claudio54

26/5000 if you read you will have the answer. If you really want the answers you will have to read. Then we can talk about something.

42/5000 and you to criticize without having read first? Swantsont, if there is a problem close the post. I can't rewrite all Claudio

I have seen that many of you have read this post. Here, starting from a trivial discussion on entropy, the topic ran aground on the fourth dimension of space, raising many criticisms. In this period I completed a speculation which, assuming a fourth dimension for space, provides an innovative cosmological model: In my opinion, it satisfactorily explains the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe as well as it provides a circular path for cosmic background radiation and other radiation in general. It is also totally consistent with all the concepts expressed by relativity, giving a coherent answer for the most distant galaxies. Finally, it provides a hypothesis for the energy lost by the universe which may have been transferred, as heat by thermal radiation, towards the vacuum of the fourth dimension. I think the fourth dimension of space is fascinating, if you are intrigued by the topic, these are two short articles I published on https://vixra.org/ The first is an introduction to this geometry and to its use in calculating the Galactic Recession. The second goes into the details of the model and provides an approximation for the "Galaxy Epoch" relying on Einstein's solution for Weak Fields. · https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0202 · https://vixra.org/abs/2008.0015

Ah ah ah ah, yes but you have an extra one too for your spirit. Hi Dimreepr, yes I am a little crazy.

I was not able to use the forum editor, hope you bring patience. The doc attached is a PDF generated by Microsoft Word 365. In this document the Minkowski interval is obtained from the fourth spatial dimension. The question is why an interval on the fourth spatial dimension is invariant? In the growing hypersphere’s hypothesis is this demonstrable? What eventually does it mean? This is what needs to be answered in order to proceed. I'm beginning to agree that it's not exactly an Occam’s razor. Hypersphere2.pdf

Sorry I had written everything offline and when it was time to post the copy and paste did not work

ERRATA CORRIGE (Always with no evidence that it matches observation) HYPERSPHERE.pdf

DOC ATTACHED HYPERSPHERE.pdf

Hi everyone, The idea does not pretend to compete as a cosmological model (among other things a reference to gravity is missing). It just want to be a simple, intuitive explanation of why galaxies move away at speeds proportional to their distance (without constraints) and why, I think, we should not calculate entropy for different stages of growth before choosing a cosmological model (we need a prediction of volume).

Regarding the metric of the universe, the most distant galaxies are moving away at speeds faster than that of light. We can only hypothesize the existence of another dimension for the characteristics of the universe: absence of a center, isotropy and expansion.

Applying entropy to the Big Bang model has always sounded controversial to me. For the Big Bang theory we consider "universe" what is occupied by matter and not an empty container of infinite dimensions in which matter expands. If so, the laws of physics would be violated and we could not use them: the parts of the universe furthest from us, in fact, continue to move away, in acceleration, at higher speeds than the light. Rather than accepting a "universe metric" that does not follow the laws of physics, I prefer the idea that there are other dimensions in which the universe, without a center, is in fact the surface of a hypersphere, in continuous growth. Here the laws of known physics, with a large mortgage on thermodynamics too, could no longer apply. Entropy in fact faces unsolved issues too: entropy could not decrease from the early universe, where matter and energy were uniformly distributed, to our one, in which nothing is uniform. Its function then also depends from the expansion of the universe, as for a gas expanding in an adiabatic but irreversible transformation. So, either we look for a model in which the metric of the universe is not what appears to us (but it’s only the result of our perception of an existing fourth spatial dimension), or we must accept the idea that physics should only be applied to the nearest portion of universe. If this were the case, outside of this close portion, the laws we know do not apply anymore. This is really too much and I want to go beyond with a crazy idea: By accepting the idea of a fourth dimension, as in a sort of differential geometry, one would consider a coordinate transformation for a three-dimensional observer who studies a four-dimensional universe. This transformation would apply to the laws of our physics and then to the whole theory. The way chosen to set the problem is very rudimentary. For simplicity, we can think to an observer who can move in one dimension along the circumference of a circle: that is the universe he perceives. The real universe is instead in two dimensions represented by an annulus of the previous circle. Through the whole annulus, the laws of physics apply. For example, objects can move only at a speed lower than light. Now suppose that a point inside the annulus is perceived by the observer as its projection from the center on the circumference. The velocity v of a distant point, which leaves the circumference approaching the center, would be perceived by the observer as v1 that could be greater than light. Note that this effect would not be perceived for points close to the observer. Let’s apply now this idea to our universe, which lies on the surface of a hypersphere whose radius is continuously growing. We cannot observe recent galaxies if these are far away, as their rays of light haven’t reached us yet. We can instead observe images of the older ones that, born closer to the center, lay projected onto the surface. Speeds higher than light are possible but here nothing is moving: is the hypersphere growing. We cannot directly observe the fourth spatial dimension, the radius in our geometry, simply because it does not belong to the universe. In this hypothesis no coordinate transformation is needed, all our physics can be applied to the whole universe. But the whole universe moves, changing over time. It would seem, then, we cannot apply laws such as entropy to different stages of growth. The expansion model, however, has its geometry. This will allow to convert laws and apply them to those different stages.