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).
My model of the physics of the universe https://santavuori.com/Galaks2.pdf
I hope evaluation and critic for this simple and maybe good view of the universe. Might this be the right way? How to test this in astronomy? Is this common view in ACG or something else? Is this a new invention or nonsense amateur staff?
If universe is more superclusters than filaments, this fits there still better.
Right way to make a model of the universe, is to look all the knowledge we have of galaxies, then think it over, make rational scientific research, rational thinking, read all models and theories, and then make a new model, theory.
So simple. Some inventions of course must be done.
Then test it in the astronomy. So simple. Let’s do it. I have made this one. So far that I can.
This theory fits well with facts. It is so tested rationally allready. Better still to make the new formulas and so on. But it is not necessary.
Just do it, somebody here: form a still better theory!
Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysXhOAklYsQ&list=PLgQ0urhv-BtXBmRMhjazKxUrIctT6-QDW
The two aliens and the giant mushroom don’t inspire confidence :rofl: but great that you were given a platform @OlliSant ! One would think with AI today, they could produce a translation that’s understandable. I avoided the parts about pyramids, UFOs, politics, Antarctica, etc…, so I might have missed the part where you mentioned “A Cosmology Group”.
About “physical cosmology”: it is the study of the observable universe’s origin, but this is fallacious as it assumes that the universe has an origin! Why don’t philosophers discuss this more often and warn physicists that the notion is flawed?
About cosmological options: there are at least four: 1) a single Big Bang, 2) a cyclic (repeating) model, 3) steady-state, 4) static.
Thanks!
MultiBang too.
I didn’t say anything about ACG. The discussion did not turn to that. But paradigm shift is the same thing. Sorry this omission.
YouTube makes the traductions automatically and texts, if you can use it, all options there.
Seems to be so, that I am quite old, and my speaking is not clear. And there was a little cold in the studio.
UFOs and all such were the praise to get there, I think.
Why philosophers don’t discuss more often?
Both things are wrong.
So the paradigm shift is the problem as ACG says in the front page here. It takes books, articles and people and time. But ACG will win very soon in universities, I think. There is so much good work allready.
My Homepage has to be made again, because Angelfire is not working. All is not working, but the New Page is on the same adress https://www.santavuori.com but the direct addresses are not working, and all is not there yet. Only the archieved ones by the front Page and what I havenow put there.
If not working: www.ollisantavuorikotisivut.fi And must wait.
From Canada, www.ollisantavuorikotisivut.fi loads in a few seconds. :smiley: https://www.santavuori.com/ does no work. :disappointed:
Takes time, Hover has made the domain to go to oll…….fi. Some day I will stop use the longuer adress.
http://santavuori.com goes there.
Hi Olli, the link on your Essay was updated to your website http://santavuori.com/.
Direct link to my article of possible model of universe, in verbal scientific language: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://primary.jwwb.nl/plugin-documents/a1d792193b69eaa283d589686eca41034b4906df.pdf
SOLUTION for the theory of the universe in cosmology
No expansion. The redshift has an other explanation as in BB, and the backround radiation does not support that explanation.
No beginning. The universe does not begin. The local sub-universe begins.
These two are different things. Universe and its sub-universes. Universe exists in reality and is very important concept in any theory.
BB is wrong theory of the universe. It is a theory of the local sub- universe. Wrong theory of that too.
The space is enormously big. And has allways been as big. Any outside space does not exist or other spaces, there is all matter and space eternally.
With these facts in mind just make the better equations. GR must be changed. Many theories, not one right theory, that is yet impossible. So simple but so difficult.
Thanks, Louis! The adress is still santavuori.com, but the old adressforms do not work allways, and I have new fine homepage. Hope you all will like them.