The above article contains more hypotheses than proven facts, but when you talk about the Universe as a whole, there is a lot of uncertainty. The main ideas are around the Big Bang Theory.

Among other things I picked the following ideas as a base for my reasoning:

1. **The Universe is expanding** – this is the main idea discovered by Hubble that Universe is not static but the distance between the galaxies is increasing. And this was confirmed by other observations from 1920 when it was discovered first. So I’ll take this hypothesis as the base.

2. From 1 resulted **The universe has a start** therefore an age and even an order of size is aproximated. This is viewed like a very rapid expansion from a very small point which gave the name Big Bang.

Here comes the first objection (viewed in a Discovery science documentary) -> Maybe is oscilating between a minimum and a maximum size (is pulsating).

3. This year Nobel price was given for the discovery that **the expanding of the Universe is accelerating**. This revives the geometric models of the **General Theory of Relativity
**

4. There are presented **three geometrical models** of the Universe based on the balance between the aformentioned expansion and the gravity: sphere, curbed but open(as a saddle) and flat.

The sphere model was also imagined by Einstein which saw the Universe as a 4 dimensions sphere (the 4th dimension being the time).

Here comes my first personal idea: I think **there is no straight line in the real universe**. The infinite straight line which stands at the base of euclidian geometry has **no representation in nature**.

A lot of the math we use it’s based on this flat earth logic. We use this absolute concepts of line, plane, parallelism but they cannot exist in nature. Stars are round, planets are round and they move on curved trajectories, galaxies are spiraled, at small scale nothing seems to be described as infinitly straight.

So I thinkĀ the flat model can be disregarded.

As for the math, there is non-euclidean geometry which challenges the postulates of Euclid, but it’s a sort of declination of the firstĀ in a somehow hypothetical space.

I think there is a **real need for a new math**. Something unified that better integrates the applicable knowledge earned until modern days and eases the work with complex concepts and understanding of large structures.

A way to do this will be to shift focus from the paradigm of reducing everything to a few basic absolute/abstract concepts (some of them arguable like the concept of infinite) and to search for some complex tools (custom symbols) to better illustrate real world objects and interactions.

My hypothesis is that **Universe has a start and an end**, therefore the time has a start and an end, but the Universe has no age. The start and the end are much likely the same. I think the shape of the Universe is close to a seashell (spiral) and this form contains the time.

I’ll try to elaborate in later writings in a more specific manner ideas and work variants, and maybe someone will engage in a constructive discution.

]]>