A New Steady State Theory, An Interesting Take On The Universe

I recently came across this from Brian Lumley, one of my all time favorite authors.

*First published in the December 1999 issue of Necroscope News
A NEW STEADY STATE THEORY?
I am a layman, so this will be in layman's terms.

It may seem a strange subject for my web page, but that's because I want to get it down on paper before someone else has similar thoughts. Also, it may shed a little light on my Mobius Strip fixation, the way I've used the Strip in my fiction...

www.brianlumley.com...

For those unfamiliar with his Necroscope books the man is quite taken with playing with the ideas around mobius strips. Take a thin strip of paper and fold it so the ends meet, but before they touch give it a twist. This is what you should have:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e62871c3d79d.jpg[/atsimg]

It is a plane that has no end. A warp. If you drew a straight line down the middle until you reached you starting point and put the strip back straight again you would find the line was on both sides.

The man himself puts it there that he very well may be wrong, but as I said it is merely an interesting take on the subject of the possible workings of the universe. I think some points may be valid particularly point 7 to do with the alleged lack of 90% of the universes gravity when taken with number 3 about mass and therefore gravity.

3. Another scientific fact:

The mass of a physical object as it approaches the speed of light increases dramatically. At the speed of light itself an object's mass is infinite -- as great as the universe that produced it! -- which is why the universe is no longer able to contain it. But here we've been talking about mass not weight. Weight is the product of the mass of a body and the acceleration acting upon it. How heavy, then, is an infinite mass when it's moving at the ultimate velocity? (Heavy!)

7. The lack of gravity.

Many scientists are puzzled by the universe's apparent lack of weight. Where the hell is all the missing gravity? I am a layman, not a scientist. But if my "whacky" ideas should just happen to be nearly correct, the lack of gravity (there's only 10% or less of what there should be to maintain the universe) can "easily" be explained away. The gravity is there in all those fast-fleeing galactic bodies on the rim of the universe which are gradually approaching light-speed. And as for why the universe is speeding up the further out we go, that's because it's being drawn out by the vestigial gravity of all those near-infinite masses gone before.

Anyway found it interesting and thought others might as well.

Let me know if this is the wrong forum, it was hard to decide to which it belonged.

For those wanting a few more tidbits on Mobius and his strips crack these eggs of knowledge:

www.crystalinks.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Cheers,
Pabs

You may be interested in the story "wall of darkness" by arthur c clarke

it follows these lines, s&f for giving me a reason to read it again

reply to post by james420


What can you tell me about it bearig in mind I have no knowedge of it and would not want the story completely spoiled.

Thats why I haven't googled or checked wiki, too easy to find out too much.

Much obliged,
Pabs

reply to post by pablos


Cant shed any light on the mobius thing.
What i do know is that i love a good Vampire story, but for some reason all the good stuff is quite obscure and unknown and it's the 'twilight' and 'buffy's' of this world that get all the fanfare,the 'Dawsons creeks' of the vampire genre........

reply to post by pablos


there is basically a world where it ends abruptly at an impenetrable wall of darkness, and there is a part where the main character has the physics of essentially what you describe with the ribbon explained to him in reference to the wall, im sorry if this sounds a bit esoteric, but its hard to describe without ruining the story, i suggest it, its a good read

[edit on 6-6-2010 by james420]

reply to post by james420


Cheers, will track that down.

Hope It's good.

Unless a theory can produce predictions which can be tested experimentally, I see no reason to take it seriously. Any new theory of cosmology must also explain why the old models worked so well, which I am not seeing here. In other words, I think he has all his work ahead of him.