Finitism and Cosmology

Skepticism can arise from logical difficulties, conflicts with experiments or expereince, or simply from a lack of familiarity with a concept. In this case, I think this last is the main factor.

There is, of course, a major, material difference between "infinite" and "indeterminate". For example, the latter involves ambiguity, while the former does not. The science of infinities is on firm logical footing, mostly placed there by Gamow in his classic work, "One, Two, Three ... Infinity" (Dover, 1961).

Gamow makes the concept of infinity simple, logical, and easy to work with by introducing the one-to-one correspondence as a tool. He then draws out the logical consequences of this, proving that not all "infinities" are equal.

The Meta Model universe is not much like the Steady State universe, and does not even recognize expansion as the correct interpretation of redshift. But it shows from first principles how logically the universe must be infinite (read "boundless" if the word "infinite" has too many Deistic connotations for you) in five dimensions: three of space plus time and scale. This last is the equivalent of "mass" in the more general sense of "substance" rather than in the sense of "gravitational mass" or "inertial mass". You can find this discussion at the beginning of "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets" (North Atlantic Books, 1999), available in science libraries and at our web site store. -|Tom|-

<font face='Verdana'>Appreciate the respect shown by your acknowledgement that my spiritual preferences might be relevant to my viewpoint in cosmology. Could be others are hooked up like that; citations from a prophet are relevant in cosmology, as metaphysics is frequently a close associate of cosmological theorizing.

We can say the universe has a lot of mass in it. I won't ask directly whether you feel that the universe has a </font id='Verdana'><b>constant</b> <font face='Verdana'>amount of mass, or say mass-energy in it. Our touchy point here might be how we say a lot; if it's immeasurable, or if it's indeterminate. A third possibility is that there's a lot of mass there and someday we'll find out we can measure it.

I realized after I wrote the manifesto linked above, that my gravitational argument against the possibility of material infinity might not extend to an ipso facto dispersed gravitational source, for I had just aimed it at Big Bang backers who also are cryptic monotheists or at least deists. So I'm not saying the Big Bang happened, and there is by necessity no infinite monotheist God interacting with materiality. I'm not wedded to the Big Bang myself; but those who are, had better look to their theological speculations, to see if there's room for both conceptions simultaneously.

Dispersed gravitational sources need not lead to dynamic collapse of the universe, even if there's a really really lot of matter, for the universe can just be way, way big. I think, though, that the way we derive asymtotes to give those amounts names needs fundamental examination.

I stumbled on a link today at www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p05.htm about an article I wish I'd read, by G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar, the latest (I suppose) Steady-State version, including acknowledgement of H. Arp's finding of high-redshift quasars physically associated with galaxies of much lower redshift. Kind of hard to explain that, with cosmological expansion redshift.

Whereas therefore

> [jt]: I won't ask directly whether you feel that the universe has a constant amount of mass, or say mass-energy in it. Our touchy point here might be how we say a lot; if it's immeasurable, or if it's indeterminate.

One nice thing about the Meta Model is that there is no need to hedge even when you ask directly. The "mass" (in the sense of substance) of the universe is infinite because there is no such thing as a true void. All of space at all times is occupied at some small scale, or it would not exist at all.

> [jt]: Dispersed gravitational sources need not lead to dynamic collapse of the universe ...

In the Meta Model, collapse is not even an issue. Gravity exists because of the sea of LeSage-type gravitons. See "Possible new properties of gravity" at our Cosmology/Gravity tab. Where there are no gravitons, there is no gravity, no matter how much "substance" is around. Moreover, the range of gravitational force is necessarily finite, which not only makes collapse from gravity on the large scale impossible, but also eliminates the need for "dark matter" to explain large-scale properties. -|Tom|-

You say the meta model has another explaination of large scale structure not requiring dark matter. Can you say what it is? Is dark matter only needed to add gravity to the BB model? Would the meta idea not also need more mass than is observed? Jim

> [jim]: You say the meta model has another explanation of large scale structure not requiring dark matter. Can you say what it is? Is dark matter only needed to add gravity to the BB model? Would the meta idea not also need more mass than is observed? Jim

In the "Big Bang", "dark matter" is needed to add more gravitation to keep galaxies and galaxy clusters bound. It is also needed to provide enough matter to make the "inflation" model correct, without which the BB would be in big trouble.

The Meta Model has no need for "dark matter" at any scale. Instead, the inverse square law of attraction changes character as gravitons begin to collide with other gravitons, diverting their paths. On scales above a kiloparsec or so, gravity takes on an inverse linear character. It so happens that nicely explains galaxy rotations, galactic cluster binding, etc. In the astrophysics journals, this same basic idea is advanced under the name "MOND" (for "Modified Newtonian Dynamics"), first espoused by Milgrom. So far, MOND has answered all challenges. -|Tom|-

So the MOND system needs only the observed mass and no additional mass is needed or wanted? What about the "empty" space between galaxies? That surely has some mass which can be called dark matter or whatever and it is not observed except in the quasar spectrum-at least that is my understanding. It could I'm wrong in this detail, but, does any model include this mass? How does MOND explain the galaxy rotation-I know the big bang is weak on this subject.