Well, well, well, let us go into high gear ! Our current vision of the universe looks like about that (by extrapolating what could exist after the "end" of the universe :
As we saw it previously, suppose that after the big crunch the time is inverted (in red). But if this time is reversed, why it would not return to its starting point so : this would be a vision of our disasterist conception of the universe which would perish periodically before to be reborn of its ashes.
But human being is egocentric : if he sees disappear his universe on the horizon, it is because he is annihilated. While it is Our Noodly Monster which hides it to us by The Noodly Touch.
So when we see a star we say that " It shines, even when it has can be disappeared since thousands of years. Conversely we consider that stars do not exist because we do not still see them, even when they are since millions there of years (but their light does not still reach us there).
Let us try to see the previous figure as a perspective : we see then a ring. Let us imagine while that the black hole, perceived as a bottleneck where the universe would disappear, either that a 3-dimensional effect, and or by way of the width of the universe, without shrinkage, not at all. The black holes observed here would be in fact of the width of the universe, which would be in itself a black hole with constant size (seen in house) : without collapse thus. What would give this :
Seen in house, the universe would be then stable (thanks to the wearing of pirate's dress). It would be only a whirlwind : the big merry-go-round of the life, with its four seasons. Well ! Critical analysis of a text : an object (A : our galaxy for example) turn at the speed of light. Instead of falling towards the center under the influence of the centripetal acceleration, it would turn in the course of the universe under the influence of this acceleration. We shall note that the more an object is distant, the more its speed adorned us to stretch (speed light gets on here : did not forget that the light is immovable with regard to the objects which move in our reference table).
I explain : we have difficulty in estimating the speed of an object which moves rather far in the same sense(direction) as us (except Doppler effect, not obvious at first sight we saw it). But the more its movement turns compared with our, the more we are to estimate its speed. Well, it is rather muddy that, but we are in the schematic shortcut, not in the complexity of the reality. And quite logically Pastafarist : " more it is muddy more it is sure, it is like that the Faith. "
The light observed by this object stretches with the distance: it turns to the red, it is maybe the observed Doppler effect (but I prefer the previous hypothesis, the mud for mud) ; thus no expansion of the universe, where from no original Big Bang by going back up the time. In fact, it is an effect of the Noodly Touch. Ultimately when the speed of the observed object is perpendicular in our movement, it seems to us to move at the speed of light... That is on the verge of our perception : would the light reach us if the received object goes away at the speed of light ? It thus appears to us as a sort of wave, immovable in our reference table (c = 0). Beyond, the time is reversed with regard to us, we shall say that it desappear of our horizon of perception.
Please note : in this representation, which is only illustrative, we advance in the time, but we see the past of the universe, because we go to meet immovable undulatory tracks left by the material behind her.
If we indeed want to look at it, it is necessary to us to cross 4 "horizons" to return to our starting point : except that obviously our "horizon" moves with us, and there is no precise horizon : no obstacle to be exceeded, such a black hole which would be only a visual effect. And rather than to speak about the age of the universe, it would rather be necessary to us to conceive it as the duration of a cosmic season in the alder of our horizon of perception. We are in a black hole, we say a hole without edge (boron in Pastafarian). Whitch from we speak, for this horizon of "genesis" of perceptions, about dawn boreal (it's more explicit in french) : in the "edge", the material seems undulatory. Rather than to see Big Bang we would see rather a continuous arrival of material, abore there swindle becoming clearer in ake and for measure.
De facto the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have created the world 5000 years ago, But would not it be 5000 universal years in fact ? That is 5000 rotations of the universe on him even ? Of 260 000 (13 billion years to see Big Bang) in 1 480 000 billion years (if we add it the 57 billion years which would separate us from the big crunch) : vertiginous ! That HE can be roguish all the same... Well let us remain serious, it is really a question of earthy years : égocentricly speaking, the Sun turns around the Earth at the speed of the universe, let us see ! How would it be possible otherwise ?
This says tiny black holes (on the scale of the universe)exist ; but disastrous peculiarities by the bottlenecks show themselves, by their small size, which they present to their entrance. And after all our universe can arise from it finally, in which case Big Bang would have taken place well. The difference would be in the fact that the universe would have fallen, such a meteorite on the Earth under the influence of the " gravitation ++ ", instead of turning under its effect as the Moon. But... But maybe that both are compatible... That would so take place :
But then, we would never return to our starting point. It is also logical, when the Earth made the tour of the Sun, it is not in its starting point, the Sun having migrated in the galaxy meanwhile, and the other planets are not any more on the same place : their years not being ours. (I like this kind of explanations " cock to donkey " (in french), of an obvious report of causality).
The question of the "thorough noise" of the universe stays. Which was spotted as being the residual noise of Big Bang. That no & no ! Our Thunderstrike Revelerity simply made a noise of hell during His geneticist boozing. They are only echos of this popular waltz of all the devils.
More simply, matter in our field of perception, then appearing as waves, is akin to the "noise". But Einstein and others draw improbable plans on the comet. So will ask a specialist of the "speed of light" that it is exactly :
perdu ? la carte aux trésors
Interview of Superman
Yves Forban : hello Superman. You travel at the speed of light: how's that takes place?
Superman : That Its Noodly Appentage touches you my Yvounet. Well, it is little as in Stars Wars, without rays of light are much more vague in fact. In this speed we can get through objects as through a diffuse bright fog. And so I can see through the material: I put myself in "mode" vibrator at the speed of light.
The problem, it is to slow down: we risk then to return to collide with objects. I had to equip myself with a " Super GPS " (under my black headband on the eye) to find clear zones of "landing".
YF : Yes, that has to hurt?
SM : No, it is not the problem for me, indestructible, that would tickle me rather, but I have to avoid returning to collide with objects, for them.
YF : Have you already met the Monster in Flying Spaghetti?
SM : Naturally! IT became a friend. At the beginning I believed that it was a dish of huge spaghetti (laughter), and I wanted to eat IT. "Finaly IT introduced me to lasagnes, after my noodly touched.
IT is a nice chap, really! Always leaving for going on a spree. "Mais IL makes a din of the thunder of Zeus there height, with the reverberation on the celestial vault. We even had to make a petition with the league of the Great Hero to have hours of Super tranquillity. The Super job, it is is rather testing, you see. We need a small siesta from time to time.
But we can not be angry agains IT (hungry maybe), "IT" is "épastant": always loan to give a hand, the heart on the hand.
YF : "IT" does not ever get angry?
SM : Ah well, yes! "IT" has Its surly character, but that is a part of the character: it is the kind which "IT" gives itself but IT is not nasty in the bottom. Nevertheless, it is better not to speak ill of pirates: that does IT in one of these grumble! But we tease IT with that.
YF : Did you see the volcano of beer?
SM : Well yes! But is better to approach it not too much: when we enjoyed it, it is difficult to come back from the Paradise, you know... It is too good! Deeply the pension!
YF : and does Xenu, of the Scientology, exist?
SM : Nôoo... It is stories which the MÔnster tells us in the evening in the corner of a great nova, to frighten us: Xenu blows up the volcano of beer, we have a nightmare there. It is little as the tales of the thousand one at nights, which... But later, that cheers up us in our fight against the Nasty.
YF : Were you for the borders of the universe?
SM : Yes, the universe is as an immense plateau, and in the rear it has a big hole there. But how say? It is a hole without edge: an immense "béance". But in fact this "béance" is everywhere in the universe: it is even in each of us. It is rather complex...
YF : That is?
SM : Well! It is Its Savourety who introduced me to that. Learnt a lot "IT" me. But it begins to make thirst: if we were going to discuss it around the volcano of beer? It is no maid there ID (idée in french) that! (Laughter) You will understand better.
YF : On it, my good dear auditors, I thus leave you: I have questions of theological order pastafari has to deepen with our friend.
Goodbye, and Then may its Noodly Appentage touches you...
perdu ? la carte aux trésors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Râmen...