मध्यस्थ दर्शन सह-अस्तित्ववाद - प्रणेता श्री ए नागराज - अमरकंटक

मध्यस्थ दर्शन सह-अस्तित्ववाद - प्रणेता श्री ए नागराज - अमरकंटक

THE BOOK!

"Big Bang Blaste

The story of the expanding universe and how it was shown to be wrong




'New Tired Light' is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe. 'New Tired Light' is totally different to Zwicky's old theory and matches all observational results.

Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In New Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.

The New Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?

Interested? If you want to know more then click on the following pages.

Ashmore's Paradox

New Tired Light Theory

New Tired Light and the CMB

Predicting line broadening

Debunking The Big Banger's CMB Curve!

The Implications of Ashmore's Paradox

Just what is Ashmore's Paradox All About!

New Tired Light Explains Supernovae Time Dilation



The paper has been published in the peer reviewed journal:

"Galilean Electrodynamics" Vol. 17, Special Issues 3. Summer, 2006.



GALIILEAN ELECTRODYNAMIICS 41
Experience, Reason, and Simplicity Above Authority
Summer 2006 (Vol. 17, Special Issues No. 3), © by Galilean Electrodynamics
Published by Space Time Analyses, Ltd., 141 Rhinecliff Street, Arlington, MA 02476-7331, USA
Editorial Board
GED Editor in Chief: Cynthia Kolb Whitney, Visiting Industry Professor, retired
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
GED Associate Editor: Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
GED-East Editor: Jaroslav G. Klyushin, Chair of Applied Mathematics
Academy of Civil Aviation, St. Petersburg, RUSSIA
CONTENTS
From the Editor: ‘What is this Special Issue?’, Cynthia K. Whitney..................................................................................................................2
Correspondence:
‘Inconsistancies in the Comological Concept of the Origin of the Universe’, D.S. Robertson (Mr.) ...............................................2
Ruggero Maria Santilli,
“Nine Theorems of Inconsistency in GRT with Resolutions via Isogravitation”...................................................................................43
Lyndon Ashmore,
“Recoil Between Photons and Electrons Leading to the Hubble Constant and CMB”......................................................................53
Correspondence:
‘E.A. Milne and the Universes of Newton and Relativistic Cosmology’, Jeremy Dunning-Davies..............................................57
From the Editor: ‘An Agenda Concerning Gravity’, Cynthia K. Whitney ....................................................................................................60
EDITORIAL POLICY
Galilean Electrodynamics aims to publish high-quality scientific papers
that discuss challenges to accepted orthodoxy in physics, especially
in the realm of relativity theory, both special and general. In particular,
the journal seeks papers arguing that Einstein's theories are unnecessarily
complicated, have been confirmed only in a narrow sector of physics,
lead to logical contradictions, and are unable to derive results that must
be postulated, though they are derivable by classical methods.
The journal also publishes papers in areas of potential application for
better relativistic underpinnings, from quantum mechanics to cosmology.
We are interested, for example, in challenges to the accepted Copenhagen
interpretation for the predictions of quantum mechanics, and to the accepted
Big-Bang theory for the origin of the Universe.
On occasion, the journal will publish papers on other less relativityrelated
topics. But all papers are expected to be in the realms of physics,
engineering or mathematics. Non-mathematical, philosophical papers
will generally not be accepted unless they are fairly short or have something
new and outstandingly interesting to say.
The journal seeks to publish any and all new and rational physical
theories consistent with experimental fact. Where there is more than one
new theory that meets the criteria of consistency with experiment, faultless
logic and greater simplicity than orthodoxy offers, none will be favored
over the others, except where Ockham's razor yields an overwhelming
verdict.
Though the main purpose of the journal is to publish papers contesting
orthodoxy in physics, it will also publish papers responding in defense
of orthodoxy. We invite such responses because our ultimate purpose
here is to find the truth. We ask only that such responses offer
something more substantive than simple citation of doctrine.
The journal most values papers that cite experimental evidence, develop
rational analyses, and achieve clear and simple presentation. Papers
reporting experimental results are preferred over purely theoretical
papers of equally high standard. No paper seen to contradict experiment
will be accepted. But papers challenging the current interpretation for
observed facts will be taken very seriously.
Short papers are preferred over long papers of comparable quality.
Shortness often correlates with clarity; papers easily understandable to
keen college seniors and graduate students are given emphatic preference
over esoteric analyses accessible to only a limited number of specialists.
For many reasons, short papers may pass review and be published
much faster than long ones.
The journal also publishes correspondence, news notes, and book
reviews challenging physics orthodoxy. Readers are encouraged to submit
interesting and vivid items in any of these categories.
All manuscripts submitted receive review by qualified physicists,
astronomers, engineers, or mathematicians. The Editorial Board does not
take account of any reviewer recommendation that is negative solely
because manuscript contradicts accepted opinion and interpretation.
Unorthodox science is usually done by individuals working without
institutional or governmental support. For this reason, authors in Galilean
Electrodynamics pay no page charges, and subscription fees heavily
favor individual subscribers over institutions and government agencies.
Galilean Electrodynamics does not ask for taxpayers' support, and would
refuse any government subsidies if offered. This policy is based on the
belief that a journal unable to pay for itself by its quality and resulting
reader appeal has no moral right to existence, and may even lack the
incentive to publish good science.
Summer 2006 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 53
Recoil Between Photons and Electrons
Leading to the Hubble Constant and CMB
Lyndon Ashmore, B.A. (hons), M. Phil.
C/O Dubai College, P.O.Box 837, Dubai, U.A.E.
e mail: ashmore@emirates.net.ae
This paper proposes a recoil interaction between photons and electrons in the plasma of intergalactic
space as a mechanism that could lead to the observed Hubble constant and cosmic background radiation. It
begins from the Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae, which gives the value of the Hubble constant, H as
64±3 km/s Mpc-1. In SI units, H is 2.1 × 10-18 s-1, equal to ‘
hre / me per cubic meter of space’, where h is
Planck’s constant,
re is radius of the electron and
me is the mass of the electron. This coincidence suggests a
possible relationship between H and the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. Electrons act collectively
and oscillate if displaced. The possibility that light from distant galaxies is absorbed and re-emitted by
the electrons, with recoil on both occasions, is considered. A double Mössbauer effect leads to a red-shift in the
transmitted light. Introduction of the photo-absorption cross-section
2reλ leads to the relationship
H = 2nehre / me , giving H = 12 km/s Mpc-1 when
ne has the reported value of
ne = 10−7 cm-3. The small
amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the
microwave region.
Key Words: Hubble constant, Intergalactic Plasma, CMB, Redshift; Subject headings: Cosmic microwave background
--- Cosmology: Galaxies: distances and redshifts ---Intergalactic medium
1. Hubble Constant vs. Electron Paradox
Whilst the conventional interpretation of observed cosmological
red-shifts is an Expanding Universe, some researchers
have expressed doubts that the red-shifts are caused by expansion
alone [1-6]. Marmet [7] proposed a recoil interaction between
photons of light and the hydrogen atoms in Inter-Galactic
(IG) space, but this idea would seem to have problems when one
considers the discrete nature with which atoms absorb and reemit
photons. However, no researchers have previously reported
the remarkable coincidence between the Hubble constant
and the parameters of the electron (
H = hre / me per cubic meter
of space). Nor, until now, has anyone derived a possible relationship
between the two.
The Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae gives the value
of the Hubble constant, H as 64±3 km/s Mpc-1 or (2.07±0.1) × 10-
18 s-1 [8]. The quantity ‘
hre / me ’ where h is the Planck constant
(6.626 × 10-34 Js),
re is the classical electron radius (2.818x10-15 m)
and
me is the electron rest mass (9.109 × 10-31 kg) is equal to
(2.05 × 10-18 m3s-1) and so ‘
hre / me per cubic meter of space’ has
the same magnitude and dimensions as the Hubble constant.
The HST key Project result for H of 72+/- 8 km/s per Mpc [9]
gives a range of (2.1–2.6) ×10−18 s-1 is remarkably close to
hre / me ‘per cubic meter of space’ when one considers that, if
we are to believe in an Expanding Universe, H could have had
any value from zero up to the speed of light, and is not supposed
to be related to the electron. We must ask the question, “why is
the measured value of H so close to a simple combination of the
parameters of the electron if they are not related?”
These are not isolated results. Table 1 shows recent experimental
values of the Hubble constant, H as selected by the ADS
database. To select an unbiased sample the words ‘Hubble’ and
‘constant’ and ‘measurements” were fed into the database, and
‘return 100 items’ chosen. Of these, all the papers giving an actual
value for H were selected and should include the most recent
results. The results for H are given in terms of
hre / me
per cubic meter of space. To do this the symbol k was assigned
to represent the constant ‘
hre / me per cubic meter of space’.
The average of all the results was then taken. It should be
noted that uncertainties were not taken into account, and for
those papers giving a range of values for H the middle value
was taken. The average of all these values for H , found by several
different techniques, is equal to 1.0k i.e.
hre / me per cubic
meter of space. It is therefore proposed that this relationship
between the Hubble constant and the electron is not a chance
event.
2. The Medium with which Light Interacts
This coincidence could suggest a relationship between H
and the electrons in the plasma of IG space,
ne ≈ 10-7cm-3 [10].
Electrons in the plasma interact simultaneously with other electrons
by means of long-range Coulomb forces giving rise to a
collective behavior. Significantly, a displaced electron in the
plasma of IG space will perform Simple Harmonic Motion [12]
and a system of electrons that is able to oscillate is able to absorb
and emit electromagnetic radiation. It is possible that photons
from distant galaxies could interact with these electrons.
54 Ashmore: Photons, Electrons, Hubble, CMB Vol. 17, SI No. 3
Author Date Bib. Code Method Used Value of H in units of
hre / me
Cardone et al.
Freedman et al.
Tikhonov et al.
Garinge et al.
Tutui et al.
Freedman et al.
Itoh et al.
Jensen et al.
Willick et al.
Koopmans et al.
Mauskopf et al.
Sakai et al.
Tanvir et al.
Tripp et al.
Jha et al.
Suntzeff et al
Iwamoto et al.
Mason et al.
Schaefer et al.
Jha et al.
Patural et al.
Wantanabe et al.
Salaris et al.
Hughes et al.
Cen et al.
Lauer et al.
00/2003
00/2003
07/2002
06/2002
10/2001
05/2001
05/2001
04/2001
02/2001
00/2001
08/2000
02/2000
11/1999
11/1999
11/1999
03/1999
00/1999
00/1999
12/1998
12/1998
11/1998
08/1998
07/1998
07/1998
05/1998
05/1998
2003acfp.conf..423C
2003dhst.symp..214F
2002Ap…45…253T
2002MNRAS.333..318G
2001PASJ..53..701T
2001ApJ..553..47F
2001AstHe.94.214I
2001ApJ.550..503J
2001ApJ.548..564W
2001PASA..18..179K
2000ApJ..538..505M
2000ApJ..529..698S
1999MNRAS.310..175T
1999ApJ..525..209T
1999ApJS..125..73J
1999AJ..117.1175S
1999IAUS..183..681
1999PhDT…29M
1998ApJ..509..80S
1998AAS..19310604J
1998A&A..339..671P
1998ApJ..503..553W
1998MNRAS..298..166S
1998ApJ..501..1H
1998ApJ..498L..99C
1998ApJ..449..577L
Grav. Lens
HST – Cepheids
HST – Stars
Xray emission
CO line T-F
HST Cepheids
Xray emission
SBF
HST Cepheids
Grav. lens
Xray emission
HST Cepheids
HST Cepheids
Ia Supernovae
Ia Supernovae
Ia Supernova
Ia Supernovae
Xray emission
Ia Supernovae
Ia Supernovae
HIPPARCOS
Galaxies T-F
TRGB
Xray emission
Xray emission
HST SBF
0.91k
1.1k
1.2k
0.89k
0.94k
1.1k
0.94k
1.2k
1.3k
(0.94 – 1.1)k
0.92k
1.1k
1.0k
0.97k
1.0k
1.0k
1.0k
1.1k
0.86k
1.0k
0.94k
1.0k
0.94k
(0.66 – 0.95)k
(0.94 – 1.3)k
1.4k
Average of all the values 1.0k
3. Proposed Red-Shift Mechanism
When photons travel through any transparent medium they
are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the
medium. French [13] states “the propagation of light through a
medium (even a transparent one) involves a continual process of
absorption of the incident light and its reemission as secondary
radiation by the medium.” Feynman [14] describes the transmission
of light through a transparent medium simply as “photons
do nothing but go from one electron to another, and reflection
and transmission are really the result of an electron picking up a
photon, ”scratching its head”, so to speak, and emitting a new
photon.”
The plasma of Intergalactic space acts as a transparent medium
and photons of light, as they travel through space, will be
absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in this plasma. At each
interaction where the momentum of the photon is transferred to
the electrons, there will be a delay. So the electron will recoil
both on absorption and reemission - resulting in inelastic collisions
[15].
A double Mössbauer effect will occur during each interaction
between photon and electron. Some of the energy of the photon
will be transferred to the electron, and since the energy of the
photon has been reduced, the frequency will reduce and the
wavelength will increase. It will have ‘undergone a red-shift’.
Energy lost to an electron [16] during emission or absorption
is equal to
Q2 / 2mec2 , where Q is the energy of the incoming
photon ( hc / λ ),
me is the rest mass of the electron and c is the
speed of light.
This energy calculation must be applied twice for absorption
and re-emission. Hence, total energy lost by a photon is
Q2 / mec2 = h2 / λ2me (energy before interaction) – (energy after)
= h2 / λ2me
hc / λ − hc / λ′ = h2 / λ2me
where λ is the initial wavelength of the photon and λ′ is the
wavelength of the re-emitted photon. Multiplying through by
λ2λ′me and dividing by h gives:
λλ′mec − λ2mec = hλ′
Increase in wavelength is δλ = λ′ − λ , so:
λ(δλ + λ)mec − λ2mec = h(δλ + λ)
⇒ λmecδλ + λ2mec − λ2mec = hδλ + hλ
⇒δλ(λmec − h) = hλ
Summer 2006 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 55
Then since
h << λmec ,
δλ = h / mec
On their journey through IG space, the photons will make
many such collisions and undergo an increase in wavelength of
h / mec each time. On this basis red shift becomes a distance
indicator and the distance - red shift relation becomes: photons of
light from galaxies twice as far away will travel twice as far
through the IG medium, make twice as many collisions, and thus
undergo twice the red shift.
Conservation of linear momentum will ensure the linear
propagation of light.
4. The Hubble Law
The process whereby a photon interacts with an electron and
gives all its energy to the electron is known as photo-absorption
and the photo-absorption cross section σ is known from the interaction
of low-energy X-rays with matter [17, 18, 19].
σ = 2reλf2
where
f2 is one of two semi-empirical atomic scattering factors
depending, amongst other things, on the number of electrons in
the atom. For 10 keV to 30 keV X-rays interacting with Hydrogen,
f2 has values approximately between 0 and 1, ‘0’ meaning
that the photon was absorbed and an identical photon re-emitted,
and ‘1’ meaning that the photon has been absorbed and the electron
remains in an excited state [13].
Since the photon frequency of light from distant galaxies is
far removed from the resonant frequency of the electrons in the
plasma of IG space, the photons will always be re-emitted. The
collision cross section for the recoil interaction considered here is,
therefore,
2reλ since
f2 only ‘modulates’
2reλ for the atom.
On their journey through the IG medium, photons of radiation
at the red end of the spectrum will encounter more collisions
than photons at the blue end of the spectrum and thus undergo a
greater total shift in wavelength. For a particular source, the ratio
Δλ / λ will be constant. The collision cross section for a particular
photon will not be constant, but will increase every time it
interacts with an electron. The photon travels shorter and shorter
distances between collisions as it travels further and further, and
it is this phenomenon that makes the red shift relation go nonlinear
for large red shifts. If the initial wavelength is λ, then it
will be (
λ + h / mec ) after one collision, (
λ + 2h / mec ) after two
collisions, (
λ + 3h / mec ) after three collisions and so on.
The mean free path of a photon in the plasma of IG space is
given by
(neσ)−1 or
(2nereλ)−1 since
σ = 2reλ . If the photon
makes a total of N collisions in traveling a distance d , the sum
of all mean free paths is d , or
(2nereλ)−1 + [2nere (λ + h / mec)]−1 + [2nere (λ + 2h / mec)]−1
+[2nere (λ + 3h / mec)]−1 + ... + {2nere [λ + (N − 1)h / mec]}−1
= d
or
λ−1 + (λ + h / mec)−1 + (λ + 2h / mec)−1
+(λ + 3h / mec)−1 + ... + [λ + (N − 1)h / mec]−1
= 2nered
or
λ + x(h / mec) ⎡⎣
⎤⎦
x=0
N−1 Σ −1
= 2nered
Since N is large and
h / mec is small (2.43 × 10-12m), this approximates
to:
λ + x(h / mec) ⎡⎣
⎤⎦
−1
0
N−1 ∫ dx = 2nered
or
1 + h(N − 1) / mecλ = exp(2nehred / mec)
N = λ exp(2nehred / mec)(h / mec)−1 + 1 − λ(h / mec)−1 (1)
The total increase in wavelength, Δλ = Nδλ , or
Nh / mec .
Δλ = λ exp(2nehred / mec) + h / mec − λ
The red shift, z is defined as Δz = Δλ / λ , which implies
z = exp(2nehred / mec) + h / mecλ − 1
Since
h / mecλ is small for all wavelengths longer than X-ray
wavelengths,
z = exp(2nehred / mec) − 1
Using the power expansion of the exponential, i.e.
ex = 1 + x / 1!+ x2 / 2!+ x3 / 3!+ ...
gives:
z = (2nehre / mec)d / 1!+ (2nehre / mec)2d2 / 2!
+(2nehre / mec)3d3 / 3!+ (2nehre / mec)4d4 / 4!+ ...
In Hubble’s Law, the radial speed, v , is given as
v = cz = c(2nehre / mec)d + c(2nehre / mec)2d2 / 2
+c(2nehre / mec)3d3 / 3!+ c(2nehre / mec)4d4 / 4!+ ...
56 Ashmore: Photons, Electrons, Hubble, CMB Vol. 17, SI No. 3
Since
2nehre / mec is very small, the terms involving powers of
two and above can be ignored until d becomes very large. That
is, for nearby galaxies, the expression approximates to
v = (2nehre / me )d
and, as v = Hd ( H being the Hubble constant), comparing the
two equations gives
H = 2nehre / me (2)
Consequently we have:
v = Hd / 1!+ H2d2 / 2!c + H3d3 / 3!c2 + H4d4 / 4!c3
or
v = c[exp(Hd / c) − 1] (3)
and
z = exp(Hd / c) − 1 (4)
It should be noted that this relationship between redshift, z and
distance, d is identical to that first proposed by Zwicky in 1929
[20].
5. Comparison with Experimental Results
This theory predicts by Eq. (2) that
H = 2nehre / me , or
H = 4.10 × 10−18ne s-1.
As cited earlier,
ne ≈ 10-7cm-3 [10,11], and using this value to
predict H gives:
H ≈ 0.41 × 10-18 s-1 ( H ≈ 12 km/s Mpc-1)
This is in good agreement with the experimental values ([8] i.e.,
H = (2.1±0.1) × 10-18 s-1.
To match the experimentally derived H of 2.1 × 10-18s-1 (64±3
km/s Mpc) requires
ne ≈ 5 × 10-7 cm-3 compared to the cited
value of
ne ≈ 10-7cm-3. Light of wavelength 5x10-7 m would have
a collision cross-section of 2.8 × 10-21 m2, and each photon would,
on average, make one collision with an electron in the plasma of
IG space every 75,000 light years.
Published statistical tests on redshift data show that the Hubble
diagram is straight up to z ≈ 0.1, goes nonlinear at z ≈ 0.8, is
quadratic at z ≈ 2.8 – 3.6 and for redshifts above this, follows a
non simple power law ([8, 21, 22, 23]. However, it has recently
been shown [24] that data from the Calan/Tololo Supernova survey
can verify this exponential law with a value of H of 72
km/s per Mpc, i.e. 1.13
hre / me per m3 (
ne = 5.7 × 10−7 cm-3) if
the data is not ‘corrected’ for the relativistic effects of expansion
first. That is the data fits this theory’s predicted exponential
Hubble law provided that we do not assume that the Universe is
expanding and manipulate the data accordingly. This theory’s
predicted exponential Hubble curve is shown in Fig 1 for comparison.
6. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
The recoiling electron will be brought to rest by Coulomb interactions
with all the electrons contained within a Debye sphere
of radius
λD . The decelerating electron will emit transmission
radiation (TR) i.e. bremsstrahlung. There are two emission channels
of the system, ‘intrinsic emission’ by the decelerating electron,
and ‘emission by the medium’, where the background electrons
radiate energy.
Intrinsic radiation arises when the recoiling electron exchanges
a virtual photon with the external field (set up by the
large number of coulomb centers) with momentum q and emits
a quantum with momentum k . The medium or external field in
which the recoiling electron is moving radiates when the virtual
photon of momentum q results in the production of radiation
by background electrons contained within the Debye sphere [25].
The interactions between light and the electrons are nonrelativistic
and the initial and final states of the electron belong to
the continuous spectrum. The photon frequency of the transmission
radiation
fCMB is given by:
hfCMB = 1
2
(p2 − p′2) / me
where
p = mev and
p′ = me v′ are the initial and final momentum
of the electron [26].
The electron returns to rest after absorption and reemission
and so the wavelength of the transmission radiation
λCMB is
given by:
λCMB = 2meλ2c / h
Light of wavelength 5 × 10-7m gives rise to TR of wavelength
0.21m. In IG space, the dominant background photons are microwaves,
having peak energy of 6 × 10-4eV and a photon density
of about 400 per cm-3 [27,28]. In this theory, these background
photons ( λ = 2.1 × 10-3 m) would be given off as TR by a photon
of wavelength 5x10-8 m (i.e. ultra violet radiation) interacting with
an electron.
Figure 1.
Summer 2006 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 57
7. Discussion
This proposed theory has successes in predicting values of
H and
λCMB that have the same magnitude as experimental
values. As to whether this proposed interaction makes up the
whole of the red-shift or just a part of it will not be known until
ne has been determined to a greater accuracy. The theory also
shows a relationship between H and ‘
hre / me per cubic meter’
which could explain the remarkable coincidence between their
magnitudes. As scientists, we must always be suspicious of
quantities that are equal but do not appear to be related. The
theory still has to explain the ‘surface brightness test’ [29] and the
time dilation in supernova light curves [30-34].
However, the value of H quoted here (64±3 km/s Mpc-1) is
only one value, and other techniques and other workers give
differing values. A value of 70±7 km/s Mpc-1 can be said to represent
present data from all areas [35], and thus all agree that
values of H lie in the range 1.0 to 1.2 times ‘
hre / me per cubic
meter of space’. With the ‘Big Bang’ theory, H could have had
any initial value (as far as we know) and the effects of gravity
and ‘vacuum energy’ make H time dependent, changing in
magnitude from this original value. How probable is it that the
first time we measure H with some accuracy it has the same
value as ‘
hre / me per cubic meter of space’ (especially when
these constants carry such importance in the scattering of light).
To complicate matters further, the age of the Universe is often
quoted as H−1 , which we now realize to be equal to between 0.8
and 1.0 times
me / hre - this is a test that the Expanding Universe
‘fails’ and now has to explain.
References
[.1.] Burbridge et al. 1971 ApJ, 170, 233 – 240
[.2.] Z. Mari, M. Moles, and J.P. Vigier, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 18, 269 –
276 (1977).
[.3.] H. Arp, 1987 Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies. (Interstellar
Media, Berkeley)
[.4.] Cohen et al. Ap. J 329, 1–7 (1988).
[.5.] H. Arp, Nature, 346, 807-812 (1990).
[.6.] H. Arp, Ap. J., 430, 74-82 (1994).
[.7.] P. Marmet, Physics Essays, 1 (1) 24-32 (1988).
[.8.] Reiss, Press, Kirshner. Ap. J. 473, 88 – 109 (1996).
[.9.] W. Freedman, et al dhst. symp. 214 - 222F (2003).
[10] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (1993).
[11] C. Deffayet, D. Harari, JP. Uzan, M. Zaldarriaga, Phs. Rev. D
66d3517D 6 pages (2002).
[12] M. Mitchner, C.H. Kruger, Partially Ionized Gases (Wiley,
p138.USA, 1973).
[13] A.P. French, Special Relativity (p. 128. Nelson. London, 1968a).
[14] R. Feynman, Q.E.D.- the Strange Story of Light and Matter, p. 76.
Penguin.London.1990.
[15] V.B. Berestetskii, E.M. Lifshitz, L.P. Pitaevskii, 1982a Quantum
Electrodynamics Volume 4, second edition, pp. 161 & 221. (Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford. UK.).
[16] A.P. French, Special Relativity, p. 176-182 (Nelson, London,
1968b).
[17] B.L. Henke, E.M. Gullikson, J.C. Davis, Atomic Data and Nuclear
Data Tables 54, p181-342 (1993).
[18] B.L. Henke, E.M. Gullikson, J.C. Davis, X-Ray Data Booklet, Chapter
1, pp. 44/52 (LBNL/PUB-490 Rev. 2 Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, University of California, Berkely, CA, 2001).
(also at: h t tp://www-cxro.lbl.gov/optical constants/intro.htm l )
[19] J.H. Hubbell, W.J. Veigele, E.A. Briggs, R.T. Brown, D.T. Cromer,
R.J. Howerton, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 4, 471-538 (1975); erratum
in 6, 615-616 (1977).
[20] F. Zwicky, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 773–785 (1929).
[21] Sandage, Kristian, Westphal. Ap. J. 205, 688-695 (1976).
[22] I.E. Segal. MNRAS. 237, 17–37 (1989).
[23] R.M. Soneira, Ap. J. 230, L63–L65 (1979).
[24] K. Khaidarov, http:/bourabai.narod.ru/universum.htm
[25] K.Yu. Platonov, G.D. Fleishman, 2002 Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk
172 (3) 241–300
[26] V.B. Berestetskii, E.M. Lifshitz, L.P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics,
Volume 4, p. 389 (second edition, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford, U.K., 1982b).
[27] P.J.E. Peebles, D.N. Schramm, R.G. Kron, E.L. Yurner, Nature 352,
769–776 (1991).
[28] M. Nagano & A.A. Watson, July Reviews of Modern Physics 72 (3)
689-732 (2000).
[29] A. Sandage, Ap. J. 370, 455-473 (1991).
[30] A.G. Reiss, A.V. Filippenko, D.C. Leonard, Astronomical J. 114,722-
729 (1997).
[31] Perlmutter et. al., Nature 391 51–54 (1998).
[32] S. Perlmutter, et al., Ap. J. 517, 565–586 (1999).
[33] A.G. Riess et al., AJ 116, 1009–1038 (1998).
[34] A.G. Reiss et al ., ibid., 560, 49 (2001).
[35] R.P. Krishner, The Extravagant Universe”, p. 98. (Princeton University
Press. Princeton, N.J., 2000).
Correspondence
E.A. Milne and the Universes of Newton
and Relativistic Cosmology
This note reviews the 1930’s work of Milne on the relationship
between the universes of relativistic cosmology and those
that follow from Newtonian theory. The extension to the case of
non-zero pressure is considered also. In each case, any assumptions
made are noted, and the thermodynamic implications of
these are explored in the final Section.
Introduction
In the 1930’s, Milne [1] initiated an investigation into the relationship
between the universes of relativistic cosmology and
those that may be considered using only Newtonian theory.
McCrea [2] later joined in this work. Milne then gathered together
all the results in his book on relativity, gravitation and
world structure [3]. It seems somewhat surprising that this work
does not appear well known today. One reason for this may be

Contradictions in the Big Bang Theory

Contradictions in the Big Bang Theory

Nonsense number 1: The age of the Universe.

Hubble's Law states (velocity, v) = (Hubble constant, H)x(distance, d) or:
v = Hd
But, we also have (velocity, v) = (distance, d)/(time,t)
v = d/t
Equating these gives Hd = d/t.
Dividing both sides by d gives us the result:
t = 1/H

The 't' is the age of the Universe or 'Hubble time'. However, Ashmore's paradox tells us that present values for the magnitude of the Hubble constant, H can be expressed in terms of the parameters of the electron (H = hr/m per metre cubed)

So, according to 'Big Bang' Codsmology, the age of the Universe is:
Age of Universe has the same magnitude as (mass of electron)/{(planck constant)x(radius of electron)}

ie Age of Universe has the same magnitude as 'm/hr' for the electron.

As said before, this is silly. What is wrong? H and hr/m are equal in magnitude - no doubt about that. In the Big bang theory the age of the Universe is definitely 1/H. So it must be the theory that is wrong. The Universe is not expanding.

Note: To avoid confusion, Big Bang and the expanding Universe will be termed 'codsmology', whilst 'New Tired Light' will be referred to as cosmology.

Nonsense number 2: The rate of expansion.

The Hubble constant measures the rate at which the Universe expands, sometimes called the 'red shift expansion rate'.

In astronomical units Reiss et al's value for the Hubble constant is H = 64 km/s per Mpc.
This means that space is expanding such that each distance of one megaparsec stretches at a rate of 64 km every second.

But lets work in 'proper units' the SI system (metres, seconds etc.) In the SI system, Reiss et al's value is 2.1exp(-18) m/s per metre. This means that space is expanding such that each distance of one metre stretches at a rate of 2.1exp(-18) metres every second.

However, Ashmore's paradox tells us that 2.1exp(-18) m/s per metre is hr/m m/s per metre. So what the 'Big Bang' Codsmologists are telling us is that every metre of space stretches by an amount equal to the (planck constant)x(radius of the electron)/(mass of the electron). Exactly!!!! This is nonesense, the Universe cannot be expanding.

Nonsense number 3: Why these ridiculous units of km/s per Mpc?

What strange units for 'professional' scientists to use! km/s per Mpc. 'Mpc' means megaparsec and it is a unit of distance. But km is also a unit of distance so why have two different units for distance in the same expression? Why not Mpc/s per Mpc? Or km/s per km? Or even m/s per m? Ah! but wait a minute, if one has 'm/s per m', the metres cancel to give 'per sec' or just s-1 . But then it is not a velocity. people would never believe that the universe was expanding if the units were just 'per sec' and had no units of velocity in there, would they? Methinks the units of km/s per Mpc are a con to make people think that the universe is expanding. The proper unit for H is s-1. Lets use that instead.
If we are to believe in 'Big Bang' Codsmology then:
i) We must believe:
The magnitude of the age of the Universe is (mass of electron)/{(planck constant)x(radius of the electron)}
ii) We must believe:
The space occupied by a ruler one metre long stretches at such a rate that every second it stretches by an amount equal to {(planck constant)x(radius of electron)}/(mass of electron)
And that both these results are purely by chance.
It cannot be. The Universe is not expanding.
Of course until now, these codsmologists did not realise that the value they had for H was a combination of three very common physical constants. You can take any child's scientific calculator and call up these constants and work out the Hubble constant! It is there - inside the child's calculator.

For me, I just cannot believe that these results happen by chance. If you have a coincidence of this nature so that two seemingly very different quantities have the same value then their must be a relationship between them.

It is an indisputable fact that the Hubble constant is hr/m per cubic metre.

In the 'New Tired Light' Theory, it is shown that H = 2nhr/m where 'n' is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space - and we know from observation that 'n' is about 0.5m-3 so the above results are not a problem in the 'New Tired Light' Theory. This is where the ' per cubic metre' comes from in the above relationships. It is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space. In 'New Tired Light' 1/H is not the age of the universe and space is not expanding so the coincidences of the age of the universe and the ruler do not happen. H is only dependent upon the electron and the Plank constant.

Is the Expanding Universe too big a stretch of the imagination????

© Lyndon Ashmore Feb. 2003 and June 2005. All rights reserved.

Universe not expanding, galaxies moving to other circuits

Universe not expanding, galaxies moving to other circuits

MIL/NASA, Mar 21, 2006
Henry Groover


California - Scientists claim to have gathered new evidence supporting the inflationary theory of expansion. They feel indebted to NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) for the new data. The spacecraft has been making continuous observations of the cosmic background radiation; the afterglow of the Big Bang, the scientists claim.

I contacted Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist from India, to give his opinion how far this finding matches with that of TOPU (Theory of Parent Universe or two big bang theory) or otherwise.

Dr. Raj Baldev said: "the scientists have of course been able to trace how microscopic fluctuations in the primordial Universe were magnified in a trillionth of a second of rapid expansion to create the stars and galaxies we see today. This brings the Astronomers closer to my theory rather than Big Bang theory.

"My difference with Astronomers is that the Universe is not expanding. It is only the material composed of mixtures of particles of dust, iron, mineral and gases, which primarily exploded at a drastic speed much higher than the speed of light and ultimately formed the galaxies and planets. The galaxies are only moving from one circuit to another and give an impression that the Universe is expanding while the space is eternal and limitless.

"This material later on got closer and formed the stars and planets as and when required and the remaining material took different shapes like Asteroids, Comets and other lumps, which are floating in the deep space. Nothing is useless in the space, even a bit of material floating in the space is important to keep the balance of any order in any Universe". (According to Dr. Raj Baldev, there are many Universes, ours is not alone).

Dr. Raj Baldev added that NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is close to the theory of Parent Universe or the theory of two big bangs. It states "with a richer temperature map and the new polarization map, WMAP data favor the simplest versions of inflation. Generically, inflation posits that, at the outset of the big bang, quantum fluctuations - short-lived bursts of energy at the subatomic level - were converted by the rapid inflationary expansion into fluctuations of matter that ultimately enabled stars and galaxies to form. The simplest versions of inflation predict that the largest-sized fluctuations will also be the strongest. The new results from WMAP favor this signature".

Dr. Raj Baldev specifically said, "The universe in fact is not expanding, since the space is eternal and unlimited. Even if we admit for a moment that universe is expanding, but where? It can only expand in space and nowhere else. Whether the space is transparent or non-transparent, it is eternal like dark. Space never was created, it has been in existence before the Big Bang, the basic theory which the scientists are escaping from.

He further said, "The material of the primordial universe or parent universe is just being shifted or getting transferred or moving from one Circuit to another with the help of dark energy. It is a process of filling up all the Circuits with galaxies. If you go through the TOPU (Theory of Parent Universe) it shall enlighten your brain with some close similarities even if you do not wish to agree.

"Our Solar system is located within the Close Circuit with a radius of 100,000 trillion miles (1023). If the Universe were expanding as the scientists assume, the Solar System would have collapsed long ago. The distances of the earth, and other planets from the Sun and the distance of the Sun from the Home Galaxy and so on had naturally widened and would have created havoc in balance of gravity thereby forcing the Solar System to collapse in addition to collision of all planets.

Some excerpts of "Two Big Bang Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space)" state:

"As we find different belts in the Solar System in its limited area, so is the case with the Universe, its division is theoretically based on colossal scale of Seven Circuits, which govern the whole Universe. The distance is based on the ratio of the Central Reservoir to the Outer Reservoir, which burst the second and final explosion 14 billion years ago. (Central Reservoir was a Primeval Black Hole, the cause of the creation of the Parent Universe).

(According to Raj Baldev, who is considered one of the authorities on Black Hole and theory of Universe Creation, is of the opinion that he gave in his book in 2003 that it was the Primeval Black Hole which helped create the Parent Universe. The Black Hole on one hand destroys and sucks the material and on the other it recycles and reproduces new material to form fresh stars and planets like Supernova).

Dr. Raj Baldev said, "Close Circuit had a presumed radius of 100,000 trillion miles (1023) in the first billion years. As a result of the 2nd and final explosion, it filled the creative material to shape into stars and galaxies. Some of its material was also passed on to the Deep Circuit, which accelerated only when the Close Circuit was completely set with the early Universe.

"It looked to the scientists that the Universe had halted or slowed down. For the last 1.2 billion years, the transfer or shifting of material has been going on towards the Deep Circuit. When it began its movement, the scientists presumed that the Universe was expanding at an accelerated speed.

"There is no doubt that the force of Dark Energy is shifting the galaxies but it is just a transfer of material from Close Circuit to Deep and other Circuits. It does not suggest any expansion of the Universe but indicates simple re-arrangements of organizing the galaxies in new Circuits and also the material of stars and planets from one circuit to another.

"At 1.2 billion years, the radius of the Close Circuit was about 100,000 trillion miles (1023). The shifting started thereafter from 5 to 10% per thousand million years and this calculation fits in with the average distance of the Deep Circuit, which has an approximate radius of 100,000 sextillion miles (1041), where four supernovae appeared and exploded about 4.1x1025 miles or 7 billion light years away.

Dr. Baldev said,"Some expansion of the stars and galaxies looked to be moving fast and some new stars are added to the Deep Circuit. Normally, the stars and galaxies in one circuit do not disturb the other circuit barring exceptional situations. Probably this is the reason why our Solar System is safe being in the Close Circuit.

"Next to the Deep, there is Broad Circuit, which has a presumed radius of 100,000 duodecillion miles, (1077). As regards other four circuits, which fall thereafter are Large Circuit, Wide Circuit, Outer Circuit and Free Circuit. However, it is not possible even to presume the measurement of the Large Circuit, what to think of the Free Circuit, which is unlimited and endless".

"There is no doubt that the majority of scientific aspects support the theory of Big Bang but it is not fully acknowledged as perfect and it cannot be unless the Astronomers take trouble of going into the pre-history of the Big Bang," said Dr. Raj Baldev while concluding his interview.

The Truth and Lies about Black Holes

The Truth and Lies about Black Holes
By paranominal
Published: June 28, 2010
Related

o Carl Sagan – Black Holes and the Bending of Light
o Q&A: what are black holes?
o The Truth about Betty & Barney Hills Alien Abduction! Pt 4/5
o Discover Your Past Lives – The Bizarre Truth About Reincarnation And Past Lives
o The Truth about Betty & Barney Hills Alien Abduction! Pt 2/5

Black holes have a bad reputation. After all, something that could swallow you completely sounds pretty scary. They’re invisible, so maybe there’s one just around the corner and we dont know it! Also, arent they enormous vacuum cleaners capable of destroying anything that gets near them? Once the black hole starts pulling on something, isnt that just a one-way ticket to oblivion? Well, not all of these things are exactly true.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

http://www.paranominal.com/unexplained-phenomena/astronomy/36335/the-truth-and-lies-about-black-holes.html

The Universe as a Hologram

The Universe as a Hologram
by Michael Talbot

Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".

Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.
In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.
Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.
Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.
Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.
The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions.
Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.
Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smellisin part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.
It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.
In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.
Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.
In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.
As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.
The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.
Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.
Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because, in the holographic domain of thought, images are ultimately as real as "reality".

Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson describes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.

Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.

Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".

No Edge, No Center -- Exploring the Shape of Our Universe

Think about this for a moment: If the Universe is infinite, it has unlimited volume; if the Universe is finite, it has a limited, measurable volume. Remember now, we are not talking about boundaries, for this is another matter. A boundary is an edge of space. If we were to reach a boundary in space, we can go no farther.

In general, the human mind tends to have the following conception: if the size of something is finite, then it must have an edge or boundary of some sort. For it to have no edge or boundary, it must be infinite. So since we can't conceive of coming to the edge of space (after all, what would then be outside it?), space must be infinite.

We will explore this misconception in this exercise. In doing so, we will exercise our abilities in both deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of demonstrating that if certain statements are true, then other statements can be shown to follow from them. Inductive reasoning stems from making conjectures based on observations and the patterns we see emerge from observations. Both forms of reasoning will be used in investigating the shape of our Universe.

We will see that there are shapes which are finite in size, but which have no boundaries. We will have to let go of many of the limitations put on us by our familiarity with the 3-dimensional world in which we live. Be prepared to think differently. Remember that in the following exercises we get to see more than we would see if we were confined to the surfaces we will investigate -- because we have another dimension or two available to us from which to look!

On Truth & Reality
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space

Site Introduction (2010): Despite several thousand years of failure to correctly understand physical reality (hence the current postmodern view that this is impossible) there is an obvious solution.
Simply unite Science (Occam's Razor / Simplicity) with Metaphysics (Dynamic Unity of Reality) and describe reality from only one substance existing, as Leibniz wrote;
'Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another'.
Given we all experience many minds and many material things, but always in one common Space, we are thus required to describe physical reality in terms of Space. We then find there is only one solution, a Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) where the electron is a spherical standing wave. See Wave Diagrams.
In hindsight the error was obvious, to try and describe an interconnected reality with discrete 'particles', which then required forces / fields to connect them in space and time. This was always just a mathematical solution which never explained how matter was connected across the universe.

I realise that there are a lot of 'crackpot' theories about truth and reality on the internet, but it is easy to show that the Wave Structure of Matter is the correct solution as it deduces the laws of Nature (the fundamentals of Physics & Philosophy) perfectly (there are no opinions). While the Wave Structure of Matter is obvious once known, to begin it will seem strange simply because it takes time for our minds to adjust to new knowledge.

For those who are religious / spiritual, I think Albert Einstein expresses the enlightened view of God. He writes 'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.' This harmony arises from a Wave Structure of Matter in Space (we are all interconnected in this space that we all commonly experience). This unity of reality (God, Brahman, Tao, Spirit, Energy, Light, Vibration) is central to all major world religions, thus their common moral foundation of 'Do unto others as to thyself' as the other is part of the self.

Please help our world (human society / life on earth) by sharing this knowledge.
Clearly our world is in great trouble due to human overpopulation and the resultant destruction of Nature, climate change and the pollution of air, land and water. The best solution to these problems is to found our societies on truth and reality rather than past myths and customs (which invariably cause harm).
We are listed as one of the Top Philosophy Websites on the Internet with around 600,000 page views each week, and rank in the top 20 in Google for many academic search terms - so we just need a bit of help to get in the top five. Given the Censorship in Physics / Philosophy of Science Journals (founded on the standard model / particle physics) the internet is clearly the best way to get new knowledge visible to the world.
A world now in great need of wisdom from truth and reality.
Sincerely,
Geoff Haselhurst - Karene Howie - Full Introduction - Email - Nice Letters - Share this Knowledge

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (George Orwell)
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. (Mohandas Gandhi)
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke)
Hell is Truth Seen Too Late. (Thomas Hobbes)


Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
Simple Solutions to the Problems of the 'Big Bang' Theory of Cosmology

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory as scientific fact. (William C. Mitchell)
Introduction

Hi Everyone,
Like most people I grew up with science founded on 'particles', and cosmology founded on the 'big bang' theory. At the time I just accepted it as true with little thought. Now, at the age of 50 and having spent the last 20 years reading on physics, philosophy and metaphysics I am completely convinced that both the 'particle' and the 'big bang' are incorrect. (In fact I would now say that they are extremely naive conceptions and I find it hard to believe that I used to accept them as true!)

Below you will find a list of some of the central problems of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Most importantly, it is easy to show how these problems can be simply solved with the most simple explanation of physical reality - the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.

This then deduces the most simple Cosmology: How our Finite Spherical Observable Universe exists within Infinite Eternal Space.

Geoff Haselhurst
(February, 2010)



Problems of the Big Bang Theory
1. Redshift with Distance due to Doppler Effects of Receding Motion

In the Big Bang theory it is not the receding motion of matter, but expanding space that is used to explain the redshift with distance. Thus they argue that the wavelength of light is longer due to 'stretching' space. The problems;

1.1 This is not a Doppler effect. A Doppler effect is for motion of matter in space, not for the expansion of space itself. Thus the Big Bang theory is not founded on the Doppler effect but a theoretical concept of expanding space.

1.2 This then assumes that space exists (to be able to expand), yet in other areas of physics they claim there is no absolute space. e.g. The electromagnetic wave is claimed to not require a physical medium. This was necessary to accommodate Einstein's special relativity where there was no absolute reference frame for motion (space), instead all motion is relative to other matter.

1.3 This also assumes that light is a wave, yet in other areas of physics light is claimed to be a 'photon particle' which then contradicts the idea of light waves being stretched (longer wavelength) due to expanding space.

The central point - the big bang theory is based on purely theoretical foundations, and they use different concepts to explain different things, when the concepts they use are contradictory of one another.

In WSM cosmology the redshift with distance is deduced due to decreasing wave interactions with distance. Thus there is no need to use the 'pseudo Doppler effect' as they currently do.
2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is sensibly explained due to radiation from cold matter in interstellar space. Since we only measure one source of CMBR this means that there cannot have been a 'Big Bang' otherwise we would observe two sources of cosmic background radiation.

The expression "the temperature of space" is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K ), essentially the same as the observed, so-called 'background' temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a 'fog' and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. (Van Flandern)
3. The Big Bang and the Formation of Elements

... in 1957, after years of steady work - aided by advances in nuclear physics and stellar observations - Margaret and Gregory Burbridge, William Fowler and Hoyle published a comprehensive and detailed theory showing how stellar systems could produce all the known elements in proportions very close to those observed to exist. In addition, the theory accounted for the growing evidence that the elementary composition varies from star to star, something that would not be possible if the elements were produced by the Big Bang. The new theory was rapidly accepted as substantially correct.
... just as Lemaitre's Big Bang failed when cosmic rays were shown to be produced in the present-day universe rather than the distant past, so Gamow's failed when the chemical elements were shown to be produced by present-day stars. (Eric Lerner)
4. Superclusters and Voids are Older than the Big Bang Universe

Tully has shown that Superclusters are a few hundred million light-years across. Given galaxies generally move at less than a thousand kilometers per second, thus the universe cannot have begun twenty billion years ago.
Likewise, recently discovered large-scale voids would require around 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the age of the universe in the Big Bang theory.
5. The Universe is Ordered thus Infinite

In a finite universe created by the Big Bang the second law of thermodynamics would cause the universe to tend towards entropy and disorder. The fact is that this is not observed, the universe is highly ordered.

As Paul Davies, another religious cosmologist, writes: No natural agency, intelligent or otherwise, can delay forever the end of the universe. Only a supernatural God could try to wind it up again.

The WSM cosmology solves this problem by showing how our observable universe is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. And the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to infinite space.
6. Singularities / Infinite Energy Densities are Mathematical Concepts Only

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem. (Bill Mitchell)
7. Inflation is an Ad Hoc Solution to a Theory that Contradicts Observation

Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide simple solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation Big Bang Theory. Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of the early Big Bang universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater than that of light, did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and thus did not violate the theory of relativity in solving the singularity problem. But how inflation, as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in some manner displace all the mass or energy of the universe without physically moving it, defies common understanding. A violation of Einstein's prohibition of speeds in excess of that of light seems to be inherent in that process. (Bill Mitchell)
8. What is Decelerating?

If the universe is expanding and, if that expansion is decelerating due to gravitational attraction of the mass of the universe, as Big Bang theorists believe, they have not made it clear whether the expansion of space is decelerating, or whether the expansion of the matter in space is decelerating. A lack of clarity regarding this matter would seem to add to the difficulties of Big Bang Theory. (Bill Mitchell)
9. Distant Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are not 'Primitive' and Move as if Surrounded by Matter.

Since heavy metals are formed by Supernovas, thus early stars (first generation in the Big Bang) should not show metal content - yet they do.
Further, recent evidence shows that the motion of distant galaxies (as determined by the matter around them) contradicts Big Bang theory. (The wave structure of matter predicted this - see the Cosmology Predictions.
10. The Big Bang Satisfies the Religious Creation Myth

Though we like to think of science as the objective study of truth, history shows that this is far from the truth. Most scientists are religious - this necessarily influences their thinking. As Nietzsche writes of philosophers and scientists, they;

"... pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an 'inspiration,' generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil)

Thus we can understand why the Big Bang theory is so popular, it satisfies this religious need for a god / creator. As Pope Pius XII wrote;

In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists! (Pope Pius XII, 1951)

We have a page on religion and theology which defines god as the one infinite and eternal thing that exists - Space and its wave motions that form matter.

~~~~

In ending. The biggest argument against the big bang theory is that we now know reality. Matter is formed from waves in space. This then deduces the fundamentals of Cosmology based upon space being infinite and eternal, without the need for an expanding universe.

Geoff Haselhurst
Related Big Bang Articles

For the enthusiasts we have four very good essays on various problems of the Big Bang Theory which provide compelling evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

'Seeing Red' by Halton Arp

'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric J. Lerner

'The Big Bang Theory Under Fire' by William C. Mitchell

The Top 30 Problems of the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

And some good websites on the problems of the big bang theory of cosmology.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ - In the web pages below, we present explanations which are compatible with Newtonian and semi-classical physics. We apply the principle of causality and avoid models requiring a probabilistic existence of matter and non-locality. This differs from the current approach of modern physics. (Paul Marmet)

http://cosmologystatement.org/ - An Open Letter to the Scientific Community. The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed - inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
John Kierein

The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. See The Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe by Grote Reber and Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect by John Kierein.

Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright, very long wavelength, extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.

Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. See Quasar Absolute Proper Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.

Some quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. Ken Kellerman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has also suggested that the red shift of quasars may be intrinsic and not an indication of their distance in a classic 1972 paper Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Cosmology published in the Astronomical Journal.

The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. John Kierein and Brooks Sharp showed this correlation as a Compton effect interpretation in the journal "Solar Physics" in March of 1968. Compton himself believed this was the cause of the solar red shift (see Compton, A. H., 1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897). The electrons on the sun are concentrated in altitude by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's surface (the photosphere) to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift (and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift - see Arp's book.) have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.

In addition to this red shift on the sun, which is there all the time and is on the order of 1 part in a million, there has been measured a gamma ray red shift that occurred only during a large solar flare. This solar flare red shift was nearly 1 percent or one part in a hundred! It was measured by the RHESSI satellite. The red shift varied by the element, the heavier element having a bigger red shift. I believe this red shift is also due to the Compton effect and is caused by the gamma rays ionizing the elements and releasing electrons from these element "targets". The heavier elements have greater numbers of electrons to release and consequently have multiple Compton collisions and greater red shifts. Other gamma ray red shifts such as this are also intrinsic Compton effect red shifts.

For the Compton effect to cause the cosmological red shift, intergalactic space must have a density of free electrons and/or positrons. The further light travels through this transparent medium, the greater the red shift - and Hubble's law follows. The existence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space has been shown by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This is the direction our galaxy is plowing into the intergalactic medium. (See "Peculiar Velocity of the Sun and its Relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background" by J.M. Stewart & D.W.Sciama, Nature vol. 216,p 748f, Nov. 25, 1967.) This is observed from the, appropriately named, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere.

Indeed, while intergalactic space was once thought to be empty, now we know it is filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This molecular hydrogen is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms that are just free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, it produces the Compton effect red shift.

If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static". Max Born (and others - see below) did an analysis of the background temperature of such a universe and found that it doesn't differ greatly from the observed 3 degree kelvin background.

Grote Reber predicted that this interpretation of the red shift would result in a dispersion in the arrival times of extragalactic signals. The recent pinpointing of the extragalactic nature of gamma ray bursts and the delay in arrival times of longer wavelength radiation from these events confirms this prediction as shown in Dark Matter by John Kierein. This time lag for longer wavelengths is shown by Dr. Jay Norris to provide a method of measuring distance to the gamma ray source.

Some say that the Compton effect should cause the light to be scattered and distance sources blurred. Does scattering cause blurring? Not necessarily. Note how the Milky Way stars at the edge of the Barnard 68 dust cloud are not at all blurred even though they are dimmed to extinction as their photons are absorbed and scattered. Also note how, when this object is viewed in the Infrared, the background stars shine right through this cloud without blurring! Dark matter causes light to bend without blurring.

The Big Bang Has Many Problems

There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved. Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up. The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape. Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.

There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.

Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.

How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang. What happened before the big bang?? The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past. Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light. These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped. But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff energy.

The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs). There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out. Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon. Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift. Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction. He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better. He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site.

The stability of a static universe with a Compton Effect cosmological red shift is explained here and another paper can be found here. A paper showing no time dilation in quasar variability can be found here. Time dilation would be required if the quasar red shift were Doppler, so this result indicates an intrinsic non-Doppler quasar red shift such as a Compton effect red shift.

You'll love William Mitchell's new book: "Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality" . Also Lyndon Ashmore's new book: "Big Bang Blasted".

Ever wonder what causes gravity? See the new book: PUSHING GRAVITY.

The videotape, "Gravity and the Red Shift", is also available from the author. It describes the cause of gravity in the endless, static universe. $5 for a postpaid copy ordered from jkierein@lycos.com.

Checkout my other website: Where the Extraterrestrial Life Is

and: What Causes Gravity

John Kierein has a BS in Physics from Notre Dame, an MBA from Indiana U., and a long history of state of the art work in the aerospace industry, working at such places as Picatinny Arsenal, McDonnell (now Boeing), Lockheed Martin, Rockwell, Ball Aerospace, KinetX, Spectrum Astro, and SM&A. He has worked on projects such as Gemini, Skylab's astronomy & space sciences experiments, Space Shuttle science experiments (including the first Shuttle payload: the Shuttle Imaging Radar-A antenna), IRIDIUM constellation orbital mechanics, a myriad of small scientific satellites (including CRRES, ERBS, Deep Space 1, RHESSI) and a long list of proposals as a consultant for management of technical volumes to such companies as Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, ITT, Kistler Aerospace, Bell Helicopters, DRS, etc. Proposals included launch services for Skybridge, JSF, many weapon systems, scientific instruments for NOAA satellites, software-controlled radios, etc. These proposals had well over 90% win rate. He also has consulted on projects such as the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle sensor package, the Future Combat Systems (system of systems), and anti-ballistic missile programs. John Kierein and Grote Reber developed a friendship that lasted from the 1960s until Reber's death in 2002. The friendship started after they both independently published, within 3 months of each other, the idea that the cosmological redshift was Compton rather than Doppler; Reber in the Journal of the Franklin Institute and Kierein in the journal Solar Physics. We traipsed around Boulder,CO until we found one of the Wurzburg antennas that Grote had helped set up in Sterling VA to measure the 10.7 cm radiation from the sun which confirmed the solar sunspot cycle. The Reber Foundation gives a medal annually in Reber's honor. Kierein has a grandson, Christopher Lee, with Muscular Dystrophy as a result of a spontaneous mutation. See here.

Compton Effect Interpretation of Solar Red Shift (Click
Quasars ejected from galaxy
Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board
Another Non-Doppler Red shift (from Jacques Moret-Bailly)
Making electrons and positrons
Natural Philosophy Alliance
Big bang is flawed
Sauve's Challenges to Big Bang Assertions
Official Arp Website
Distant Galaxy Cluster is Older than the Big Bang
Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar's new book;
Gamma Rays as a source of electron-positron pairs in intergalactic space
Light Elements Made Without a Big Bang
Where are the Quasars?
Intergalactic Stars - Another Challenge to the Big Bang
Paul Marmet's web page
Gravity 1960 Russian paper
Universe Only 10 Billion Years Old
Solar Eclipse Gravity Anomalies
A Timeless, Boundless, Equilibrium Universe (Click send PDF)
WMAP polluted by our solar system
Big redshift quasar in a low redshift galaxy
Lots of electrons between us and quasars
The Plasma Universe