The nfinity cannot expand

[Ignat]

Explanation of the drawing: This drawing only shows our universe in a simplified and schematic way.
https://forums.space.com/media/matter1-png.29/
Our Milky Way galaxy is depicted in the center. It is surrounded by a huge number of other galaxies that are moving in different directions along different trajectories. All our research using telescopes corresponds to an instant in time, i.e. we see, as it were, a photograph of the cosmos in some past very small period of time. This figure shows that there is no question of any expansion of the universe, since the trajectories of galaxies are nonlinear, and each galaxy has its own trajectory. We see that despite the fact that redshift prevails in many galaxies now, it may change to blue in the future. Therefore, we can assume that objects in the universe are not constantly running away or moving away from us, but simply moving relative to our galaxy. I would like to hear critical comments about my hypothesis from cosmologists and astronomers.

 

[SMyers]

my hypothesis is that the known universe of matter is the expanding surface of an expanding hyperball. this hyperball started at singularity with all of its energy at one point. that hyberball then began "filling" with the advance of the Time vector as its radius... in a 'steady-ish' state, or as far as Time is consider "straight". most likely it also curves but is beyond the scope of this reply.

the volume of the hyperball then fills at a cubic rate, because Time is deterministic and compounds. this provides for the expansion of its 3-D hypersphere surface at a squared rate, which then provides for a linear growth in the cosmic radius. the total sum of energy at the singularity 'cools' with the expansion of this volume, which then condenses into protons, stars, planets, and us.

my hypothesis differs from standard cosmology in that it provides for photon decay along the Time vector, and is the actual source of long-range red shift. blue shift is only visible in close stars that are moving towards us, because the red-shift decay (being exponential) has not consumed it yet. this is why no distant star will exhibit blue shift, even if it is heading towards us - it's too old. so it that regards, there may actually be stars that are heading towards us, but because of the misinterpretation of red shift as a measure of distance instead of time, the current model does not recognize them.

this red-shift error is also why the standard model incorrectly calculates that the cosmic expansion is accelerating. by combining the photon decay rate (as misinterpreted as distance growth) and the expansion rate of the hypersphere, per the hyperball time-vector.

as such, galaxies are not "moving apart" as if propelled by some Dark Farce, but are merely "separating" on the surface of the expanding balloon. each point in the universe is still connected to each other through the network of Time information stored in the hyberball, having all begun at the same singularity point. this provides the cause, if not the mechanism, of quantum entanglement.

the cosmic microwave background, then, is not actually "energy left over from the big bang" but simply an observational limit, like our own horizon here on earth. hence why it looks like a globe surrounding our geo-centric view of the cosmos. it actually contains the accumulation of all the light coming towards us from the remaining veiled portion of the physical universe that we can not see beyond the curved horizon. since the expansion of the hyberball is faster than the light travels, all light beyond the CMB comes to rest upon it as an asymptotic function, never getting closer, but always getting older. the hypothesis then is that the universe is much older than the standard model allows (~50BY), and extends ~60% further beyonds this line-of-sight barrier.

to directly address your question, this hypothesis then would agree that there are most likely many many stars and galaxies that are indeed moving "towards" us, relatively speaking. and that if the red-shift paradigm was corrected we could detect them. but since the greater universe is expanding at a rate that pushes galaxies apart faster than they can move, the instances of the blue-shifts will constantly shrink over time. eventually, all galaxies will move beyond the CMB horizon and become unviewable by the Milky Way, at least with line-of-sight telescope technology.

 

[SMyers]

my hpyersphere hypothesis addresses blue shift as an effect of a Gravitational Dopler Effect caused by the movement of the emitting star, and has a red-shift component that emits 180 degrees opposite to the blue-shifted photons.

this is separate from the (non-dolper) time-decay red-shift that the light then undergoes as it travels through space and ages. such that, even a star moving towards us that emits a blue-shift will eventually become red-shifted once the decay process overcomes the initial gravitationally induced true-dopler shift.

 

[Gibsense]

my hypothesis is that the known universe of matter is the expanding surface of an expanding hyperball. this hyperball started at singularity with all of its energy at one point. that hyberball then began "filling" with the advance of the Time vector as its radius... in a 'steady-ish' state, or as far as Time is consider "straight". most likely it also curves but is beyond the scope of this reply.

First comment: As a radius unique 'Time Vector'. The Vector varies in all directions as per a hypersphere radius. (works better than an arrow)
2nd: Convention states 'singularity'. As someone else reminded me the birth of the universe story occurs after such an event and a singularity may not have been the origin (a Torus springs to mind)
3rd: I like the theme

Gotta go for dinner

 

[SMyers]

yup, i agree the Time Vector is not a straight arrow, it's just useful to stop the analogy there. curving the time vector pushes the concept into 5th dimension factors and is a bit too heady for me to tackle lol. in my mind it is all spirals, and so the time vector probably "spirals" around as well, probably like a Seiffert's or something close, considering an expanding radius.

if we consider that the hyperball is potentially also rotating, that introduces a whole slew of factors, even including some form of cosmic Coriolis force. feel free to do the equations haha.

 

[SMyers]

as for the idea of a 'singularity', my premise would be, well where did the universe come from? according to quantum physics, wherever it came "from", all the energy needed to start it quantum leaped into existence at one "spot" at time=0. whether or not that 'singularity' was one quantum "piece" containing all the energy, or multiple quantum "pieces", to me is just the devil in the details. it could have been any size really lol.

you're right, the universe didn't actually "start" until t>0. i tend to like the poetry of it all leaping into existence at one infinitesimal point. but honestly yes it could have been any size or shape, whatever was needed to hold the energy that was coming in.

 

[Gibsense]

hatever was needed to hold the energy that was coming in.

Aha! We don't often see this theme. I think it is worth considering, that is the possibility that the initial 'Bang' is not the last input to our universe. The idea is that energy in some form may well be entering the universe in an intermittent way or a continual way. Time even lol.

 

[Gibsense]

the total sum of energy at the singularity 'cools' with the expansion of this volume, which then condenses into protons, stars, planets, and us.

Standard BB theory? Except of course, you express the 3D volume as a hypersphere and time as a separate function in the ball. So how does this work with 'spacetime' i.e. with proven relativity? I would like to see if your ideas /proof coincides with my own