The conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicists Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan. In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next.[4] Penrose popularized this theory in his 2010.
Source 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
In this article, i would like to postulate that universe is operating through infinite cycles but not through big bang rather orbiting around The Great Attractor.
Asser 1. By theory of relativity, if earth is orbiting sun for the last million years without any change in orbit then it would mean, the overall movement of universe is supporting the earth's orbit. with the discovery of the Great attractor, it is clearly found that the Great attractor (with multibillion to size of earth or whole observable universe) is imposing angular motion. It simply means that our universe/galaxy/milky way is orbiting around the great attractor.
Since, there is a gravitational force at play here (between The great attractor and other celestial objects), referring source 2, they must be exerting centripetal force. Even scientist themselves are claiming that it is exerting angular deviation.
Source1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
" The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the ANGULAR deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor. "
"The Great Attractor is an apparent gravitational anomaly in intergalactic space at the CENTER of the local Laniakea Supercluster"
Source 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
"In Newtonian mechanics, gravity provides the CENTRIPETAL force responsible for astronomical orbits. "
Asser 2. As per the study done by university of California, there is a growing evidence that the whole universe is following a common pattern or structure. Golden Ratio (1.61) and magic figure (1/137) all suggests that universe does follow a particular design. If we start looking at the structure of universe, it follows a certain pattern, electron is cyclic, natural cycles are cyclic, earth's orbit is cyclic, sun is orbiting black hole, milky way is round, galaxy are circular. if all the subset of a larger set are cyclic/circular, then we have to believe that parent force (angular force exerted by The great attractor on celestial bodies) and motion of our universe is also cyclic. In layman language, just like in hurricane, all of its particles will have circular trajectory because the overall shape of hurricane is cyclic/circular (but the eye remains at calm). we can consider the whole universe as big hurricane whereas its eye is at calm (I.e. The great attractor).
Moreover, just like atoms have orbiting electrons around nucleus (with bulk of the mass concentrated at nucleus, similarly, the great attractor is having bulk of the mass and rest galaxies/celestial are having only approx. 15% of the mass.
Asser 3. Recent studies (in 1998) shown that the universe has an acceleration. no theory could justify this. as per this theory, since universe is also orbiting around a prime foci or the great attractor, it is now entering or exiting in perihelion zone, as all know when earth enters into perihelion, there is a change in rotational speed. that might be the prime reason why natural calamities are increasing because it is changing the gravity of the earth and hence changing the KE and potential energy of the nature. while coming it to equilibrium state, nature creating earthquake, tsunami. No theory in the existing modern age can answer all such questions, why natural calamities have increased and why universe is accelerating, change in earth’s gravity etc.
Source 3: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/20/earths-rotation-is-mysteriously-slowing-down-experts-predict-uptick-in-2018-earthquakes/#470b50226f24
Asser 4. In the 1920s, Milankovitch hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. Milankovitch and other hypothesized that variation in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of earth's orbit are cyclical and thousands years of periodicity.
this theory can only be valid if we are to believe that time is cyclic otherwise this theory loses its ground.
Source 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Asser 5. According to law, total mass/energy of universe is constant. That means there are only 2 things that exists in the universe, Matter (which has a mass) and Energy. As we know that matter is also form of energy and law of conservation of energy, energy can not be created or destroyed. That brings us to the fact that Universe has finite energy.
For any finite object, we can afford to take universes as closed environment. As we know in an closed environment, all motions become periodic. in layman language, if you download lunar ball or billiard game, reduce the friction to zero and cover all the pots. then no matter what shot we play, it is always going to periodic or all events will have its periodicity. This means the time is cyclic.
>The disputed Big bang theory does not stand a chance...
Big Bang cosmologies are not really in much of a dispute. The evidence that the Universe was in a much smaller, hotter and dense state than today is overwhelming.
>Moreover, when universe was singular...
We don't know that it was. In fact, most cosmologists think that it was not. The problem is that classical general relativity, which all Big Bang cosmologies are based on, does indeed predict (under some reasonable assumptions) that the Universe was a singularity. However, a singularity in a classical theory should be seen as the breakdown of that theory. It is expected that the quantum nature of space-time and gravity will regulate this singularity somehow. But as we don't have a working model of quantum gravity it is hard to be more specific. That said, the nature of space-time is expected to be very different from that of a Lorentzian manifold - it should be some kind of noncommutative geometry.
>Secondly, it does not tell you, how matter got gravity
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Classically we have a good understanding of gravity via General Relativity. The mechanisms here are understood - "things" have energy-momentum and this acts as a source of gravity, which is itself the local geometry of space-time. The local shape of space-time is what a particle "feels" as gravity.
I don't think you can expect much more from a theory than a description of what is happening. Maybe a deeper reason can be found in quantum gravity, no one knows.
>we have the clinching evidence that the time is cyclic
I don't agree that this is the case. Though, people have discussed the possibility of cyclic cosmologies. The evidence right now points to the Lambda CDM model as a good model. This predicts an ever expanding Universe and eventually a heat death. That said, if new evidence really comes to light then the models will change as will our predictions.
>we would need intervention from GOD
And good luck waiting for that.
But more seriously, nobody invokes a god or gods when discussing science. It just adds another layer of complexity that you cannot even begin to prove exists. And what god? So many have been proposed over the years. Best to leave the supernatural out of science discussions.
Thanks Andrew for your time and efforts,
As per my opinion, the best way to validate the truth is to do 360 analysis and it should help you solve paradoxes
There are many paradoxes which Big bang does not explain
a). >Moreover, when universe was singular...But as we don't have a working model of quantum gravity it is hard to be more specific.
Against this theory, I am giving you a theory completely based on physics laws. Big Bang does not explain the acceleration of universe. Why our atoms are not getting less dense if universe is expanding (please refer to earlier listed bullet points)
b) >Secondly, it does not tell you, how matter got gravity...
if the whole universe was singular, then the electron or quasi particles (or whichever most fundamental unit of matter) must have been crushed beyond their absolute mass. This raises a very basic question, how can we crush the most fundamental unit of matter.
Even if I assume, Universe started from some other fundamental particles (finer than electron or quasi), then how come they all become electrons and we have no trace about them.
Even on a farther imagination, let just assume, that there were super quasi or electrons (finer than electrons) and got changed to current electrons. then how and when matter acquired the property of gravity.
c) >we have the clinching evidence that the time is cyclic..
please refer to my previous bullet points and contradict them using physical derivations
d) >we would need intervention from GOD
this is based on the above bullet point. if time is cyclic then we would some external intervention (without which it is not possible) to transform from night to day.
Just off topic, all of our world problems are nothing but the because of the confusions about Self, GOD and Universe. And they all are connected, in my other article or book, I may try to link it.
The Lambda CDM model takes this into account. However, it is true that we don't have a great understanding of what dark energy is. This is for sure work in progress.
>Why our atoms are not getting less dense if universe is expanding
Because locally the tenancy to be pulled apart by the expansion of the Universe is overcome by the electromagnetic force. The same is true for galaxies and clusters of galaxies - their local gravitational attraction overcomes the expansion.
> ...must have been beyond their absolute mass.
Why? And also you should probably be thinking in terms of fields rather than thinking of particles as little balls. Also, we don't understand the physics very close to what would classically be the singularity. But then, we expect there to be some unification scheme at play in the early Universe - electrons and quarks may not be the fundamental particles at this time.
>Even if I assume, Universe started from some other fundamental particles
Does anyone else make make such an assumption? (It seems very odd to me)
> then how come they all become electrons and we have no trace about them.
You should have a look at electroweak symmetry breaking for a clue as to what could be possible (if I now understand you point).
> then how and when matter acquired the property of gravity.
No idea. I am not sure how good a question this really is. I suppose some answer could be found in quantum gravity, but I am be speculative. All we really know is that stuff with energy and momentum couples to gravity.
>please refer to my previous bullet points and contradict them using physical derivations
"..then we have to believe that parent force in this universe is also circular. "
This is an assertion. I am not sure what parent force means, nor do I know what it means for a force to be circular. Thus, I have no way of contradicting this... it seems meaningless to me.
> if time is cyclic then we would some external intervention
Again, this is just an assertion with no reasoning or evidence.
>to transform from night to day.
We know about the Sun and how the Earth orbits and rotates...
I am not intersted in your book, thanks.
Or rather:
Is Brahma Kumaris good enough to make physicists care about it?
Raul Simon
>Is Brahma Kumaris good enough to make physicists care about it?
I am going to say "no".
dear writers.. a humble request.. this is part of my research program.
can i pls request you to validate my assertions which i made in the initial discussions and widen our horizon. i am happy if you prove me wrong with physics laws.
The problem is that you start with the ideas of Brahma Kumaris and then try to fit them with what you think physics is saying. You are pushing for a cyclic notion of time. This may be the case, I am not saying that it is not, just that the things you point to are not evidence for this idea. Therefore without evidence, we need not believe your claim.
1. "It simply means that our universe/galaxy/milky way is orbiting around the great attractor."
Does it? The great attractor has influence on a region of space hundreds of millions of light-years across. It does indeed effect the Milky Way and other galaxies. But this does not imply that "everything" is orbiting the great attractor. For one that would be a strong violation of the cosmological principle and this seems to be a good principle on the right scales.
Anyway, you would need to find evidence that the great attractor is basically the centre of the Universe.
2. "..then we have to believe that parent force in this universe is also circular. "
We agree that the golden ratio can be found all over the place in both art and nature. But what is "parent force" and what does it mean for a force to be "circular"?
3. "... change in earth’s gravity"
Can you explain what you mean here and can you provide a link to peer-reviewed science about this?
The mass of the Earth has not changed in a long time and so I would expect no change in the gravity... other than local changes due to the shape and change in density.
4. "Can only be valid if we are to believe that time is cyclic otherwise this theory loses its ground."
Why?
The origin of these cycle is the complex gravitational interaction between the bodies of the Solar System. The other planets experience similar effects. I don't see why time has to be cyclic in this picture.
5. "then if we take universes as closed environment, then all of its motions will be periodic. "
Well, you would need to prove this. I am not sure that it is correct.
And then it is not the case that the Observable Universe is actually a closed system.
Even so, I don't see how this implies that time is cyclic. You have a lot to prove.
6. "...then it would exert linear force on earth's orbit and deviate it from its course but that has not happened."
Why?
As I have said before, the local gravitational force of bound systems overcomes the tendency to be pulled apart by the cosmological expansion... for now anyway and so we don't see any such effect.
You should look up the Heat Death.
>" ... we have the clinching evidence that the time is cyclic"
Again, this might be the case, we don't really know. However, you have not provided evidence for this.
You can look up Penrose' s work on a cyclic universe - known as conformal cyclic cosmology . However, few people are convinced that this is a workable model of cosmology.
Dear Andrew James Bruce
I am in complete agreement with your initial thoughts, i have changed the subject and have included all the source info and other details. now i will try and answer your questions:
1. Pls refer to my asser1, i have updated it
2. definition of parent force is provided
3. Forbes says that earth gravity is changing
4. if Milkowitch cycles are to believed with thousands of years periodicity, then motion of universe has to be circular or closed path. if the universe motion or time is linear then there is a change in celestial density and other parameters, every time in a new system, there is a very dim possibility that variations in earth eccentricity etc will remain cyclic.
5. i have updated my asser, if universe is finite, then we can consider the whole universe as closed system.
6. i agree gravitational fields can override universe expansion (if it is happening). but if you say without creating any substantial or notable shift (when angular momentum is conserved) in the orbit, then i doubt. On the other hand, we have no explanation of acceleration of universe. Saying it to be caused by dark energy and dark matter, is as good as speculation.
even in newtonian determinism theory, he said, the world has a clock.
Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
I am only saying it is not big bang rather orbit.
I won't address everything, as really you have not changed much.
>we can consider the whole universe as big hurricane whereas its eye is at calm
So this is a model in which the whole Universe is rotating about a fixed point. This is something like a Gödel universe, though such a cosmology also has an expansion and obeys the Hubble law. Anyway, there is no evidence that the whole Observable Universe is rotating - all the evidence is suggests non-rotating or maybe a very slow rotation.
> Forbes says that earth gravity is changing
That is not a peer-reviewed article in a reasonable science journal.
>then motion of universe has to be circular or closed path
I don't see how you can take some periodic motion of a few bodies as giving a cyclic time for the rest of the Observable Universe.
> i agree gravitational fields can override universe expansion (if it is happening). but if you say without creating any substantial or notable shift (when angular momentum is conserved) in the orbit, then i doubt.
At our current time, the force of attraction between galaxies within our cluster totally swamps the cosmic expansion. The local effects are so small they cannot be detected at all.
>Saying it to be caused by dark energy and dark matter, is as good as speculation.
Yes, dark energy is a blanket term for something we don't really understand. But it is what the physics as we know it is saying should be there. Without some real workable alternative to general relativity we have to confront the existence of a small positive energy density thought the Universe.
>even in newtonian determinism theory, he said, the world has a clock.
Yes, Newton's set-up was that time is universal. We now know better than that.
>I am only saying it is not big bang rather orbit.
There seems no observational justification for this and plenty of theoretical reasoning why we don't expect a rotating Universe.
If your ideas really hinge on a universal rotation then you maybe in trouble. Unless you can argue that the rotation is so slow we cannot observe it. But even then...
yes, I am saying that rotation is so slow that we cant observe it. Slow rotation would be another aspect of it.
Also, would it be too much to ask, if you could think of some old or new paradoxes that this theory cannot resolve.
You could start with Hawking and examine his points on a rotating Universe.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969MNRAS.142..129H