Originally Posted By: finiter

In my model the universe is spherical and has a centre. There has not been any observational evidence to the contrary.


Wrong almost all the observational evidence denies that fact. You should be able to construct orbitals for the galaxies about a universe centre ... you can't. You should see red and blue shifts from the galaxies you don't you see only red shifts. On the contrary noone has been able to construct any support for a static universe not even Einstein.

Originally Posted By: finiter

The E-m radiations and atoms are two types of systems created by the fundamental particles. The former has no internal energy and so moves at the speed 'c'. The latter has internal energy and so can never attain the speed 'c'. The universe contains a system formed by atoms (a system of galaxy-clusters) and a system formed by e-m radiations. Both exist simultaneously and there is always interaction between the two. The system of radiations have no source and remains as back ground radiation. It also cools along with the system of galaxies; both have the same cooling rate. The present average temperature of the system of radiations is 2.7 K, and so the average temperature of the system of galaxy-clusters is also the same. In another 7 million years, the average temperature will be 0K (the wavelength of back ground radiation will be nearly 4.8x10^-3m). There after the temperature will go below absolute zero.


So why does the radiation have anisotropy and polarization?
There is far more to it than just it exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)

Originally Posted By: finiter

It is not the hydrogen fusion that causes the expansion. Hydrogen fusion is a consequence of the expansion. The most abundant element in the universe will be the middle elements, especially iron. The black holes will contain mainly iron (as is evident from the remnants of the died out stars). The 'abundance' of hydrogen and helium is a myth; even from the present calculations they account for not more than 10 percent of the expected mass of the universe.


Do you have any evidence for any of that?


There are so many observational problems with your theory which is why science taking it serious is a big problem. Einstein realized his version had problems that he could not explain so you need to consider how you explain the observations if your theory is right.

Last edited by Orac; 10/10/11 07:02 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.