Been studying cosmology as presented by so-called physicists and I begin to have an idea as to why it seems so grossly inadequate but maybe some one here could enlighten. When I looked into the idea of a steady state universe I find that it's no longer considered seriously by many. The reason cited is the expansion that Hubble disclosed, the cosmic background radiation and the non-isotropism observed. Seems to me that these are only dealing with the observable universe. Heck, I can tell that the universe is non-isotropic locally without use of a telescope. I see also there is a cosmological perspective that agrees with the observations but considers the possibility of multiple big bangs outside of our current sphere of observations that ultimately will lead to reinvigorating what we can observe. It is called by different names other than steady state, quasi steady state, chaotic inflation theory or eternal inflation. I wonder why the big-bang theory is so often cited as the sole explanation of how the universe is deployed without the caveat emptor of it being only on what we can observe?

I've been in discussion a bit with Neil deGrasse Tyson and am preparing another email to him over the next couple of days and maybe he can entertain an intelligent question or two. I think I already see a sociological explanation as to why such certainty is ascribed to the linear, beginning to end, cosmological model but I wonder if any one here would care to comment.

Well there is definatly a bias for people to formulate theories based on what they see rather than going into what they know. Humans are infact visual creatures and thus we often use visual thinking to aid us. However when you get into 4 dimensions you have trouble visualizing such things just as a flatlander as trouble visualizing 3 dimensions. It seems naive to think that what we see is all there is.

One thing to remember about the big bang is the theory part. It is just that, a theoretical proposition as to how the universe was formed. I find some of the theories of the universe to be grossy loose ended. The expansion of the universe really relates to the denisty of matter, at the big bang you had an extremly dense object suddenly expand. Actually astrophysicists have been arguing over whos right and whos wrong for so many years and changing their minds so often that I have tried to stay out of that area.

Of course, one has to ask, why did this bang happen in the first place - what caused such a large mass of matter to be like that? Surely this giant mass did not appear out of thin air.. Could the origin of the big bang simply be a large planet in a even larger universe and our so called universe is but bits and pieces of an insignificant planet?

And, why is it when a supernova occurs a black hole is created yet when this giant mass came into existance it exploded rather than collapesed on itself?

How so? 'Local' means something different here than in layman's usage.

Any reference Lucid? I admit my first thought was when I look across the room but I can also see a few light years just on a clear night and seems to me there is no difference, universe being here and there and everywhere which brings up the idea of multiverse and whether or not that is a poor use of terminology.

Depends on your definition of a multiverse, are we talking full sized alternate universe or Quantum physics with extremly small extra dimensions - some are theorized to be smaller than a pica.

Then we get into Branes, SuperSymmetry, multidimensional representation on a 2 dimensional plane and of course, the SuperString Theory. Kaluza Klein Particles are rather intresting because they may help us to understand how particles work in 4 dimensions.

Most of Physics theory related to Multiverse's deals with particle physics and they look for alternate dimensions on a very small scale. Things like fullscale alternate universes are still things of Science Fiction and few Physicists are willing to explore the area out of fear it will damage their rep in the scientific community.

What we know about alternate dimensions now is mainly based on gravitational theory and applying that to quantum physics so we can see what occurs in a fourth dimension.

I will give my theory of the weak gravitational force and how it explains the mysteries of the universe.

Scientists think the universe is expanding and parts of it are moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. This is based on a fallacy, it is based on observed red shift and calculations that give us speed and distance. There is a weak gravitational force that is somewhat like the strong force we are all aware of. The weak force operates over long distances and has little no no effect on nearby objects. It also affects space and causes a red shift on it's own. Over a few light years it's too faint to be detected by our most sensitive instruments but over thousands of light years it shows up and on a cosmos wide scale it makes a big difference.

The universe is not expanding at nearly the rate scientists think it is and is not nearly as big. The weak gravitational force will cause the universe to slow, stop and to reverse direction. At some point in the distant future it will come together in a big crunch. This will in turn lead to another big bang and the cycle repeats itself. This has been going on forever. Time is looped back on itself and there is no beginning or end. Now you know.

Hmm another intresting thought is what if you had a gravitational pull so strong it could cause objects to move faster than the speed of light? or even a magnetic pull

Which strong force are you referring to?

Hey Hey, the strong gravitational force is the one everyone is familiar with. Max, no amount of force can make an object go faster than or as fast as the speed of light.