Models #30
Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
Hi Olli, When I was an archaeology student in Germany many decades ago, my fellow students used to mock the American tendency to speak in terms of models, whereas what they were referring to would traditionally have been termed theories. By now, what was once newspeak has engulfed most disciplines. Yet we do not refer to the general model of relativity, or the model of quantum mechanics. These retain the theory label, even in the popular TV series. If the term model has a place in science, it could charitably be understood as a mathematical structure, i.e., something at a lesser level of abstraction and generality than a theory. And this is they way I generally conceive of a model, i.e., a phenomenological description rather than an explanatory conceptualization. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I show you how to make a theory of the universe in philosophy. It is much better as the mathematical theories of the cosmologists. Three possibilities There are three logical possibilities for a right theory of the universe. Steady State theories, Multiverse theories and Cyclic theories. It is easy to make a good theory! Just take wrong things away from each theory, and leave the right points there, and unite them after that. This can be made in many ways, this is one way.
There we have a theory. The proof is that there are galaxies far away, and there are galaxies near. Universe is the web of the galaxies. This web is eternal and infinite, when we define eternal and infinite in the right way, corresponding to the reality. The universe is static, the local galaxy populations and galaxies and stars have their dynamics. The mathematical- physical theories are missing for these kinds of philosophical theories. That has happened because of the dictatorship of the BB- theory, the expansion. And the dictatorship of physics and mathematics over philosophy. And the dictatorship of empiricism and naturalism over other philosophies. Where is God? Asks theologians. We can ignore God in the physics of the universe, because universe is not created, it has no beginning and it has no birth. If there is a creation, it is for earth for example. God is a supreme being in the universe, not the creator of it from nothing. If he exists. It means a lot for the astronomy of the universe if he exists. But not for the physics of the universe, for the physics of the cosmology. The eternal and infinite universe is a materialistic theory. The existence of God means, that there are higher beings too as humans, eternal beings, and different habitable planets as our earth. But the basic physics of the universe might be the same in both cases. And it means there are spirit worlds too in the universe and worlds of God, paradises. Unknown things now for our science. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The list of models http://cosmology.info/essays/models_marmet.html
The list is good to be here for a start. There are more than 80 models in the scientific community or near it. They are not all refuted. They are refuted only if we first suppose the BB model as right. And Louis has also made an article where he values all the models with some college.
In my mind the universe is eternal and infinite, and the philosophy is better than physics to study the universe. Cosmology is always both philosophy and astronomy, in this order. We must understand the universe, the eternity and the infinity better now with all new astronomy of the galaxies.
No expansion, no beginning. The local part- universe has a beginning. The observable universe is stupid thing for a definition of the universe, the universe is much bigger.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions