In case the various local universes, naturally, coalesce gravitationally with each other, a finite number of the various local universes can become one universe.

If the cosmos is an infinite-content cosmos of an infinite number of finite-content universes, what can we think of the origin and evolution of such a cosmos physically and cosmologically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Any_new_concept_of_motion_in_physics_beyond_those_of_STR_GTR_QM_and_QM-cosmology#view=642fe35f3f0890b7c306ad87

My FIRST question is this:

CAN WE ASK THE PERENNIAL QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COSMOS?

=== As long as we first ask whether there needs to be an origin. The question contains an assumption, leading the witness.

SECONDLY, another question is imaginable:

If there is no creative Source in both the above cases of finite and infinite content, WHAT WOULD MEAN BY ETERNAL EXISTENCE?

=== No such thing in that case. And it would cease to exist to a spawned cosmos once the latter left the nest.

THIRDLY:

Can this question be avoided permanently by claiming that that TIME AND ETERNITY EXISTS ONLY WITH THE COSMOS, as if time were a thing that exists, or were an ontological predicate of the cosmos?

=== Arising quickly is recognizing other possibility spheres, a set of interrelated consents no with relationships to other spheres. Time appears to be local to and exist within one or more of these.

FOURTHLY:

Suppose there is a Source. What would be the modalities by which such a Being could be thought to exist?

=== The simplest two options are a peer universe from which one under discussion was born, or a common background birthing all and wisper than any of them.

Karl Sipfle, let me first answer the 4 questions you asked. And on another day I will speak of a fifth, more important, question, which you did not ask me. I have written down as my thoughts proceeded. I did not take a second look at these paragraphs I wrote. Merely due to lack of time.

YOU:

My FIRST question is this:

CAN WE ASK THE PERENNIAL QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COSMOS?

=== As long as we first ask whether there needs to be an origin. The question contains an assumption, leading the witness.

MY REPLY:

Why should there be anything wrong in asking the perennial question? The assumption could be conceived slightly differently too: If the inner-universe processes are all in Extension and Change and if such an existence of all existents may straightaway be termed Universal Causality, then we may ask whether the whole universe has (I) only finite content or (II) infinite content.

Then, in each case, the following inductions (not presuppositions) could be placed as queries.

Under (I), whether the finite-content universe is created or existent from eternity.

Under case (II), the following would be the sub-cases: the universe could have been (1) existent eternally from the past, (2) created wholly at one go, (3) been created partly at any given time with respect to the time of the universes that neighbour the one being created, (4) been created as matter or energy or matter-energy everywhere but finitely at every finite spacetime region, and so on.

SECONDLY, another question is imaginable:

If there is no creative Source in both the above cases of finite and infinite content, WHAT WOULD MEAN BY ETERNAL EXISTENCE?

=== No such thing in that case. And it would cease to exist to a spawned cosmos once the latter left the nest.

MY REPLY:

I do not understand what you mean by “a spawned cosmos” and “once the latter left the nest”. These are strange for me.

In case the finite-content universe or the infinite-content cosmos were existent from eternity, they would simply continue to exist! This is the apparent conclusion. But if further questions are asked?

For example, in any case, merely because we have formulated a few laws of thermodynamics on earth, the finite-content universe need not obey the second law by bring back all that energy at the outermost fringes of such a universe. What has been propagated is propagated and goes farther away.

If a later intensification of gravitation at the centre of the universe could have brought all those gravitational and non-gravitational propagations back into the body of the universe, it would be a miracle.

That is, most probably the energy at the fringes is lost forever. IF THIS IS TRUE, there is energy loss from the universe. If the universe had been uncreated, then the (by assumption above) finite-content universe would have exteriorized all its content in a finite time, and this is not the case as we know. In this scenario, in my opinion, a sole, finite-content, universe should have had a one-time creation. (I do not elaborate on this because of space crunch. If sensible questions from the readers appear further, I can try answering.)

NOW, A REQUEST TO THE READERS: (not only to Karl Sipfle; but I know Karl respects me enough as a human person who cannot answer everything in the world) PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF HOLDING ANTIQUATED IDEAS. BEFORE ACCUSING, PLEASE READ MY BOOK OF 2018.

In place here one more suggestion to all the readers here: Just reading something there and making all sorts of claims and criticisms is not acceptable, because that work is the result of more than 30 years of study and reflection. (It is a new theory, for which I have undergone inexplicable sorts of misunderstanding from hundreds of friends, and as a result, I had to decide to do such a work as a doctoral work, and suffer poverty and penury for more than a decade, in Europe, i.e., away from my motherland. I hope, time will show the worth of that work.)

THIRDLY:

Can this question be avoided permanently by claiming that TIME AND ETERNITY EXIST ONLY WITH THE COSMOS, as if time were a thing that exists, or were an ontological predicate of the cosmos?

=== Arising quickly is recognizing other possibility spheres, a set of interrelated consents no with relationships to other spheres. Time appears to be local to and exist within one or more of these.

MY REPLY:

This question has been in vogue in philosophy at least from the time of Augustine. Of course, before Augustine too. But his refutation of the question by saying time did not exist before creation was motivated also by his concept of a timeless God which in turn was motivated by Platonic concepts of Ideas existing as timeless out there and most probably in the human mind, and hence permitting the conclusion that the human soul too is immortally existent…!

First of all, the ontological predicate / Category of time is Change. Time is only the measuremental, i.e., epistemic and cognitive category based on measurements. But Change is there as one of the most important two physical-ontological attributes of all existents. Extension is yet another. Without some extension and change, nothing can be. That is, without being causal, nothing can exist. Time is not a thing in which the universe exists. It is not even a physical-ontological attribute. It is merely epistemic. Similarly also space: it is the measuremental, epistemic, cognitive category of the physical-ontological Category, Extension.

Hence, TO CLAIM THAT PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY THERE ARE ONLY SPACETIME CURVATURES AND NOT EXISTENT PHYSICAL PROCESSES IS A NONSENSE PERPETUATED BY EINSTEIN AND CO. BY THEIR QUICK-FIX ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONVINCED OF THE VALUE OF RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

Time is local only measurementally. Change is local and universal in all physical-ontological senses.

NOW, YOU HAVE LEFT OUT ANOTHER CASE: IF THE UNIVERSE IS A VAST INFINITE OCEAN OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES? You did not ask this question. But my lead question includes that. Hence, I will treat of it later, after dealing with your next question.

FOURTHLY:

Suppose there is a Source. What would be the modalities by which such a Being could be thought to exist?

=== The simplest two options are a peer universe from which one under discussion was born, or a common background birthing all and wisper than any of them.

MY REPLY:

The simplest answer does not seem to be a peer universe creating ours. It will muddle the whole thought in paradoxes. Universes have only finite activity, and finite stability in the state of its finite activity. They cannot, in my opinion, create another or others from themselves and render them of as much or less or more matter-energy content than itself. And if this were possible each universe has already created an infinite number of such, which is creation out of nothing by the same finite-content and finite-activity-and-stability universes. This is at least rationally unacceptable.

If anyone wants to go on with this belief, it is like the faith in a god who just created once and is sitting idle “watching” the fun. It is against such a god that greats like Russell, Wittgenstein, Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been ranting. Take any of their writings and you will find the background knowledge of such a god in them.

First, we can only get an answer on questions about subjects we can quantify (mathematically). Thus if someone ask about the origin of the universe and I answer that it must be happiness, the answer is void for other people. In other words, the choice between finite-content and infinite-content is only possible if we have a description of the properties of the universe that can be “weighted” to formulate a reasonable answer.

The second question lacks a quantification. The term “eternal existence” is meaningless. It suggest an infinite duration without a corresponding evolution. In other words, it represents some kind of a (timeless) emotion about being.

An answer to the third question was described by Parmenides of Elea. Parmenides’ pupil, Zeno, has tried to explain the ideas of Parmenides – primary about motion – to other philosophers. See:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369826942_Zenons_Argumente_gegen_die_Moglichkeit_der_Bewegung_und_die_Aufwertung_seiner_Argumente_durch_Mathematiker_und_Physiker

The paper is also available in the Italian language (see Sandro Nannini).

The basic concept of Parmenides is that physical reality emerges from an underlying reality that exists everywhere in the universe. Therefore he stated that emptiness cannot exist in the universe. Parmenides proposed that the underlying reality has a dynamical structure by itself. The consequence is that the underlying reality – because of its dynamical structure – represents time.

The last decades there is research in the field of quantum gravity that has resulted in the description of physical reality with the help of an underlying mathematical model. However, these attempts are not successful yet, probably because they use some disputable basic assumptions like the Planck length for the size of the dynamical structure and curved spacetime for the force of gravitation.

If the “Source” is meant to align with the third question the modalities are mathematical (geometrical) objects.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm,

First of all, I admit that quantifying in finite quantities is difficult if the universe is of infinite content. But I did not hold that the universe is of finite or infinite content. I have been trying to answer the various cases put to me, and that, as rationally as possible. There are only some rational choices in these cases. I discuss these, that is all.

Now about Parmenides and Zeno. These considerations may be useful, but I do not think they have already answered satisfactorily the questions being studied in the intervention above. I do not find it very interesting that each time the two ancient thinkers, Parmenides and Zeno, are brought in as the providers of the final solution.

I am sorry, but the properties of the universe we can derive are properties of the structure of the universe. The universe as a whole is out of sight but a weighted choice between finite or infinite needs insight in the internal dynamical structure. Without this insight we can only fantasize.

Questions like “is our universe a computational simulation” and “is the universe designed to fit the existence of humans (or live)” are only reasonable with a distinct mathematical model. Because both questions are about the fractal properties of our universe (a self generating fractal). Even consciousness needs such a mathematical model. So if we like it or not, it was Parmenides who “invented” a model that can fit it all. In modern theoretical physics his concept is at the frontier. Anyway, I hope that the comments of other followers will satisfy your ideas.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm, I am sorry, could you please tell me the nature or non-nature of "the properties of the eternal structure" of the cosmos?

I have just tried to induct into it, and how do you just dismiss it?

I agree with all of you that "Terms like 'Local Group', 'Cluster' etc. have SPECIFIC unique meanings related to scale & morphology" (Peter Jackson). The universe's large scale structure may be helical 'filaments' or anything else. I have nothing against such discussions.

Retaining all the meanings given to these and similar terms, the question is whether any general conclusion/s can be drawn from the existing observational, experimental, and mathematical conjectures on the general processual cases if there are many finite-content universes.

Now, the term 'finite-content' need not be corroborated by experimental observations, because we know that any finite spatiotemporal extent can only be finite in content.

I do not insist that there are other universes like ours. I only try to induct into the processual cases of the system of the universes, if there are a finite number of or an infinite number of universes as parts of the whole cosmos.

I know this is not experimental or observational cosmology. But do we not have the right to induct rationally into the various cases I mentioned? Or, should we remain silent on these things?

Two clarifications. "Processual cases" means not merely the mathematically formalizable structure of the whole universe as finite-content or infinite-content, but much more. It is a matter of the general, physical-ontological, characteristics of these plausibly existent universes, if they do exist. These characteristics are based on the extent of physical activity and stability (finite or infinite), not being discussed in physics and astrophysics.

I attempt to find some statements that may pour light on these questions. That is all. I know, a physicist will immediately call this unscientific. But I do not want to define such attempts as scientific in the strictest sense derived from observation, experiment, and mathematical derivations.

When I ask whether any particle at zero rest mass has been detected experimentally, the answer is No, and they give theoretical / mathematical reasons for the EXISTENCE OF REST MASS. Let this be so.

But most physicists start being on the side of directly experimental results when one speaks of supposing the various cases of content of the cosmos: (1) finite and (2) infinite!

I think the parameters to be assumed in a unified theory OF THE MANY THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSE will in any case be different from those of ordinary physics. Such a unification might need slightly different starting points or assumptions.

I have the following suggestion. Not elaborate enough to meet all possible questions on this, but a suggestion. WILL THESE DO ANY GOOD FOR THE FUTURE OF COSMOLOGY, IN TERMS OF FIXING THE ASSUMPTIONS AND FIRST PRINCIPLES OF COSMOLOGY?

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Please note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a physical ontology of cosmology be constructed?

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos.

FROM WITHIN SUCH A THEORY, PERHAPS A UNIFICATION IS THINKABLE.

Karl Sipfle, 3 days ago I have replied your questions. Today I write here about a question that I would have preferred you asked.

NOW COMES THE QUESTION YOU DID NOT ASK:

If the universe is of infinite content, and naturally it will contain an infinite number of finite-content universes, what would be the scenario concerning the origin and evolution of the universe?

(Now, let our readers start ranting that I am cooking up some possibilities and dodging real questions in quantum cosmology like “vacuum energy creating an infinite number of universes from nowhere”, “vacuum energy being of 0 value and then adding up to an infinite number of universes”, “Everitt’s quantum universes”, etc.)

I would be happy if you have suggestions in this regard.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_Physical_Ontology_of_Cosmology_viable

"If the universe is of infinite content, and naturally it will contain an infinite number of finite-content universes, what would be the scenario concerning the origin and evolution of the universe?"

First of all, you are assuming it must have an origin, right?, a human prejudice. Then what is the origin of its origin? Ultimately you get to things that are simply because they can be. Many things can be (we know because they are) and nothing being is a very special case.

I do not assume that the cosmos should have an origin. My method is to inquire as follows: If this question is posed, what could naturally be the possible sorts of answers? And I seek them out and present, show what would not be acceptable or would be acceptable enough in each of the versions, etc.

Assuming that things simply are is the most general case. The question as to their origin, processes, and future is the answer to the question as to the why, how and what of these things. I attempt all these with the hope that some clarity to the fact that things are.

This is no high philosophy. But I find it difficult to accept the traditional attitude whereby they made the question of the why equal to asking after the genesis of things.

Raphael Neelamkavil Like your answer.

There may be a How but no additional Why.

I'm less troubled than you by the notion of one universe spawning another, like cells dividing. If a point is reached where there is no continuing operational relationship, they are two. Admit it does complicate a discussion

with also modest explanatory value.

Karl Sipfle, what you said is true:

"If a point is reached where there is no continuing operational relationship, they are two."

My attempt would be to make out whether any continuing operational relationship can really separate two existent, physical worlds.

I say this because, on an infinite number line, no two points are infinitely away from each other. Moreover, in case there are an infinite number of universes in the cosmos, there will be many universes in the finite vicinity of any one universes, and hence the continuing gravitational activity (if it is basically attractive) will bring any two neighbouring universes together in a finitely distant future.

Here, in my opinion, we are witnessing a system of cosmological reasoning based only on the maximal-medial-minimal values. Please note that I do not claim to have the final word in any of these. I continue to work with a really open mind. Hence, all others can criticize my ideas.

If, on the large-scale evolution of the universe (and, if other universes exist, in the co-evolution of the universes), GRAVITATION IS MORE CONTRIBUTIVE, the history of the universe must be written in terms of gravitation.

There are very few who say that gravitation is a repulsive force. I believe it is an attractive force. If this is true, then GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION OF UNIVERSES (and naturally of galaxies, their clusters, etc.) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LARGE-SCALE PROCESS IN THE COSMOS.

In terms of this process, what shall be the history of the cosmos?

Suppose we have only one finite-content universe and other (infinite number of) universes do not exist, the only three choices of the overall distribution of matter-energy are: (1) either the universe will go on expanding and end being dissipated, (2) or it will oscillate between expansion and contraction, (3) or else the universe should continue to be a static, unchanging stuff.

The third cannot be the case. Some or other movement must be available, which naturally should snowball into some general gravitational coalescing (contraction) and loosening of gravitational control (expansion), and hence, the first and second cases alone remain.

What then could be the general scenario to choose?

HERE I WOULD DEAL WITH A QUESTION MANY DO NOT ASK:

If the universe is of infinite content, naturally it will contain an infinite number of finite-content universes. What would then be the scenario concerning the origin and evolution of the universe?

Now, let our readers not start ranting that I am cooking up some possibilities and dodging real questions in quantum cosmology like “vacuum energy creating an infinite number of universes from nowhere”, “vacuum energy being of 0 value and then adding up to an infinite number of universes”, “Everitt’s quantum universes”, etc. I would be happy if you have suggestions in this regard, as to how to really connect an infinite number of existent universes with all these vacuum energy universes and quantum universes.

If the universe is of infinite content with an infinite number of finite-content universes, we need to accept that there will be the inevitable gravitational coalescence formation tendency between these universes, between their groups, etc. Such formations need only a finite amount of time, however long, with respect to the local common time as seen from within each specific conglomeration. We cannot escape the possibility of the measuremental aspect of the changes that take place in these conglomerations, whichever level be considered at a given relative time.

Would there be an infinite number of universes in any one of these conglomerations? Naturally, no. But can we limit their finitude of content to any one amount that we determine? We can limit it as a specific amount of content – but only and merely with respect to any specific framework of time with respect to any one set of universes, universe of universes, etc.

I would be happy to get your feedback on this possibility. And then I have some seemingly insoluble cosmological scenario to suggest as a consequence of this. Before this, I want to know whether anyone of you would suggest an alternative to the gravitational coalescence formation tendency that I spoke of.

Emmanouil Markoulakis,

The constancy of the speed of light, or for that matter the attainment of a maximum possible velocity (a criterial velocity) must be the case only if we have a finite-content universe.

But it need not be taken as constant throughout the cosmos especially in the case where an infinite number of finite-content universes exist within the cosmos.

I claim the latter to be true because each such universe will have a different amount of matter-energy content, and hence a different total density, pressure, etc. These must be the causes of existence of a maximum velocity in each specific universe.

Now, EVEN IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITIES IN THE VARIOUS (INFINITE NUMBER OF) UNIVERSES IN THE COSMOS, WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO CONCLUDE THAT EACH GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE OF UNIVERSES, UNIVERSE OF UNIVERSES, etc. WILL HAVE A HIGHEST POSSIBLE ENERGY PROPAGATION VELOCITY TOO.

But this velocity will never be infinite in any one member universe. This suffices, again, to ask: WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL SCENARIO IN THE COSMOS IF THERE IS THE GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION TENDENCY THROUGHOUT THE INFINITE (this was the presupposition -- the other case is dealt with above, in another intervention) COSMOS.

The recent (1) “observation” by LIGO of neutron star merger and (2) what is considered as different from it, namely, the arrival of the visible light from the merger at our location, used to be perceived to be is an indication that gravitational waves may have the same velocity as electromagnetic waves.

But it need not exactly be so, because even in this case we speak of our observation of the neutron star merger using the luminal velocity and then make independent conclusions on gravitational waves. This is not grantable. In fact, the gravitational waves are themselves not being observed here directly in terms of gravitational waves or anything known previously to be of that kind in velocity. Instead, we are using the light and other electromagnetic radiation from those astronomical objects and saying that they present us the real information about the gravitational waves.

That is, even today, experimentally we are not sure of the velocity of gravitational propagation. We assume it to be c because of our observation of electromagnetic propagations that carry us news of gravitational propagation from the said objects. Hence, it need not show their velocity to be equal.

Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?

I hold it has to be gravitation that has the final say. My arguments are indirect. I shall put them forth in the course of development of arguments in the discussion.

What I want to accentuate is this: If there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.

This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such worlds.

If you find time, take a look at the interesting discussion here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_suspect_Cosmic_vacuum_energy_arguments_are_in_effect_an_eyewash_to_keep_cosmological_questions_under_the_desk/3

You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP

Richard Marker: One more point: So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

SEE A DISCUSSION IN COSMOLOGY:

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil

If you accept that c is infinite at G=0 there are no outskirts at the universe. At an infinite c all residual electromagnetic energy is found in the CMB radiation which is omnipresent and omnidirectional, so having infinite time and space.

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

And if G never gets equal to 0....? Mathematically this is an end-effect of a phase. But then at that mathematically artificial moment all matter-energy will go into nothing without any gravitational effect at all.......! That is, this sort of math games show only that MATH SHOULD HAVE LIMITS OF APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICS, ESPECIALLY AT MATHEMATICAL JUNCTIONS OF ASYMPTOTIC APPROACH. Another example for such asymptotic approach is the central singularity of our finite-content universe. It never gets realized. Read recent works (even interviews) with Penrose, Hawking, etc.

And now I hope we need not speak of what you termed "omnipresent and omnidirectional" CMB....

FURTHER RESPONSES ARE IN:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Its_Consequences

Read a conversation between Willy Verhiest and me, in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology/3

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I don't claim anything but observe.

For an observer on earth with gravity G c is always constant in vacuo but c is infinite at zero G at very long distances from the observer. You can call that the limit of the universe as observable from the earth which is not equal to the total universe. If the earth had double mass with a double G the observable universe would be double.

Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c. For a photon the observer is nearing it at -c so total time is zero = meaningless. It is impossible from the local observation of photons or other EM waves to determine a beginning or an extension or limit of the total universe. Stop searching celestial mirrors. There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

1 minute ago

Willy Verhiest,

In the observations you have made above, notice how overstretching the relativistic paradigm confounds the observer and theoretician. If the gravity of the earth is G, then c is constant in vacuo. But c increases relativistically to infinity at 0 G at very long distances from the observer. (Or, at the centre of the earth?) Now, you say, if the earth had double the mass, it has 2G. The the observable universe will be at double the distance in almost a spherical manner everywhere.

Should we then say that our observationally relativistic measurements must be the same as what an earth at one spot at the periphery of the universe (not merely of the observable limits of the universe) would notice?

If observationally the reach of observation from an earth of G is a certain A, then should c be zero at the observational limits you spoke of, or at some other? How do you insist that G will be zero there? Observationally from the Relativity standpoint of observation from the earth, or from yet another specific Relativity standpoint of observation?

Will the same c be observable or experienceable for an earth at the peripheries of a finite-content universe? Or, will it be something different? Of course, relativistically it should differ widely for the stipulated earth (observational starting point). But is it merely because I observe / calculate from my earth (of G) some special value for c at that point where the earth at the periphery is situated? Perhaps it will be a certain value close to infinity or really infinity?

But asymptotic approach math does not permit that! No zero or infinity is ever reached!

Hence, the c will be near infinity! Will this be real? Relativistically from our earth, of course real. But real also for an earth there, where the value is supposed to be a certain near-infinie value for our earth?

Now you may again use relativity theory and assert it to be so. Bu the earth at the periphery will not observe it so!

Now you may say that we have a universe with an infinite-periphery (strictly, non-finite or potentially infinite periphery) universe with a finite volume and content! Of course, you can choose such a math, just as Einstein chose the Riemannian geometry for the finite-content universe, without mentioning the possibility of a different Generalized General Theory of Relativity (GGTR) for an infinite-content cosmos!

Now you see how misleading it will be, if you assume for a spot at the periphery of the universe the same relativistic spatial and temporal measurements, the same measuremental differentiation at velocity (also density, mass, etc.) as measured from the earth?

In short, to deal with the whole of the cosmos -- if it is of infinite content -- we need a highly generalized GTR. Now, if you ask me what that GGTR is, I cannot give it to you, because I have not formulated it. (I am sure that you will not ask me to shut up in that case, because we both are finite-brained creatures!)

And if we have only a finite-content universe, the relativistic measuremental variation from one region to the other with respect to our earth should also mislead the earth at the periphery of such a universe. THIS IS THE CASE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

And so on....

In the cases where the values are infinity, zero, etc. that I mentioned above, there may be further confusions. What I mean is: Please accept that there will be confusions in what I mentioned above, in all the specific values that I mentioned above. These are due to human errors. I am happy to accept corrections and suggestions.

Let me make a general suggestion: GTR is to be taken as already very erroneous if we tend to consider other universes as existent and apply the same measuremental criteria from any two universes relatively simultaneously. Of course, the meaning of time will be different for both the universes. Not of time, but of the measurements of time, because the reference frames will differ. Moreover, there is no simultaneity of any absolute kind in the universe between any two different points of spacetime.

Please note also that this statement above already presupposes a standpoint of view or measurement that considers the relativistic measurements from one spot in the universe as non-absolute from another spot.

Now you see how well one can make erroneous statements by assuming universality to Relativity: You said, "Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c." And you said: "There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth." Both these are very bad statements in my opinion. Why? Not that time will have no meaning, but specific temporal measurements will differ for a photon if measured from various frameworks. Similarly, not that there are only local time and local space, but there are only local temporal and spatial measurements with respect to respective frameworks. Naturally!

And the final advise is difficult to grasp: "Stop searching (for) celestial mirrors." I did not search for celestial mirrors. I asked whether a celestial body at the periphery of an individual universe will have gravitational effect to all its sides, or only to the sides other than the direction to the outer periphery of that one universe. And I suggested that if that celestial body is not able to exercise gravitation to the outer aspect of the universe, then there must be a mirror or mirrors there to reflect all the gravitation and EM being propagated off. That was not meant to assert that there are mirrors there, you know!

Now, insisting that all that happens everywhere in our local universe or in a neighbouring universe should be according to the measuremental values assigned to space, time, c, G, etc. from the criterial viewpoint of observation from the earth or from the centre of the universe, or any other point.... This is a nonsense in my opinion. This is a very misleading system of physical criteria wrought in by misinterpretations and stretching of the Relativistic viewpoint.

Another observation: Absolutizing the Relativitiy Theory for all observational points of "space" is in my opinion physically fallacious.

A suggestion to ponder: Have you noticed how, in the Lorentz factor in STR, the velocity of an object is compared with the velocity c? This means that we stipulate c to be the criterial velocity in our case, because we observe anything at luminal velocity. But then, if v is increased to approach c, then we get paradoxes in any equation. Does this mean that experimentally fixed velocity of light should be absolute? Or, does it mean that the paradoxes result because we have compared (in the Lorentz factor) v with c? And should we at all pronounce that c is the only criterial velocity in the universe?

Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency

Please remember this:

The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,

(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,

(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,

(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,

(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,

(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,

(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),

(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,

(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.

What about this conversation?

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

22 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."

Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

4 minutes ago

The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!

I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within

Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.

Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

"Evidence" for another universe! But some may continue to hold that beyond these other universes no other universe exists! Should we be so conservative as to deny an infinite-content multiverse / cosmos?

Watch the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrHdOwPTi0

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II