The paradox of overunity

[Low-Q]

Just think, at those field strengths pulling virtual particles into reality and then becoming real particles, you would have all the infinite particles required to have infinite fuel.

also, getting back to the heat expansion of the universe, yes I believe you are correct.

but, both the infinite Universe and also the Big bang 'both' are supported by the C.M.B or cosmic back ground radiation theory, I just believe in the infinite Universe theory. recycle, recycle, recycle infinitely.

However I do believe the Universe is both infinite and expanding in all directions infinitely in infinite space. there are many reasons or factors that contribute to the expansion of the Universe. one being bound virtual particles, if a heavenly body has the required field strength to convert the virtual particle to a real particle. This is true Over-unity because the power source is making matter from the vacuum of space but you'll need a minimum of 1,016 Tesla to do it. the virtual particle has to be captured in this field strength so it can not pop back out of existence.

once the virtual particle is bound for a certain amount of time it will convert to a real particle and will stay in this existence.

see, Science and or Physics don't like to deal with infinity in math because it can not be proven, so they deal with a known number, what is known and not what they can not see or shall never see.

Jerry

One thing that bugs me is the size of the universe. If it is infinitely big, can we then consider ourself as existing objects? All known matter would be litterally nothing, zero, compared to an infinite universe. So my second theory, is that the univers are not infinite - but very big. At least limited to any relative distance between the closest and the farthers objects. Background radiation is probably reflected energy from "invisible" gasses. Energy that comes from all stars in the universe. Because if we look at the emtiest space with the Hubble telescope, and we are able to see radiation, this would mean that there is an energy source coming from that direction. The question is whether this energy are coming directly from its origin, or if it is just reflections from the stars. The emty space are not that emty even if it appears to be. And do we really know all about the universe to conclude that the so called background radiation comes from the big bang? How can we measure the age of radiation?

Vidar

[quantumtangles]

Interesting Jerry

[quantumtangles]

One of the problems about big bang theory (in its early stages) was that there should have been abundant light supporting the theory. However, it was soon realised that predicted (ostensibly absent) electromagnetic radiation was indeed there. If you turn on your TV set when it is not connected to cable, you may see static. About 1% of that static is residual electromagnetic radiation from the big bang. In other words we can actually see it. For more details look up BBC iplayer on www.bbc.co.uk. The program is called "Everything and Nothing". Fascinating.

[WilbyInebriated]

"first, there was no thing. then it exploded."

that pretty much sums up the lunacy of big bang THEORY...

[quantumtangles]

"first, there was no thing. then it exploded."

that pretty much sums up the lunacy of big bang THEORY...

We have been taught that "ex nihilo, nihil fit" (from nothing nothing comes).

I reasonably believe this to be an error of the most serious kind.

All things have opposites and cannot exist without them. In reality they are different (yet opposed) aspects of the same phenomena.

All particles in physics are now understood to have mirror opposites ("no-things" to match every "thing".

One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference.

Accordingly I reasonably believe "ex nihilo, totem fit". From nothing, everything comes".