David Calder Hardy's Cosmology
Riddle of the Universe
Edited:- 12th August 2005
Look into the stary sky and see a vastness beyond everyone's comprehension. Place a dime on something 75 feet up in the air and know that there are 1500 galaxies hidden by it. Also, accept that there are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on this planet. (Those are not my words They come from Science).
The big problem with assessments like that is they infer that a limit exists. And that limit is, Observation of distance restricted by present technology to see beyond. As our technology improves and we can see galaxies beyond the present ones, the figure of 1500 will obviously increase as will the number of stars.
So claims like the two above, today, can be hopelessly short of the mark tomorrow. They can be taken with a grain of sand, or salt, whichever you choose. If technology progresses as it has done in the recent past, some time in the future the figure of 1500 could well become 15 million, and sadly, that won't be right either. There is no figure, because every such figure sets a limit . Whereas in space, everything in it is limitless in quantity and distance. If space had a boundary, there has to be something beyond that boundary, and there is no reason why there should not be galaxies and more galaxies associated with that limitlesness.
The Big Bang theory, or the birth of the universe as perceived by a large group of scientists, is supposed to have been triggered about 13.7 billion years ago. From there being nothing but empty space, excepting for a tiny object smaller than a proton, a singularity, which exploded, spread its energy and matter in every direction, and from that source in a couple of billion years the universe was made, complete with galaxies of stars and everything that is associated with them. Magic !!! And this most bothersome hypothesis places a time frame upon everything that all other research has to fit into. So the further into space our instruments reach, 13.7 billion will have to climb to 17by 18by 19by etc. accordingly. But until that happens, we are stuck with 13.7 billion years yet, in my view, that doesn't cope with the age of the solar-system.
I have come to the conclusion that such an hypothesis is just simply impossible. There was no Big Bang. There was not even a beginning. There are billions of galaxies behind the dime and there are more stars than all the grains of sand on millions of earths away out there. - A singular explosion 16 billion years ago creating galaxies in every part of a boundless void is just not realistic. I see 'Boundless, as being hand in hand with, Timeless'. You can't have one without the other.
I know, that's a mighty Big Bang of a claim - so here's the backup.
Look at the problem this way - It is surely irrational to believe that where there is space now, once there was none.. (Do I get a YES for that one)? - What is the Universe? We understand that it is the physical content of space, ie, galaxies, stars, gas and energy that randomly occupy it. (Do I get a YES for that one)? Galaxies and stars are objects that can be measured and given location in space. And the observable boundary of their occupancy is merely the extent of man's current inability to see beyond that boundary. (How have I done so far - 3 YESes)?
Next, how large is Space? The answer must be that space is infinite. Even if a wall existed around it, something must be the other side of the wall. There could well be galaxies occupying 'all' of space, beyond and beyond and beyond. ad-infinitum. And if that is so, a Big Bang in our 'neck of the woods' is just so improbable and contrary to reason.
The problem is we can't say 'all of space' because this essay is demonstrating that space has no boundaries or restricted containment. It is not a collection of all. - It is infinite.- And that fact shows that our language does not provide words to properly describe this incredible but obvious phenomenon.
Now my two points at the beginning of this essay make sense, and figures like 1500 galaxies and A Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, are utterly meaningless, misleading and immensly restrictive to the furtherense of practicle research..
It has been man's need from time immemorial to be able to express distance and time in some sort of limited measurement. This has allowed man to express all sorts of similar values in mathematical terms. It has been a foundation, based upon our local earthly need to describe physical relationships within our environment. Everything on earth has distance, length, velocity in relationship to something else, seasons, night and day. melting points, and content. To consider anything as not having 'Distance, size, a beginning and an end', would have been impossible to contemplate in earlier times; and it seems that it still is.
So the need to express the 'Riddle of the Universe' within the same traditional language criteria of a beginning and an end, automatically followed the same earthly rules, and that is why Science cannot deliver a plausable and wholey acceptable theory about the existence or history of the universe. Mathematical conclusions placed a boundary around the percieved universe, and that kept reason and theoretical adventure restricted within those limits.
Using the criteria I have offered above, let's take another look at what we know for certain and apply simple logic to it.
Firstly, There is a universe of galaxies in a space that has no boundaries and has no beginning or conceivable end. Therefore, this universe of galaxies, exists in all directions, at limitless distances from any one point within it.
Second, Since limitless space has galaxies scattered everywhere, it follows that matter and energy are common factors and must always have existed, without containment.
Thirdly, No real containment measurements exist other than between galaxies, stars, planets and other objects. They are not inside anything and neither are they outside anything.
Fourth. Because it is observed that energy and matter are interchangeable, it follows that a recycling of matter and energy is a normal feature of universal sustainment and existence, and that there is no reason to believe that it has ever been different. All action is capable of reversal and repetition and conservation is the automatic result.
O.K. It may not be possible to ignite a hydrogen bomb on earth and then collect it all up again and compress it by fusion back into a bomb. But that's happening in space all the time. And that is the difference between the earth bound perception of things around us, that all have a beginning and an end, whereas, Beyond, has the ability to dispense with both those restrictive limitations.
What happens now?
The objects occupying space have always been in a constant state of change. Like everything here on earth, that has been rock, has been grains of sand, has been a part of a fish or a human or a tree or a piece of limestone and possibly came out of the earth as lava, so everything in space reuses its component atoms and molecules in every possible way. That change is complete recycling. Hydrogen, being the basic element of all the other elements, of all the energy, and of gravity, undergoes magnificent transformations which follows rigid rules of continuous interaction. Nothing is added and nothing is lost. Hydrogen can, by a series of steps, become gold or platinum or whatever and just as surely they can become hydrogen again.
My work, Genesis Continuous, offers a plan whereby sustainable recycling is the key factor - a continuity. Hydrogen is compressed, it implodes to become a star which through fusion, forms and contains all the elements, (Not just some of the elements because our star's age and original size was not restricted by the mathematics the Big Bang theory imposed upon it). Some of those elements are ejected into orbit around it and whilst still molten, become the core material of future planets, that is the iron core planetisimal that all planets started from. The star, from the very beginning of its existence, radiates energy in the form of solar wind far out into space in every direction. That energy transforms back into hydrogen and helium, and remains in space until it is collected by a passing body of sufficient gravity to attract it. The passing body could be a planet that has spiralled away from its star, having gone through a cycle of progressive stages of evolution similar to what we can observe today of our own nine planets from Mercuty out to Pluto, plus the asteroid belt. The nebula of gas around the planet reaches a flash point of compression and then collapses in bursts upon itself and becomes a star. As an example of what I've been saying, one after the other, our gas giants are on their way to that transition, and the trillions and trillions of stars out there is evidence that their birth is not unique.
It seems to me that if Science could just stand up and say, 'Look', we've made a mistake. The universe has to be billions of years older than 13.7, and until all the conflicting data is sorted, lets just say we don't know and leave it eternal until we get solid evidence to support a starting date if there has to be one. I reckon to do that would give researchers the room and unfettered timeframe to really advance our knowledge of the beautiful universe.
Genesis Continuous - Complete