# Thread: Universe Spheres made of Spheres to predict Gravitational Constant

#### Hybrid View

1. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018

## Universe Spheres made of Spheres to predict Gravitational Constant

The following was first written in March 2019 to show that the Universe is a sphere made of spheres, This goes down to one sphere. This proposal starts with one sphere and builds to our universe. It is assumed that our universe is part of a multiverse, which is part of a group of multiverses.

Granular Spacetime Sphere Theory predicts that our universe is a sphere made of spheres. This theory is taken down to its roots and shows that the universe starts with what could be labeled a quasi-point particle and builds it up to a multiverse. The theory can now be used to predict a gravitational constant of This is in line with the low sigma measurements of [6][6] [7] and the UZur-06 measurement of
This value obtained in this paper affirms the values shown in the Nature Article “Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods” and it affirms that there really was no big bang and the universe is actually rotating and the size is limited by the outer edge not being able to move faster than the speed of light.

2.0 Calculations

If one starts with a point and call this point one, it would in a sense, be a zero-dimensional spot. If this spot were spinning it would have an angular momentum. One finds that the angular momentum in quantum physics to be as follows.

[1]

If we square both sides of the Equation 1, we end up with

[2]

If we say that the original value of s is 1, which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference. Therefor spin only makes sense when there are two particles. Note that two particles make a line and thus we have a one dimensional object.
When s=1 then a dimensionless number. If this value of and we substitute

[3]
this new value of into equation 2 then we obtain a new value of
this value of could be a 6-sided ring with a particle in the middle for a total of 7 particles and therefore be a unit two-dimensional object.

If we take this equation 2 and substitute the value of

[4]
this new value of into equation 2 then we obtain a new value of
this value of could be a 42-piece exterior to a cuboctahedron packed spheres with a total of 55 spheres or particles and therefore be a unit three-dimensional object.

At this point it appears that there is, in a sense, a phase change. Instead of continuing to be packed perfectly these points are packed into a spherical structure being constrained by a gravitational field, yet wanting to be packed efficiently as cuboctahedrons.

It was shown in “The Holographic Principle and How can the Particles and Universe be Modeled as a Hollow Sphere”[1] that when packing spheres into a spherical structure that the amount of discontinuities made would be equivalent to the amount of spheres on the outer layer of the sphere. The equation for this.

[5]

Which is very close to the equation 1 for the angular spin momentum squared of a quantum particle. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
It was found in “The Answer to the Universe, the Life and Everything is Still 42” [2]
That the values of outer layers of the next layers of the construction of the universe is as follows.
Number of Planck Spheres on the outside of the Hubble Sphere Universe
Cross Section of the Planck Sphere, which is the Compton Wavelength of the Neutron squared and multiplied by pi.
The packing density of a single layer of spheres
The mass ratio of the proton to the neutron
Travel Distance from the center of the Universe to the outside of the Universe in meters.
Expansion ratio of the next increment of a sphere.
[6]

The actual radius of the universe would then be
[7]
Explanation for equation 7, Please see appendix A.
Explanation for equation 6, Please see appendix B.

[8]
We can put this equation into the form of Equation 2 where

[LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 662x27, max 650x600]

[LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 721x27, max 650x600]

[LaTeX ERROR: Image too big 744x27, max 650x600]

From this value we can determine the exact value of the gravitational constant. From the “Proton Electron Universe” [5] we found the following relationship, which is the amount of spheres on the outside of the Planck Sphere, which the author defines as the sphere that builds our universe and has the size of the Compton Wavelength of the Neutron. One issue is that we cannot measure the value of the Gravitational Constant accurately or because there are so many varied measurements it is difficult to figure out which method is correct for measuring the gravitational constant. In the exercise we substitute the value of into the following equation.

[9]
Where Mass ratio of the proton to the neutron
Where Planck’s constant
Where Mass of Neutron
Where Speed of light

Solving for the gravitational constant, we obtain.

3.0 Discussion

The value predicted for the gravitational constant in this paper is . These equations used to predict the gravitational constant seem to be the most accurate, and the first confirmation that the universe is spinning and that light is curved in space, probably like a spiral to the edge of the universe. The universe is much denser and smaller than originally thought. In other calculations for the levels of the universe, the value of was used, but this appears to be in error. The real value is This was not discovered until realizing that the universe is spinning and not expanding and thus calculating an equilibrium density of the universe. New equations will need to be calculated for an equilibrium density of the spinning universe as the authors first attempt to calculate an equilibrium density was an approximation. The size of the universe is really controlled by the speed of light.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Appendix A - The explanation of equation 7

[7]
Explanation for

In Sphere Theory each Sphere is made of spheres, so our level of the universe is proposed to be made of Planck Spheres, which are spheres with the Compton Wavelength of the Neutron. The value “N” is calculating, the amount, of spheres, on the outside of the next level. What we are calculating with the value N is the total amount of discontinuities in the sphere. In a sphere of value “X” for a radius, the amount of discontinuities turns out to be This calculation is shown in “How can the Particles and Universe be Modeled as a Hollow Sphere” [8]

Explanation for the value

In a hollow sphere, when we are looking at putting on one additional units sphere layer, this additional expansion by a unit sphere will have 3 dimensions of expansion, it will expand pi units in two perpendicular directions and a value of on in the next layer. When one calculates the scalar change, it is the value of . It is proposed that this limits the size of a universe. Since the outside of the universe, in sphere theory is spinning, the maximum radius would then be proportional to the speed of light divided by the value of E.

Explanation for the value of in the denominator below the value of

This value of is similar to a calculation for Cherenkov radiation we are essentially adding up all of the energy of a spinning sphere and including the Lorentz factor. Since the discontinuity particles are distributed amongst the sphere, some are moving near the speed of light and some are moving hardly at all. The summation of all of these particles equals a ratio of if there were no Lorentz factor involved. The equation for this is shown below. Note that since the discontinuities are less and less dense towards the edge of the universe, the Lorentz factor, although very large, contributes less than expected to the actual mass of the universe. Also note, that since the travel of light is a spiral the density of matter, at the edge of the universe, and since the Lorentz factor shrinks the appearance of distance, the density of matter appears much greater than it is.

Explanation for the value of The packing density of a single layer of spheres. In the explanation for equation 6, we find, that there are, a certain amount, of spheres, on the outside layer of spheres. These spheres cannot be packed to a 100 percent limit. The maximum efficiency for packing spheres in a single layer is the value of

Explanation of
When calculating the ratio of the mass of the proton to the neutron, in” An Electro Magnetic Resonance in 9 Dimensions that gives Mass Ratio of Proton to Neutron”[9], we found that it was from a relationship of Cherenkov Radiation to Bremsstrahlung radiation. When calculating the gravitational force and the electro magnetic force, in “Proton Electron Universe”[10]We found that charge is related to the ratio of the electron mass to the neutron mass and gravity was related to the proton to the neutron mass. In this exercise we are calculating the size of the layers of the universe which is related to gravity and it appears that the ratio of is important in limiting the size of the layers.

Explanation of

The value is part of the angular spin momentum equation squared. It is also part of the equation for calculating the amount of discontinuities of a sphere.

Appendix B-Explanation of Equation 6

[6]
Equation 6 is basically looking at how far light travels from the center of the universe to the edge of the universe. Looking at a spinning universe it look like light actually travels in a spiral from the center to the edge. Using Equation 7 we calculate a value of . This is the calculated amount, of Planck Spheres, on the outer layer of our universe. From this equation it is a simple volume calculation to calculate a travel distance to the outside of the universe.

Explanation of

In a hollow sphere, when we are looking at putting on one additional units sphere layer, this additional expansion by a unit sphere will have 3 dimensions of expansion, it will expand pi units in two perpendicular directions and a value of on in the next layer. When one calculates the scalar change, it is the value of . It is proposed that this limits the size of a universe. Since the outside of the universe, in sphere theory is spinning, the maximum radius would then be proportional to the speed of light divided by the value of E.

Explanation for the value of in the numerator, next to .

It should be noted that for each particle, each neutron, each proton, each electron. They are all composed of 3 Planck Spheres for their mass. When calculating the area, the Compton wavelength for the neutron is multiplied by 3, in this equation the author chose to place the 3 outside of the parenthesis.

Explanation for the value

Explanation for the value of in the denominator below the value

This value of is similar to a calculation for Cherenkov radiation we are essentially adding up all of the energy of a spinning sphere and including the Lorentz factor. Since the discontinuity particles are distributed amongst the sphere, some are moving near the speed of light and some are moving hardly at all. The summation of all of these particles equals a ratio of if there were no Lorentz factor involved. The equation for this is shown below. Note that since the discontinuities are less and less dense towards the edge of the universe, the Lorentz factor, although very large, contributes less than expected to the actual mass of the universe. Also note, that since the travel of light is a spiral the density of matter, at the edge of the universe, and since the Lorentz factor shrinks the appearance of distance, the density of matter appears much greater than it is.

Explanation of
When calculating the ratio of the mass of the proton to the neutron, in” An Electro Magnetic Resonance in 9 Dimensions that gives Mass Ratio of Proton to Neutron”[9], we found that it was from a relationship of Cherenkov Radiation to Bremsstrahlung radiation. When calculating the gravitational force and the electro magnetic force, in “Proton Electron Universe”[10]We found that charge is related to the ratio of the electron mass to the neutron mass and gravity was related to the proton to the neutron mass. In this exercise we are calculating the size of the layers of the universe which is related to gravity and it appears that the ratio of is important in limiting the size of the layers.
Explanation of the value

The value is the square of the Neutron Compton Wavelength multiplied by the value of . This is the area taken up by each Planck Sphere with the exception that the 3 is place outside of the parentheses, as explained about for the value of .

Explanation for the value of The packing density of a single layer of spheres. In the explanation for equation 6, we find, that there are, a certain amount, of spheres, on the outside layer of spheres. These spheres cannot be packed to a 100 percent limit. The maximum efficiency for packing spheres in a single layer is the value of
Explanation of the value of

The value of is simply necessary for converting to a radius.

Explanation for the distance in the following equation.

The value of is simply the conversion from the value equation 6 calculates in meters, to the value in light years.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
This theory can also be used for predicting percentage of the universe that is dark energy, predict approximate masses for dark matter and predict that part of red shift can be attributed to transverse motion and gravitational redshift.

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
The following was first written in March 2019 to show that the Universe is a sphere made of spheres,...
Sorry but this is irrelevant and not clear mathematics, Copernicus.
You need to start with GR because that is the scientific theory that describes the structure of the universe. You need some physics to make this a scientific model of the universe. You may need to revisit your mathematics, e.g. a point has been (not "in a sense") a zero-dimensional mathematical object for over 2000 years (Euclid).

Some specific errors
1. QM is not a theory of structure of the universe so starting with "the angular momentum in quantum physics" makes your ATM idea wrong.
2. There is no "the angular momentum in quantum physics".
You give an equation for the spin angular momentum of a QM particle.
3. s = n/2, where n can be any non-negative integer, i.e. 1/2, 1, 3/2, etc.
Starting with s=1 and incrementing by 1 is wrong. You ignore half of the universe, e.g. electrons.
4. "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference" is definitely wrong.
spin angular momentum is the spin of a QM particle, not an point. An electron has a spin of s = 1/2. We can count that is a fatal error that makes the rest of your ATM idea moot.

ETA: The next post starts "It was found in “The Answer to the Universe, the Life and Everything is Still 42” [2]". But what is that "[2]"?
The rest seems scientific numerology as described to you before" Manipulating numbers and equations until a number emerges that seems close to some physical constant.
Specifically no stated physics related to gravity = no way of getting the gravitational constant. Selecting the hard to measure G to impossibly match is dubious. G has a CODATA 2018 value of 6.67430(15) and some other values. You get G = 6.674379282299 which is badly stated (no errors so do we have to compare it with a 11 decimal place experimental result?).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-11 at 04:30 AM.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Sorry but this is irrelevant and not clear mathematics, Copernicus.
You need to start with GR because that is the scientific theory that describes the structure of the universe. You need some physics to make this a scientific model of the universe. You may need to revisit your mathematics, e.g. a point has been (not "in a sense") a zero-dimensional mathematical object for over 2000 years (Euclid).
I don't see why, when I am trying to figure out the start of our existence, I need to start with general relativity. This is way before general relativity. Of course I don't believe a single sphere is a zero dimensional point, nor do I believe that graphene is two dimensional. They are all three dimensional. It was just a way of treating.

Some specific errors
1. QM is not a theory of structure of the universe so starting with "the angular momentum in quantum physics" makes your ATM idea wrong.
2. There is no "the angular momentum in quantum physics".
I don't see why the start of the structure of the universe can't start with angular momentum similar to quantum physics.

1. You give an equation for the spin angular momentum of a QM particle.
2. s = n/2, where n can be any non-negative integer, i.e. 1/2, 1, 3/2, etc.
Starting with s=1 and incrementing by 1 is wrong. You ignore half of the universe, e.g. electrons.
3. "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference" is definitely wrong.
spin angular momentum is the spin of a QM particle, not an point. An electron has a spin of s = 1/2. We can count that is a fatal error that makes the rest of your ATM idea moot.
This is way deeper than an electron, and has nothing to do with charge.

ETA: The next post starts "It was found in “The Answer to the Universe, the Life and Everything is Still 42” [2]". But what is that "[2]"?
The rest seems scientific numerology as described to you before" Manipulating numbers and equations until a number emerges that seems close to some physical constant.

Specifically no stated physics related to gravity = no way of getting the gravitational constant. Selecting the hard to measure G to impossibly match is dubious. G has a CODATA 2018 value of 6.67430(15) and some other values. You get G = 6.674379282299 which is badly stated (no errors so do we have to compare it with a 11 decimal place experimental result?).
The thing is, I wasn't trying to come up with the number 6.67430*10^-11. CODATA 2018 came out after I published the 6.674379282299*10^-11 number. And I apologize for all the digits. That many wasn't necessary. I should mention, that the number is as accurate as the Planck Constant and the speed of light. Those are exact numbers, so my number, if the idea is correct, would be exact as well. I was hoping that people who are looking at string theory, or multiverses, would recognize something of value in my work.
Dirac and Eddington were working on large number manipulation to figure out what the universe is made of, and they were giants of their time. The just didn't have access to all the measured values I have, since I can use the much more accurate data that modern physicists have obtained. I don't see why the ideas they worked on, could not now be revisited.

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
I don't see why, when I am trying to figure out the start of our existence, I need to start with general relativity ...
Some formal questions to clear up your confusion:
IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?
IF02: Spin angular momentum is the spin of what, Copernicus?
IF03: What value can s take in spin angular momentum, Copernicus?
IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus
That does not sound like any QM I learned. For example, the spin of an electrons is a natural consequence of making QM relativistic (the Dirac equation). This comes from the mathematical fact that a spinor must be applied twice to return a wave function to itself. Can you cite source(s) for the requirement to have a "reference to a difference" in QM?

I wrote "a point has been (not "in a sense") a zero-dimensional mathematical object for over 2000 years (Euclid)." (not a single sphere).
Spin angular momentum is a lot deeper then my example of an electron. Every QM particle one of these momenta. My post does not mention charge.

Scientific numerology as described to you before is manipulating numbers and equations until a number emerges that seems close to some physical constant. Or just accidentally (as you claim) getting the number from irrelevant equations. In either case the result is not meaningful. In this case the process is obviously wrong (see my questions).

Dirac and Eddington's work is irrelevant to this thread: Dirac large numbers hypothesis
The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) is an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch.
This thread is not about large, dimensionless numbers.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Nov-12 at 04:10 AM.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Some formal questions to clear up your confusion:
IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?
Are you just asking what is cosmology?
IF02: Spin angular momentum is the spin of what, Copernicus?
Reality Check, I think you are very bright, but I'm not trying to copy what other scientist are doing. While physics has discovered much, it doesn't seem that there has been much progress in discovering the theory of everything, since quantum mechanics was discovered. I'm going with the theory, that maybe scientists in physics have too many math techniques, that nobody is really working on theories are in reality when working on the theory of everything. This is why I stick to the very basics. Spin angular momentum, all I am proposing is that perhaps, the construction of the universe obeys some of the rules of angular momentum of a sphere spinning on 3 axes. It keeps showing up that way in my work.
IF03: What value can s take in spin angular momentum, Copernicus?
It can move up with half integer values. Or if one is talking about l it goes up by integer values. I don't see how that is relevant?[/QUOTE]
IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus
In my theory the universe there are levels of the universe as I described, Spheres made of spheres, where it goes through the sequence I described. When I start with the one sphere, I also think there are an infinity of spheres in that sphere as well. Who ever started with, its turtles all the way down, was more right than anyone could have imagined. So there is always more spheres adjacent for there to be a difference, there is always an infinity of smaller spheres and an infinity of larger spheres, therefore, no universe ever repeats, because the variation in a universe grows much more quickly than any exact duplication ever could.
That does not sound like any QM I learned. For example, the spin of an electrons is a natural consequence of making QM relativistic (the Dirac equation). This comes from the mathematical fact that a spinor must be applied twice to return a wave function to itself. Can you cite source(s) for the requirement to have a "reference to a difference" in QM?
I'm not talking about wave functions at all. To me, while waves are important, I don't see how a wave in water or air can tell me very much of what water is and what air is. So you are saying a spin one half has to go around twice to look like it did before?

Dirac and Eddington's work is irrelevant to this thread: Dirac large numbers hypothesis

This thread is not about large, dimensionless numbers.
My numbers start with a small dimensionless number of "1" and ends with a large dimensionless number on the order of 10^500, although I didn't include those high numbers in the paper. So I think Dirac and Eddington looking at large numbers, and trying to figure where they came from, is relevant. If my construction of the universe is correct, nobody is ever going to be able to derive, or see it, all one can do is develop a model and see if it makes good predictions. I made specific predictions about the amount of dark energy, the masses of dark matter, and the gravitational constant. Those will be the proof of the model.

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
Are you just asking what is cosmology?....
I am asking you about the textbook physics you are basing your ATM idea on such as QM and its spin. There are textbooks about cosmology and Wikipedia articles and other sources that you should have read to write an ATM idea involving cosmology. The answer to the question is well know physics.

The questions you ignored in your post:
IF01: What is the theory that includes the structure of the universe, Copernicus?
IF02: Spin angular momentum is the spin of what, Copernicus?
Repeating your idea is not an answer to a question about spin.
IF04: Please give a more complete, science based explanation of "which is our point there is no spin that can be associated with one point since there is no reference to a difference", Copernicus

IF03: What value can s take in spin angular momentum, Copernicus? is answered - you do know that s = 1/2, 1, 3/2, etc. The relevance is that your idea sounds as if you are denying that fermions exist. That is obviously wrong.
IF03b: Why are you ignoring half of spin angular momentum (such as the spin of electrons) by starting with 1 and incrementing by 1, Copernicus?
However this question is moot if you can answer IF02 with the textbook physics lined to in the question. Or IF01, which shows that your QM stuff s irrelevant even if it were correct.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
My numbers start with a small dimensionless number of "1" ....
Please read Dirac large numbers hypothesis, Copernicus. This thread is not about large, dimensionless numbers from physical quantities as in Dirac large numbers hypothesis. Thus your citation of Dirac and Eddington's work is irrelevant to this thread.

P.S. if you answer IF01 and IF02 then you will realize that starting with the spin of a boson (a QM particle) is irrelevant to cosmology and wrong because it ignores fermions.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
From my posts in the past is is easy to see that I believed that I thought the universe was made of spheres, made of spheres, etc. I looked into what Eddington did, but I was not able to get very far. I went with the belief that the universe was expanding, and I believed that if the universe was made of spheres made of spheres, etc. That it would eventually get to a level where it was the perfect packing of cuboctahedron packing. It wasn't until I found out from KenG that the cosmological principle was assumed that I gave up on the expanding universe and derived the math for the kinetic vs potential energy of a spinning universe. When I did this, that is when I was able to come up the equations above. I didn't pick the number 42 because (1+1^2)=2, (2+2^2)=6 and 6+6^2=42. Actually I was stuck at 42 for a month or two and then I realized that 42 was 6+6^2. I thought it odd, but went further and came up with the idea of a pseudo zero, one, two, and three dimensional object. In the past I thought there might be some limit on the size of the universe might be related to (1^2+pi^2+pi^2)^.5. I thought that because as one adds one layer to a hollow sphere the surface area increases by pi by pi. I just added this up like a vector. It wasn't until I was deriving the critical density for the spinning sphere universe, that the value of 4.554032=(1^2+pi^2+pi^2)^.5 just popped right in to place. I know what I am doing looks a little like numerology, but think about it. If the universe is spheres, made of spheres, etc. How would one expect to ever derive this result. The model has to be guessed at first, and then see if it can make predictions. My prediction is the gravitational constant, and dark energy. I predict the dark energy of the universe is exactly 100 percent multiplied by (pi-1)/pi. Dark energy would be the amount of kinetic energy of a spinning universe.

This is how I developed the equation

This equation is basically saying that the total mass and energy in the universe, is equal to the rest mass multiplied by pi. As one can see from the equation, relativity is included.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
From my posts in the past is is easy to see that I believed....
A post about what you believe, Copernicus, but lacking what you derived from physics.

"I predict the dark energy of the universe is exactly 100 percent multiplied by (pi-1)/pi" and "Dark energy would be the amount of kinetic energy of a spinning universe" are nonsense as written: Dark energy.

An irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions. That function has no total mass, no total energy, has nothing about the universe, and has no rest mass. It is pure math, not physics.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Reality Check
A post about what you believe, Copernicus, but lacking what you derived from physics.

"I predict the dark energy of the universe is exactly 100 percent multiplied by (pi-1)/pi" and "Dark energy would be the amount of kinetic energy of a spinning universe" are nonsense as written: Dark energy.

An irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions. That function has no total mass, no total energy, has nothing about the universe, and has no rest mass. It is pure math, not physics.
I will try to explain the equation. I start with a universe that is spherical that is made of spheres. Lets say we have a sphere that has radius of 10 spheres, if we try to pack an eleventh layer to make the radius 11, then we introduce defects since packing around a sphere cannot be perfect. The amount of defects from the 10th to the 11th layer is 4pi*(11^2-10^2) if one adds up all those defects created in a sphere, when packing shells of spheres, the total amount of defects adds up to 4pi(r^2+r) which is the outside radius. This is very similar to the holographic principle. The calculation is very simple and I describe it here. http://vixra.org/pdf/1601.0103v1.pdf . Now I don't believe that the universe is packed with hollow spheres, I believe that the defects congregate and that is what forms matter in the universe, and the areas that we consider to be the vacuum are virtually perfectly packed in a cuboctahedron structure. But I do believe that the defects were caused by gravity always trying to pull everything into a spherical form. In our universe there are approximately 10^81 matter particles, so perfection is actually the rule because there would be 10^122 perfectly packed spheres, and 10^81 imperfectly packed spheres.
Now in a spinning universe, spinning on 3 axes, every point, equidistant from the center would be moving at the same velocity. All I did with the equation, was add up the imperfections at each layer, and multiplied it by the Lorentz factor for how far that layer was from the center. So if a layer was 50 percent from the center of my universe to the edge of my universe, the Lorentz factor would be If half way was between the 10th and 11th layer, then that Lorentz factor would be multiplied time 4pi*(11^2-10^2). I added up all the layers to find out that the due to the Lorentz factor even if the total defects ended up being a number "X", the mass and energy actually added up to pi time "X". It was very simple math and physics.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Although my calculations show that our universe is made of equal sized spheres, this latest article suggest that the universe is made of tiny bubble sized universes, which is what I think my research is leading that way, that each of our particles in our body contains infinite functioning universes within operating at a different scale.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j...scientists-say
The Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes, Scientists Say

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
I will try to explain the equation. ...
You fail to explain the equation. A bad guess of "a universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" when the evidence is the universe is flat or any shape with a very low curvature. Lots more text seemingly unrelated to the equation.
IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus.
Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions

16. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Reality Check
You fail to explain the equation. A bad guess of "a universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" when the evidence is the universe is flat or any shape with a very low curvature. Lots more text seemingly unrelated to the equation.
IF05: Please start with your "universe that is spherical that is made of spheres" and give a clear, step by step derivation of that equation, Copernicus.
Otherwise I remain correct, it is an irrelevant integral that gives pi as do an infinite number of mathematical functions
As I had noted above, new research shows the universe may be a sphere, from observational data. New Research Suggests that the Universe is a Sphere and Not Flat After All https://www.universetoday.com/143956...lat-after-all/

17. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
With this theory, Redshifting of light would come from the transverse motion of the spinning sphere, and it would come from the gravitational redshifting. I am working 13 hour shifts these next two more days, including today, so please be patient with my response times.

18. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
I should mention that the latest research of the CMB, is that the universe may be a sphere. Which is what I have been saying for a long time. https://www.universetoday.com/143956...lat-after-all/
New Research Suggests that the Universe is a Sphere and Not Flat After All

19. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
I did make a prediction using the spinning sphere theory in 2017 that the inverse fine structure constant would be 137.035999098 the 2018 codata moved in that directions 137.035999139(31) in 2014 to 137.035999084(21). I think this is hardly proof because we would need an increase of one magnitude of accuracy, which is a lot of improvement, but it did move in the right direction regardless. The value from 2014 changed almost two sigma, which is a lot. I was predicting almost a 1.5 sigma change.

20. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
A new paper says the following, Shape of the universe: study could force us to rethink everything we know about the cosmos
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-univer...nk-cosmos.html
My work is offering a new rethink.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Copernicus
A new paper says the following, Shape of the universe: study could force us to rethink everything we know about the cosmos
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-univer...nk-cosmos.html
My work is offering a new rethink.
this is a link to a post I made in October before I knew someone was working on the CMB data to show the universe was spherical.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...t=#post2494745 post 11 on October 11.

Originally Posted by Strange View Post
As far as we know, light ravels in straight lines.

Maybe you could suggest a way to test it: what would you expect the result of this spiralling light to be?

I assume the result would be that we are not be able to see distant objects, just a random mush of light from all directions. As that isn't what we see, I would assume that your idea is wrong.
It looks like microlensing does not distort the image. If light is bent and the universe is spinning I would expect the CMB to be different in one direction vs another direction depending how far from the edge of the universe one is.
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
this is a link to a post ...
That 'spiraling light' post is irrelevant to the paper. Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology is about a closed universe where light goes in "straight lines" in a curved spacetime until it gets back to its origin. A 2D analogy is an ant walking around the surface of a sphere or torus until it gets back to its starting place.

23. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
...My work is offering a new rethink.
This is not the case. An idea that is not cosmology is not a rethink of cosmology.
A guess that the universe is spherical. An idea that ignores the basis of cosmology (GR). An idea that starts with applying the spin of quantum particles to points in spacetime and ignores half of the spins. Most importantly - an idea that no cosmologist knows about!

Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology is that the authors have derived that a feature of Planck data can be explained by the universe being closed, e.g. a torus or sphere or more complex shape. It is too soon to determine whether they are correct or not (10 days since publishing!).

24. Copernicus,

Please see your inbox for infraction notes...then provide direct answers to all questions as so far.

25. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
I don't know if this has any bearing on Dirac's Large number hypothesis, but he thought perhaps the Gravitational constant was proportional to time, but in the Spinning Sphere Theory, the density of matter varies inversely with the distance from the center of the sphere. Not knowing that the density varies, would make it look like G would vary in some universe building scenarios.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
...it affirms that there really was no big bang...
Another issue with the ATM idea is this assertion. There are many lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Olbers' paradox (an infinite and eternal static universe leads to a bright night sky). Hubble's law. Data showing the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The properties of the CMB. The variation of the CMB temperature with distance. etc.

The rest of the thread has no evidence to support this assertion. You state that Redshifting of light would come from the transverse motion of the spinning sphere, and it would come from the gravitational redshifting. This has flaws.
• Cosmological redshift is the redshift of light we observe from galaxies.
These galaxies are homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. The large scale structure of the universe is a web of filaments, walls, voids, and nodes. There is no evidence of galaxies arranged in spheres to produce cosmological redshift (if that is possible).
• Redshift comes from sources moving away from a detector.
Where does this redshift from transverse motion appear in textbooks?
• You have no derivation of Hubble's law from gravitational redshift of these spheres and it should not be possible.
As above, the universe is measured to be homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. Gravitational red and blue shift needs a difference in gravitational potential, i.e. mass density that varies in such a way to give Hobble's law. But density is constant on cosmological scales.

27. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Another issue with the ATM idea is this assertion. There are many lines of evidence for the Big Bang. Olbers' paradox (an infinite and eternal static universe leads to a bright night sky). Hubble's law. Data showing the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The properties of the CMB. The variation of the CMB temperature with distance. etc.

The rest of the thread has no evidence to support this assertion. You state that Redshifting of light would come from the transverse motion of the spinning sphere, and it would come from the gravitational redshifting. This has flaws.
• Cosmological redshift is the redshift of light we observe from galaxies.
These galaxies are homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. The large scale structure of the universe is a web of filaments, walls, voids, and nodes. There is no evidence of galaxies arranged in spheres to produce cosmological redshift (if that is possible).
• Redshift comes from sources moving away from a detector.
Where does this redshift from transverse motion appear in textbooks?
• You have no derivation of Hubble's law from gravitational redshift of these spheres and it should not be possible.
As above, the universe is measured to be homogenous and isotropic on cosmological scales. Gravitational red and blue shift needs a difference in gravitational potential, i.e. mass density that varies in such a way to give Hobble's law. But density is constant on cosmological scales.
Olbers Paradox. Everything that makes it to the edge of my universe is going at nearly the speed of light and it all destroys itself, with a continual Big Bang like conditions.
Homogenous Universe. I proposed that the Universe appears Homogenous because the higher velocities farther from the center create more eddies/galaxies. A clear prediction from my theory is that if cold hydrogen concentration,could be measured between intergalactic spaces, we would find the concentrations will not be isotropic.
Transverse Redshift, from Wikipedia, completely transverse Redshift would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Gravitational Redshift, I will get the Gravitational redshift of this universe in a few days, I am back to working those crazy 13 hours shifts starting tomorrow and have to sleep. Basically, the gravitational redshift is no redshift until, the relativistic effects start taking effect. Actually, gravity at this point blue shifts the light a little and more so as one gets close to the edge of the universe. So you are right. That portion of the redshift will not help with the Hubble constant. It is the transverse redshift is the part that will contribute to the Hubble constant.
Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-18 at 05:40 AM.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
"I proposed" guesses in reply to my post.
Olbers' Paradox is about stars. Every line of sight in an infinite, eternal static universe ends in a star thus the night sky will be bright. The night sky is not bright . A resolution to this is an expanding universe.

What do "homogeneity" and "isotropy" mean? (in cosmology)

The transverse Doppler effect exists for light sources orbiting a detector but your ATM idea is not every galaxy in the universe orbiting the Earth ! You must know that we detect cosmological redshift from millions of galaxies from local ones to ones billions of light years away. These galaxies are not in orbit around the Earth. Look up peculiar velocities of galaxies. There are blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way.

Gravitational Redshift: You should already have a derivation of cosmological redshift in your ATM idea so it should be a question of just quoting that derivation. That would not take long. A formal question in anticipation of your answer:
IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

The rest of the post is wrong. Relativistic effects always take effect. Relativistic Doppler effects happen even for v << c. Gravitational red and blue shifts happen even for low differences in gravitational potential. Measurement is the limit on the effects. In general SR effects are measurable for v close to c. Gravitational red and blue shifts are measurable here on Earth for relatively small differences in gravitational potential.

From memory, it is possible to fake cosmological redshift by arranging matter in the universe to give Hubble's law. The problem for your idea is that this is not your mass distribution (in fact you have o mass in your ATM idea!).

"Hubble constant" is almost irrelevant. If you somehow come up with one of the values we have for Hubble's constant, that says nothing about whether your universe is expanding or not. You have to derive Hubble's law from your ATM idea to match our universe.

29. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
3,018
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2497180]"I proposed" guesses in reply to my post.
Olbers' Paradox is about stars. Every line of sight in an infinite, eternal static universe ends in a star thus the night sky will be bright. The night sky is not bright . A resolution to this is an expanding universe.uniform in all directions.

The transverse Doppler effect exists for light sources orbiting a detector but your ATM idea is not every galaxy in the universe orbiting the Earth ! You must know that we detect cosmological redshift from millions of galaxies from local ones to ones billions of light years away. These galaxies are not in orbit around the Earth. Look up peculiar velocities of galaxies. There are blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way.
Correct! Regardless, there can still be motion relative to earth. Everything is relative.

Gravitational Redshift: You should already have a derivation of cosmological redshift in your ATM idea so it should be a question of just quoting that derivation. That would not take long. A formal question in anticipation of your answer:
IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.
You are right, it is very simple except, but I need a few days.
The rest of the post is wrong. Relativistic effects always take effect. Relativistic Doppler effects happen even for v << c. Gravitational red and blue shifts happen even for low differences in gravitational potential. Measurement is the limit on the effects. In general SR effects are measurable for v close to c. Gravitational red and blue shifts are measurable here on Earth for relatively small differences in gravitational potential.
You are correct that everything is relativistic, I just meant that at low velocities, it is not very significant.

From memory, it is possible to fake cosmological redshift by arranging matter in the universe to give Hubble's law. The problem for your idea is that this is not your mass distribution (in fact you have o mass in your ATM idea!).

"Hubble constant" is almost irrelevant. If you somehow come up with one of the values we have for Hubble's constant, that says nothing about whether your universe is expanding or not. You have to derive Hubble's law from your ATM idea to match our universe.
My universe does have mass. What I was deriving doesn't require the units to be in mass. I also said I don't know how things get mass in the universe. That I is me. Don't you think that ultimately almost everything should be dimensionless?

Hubble constant= (Speed of Light/Size of Universe)/Millionparsecs)
=299792.458 Kilometers per second/(13.745 billion light years/3.2616 million parsecs)=71.14km/sec/megaparsec
Last edited by Copernicus; 2019-Nov-19 at 10:56 AM.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,353
Originally Posted by Copernicus
My universe does have mass.
...
Hubble constant= (Speed of Light/Size of Universe)/Millionparsecs)
I await your answer to IF09: Please quote your derivation of cosmological redshift (Hubble's law) from your ATM idea, Copernicus.

N.B. Hubble's law not the Hubble constant and not this "Hubble Constant". The mainstream Hubble constant is a consequence of an expanding universe. You state that your universe is not expanding. Thus your ATM idea by definition does not have a Hubble constant or it is zero. The empirical Hubble constant from Hubble's law is the slope from plotting galaxy redshift against measured distance to the galaxy. That is not this "Hubble Constant".

IF11: Where the mass in your ATM idea included, Copernicus?
An assertion that there is mass does not make mass appear. What I read have is massless spheres arranged in spheres. This sounds like an arbitrary injection of a mass of your universe. What have I missed?

"What I was deriving doesn't require the units to be in mass" sounds like invalid science. If you have mass then its units must "be in mass". If you are doing calculations involving mass than the units must "be in mass".

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•