Observance of the universe from a round earth with implications

Interesting thoughts!
But philosophically speaking the phrase 'given that' is rather simplistic. Pragmatists tend to dismiss the ontological problem of what is and replace it with what works to account for delimited observations. Obviously the key issue is the generation of the hypotheses that guide observation, so in that sense alternative models can be useful. There may be no ultimate answer to the issue of 'best model', with elegance being a major criterion.

I'm not sure I followed how you got to the inversion from explosion to implosion but your point may be related to a question I've long had about the shape of the universe.

It is said that the edge of the expanding universe (represented by the CBR) is equidistant in all directions. This would imply that we are at the very center. But it is also said that an observer anywhere in the universe would see the same thing. I'm trying to reconcile this with your implosion hypothesis but it's making my head hurt.

Thank you for your input, fresco. I appreciate it. I did put a qualifier in my opening "Given that..." Statement by saying "we SEEM to live on a three dimensionally round earth", so I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "simplistic." I do think that meets with your "what works" criteria. Perhaps you could expound on that a bit to help me understand what you meant by that? I think referencing our point of observation as being from an apparent three dimensionally round earth as one from which an observer from any point on the planet can only peer into our univers's distant past through our instruments is pragmatic.

I once read that Einstein said that he could have published his General Theory of Relativity seven years before he did, but it took him that long to believe that the universe works in the manner in which his theory says that it must. I don't remember where I read that and I've never read it in any other place, so I don't know if that is accurate or not. But that hesitation of mind through inability to accept what the intellect tells us is a trait that leads us sometimes to continue with frames of reference that have come into doubt through intellectual reasoning in spite of the logical conclusions our reasoning leads us to. I say this with ideas in mind raised in the thread in which ideas concerning a two dimensional universe in which the mathematics allow for perceptions of it in three dimensions was discussed.

Thank you for your thoughts, Leadfoot! The point you raise about seeing ourselves as being at the center of the universe, the edge of which is equidistant in all directions to all observers no matter where in the universe they may be is absolutely relevant to my hypothesis, and is one which I have thought of as perhaps being an obstacle to its validity. But as I thought of it, it seemed to me that while other observers elsewhere in the universe would doubtless see it in the same way, that is really no obstacle at all. For they too would be observing in all directions the residual effects of the same big bang creating event, the implications of which imply that we have been blown inward from the singularity point of explosion.

If you are having difficulty seeing how I got to the inverse implosion idea from the explosion event, consider the effects of an explosion on surrounding materials and/or observers experiencing them. In an explosion, they are blown outward from the point of the explosion. That is easy to see. Now take that idea and narrow it to a single observer. That observer would experience the effect of being blown away from the point of explosion. Now consider ourselves from our frame of reference on a three dimensionally perceived round planet, Earth. From our perspective, looking into the universe in all directions from any point on the round planet, we look into the distant past TOWARD the hypothesized big bang singularity point of creation. So how can a one dimensional POINT be observed three dimensionally in all directions simultaneously unless that point is being observed from INSIDE the big bang creating event it gave birth to? We of course are not observing the actual exploding point but rather its residual effects as seen in the most distant objects we oberve which scientists tell us are billions of years in our past. The only obvious conclusion I can draw is that our universe is the result of an inwardly implosion effect of that creating event rather than an outwardly effect of the explosion. I hope this helps.

Briefly, what I mean by 'simplistic' is that NO axiom can be set in stone from an ontological point of view. Axioms stand or fall because of the utility, and that may be transient according to shifting paradigms.

A second related point from philosophy (e.g Rorty) is that ability to visualize a model may not render it superior from an epistemological point even though such picturing is useful at the level, of 'the understanding of layman'.

You are correct in citing extrapolation from 2 dimensions to 3 or more in discussion the generation of models. Another case suggested perhaps by your own model above is the choice of a particular 'geometry'. Einstein of course used one type of non-Euclidean geometry, and other types, like Projective Geometry ( in which negative and positive infinity are coincident) may yet be employed to provide a structure for 'counter-intuitive' findings.

Note too that although Einstein might have considered himself to be a 'Scientific Realist' (hence his rejection of probabalistic quantum theory) It may be the case that discussion of an 'objective reality' may be futile. This point underpins the Pragmatists position.

Re: Curiouserncurioser (Post 6039598)
Briefly, what I mean by 'simplistic' is that NO axiom can be set in stone from an ontological point of view. Axioms stand or fall because of the utility, and that may be transient according to shifting paradigms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. I don't see how that particular sentence to which you refer meets the criteria, as I did include the qualifier "we SEEM to live on a three dimensionally round Earth" and it does have utility to my point, in fact is necessary to it, but that's nothing to expend any more time or energy on. Thank you for the further clarification.


Your second point, that ability to visualize a model does not make it superior though perhaps useful to understanding "at the level of the layman" appears to indicate that that is your opinion about what I have presented. Is that actually your opinion, or is that simply a warning that I might be wrong? I freely acknowledge that in the world of physics, cosmology and mathematics I AM a layman. In fact, mathematically at least and no doubt physicswise as well I would say that I am less than a layman. And I know that I may be wrong. I do trust my mind, but I am a layman and I might be wrong, and so I present it precisely for that reason to get the input of others. Although I have noticed that being wrong has not historically been the sole purview of the layman. And I do take heart in that you initially pronounced my proposition and questions to be "Interesting thoughts!" With exclamation point.

Thanks again for your input.

The questions an alternative model such as yours must answer are whether

(a) it is consistent with the known data
(b) it is more 'elegant' that current models .(This generally means mathematical elegance rather than visual elegance).
( c) it generates new data which otherwise would not have been

I cannot tell whether your model meets such criteria....can you ? Note that (c) is the most important one in terms of paradigm shifts.

EDIT
(c)should read.........would not have been observed.

Aha. That is new data for me. No, I can't tell you whether it meets thoae criteria or not. I suspect it would be consistent with A, but the other two I haven't even a suspicion of a clue. Hopefully a more knowledgeable person of the field will see it, or I can get it to one or more. Again, thanks.