A New Cosmology
by John Bradley ©
This is a much condensed version of the evolution of the Universe to date, if the current theory is correct. The future of the Universe based on this model can be readily imagined. There are two basic possibilities; in the first scenario the expanding shell of material finally succumbs to gravity on a universal scale, slowing, stopping and eventually contracting back upon its self until the initial super dense mass of the Big Bang is recreated. At that point, the whole process could start over again, a never ending cycle; forever expanding and contracting as if it were a living thing, breathing in and out.
The second scenario has less to offer as far as psychological comfort is concerned, but is unfortunately the more likely to occur based on current astronomical observations and interpretation of data. In this version, the shell of material that is the known universe continues to expand; at the same time the limited supply of hydrogen continues to be converted into the heavier elements until no new stars can be born and those that do exist will be so very far away as to be beyond view. Eventually the last star will blink out; eternal night, cold, dark, lifeless, forever expanding, a one way street to nothing.
Prior to the Big Bang there was nothing but the mass and the void. Time is a measure of the difference between events, there were no events prior to the Big Bang; hence there was no Time prior to the Big Bang. Just as there was no Time prior to the Big Bang, there was no Space. The void that existed (existed is used here because no other term comes to mind) had no objects, no events, no reference points; it should not be confused with Space/Time, which exists only within the perimeter of the expanding Universe.
The currently popular model of the Universe leaves us with two major inconsistencies that have led me to reevaluate it and a long believed tenet of physics.
1. If all that is was created at basically the same moment, why is it the case that stellar objects of great age (quasars, galaxy sized black holes etc.) are only observed at extreme distances, rather than evenly distributed through out the Universe? The opposite effect should be apparent. If all that is is basically the same age, then when we observe objects at great distances, we should expect to see objects younger than us as we are looking at the light generated in their past.
2. What explanation is offered for the apparently increasing rate of expansion, producing speeds of objects approaching the speed of light for those most distant objects? Common sense has to step in and raise the question, what force is it that is accelerating the expansion of the Universe?
I have outlined the current theory and model so that I can introduce a new variation that I believe also fits the data. This new model requires revision of our understanding of light (by light I refer to all electromagnetic radiation). I propose that everything that exists within the Universe is subject to the gravity of the entire mass of the Universe, including light. I propose that light never really travels in a straight line; that it curves in response to the mass of the Universe. However, on a small scale it may be treated as if it traveled in a straight line. This may seem a little hard to accept at first, but we need to bear in mind the scale of things. If I were to look at the surface of a glass of water and said that it was flat, I would not be considered in error. If I made the same statement in reference to the surface of a swimming pool, again acceptance. What if I made the statement in reference to the surface of the ocean? Wait, we've all seen pictures of our planet and are aware that is a sphere, hence we know that the surface of the ocean must be curved regardless of what we think we see when we look at a small portion of its area. The same amount of curvature is present in the glass and the swimming pool. We simply do not, as a rule, make the connection that all water surfaces are curved, because their small scale creates the illusion that they are flat.
In our understanding of light, we must be able to make the same adjustment based on scale. Over relatively small distances light can be treated as if it travels in a straight line; but on a scale of Universal proportions, the curvature of light ( and all other radiations) must be acknowledged. As an added note, there has been confirmation that light can be bent by a gravity source. This was postulated by Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity in 1915 and proven in 1919 by the British Astronomical Society during a total eclipse visible from the Island of Principle off the coast of West Africa.
As light curves, it should also refract. This will produce a red shift within the spectrum of light observed from very distant sources. This red shift has been interpreted to indicate that an object is moving away from an observer. Large red shifts being taken to represent high relative speed. While some objects will be receding from us at high relative speeds, it is unlikely that the speeds are approaching that of light. Most of the data currently accepted to represent high speed of receding objects could actually represent curvature. The greater the distance, the greater the curvature. The greater the curvature, the greater the red shift.
What if the shape of the Universe were not a sphere but rather that of a fountain; flowing out of it's source, falling back to a pool, and shot back into the air to repeat the process over and over? In this model, Space/Time is not a thin sphere of ever expanding and thinning material, but a never ending stream moving away from its Point of Origin and toward its Ending Point from which the process constantly begins anew, a closed perpetual system. In this new model, Space/Time is curved by gravity in two directions relative to the Point of Origin. Light travels in a straight line, we have all learned this precept; but when Space/Time itself is curved by the gravity of the entire Universe, Light must follow the curve. This is in addition to the localized curvature around massive gravity sources. Below is a cross section of the new model to assist in visualization of the system and the implications.
In this model, the stuff of Space/Time is continuously ejected from the Point of Origin at tremendous velocities and is immediately subjected to the pull of gravity and starts to slow down relative to the PO even though the distance between objects increases and will continue to increase until the half cycle point is achieved, when the speed relative to the Point of Ending begins to increase and the distance between objects decreases. Observations relating to distance and speed must take into consideration the position and motion of the observer relative to the PO as well as the object observed. For instance, an object on the opposite side of the Universe from our selves would appear to be accelerating away from us, but is in reality slowing down while it and we are both moving away from the PO. Assuming that we on planet Earth have not yet reached the half cycle point, our observation of objects beyond that point will show acceleration; but they will not be accelerating into nothingness, they will be accelerating toward the point where they will be reduced to proto-matter and once again ejected as the stuff of Space/Time.
Only objects between Earth and the half cycle point will exhibit deceleration as they have been subject to the pull of gravity longer than the Earth and will not have its apparent speed affected by the angle of its path away from the PO. This will be a very small percentage of the total number of objects that can be observed. All other objects will appear to be accelerating away from us, while in actuality they are slowing down if they are between the PO and the half cycle point. The issue is only compounded by the fact that we too are moving away from the PO.
The observed red shift should be proportional to the curvature that the light has traveled which will be a direct result of the distance from it's source to the observer. This relationship should aid in plotting the position of objects relative to our own position and that of the PO. It could also aid in determining true speed (speed relative to the PO) and as a result demonstrate that the true speed is decreasing for objects that have not reached apogee in their movement through the cosmos.
For most purposes, objects should continue to be related to as if the curvature of Space/Time does not exist. Apparent location and speed of astronomical bodies will not change. The Sun did not stop appearing rise in the East when the truth of planetary rotation was made known; mankind just understood better what the senses perceived.
A recent article in the Los Angeles Times (June 15, 1998, front page) referred to the problems physicists are facing as they try to account for what appears to be a deficit of mass and energy in the Universe. I believe it to be quite possible that if the physicists were to alter their model of the Universe to the one that I propose in this paper; the expected volume of existing Space/Time would be considerably less, hence less matter and less energy would be expected to be present and the problem ceases to exist. By analogy, to better perceive the distortion inherent with the current Big Bang/expanding sphere theory; compare the distortion of the surface of the Earth in a flat map (see Mercator projection) as compared to the more accurate spherical globe.
I regret that I must close this brief paper with the admission of a personal shortcoming that has become apparent by now; I do not know calculus or any other advanced math. My analysis and proposals are based on my layman's interpretation of data supplied by others and inductive logic. I realize the dangers of such an approach, but one must work with the tools at hand. I expect others will apply the appropriate tests to my proposals to either verify or vilify them.
I submit this paper for public consumption in the hope that I may have correctly perceived what is and can help in the understanding of it.
Copyright © 2000, all rights reserved. No portion of this article may be reproduced in any way without the express written permission of the author. Please contact John Bradley at firstname.lastname@example.org for comments and inquiries.