An Accountants theory of the universe and spirituality

[Layers]

Friends, 

I am an accountant, MBA. I have worked for over 2 decades in corporate world including as CFO and CEO. 

I thought there were only 2 things humans had not yet been able to define correctly or measure. Love and the size of the universe. 

I defined love (or hate)  for any person, pet, object, cause or spirit with the same 3 conditions and provided a mathematical formula to measure the love (or hate) in my book called "What is Love? Formula for all Relationships."

Now I am working on to define the actual origin of the universe  and measuring its size, and some related subjects. I think I can propose a different theory than big bang for the origin of the universe and PROVE with multiple scientific logics that the universe (the space) is and has always been infinite. It has no beginning and no end. There will be much more including on dark matter, dark energy, Einstein's equations, etc. 

I have not been able to find the exact computations of the age of the universe calculated by the proponents of the big bang theory - 13.7 billion years. Nor, how they says that for first 380000 years universe was opaque. (not that knowing the computational would have changed the alternative theory I have but I would like to know how exactly these statements are made by scientists. 

If you have anything specific that doesn't agree with the current accepted theories, I would love to understand your views. 

Thank you. 

Vijay S Sharma 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved from Astronomy/Cosmology to Speculations, since you're offering alternatives to mainstream science.

 

To challenge mainstream science, which has the preponderance of evidence behind it (certainly in the case of the LCDM model), your idea needs evidence to support it. It's been my experience that when someone has no evidence except their own "scientific logic", their "theory" becomes mere opinion. 

Do you have any evidence in support of your idea?

[EWyatt]

I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but here are my thoughts.

I think that the current scientific standard on the universe, big bang timing, the first 380,000 years, etc., is as good as it gets, due to the overwhelming agreement of the scientific world.  Scientists always try to disprove their counterparts, but we are left with the result of that, and we have consensus.

Second, the word "infinite" should be outlawed, especially when related to tangible concepts.  When related to "size" or matter, it's ridiculous.  How can anything be infinitely small or large or dense?!  Illogical.  When someone says that a black hole's singularity is infinitely dense, that's crazy!  If anything were infinitely dense, then the entire universe and beyond would be a black hole singularity or more!  And the universe cannot be infinitely large because of "space" beyond its expanded boundaries.  Propeller heads will rationalize otherwise, but that's all it is.

Time is another matter though.  Who knows, but I feel that time is a measurement between two or more events, which need energy or matter.  Since energy or matter cannot be infinite, can time be?  I don't know.

This doesn't answer your question but let's me get out some lingering thoughts.

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Layers said:

Friends, 

I am an accountant, MBA. I have worked for over 2 decades in corporate world including as CFO and CEO. 

I thought there were only 2 things humans had not yet been able to define correctly or measure. Love and the size of the universe. 

I defined love (or hate)  for any person, pet, object, cause or spirit with the same 3 conditions and provided a mathematical formula to measure the love (or hate) in my book called "What is Love? Formula for all Relationships."

Now I am working on to define the actual origin of the universe  and measuring its size, and some related subjects. I think I can propose a different theory than big bang for the origin of the universe and PROVE with multiple scientific logics that the universe (the space) is and has always been infinite. It has no beginning and no end. There will be much more including on dark matter, dark energy, Einstein's equations, etc. 

I have not been able to find the exact computations of the age of the universe calculated by the proponents of the big bang theory - 13.7 billion years. Nor, how they says that for first 380000 years universe was opaque. (not that knowing the computational would have changed the alternative theory I have but I would like to know how exactly these statements are made by scientists. 

If you have anything specific that doesn't agree with the current accepted theories, I would love to understand your views. 

Thank you. 

Vijay S Sharma 

As seems to be the way with most that won't/can't accept the mainstream position, supported the by the evidence, and the scientific methodology, you need yo first go back to basics. Scientific theories and models are not proven...they are the best explanation that we have at any particular time, but obviously and certainly grow in certainty over time and their continued aligning with observational data.

[Layers]

Thanks for your reply. I'm willing to understand all evidence but haven't found incontrovertible evidence of the theories of big bang, size, age of universe and some related concepts. I am looking for answers to  the specific questions I asked from anyone who knows. 

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, Layers said:

I'm willing to understand all evidence but haven't found incontrovertible evidence of the theories of big bang, size, age of universe and some related concepts.

Forget about the concepts of "proof" and "incontrovertible". They DO NOT EXIST in science.

Instead, we accept the explanations with the preponderance of evidence as our best current explanations. These are based on mathematical models, and are called theories. This is as good as it gets with science. 

And if you haven't found enough evidence to support the BBT, then I would suggest you haven't really looked at the BBT. Or you looked at it with the mistaken impression that it offered some kind of 100% solution. That's just not the way science works, and you'll constantly be disappointed and mislead if you keep looking at it this way.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Forget about the concepts of "proof" and "incontrovertible". They DO NOT EXIST in science.

Instead, we accept the explanations with the preponderance of evidence as our best current explanations. These are based on mathematical models, and are called theories. This is as good as it gets with science. 

And if you haven't found enough evidence to support the BBT, then I would suggest you haven't really looked at the BBT. Or you looked at it with the mistaken impression that it offered some kind of 100% solution. That's just not the way science works, and you'll constantly be disappointed and mislead if you keep looking at it this way.

Right friendly advice that.  +1

[Layers]

Thanks for your views. I am not disappointed but fascinated and happy that it is not exact science since I have developed an alternative theory which is none of the existing ones. Since, I believe it's logical, it would be considered scientific too although I don't present it this way. However, if I did find incontrovertible proof of the BBT, I would need to give up my theory. 

As regards infinity of the space always without a beginning or end, I think I will present some scientific proof too. Thanks 

[Brokenhearted]

4 hours ago, Layers said:

Thanks for your views. I am not disappointed but fascinated and happy that it is not exact science since I have developed an alternative theory which is none of the existing ones. Since, I believe it's logical, it would be considered scientific too although I don't present it this way. However, if I did find incontrovertible proof of the BBT, I would need to give up my theory. 

As regards infinity of the space always without a beginning or end, I think I will present some scientific proof too. Thanks 

 

Hi there, please can you consider my reply?

I asked why there are no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... ?

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Layers said:

Since, I believe it's logical, it would be considered scientific

I assume you are using the word “logical” to mean “it makes sense to me (because I thought of it)” rather than the correct meaning. 

6 hours ago, Layers said:

However, if I did find incontrovertible proof of the BBT, I would need to give up my theory. 

There isn’t really “incontrovertible proof” of anything in science. 

Perhaps the closest in this case is the Cosmic Microwave Background. That was what eliminated all other theories at the time. 

Si, how does your model explain the CMB? Note that to compete with the existing theory, you need to provide a precise, mathematical prediction of both the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, not just some vague verbal description. 

 

2 hours ago, Brokenhearted said:

 

Hi there, please can you consider my reply?

I asked why there are no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... ?

Why would there be?

[Layers]

Perhaps, you are right that I consider it logical because it makes sense to me, but I hope it will make sense to others too and perhaps they can come up with more scientific proof. This is what happened a lot of times in the past with respect to many theories some of which didn't even sound logical at the time they were proposed. 

On the other hand there were/are competing theories that make sense through mathematical proof but will never be able to be proved. For example, the string theory and existence of multiverse:and if somehow it is somehow proved, BBT will automatically be disproved. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Layers said:

Perhaps, you are right that I consider it logical because it makes sense to me, but I hope it will make sense to others too

To convince others that it makes sense you need to show your mathematical model and how well the predictions of that model match observational evidence. 

You could start with the details of the CMB: how does that arise in your model? What spectrum does your model predict? How well does that match measurements?

Then we can move on the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium: what ratio of the primordial elements does your model predict? How well does that match what we observe?

 

4 minutes ago, Layers said:

For example, the string theory and existence of multiverse:and if somehow it is somehow proved, BBT will automatically be disproved. 

These are (or can be) compatible with the Big Bang model.

19 hours ago, Layers said:

I have not been able to find the exact computations of the age of the universe calculated by the proponents of the big bang theory - 13.7 billion years.

There are many lines of evidence that lead to that conclusion. The simplest is the analysis of the red-shift data which can simply be traced back to calculate the age.

19 hours ago, Layers said:

Nor, how they says that for first 380000 years universe was opaque.

Because we know how much denser (and therefore hotter) the universe was before then (using physics). And we know that means that there was a plasma that did not allow the propagation of light. What does your model say?

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Edited August 27, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Layers said:

Thanks for your views. I am not disappointed but fascinated and happy that it is not exact science since I have developed an alternative theory which is none of the existing ones. Since, I believe it's logical, it would be considered scientific too although I don't present it this way. However, if I did find incontrovertible proof of the BBT, I would need to give up my theory. 

As regards infinity of the space always without a beginning or end, I think I will present some scientific proof too. Thanks 

You're still talking about incontrovertible proof. It's important that you understand why this is BAD, really BAD. 

You're holding science to a standard it was NEVER MEANT TO BE HELD TO! You'll NEVER be satisfied with theory to explain the behavior of our universe until you fix this misconception. In fact, the scientific method is designed to avoid claiming to have "answers". When people think they have some kind of Truth, they stop looking for better explanations, and in the end, science is interested in the best supported explanations. Those explanations, theories, have mountains of supportive evidence, including technology that relies on the accurate predictions we're able to make using the models for these theories. 

5 hours ago, Brokenhearted said:

Hi there, please can you consider my reply?

I asked why there are no stars older than the age of the Big Bang universe ... ?

It wasn't considered because it doesn't make any sense to anyone who has studied BBT. The theory begins with the universe in an extremely hot, dense state, and follows the expansion and cooling thereafter. There were no stars in the early universe. It's like asking why there's no cake available before it's been baked.

Mmmm, cake.

[Endy0816]

Universe can exist without any stars existing...

BB only covers expansion from a hot dense state. Says nothing about earlier.

[Layers]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

To convince others that it makes sense you need to show your mathematical model and how well the predictions of that model match observational evidence. 

You could start with the details of the CMB: how does that arise in your model? What spectrum does your model predict? How well does that match measurements?

Then we can move on the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium: what ratio of the primordial elements does your model predict? How well does that match what we observe?

 

These are (or can be) compatible with the Big Bang model.

There are many lines of evidence that lead to that conclusion. The simplest is the analysis of the red-shift data which can simply be traced back to calculate the age.

Because we know how much denser (and therefore hotter) the universe was before then (using physics). And we know that means that there was a plasma that did not allow the propagation of light. What does your model say?

You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And yet, here you are replying.

I believe there is a 5 post per day limit for new members (an anti-spam measure). Not sure how long it lasts, but you should be able to post again tomorrow.

Please feel free to explain exactly where I have gone wrong, rather than making vague claims like this.

Here is an article (by an actual astrophysicist) explaining how the universe can be infinite spatially: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

And here is a paper describing the possibility of an infinitely old universe: https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093

And, there are other models for an infinitely old universe such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

 

Thanks Strange. I will be studying these. I have also been studying the links you provided. I came across this nasa which I am studying. site wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe

Unlike most of you. I have not studied physics, cosmology or advanced mathematics but I am learning as I come across material because, I do believe I have something to contribute. As I mentioned, once I started thinking, I have decoded elements of love or hate involved for any person, pet, object, cause or spirit with a mathematical formula. The elements and formula is same in every case. I have a book and App explaining this. Hopefully, I will write my book on my theory of the universe and spirituality too before James Webb telescope starts working next year.

[beecee]

For our two rather mixed up members with regards to the BB.

The evidence for the BB.

[1] We observe expansion: Mentally reversing that we obviously arrive at a universe/spacetime in a far hotter, denser state.

]2] The CMBR at 2.7K

[3] The abundance of the lighter elements like hydrogen and helium.

The BB describes the evolution of the universe/spacetime from t+10-43 seconds. It says nothing about the how, or why, much as the theory of the evolution of life says nothing about how life first started within Earth or the Universe. 

 

[Layers]

It also disproves Einstein's assertion that nothing can travel faster than light. The time taken for universe to expand during this time is way faster than even light. Any explanation of that? 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Layers said:

It also disproves Einstein's assertion that nothing can travel faster than light.

What does?

If you mean the Big Bang, then that cannot possibly be the case. Both the concept of a local limit on the speed of light and the Big Bang model come from the same theory (relativity). As the theory can be proven to be mathematically consistent, there cannot be contradictions like this. 

15 minutes ago, Layers said:

The time taken for universe to expand during this time is way faster than even light.

That doesn't make much sense. Time is not a speed and so can't be faster than light. Expansion is not a speed, so cannot be faster than light.

However, because the apparent recessional speed of galaxies is directly proportional to distance (just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with relativity) then there must be objects that are far enough away that they are receding at more than the speed of light. In fact we can see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

18 minutes ago, Layers said:

Any explanation of that? 

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver

"We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests."

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about the theory you are attempting to replace before launching into uninformed criticism?

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Layers said:

It also disproves Einstein's assertion that nothing can travel faster than light. The time taken for universe to expand during this time is way faster than even light. Any explanation of that? 

3 spacial and 1 temporal dimention can expand faster that the speed of light and that is what was happening when the universe was in its inflation state (right after the big bang) Also apparent faster than light expansion which is happening right now is in perfect accordance with Special Relativity:

https://www.google.pl/amp/s/amp.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Edited August 28, 2018 by koti

[Layers]

23 hours ago, beecee said:

For our two rather mixed up members with regards to the BB.

The evidence for the BB.

[1] We observe expansion: Mentally reversing that we obviously arrive at a universe/spacetime in a far hotter, denser state.

]2] The CMBR at 2.7K

[3] The abundance of the lighter elements like hydrogen and helium.

The BB describes the evolution of the universe/spacetime from t+10-43 seconds. It says nothing about the how, or why, much as the theory of the evolution of life says nothing about how life first started within Earth or the Universe. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

What does?

If you mean the Big Bang, then that cannot possibly be the case. Both the concept of a local limit on the speed of light and the Big Bang model come from the same theory (relativity). As the theory can be proven to be mathematically consistent, there cannot be contradictions like this. 

That doesn't make much sense. Time is not a speed and so can't be faster than light. Expansion is not a speed, so cannot be faster than light.

However, because the apparent recessional speed of galaxies is directly proportional to distance (just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with relativity) then there must be objects that are far enough away that they are receding at more than the speed of light. In fact we can see galaxies that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver

"We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests."

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about the theory you are attempting to replace before launching into uninformed criticism?

 

Thanks for mentioning. The link gives no information. It seems to a login protected site, if there is anything in it. 

And I do want to understand. Remember, I'm an Accountant. I'm a little uninformed. I'm not criticizing. Never studied science or advanced mathematics but I am determined to learn all that's therr. That's why I am inviting comments from learned people like you and I appreciate. So far I'm sure of my theory but I want to learn more than I could do by watching several dozens of videos on youtube. 

I did the same when I wrote the first ever theory of Love and Hate, that applies to every love or hate situation and has a mathematical formula to compute it in my book What is Love? 

Please forgive my current temporary ignorance on advance mathematical or scientific models of the universe and things in it. 

 

6 hours ago, koti said:

3 spacial and 1 temporal dimention can expand faster that the speed of light and that is what was happening when the universe was in its inflation state (right after the big bang) Also apparent faster than light expansion which is happening right now is in perfect accordance with Special Relativity:

https://www.google.pl/amp/s/amp.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Hi thanks for writing. I respectfully disagree with the article which I have read and the accompanying video that I saw. Most of the comments on the video too don't agree with the explanation. I'm also saying this because the theory I am working on doesn't have this anomaly that speed limit is applicable to things travelling near you under special relativity but things afar need not follow the limit under general relativity which the article says. Thanks. 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Layers said:

Thanks for mentioning. The link gives no information. It seems to a login protected site, if there is anything in it. 

Works perfectly for me. It is a public website so I don't know why you can't access it.

7 minutes ago, Layers said:

Please forgive my current temporary ignorance on advance mathematical or scientific models of the universe and things in it. 

There is nothing to forgive. We are all ignorant. The important thing is to be willing to learn. (And not think that you can come up with a new theory before that.)

9 minutes ago, Layers said:

I respectfully disagree with the article which I have read and the accompanying video that I saw.

Says the guy who is "uninformed" and has "never studied science". 

How would you feel if someone said, "I have never studied accountancy, but I think you are adding up those numbers wrong" ?

Please learn first then ask questions. To tell people that science is wrong when you don't understand it (because you don't understand it?) is just foolish.

[Layers]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Works perfectly for me. It is a public website so I don't know why you can't access it.

There is nothing to forgive. We are all ignorant. The important thing is to be willing to learn. (And not think that you can come up with a new theory before that.)

Says the guy who is "uninformed" and has "never studied science". 

How would you feel if someone said, "I have never studied accountancy, but I think you are adding up those numbers wrong" ?

Please learn first then ask questions. To tell people that science is wrong when you don't understand it (because you don't understand it?) is just foolish.

Asking questions is a way of learning. 

Accountancy is not just about adding. That's elementary mathematics. And 2+2 is always 4. In most mathematics and science of the universe, it is theories, and often, different ones, and approximations and assumptions. Still if someone challenged me in accountancy, I will ask him to explain. That way, I may still learn something myself. 

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, Layers said:

That's why I am inviting comments from learned people like you and I appreciate. So far I'm sure of my theory but I want to learn more than I could do by watching several dozens of videos on youtube. 

Please forgive my current temporary ignorance on advance mathematical or scientific models of the universe and things in it. 

My own position is even less professional then yours. There's plenty of reputable material out there, and my advice would be to get hold of some of it, perhaps starting with Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" Pretty basic stuff but a good start, although now probably a little bit dated. Then continue asking questions on forums such as this. Remember the theories held by mainstream did not get there overnight. They also had to go through the period of professional peer review. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Layers said:

Accountancy is not just about adding.

That was kinda the point I was making. 

 

[koti]

28 minutes ago, Layers said:

Accountancy is not just about adding. That's elementary mathematics. And 2+2 is always 4. In most mathematics and science of the universe, it is theories, and often, different ones, and approximations and assumptions. Still if someone challenged me in accountancy, I will ask him to explain. That way, I may still learn something myself. 

I respectfuly disagree, accounting is just about adding and I have a theory that Im working on that confirms that. But thanks for writing.

See what I did there^ ?