Originally Posted By: finiter

I would like to know the history of such a configuration. Though I think that the model is mathematically viable, I have not tried to verify it by consulting experts. In the model having three bodies moving in a plane, I had such a picture in mind, but did not know that there is a ready reference available in the net. In the actual model of the universe, the galaxy-clusters are not the of same size, and the distance between them depends on their masses. I think that the extended model will also be mathematically viable, if the simple model is proved correct.


Einstein's initial guess at the universe was based on the same sort of lines ... keep it simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

Quote:

Moreover, it is unstable in the sense that any change in either the value of the cosmological constant, the matter density, or the spatial curvature will result in a universe that either expands and accelerates forever or re-collapses to a big crunch


Your version looks identical to what an Einstein big-crunch version looks like in motion. As you adjust the curvature you can get less or more crunch so your version would be sort of a mild crunch.

So you are in good company :-)

Ultimately your model fails for the same reasons as Einsteins model.

-The expansion of the universe is increasing according to your model it should be slowing.
-There is no centre of the universe
-How do you explain the cosmic background radiation
-How has the universe not run out of hydrogen

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.