COSMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
COSMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As a biologist I am extremely aware of the delicate and immensely complicated balance of homeostasis in any living body and this concept has influenced my understanding of ecological systems. This certainly extends to the Earth (Gaia) and I would be very surprised if cosmological systems were any different. Everything in physics, chemistry and (I would guess) cosmology must have at least one “negative feedback system” that balances any activity.
It is my contention that cosmologists have wrongly allowed mathematicians to take the leading role in shaping the model of our universe. Because cosmologists did not have ready answers to the overpowering new observations being made, these accountants of the universe took over the managing director’s job and presented a vision for the universal company that is unsustainable. Twenty six dimensions, big bang models, flat universes, bouncing universes etc. I think that the time has come for cosmologists to take back their rightful place as CEO of this universal company and lead the way forward with a vision of our existence that fits the facts. Yes it is a vision and the detail has to be managed by the accountants, but the accountants cannot enforce an unrealistic vision that we as cosmologists have to abide by.
The mathematical attempts seem to justify concepts like complex numbers and singularities to achieve their aims. To my simplistic view this is physical nonsense. Even physicists resort to this kind of nonsense and in doing so accept “proof” which leads to theories being built on nonsense and end up not reflecting reality. These theories get accepted by the general public and make it difficult for more intuitive theories to be accepted. Einstein once said that a child should be able to understand a theory, if not that it was probably nonsense. To be fair, I think that his relativity theory turned out to be probably the most difficult concept to grasp intuitively that was ever postulated, but this once off paradigm shift does not mean that everything has to be this radical.
Marcel Proust said: “The real journey of discovery is not in the seeking of new landscapes, but in seeing with new eyes”. Let’s do exactly that and try to look at our universe with new eyes.
Galaxies
When we look at the dynamics of the universe the galaxy is a self sustaining object much the same as a cell in a biological body. The local forces are overridingly powerful maintaining the Inflation to Gravitation energy cycle. It resembles a complicated “biological” structure in the complexity and feedback of various forces and processes. The galaxy is however far from isolated and has to contend with incoming and outgoing energy penetrating and influencing the status of the local interactive mass to energy game. Space is an integral part of this interactive game and cannot be seen as separate and especially not uniform. Einstein’s confirmation of Riemann’s curvature equations may serve some purpose of approximation, not because of complexity necessarily, but because of the massive number of interacting waves. These waves are 99, 9% one dimensional and can thus freely occupy the same space that they are the co-generator of. Only energy in the form of mass (being 3D) does not share space, but absorbs or reflects energy constantly…this characteristic of mass is what gives rise to gravity.
Part of the energy that mass eats results in kinetic energy in proportion to the gravitation and distance between the objects. Local forces seldom allow two particles to collide perfectly straight in the cosmos and the “constant input” or acceleration nature of gravity gets embodied through angular momentum into the spiral of centrifugal force and rotation results. This rotating energy is also a source of radiation on a large cosmic scale and the radiating arms of a spiral galaxy represent waves of high density precipitating supernovae due to the stars absorbing the dense wave energy in these arms. The elliptical pattern that results when two bodies rotate around each other is maintained by the “eating” of new space energy constantly. This rotational balance of angular momentum is the very nature of gravitation and the core of macroscopic interaction within the galaxy. This moulds the inertial kinetic energy of straight line movement into the homeostatic balance of angular momentum and rotational dynamics that is so characteristic of galaxies.
Angular momentum is obviously a stabilising factor and an energy buffer in a spiral galaxy and will conceivably stabilise a spiral galaxy for extended periods, but the pulsating arms of the spiral galaxy are the breeding grounds for supernovae and supernovae are the natural method of materialisation process to heavier elements. This could conceivably also de-stabilise the galaxy through matter being heavier and thus increasing centrifugal force, but the continual addition of energy from gravitation will convert these local multidirectional linear explosion driven particles into the angular momentum rotational conformation quite rapidly. The stabilising of the galaxy is affected by emission and absorption of energy which may or may not be balanced locally, but space-time is constantly being formed as the black hole is fed with matter continuously.
Our Homeostatic Model has a unique effect on a rotating galaxy. We are all aware of the angular momentum example of someone sitting on a rotating chair with a weight in each hand. As he brings the weights closer to his body he starts spinning faster. OK, now imagine a system that had masses (stars) attached all along each arm and the arm had the ability to lengthen at a quick rate close to the body and faster as we got to the forearms and then finally fastest at the hands. On top if this image, try to imagine mass suddenly appearing in his hands … primordial synthesis. This suddenly appearing mass in his hands suddenly acquires inertia. Wow, what effect would all this have on rotational speeds of stars within the galaxy? This lagging effect of the outer stars circulating a galaxy has long been a question in my mind. If the accretion process started from the outside as classical theory would have it, the spiral arms should be straight because any object bound to the black hole by gravity would adhere to the conventional rotational laws. I realise that “dark matter” had to be invented to attempt to explain the rotational speeds of stars around galaxies, but this does not explain the lagging of the spiral arms … in fact dark matter should have the opposite effect. The spiral arms should be straight if they were immersed in dark matter. No, Local Galactic Inflation explains this lagging effect of the spiral arms perfectly.
Let’s briefly mention the Galactic Rotation Curve observation that most stars revolve around their black holes at about the same speed in stead of the outer stars going faster. This is cited as the main reason for our calculations of how much dark matter is necessary to sustain this observation. In my mind there are at least two major reasons for this. The first is the lagging effect discussed above which only partly explains the slower velocity and explains the lagging effect of the spiral arms, but once rotational mass equilibrium has been reached, the rotation curves should be according to classical calculations which is not the case.
This brings us to the second major reason for the observed slower rotational curves. This is exactly what I have just said … observed. The observational aspects of relativity regarding the rotational speed of stars within the warped space of galaxies and especially around the black hole of galaxies is to slow our perspective of the velocity of the stars circulating it. This effect will be discussed under relativity and may even further affect the calculation of dark matter required to explain rotational velocities of stars. I am not advocating the absence of dark matter, but merely questioning the need for such a large amount of dark matter.
|
Summary of Postulates relating to this Section
|
Cosmic Background Radiation
There has been a slow dawning in my mind that this background radiation must have some other explanation. The assumption that it is the remnant of the super hot big bang that has cooled down to 2.7ºK is unlikely and a forced conclusion. Is there not a more simple and intuitive explanation for this almost perfectly uniform and pervading electromagnetic presence. My first thought was that it represented the fabric of space in the sense that we have defined space in this article, but the uniformity is too delicate to represent the enormous radiation from a black hole. The processes involved in this inflation creator are too robust and varied to produce the static we see on our TV screens and hear on an un-tuned radio. A more probable candidate is the delicate but uniform radiation that would emanate from newly formed sub-atomic particles within the galaxies influence sphere. When we discussed primordial synthesis I neglected to speculate where the most likely area of synthesis would be, but merely stated that the gazillions of waves would have to be “compatible” in that the inflationary pressure would have to be worn out to allow the “normal” conformation of the waves. This, I did state would most likely be where the gravitational warping would be minimal. If we consider this minimal warping area, it really means in an area where there is virtually no accreted mass to distort space. I use the term accreted mass because space can only warp where the gravitational gradient is high i.e. near massive objects surrounded by space. If the area however is suffused with protomass or primordially formed sub atomic particles whose individual gravitational influence is minimal, space would be pretty “normal” or “un-warped”. I must hasten to point out here that the combined gravitational influence of this class of suffused space or “Cold Dark Matter” is massive and contributes about 25% toward the galaxy’s entire gravity and mass, but locally within the galactic cycle of this proto-mass accretion really gets things going. The point I would like to convey here is that this space satisfies the “normal” criterion that I referred to while discussing primordial synthesis.
So what has this to do with background radiation? Everything!!!!!!
Remember that we stated that the amount of electromagnetic radiation or space that these proto-particles could absorb was minimal? We also stated that the reason for this was that any radiation absorbed would virtually immediately be re-emitted. This may seem like no big deal, but consider that whatever non-specific radiation was absorbed the particle’s emission would be specific. Because of the limited number and suffused distribution of the proto-particles, the radiation would be uniform, pervasive and low energy. Does this sound familiar? Yes, the Cosmic Background Radiation.
| Cold Dark Matter suffusing space in and around the galaxy. This area of primordial synthesis seems to be the source of Cosmic Background Radiation |
One of the observations relating to this radiation is that it seems to come from all directions and from “outside” the galaxy. This un-warped, suffused area of space we are referring to is outside what we visibly see as the limits of the galaxy. This cold dark matter is named dark because we cannot see it with visible light optical instruments. The fact that it is un-warped also means that this area of primordial synthesis is beyond the visible accreted mass that we see. In fact, the suffused area far out strips the size that we can see. This area would probably extend more than a hundred (guess!) times the radius of the visible galaxy. This halo of Cold Dark Matter I contend is the source of Cosmic Background Radiation.
|
Summary of Postulates relating to this Section
|
