Alternative Models of Reality

Hi everyone,
I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the model discussed here is the one described in the previous point and that it has been moved to the OSF project, which consists of Wiki pages and an essay, and is currently under development here: OSF | 4-Sphere-Cosmology.

Allow me a brief introduction: I would like to mention my model, which is distinguished by the addition of a spatial dimension.

The distances derived from the FLRW model are notably (perhaps excessively) high, and its unique ability to respect Hubble's law makes their challenge difficult. However, this difficulty disappears if the existence of an additional spatial dimension is considered.

In my model, the Universe lies on the surface of a hypersphere that expands at a constant rate, with its radius growing as r = ct, and with the Big Bang occurring at its center. This explains why our physics behaves as if we were in a boundless system, even though the Universe has a finite volume: it shows that, if not for Relativity, we would likely have been led to study an infinite and static universe.

Other models also propose a hypersphere expanding as r = ct, but when examining their main features, one can see they are fundamentally different from one another. The novelty of this model lies in its definition of the Hubble constant: its geometry suggests a linear relationship between galactic recession and the arc angle (not the arc length). This perspective does not challenge the validity of Hubble’s law; it merely changes predictions about the past and future, which cannot be determined purely from observations.

Using the angle instead of the arc length changes everything. It allows us to apply Special Relativity to galactic recession.

The redshift, which asymptotically approaches a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why, at the boundaries of the observable Universe with JWST, we should not expect to see only "baby galaxies" (a widely debated topic).

Yes, we have introduced the fourth spatial dimension, but we can dispense with:

• Modifying the physics of radiation, meaning without assuming that spatial expansion alters the wavelength of light.
• Dark Matter (an element not yet detected in physics).
• Dark Energy (a form of energy not yet observed).
• The Horizon Problem—though introducing an alternative conjecture: after an initial expansion, the universe was static at the Last Scattering, and then expansion resumes.

Finally, the intention to adhere to the Big Bang model up to the Last Scattering (with some modifications, otherwise an alternative model could not work) significantly reduces many problems that a new model would normally encounter.

The topic discussed here could be titled:

The dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession may warrant further reconsideration.

The links provided in this post are essential for the discussion. I hope they align with the forum guidelines regarding external references. All linked downloads are free and require no registration; at the time of writing, all other cited documents are also freely accessible.

As a former IT developer, I prefer linking to original sources to ensure proper citation and copyright compliance. Just like when citing a book or an arXiv article, linking respects the authors’ rights and the associated licenses. By using a CC-BY-SA license for my work, I also ensure that cited research is properly attributed and used in accordance with its terms.

That said, I wish to share with you this research (without peer review), consisting of 3 papers, which analyzes a critical point potentially capable of challenging the fundamental assumptions of my alternative cosmological model:

1. viXra: 2207.0051 - Concerning the Apparent Magnitude
2. viXra: 2208.0040 - Concerning the Time Dilation of the Supernovae
3. viXra: 2208.0152 - Star Distance Validation from Data of a High-Z Supernova Ia in the Special Relativity Context

This model calculates Galactic Recession within the framework of Special Relativity. The test on this supernova showed good model accuracy (96.5%) and suggests that the dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession may warrant further reconsideration.

I would like to emphasize that these publications have not undergone peer review. However, though certain steps may be disputed, the line of reasoning in the research is self-evident. The re-examination of the Doppler effect in the context of Galactic Recession is crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of Redshift. The latter, presenting an asymptote corresponding to a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why at the boundaries of the observable universe with JWST, we should not expect only “baby galaxies” (a widely discussed topic).

The model is described by the essay in Files tab (I recommend checking out the short paragraphs following the Abstract, marked as "4-SPHERE IN A NUTSHELL," which provide a concise summary of the key ideas).

However, given the complexity of my alternative model, which requires extensive treatment, I would suggest focusing our initial discussion on the independent validation of supernova distances. If this validation yields positive results, I would be more than willing to share the details of my model with those who wish to explore it further.

To ensure transparency I supply an Excel spreadsheet for independent verification of the calculations. While peer review could have been pursued, this method allows for direct confirmation (the values are easily identifiable). As you can see in [2208.0152], I have uploaded the Excel file on my OSF project as "Supernova SN1995 K validation.xlsx". You can access it in the Files tab.

The verification analysis of the regression polynomial requires a more elaborate approach. As you can see in [2208.0040], both the instructions for installing the necessary software (Windows), and the supernova data, can be found in my OSF Project Wiki Pages. You can access it in: (https://osf.io/y736c/wiki/Supernova%20validation%20m.s.%20extimation/). This involves using Python, and the small initial effort to configure its working environment is amply rewarded by the powerful functionalities that this platform offers in the scientific field (Visual Studio offers to developers the “Python Development Tool for Windows”).

Sorry, previous post should have gone in the Alternative Models of Cosmology section. Could a moderator please move it?

Steve Dufourny My theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universe with quantum and cosmologial 3d spheres. The poincare conjecture proved by perelman is essential in topology especially 3 D manifolds.
“Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.” So no holes no boundary and finite.
Homeomorphic means “topologically equivalent” can be deformed into each other without tearing or gluing. Perelman proved it with the Ricci Flow
He showed that any simply connected 3-manifold under this process becomes rounder and rounder ultimately turning into a 3-sphere.
Perelman didn’t just prove Poincaré , his work helped confirm the Thurston Geometrization Conjecture, which classifies all 3-manifolds. This is huge in understanding the possible shapes of the universe. How It Relates to My Theory of Spherisation.
The idea that the sphere is the fundamental shape of equilibrium and possibly even the logical or philosophical “choice” of the universe resonates beautifully with these mathematical and physical ideas because the topologial destiny of the universe being closed gives an inevitable logic for this universal shaqpe of the universe evolving and the fact that the foundamental quantum and cosological objects are spherical give a generality evident linking all scales.
Ricci flow smooths curvature, like a system moving toward energetic equilibrium. We can so interpret this as the universe evolving toward the perfect symmetry and balance of the sphere.
The Sphere as Generator of All Shapes so is the key.
The sphere, despite having no angles, can “create all shapes.” That echoes deep math: the sphere is maximally symmetric, and from it, with various deformations or projections, many other forms arise. In quantum field theory, symmetry breaking creates particles, and here in this theory, breaking spherical equilibrium gives rise to all forms and forces.
Spinoza’s God and the Sphere.
Spinoza’s God is Nature, logical necessity, the totality of existence ,and the sphere is the shape of wholeness, unity, and non-duality. If the universe naturally chooses the sphere, maybe it chooses the logic of unity, just as Spinoza suggests. This idea turns the sphere into a kind of cosmic archetype geometric, physical, and metaphysical.
Philosophical Angle
This theory could be seen as:
A metaphysical geometry: the sphere as the source and in the same time the aim universally speaking.
A cosmological attractor: the universe always tends toward spherical symmetry, from quantum fluctuations to black holes to the cosmic microwave background.
A quantum-unity vision: even at quantum levels, entanglement might reflect a hidden spherical order. The Spherial topological geometrical algebras I invented it is for all this puzzle ........

Mir Hi, I have thought a lot about this and about the consciousness, its origin and if we have souls. I have several ideas that I develop but the physics community is prudent about all this. that said the best thinkers having pondered the best general equations and theories considered a god of spinoza like Eisntein, Planck, Heisenberg,Maxwell, Schrodinger, Godel, Euler, Riemann, Descartes, Lorenz, Bohr, Born, Galilei, Pasteur, Newton, and so more,.....there are also the thinkers considering a kind of mathematical accident from a kind of infinie energy like Tegmark and his mathematical universe ......a sure thing is that nobody knows the truth and all our philosophical assumptions are not proved, so we cannot affrim. The fact that we have possible souls seem logic to me and if they exist , so they have a mechanism and an origin and linked with the energy and like we all know, the energy cannot be destroyed but is transformed and continue a road. But Like I said these ideas are no liked by all scientists and even if they think about it ,they evitate to speak about it, the same for a kind of god of spinoza, a kind of infinite eternal consciousness, the sciences community evitates these extrapolations. The hard problem of consciousness is not easy to solve and there are many very good ideas like the model of Penrose and Hameroff and the microtubules and the objective orchestrated reduction, other model consider other mechanism in the brain , ohers consider deeper philosophical parameters to superimpose, It is what I made in my theory of spherisation, an evolution of the universe with quantum and comsological 3d spheres and the 3 manin cosmological sysems merging to create the ordinary matter and the standard model , I consider that the DE is informational and antigravitational implying a fifh force and this DE encodes the Photons and the DM to create the ordinary matter,so I have several extrapolations that I don t affirm about the souls and consciousness from deeper fields and particles. The actual physics community considers mainly strings in 1d at this planck connected with 1d cosmic fields of this GR, lie if the photons and EFE and GR were the primary essence and the strings also, but I doubt it is the truth, there are deep philosophical problems wih the strings and [photons lie primary essence if we consider a god of spinoza and how acts this infinite eternal consciousness, the evolution is a main point, it is important in my theory of spherisation this point of vue. We all search answers and try to understand the universe and its laws and all we are unfortunaelly vanitious and persuaded, it is for me an enormous problem inside the theoretical physics community, we have all difficulties to change the lines of reasoning and accept different roads of reasoning. So that divides instead to create collaborations, I have the same problem with the project I created here on the forum global collaboration, the thinkers, humans prefer always to be followed than to follow, they follow when they are the center of interest or when that nourrishes the vanity or when there are interests simply, it is a fact, no need to develop the human nature lol . So I agreed about what you told about the soul wich is no a religious link but probably an evident universal truh considering the matters and energy transformations. Regards

Steve Dufourny
What you say is a garbled mess of utter nonsense.

Lorraine Ford the spheres can be the foundamental objects Lorraine, we know that you always believe that you are special and always you critic all, the 3 systems merging can be true , and the spheres like foundmental objects also, you can prefer the strings or points and the GR like primary essence, for the constant I have calculated there is nothing of odd I just begin with a central sphere the biggest volume and after I increase the number of spheres around wih the primes, and oddly we arrive at this constant like an universal reursive serie, if you dont undersand the maths of this , it is not my fault, it is simple, 1more 3 multiplated by 1 on 8 and after we continue 5 multiplicated by 1 on 64 and we continue more 7 multiplicated by 1 on 512 ..........and yes there is probably an universal link between the spheres and primes, and I am goinmg to try several serie and other constants are going to appear, this one is just one , I will give the others, and for the DE informational encoding the DM quantas of mass and the photons , it is possible also with or without your approvement, I have never seen a theory fronm you, just disussions critisizing, so if you could disprove my theory of spherisation an optimisation of the universe qith quantum and cosmological spheres , you can but I doubt you can success to disprove it, well lets go deeper lorraine and be frank, and please answer sincerely without evitatung toi answer,
1 what is for your the origin philosophical of the universe,
2 what are the foundamental objects, you can explain with strings in 1d or points in 1 d and the GR
3, do you beleive that we come from a mathematical accident or from a kind of god and develop please
4 why the primes are important in maths and physics,and pi also
5 why the fields in the QFT are a reality and from what ,

I repeat don t turn around the pot , please answer.like this we can see your generality and what you have in the stomach

ps for the constant I expl,ained it is one constant appearing with primes and spheres packing, I will give here other constants possible in function of the series of volumes utilised, and yes there are fractals of spheres where the space disappears between spheres due to fact that we increase the number and decrease the volumes from the central one, and if the 3 main systems merge it makes sense for the motions, oscillations, densities, spins, agular momentum, mass......I am sorry but even on linkedin many persons are interesed about this reasoning and THEM they are physicists and Phd and others want to collaborate, the spheres and primes have an universal logic and it seems even the choice of this universe. So now answer wih humility please and don t evitate the questions.regards

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

So, it is all very well having theories such as yours, or sets of equations, etc. etc.: the details don't matter.

But, in order to have a viable moving real-world mathematical system you also need

an aspect, or aspects, of the world that initiates/ reinitiates number movement in the system, and

an aspect, or aspects, of the world that recognises/ knows/ is aware of the specific numbers that apply to the specific categories (like mass charge or position), and is aware of the specific relationships between those specific categories.

Lorraine Ford I can understand what you tell but we need equations and mathematics to describe the reality and search links to analyse the systems that we observe and measure. It is like this that we have improve the quantum field theory, the quantum mechanics, the cosmology .....how can we describe the universe and its laws without equations and maths. The euqations in thermodynamics or others are concrete and verified and act well, and it is linked with what you tell about these categories and relationships .

You've raised an interesting and important philosophical point about the relationship between equations, systems, and the real, dynamic world. Your concern that equations alone don’t “move” or “know” anything is a powerful reminder of the gap between symbolic representation and physical reality. I don t tell then opposite .

However, it’s also important to clarify the role and power of mathematics and equations in physics. You are absolutely right that equations by themselves don’t “initiate” movement or “recognize” anything. They are static structures. But here’s where physics and math as used within it takes a crucial step forward.
Equations describe change and interaction.
In physics, equations aren’t just fixed ideas,they encode the rules for how systems evolve over time.
The “knowing” part is the role of observers and the model itself.
You mentioned that systems don’t “know” their own states. And indeed, physical systems are not self-aware. But physics doesn’t require them to be. We, the observers, construct models and interpret measurements. Equations allow us to describe and predict what the system will do. The “awareness” you mention is provided by the measurement apparatus and the interpretation of data.
Math is not reality,it models it.
You’re absolutely right that no equation is reality. But this is not a flaw,it’s a feature. Equations are abstract tools. But they are tested against reality, and revised when they fail. The reason we trust them isn’t blind faith, but centuries of empirical success,from predicting planetary motion to enabling GPS satellites to correcting for quantum effects in electronics and many other examples exist .
Equations are essential because they’re the only precise language we have for cause and effect in the natural world.
If you want to describe how one thing leads to another in a testable, repeatable way,math is the only tool precise enough to do it. That’s why even when your philosophical critique is valid, and your desire for “real” systems that are more than symbolic is understandable, the practical answer still relies on equations.

Regards

Lorraine Ford I really appreciate the depth of your reflections,it’s clear you’re wrestling with some foundational and important questions about the nature of reality, and the role of mathematics in describing it.
I'd like to offer a different perspective, one that sees equations not as hollow, static symbols, but as something more like musical notation in a grand universal composition. It is this also the sciences and mainly the physics and maths, we play musics in trying to describe this reality in respecting the universal composition and for this we must respect several laws in the partitions.I don t tell this because I play guitar and piano but because the physics and maths are a little bi like the arts also.
Imagine the universe as a vast orchestra, playing a symphony that spans from the dance of galaxies down to the rhythm of atoms. The equations we use in physics,whether it’s Einstein’s field equations or Schrödinger’s wave function or other are like musical scores. They don’t generate the music themselves, but they encode the structure, the harmonies, the timing, the relationships between notes. They guide us through the flow and so the numbers and constants also.
Just like a symphony has different instruments playing in harmony, the universe has different "frequencies"—forces, particles, masses, energies—all playing according to specific patterns. And mathematics is the language we’ve discovered that best describes these harmonic relationships. Of course when we make this It lacks instruments and we cannot play this universal music but we try to respect the harmony and these gamuts, notes in the details of speific spheres of analysis.

What you mention,that the system itself must somehow “move,” or “know” its categories like mass, charge, position is true in a philosophical sense. But in physical terms, movement emerges from the structure. A musical score doesn’t move itself, but when interpreted by a conductor, an instrument, or a model,it comes to life. In physics, the initial conditions and the laws (the “score”) combine to produce the unfolding reality we observe.

When physicists write equations, we’re not claiming they are the totality of what exists. We’re saying: this is the structure we hear beneath the phenomena, like hearing a chord and knowing its components. We try to stay in key, respect the gamut, and identify where the music resonates with the reality we observe.

So the equations are not just arbitrary marks,they are attempts to tune in to the universal harmonics, to find the underlying logic and pattern that governs how things unfold. Without them, we’d just be hearing noise. With them, we begin to understand the music. It is there that the equations, maths, numbers partitions......become relevant when they respect this universal symphony because all is linked in this universal music palyed in an incredible complexity beyond our understanding

Steve Dufourny
I notice that the above words are not entirely your own words, and not entirely your own thoughts.

The man-made equations, that symbolically represent real-world relationships between real-world categories, are essential to represent the real world; and so are the man-made number symbols, that apply to the man-made symbols for the categories, essential to represent the real world.

But the fact that the equations contain delta symbols etc,, to try to represent change over time makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the fact that no amount of equations, categories and numbers are sufficient to represent a viable moving real-world system.

Without an explanation for why the world ever moved and why the world continues to move, and without an explanation for how come, out of all the theoretically possible number and category and relationships combinations, the mathematical system can identify its own on-the-spot categories, relationships and numbers, without these explanations, YOU HAVEN'T REPRESENTED A VIABLE MOVING REAL-WORLD SYSTEM.

I.e. your theories and equations don't represent a viable moving real-world system.

Lorraine Ford you conclude too quickly the things Lorraine like for my thoughts and words, and the problem is there you are persuaded about things not proved, and in politics when the persons make this they make catagories about people and rank the humans without real proofs ,and sometimes it implies even deep problems like in the dictatorships, they beleive they know all, they affirm the psychology of their fellowmen, they conclude all like facts but in fact it is just in their minds and not proved, think about this. You must try to be more cool, nice and less persuaded about your assumptions not proved, sorry bu It is true, the critics, yes, the lack of respec , no simply, and I am persuaded it is just about your psychology and friustration, me I like you, but you seem to like nobody , take care

Steve Dufourny
Occasionally, you will find physicists in essence remarking that there is a difference between a set of equations and a viable moving real-world system. I am, in essence, merely agreeing with these physicists.

As I said, your theories and equations can't represent a viable moving real-world system.

This is a BIG problem, but you don't seem to care, and instead you choose to say things about my character.