The similar basis is the model of the Universe which is a collapsar and we live inside it. This situation can be described by the model of de Sitter model with positive lambda = 3/kappa rho = 3/a^2, where a is its radius,density rho = const, kappa is Einstein constant. This model is simultaneously inflation and gravitation collapsar: r_g = a = 2GM/c^2. This collapsar is fulled inflational vacuum: p = =rho c^2, where p is the pressure. Because the observed time is stopped at the surface of collapsar, every object of the Universe is linked momentary with it, i.e. far-action (momentary spread of the energy=information) takes a place. It is possible that more small analogical objects exist in the Universe (neutron stars in the state of collapse, for example). The possibility of momentary spread of the Universe (observations of true) is proved experimentally by prof. Kozyrev.

Thanks Larissa for your interest. Unfortunately I am mathematically incompetent and can only see things in my mind visually, so you rationale leaves me little wiser about how a collapsor operates. However it seems there is a similarity here in that in my world, if the singular outside edge of the expanding universe slows down to zero, then the passage of time would stop, as would the velocity of light fall back to zero or universal stasis, but perhaps I have understood that part of your position incorrectly? Ah, I have just checked and see that a collapsar can become a white dwarf, a neutron star or black hole, and that prof Kozyrev was a famous astronomer. What I find interesting is that the edge of a black hole is presumably singular and in some ways not unlike the singularity of my proposed singular rim of the expanding universe, other than a black hole is presumably not expanding that fast, or might be contracting?

Hi dear Nicholas, This mine boggling for shape of the Universe, I think, we have to see it through the shape of all the suns and planet. If the universe holding these spherical shape, it is obvious that the universe is making them this way. The only shape that can create this shape is a hollow and spherical shape, and must rotate as well. https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc I explain it in this article Best regard. PS; Mr. Reaves, this article has been nominated for 2019 Quantum Physics Paris. I am going as a plenary speaker to present Quantum Mechanics Universe.

Sydney. Thanks for your interest and comments. I have always been worried about laws of physics, and, for instance, that of light speed which I consider likely to be variable. If so then there has to be a controlling factor that makes it variable and the most likely candidate in my world is an expanding perimeter. Of course this is all supposition, but I am wary of absolute rules or laws that stand unchallenged which we have to accept as a given without understanding why

I agree that the conservation of energy law is a problem that I had not considered, but then the big bang appears to be accepted, and how does the conservation of energy deal with that? As for quantum theory, that has been so little developed since discovery more than a century ago that it seems to me we are still struggling to reconcile it with classical physics, with not that much success . Having said that, all the research being carried out on quantum computers ought to bring a more detailed understanding of the quantum world than the small amount we possess already. Otherwise why are so many governments currently pumping huge funds into it research?

My belief structure is pretty much all my own work, although there are one or two others who have not dissimilar opinions, even though, and maybe because, I work outside the straitjacket of academia. As for time, my understanding is that at the quantum level everything across time is interconnected, so I agree this cannot be ignored but in order to attempt an understanding, hypotheses and new alternatives have to be speculated in order to possibly form more satisfactory answers. In 1905 Einstein broke so many of the then existing rules of physics, which no doubt upset many physicists at the time, and a similar breakthrough on an improved understanding of the quantum world is well over due today: a reconciliation with the classical world of physics for instance.

Whereas I cannot claim mine is the answer, it is at least a conjecture as to the problem of the passage of time, of which there is very little understanding currently: ditto for that of inertia and gravitation, perhaps two of the most prescient qualities that affect our every day existence. That is not to mention the glaring problem of dark matter and dark energy, which current accepted beliefs have not yet managed to explain: too embarrassing. It would not surprise me if the latter can only be answered by changing or at least radically amending, some existing flaws we regard as fundamental.

I did some work on a simulation hypothesis model (universe as a computer simulation). It turns out that a universe expanding in digital increments (the origin of the speed of light) can be used as the source of all particle/object motion. This is because in universe co-ordinates all particles travel at and only at the speed of expansion = c, relativistic motion reduces to the mathematics of perspective.

Programming a Planck Universe Black-Hole Universe

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333513

Programming Relativity in a Planck unit Black-hole Universe

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18574.00326/1

Javad,

Thanks for your interest and I have to say that I am unable to grasp a fairly essential point about the theory of opposite rotation. I would need to be able to understand how the experiment carried out in 1974 by Gerrard O'Neill at Princeton was carried out , and how the spinning cylinders were set up. It is fairly crucial element of your thesis and I am unable to visualise its set up from your brief description. Did any body take it further at the time I wonder?

I have to say that it does seem to agree with my conjecture that the universe is likely to be closed and bounded and expanding outwards. Anyway, congratulations and best of luck with your trip to Paris to present you work.

Nick

Dear Sydney, you are absolutely right on a theory. My perception of a theory should be simple, and can be describe in layman, also, match with science that we know (from Universe) The most mainstream are thinking in the box, while after many decades we still in same place that we were hundred years ago as far theory of universe. Still many thing is in theory, such as mass of universe, gravity, atom's structure, color, taste, odor, creation, and... For many years I tried not to think in the box, and I got some result, which is not following icons theory. https://www.academia.edu/37525574/Quantum_Mechanic_Gravity this is one of them Best wishes Javad

Sydney

I have to say that cosmology is by no means my first interest, but rather a spin off implication of my first obsession which is the operation of memory, on which I have been working for in spare time fits and starts since the late 1970s. So it is very much a conjecture, and almost one of convenience I suppose. When I learned forty years ago that nobody knew anything about its operation, I was staggered, it being in my world about 75% of the operation of thought. Here we are today and we still know precious little about its mechanism, although I have made some progress with since one of the central tenets of my work is based on an analysis of randomness. A few years ago when I had more time on my hands I started to tackle quantum entanglement and discovered that what is described as teleportation experiments depends on both the receiving and transmitting ends of the equipment have to be capable of near absolute randomness to produce a simultaneous result.

But when tacking something as impenetrable as memory, I have had to extract support from whatever quarter that seems warranted and one is from Feynman and Wheelers Absorber Theory (1945), which more or less invokes a bounded universe in the form of it having to be opaque, and which provides an answer of sorts to the asymmetry of EM radiation. And then I was told years ago that David Bohm would be interested in my approach but apparently he never responded to letters written cold although Karl Pribram, his neuro scientist colleague and whom I met and was encouraging, and went on the develop with Bohm their holonomic Brain theory.

Thus I have to rely more than doubtless I should on intuition, having no ability in maths at all, but I have received a degree of support from a bio scientist. More recently from what little I can absorb of Karl Friston's papers on brain mapping to produce his theory of free energy, Markov blankets and self organisation, there seem to be some similarities there in principle at least.

Thus I apologise for having to rely on observation and intuition more than solid acceptable knowledge when taking on a subject about which so little is disgracefully known and yet is so crucial, in the hope that the ends might eventually be justified by the means. Of course I have a website but it needs serious updating which I have not bothered to do since placing a few papers on Research gate this last couple of years (www.midandmemory.net).

Best wishes, Nick

Preston

Thanks for that. Whereas I was aware that a gyroscope not only spins around its axis but that axis also twiddles around a bit as well (precession?), I knew nothing about its application to the rotation of stars around galaxies, and galaxies around each other maybe. Too fascinating, but the maths of which are inevitably well beyond me. However it might prove yet to be another piece to the jigsaw of dark matter, which I reckon really ought to be sorted before anymore palpable progress is made in our understanding of the universe and its . It is as if we have been presented with a tabula rasa in spades as a sort of challenge with the message that unless you can resolve this so obvious anomaly, we are unlikely to make much constructive progress. The same applies for me to black holes, and for that matter, whether light speed is variable or not.

As far as I can see, such problems and the answers to resolve them will be mainly based on astronomical observations from which the mathematical back up will then proceed. But the first task it to recognise the existence of such a crucial problem, and then tackle it head on. I cannot get over how much the Saul Permutter team's observations in 1999 changed so much of our understanding of the universe, and I anticipate there are bigger upsets in store for what we now regard as fundamental laws of nature. This is where I trust the ability of intuition (allied with memory) becomes involved, however it might be defined, and that is my first interest.

Nick

in my opinion- I have analysed physical laws by using distributions theory- the so-called universe is not a closed system.

Paul

Rather late in the day I have again come across your comment and this time, I managed to check out your website and read the following: " according to the laws of physics the universe can not be closed, as supposed, unless the natural constants are not constant indeed."

Well, part of my belief structure and also that of an increasing number of eminent physicists, is that the universal constant with which we are familiar, such as light speed, are in fact variable (See Einstein, Rovbert Dicke J, Joao Magueijo (Imperial) John Moffat (U. of Toronto and Perimeter Institute), and Paul Davies to name a few. There are also a few astronomers working on the problem.

Another example is the Cosmological constant which was thought to exist until 1989 when the team of Saul Perlmutter showed that the universe was not only expanding but that its rate of expansion was not constant but accelerating. They were awarded the Nobel prize for this about ten years later and bang went another well know constant, and another whole section of physics had to be amended.

Can you be sure that the universe is not a closed system? I cannot but then neither can anybody else be sure abut the answer, in which case it is open for speculation and conjecture without which facility, physics would never progress in my view.