Inflation & Gravity

Red Shift 

 

 

 

 

 

Before we discuss classical red shift I would like to point out that the expansion of the universe in the classical model says that the universe is expanding. This is regarded as an inflationary universe and as such it means that space itself is expanding. This is reminiscent of our view of inflation and as such should expand a wave as we have discussed in detail in previous chapters. The wave A and the wave B are 100% equivalent as we will see under the section on relativity and as such will be seen as the same colour no matter where you are as an observer. As discussed below this annuls one of the two of the explanations for the red shift seen in “receding” galaxies. More of this under Relativity and the Big Bang discussion. 

 

Back to gravitational red shift:

 

1. The first is the well known Doppler effect relating to the speed of the mass or galaxy and is caused by a body moving away where the Doppler Effect is creating the emitted light to appear redder due to the stretched wavelength. No further discussion except to say that this has possibly been incorrectly used to “prove” the Big Bang theory (ref CW). It is my contention that inflation of space would not cause a Doppler effect because the warping of space by inflation leaves all areas of space “equivalent”. I use this term with regard to Einstein’s equivalence of physical laws. This becomes more obvious seen in the light of the intuitive acceptance of relativity with regard to this model. The Doppler effect would only be relevant to motion relative to the inflationary space.

 

1. Gravitational red shift. The frequency of the emission is determined by the nature of the emitting mass. Obviously the size of the gravitational mass will determine the size of the gravitational red shift by the extent to which the wave is held back. Einstein’s elegant deduction that atoms emitting from areas of high gravitational potential (large masses like the sun) would emit at a slower rate than the same atom in outer space. This would result in a significant red shift of emitted light as seen from our density of space. From the general relativity point of view, the amount of time warp difference between the sun and the earth is however not large enough to detect and the concept does not seem to have been developed in the galactic context. As demonstrated in our model the time dilation near a black hole is enormous and the ratio of time distortion to space distortion grows exponentially. It must be remembered here that from a relativity point of view the wave is experiencing a massive time dilation as well as a shortening of spatial dimensions. Gravitational red shift is classically the result of time dilation near a large mass. My argument regarding this classic assumption is the same as the argument against using the Doppler effect for this observation. The equivalence of time plays the same role as the equivalence of space and the inflating wave would maintain it’s equivalence until it reached our perspective. If an astronaut synchronised his watch with someone else on earth and went on a SLOW ten year trip. (I say slow to accentuate the relevance of gravitational general relativity as opposed to the special relativity of speed) His time would pass faster as he left the higher density of space around the earth and continue at the relatively faster tick of the clock as long as he was travelling through space of a lower density as that on earth. When he returned however, his time would slow down again to his buddy’s clock speed and importantly would still be synchronised!!!!!!!!!!!! This will once again be more obvious in the light of the above discussed section on relativity. Remember that this is not  the same as the “Twin paradox” associated with special relativity and speed.  

 

1. There is another explanation of Red Shift that is relevant to this paper. Light passing a galaxy would form part of the space creation of that point and attain some of the characteristics of the space through which it is passing. The effect is a result of the equivalence principle applied to the fact that the passing wave is traversing space near the galaxy that is radially inflating at an angle to the inflating density rings. Perhaps this needs the diagram below to assist the explanation.

 

 

 

If line a-b is a light ray passing a massive object (galaxy) and c-d is a second ray from the same distant source, such that the rays are practically parallel. While a-b bypasses the galaxy c-d scores a direct hit and is absorbed. According to our equivalence principle the speed of light is the same at the same space densities. Thus A,B,C and D each represent space sustaining the same density and thus the same speed of light with each density ring, having a slower light speed ranging from A to D. As discussed previously the frequency of a light wave stays constant as it traverses these density rings, while the wavelength adapts to the density with the concomitant time (amplitude) adjustment as indicated along the c-d path.

Let’s first look at the ray c-d.

At densities A-D the speed of light (c) is wavelength (λ) times frequency (ƒ)

                             

Density A              c  =  λ x  ƒ

 

Density B             c’  =  λ’ x  ƒ

 

Density C             c’’  =  λ’’ x  ƒ

 

Density D             c’’’  =  λ’’’ x  ƒ

 

Note here that the wavelength is shortening and the speed is getting slower and the quantum of both is being balanced by the time dilation to keep the equation true.

If however the light ray travels past the galaxy like the line a-b, then the situation is a bit different. Here the density ring B is constant and the speed of light is constant. The largeness of the effect is being exaggerated of course to make the point, but let’s assume that time and light speed remain almost the same.

 

If:                                      c ≈ c’

 

Then it follows from:                    

 

Density A              c  =  λ x  ƒ

 

Density B             c’  =  λ’ x  ƒ’

 

that:                       λ x  ƒ ≈  λ’ x  ƒ’

 

 

Note how the frequency has had to change to balance the equation. If the wavelength is longer in density B then the frequency in B will have to be lower to maintain the speed of light. Let’s display it like that:

 

λ x  ƒ ≈    λ’ x    ƒ’   

    

                 

So what does this mean?

 

 

 

 

Yes, it means that the light ray passing the galaxy has been red shifted. This will happen to the whole spectrum of waves passing near the galaxy and the further away the light is coming from, the more galaxies it has to pass and the closer to the galaxies it has to pass to get the light through to us.

 

This is in my opinion the main reason for the observed red shift of distant galaxies. I repeat my earlier contention that redshift IS a correct criterion to interpret  in terms of distance from us because of the increasing number of galaxies the light is having to pass, BUT NOT AS RECESSION SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Summary of Postulates relating to this Section   The observed red shift of distant galaxies is due to the gravitational warping of space around the galaxies. This effect is of course dependent upon distance from us due to the light having to pass through a larger number of warped lenses created by denser space around masses and galaxies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Bang

 

The sole reason for using the black hole as the source of emission in this article on Inflation/gravitation is that I had to use an extreme example to demonstrate a phenomenon common to all mass. When I read that black holes containing hundreds of millions or even trillions of solar masses exist at the centre of our galaxies, my common sense tells me that more than enough energy is present to emit the high energy Electromagnetic waves necessary to present my initial case for inflation. For that matter it is my contention that there is enough energy in the black hole to form even the heaviest of elements. My slow realisation of the incredible energy and “cold dark matter” in the universe negated any expectation that we NEEDED a big bang type energy for any observable phenomenon or process. Once again my ignorance is talking and I would thus resist the urge to exclude the Big Bang theory from my tiny little library. The fact that any black body radiation is a small but integral part of this same process makes me think that the Big Bang and its massive symmetry creating energy could be attained by a trillion suns in a trillion different places (galaxies) in the universe. I have attempted elsewhere to challenge the assumptions leading to the Big Bang conclusion, but I am probably fighting a losing battle there… imagine in this day and age trying to propound a static (semi-static) universe!!!!!!!!!! The ping pong analogy of the some big bang theories is basically someone trying to say that there is a before and after (despite all the “there was nothing” etc explanations) I cannot conceive the enormity of the proposal and any physicist suggesting the type of energy density represented by the mathematical numbers that I read can’t really be serious. This is tantamount to a “singularity” which is a swearword in any biologist’s eyes. Some thing that bothers me about the enormous accumulation of mass/energy required for this theory is the fact that any mass that can stop or withhold the emission of light like a black hole is according to classical physics infinitely massive. If this were the case relating to a black hole (which by now you know that I do not concur with) then how on earth can the impossible accretion of energy/mass to the impossible pin-prick size even enter anyone’s mind? With a bit more imagination I am sure that a few more explanations could be investigated. Even if the Big Bang is a fact, this inflation/gravitation “field” remains a valid explanation which simplifies and integrates the basic questions which have been bothering me for years. This phenomenon also relates to general relativity regarding the Inflation and Gravity of our energy cycle and to quantum mechanical principles in the nucleosynthesis and “compactification” legs of the cycle.

To be fair to the big bang theorists, at least one good thing came out of the hypothesis and that is the concept of Inflation. My humble view is that without this major leap in thought that space could expand, it would be impossible to grasp the reality and nature of space or gravity. My rejection of the big bang is thus only partial and I apologise for any toes that I have trod on in my attempt to readjust (and of course justify) my own thinking. This is typical of human nature… justification (especially from a weak position) usually brings forth condemnation. This is not my intention and though I may argue strongly for my case, I realise most profoundly that I am using theories that have been built over many years and have taken much sweat and tears to gain acceptance. This key word “acceptance” is where the fighting spirit has to come in. Ideas are cheap… their justification, proof and acceptance are certainly not. Even my hero (Einstein) admitted that he had wasted time by rejecting things two years before and then realising that that particular idea was what he needed to move forward. He also used the Riemann hypothesis which contains these same scary complex numbers as well as singularities in black holes. I thus have no illusions about my incompetence to even comment on such revered wisdom and thus do so in absolute humility even though it may not sound that way when I get excited about this intuitive picture that I am attempting to convey.

 

As has become obvious by this stage, I have stolen some choice terms from the Big Bang theory. Such terms as inflation, space and primordial synthesis have taken on a different connotation but are such excellent descriptive terms that they fell unwittingly into place. Where does this leave us regarding this universally accepted model of the creation of our universe? Quite honestly …I don’t know. It is easy to criticize the conclusions arrived at from observations like red shift and background radiation, but my scanty knowledge must be overlooking major portions of cosmological understanding. Every time I try to find “proof” I am disappointed in the meagre substance thereof. Superficially there could be other reasons for red shift of galaxies and still explain the observations of increased distance supporting more red shift. Equally unsubstantial are the arguments of cosmic background “radiation” (see section on Cold dark Matter). Reading about the Big Bang again the timescale and temperature drop over the first milliseconds seem unlikely and un-intuitive. I realise that the time span is relative to the tiny size inflating but I still can’t accept this theory. It seems though that I am resisting masses of opinion and “proof” and billions of dollars are being spent on the basis of the correctness of this theory. Popular science constantly uses terms like “exactly, precisely, we are sure, etc” to describe the baryonic formation by the first millisecond after the big bang. I agree with the process (if the math is correct) but I cannot get my head around the basic assumption, being the Big Bang. Space and mass is a complex interplay of energy in the same way that a living organism is complex. You cannot attempt to write an equation describing a human, a mouse or an elephant. Doing so MUST end in using complex numbers and 26 dimensions and who knows what else in the description. Rather clearly describe the equations representing the elements of the theory as clearly and accurately as possible. Accuracy is not as important as clarity in this regard because empirical observation can refine accuracy at a later stage. It does not help to calculate the temperature of the cosmic background radiation using the big bang energy as a basis. For Pete’s sake we don’t even know how much mass or energy there is in the universe… how can we “calculate” the temperature that should be left after 13,7 billion years (of which we are also not sure) and the use this “predicted” temperature as proof of the big bang. What scares me more than anything is that this seems to be the accepted theory of most physicists and the general public. To me this doesn’t only feel wrong but the “proofs” are so flawed that any thinking man could disprove their validity.

 

There is no way that all the billions of galaxies could gather into as small an area as postulated. Even energy is not capable of such concentration. Electromagnetic waves have similar behaviour to transverse waves in that wavelength frequency and amplitude are the features that govern their character. Even energy bound up in the shortest wavelength with the highest frequency and the largest amplitude could not represent the physical extremes postulated in the Big Bang theory. The big bang theory implies that energy existed at enormous magnitude in a pinhead. A wave of one photon length needs space in which to exist even if it could exist on its own.

 

It seems that there is general acceptance that supernovae are too small to create lead, copper, gold etc by means of nucleosynthesis. Hey, surely you get supernovae and supernovae? I still I think that our ignorance in this regard is leading us to grab at straws by saying that the BB is needed for this purpose. To move on I would like to temporarily assume that nucleosynthesis applies to all elements and that the various heavenly bodies can cope with this compactification. Obviously the size of the body is the issue here, but our knowledge of neutron stars and whatever comes after them before black holes is limited, but let’s first complete the cycle of E by admitting our ignorance of the precise mechanism forming the heavier elements.

 

Things like trying to determine quantum fluctuations microsecond after the big bang and statements like “knowing” what happened one millionth of a second after the big bang, only increase my scepticism.

 

In the conventional cosmology the whole process of star formation in a galaxy is presumed to start with this massive cloud of particles (mainly hydrogen) that still exist from the Big Bang. Let’s for now forget about the other particles most of which are there as second generation debris and obviously play a major role in the form of dust that stimulates the accretion process. Why should hydrogen or protons exist in free space for 15 billion years? Why do these particles “float” in “space” if the forces acting on them are so remote? These particles are gravitationally and magnetically active and even at the low energy and density that space represents this baryonic mass that is part of space fabric together with the dark matter and dark energy that pervades our universe must accrete to something. 15 billion years is a long time. These particles are supported by this fabric that they are an integral part of and constantly interact with other forms of energy and eventually mass. Even when the density increases 10 000 fold, accretion is still quite a long way away. No. I think that these hydrogen particles are the end result of Inflation and are formed constantly. They represent the final end product of the process that creates space as a means to dissipate the enormous energy generated in black holes. Space that has been stolen by gravity and condensed into the unimaginable density of the black hole must seek dissipation constantly and not in one major blast.

 

Beside the impossible enormity of a Big Bang, I think that the explanation of red shift has been interpreted wrongly as a universal expansion. The areas of “normal” space form only a minute part of what we are looking through. Every beam of light that reaches our eyes has narrowly escaped being absorbed by some massive object. The further it is from us the larger the number of massive objects it has evaded. Without discussing the “prism” effect of the space density layers around all masses again, I would like to re-iterate that most blue light gets bent toward the mass and thus often absorbed, leaving the red light relatively unscathed. Common sense thus tells us that a distant object will display more “red shift” than a closer object. How do we differentiate this phenomenon from the Doppler red shift interpreted as the speed of galaxies moving away from us? Is it justified to use this red shift to support the Big Bang theory?

 

Somehow I want more proof that galaxies 13,8 billion light years away will come back to a point with us to have another BB party. What about looking in the opposite direction from that galaxy…does it only stretch less than 1 billion light years. If it is more then we cannot be right on one side…all this is physical nonsense.

 

The relative abundance of elements is supposed to be explained by BB.  Nucleosynthesis is a wonderful theory but the “finding” that supernovae are not hot enough to form the heaviest metals above Iron is typical of the way that the mathematical tail is swinging the dog of physics. NOBODY knows the processes and forces in a black hole or even the largest supernovae around the core of the galaxies and to come to the conclusion that these processes are not “hot” enough to synthesise lead, gold etc and that a Big Bang is essential for this task is speculation at best. Theoretical models of this nature are based on assumptions of present understanding of materialisation (Energy to Mass) which assume that H and H_e were formed in the Big Bang and have been moving with inflation to 14 billion light years away without compactification. This is just as unlikely as lead and gold being formed in the big bang. Maybe some mathematical conclusions based on incorrect assumptions…this does not constitute proof.

 

The last thing that bothers me about the assumptions supporting the Big Bang is the interpretation of the “temperature of the background radiation”. Cosmic background radiation is obviously a reality, but not a 13.7 billion years cool down from super hot explosion (impossible). After having gone through the process of writing this paper, I am convinced that insufficient knowledge of space and its processes are known to make the statement that the observed temperature of the cosmic background is “EXACTLY” the right temperature that a blast from the past (13.7 billion years ago) created. The extended extragalactic natural energy cycle is happening constantly and background radiation has to be a consequence of this flow of energy. The fact that it has the low temperature is a reflection of the low energy in the fabric space at the area of formation. Because it emanates from all directions and is apparently extragalactic, its source must be vast. In our new portrayal of the universe two possibilities spring to mind.

 

1. This “Background Radiation” could emanate from Cold Dark Matter. The possibility of this Cold Dark Matter being “extragalactic” in the sense that it may form a sort of halo around the galaxy could account for the observations in this regard. The 2.7K temperature is also not out of line with this view.

 

1. This option stems from my speculation about the Time Barrier surrounding the Universe. As discussed in earlier, this Time Barrier has to be maintained in the homeostatic manner appropriate to our static or Steady State Universe. A feature of this maintenance is the re-radiation from this thin barrier internally back into the universe. Once again this low energy radiation would be pervasive and cold. This IS the background radiation of space and part of its fabric. Nothing sinister like proof of the Big Bang.

 

The beautiful duality of space as being the medium of both expansion and contraction constantly oscillates energy from space to mass in a dance that to us seems perpetual. Could this be? No matter what cosmic theory you encounter perpetuality is an issue. I think that this local galactic cycle may lose or gain energy to other galaxies, but within our universe all energy should be able to be recaptured, because the negative feedback of space formation leading to mass and thus anti-inflation (gravity) will retain energy within the system and thus be truly perpetual. The universe has become stable in this state and the internal song of harmonic beauty is innate. This includes the natural harmonic oscillation of our local galactic system. It may have interactive cycles that we probably won’t survive, but life will recreate itself if lost. In this vane I think that intelligence would also recreate itself from scratch, because it is a natural sequence of perception and evolutionary survival balanced by the homeostasis of magnificent feedback systems. The local and cosmic interplay of Mass, Energy, Time and Space reflects the essential properties of movement and rhythm which has beautifully been described as the cosmic dance that is continual in essence. The cosmic rhythm should BE. Yes it should BE and it IS. There is no beginning or end, but just a pulsation that creates and destroys space and time in the perfect dance of its own rhythm. Why look for death or birth in a system that IS. This anthropomorphic view of life and death is a narrow view of self interest. Our innate fear of death leads us to speculate on the cycles that affect us and their stability. SOMEWHERE along the line and probably within our stellar cycle we are history. We don’t even have to go to galactic and certainly not universal proportions to realise our fate. How each person handles this is a question of religion which is as diverse in belief as the number of people on the planet. But that is another story.

 

Meanwhile, Parsimony, Elegance and Harmony prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Postulates relating to this Section   It is not my intention to spend time attempting to discredit this amazing Big Bang theory. There are however a few assumptions embedded in the theory that the homeostatic universe needs to extract. Primordial synthesis in the classical theory occurs within the super hot big bang  and of course our view differs vastly. Alternative conclusions supporting the observations used to “prove” the Big Bang theory can be found within the homeostatic theory. We have discussed our view of Cosmic Background Radiation. We have posed an alternative explanation for observed Red Shift.