{"id":313,"date":"2012-06-04T00:58:13","date_gmt":"2012-06-04T00:58:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=313"},"modified":"2014-02-09T05:31:36","modified_gmt":"2014-02-09T05:31:36","slug":"before-the-big-bang","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2012\/06\/before-the-big-bang\/","title":{"rendered":"What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology – Article by James B. Wright"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
James B. Wright
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
June 3, 2012<\/big><\/span><\/div>\n
Recommend this page<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

In the telephone conversation between Ross Anderson, of Atlantic, and Dr. Tim Maudlin, of NYU, entitled \u201cWhat Happened before the Big Bang?\u201d I was intrigued by his statement \u201cPhysicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions.\u201d, and \u201cThe asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore.\u201d\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But could not the Cosmological Redshift be caused by something other than a Doppler frequency shift?\u00a0 It could, indeed, but because of the Physicists having accepted space as a pure vacuum they couldn\u2019t find the answer.<\/p>\n

And the answer is perfectly logical and not at all complicated.\u00a0 The scientists have calculated that this space has the characteristics of permeability (\u00b5) and permittivity (\u025b), and that these characteristics determine the speed of light (C), which in turn, determines the wavelengths (\u03bb) of light.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 There will be N waves of light at frequency (F) traveling through that one mile of space.\u00a0 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 \u00b5 and \u025b to increase, then C will steadily decrease, \u03bb will gradually shorten, and N will be gradually increase. \u00a0Consequently, 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

So we not only have a redshift but we have a compound redshift, precisely as we observe in the Cosmological Redshift.\u00a0 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?\u00a0 But it certainly does change the appearance of our Universe, with the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe being discarded.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

In her philosophy of objective reality Ayn Rand starts it all off with the axiomatic concepts of Existence, Consciousness, and Identity.\u00a0 We must exist<\/span> having a consciousness with which we may identify that which exists.\u00a0 Miss Rand builds her whole philosophy using these concepts, insisting on causal chains.\u00a0 I use only Existence (openly) to establish a starting point in the science of Cosmology, here again insisting on causal chains.<\/p>\n

\u201cExistence Exists.\u201d, as a self-evident axiom.\u00a0 Our Earth, our Solar system, the Universe, all exist and have existed for the tens of billions of years that our telescopes reveal.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Similarly, it must extend outward from here to the infinite reaches of space.\u00a0 It is infinite and eternal, which, of course, rules out any sort of a beginning or an end.\u00a0 And, now we may re-examine the evidence without the need to make it fit into an Expanding Universe.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Nothing new or unusual should be anticipated \u201cout there\u201d that\u2019s not already found within our Universe.\u00a0 And, our Observable Universe should be seen as a very adequate sample of Existence.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 Unless there were mechanisms at work taking the ashes of these old galaxies and renewing them into new galaxies, we wouldn\u2019t be here asking these questions.\u00a0 We\u2019d be down some \u201cblack hole\u201d somewhere.\u00a0 And the Galactic Clusters are those mechanisms, scattered as they are throughout the Universe and into the endless ocean of Existence.<\/p>\n

Gravity is the universal force, a Prime Mover at work everywhere. \u00a0It 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\u2019 outer boundaries, all moving towards the center-of-gravity for each cluster.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 This transformation must be 100% efficient, with the Universe (and Existence) appearing essentially as we see it today, for all of eternity.<\/p>\n

Pausing at this point, it is helpful to envision these galaxy clusters as they are located in the Universe.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 And, of course, this mechanism will be at work throughout all of Existence.\u00a0 It may also be concluded that there would be about 50 million Seyfert galaxies, one for each mature cluster.<\/p>\n

A Gravitational Lens is the result of the formation of a Galactic Cluster.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 At the surface of the sphere one may envision wisps of the various masses, being drawn inward quite slowly.\u00a0 As these masses move inward their density increases gradually until the cluster reaches the critical mass at the center of its Seyfert.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 While gravity forms the lens it is the lens that focuses (bends) the light.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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\u2019t the problem discussed earlier, of a build up mass.\u00a0 The Cosmological Redshift remains essentially unaffected.<\/p>\n

Attention must be paid to the energy mass that leaves the stars along with the stellar winds.\u00a0 For the Sun it is reported as being 96% winds and 4% energy.\u00a0 The discussion now takes up with the planets that surround our Sun that are awash in these Winds and Energy.<\/p>\n

In high school we were told that \u201ca moving charge generates a magnet field\u201d, 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.\u00a0 One ampere flowing through each of (say) one thousand turns of wire gave us 1000 ampere-turns.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Electrons were the \u201cmoving charge\u201d.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 We would have our Earth generating an electromagnet!\u00a0 And, by using the solenoid formula we would be able to determine the size of the charge necessary to give that electromagnet it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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\u2019s surface negative.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 [Note that only five of the planets (Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) had characteristics that allowed their charges to be calculated.]<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n

So we now may have a negative energy mass leaving the stars as they burn, and a candidate for the \u201cdark matter\u201d of space.\u00a0 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 \u201cfeel\u201d in the galactic rates of rotations.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know what this dark mass is, any more than we know what gravity is, but we do know some of what these forces do.<\/p>\n

We now need the mathematicians and the scientists to try afresh using this new Universe, existing within Existence.\u00a0 If only they would ask the questions that Tim Maudlin claims they are avoiding.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

James Burton Wright writes<\/span> on <\/span>physics and philosophy on his blog, Cosmological Musings<\/a>, utilizing a reason-based, Objectivist approach.
\n<\/strong><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

James B. Wright June 3, 2012 Recommend this page. ****************************** In the telephone conversation between Ross Anderson, of Atlantic, and Dr. Tim Maudlin, of NYU, entitled \u201cWhat Happened before the Big Bang?\u201d I was intrigued by his statement \u201cPhysicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions.\u201d, and \u201cThe asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore.\u201d\u00a0 The result of this training is the furious…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,662],"tags":[668,679,42,667,532,672,665,676,683,682,674,671,681,684,669,678,664,663,439,44,680,666,60,673,685,677,670,675],"class_list":["post-313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy","category-science-2","tag-axiom","tag-axioms","tag-ayn-rand","tag-big-bang","tag-consciousness","tag-cosmological-redshift","tag-cosmology","tag-earth","tag-eternal-existence","tag-eternity","tag-existence","tag-fundamental-questions","tag-galactic-clusters","tag-gravity","tag-halton-arp","tag-identity","tag-james-b-wright","tag-james-wright","tag-logic","tag-objectivism","tag-observable-universe","tag-physics","tag-reason","tag-redshift","tag-seyfert","tag-solar-system","tag-tim-maudlin","tag-universe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=313"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2142,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313\/revisions\/2142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}