A new perspective on Hubble's law through a four-dimensional spatial model: 4-Sphere-Cosmology

[Catastrophe]

Hi Cat,

Thank you for pointing me to your thread — I’ll consider reviewing it as time permits. That said, I believe the core of this discussion remains within the realm of cosmological modeling and spacetime geometry, rather than broader questions about the philosophy or methodology of science.

While those are certainly important topics, they might not directly alter the framework or intent of the specific model I’m presenting here.

Appreciate the exchange and your engagement.

These are your assumptions. Can you summarise what you mean by these?
Modeling implies assumed models. How do you justify / arrive at . . . these?

What do you mean by spacetime geometry, and how is it measured?


Cat

"The map is not the territory". Korzybski.

Google Search

Google Search

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

Hi Cat,

Just to clarify: I have no objection in principle to discussing the broader scientific method — it's just that the context here (Hubble law, large-scale geometry, etc.) is fairly well defined and technical. I’d prefer to stay focused on that for now to avoid diluting the thread.

One of the key principles of the scientific method, as emphasized by Karl Popper. As Karl Popper argued, falsifiability is a cornerstone of the scientific method — and that’s actually the first thing I considered. The model I’m proposing makes testable predictions: for instance, it allows one to compute the expected distance to a Type Ia supernova given its redshift, without invoking dark energy. That prediction can be directly compared with observations, and thus the model can, in principle, be falsified.


Claudio

 

[Catastrophe]

I agree in principle about the scientific method. Unfortunately Cosmology is not readily amenable to the scientific method. I do not accept that firing two elementary particles at each other "recreates" the Big Bang. There are a lot of models and maths quoted in the references at the bottom 0f #26!

What falsifiable predictions are made about the Big Bang and suggested "singularity"?

Cat

Google Search

 

[Catastrophe]

Do you agree with the Standard Model? You seem to have your own theory?
I cannot point to other sites, but this recurs:

"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."

I still believe that the Big Bang is NOT external to our "observable universe", or "Universe", if you prefer that.

Cat

Do you assert that "the Universe has a finite volume"?

Vide "The question of whether the Universe has a finite volume is a fundamental and still unanswered question in cosmology. While we can observe a finite volume of the Universe (the observable universe), the total volume of the Universe itself may be finite or infinite."

 

[Catastrophe]

Info says "last seen 52 minutes ago", so hope to continue later. Cat

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

Hi Cat,

Thanks again for your comments. I’d say we’ve now reached the limits of what can be constructively exchanged in this thread.

To clarify one last point: my model assumes a finite, expanding universe with radius r = ct — not a claim about the “true” totality of all that exists, but a working geometry used to explore whether certain observed phenomena (like redshift-distance relations or horizon problems) can be derived from simple kinematic principles. It doesn't aim to describe a singularity, nor recreate the Big Bang via particle physics.

In terms of falsifiability, the key test is whether this expansion model can reproduce observed luminosity distances of standard candles (like type Ia supernovae) without invoking dark energy. That’s an observational prediction, and if it fails, the model falls.

I’ll leave it at that for now.
Thanks for the exchange, and all the best.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hi Cat,

Thanks again for your comments. I’d say we’ve now reached the limits of what can be constructively exchanged in this thread.

To clarify one last point: my model assumes a finite, expanding universe with radius r = ct — not a claim about the “true” totality of all that exists, but a working geometry used to explore whether certain observed phenomena (like redshift-distance relations or horizon problems) can be derived from simple kinematic principles. It doesn't aim to describe a singularity, nor recreate the Big Bang via particle physics.

In terms of falsifiability, the key test is whether this expansion model can reproduce observed luminosity distances of standard candles (like type Ia supernovae) without invoking dark energy. That’s an observational prediction, and if it fails, the model falls.

I’ll leave it at that for now.
Thanks for the exchange, and all the best.

Fine. I am pleased to give you your first "like". I am sure you will receive many more.

Cat

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

Best, Claudio