Post by Pincho Paxton on Oct 24, 2013 12:57:00 GMT
Link...
No need for inflation if cosmos was a bouncing baby
It includes the same physics that I use, but in the wrong pattern. The centre of a Galaxy is the rebound point. You then have a membrane rebound field, and then from that you get the redshift. This then becomes a fractal, breaking down into particles, more rebound points, and finally the atoms losing much of the rebound physics due to the Russian doll insulation of the rebound points. In-flow followed by out-flow is a common set of physics dominated by water, so it's not hard to figure out. Why Einstein has to predict such easily observable physics is beyond me. Could it be because Newton used the word pull, and Einstein used the word attraction? With these backwards physics mankind is running around like a chicken with it's head chopped off. The physics are obvious, but don't attach themselves to pull physics at all.
No need for inflation if cosmos was a bouncing baby
It includes the same physics that I use, but in the wrong pattern. The centre of a Galaxy is the rebound point. You then have a membrane rebound field, and then from that you get the redshift. This then becomes a fractal, breaking down into particles, more rebound points, and finally the atoms losing much of the rebound physics due to the Russian doll insulation of the rebound points. In-flow followed by out-flow is a common set of physics dominated by water, so it's not hard to figure out. Why Einstein has to predict such easily observable physics is beyond me. Could it be because Newton used the word pull, and Einstein used the word attraction? With these backwards physics mankind is running around like a chicken with it's head chopped off. The physics are obvious, but don't attach themselves to pull physics at all.