The Essence of Time & Ages of Universe

Is our Universe eternal? Is it finite?
Twenty years I answered these question: "Yes, it is eternal. Yes, it
is finite, but boundless; and its volume does not change".

Now I have changed my old convictions.

Prevailing cosmology theory, the Big Bang, says approximately thus:

"Yes, is finite, and its volume grows. No, the Universe was born at
the Big Bang moment. Before the Big Bang there was no time, nor
space."

Let's reject the unreasonable idea of Big Bang; and let’s investigate
the model developed in this work. The sphere is used here as an
illustration of closed space. The area of this sphere can be
calculated. Volume can be calculated. It is finite, but boundless.
Earlier I considered, that the hyper-sphere of our Universe exists
eternally. However then I have postulated the complete equality of 3
spatial and 1 temporal coordinates, and I have received the
contradiction. How can it be: one is finite, another is eternal? The
answer is simple. The contradiction was solved out in 1999!

Let's return once more on the closed sphere, such as our Earth. Let's
assume, that on this sphere there are no continents, and there is only
one big ocean and a multitude of floating vegetative islands
(galaxies). The tiny islands are grasped by invisible long feelers of
the large islands, are pulled near, and are absorbed by the large
islands-cannibals. When the island becomes enough huge, he blows up,
scattering everywhere on the water the seeds of new islands. Let's
assume, that we in a boat between these islands. We shall try to make
round-the-world travel to measure the length of an equator of this
sphere. For this purpose we shall establish on every passed islands
the wooden marks. But we need a long time to travel around the whole
world among the wild living islands. While we were floating around of
the sphere the marked islands have grown, have blown up, and the new
islands were born, which were needed to be marked again. We cannot see
the old wooden marks anywhere; they were completely rotted. We are
moving all the time forward, but we cannot find the familiar land. We
constantly open the new islands, and put them on our map. The external
observer sees, how we in the twentieth time are turning around the
globe researching the new and new islands.

Let's try to perform another thought experiment. We have a very
powerful projector and a telescope, with which we can see beyond all
bounds far. The main condition is: all the time the light from
projector goes along the surface of water. If the velocity of light is
infinite, then after a fulfillment of one rotation around a sphere the
light will return to us from opposite direction and will hit our back
of the head; and then will instantly be reflected, and again will
return to us in a our telescope. That is, we will see immediately our
own back. It is not surprising; that is the usual model of the closed
but unbounded world. Let's suppose, that immediate light has made one
rotation, and along its beam we have found out one thousand islands
situated approximately along our beam. That means that the length of
the large circumference of the closed world is equal to one thousand
of average distances between islands.

Let’s now assume that light from our projector moves with such
velocity, that after making one full rotation, the light will come
there, where we have died a long time ago and our island is already
dispersed, and new unfamiliar islands are flowing about everywhere.
From the other hand, now we can see another islands, if those islands
were radiating light. Photons of the already dead islands strike into
our eye’s retina. Groups of photons from far dead nonexistent islands
continue to bring the hidden information, which are consumed by our
DNA molecules. But our telescope has no limits; and we can see more
further and older and older islands-ghosts, - the infinity of ancient
died islands, situated on the same finite sphere, but living in the
different time epochs. We can see them, and the gravity field of those
nonexistent islands-galaxies continues to influence on our galaxy. We
can calculate this distance and the age of observable events. That
will be actual distance and actual age of events. Those events do,
influence on us. Consequently, the actual age, and actual distance are
real. According to the actual scales, our Universe is infinite and
eternal.

From the other hand, if we know the average volume occupied by one
galaxy, then we can calculate the finite number of galaxies, which
live in the Closed Universe NOW. This means that our Universe is
finite. It has finite conventional age, which is equal to the time of
one rotation of light around the world. It has finite conventional
length, which is equal to the big circumference of Unierse.

Consequently, we have two time scales: conventional and actual. Let's
illustrate these scales on an example of The Bible of Time.

The Bible of Time.

Properties of the Bible of Time:

The Bible of Time has the strictly certain volume, N cells for the
letters;
The Bible of Time is already written up to the end by our ancestors;
Each second we write one letter in a beginning of the first page in
this Bible of Time;
Each second somewhere in the Bible one letter drops out of the Bible
of Time, and part of the text, from the beginning of the Bible up to
this letter, is displaced to the end of the Bible on one unit, and
part of the text, behind the dropped out letter, remains on the old
place.

Let's follow it on an example of the Bible of Time, which has only 12
cells.
Look, how I'll write a sentence "We have a good constitution".

The more is he
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ru.html

"Ivan Gorelik" wrote in message
...
Is our Universe eternal? Is it finite?


Yes. No.

On Feb 27, 4:29*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ivan Gorelik" wrote in message

...
Is our Universe eternal? Is it finite?

Yes. No.

Thanks!

Let we see the red-shifted galaxy.
Is the time-period of supernova explosion undergo the same "red
shift"?

The more is he http://darkenergy.narod.ru/time.html

"Ivan Gorelik" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 4:29 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ivan Gorelik" wrote in message

...
Is our Universe eternal? Is it finite?

Yes. No.

Thanks!

Let we see the red-shifted galaxy.
Is the time-period of supernova explosion undergo the same "red
shift"?

The more is he http://darkenergy.narod.ru/time.html

=========================================
Let me explain something that Hari-Krishna Wilson in Australia
and Vladimir Sekerin in the former USSR spotted and I should
have seen but did not until it was pointed out to me by Wilson.
(The USSR and the West were not on speaking terms at the time,
but that doesn't matter to science.)

If a star is travelling in an orbit then it must both approach and recede
from
the observer. If it recedes it will show red shift, if it approaches, blue.

At first glance you might suppose that it would show red and blue in equal
amounts, half the time red and half the time blue.

So for a galaxy, we can pair up stars on opposite sides and one will be
red-shifted and the other blue. If the galaxy sits still the effect of each
pair
roughly cancels (spreads the spectral lines a little) and the galaxy as a
whole shows no shift.
If we see an overall red-shift we assume the galaxy is moving away.

But wait.
Let's look at ONE star for a moment. The light leaves the star with
constant velocity c, so it must arrive here with velocity c+v where
v is the motion of the star in our direction, regardless of what idiots
like Einstein may think.
Plotting a distance/time graph, we get this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
We are at the top of the graph, we are seeing the shift.
Look carefully.
We see red shift for MOST of the time, and blue for VERY LITTLE of
the time.
A non-moving galaxy will show red shift and the further away it is,
the greater the red-shift it will show. That's what we see.

I often point out to people that this pencil is straight, it is the light
that is bent.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/brokpen.jpg
Same with the stars and galaxies - light travelling over a great distance
produces illusions - we can't believe what we see with our eyes, we have
to understand with our minds.

Not only do we see the shift, we also notice the stars APPEAR to
travel at the "wrong" speed. This leads to a conflict with Kepler's
laws and some dork introduced dork matter to account for it.

If you look at SN1987A,
http://www-nsdth.lbl.gov/~nkg/18_1_fig_2.jpg
it looks to me more like two stars collided than one star exploded.
We wouldn't know, nobody was watching before it happened.
Collisions may not happen often but they do happen sometimes and
there are an awful lot of stars.

You haven't seen Religulous yet....







"Yes, is finite, and its volume grows. No, the Universe was born at
the Big Bang moment. Before the Big Bang there was no time, nor
space."

Let's reject the unreasonable idea of Big Bang; and let’s investigate
the model developed in this work. The sphere is used here as an
illustration of closed space. The area of this sphere can be
calculated. Volume can be calculated. It is finite, but boundless.
Earlier I considered, that the hyper-sphere of our Universe exists
eternally. However then I have postulated the complete equality of 3
spatial and 1 temporal coordinates, and I have received the
contradiction. How can it be: one is finite, another is eternal? The
answer is simple. The contradiction was solved out in 1999!

Let's return once more on the closed sphere, such as our Earth. Let's
assume, that on this sphere there are no continents, and there is only
one big ocean and a multitude of floating vegetative islands
(galaxies). The tiny islands are grasped by invisible long feelers of
the large islands, are pulled near, and are absorbed by the large
islands-cannibals. When the island becomes enough huge, he blows up,
scattering everywhere on the water the seeds of new islands. Let's
assume, that we in a boat between these islands. We shall try to make
round-the-world travel to measure the length of an equator of this
sphere. For this purpose we shall establish on every passed islands
the wooden marks. But we need a long time to travel around the whole
world among the wild living islands. While we were floating around of
the sphere the marked islands have grown, have blown up, and the new
islands were born, which were needed to be marked again. We cannot see
the old wooden marks anywhere; they were completely rotted. We are
moving all the time forward, but we cannot find the familiar land. We
constantly open the new islands, and put them on our map. The external
observer sees, how we in the twentieth time are turning around the
globe researching the new and new islands.

Let's try to perform another thought experiment. We have a very
powerful projector and a telescope, with which we can see beyond all
bounds far. The main condition is: all the time the light from
projector goes along the surface of water. If the velocity of light is
infinite, then after a fulfillment of one rotation around a sphere the
light will return to us from opposite direction and will hit our back
of the head; and then will instantly be reflected, and again will
return to us in a our telescope. That is, we will see immediately our
own back. It is not surprising; that is the usual model of the closed
but unbounded world. Let's suppose, that immediate light has made one
rotation, and along its beam we have found out one thousand islands
situated approximately along our beam. That means that the length of
the large circumference of the closed world is equal to one thousand
of average distances between islands.

Let’s now assume that light from our projector moves with such
velocity, that after making one full rotation, the light will come
there, where we have died a long time ago and our island is already
dispersed, and new unfamiliar islands are flowing about everywhere.
From the other hand, now we can see another islands, if those islands
were radiating light. Photons of the already dead islands strike into
our eye’s retina. Groups of photons from far dead nonexistent islands
continue to bring the hidden information, which are consumed by our
DNA molecules. But our telescope has no limits; and we can see more
further and older and older islands-ghosts, - the infinity of ancient
died islands, situated on the same finite sphere, but living in the
different time epochs. We can see them, and the gravity field of those
nonexistent islands-galaxies continues to influence on our galaxy. We
can calculate this distance and the age of observable events. That
will be actual distance and actual age of events. Those events do,
influence on us. Consequently, the actual age, and actual distance are
real. According to the actual scales, our Universe is infinite and
eternal.

From the other hand, if we know the average volume occupied by one
galaxy, then we can calculate the finite number of galaxies, which
live in the Closed Universe NOW. This means that our Universe is
finite. It has finite conventional age, which is equal to the time of
one rotation of light around the world. It has finite conventional
length, which is equal to the big circumference of Unierse.

Consequently, we have two time scales: conventional and actual. Let's
illustrate these scales on an example of The Bible of Time.

The Bible of Time.

Properties of the Bible of Time:

The Bible of Time has the strictly certain volume, N cells for the
letters;
The Bible of Time is already written up to the end by our ancestors;
Each second we write one letter in a beginning of the first page in
this Bible of Time;
Each second somewhere in the Bible one letter drops out of the Bible
of Time, and part of the text, from the beginning of the Bible up to
this letter, is displaced to the end of the Bible on one unit, and
part of the text, behind the dropped out letter, remains on the old
place.

Let's follow it on an example of the Bible of Time, which has only 12
cells.
Look, how I'll write a sentence "We have a good constitution".

The more is he
http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ru.html

On Feb 27, 8:48*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Ivan Gorelik wrote:
Let's reject the unreasonable idea of Big Bang; and let’s investigate
the model developed in this work. The sphere is used here as an
illustration of closed space. The area of this sphere can be
calculated. Volume can be calculated. It is finite, but boundless.

* *The problem is that a sphere is a three dimensional object and
* *therefore does have a boundary. In the real universe, there is no
* *boundary, jut a limitation on how far we can "see" determined by
* *the finite speed of light and the finite age of our observable
* *universe. The "no center" concepts below imply that some observer
* *far from us "sees" essentially the same thing.
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/rel_vela.gif
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/rel_velb.gif

* *No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The first arguments for the motions of the Earth were theological in
nature as they found the idea of the Earth at the center of Universe
repugnant .They did not have the arguments for the Earth's motions but
they did observe that a person anywhere on the planet observes the
same view of the celestial sphere rotation about Polaris but knew this
'every point of the center is an absurdity', -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect...that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

Again,it took Copernicus to demonstrate the arguments which for the
Earth's motions where your ideas are,well,your ideas.

Not much different than the creationists,you can continue on with your
'beliefs'.for want of a better word whereas I am a Christian
astronomer who knows full well that your ideas come from what you want
to believe exists than what actually exists.While not subscribing to
St Augustine tooth and nail,he got this right -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." St Augustine

On Feb 28, 2:06*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Ivan Gorelik wrote:
Let's reject the unreasonable idea of Big Bang; and let’s investigate
the model developed in this work. The sphere is used here as an
illustration of closed space. The area of this sphere can be
calculated. Volume can be calculated. It is finite, but boundless.
* *The problem is that a sphere is a three dimensional object and
* *therefore does have a boundary. In the real universe, there is no
* *boundary, jut a limitation on how far we can "see" determined by
* *the finite speed of light and the finite age of our observable
* *universe. The "no center" concepts below imply that some observer
* *far from us "sees" essentially the same thing.
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/rel_vela.gif
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/rel_velb.gif

* *No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The first arguments for the motions of the Earth were theological in
nature as they found the idea of the Earth at the center of Universe
repugnant .They did not have the arguments for the Earth's motions but
they did observe that a person anywhere on the planet observes the
same view of the celestial sphere rotation about Polaris but knew this
'every point of the center is an absurdity', -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect...that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

Again,it took Copernicus to demonstrate the arguments which for the
Earth's motions where your ideas are,well,your ideas.

Not much different than the creationists,you can continue on with your
'beliefs'.for want of a better word whereas I am a Christian
astronomer who knows full well that your ideas come from what you want
to believe exists than what actually exists.While not subscribing to
St Augustine tooth and nail,he got this right -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." St Augustine

* *Empirical evidence has replaced theological and philosophical arguments.


Empricism exposes the situation where the once fertile ground within
Christianity for scientific investigation had changed from the time of
Copernicus to that of Galileo and the rise of empircism itself
reflects the extraction of science from within the Christian
scientific tradition to a separate entity that now opposes it.For what
it is worth,the present day denominational Christians dislike me even
more than you do as they are content with the shallow 'moral
authority' and seem to be heading for the Arian stance of Newton,sort
of Jesus is God's moral spokesman where Isaac is his scientific
spokesman type of thing.Galileo,in his defence,probably does a good
enough job to explain the difference between the scientific tradition
within the Church as opposed to his era,even if it is to cover his
behind for effectively trying to make the Pope look like an idiot -

http://www.galilean-library.org/manu...p?postid=43841

Ultimately modern imaging is just to powerful to be contained within
empircism as that view of the astronomical arena has now painted
itself into conceptual corners.If people here can be content with
imaginary celestial objects or look for dark this and dark that , they
are going to have no time for interpreting images and putting them in
context of cause and effect.I only mention how powerful imaging shows
dual 360 degree motions with respect to the central Sun as an example
of this and then applied to seasonal causes -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b



* *Evidence ("proof") of the Earth's Revolution (orbital velocity)
* * *aberration of light
* * *stellar radial velocities (Doppler)
* * *parallax of nearby stars
* * *Gravitation

* *Evidence ("proof") of the Earth Rotation (angular velocity)
* * *Doppler measurements of stars
* * *Foucault Pendulum
* * *Coriolis forces
* * *observation for orbit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll spare you the suspense,nobody knows why the Earth turns in its
daily rotation or orbits the central Sun but throwing well worn 17th
century terms at these things is not going to tell you anything,Even
if I do know where Isaac distorted the views of Copernicus via Kepler
it tells you nothing about genuine causes and effects and observations
which have built up for the past 3 centuries certainly must have the
freedom to move between disciplines..I can tell you that I am content
to work with the effects of these motions and even ratchet it up to
considering the solar system's galactic orbital motion and its effect
on planetary motions as a possibility but again, this cause and
effect says nothing about why the Earth turns,orbits the central Sun
and moves around the galactic center wuith the solar system ,only that
it does and these motions have effects.

As a Christian,I learned that the answer provided by the ancient
author in response to Job is only as good as the
questioner,remembering that the author represents both Job and the
answer from the 'Whirlwind'.If the voice questions Job about where
rain and hail come from,I can point out that contemporaries are having
severe difficulties explaining the seasons using the Earth's
motions,this is an example of when people are too greedy with 'first
causes' and try to leapfrog over or bypass existing observations
where genuine scientific investigation occurs -

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...&division=div1