#343 Static universe and dynamic part-universes
I made my ideas as a theory by AI.
https://santavuori.com/Galaks1.pdf
It is in finnish, but you can translate it by computer programs. Published in my Home Page only.
“From every philosophical theory can be made a mathematical theory, and it can be tested in astronomy.”
If somebody wish, he can alter the theory better or make mathematics better with better competence as I have.
1👍 1👀 1
Could somebody professional continue from here?
I’m not the professional. That guy is still coming. I am unable to translate that via Google. Could you post an English version?
Well, I try
@Francois-Zinserling & @OlliSant : Galaks1_.pdf without proper formatting of the formulas, though.
Thanks. I tried to do that, and I got the translation, but not how to copy it or send it.
Now it is there.
So, what you think?
And who can test it in astronomy?
You should understand that these traductions are not very good ones, and try to understand what I really mean. Universe and Universe are The Whole Universe and the Universe. (are synonyms). Space and Space are the Space of the Whole Universe and the Space. And so on. Network is the Web of Galaxies…
There can be only one universe, the other “universes” can be only sub-universes, and parallel sub-universes, not parallel “universes.”
This simple thing is so hard to understand among cosmologists, scientists, philosophers and teologians. Why so? I don’t understand. Allways so really hard work to make it understood.
Thanks again to HanDeBruijn, I will make of that translation a better english text, with right meanings.
Now its there, in english and New mathematics by AI: https://santavuori.com/Galaks2.pdf Please comment!
The mathematics part seems to ignore my Q and 4D and “mighty” terme. And there is the Steady States creation, what is not needed any more.
@OlliSant I am not sure if you had a working version of the equations but I cannot follow the equations either in the original Finnish version nor in the latest English one. We all need to learn from @HanDeBruijn how to make equations look good!
I like your idea of a recycling universe; that will be a necessary component for continued existence. Otherwise we may be just a game that gets switched off when the battery runs flat.
But what do you offer as evidence that there are ‘local Big Bangs’ happening, or that ‘Bright spots of light that disappear may be big bangs. Black hole explosions may be big bangs’? We don’t see such things happening and I have not heard of a black hole that exploded. Technically that should not be possible.
I consult the AI because I have no competence in ecuations. But mathematical model is useful, not necessary, and then testing the model in astronomy. I just give a philosophical model to the community, and some insights. 4D and Q and so on, and difference between the whole universe and sub-universes.
BB says there is no sub-universes. Multiverse says yes.
The circulation is somewhere. I say the four possibilities in the sky.
Something happens to the Black Holes at last, they might explode after a long time. It is natural, because they take more matter in themselves whole the time. Some day it is too much.
Thanks for intrest! Was this an answer?
@OlliSant . You need a proper MathJax environment to make your formulas readable. Such as here at GitHub. I had to correct a few of them though. Examples:
$$ Q < \infty \quad \text{and} \quad Q > U $$
$$ t \in (-\infty, \infty) $$
$$ F_g = \frac{G M_1 M_2}{r^2} \cdot \mu \left( \frac{a}{a_0} \right) $$
$$ \frac{d|S_4|}{dt} = 0 $$
I see that you have uploaded another version of the same document. with the same poor formatting, due only to the wrong environment.
Thanks, but I don’t go to that. The ecuations were here to demonstrate that from every philosophical theory we can make a mathematical theory. But not me. AI can, and many of you.
And otherwise Louis puts me to Metaphysics…😇
These ideas can be tested in astronomy also without sofisticated mathematical model. They are so clear. Let’s think how they can be tested.
I don’t go more to the mathematical model, because
We need a mathematian for that, and an astronomer for testing the theory. We need a team. My philosophical theory is public and free for use by others.
To make a better theory as BB, we need a team. Philosophers, cosmologists, astronomers and so on.
ACG is a perfect team. We are that team here in discussions. Everybody makes his contribution. I make here mine.
Somebody sometimes collects the results. Puts all the ideas to a beautiful model, that will be tested and betterred and wins in scientific community like Galilei.
You can form a team for that officially also.
The model is what is needed in Cosmology. What I do here is what we should do. A better model than BB, the beginning and expanding model of the universe. It is wrong.
Article is updated. Same adress abouve.
AI, how to test:
To test the theory presented in the document you mentioned, we can focus on several key approaches in astronomy that don’t require delving into the mathematics. Here are some insightful methods:
Observational Data:
Collect and analyze astronomical data from telescopes and satellites. This can include measurements of cosmic background radiation, galaxy formations, and the distribution of dark matter.
Comparative Analysis:
Compare predictions made by the theory with existing astronomical observations. For instance, if the theory predicts certain behaviors of celestial bodies, we can look for those behaviors in real-world data.
Satellite Experiments:
Utilize satellite-based experiments, like the SaToR-G project, which aims to test different gravitational theories. Such experiments can provide empirical data to validate or refute theoretical predictions.
Simulations:
Run computer simulations based on the theory to see how well they replicate known astronomical phenomena. This can help identify any discrepancies that may arise.
Collaboration with Other Fields:
Engage with physicists and cosmologists to integrate findings from particle physics or quantum mechanics, which may provide additional insights or experimental setups.
By employing these methods, astronomers can effectively test the theory and gather evidence to support or challenge its validity.
No prediction is made in the document. The word “prediction” is not even in the document.
The presence of “equations” does not make it a mathematical theory, especially when those equations are not related to the “philosophical theory”. Moreover, mathematical theories are not of interest to the ACG community, instead this is a cosmology group interested in “physics theories”.
AI made the predictions as it made. I have not yet commented the predictions.
From every philosophical theory of universe we can make a physical theory.
Please say what you think of my view of the universe. Or what is your view of the physics of the universe. This was my view of the physics of the universe. Different metaphysics are there allways.
For example empirism and naturalism very often. Only epistemological realism is allways in science.
We can make a better theory as LambdaCDM. Let’s just do it.
ACG is the group to correct the BB insanity in scientific community in every possible way. In science and in philosophy. In astronomy and in cosmology. Not only in physics.
Also psychology and sosiology are imortant, because how is it possible that fine scientists do not see, that BB is wrong? 60 years this has been so. ACG has done its best 21 years.
I think it is money, and naturalism and empirism. We need rational thought. Local subuniverse makes people to think BB is right. Empirism. Observations.
What about this?: https://www.aalto.fi/en/news/new-theory-of-gravity-brings-long-sought-theory-of-everything-a-crucial-step-closer
Maybe I should leave the 4D and Q out, and only say verbally, which kind of space I mean. Leave so the physics to others. I say only how cosmology is in my mind.
No outside, all existing space, enormously big, allways about the same size, relative to time and matter. Ball-like structure, diameter the longuest possible distance, not infinity. Boundless. Only one and the same space for everything.
Time eternal. Matter galaxies and forces.
Steady State the web of galaxies allways and everywhere. And local BigBangs eternally.
Yes, I’ll write the article again, and take the 4D away, I lieve the physical mathematical side to others - in which way this kind of space should be modelled - and just use exact philosophical, scientific, verbal words.
The longuest possible distance, Q, is a good invention anyway, and all the other inventions here too.
This way I’m inside my competence. Philosophy.
Now the article is there. Only three pages, same adress https://santavuori.com/Galaks2.pdf
Still a little style corrections made, and surces.
AI in Opera Browser:
Me:
Make a model of space where very points is in Q /2 distance from the “surface” and after that is nothing, Q is the longest possible distance in the universe, more than visible universe and less than infinity.
Aria:
Step 1. Define the parameters – Let (Q>0) be the maximum possible distance in the (Euclidean) universe. – Set [ R ;=;\frac{Q}{2} ] so that every point in our space is at distance (R) from a “central” surface (in this simplest model that surface is a single point).
Step 2. Identify the locus of points The set of all points at a fixed distance (R) from a given point in (\mathbb{R}^3) is the 2-sphere of radius (R), denoted (S^2(R)).
Step 3. Surface area of (S^2(R)) The surface area (A) of a 2-sphere of radius (R) is [ A ;=; 4\pi,R^2 ;=; 4\pi\bigl(\tfrac{Q}{2}\bigr)^2 ;=;\pi,Q^2. ]
Step 4. Volume enclosed by (S^2(R)) The volume (V) enclosed by that sphere is [ V ;=;\frac{4}{3},\pi,R^3 ;=;\frac{4}{3},\pi\bigl(\tfrac{Q}{2}\bigr)^3 ;=;\frac{\pi,Q^3}{6}. ]
Step 5. Curvatures of (S^2(R)) – The Gaussian curvature (K) at every point is [ K ;=;\frac{1}{R^2} ;=;\frac{4}{Q^2}. ] – The (mean) curvature (H) is [ H ;=;\frac{1}{R} ;=;\frac{2}{Q}. ]
Summary of properties – Radius: (R=Q/2) – Surface area: (A=\pi,Q^2) – Enclosed volume: (V=\tfrac{\pi,Q^3}{6}) – Gaussian curvature: (K=4/Q^2) – Mean curvature: (H=2/Q)
Sorry, I don’t have the better language.
I made it again:
Me:
Make a model of space where every points is in Q /2 distance from the “surface” and after that is nothing, Q is the longest possible distance in the universe, more than visible universe and less than infinity.
Aria: Step 1. Fix the universal constant Define (Q>0) to be the maximal possible distance in our universe (so (Q) exceeds the diameter of the visible universe but is finite). Set [ R ;:=;\frac{Q}{2}. ]
Step 2. Ambient space and metric Let ((\R^3,d)) be ordinary Euclidean space with the distance [ d(x,y);=;|x-y|;=;\sqrt{(x_1-y_1)^2+(x_2-y_2)^2+(x_3-y_3)^2}. ]
Step 3. Define our “universe” (X) and its “surface” (\Sigma) • The space (X\subset\R^3) is the closed ball of radius (R) centered at the origin: [ X ;:=;{,x\in\R^3 : |x|\le R}. ] • Its boundary (the “surface”) is the sphere of radius (R): [ \Sigma ;:=;{,x\in\R^3 : |x|=R}. ]
By construction there are no points of (X) with (|x|>R); “after” the surface (\Sigma) the space is empty.
Step 4. Verify every point is within (Q/2) of the surface For any (x\in X), the distance from (x) to the surface (\Sigma) is [ \mathrm{dist}(x,\Sigma) ;=; \inf_{y\in\Sigma}d(x,y) ;=; R-|x| ;\le;R ;=;\frac{Q}{2}. ] Thus no point lies more than (Q/2) from (\Sigma).
Step 5. Check the maximal distance in (X) is (Q) The diameter of (X) is [ \mathrm{diam}(X) ;=; \sup_{x,y\in X}d(x,y) ;=; 2R ;=; Q. ] Hence (Q) is indeed the greatest distance between any two points in our model.
Conclusion. (\bigl(X,d\bigr)) with [ X={x\in\R^3:|x|\le Q/2}, \quad \Sigma={x:|x|=Q/2}, ] satisfies:
every (x\in X) is at most (Q/2) from (\Sigma), beyond (\Sigma) there are no points, and the maximal distance between any two points is (Q).
@OlliSant . The important thing with AI is to stay in control. If not, then trivial outputs is all you get: 👎 . You promised : >This way I’m inside my competence. Philosophy.
And I whole♥️edly agreed with that stand, unpleasantly surprised that you didn’t keep it that way.
Sorry, if this bothers you. Please, take it some other way! My real contribution is only my article.
I have asked pro people make their contribution. AI was only who answerd positively : )
No. It’s outside your competence and you are out of control. Nobody can make a sensible contribution out of the math as presented by AI here. Because it’s not even wrong :-(
Forget the math and consentrate on the article and make a math of it, if it is needed. The verbal form is enaugh in Philosophy of Cosmology, and can be tested in Astronomy, as I say there.
Article is solely on physics of the Cosmology, but in verbal form. Not much mathematics, not much philosophy. Not other sciences of cosmology, biology, psychology, sociology, theology. My wiev of them is in other articles.
But physics can be made in language of mathematics, philosophy cannot very much. I cannot make that. AI can. You can.
I think we have different views of cosmology. I have my view, you have yours, but you don’t like my view, that is your point.
What is your view?
@OlliSant . >cosmology, biology, psychology, sociology, theology. My view of them is in other articles.
I’ve read some of your articles in the list, with great interest.
As far as I can see, AI does a most trivial job for you : it just explains (correctly) what the mathematics of a sphere is. Nothing of that explanation is worthwile for a physicist or mathematician. All of this math is known for centuries.
On cosmology? Much like yours ! No kidding: (y)our thoughts may be more influential than you might think :-)
Fine! All is OK, in ACG:s good spirit. Everybody makes his contribution. No more, no less.
In mathematics there maybe is allready all what the physics of cosmology needs. But the physics is far of the right view of the reality, because the reality is not yet known. Observations from other galaxies are impossible for us. We see everything only from here.
After Q/2 there is nothing. No space.
Remember https://santavuori.com/Galaks2.pdf
New Copercanian Revolution. New Cosmological Theory! Is this right or wrong way?
Normally everybody who has a model, is not capable to change it after critic. Fans of BB and DU and Multiverse and Steady State and Syclic model are all like that.
I changed my model immedietly after critics. Everybody is free to take my model and make it better.
I said to Tuomo Suntola that his model does not need any expansion at all, because of the 4D and other things, but he does not understand that, and makes no change in his model after this and other critics.
Just change your models better!
That’s the only way to win the battle with BB. Or one important way.
BB is the beginning and expanding theory of the universe. Mainstream now. (Somebodies do not like the word BB, but it is OK to mean the mainstream).