Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Limitless universe
#1
While the galaxies move from each others, it does not follow that the universe is exspanding. These movements might be the property of the limitless universe, which the universe as a whole logically is. The movements need not any empirical explanation
1. The whole universe is limitless, infinite in this sense. There is no outside for it, everything belongs to it.
2. Anywhere you are as in the middle.
3. There is, exist, the longest possible distance.
My competence is not enough for a mathematical model for this kind of model of the universe, but I think that if somebody makes it, all the known astronomical findings are compatible with it.
And there is not necessary to postulate any creation of any matter or energy as in Hoyle's model.

Olli Santavuori
Pori
Finland
19.10.2016
Reply
#2
Elsewhere I got an answer that the mathematical model is simple. Just put one dimension more. So, lets make a 4- dimensional space, universe, and lets put the x-, y-, z-, o- axcells to be 31 (?) billion light years.

Now lets put all the galaxies and their known movements in there. Isn't just like our universe? If it is not, put different lenghts of the axcells and see what is sound.

Is this a sound solution?
Reply
#3
Or with the 3- dimensional universe: find the velocities and directions of every galaxy (in practice sample of them in different distances) and put them in their places in this model of universe. Milky Way as the center point. Then make the same with sample of other galaxies as the center points. It may happen that we'll find that the universe is not growing, the movements are explained by the properties of the limitless space, the universe as such.

Of course this was the premise in this theory, but if all the known facts of astronomy fit there, it is a sound theory, better than exspanding, growing universe.

The universe is infinite (in the meaning of being limitless) and without beginning and end, eternal as our logic has allways said.

The velocities and directions might be the other dimensions also. Let's find witch kind of model is best.
Reply
#4
Hello Olli, there are many ways to make such a model compatible with "all the known astronomical findings".

But I have to object to your statement "The movements need not any empirical explanation". If there is none of course the model is very easy. But then you have to make various assumptions or axioms. In the mainstream physics cosmological model those things (like the visible "expansion", the redshift) are explained instead of assumed. That's why it's preferred.

To be taken seriously by physicists your model must provide explanations.

I assume you mean "Hoyle's model" not Hole's - the Steady State model. In that framework you could just say the local galaxies happen to be expanding but not the whole universe. It wouldn't be too hard to make it work. Whether it would be better than current model, I don't know.
Reply
#5
(10-21-2016, 05:21 AM)secur Wrote: Hello Olli, there are many ways to make such a model compatible with "all the known astronomical findings".

But I have to object to your statement "The movements need not any empirical explanation". If there is none of course the model is very easy. But then you have to make various assumptions or axioms. In the mainstream physics cosmological model those things (like the visible "expansion", the redshift) are explained instead of assumed. That's why it's preferred.

To be taken seriously by physicists your model must provide explanations.

I assume you mean "Hoyle's model" not Hole's - the Steady State model. In that framework you could just say the local galaxies happen to be expanding but not the whole universe. It wouldn't be too hard to make it work. Whether it would be better than current model, I don't know.

Very much thanks for comment! Of course all radiation and power must be taken together, but they are influencing in this kind of universe and the movings of the galaxies are made to work without an expanding universe. Isn't this what we all hope? More latter, now I have a travel.
Reply
#6
Olli wrote: ... the movings of the galaxies are made to work without an expanding universe. Isn't this what we all hope?

That's what I hope, because I've never been too comfortable with the idea of "expanding space-time". But most physicists would disagree, they like GR as it is.

Have a good travel!
Reply
#7
(10-21-2016, 04:43 PM)secur Wrote: Olli wrote: ... the movings of the galaxies are made to work without an expanding universe. Isn't this what we all hope?

That's what I hope, because I've never been too comfortable with the idea of "expanding space-time". But most physicists would disagree, they like GR as it is.

Have a good travel!

The very important point here is that from the fact that the galaxies do go further from each other it does  n o t  follow that the universe is expanding, growing. This is an assumption without confirmation.
Other movement of cause need empirical verifications.
This movement might follow from the nature of the space of the universe. Its logically sound limitlessness. We allways have an infinite (limitless) universe witch is logically sounder than expanding universe.
And as sound is that it is eternal. There is no beginning and no end. This kind of universe can be such. Every galaxy has its dewelopement and movement wich can be measured from astronomy, but the whole universe does not have beginning and outside. It is limiteless and eternal.
To this kind of universe we put the movements of the galalaxies, their speed and direxions, before, now and in future.
Reply
#8
You could be right, but this isn't a theory. It's just an intuition, or guess. What you need to do is study standard cosmology model, and then match its results with a new, better model based on your idea. When you're done, post the results. That should take about 10 years. If I'm still alive them I'll be happy to read and comment on it!
Reply
#9
(10-24-2016, 10:40 AM)Olli Santavuori Wrote:
(10-21-2016, 04:43 PM)secur Wrote: That's what I hope, because I've never been too comfortable with the idea of "expanding space-time". But most physicists would disagree, they like GR as it is.

Have a good travel!

The very important point here is that from the fact that the galaxies do go further from each other it does  n o t  follow that the universe is expanding, growing. This is an assumption without confirmation.
Other movement of cause need empirical verifications.
This movement might follow from the nature of the space of the universe. It is logically sound limitlessness. We always have an infinite (limitless) universe witch is logically sounder than expanding universe.
And as sound is that it is eternal. There is no beginning and no end. This kind of universe can be such. Every galaxy has its development and movement witch can be measured from astrology, but the whole universe does not have beginning and outside. It is limitless and eternal.
To this kind of universe we put the movements of the galaxies, their speed and direxions, before, now and in future.

(10-24-2016, 03:05 PM)secur Wrote: You could be right, but this isn't a theory. It's just an intuition, or guess. What you need to do is study standard cosmology model, and then match its results with a new, better model based on your idea. When you're done, post the results. That should take about 10 years. If I'm still alive them I'll be happy to read and comment on it!

Sorry I posted something in error now. I have only telefon.
It is only a intuition. As long as nobody with competence does not take it seriously.
Time is important too. Every planet, star and galaxy has its own time depending on its speed. But the whole universe is not moving or growing or having any other time but eternity.
It's not at all impossible to put all the movements of the galaxies in this kind of model.
Maybe it is wrong to have time as a 4. dimension in the whole universe. Only parts have time.
Remember, my friend, these are only thoughts in an alternative theories forum from a philosopher, not a professional astronomer or physicist. For discussion only.
Reply
#10
Now I have read more of this forum and I see that I must be more strickt in the arguments. Space, time and reality are in physics different things as for layman. In philosophy we say that in the little things (atoms, electrons) and in the big things (cosmology) the logic is different as in normal things

Sorry my faults in writing.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)