# Infinite light speed, limited-range gravity and non-dilatable time, could it be self-consistent? [closed]

I came up with some ideas concerning the laws of physics in a fictional universe. I changed some laws that govern our reality in order to explain and justify many phenomenons like interstellar communication and travelling while trying to make day to day life not so much different from what we experience.

My question is the following : Would this set of laws be self-consistent and would they make life there much different from ours?

(Also, could they somehow be backed-up with maths someday or does it go too deep into fantasy and "magic"?)

• The universe would be static, non expanding nor collapsing and finite. It would have a central point, a specific point in space that can be calculated and mapped onto a grid. Universal and exact coordinates would exist and maybe permit the opening of magic-based portals or alien/god technology.

• Gravity would have a "limited range", the more massive is the object, the greater is its gravitational range, but at some point and at a certain distance gravity would stop operating. I thought this might explain how the universe stays static, never collapsing, while keeping some familiar physics laws. Also, i would prefer most of the star clusters and galaxies to be static, in a certain cohesion with how gravity works in this universe, of course.

• Time is universal. Gravitation does not dilate time, so wherever you are in the universe, time is the same. The big problem about that is that I have no idea how I would explain the fact that stars would still burn for billion years. Maybe somehow making gravitation dilating time only beyond a certain mass. (But I have no idea how this would/could work)

• Light and waves travel at infinite speed. BUT would fade as they travels. So we could observe the surrounding space instantly without delay while avoiding the effects of Olbers' Paradox (however, I guess that wouldn't be a problem due to the small size of the universe, so I might drop that. -see clarifications-). We could also measure distances with the state of fading of the particles of light. And also communicate and receive transmissions instantly but with a certain variation in quality and clarity due to the distance.

Clarifications:

• Goal - This is for short stories, taking place in a world where sapient species have colonised interstellar worlds, so there would be quite a lot of moments in space. However, I'd like it to be very similar to what we would experience in our reality (at least in terms of sensorial experience), while being convenient.

• Size - It would be very small. About a third of size of the Local Group in which is the Milky Way. It would have a diameter of 1 mpc and host about 60 star clusters and galaxies scattered quite equally within the universe. (Even though I'd use only one star cluster/galaxy for my short stories)

• Fading light - About than, knowing how the universe is small, and saying a person would be at the center of the universe, there wouldn't be enough stars in the sky for the Olbers' Paradox to take place anyway, right? More so with what Michael Kjörling pointed out about "EM radiation spreading uniformly, becoming less concentrated the farther you get from the source."

• Gravity and star formations - The universe was created by a deity. So it kind of appeared like this a couple billion years ago, a great number of the things contained in this universe was not "naturally created".

## closed as primarily opinion-based by Mołot, kingledion, AndreiROM, sphennings, AzuaronDec 18 '17 at 15:48

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Welcome to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange! I would recommend changing your aim from plausibility to self-consistency. Modifying the laws of physics often lead to contradictions that can doom (in any sense of the word) a universe. I'd also like to see two things clarified: Is the speed of light infinite or finite (this has implications for causality), and is a really modified and somehow consistent general relativity applicable here, or is it out the window, which seems to be the case? – HDE 226868 Dec 18 '17 at 15:25
• Depends on your goals. Just create some space adventure? Star wars makes a lot of money and absolutelty no sense. If you want to reinvent physics and have the math work out at the end: no chance. – Raditz_35 Dec 18 '17 at 15:27
• @HDE226868 A universal concept of "now" would work nicely with light travelling instantaneously, but OP's light travelling "instantly, at a near infinite speed" seems self-contradictory. – a CVn Dec 18 '17 at 15:28
• Anything can happen in a universe which you invent. What you're describing makes no sense in our reality, therefore it is not plausible. However, that's the way you want to write your story, and that's fine. However, at that point you're asking us for suggestions for improvement, and/or comments, which has no place on WB SE. – AndreiROM Dec 18 '17 at 15:37
• @HDE226868 Lighten up! It's the Festive Season. This is a fictional universe. It only has to be sufficiently plausible to persuade an informed layperson, not Physical Review plausible. This model makes good use of Olbers' Paradox & the 'tired light' hypothesis. Breaking the link between space & time would give an absolute time cosmology without causality problems. – a4android Dec 19 '17 at 1:53