In the telephone conversation between Ross Anderson, of Atlantic, and Dr. Tim Maudlin, of NYU, entitled “What Happened before the Big Bang?” I was intrigued by his statement “Physicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions.”, and “The asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore.” The result of this training is the furious reaction you get if you suggest to a physicist that the Big Bang is nonsense, as is the Expanding Universe. But could not the Cosmological Redshift be caused by something other than a Doppler frequency shift? It could, indeed, but because of the Physicists having accepted space as a pure vacuum they couldn’t find the answer.
And the answer is perfectly logical and not at all complicated. The scientists have calculated that this space has the characteristics of permeability (µ) and permittivity (ɛ), and that these characteristics determine the speed of light (C), which in turn, determines the wavelengths (λ) of light. So we set up a test range on the moon (which we suppose to be in a vacuum) with a light transmitter and a light receiver a mile away. There will be N waves of light at frequency (F) traveling through that one mile of space. Now, if we imagine that the space around the moon actually contains some sort of medium, and that that medium is becoming slowly more dense causing its µ and ɛ to increase, then C will steadily decrease, λ will gradually shorten, and N will be gradually increase. Consequently, fewer waves will exit the one mile path than enter it, each second, and the light seen at the receiver will be lower in frequency than the light being transmitted, which is fixed, of course. Move the receiver two miles away and a similar frequency shift will occur over the second mile, adding in a compound fashion to the first one-mile frequency shift.
So we not only have a redshift but we have a compound redshift, precisely as we observe in the Cosmological Redshift. Our problem is now to determine what this medium can be, and how it could continually increase in density without becoming bogging down after a while? But it certainly does change the appearance of our Universe, with the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe being discarded. Before using the evidence at hand to answer this question it may be helpful to use a philosophy available to us to see what we may be able to find that could be useful.
In her philosophy of objective reality Ayn Rand starts it all off with the axiomatic concepts of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. We must exist having a consciousness with which we may identify that which exists. Miss Rand builds her whole philosophy using these concepts, insisting on causal chains. I use only Existence (openly) to establish a starting point in the science of Cosmology, here again insisting on causal chains.
“Existence Exists.”, as a self-evident axiom. Our Earth, our Solar system, the Universe, all exist and have existed for the tens of billions of years that our telescopes reveal. And, if we rule out any such thing as Creation or Annihilation, Existence must have existed for an eternity past, and will exist for a future eternity. Similarly, it must extend outward from here to the infinite reaches of space. It is infinite and eternal, which, of course, rules out any sort of a beginning or an end. And, now we may re-examine the evidence without the need to make it fit into an Expanding Universe. We will observe that the Galactic Clusters which fill this Universe in some tens of millions, can be expected to extend outward into an infinite ocean of such clusters. Nothing new or unusual should be anticipated “out there” that’s not already found within our Universe. And, our Observable Universe should be seen as a very adequate sample of Existence.
One more conclusion we should draw from our Universe, with its hundreds of billions of stars in more hundreds of billions of galaxies all apparently being burned up. Unless there were mechanisms at work taking the ashes of these old galaxies and renewing them into new galaxies, we wouldn’t be here asking these questions. We’d be down some “black hole” somewhere. And the Galactic Clusters are those mechanisms, scattered as they are throughout the Universe and into the endless ocean of Existence.
Gravity is the universal force, a Prime Mover at work everywhere. It builds the galactic clusters, starting with two galaxies and growing to perhaps three or four thousand galaxies, drawing in not only the galaxies themselves, but also the gaseous masses within the galaxies and the dark masses within the clusters’ outer boundaries, all moving towards the center-of-gravity for each cluster. And as these masses are being drawn in from the surface of the cluster towards its center they undergo a continual compression until, in time, the central volume develops into a massive spiral galaxy called a Seyfert.
These masses, the ashes of the thousands of galaxies all being moved in toward the central Seyfert galaxy, causing it to eventually reach the point where its central pressure and temperature becomes critical and a nuclear explosion occurs, and after another 7.5 billion years of growth another explosion occurs, etc., etc. These explosions expels two quasars in opposite directions, usually at escape velocity, quasars that evolve into normal galaxies (per H. Arp), only to become fuel for the galactic clusters. This transformation must be 100% efficient, with the Universe (and Existence) appearing essentially as we see it today, for all of eternity.
Pausing at this point, it is helpful to envision these galaxy clusters as they are located in the Universe. If the Universe has 200 billion galaxies and a galactic cluster has 4 thousand galaxies we may roughly estimate that there are about 50 million such clusters spread homogenously throughout the Universe, each doing its job of galactic renovation in its own locale. And, of course, this mechanism will be at work throughout all of Existence. It may also be concluded that there would be about 50 million Seyfert galaxies, one for each mature cluster.
A Gravitational Lens is the result of the formation of a Galactic Cluster. Ideally, a Galactic Cluster is an sphere with some 4 thousand galaxies and their masses of gas and energy, all being drawn inward toward a center-of-gravity. At the surface of the sphere one may envision wisps of the various masses, being drawn inward quite slowly. As these masses move inward their density increases gradually until the cluster reaches the critical mass at the center of its Seyfert. If we look back at the whole of the sphere we find that we have just described a Luneburg Lens, one that is being perpetually rebuilt as the masses are continually moving inward to the nucleus of the Seyfert. Then as light moves into the lens from (say) a Quasar far beyond the cluster it is refracted inward to a focal point (the Observer) on the other side of the Lens. While gravity forms the lens it is the lens that focuses (bends) the light.
But note that the light path through the mass is affected by the constant increase in the density of that mass and undergoes a redshift. Note also that the mass in the path of the light is constantly being renewed with fresh mass coming in from outside that space as it flows towards the center of the cluster so that there isn’t the problem discussed earlier, of a build up mass. The Cosmological Redshift remains essentially unaffected.
Attention must be paid to the energy mass that leaves the stars along with the stellar winds. For the Sun it is reported as being 96% winds and 4% energy. The discussion now takes up with the planets that surround our Sun that are awash in these Winds and Energy.
In high school we were told that “a moving charge generates a magnet field”, and proceeded to build a solenoid and, by passing a DC electric current (a flow of negative charge) through the turns of wire on the solenoid, made an electromagnet having the usual North and South Poles. One ampere flowing through each of (say) one thousand turns of wire gave us 1000 ampere-turns. We also found that this same effect could be envisioned as 1000 amperes flowing through one turn of wire, say using a sheet of copper with a cross section area equivalent to the cross-sectional area of the 1000 turns of wire. Electrons were the “moving charge”.
Now, suppose we were to imagine the Earth as a single turn solenoid, one that was electrically charged with that charge moving (effective) as a flow around the Earth by its rotation. We would have our Earth generating an electromagnet! And, by using the solenoid formula we would be able to determine the size of the charge necessary to give that electromagnet it’s observed 0.4 gauss field strength and, furthermore, by noting where the North and South poles were located we could determine whether that charge was positive or negative.
It turns out that all planets have charges that are a function of their surface area and that, except for the Earth, those charges are all positive. Knowing that our geologists had determined long ago that the Earth had undergone several pole reversals over time it seemed that the ionosphere was acting as a huge capacitor enveloping the Earth and that it intercepted the positive charge, leaving the Earth’s surface negative. As the Earth itself rotated, not its ionosphere, the magnetic Poles would be determined by this negative charge and would be opposite that of the other planets. Periodically a massive Solar Storm would short out this ionospheric capacitor allowing the positive charge to drop to the Earths surface and allowing its magnetic North/South poles to agree with that of the other planets. [Note that only five of the planets (Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) had characteristics that allowed their charges to be calculated.]
The fact that all of these planets had positive charges suggested that the Solar Wind must be the source of these charges and must itself be positive. This, in turn, would suggest that the energy mass leaving the Sun was carrying away the negative charged, in some way, and was perhaps intrinsically negative?
So we now may have a negative energy mass leaving the stars as they burn, and a candidate for the “dark matter” of space. It also gives us a tangible medium that allows the transmission of electro-magnetic waves (TV, Etc.), and one for a magnetic field as an electro-magnetic warp in the dark matter, as well as the dark mass we “feel” in the galactic rates of rotations. We don’t know what this dark mass is, any more than we know what gravity is, but we do know some of what these forces do.
We now need the mathematicians and the scientists to try afresh using this new Universe, existing within Existence. If only they would ask the questions that Tim Maudlin claims they are avoiding.
