[QUOTE=Jerry Jensen]thank the universe i found this forum, so im not going entirely mad, a truly infinite universe with no beginning and no end is a much simpler explanation than BB, i've found some material on the net regarding hawkings and the no boundary proposal, seems even he has a problem with creationism now.Originally Posted by Nereid
Just wanted to throw this into the mix as well but excuse my nomenclature as this really is just a hobby for me, im a musician by trade but have read astrophysics up to differential equation level but im sure my choice of language still needs tidying up. I have a major problem with time being treated as an inverse dimension not a measurement of duration and gravity being treated as a force not an effect. For me a simpler explanation for the *medium* of space is energy at near zero charge, ie, energy at such long wavelengths that it is pretty much impossible to detect it, these wavelengths would be so long that they would almost approach zero, being close to a straight line, so the curve of the wavelength would be asymptotic, never quite reaching zero charge.
I would love some feedback on this idea if anybody would like to help me expand on this idea or tell me why its fundamentally flawed.