Let’s start with what we know for sure – or at least as sure as we can be.
Let’s not arbitrarily dismiss the possibility of an infinite or virtually infinite universe. Just about all scientists agree that our space telescopes are looking far out into space and far back in time at the visual and radio emissions that tell us about our universe and, as far back as we can see, the universe is extremely old, extremely large, and wildly diverse. We know that, as far as we’ve been able to look back in time and out in space, there are stars, solar systems, galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies. We’ve seen superclusters in all directions from our current position arrayed around us at almost all times in the visible past.
The Lynx Supercluster is a 3-dimensional grouping of billions of individual stars that were 12,900,000,000 light-years [1.29×1010 light years] (around 1.2×1023kilometers) from our current position in space and time some 12,900,000,000 (12.9 billion) years ago. This is a fact that almost all scientists agree on. There is an almost universal gradual lessening of energy from these stellar and quasi-stellar objects that is usually directly proportional to both the distance traveled and the time of travel with variations due to the spin on galaxies that make the side spinning toward us more energetic than the side moving away. Yet there are anomalies that Halton Arp, a contemporary of and assistant to Edwin Hubble, discovered. Halton Arp’s peculiar galaxies (Seeing Red) present a discordant set of data which suggest that there might also be a different cause to the ubiquitous loss of energy seen in our modern radio telescopes throughout the known universe. Rather than dismiss Dr. Arp’s data, as the bulk of modern cosmology has done, let’s embrace it. Rather than going to great lengths and weird and speculative mathematics that make vector arithmetic and common experience obsolete, let’s embrace Arp’s data and, with open minds, see where it leads us.
Let us also review what we know about our local part of the universe.
We know that there is no negative absolute temperature. We’ve discovered the Kelvin scale of temperature where all movement begins to stop and matter has amazingly different properties.
The negative matter once speculated has turned into “anti-matter,” particles of opposite charge which, when united with their oppositely-charged twin, produce energy consonant with Einstein’s principle of the conservation of energy plus matter. Since these particles repel each other only when close together, they can not be the source of the ubiquitous acceleration that is said to reverse the effects of gravitational attraction. So we might safely speculate that the rest of the Universe doesn’t have negative energy or negative matter, either.
The way to nullify gravitational attraction is to have equal attractive forces in the opposite direction. At the center of mass, all gravitational forces are nullified. Likewise, if the Universe is essentially infinite, all gravitation from all surrounding bodies would nullify each other, resulting in something much more stable and permanent than current cosmological theories suggest. Is there some other reason for dismissing the idea of much more out there too far for the light to travel all the way to our present position in space and time?
So far we have found no way to change the sum of energy and matter in any experiment. For a hundred years, we’ve searched, but have consistently come up with results equal to initial sums. The atomic bomb worked because destroying a small amount of matter produced an enormous amount of energy. And linear accelerators have added mass to subatomic particles, a way to produce a tiny bit more mass by using up energy.
So we have positive energy and positive mass arrayed around us with no known process or fancy math to change the equal amounts of what seems to make up our universe. Yes, I know, this is a very simplistic view, but please bear with me.
Time is, on one hand, the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance, all light traveling at the same speed. And, as long as everything else is relatively stationary, everything is OK. After all, that’s why we use light-year as a unit of distance. But what if light traveled at a different speed relative to a moving object but any interaction with any matter or attempt to measure that speed altered the speed by losing or gaining energy and bringing the electromagnetic energy into a new frame of reference?
In their several experiments, Michelson and Morley not only failed to find any “aether,” they got the speed of light in a vacuum wrong 4 out of 5 times while being experts in error theory. The inference I take from these errors is that a near vacuum and an absolute vacuum are two very different things when it comes to testing the speed of light. Anyone who has studied light in a laboratory knows how much electromagnetic energy interacts with its environment. Light does all kinds of odd things when near any type of matter. Any owner of a pair of glasses with polarized lenses knows this, but a physics laboratory makes this abundantly clear. Light interacts with its environment as energy, not as discrete particles.
So, rather than have light speed be the constant, let’s let time run universally at the same speed and see where that speculation might lead us.
First, since time is a factor of energy as well as a sequencer of events, it makes the equality of matter and energy work out in all circumstances. No longer do we drift endlessly when captured by a black hole, but are quickly crushed by massive gravitational forces and accelerated into its subatomic center. All events are concurrent. There may be no fifth or sixth dimension. What is is all now. What was is changed but still lives on in the same location with equal energy plus matter.
Second, we need to find another reason for the ubiquitous loss of electromagnetic energy throughout the universe. Luckily, Dr. Arp has left us clues. What he found were quasi-stellar objects (quasars) that were linked or closely associated with galaxies with a much smaller red shift, indicating that there was a greater energy drop in the quasar than its parent galaxy. Why might the environment around a quasar suck energy from its emissions more than the associated nearby galaxy? I speculate that it has an overabundance of tritium that are absorbing this energy in creating a more normal state, but I really don’t know. However, it’s a question that should be answered before we pretend to know how big or old the universe is (again). If there were some excess of this rare substance around quasars, might this substance breaking down into a more common substance account for the general loss of energy as well? With a half-life of 12 years, hitting a tritium atom just right might be a rare enough occurrence that it could steal minute amounts of energy without being noticed.
As I imagine it, this general and ubiquitous loss of energy limits how far we can see and how far back in time our images take us as it is directly proportional to both distance and time. We may be blind to a much older, much bigger universe whose light has dissipated into the “background radiation.”
In any case, the “science” on which most of the current cosmological theories rely has assumptions that I take exception to:
- that phase shifts of starlight are always caused by the relative movement of their source objects
- that atomic clocks are always accurate, even under acceleration or deceleration
- that what we see is the whole universe and not just a tiny portion of it
- that “improving” a theory by changing it constantly for 100 years to fit new data actually results in good science when accompanied by massive investment, enticing rewards, and general support from the non-scientific community
- that science has an explanation for everything (including time, space, matter and energy) spontaneously occurring when it has yet to find a single example of an experiment where the sum of matter plus energy doesn’t stay the same.
Supposition 1: all phase shifts indicate relative velocities
Dr. Halton Arp, in his discoveries of super-high-energy quasi-stellar objects, has already made a strong case for believing that there must be an additional explanation for the phase shifts throughout the visible universe. The “movement” would be like bread dough rising, uniform and ubiquitous with no discernable cause. After all, every force needs an equal and opposite counter force to create any acceleration; and all such supposed causes remain implausible and unverifiable. And, finally, the timeline is backwards, with the greatest speeds and oldest history occurring at the limits of our visibility and the supposed beginning of “time,” and are spread in a globe all around subsequent phenomenon. Back at the “start” of “time,” what was inside this thin globe of already-dispersed stars, galaxies and clusters? Once one changes assumptions and perspective, a stable, larger universe may begin to make sense.
Supposition 2: atomic clocks are always accurate
Every clock ever produced has ways to make it inaccurate. A pendulum clock on the moon or under centripetal acceleration being swung around in a circle would certainly lose accuracy. We’ve increased the mass of particles by accelerating them in linear accelerators. Why would cesium act differently under acceleration?
Supposition 3: there is nothing beyond what we can see; light shines forever
Just looking at the faint and weak emanations from the Lynx Supercluster, a three-dimensional mini-universe as it once was 12.9 billion years ago, tells me that the universe then and there might have been similar to what’s currently surrounding us today. This hints that once again mankind has pretended to understand phenomena that he really can’t comprehend. This phase shift may be one way electromagnetic energy dissipates over time and distance. Must I know what might cause all light to lose a minute amount of energy universally and regularly? The most common element by far, the very basic element, is hydrogen. So I guess. It’s not scientific, but then neither is the assumption that it must always indicate movement and that there could be no other cause. The explanations coming from cosmologists over the last century have all failed to fit together seamlessly. There is ample room for doubt as theories keep changing each time new data accrues.
Supposition 4: Current Cosmology is uninfluenced by massive funding and accolades
Science over the past 100 years has developed its own prejudices and predillections. Thinking was biased at the start by the theory then in vogue, the aether. Furthermore, theory evolved from a faulty analysis of the data in a compromised environment. A completely empty space is quite different from one that has been drained of most, but not all, of its gasses. Also, when massive funding and scientific accolades were thrown in, it became difficult for anyone to gain any credibility without years of indoctrination in current Cosmological theories and the strong influence of incredibly brilliant men. Like the Dark and Middle Ages, it’s become almost impossible to gain an audience and thoughtful consideration when proposing alternate possibilities…as Halton Arp himself discovered.
Supposition 5: Time, space, matter and energy spontaneously occurred
Three hundred years ago, we didn’t use much science and things were explained by mythology, dogmatism, or random guessing … and little progress was made. When we discovered the actual underlying principles, science became extremely useful. And, so far, we’ve found that ALL of the Universe appears to work with the same rules as around our amazingly miniscule part of it. Since ALL proven science (so far) has outputs exactly equal to and in the same location as inputs, why in Hell are we making up odd and unreasonable exceptions to the science that, for 300 years, has brought us so much comfort and capability?
In my arduous treks through several halls of higher learning, I’ve found dozens of people who can argue why current Cosmological theories are right, but never anyone who has even tried to show me why I am wrong. I hope this paper might provoke some charitable soul into enlightening me or (on the off chance I am right) agreeing with me.
©David Ney Dodson, Phoenix, AZ, May 2021