The Power of the Universe is 3645E49 watts. The Radius of the Universe is 158E24 meters. The Mass of the Universe is 2.133E53 kg. The "cycle age" of the Universe is 16.69E9 Years. The Shape of the Universe is a cuboctahedron, (closest packing of spheres). The density of the Universe is 12-22E-27 kg/m^3.

In a previous ATM Post I used Quaternion Physics to establish that the Universe is in Equilibrium, in balance with no acceleration. This establishes certain constant conditions, the key conditions are GM/R = c^2 and cos(g)=v/c=z. Hubble's Constant is H=Del.v = g/c, the divergence of the gravitational velocity. The redshift and blue shift are indicators of Dynamic Equilibrium.

The Equilibrium is a Dynamic Equilibrium that oscillates masses between the redshift phase expanding from the center and the blue shift phase with masses contracting toward the center, with a cycle time around 16.69 Billion years. It could be that there are some masses in the redshift phase while other masses are in the blue shift phase at the same time.

The so-called observable Universe IS the Universe. Gravity acts like a Harmonic Spring on the mass and at the the radius limit, the mass reverses direction and exhibits blueshift.

Quaternion Physics is common sense across the Universe. The Universe is not expanding, there is no "dark matter or dark energy",etc,etc,etc.

So the cuboctahedron is a circular packaging, a cube with the corners cut off then?

Dynamic in which sense? Say movement from a central point out and convergence back in or like some of the globular clusters that seem to have a line of flow through the middle that punctures the outer of the cluster and flows back around and in.

In quantum mechanics such a shape is a paired Klein shape. Each Klein bottle represents the physical shape of a sphere but only one side. Like a Mobius strip is one sided a Klein bottle can describe the inside of a sphere or the outside but to describe both requires that two be connected which can then be circularish (or cuboctahedronish perhaps). This would be a continuous flow rather than direction reversing.

The main problem is defining redshift in all directions which is why the multi stack box ideas in three physical dimensions were given a fourth unseen structural dimension which became the universe on the expanding edge of the balloon analogy which by the way made it static again relative to the coordinate positions of all other matter and made movement almost solely the single movement of the fourth unseen dimension of structure.

If it is dynamic then essentially what flow shape do you propose to explain why at our particular position everything we see in all directions seems to have an accelerating increase in distance from us? That is the big question.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Thanks for your comment. It was very informative. I didn't know about the cuboctahedron relationship to the Klein Bottle and Quantum mechanics.

I meant Dynamic in the sense that accelerations sum to zero rather than all accelerations be zero.

About the big question of "accelerating increase", if that is Hubble's Distance redshift correlation, then it could be we are in a neighborhood where the the homes have similar redshifts.

Not really. There were a bunch of outstanding questions on that thread. Do you intend to come back to them?

did you ? i must have missed that post.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yes, rebutted efficiently by Fortis.

So very true...

In the context of mainstream theories rebutted yes. In the context of exploring a new option ... getting shot down before getting a chance to take off.

Neverfly that is what I like about you. Your understanding of the communication problem and even though the ideas are not going along mainstream lines that seem more familiar to you ... at least you're still in there listening, cheers

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

I think that it takes more than a day to get from point a to point b.

I also think there are a lot of misconceptions available- and they can catch one offguard very easily. See the .9999~ = 1? thread for evidence of that...

But true too- that some people accept certain theories or aspects of a theory as an axiom- I also think that counts as a misconception.

Dor Example: Most folks here by now, know- I don't like dark matter. Not for many of the reasons that many ATM'ers do- but for different reasons.
So I don't consider Dark Matter to be a theory- as much as a place holder until we figure out that particular riddle.

Now if I go around claiming Dark Matter is true and a reality- then I would be acting no better than an ATM proponent claiming that another possibility is true and reality.

(my bold but the spellcheck is Google)

At last some common ground
I think you do a better job of reading a variety of posts and it is fun reading your comments. Trouble is that on just the dark matter question I wont be a convert to mainstream.

No seriously thank you for all the support in so many areas.
Cheers Michael.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Do you intend to answer any of the questions still outstanding from your previous thread?

I have.

Thanks. I'm afraid that there are now some more.