxies would be expanding even faster than them perhaps to the “assumed” limit of just below the speed of light, or perhaps, if I am correct in my theories, faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, given that our observations of such matters are currently limited by the speed of light, then there is no possibility of observing galaxies travelling at or exceeding the speed of light.
So what is a better explanation? Clearly there are only likely to be two reasons for the expansion of anything, it’s either being pushed or pulled. Current theory on the expanding Universe suggests that it’s being pushed by black energy that exists throughout the entire Universe, that’s an invisible undetectable mysterious force with no actual proof of its existence, only the observation of the possible effects of this mysterious force. It’s a bit like God, no proof of his existence, but observations of the effect of a possible God all around us, life, the Universe, everything, it requires “faith” in both cases.
But what if the Universe is being pulled outwards at an ever expanding rate, this would explain the accelerating nature of the expansion of the Universe as well as the actual expansion itself. A bit like a balloon skin, as a balloon expands the outer skin expands faster than any other part of its interior, with the speed receding towards the centre of the balloon, exactly as the Universe appears to be expanding.
A possible explanation is that our Universe exists like a bubble floating in an infinite amount of “nothing”, and the nature of nothing seems to be that should any “something” be anywhere near, it will be drawn into it. As this “bubble” Universe would be surrounded by “nothing” then the boundaries of the Universe would be sucked into this infinite nothing at the speed of light, or faster, and just as the skin of a balloon will expand outwards faster than the centre when being inflated, the speed of inflation will slow down the closer to the centre of the Universe you observe, in fact the exact centre of the Universe (which, again is only a concept, as there is no actual centre, but that’s another story) will either not be expanding at all, or, if it is, at the very least infinitely slowly.
So what happens next? Logically it would seem that the boundaries of the Universe would continue to expand at the speed of light dragging the rest behind it, thinning out the Universe as it goes until the Universe, as we know it, would simply consist of individual atoms, protons and bursts of energy drifting further and further apart in an ever thinning quantum vacuum.
Perhaps, after an almost infinite period of time, this dilution of the Universe will become so great that in fact all that in practice is left is an infinite “nothing” primed and ready to trigger whatever natural law it is that abhors such an infinite “nothing” and produce another “big bang”. So the saying, based on years of observation of the natural state of things, "nature abhors a vacuum" may be even truer than we think.
One possible mechanism that could bring about this recurring “big bang” could be curvature, not space/time curvature, which was once a popular theory to explain the infinite size of the universe, but fell out of favour. But curvature of “something” moving through a medium. Assume that anything moving through space in an expanding Universe as described above had a slight natural curve to its line of travel, so small that current science has yet to detect it. The reason? I don’t know, but call it a yet undiscovered natural law.
That being the case, then eventually that “something” be it matter or energy would arrive back where it started, in the case of the Universe the location of the “big bang”
All that matter and energy arriving at one small point at the speed of light, or greater would create something that physics could not yet describe, but for the sake of argument call it a super stupendous black hole, pulling everything into it, including the very energy underlying the quantum vacuum, leaving only a super black hole in the middle of pure “nothing”
A black hole that by its very mass is constricted into a nearly infinitely small size, that at some stage unable get any smaller explodes into the “nothing” surrounding it, an expansion faster than the speed of light on the “nothing/something border, slowing to the speed of light and slower within the newly created Universe.
This “big bang” creating in turn another expanding Universe, a “big bang” that, should this theory be correct is, and was, only one of an infinite number of “big bangs”
The ability to create and influence the “big bang” could explain another possible feature of “nothing”, this could be the ability of “something” to move in it faster than the speed of light.
Light is considered as a constant only because it always moves at approx 186 thousand miles per second in a vacuum, the quantum vacuum of space.
However in air it’s a bit slower say 180 thousand miles a second, in water its approx 140 thousand miles a second, while in glass its 124 thousand miles a second.
So what I hear you say, well, the facts would suggest that as the speed of light varies depending on the medium it’s travelling in a downwards direction, why should the 186 thousand miles a second be the fastest it can travel in an upward direction.
Logic dictates that the denser the material the slower light travels, but the medium that is considered the medium that light can move the fastest in also contains something that light must negotiate in its journey, the energy underlying that quantum vacuum. This energy must affect light in some way, and that effect is to slow it down.
So if 186 thousand miles a second is the speed light is slowed down to by the energy in the quantum vacuum, then it has a potential to go faster.
So what happens if the energy in the quantum vacuum is not there and there is just pure “nothing”, logically light will travel faster.
Now, bearing that in mind, consider one of the puzzles of the big bang, how the Universe got so big in such a short space of time. Called “Inflation”, and for all the calculations to work it has to assume that in the first split seconds of the creation of the Universe it needed to expand faster than the speed of light.
But how could that be? Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, but that’s in a quantum vacuum. What if at the initial stages of the expansion of the Universe it was expanding into pure “nothing”, and it would be logical to assume that before the creation of energy or matter there was just “nothing” so the speed of light would be a lot faster.
Then as the Universe expanded thus creating “something” in “nothing” that very something put the quantum drag on light and slowed it back down to 186 thousand miles a second. Thus in the first few split seconds of the Universe it expanded faster than the speed of light, before settling down to the more mundane speed of 186 thousand miles a second within it, with the boundaries, where it continues to expand into “nothing”, still moving faster than the speed of light.
I would suggest that this is a more logical theory for the unexplained accelerating expansion of the Universe than the many so far postulated.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,893 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2012 02:01 pm
@bob600,
Quote:
On the subject of philosophers, the old philosophical question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” misses the point that “nothing” is just another form of something, so there is only something.
Somehow bothers the Intuition. Of course space is not nothing since nothing is the absence of anything

Hello test

Quote:
Grammatically, the word "nothing" is an indefinite pronoun, which means that it refers to something, so even at a “words” level, “nothing” is something.
Forgive me Bob but Intuition suggests that observation swings around and bites its own tail. Nonthingness is the complete absence of anything, including of course space

Regarding the question of why there’s anything at all, a very good question because we can easily posit such a condition though not “picture” it in the Mind’s Eye. Eventually it will be shown that the idea of nothingness is somehow contradictory or paxradoxical, that there has to be a Universe

…….and it’s the way it is simply because it can’t be any other way

It will be shown also that the physical constants assume the values that they do because they’re interdependent, each one depending on all the others

Given sequential Big-Bang--Big-Crunch of a finite Universe, recent thinking separates them by a moment of nothingness. Various contradictions entailed by such a “state” are resolved by asserting its “duration” to be zero though it’s yet pretty much up in the air (forgive terrible pun)

Quote:
to expand faster than the speed of light…...But how could that be? Nothing moves faster than the speed of light
The way I’ve heard it explained, it’s physical objects that can’t exceed c while the “edge” of it all doesn’t fall in that category

Quote:
where it continues to expand into “nothing”
Again forgive me but that phrase makes “nothing” sound like some sort of space. Supposedly there’s nothing outside, meaning simply that there isn’t an outside

Completely OT but it may never be shown that the humanoid is a necessary part of it or why those constants seem to have been “adjusted” within a fraction of one percent to make evolution possible
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2012 02:22 pm
Jerked . . . it's being jerked . . . a Jamaican jerk, i believe . . .
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2012 02:46 pm
@Setanta,
Set forgive me but exactly what’s being so jerked
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 07:45 am
@dalehileman,
Non existence is the absence of anything Nothing is the absence of everything.

Nothing can not be confused with space, nothing is the container for space.

I don't necessarily agree that there has to be a Universe, there has to be "something" what that must be is anyone guess, perhaps energy.

Is it physical objects that can't exceed C or is it small objects, small enough to dodge the energy in the quantum vacuum

Nothing is not a space to expand into its just an empty vessel that will hold space and all the "bits" In that sense nothing is something but it’s not space
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 07:49 am
@dalehileman,
Jeeze . . . slow on the uptake? Read the thread title again, and try not to take things so seriously.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 07:59 am
@bob600,
The Universe is not expanding. The ONLY evidence there's ever been for an expanding universe was a misinterpretation of cosmic redshift which Halton Arp cleared up by demonstrating numerous examples of high and low redshift objects which were clearly part and parcel of the same things. Those are typically a galaxy and a quasar which are clearly joined and connected:

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJ0f-dypHnLGcM5fap75k-t35a2gnSXUBauB_mvDFF6CYfwbbs
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 01:21 pm
@Setanta,
Hey, I agree life is to short and the universe to big to take our existance or thoughts seriously
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 01:28 pm
@gungasnake,
ok.
Not expanding.
Contracting then?
or just treading water.

How long can that go on given the Theory of Gravity?
Joe(then what?)Nation

PS: Arp did amazing work given the lack of decent telescopes, but he's been proven wrong multiple times. Cheers.
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2012 01:47 pm
@gungasnake,
To my knowledge Hubble's Constant has not been successfully challanged and was in fact reinforced with a recent 2011 estimate of the Hubble constant, which used a new infrared camera on the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance and redshift for a collection of astronomical objects. Not only is it expanding but it is accelerating faster the further away we look. In addition if the Universe is not expanding as you say then the award of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae was a pointless exercise.
Rejection of Hubble's Constant on the grounds that the expanding Universe may at some point travel faster than light and that the galaxies moving away are actually accelerating is my point. While I would never never suggest that the commonly held theory is the correct one, and there are many others equally deserving of attention, its worth bearing in mind that they are all theories and might all be equally wrong. Perhaps its all an illusion created by the child playing the computer simulation game (sim city of the year 2000012) that we are all part of without our knowledge. Logically we are a million times more likely to be a sim with self awareness than real, but thats another story.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 12:15 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Not expanding.
Contracting then?
or just treading water.

How long can that go on given the Theory of Gravity?
Joe(then what?)Nation



Good question, more or less....

The universe is not expanding or contracting. Ninety nine point nine something percent of the universe is in plasma form; the thing which creates galaxies and strings of galaxies i.e. the thing which agglomerates plasma into solid forms is cosmic Birkeland currents and the Z-pinch effect associated with Birkeland currents and these are basically gigantic currents moving through the plasma of space.

Gravity is by 40-some orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature and is not what binds galaxies or cosmic objects together, in real life stars are too far apart for gravity to hold them together; galaxies are held together by electromagnetic forces.

If you scale our own system to a yard or so across, then the Earth and Mars are an inch or two from the sun, the sun is the width of a human hair, Pluto is a yard out, and Alpha Centauri is four miles and change over yonder. Asking gravity to do anything for that is like asking gravity to hold two dust motes together from four miles distance.



0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 12:19 pm
@bob600,
"Big bang" is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever 'bang' its way out of that.

Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly at ANY time in the past have been struck by the idea that it would be a cool thing to do to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him prior to that, is basically idiotic.

In real life, the universe is almost certainly eternal like God, and the creation stories we read refer to the creation of our own living world and local environment, and not to the entire universe.
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 07:47 am
@gungasnake,
Call it what you will but the "Big Bang" is shorthand for what happened when "time" began, (given that time does not exist then perhaps the "Big Bang" does not exist.). As we can't really understand your common or garden black hole and the laws of physics break down close to even the very smallest, then watch out for the "mother" of all black holes, never mind the breakdown of the laws of physics look for entirly new laws totally alien to any concept we might have. Perhaps the new Universe is shot out the back door into another "nothing"

As for the God thing forget it, as a "strong" atheist I KNOW God does not exist, but again thats another story and not suitable for a site like this.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 08:03 am
@bob600,
bob600 wrote:
As for the God thing forget it, as a "strong" atheist I KNOW God does not exist, but again thats another story and not suitable for a site like this.


Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Yer killin' me here . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 May, 2012 08:50 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Big bang" is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package
This is coming from a guy who believes in a Worldwide Flood and that the earth was bombarded with electric rays from some passing planets that happened just a few thousand years ago.


I wonder how gunga will try to refute Hubbles observations and conclusions as well as Penzias and Wilsons observations.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:46 pm
@bob600,
Quote:
Call it what you will but the "Big Bang" is shorthand for what happened when "time" began,
Different guys Bob have different ideas about it

Quote:
Non existence is the absence of anything Nothing is the absence of everything.
That sounds right

Quote:
Nothing can not be confused with space, nothing is the container for space.
But that sounds contradictory somehow

Quote:
I don't necessarily agree that there has to be a Universe,
Nor do I but as The Devil's Advocate I predict it will be discovered that the absence of everything—nothingness—entail contradictions and paradox that make it impossible

Quote:
there has to be "something" what that must be is anyone guess, perhaps energy.
That’s my guess also for what it’s worth—not an awful lot however around here. Nonetheless there’s a perfectly serious theory (not mine incidentally) that there’s a moment of nothingness between sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches. However to skirt the paradox we can assert its duration to be zero

Quote:
Is it physical objects that can't exceed C or is it small objects, small enough to dodge the energy in the quantum vacuum
I’ve heard that nothing can exceed c

Quote:
Nothing is not a space to expand into
Semantic problem here

Quote:
its just an empty vessel that will hold space
Now Bob that one does sound contradictory

Quote:
and all the "bits" In that sense nothing is something but it’s not space
Now that sounds contradictory too. Nothing is certainly not something unless you so define “something,” in which case isn’t what you’ve stated a tautology
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 01:57 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes, nothing would ever 'bang' its way out of that.
To the contrary Gung one theory has a Big Crunch with a shrinking “ball” of increasing mass and decreasing stability until at the critical moment of infinite mass and instability comes the next Big Bang

Makes perfect sense
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 02:57 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Call it what you will but the "Big Bang" is shorthand for what happened when "time" began,
Different guys Bob have different ideas about it

Everyone has different ideas about the unknown, that’s the way it works
Quote:
Non existence is the absence of anything Nothing is the absence of everything.
That sounds right

Hurts the head though
Quote:
Nothing can not be confused with space, nothing is the container for space.
But that sounds contradictory somehow

It’s just the word nothing that is confusing call it “queop” “Queop is the container for space” that sounds better.
Quote:
I don't necessarily agree that there has to be a Universe,
Nor do I but as The Devil's Advocate I predict it will be discovered that the absence of everything—nothingness—entail contradictions and paradox that make it impossible

Logically it would seem that “everything” can be removed from something leaving nothing, it’s when you then try and remove “nothing” that you run into trouble.
Quote:
there has to be "something" what that must be is anyone guess, perhaps energy.
That’s my guess also for what it’s worth—not an awful lot however around here. Nonetheless there’s a perfectly serious theory (not mine incidentally) that there’s a moment of nothingness between sequential Big-Bang—Big-Crunches. However to skirt the paradox we can assert its duration to be zero

Is there such a thing as zero? If there is then there must be nothing as well.
Quote:
Is it physical objects that can't exceed C or is it small objects, small enough to dodge the energy in the quantum vacuum
I’ve heard that nothing can exceed c

I heard that as well, but the facts, or the effects of the facts would seem to contradict that rumor.
Quote:
Nothing is not a space to expand into
Semantic problem here

Not certain what you mean, “nothing” is not space if thats what you mean.
Quote:
its just an empty vessel that will hold space
Now Bob that one does sound contradictory

Why? If something fills something then the something it fills is the container. Space and all the bits fill “nothing” so nothing is the container
Quote:
and all the "bits" In that sense nothing is something but it’s not space
Now that sounds contradictory too. Nothing is certainly not something unless you so define “something,” in which case isn’t what you’ve stated a tautology

But if “nothing” is the container for Space and all the bits then it must be a different “something” after all if it was not "something" it would not exist and there would be nothing to put space and all the bits in so we would not exist either.

Small problem, I recently discovered that using obiting observatories, astronomers have discovered, using Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity, that the Universe is more likely to be a large flat sheet and not a sphere. If true that shoots down my idea of a balloon type Universe expanding into nothing. Ah well, back to the drawing board.
bob600
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 03:03 pm
@dalehileman,
It would appear that the Universe may not be a "ball" after all, but a flat sheet. That would make it more difficult to reverse the "big bang" in this way. Must give that one a rethink, in a flat sheet gravity would work in one dimension only ?? Perhaps that would still work but if thats the case how do you get a "flat sheet" from a pinpoint explosion.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2012 05:26 pm
@bob600,
Hello test 1234
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the expanding universe being pushed or pulled
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.56 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 07:25:05