Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Limitless universe
#11
Philosophers have left the cosmology to astronomers but this is not the right thing. There is many things that are not clear in cosmology.

Does it follow from the fact that the galaxies move from each others that the whole universe does expand?

What is expanding and where?

The whole universe, the universe, the known universe, the metagalaxy, other universes, the visible universe. Their exact meaning.

The nature of the universe. Does it have necessary qualities? For a philosopher and scientist regardless of what layman thinks?

The time and place in the universe?

GR in this kind model of the universe. In the w h o l e universe. That universe which does not have outside.
Reply
#12
(10-25-2016, 04:20 PM)Olli Santavuori Wrote: Does it follow from the fact that the galaxies move from each others that the whole universe does expand?
It means that the distances between the galaxies, as measured with our rulers, increase.  

This could be explained by some expansion, but as well by shrinking rulers.
Reply
#13
Mainstream model for the universe is expanding time-space. It follows from the GR and the fact that the galaxies are moving away from each others.

The presupposions, axioms of GR are three dimensional space and time as the 4. dimension. In non euklidian analytical geometry.

I dont know how long the axies, the vectors are supposed to be there and if the time dimension is similar as the others. 

It must have something to do with the friedmans mathematics.

If we put in the axioms a lenght of x (90 billion light years for example) and time as different dimension, as eternal or a zero, or moving just forward and not backward, as it really is for the whole universe. Because the universe is not a moving particle and it has not outside, what will we have there?

We dont know how long the vectors are, and we know that time is not similar dimension as the others.

(10-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(10-25-2016, 04:20 PM)Olli Santavuori Wrote: Does it follow from the fact that the galaxies move from each others that the whole universe does expand?
It means that the distances between the galaxies, as measured with our rulers, increase.  

This could be explained by some expansion, but as well by shrinking rulers.

What is shrinking rulers?
Reply
#14
The whole universe does not move, it has not any outside, it has not gravity, we don't know what kind of time it has. We don't know what kind of reality its nature is, only that it is something not very easily understandable, something like that what I have proposed here as a possible base for an alternative thinking. Anyway, it can be different as the GR and the standard cosmology suppose.

Only the galaxies and their clusters and parts have space, movements, speed, time, gravity, more easily understandable reality. Not the whole universe. The time, place and reality in this level are not what the laymen think. But also not what the scientists think; seems it to be if I have right.

This can have implications for the reasons of the movements of the galaxies and in the long run there maybe is not any need for any expanding universe. This can bring also a solution for the dark matter and energy. And there is a steady state without that something must be created or the expanding universe or a beginning. An universe that corresponds to the expectations of sound thinking and philosophy.
Reply
#15
It has been said here that my thoughts are not yet a theory. It is more like intuition and so. To be a theory there must be things that the theory predicts.

Well, when the mathematics of some kind of this model are ready, it follows from the model that the galaxies will move from each other, allways faster how far away from each other they are, and this is empirically confirmed allready by old Hubble beginning in the twenties.

It follows from it that the universe is in steady state. There is sometimes chaos and glouds but normally the state of steady galaxies is prevailing. Maybe it proves the amount of backround radiation, and there is not need for so much dark matter as now is predicted.
Reply
#16
The mathematical model of this kind of universe is tentatively as follows:

We have 3 dimensional space with origo, the center point, first in our Milky Way. x-, y- and z- axells, vectors are x1 long (x1 being 30 billion light year first for example, then moving to sample of places near and far away). The space is not expanding and you are always as in the middle, wherever you put the origo.

This place has no time dimension. It has no beginning and no end.

Every galaxy can be put in its place in the model and has its own time depending of its speed. As we know from GR. The time begins when it is formed of stars to a galaxy and ends when it collapses as a black hole. Time is going strait forward and never backward.

From astronomy you can estimate the movements and speeds and places of every galaxy. Now and in any time of its center point.

In the right value of x1 the galaxies are moving as we experimentally can see.
Reply
#17
Olli, you don't have a theory just some ideas. Those ideas are reasonable. The standard cosmology model is not certain, and things could be as you say. Other people have thought such things, some have made real theories out of them (Steady State). Although that's not identical to what you're saying.

Anyway this website is really not the place for discussing what we would call "philosophy". But I don't mind exploring it further. I'll make an offer. Find a forum which welcomes such thinking and I'll be happy to discuss it there instead. Let me know of such a site anytime, post its address here.
Reply
#18
(10-27-2016, 06:08 PM)secur Wrote: Olli, you don't have a theory just some ideas. Those ideas are reasonable. The standard cosmology model is not certain, and things could be as you say. Other people have thought such things, some have made real theories out of them (Steady State). Although that's not identical to what you're saying.

Anyway this website is really not the place for discussing what we would call "philosophy". But I don't mind exploring it further. I'll make an offer. Find a forum which welcomes such thinking and I'll be happy to discuss it there instead. Let me know of such a site anytime, post its address here.

Thanks, that's very kind of you. I'll try to find such a forum. I was very happy of this one. I don't have competence for better and more mathematical model and theory. If my thoughts have some value, why nobody with competence is not willing to develop them? That is my intention here.

Make a theory of these thoughts, please. I'm sure that the axioms of GR and cosmology need revaluation. Philosophers too can make it but only with better knowledge of physics and astronomy than I have. I agree on that.
Reply
#19
(10-27-2016, 06:08 PM)secur Wrote: Olli, you don't have a theory just some ideas. Those ideas are reasonable. The standard cosmology model is not certain, and things could

Yes, there is many of them! I put a question in the forum www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com and also to this forums the philosophy of science thread.

In the questions and answeres section

And in the tread Space, Time and the Universe
Reply
#20
Ideas are easy. Theories are difficult.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)