A Finite Cosmology

From the very first lines I utterly wish to underline a few ideas that must be taken into account.

Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, or even Cosmology (hence the title of the article) do not admit the (actual) infinity. We have formerly referred both to the large infinity as well as to the small infinity (that would be the absolute void, a pure nonsense).

An absolute time, of an unknown of expression could not possibly exist either. What is that we do know of is a relative time, a timing of two physical events that can also be otherwise measured for example using a whirligig’s rotations.

Following the above ideas, we can now define what Cosmology is. The word cosmology comes from “kosmos”, meaning Universe and “logos” meaning speaking ability or science. Cosmology is the science concerning structure and development of matter structures, of radiations, energies and other properties of events taking place in the Universe.

Cosmology consists in: Cosmogony, Cosmology as such, Astrophysics, Star Astronomy.

Now I shall expose some information about the very first attempts made in defining heavenly bodies. In 1749 the naturalist George Louis Leclerc count de BUFFON (1707-1788) was the first one who worked out a treatise about our planetary system (the comet hypothesis).

In 1755, the great German philosopher Immanuel KANT (1724-1804) gave the theory that our system would come from a nebula or a cloud of cosmic dust. Forces of attraction-rejection would arrange the Sun in its middle and planets on its edge.

In 1791 the French mathematician and mechanistic Pierre Simon Marquis de LAPLACE (1749-1827) developed himself a theory about a nebula and he defined its kinetic moment I = mr²w, where I is the kinetic moment, m is the mass and r is the ray of the nebula, while w is the angular speed: F_gr=Gm/r²;F_cf=mrw²=I²/mr³.

The English astrophysicist Sir James Hopwood JEANS (1877-1946) assumes that the Sun as well as other stars come from disasters and planets were born this way, too.

WEIZSAKER, KNIPER, FESENKOV, ALFVEN and Fred HOYLE have put forward their theories as well. “Hoyle explains the disproportion of the kinetic moment of the solar system as a transfer of the kinetic moment of a nebula (protostar) contracting towards its margins, transfer made by the intermediate of the magnetic field.”[1]

In Frontiers of Astronomy chapter 18, Fred Hoyle puts forth the definition: “The Universe is everything, living creatures and inanimate objects, atoms and galaxies; and if a spirit - then spiritual elements, and if a Heaven and a Hell then a Heaven and a Hell; as being itself, the Universe is the wholeness of all things.” [2] On the other side, starting from a sensational discovery made by V. M. Slipher, E. P. Hubble and M. Humason, Fred Hoyle infers that “the Universe is expanding itself – that is the meaning of the discovery!”[3] Fred Hoyle brings forward other examples, such as the gigantic galaxy M18 which moves forward with the speed of 130 km/s; the galaxies from the Virgo cloud, which move away with the speed of 1200km/s etc.

As I was reading the above lines, the two above excerpts, a somewhat astonishment seized me: How is it possible that the Universe, which embraces everything, that is absolutely everything, could expand itself, expand itself somewhere? The “somewhere” was not embraced in the Universe, that means its definition is not true; but if the definition of the Universe is valid (true), it means that no galaxy can expand itself anywhere but the borders of the Universe.

I cannot explain to myself how it is possible that inside the Universe, the large galaxies expand themselves more quickly than the relatively closest galaxies.

Scientists who started to realize how many difficulties the experimental theory had already introduced, issued a few quite strong arguments that I have formerly quoted. These scientists, of which the great physicist Ernst Mach that many think of as Albert Einstein’s forerunner, criticize the principles of classic Mechanics. Wishing to emphasize the continuous flow of matter, classic Mechanics can explain many types of actions or fields. There is the nucleic field, which keeps the atomic nucleus compact. There is the electromagnetic field, which allows atoms to absorb light. “There is the gravitational field, which keeps together rows of stars. There is (!), as a new theory asserts, a creative field, which can engender matter. Matter is born as a reply to the action of a different matter.”[4] “Mach’s principle was applied but to an area in the Universe regarding the Sun and the Earth’s rotation, and where the two are all alone. Applied to any other areas in the Universe, Mach’s principle was not conclusive.

The concept of “creative” brings forth a sort of mysticism. We have nothing to object to the concept of mysticism, but bringing forth this notion among the positivistic sciences (Mach was an adept of positivism) is more awkward than only analogies and dichotomies would ever make us believe. I do not agree that the desire of making the continuous flow of matter a mathematics theory could become real focusing on the relativity theory only. Next, we shall try to make clear the notion of hot universe or The Big Bang. I want to highlight the fact that the Universe, being a primary notion, is not a definable notion; the hot Universe is definable though (it admits negations). Edwin Powell HUBBL’s law teaches us that the hot Universe represents an expansive process. Thus, there is the paradox of an obscure sky that Heinrich Wilhelm Matthaus OLBERS (1758-1840) forwarded. Nowadays, the Universe’s curvature ray is continuous, growing and universal.

For quite a while, the well-known Big Bang was something to be made a big fuss about. The renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel prize, wrote his book “The first three minutes of the Universe”, we daresay for sciences’ sake.

According to the mentioned book, 15 billion of years ago, a unique atom exploded and from it, through an expanding process, the whole Universe came to life. I keep wondering: how could possibly so many matters, energies, radiation and information spring from the primordial atom; where could such a huge amount of space necessary to the development of the big Universe come from; who gave it all the needed information to lead such a diverse and eclectic mess as the Universe is; who did watch the Big Bang’s commencement? The Bible and the theosophy writings could provide one solution to all these questions. Well, Andre Maurois (1885-1967) has already said it, there would be a 21^st century of religions or it would not be at all. I, the author of this article, keep on believing in a unique and finite Universe.

Let us talk about the age of the Universe now. It seems usual to assume that the Universe has 150% of the stars’ ages, that is 10¹⁰years old. The Universe would then be 1.5,10¹⁰ years old. Galaxies, rows of galaxies and metagalaxies are thought to be between ten and fifteen billion years old. What if a galaxy is born right now? Certainly, the event is to be noticed here in 10¹⁰years’ time. This would mean that either we should see it 2.5,10¹⁰ years from now (which would mean that we live in an unchanging reality)or (if we do live in an unchanging reality) it would turn up that new galaxies would die as new born babies, as we had convicted them to death.

We shall now talk about a finite Cosmology, according to the title of the present work. First of all, we shall define a few primary notions such as the UNIVERSE and a few other ones inside the following axioms:

Axiom 4. The primary elements of the Universe are qquants. Qquants are very small, their gauges do not exceed 10^-55 m. They cannot be seen or measured even with the finest laboratory instruments or with the most advanced methods.

Axiom 5. Qquants are of two types: the v type qquants, which have a constant temperature of 0°K with no exception. The whole universe is uniformly, equally, izotropically and in a finite manner filled with v qquants; the w qquants which have their temperature higher than 0°K, that is 0<10⁷°K, and has not he properties of v qquants. These w qquants can conglomerate and conglomerates form EXISTENCE.

According to conglomeration degrees of the v type conglomerates, different atoms, different energies, different radiation, different information can be obtained. We shall name the v multitudes with {v} and the w multitudes by {w}. There follow the relationships:

Through a guided conglomeration of the v qquants, w qquants can be obtained; through the annihilation of the w qquants, v qquants are obtained. The multitude of qquants {w} is not homogenous, not izomorphous, finite, but on turn is creative, enjoying progress and persevering.

A remark must be made here: there is a difference between birth and the process of making conglomerations, as well as a difference between death and annihilation.

Determination of the Universe makes it the unique prototype for a perpetuum mobile of the 2^nd rank, because transition from v qquants to w qquants and from w qquants to v qquants is permanent, no one winning, no one losing, everything flowing. The Universe has no neighbourhood, gain or loss.

Since the number of the v qquants is finite and the Universe is filled with them, it would be interesting to find what their number is. With a somewhat approximation, their number would approximately be 10⁴⁵⁰ up to 10⁵⁵⁰.

The w qquants borrowed from conglomeration the characteristic of being attracted by other fellows alike, other w qquants. Honestly speaking, it is their only feature, as Existence is the reflection of conglomerates, we daresay that Existence reflects universal gravitation.

Let us rectify expressions that have penetrated highly praised writings, namely: the light speed in void. Firstly I have to say that void cannot exist as such, as having an existence it would not be a void any longer; secondly an empty space can exist because, by definition, it contains something. It would be reasonable saying that “it doesn’t make its way through something that does not exist, or that it lives among v qquants”.

Let us see what happens with the phenomenon of the w qquants conglomeration, a quite often met phenomenon. If several stars die out at the same time in the Universe, this means that very many stars turn into v qquants. The numeric quantity, the multitude of v qquants would thus spoil the proportion w/v, as there would be v qquants to outnumber and to take off to various directions. If several v qquants met and be enough, they would transform into w qquants, and, with a little help from a small Big Bang, they would turn into new stars with all requirements needed. There is a small Big Bang among stars but not in the Universe.

Immediately after the mentioned Big Bang, a star would start to conglomerate with other tiny stars because of the universal attraction. With large conglomerations pressure grows inside a star, its temperature raises up to tens of millions of Kelvin degrees in the middle of the star. Whereas on its edge, because of its skin found in contact with v qquants of a temperature of 0° K, it raises up to 10⁴° K.

As the exterior units of a star get cold, they free themselves from the mother-star, and these units, due to movements of rotation and revolution, usually take spherical shapes or mild-ellipsoidal shapes and finally become planets.

If on a planet there are certain conditions of temperature and cooling of the crust, then conditions are proper for life evolution. Objective conditions would be then created for the birth of a “biosphere”, and perhaps even an “anthroposphere”.

We put the words “biosphere” and “anthroposphere” inside inverted commas, as we don’t know the exact shape of these future creatures, plants and animals, or any other division of a life form. One thing is definitely certain: that they – extraterrestrial creatures do exist. My reason for believing in their existence is the next assertion: it is not plausible that the Earth (planet of the Sun) be the unique planet, since there are millions, even billion of planets; secondly there would be proofs, even palpable proofs of extraterrestrial visitors, and I have in mind flying saucers.

Black holes. As there is no evidence of supernovas explosions, which overlap Oppenheimer-Volkoff’s limits referring to a neutronic star, then the star would suffer a gravitational collapse, namely an implosion.

Actually, in our vision we have in mind no gravitational collapse, no Oppenheimer-Volkoff limits, but what we did see in a black hole was the annihilation of w qquants as they transformed into v qquants.

“It is also to be expected – Fred Hoyle writes – that certain stars should explode after having done a part of their evolving curve. As an example, the situation may be evoked that takes place in a row such as Praesepe. (…) A possible explanation would be that evolution develops up to the point occupied by the last stars and that explosion occurs in that very point.”[5]

If the word “explosion” is replaced by the word “annihilation”, then we can obtain exactly the above assertions.

Let us se now how operations of conglomeration and annihilation of v qquants and w qquants take place. Not to be mistaken with the birth and death phenomena, which occur individually. When qquants conglomerate, physical elements are obtained (palpable, directly measurable), and in the case of the w qquants annihilation, there are left but v qquants. (not detectable by senses or devices we can dispose of). Speed of reaction for qquants metamorphosis from one type into another type is relativistic.

During conglomerates’ existence, pieces of stars can brittle or dislocate. That means a larger piece would free from a star and it would turn itself into a spherical or quasi-spherical shape, as planets or asteroids are. In such cases it is not a matter of relativistic speed, but an ordinary speed, as speeds of processing incandescent metals. I wish to remind the reader that v qquants are in a quasi-complete rest and w qquants and their conglomerates are in a cyclic, continuous movement.

In what regards the pretended thermal radiation of 2.7° K (or T = 3° K), it is not the effect of an unimportant cause, a residue from the moment of the birth of the Metagalaxy. It is written in the first axiom of the present article that “the Universe is unique and finite”. Moreover, it is always moving and it is moving from the v qquants to the w qquants, and also from the v qquants to the w qquants, that means it is a perpetuum mobile of the 2^nd grade. It makes us believe that the T temperature = 2.7° K (T = 3° K) represents an arithmetic medium of all temperatures of all (finite) bodies in the Universe, starting with T = 0° K and ending with T = 10⁷° K.

In what concerns the matter of antimatter, we think as accurate to split it into two.

According to properties of w qquants and because the number of w qquants is limited, the number of properties of qquants will be limited as well.

We take {w} as the cardinal of the number w. If we note as M the prime number of the properties of the {w} conglomerates, we shall then note as w₁, w₂,…w_M the distribution of the conglomerates, and the classes as { w₁}, { w₂},…{ w_M}.

If we extract of every M one and only element noted as b₁, b₂, …b_M-1, b_M, then we shall obtain:

This means that if we take out of each class one only element an reunite them, everything annihilates, but if only one or several elements but not all elements are taken out of the w multitude, then there is left a group of conglomerates, that is of w qquants.

When a star dies (is annihilated), nothing is left, no trace, no gravitational force.

A different application of axioms 9.1. and 9.2. is the annihilation of some well-defined objects, if deficient properties are known of them. If one single part is added to one of them, then everything is annihilated or partially annihilated. All these are done mostly out of revenge.

The over demand is called Panheautofteirzis and it comes from the Greek term πανξαντοφυιριρ, meaning παν - everything; ξαντο - reflexive; φυιριρ - to neutralize, to destroy. This expression is pleonastic, because, wishing to improve a thing over measure, by different additions more than necessary, man ruined everything. Let’s have an example: a plain just taken out of the factory is in very good function. While exploiting the plain, an idea strikes a pilot’s mind to improve a tiny subgroup of the plain with a tiny sub-element, as he has seen it in other plains, too. After having put the additional element, at the first attempt to fly, the plain fails. Obviously, it was the sub-element that caused the failure. It is not good to try improving an already finished thing.

Metaphorically speaking, the panheautofteirzis may also be called the “Babel Tour” principle. While Babylonian people were working at the Babel Tour, they were speaking the same language and understood one another. The tour rises up quickly and comes closer towards the sky, so was the people’s wish. As He saw all these, God didn’t want the people to reach the sky and He meddled their languages so that they could not finish the tour. And thus, so that people could not reach perfection, He took their power of judgement.

As we formerly saw, cosmogony accepted in a frame without any notion of infinity, small or large, cannot accept either a beginning or an ending of Universe’s birth, as the question would immediately rise: What was it that was before and after? We cannot possibly agree of admitting that the Universe be of 15 billion of years old, the exact age of very many heavenly bodies. We must admit that the Universe exists with his v and w qquants.

The Universe is something “alive”. Stars are born and appear new stars, other stars die every day. W qquants are born every day and they transform themselves again from v qquants to w qquants. There is then a perpetuum movement to and from the v and w qquants. From the thermodynamic point of view, v qquants represent the cold source whereas w qquants, that is heavenly bodies, stand for the warm source of this perpetuum mobile, the Universe. Let’s remember Heraclite (540 – 475 B.C.). Τα ππάντα ρεί Ta panta rhei = Everything flows.

[1] Vasile Ureche: THE UNIVERSE – ASTROPHYSICS Ed. Dacia vol. 3 Cluj-Napoca 1987 p. 323.

[2] Fred Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, Ed. Stiint.”, Buc., 1971, p.361

[3] ibidem. p.366

[4] ibidem. p. 409

[5] ibidem. p. 268-269