Big Crunch?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[rj]: If the radial is curve and steadily declining and no body shares the same space?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As two objects at equal distances from the center fall, they will get closer together because the radials to the center converge.

In general, never try to patch a theory once it is falsified. That is a sure way to fool yourself. -|Tom|-

No two object will ever be equal distance from the center.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[rj]: No two object will ever be equal distance from the center.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You lost me. If we draw equal-length lines from a center in two different directions, how can the end points not be equi-distant? -|Tom|-

I agree with Tom, if the universe were in a state of collapse, we would see evidence of light coming from distant galaxies on one side of the cosmic sphere as being blue shifted and those galaxies on our side would be red shifted.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

Tom why would they have to be of equal distance? I will not say that there is never a case of a blue shift, for instance, we know that glaxies do collide. But, the depths of space do not require that equal distance lines in opposite directions be draw or at least numerous bodies follow them. If there where only a millimeter of difference, theoretically there would be a red shift.

The particles of nothingness may not be particles at all, because they are unobservable outside of an atom. They are called neutrons. I question whether they exist at all outside of an atom, but I will not be so bold as to say they do not have mass. I just know we have never seen them outside of an atom. But neutrality is the only nothingness that is possible. If you took all the energy in the universe and cancelled it out, you would have neutrality. The nothingness of our imaginiation is not possible.

But I would really like to thank you guys for your criticism, please continue....I may actually find a theory. Oh, and a prediction my hypothesis would make is that dark matter or missing matter will continue to increase over time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Tom why would they have to be of equal distance? I will not say that there is never a case of a blue shift, for instance, we know that glaxies do collide. But, the depths of space do not require that equal distance lines in opposite directions be draw or at least numerous bodies follow them. If there where only a millimeter of difference, theoretically there would be a red shift.

The particles of nothingness may not be particles at all, because they are unobservable outside of an atom. They are called neutrons. I question whether they exist at all outside of an atom, but I will not be so bold as to say they do not have mass. I just know we have never seen them outside of an atom. But neutrality is the only nothingness that is possible. If you took all the energy in the universe and cancelled it out, you would have neutrality. The nothingness of our imaginiation is not possible.

But I would really like to thank you guys for your criticism, please continue....I may actually find a theory. Oh, and a prediction my hypothesis would make is that dark matter or missing matter will continue to increase over time.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Neutron beams, neutron bombs...