Will the permanent expansion of the universe eventually be reversed?

I am always impressed by the highly explosive information that some of the answers contain.And that, of course, makes me add my mustard.

… the permanent expansion is in this sense not an accelerating movement, but space has a different density through which things move.But now those things are just markings of this more or less dense space.

Thus, only the distances of the points to each other in a room or space change.they become more or less dense, but their ratios to sizes and distances to each other, they do not change. And since things consist only of more or less dense space, those things will now also be more or less dense objects, but this object density differs from its ambient density, because that is their marking, which distinguishes them and makes them recognizable only by doing so.

The radius of an effect of an object forms an isotropic lyvicely extended field in space in any direction, i.e. a narrow lyrised area of space.If that radius is growing, then we are talking about expansion, and when it gets smaller, we are talking about contraction. All things in this field will therefore also expand or contract their distances or Radii become smaller or Greater.

On the individual points, it looks like things are moving because they are moving away from each other.Nevertheless, they do not really move, but the stupid man knows nothing else that can change his distance without moving.

So only the distances will be larger orsmaller, but the size ratios to each other are not. With a real movement, the distances become larger, but not the things themselves.

So the real speed of movement does not really increase, because the energy does not increase either.And because this does not change the mass, nothing stands in the way of reversing the current action into the respective other state of expansion or contraction.

This isotropic property of the effects of all things shows that all functions follow a circular function from our point of view, which is always only hidden in many formulas of physics, because corresponding mathematical acrobatics like to obscure it.For example, the formula E=hf is the only one that describes exactly where in the effect quantum h and the frequency f is often shortened by 2, so that it can be better calculated, without which someone recognizes in it that the mathematical description, the circle function is also lost.

So everything in this universe now follows the circular function, and so I ask why expansion should be the only one that contradicts this principle?Why should it be a hypothesis that needs to be proven when nothing has ever been found that does not correspond to the circular function?

Why should the room be endless?Why does everyone want to accept an endless universe when nothing substantially existing has ever been found to support this claim? Common sense asks, “Whatnonsense?”

So how can space seem endless and the universe has no interior or exterior?Yes, this would require four spatial dimensions that can sweep the interior outwards. And we also have that, because the duration of time is not the change of the present, these are two completely different things. In order to understand this one does not have to study, the common sense is quite sufficient.

The current state of expansion shows only our possible position within a 4D sphere and the one has a vertical axis on which the space spreads horizontally, and all three known dimensions curve into the 4th dimension.

A curvature of the three dimension into the 4th spatial dimension is only understandable if we divide the space into two planes, as in the simple 2D circle the horizontal X axis is the X plane and the vertical Y axis is the Y plane, just like I can both have a sphere in two Divide layers as well as distinguish a hypersphere into a horizontal black 3D plane and a vertical red 4D plane.Then I sink with the curvatures the black horizontal things, understandable to me, into the red vertical plane, which looks like this:

The three known dimensions are thus curved into a 4th dimension.And in this way, all distances from the edge to the inside to the center are shortened with 1/r2 and in the 4th dimension these shortenings appear as stretching, respectively. here in the 3D plane it becomes a hole and in the 4D plane it becomes a mountain and runs from the same center back to the outside.

The vertical red lines are the amount that is sunk from the 3D to the 4D plane.

This removes the amount from the black horizontal X axis that reappears on the red vertical Y axis. The grayscales and the bright scales indicate the gravitational effect and we experience the blue curve electrically on the oscilloscopes as a 90掳 rotated sine curve, because the 4D plane is arranged 90掳 orthogonally.

And the center of the universe as well as the equator determine the turning point of the circular function, which thus determines the constant function of the speed of light.In the upper hemisphere the space expands and in the lower it contractes.

The apparent separation of time and space is a perfect illusion that our minds have created so that we can understand and distinguish what surrounds us.

When you see the Big Bang as radiation in the sky tent, you see the original point source at every point in your sphere of vision, i.e. from the inside.

And if you were at the bang now, you would only be able to look at it from the outside.

Is this the fault of the temporal or spatial distance?

This shows that you don’t understand enough about time, because as a time-duration it’s just a spatial curvature that’s appropriately shaped by your mind without you having to understand it.

Since everything follows the circle function, why shouldn’t time follow that?And so it all starts anew at some point, when all possible constellations have passed through, then there are only repetitions.

So, now say,
why should the universe be the only one that contradicts the circular function?And don’t ask yourself how many times I’ve repeated my questions, even in this time period.

Leave a Reply