Crisis in Cosmology: Big Bang or Big Bust?

 

An Intrinsic Redshift: Did Halton Arp have a point?

Halton Arp

The Electric Universe brigade talk about a cosmic Redshift that isn’t caused by a Doppler Effect transforming the frequencies being observed. They assume instead that it is intrinsic to special modes of production within atoms at the birth of a new entity from out of the minor axis of a producing Galaxy (as Halton Arp has suggested, but as a purely Observational Astronomer was unable to explain). This infers that in the throes of such a birth, the state of the Universal Substrate within atoms is modified to give different “Quantized orbits” and hence affect the spectra modified by absorption and production processes by such atoms.

Now, presumably, the usual explanation of the radiation, emitted by atoms, assumes a particular Substrate context – say, in the more usual form of the Substrate contained within atoms, while that context must be temporarily modified at that birth, to only gradually be returned to normal over time! For then, distortion of that substrate in the external conditions, will definitely begin to affect the electron orbits back to the normal forms. This might be the only intrinsic modification of the emissions and absorptions in radiation, and hence will, in such extreme cases, effect the redshift too!

NOTE: As Redshifts are so common, it would seem that the electron orbits must all be at lower energies, so that transitions down to lower energy levels will also be lower – towards the red end of the spectrum.

Now, we know that Solid, Liquid and Gas concentrations of atoms do not change the characteristic frequencies of emitted or absorbed radiation, so those modes certainly cannot change how atoms normally work. To find intrinsic modifications of the characteristic frequencies, we must consider extreme circumstances not usually encountered in the normal phase modes.

But, if very special creation-conditions were involved in the production of such an Arp Entity, which dramatically affect the contained Universal Substrate within it, that would also affect the insides of atoms, whatever phase they were in, and hence deliver the effects we are trying to explain.

ASIDE: It cannot be pure chance that allows so many inexplicable phenomena to be so easily explained via the supposition of a Universal Substrate!

It could well be that normal phases are not extreme enough to make significant changes to the substrate. What must be involved will be conditions well beyond the usual ones - indeed some sort of Galactic Emergence!

It could be when stable concentrations of the Substrate are well outside the normal – where, for example Matter is very highly concentrated, as in a Black Hole, or, alternatively, very sparsely concentrated, as at, or “beyond”, the Edge of the Universe! This being the case, we can assume that, within such an entity, the nature of the Substrate inside it can be significantly changed, so that the natural quantised orbits will occur at different radii, with different energy levels, due to the changes in the nature of the Substrate and its vortices associated with such orbits.

If we also go the opposite extreme and consider the effects around the Edges of such a Paved Universe, then, once more, the electron orbits within the atom will be changed but in the opposite direction, due to the sparse nature of the Substrate.

Now, if these extreme cases are to throw light upon such things as the redshift we will have to consider very carefully, what will be changed. Obviously, when general radiation is so “red-shifted” (as seems to be the case for distant sources), we must adjust our measurements, to include the fact that we will always be looking into the past, at times long ago, as well as into the far distance.

It seems that, in this pretty well universal case, we may well be talking about the possible evolution of the Universal Substrate. It is unlikely to have always been there, exactly as we conceive of it now!

It must have changed over time, as did everything else, and therefore could not have been completely unaffected by the developments with which it had to be connected. Remember, because looking into the distance in Space also means looking into the distant past, we already have evidence for the developments of Stars and even Galaxies.

For example, if some kind of Big Bang did happen, how does the establishment of the Universal Substrate fit into that vastly-changing scenario? And, even if some form of the Substrate preceded that Big Bang, it would unavoidably be successively modified both by that calamitous Event and its following consequences, with effects sweeping outwards from that “Point of Origin”.

In addition, we have to consider a natural “Temperature” of the Substrate over time.

The Substrate could always have contained a measure of Energy, either in the internal orbits of its component units, or in “whole unit” spins or oscillations or translational travel too! Hence the propagation of other energy would be promoting the internal orbits to levels above those necessary for their establishment, and to a general energy state of a whole region – its “Temperature”!

This being the case, we have to consider how propagation would be affected.

Remember, we have assumed that the propagation via the Substrate does not alter the nature of the so-called radiation: whatever it is, it will be propagated totally unchanged!

But first, how does our unit of Substrate manage that, and secondly, how may this be changed by circumstances?

NOTE: If the theories (of this researcher) concerning the role of the Universal Substrate, within an atom, and concerning quantized electrical orbits, are correct, the vortices caused within that substrate, by the orbiting of an electron, will be changed, if the Substrate differs from the classical form during extreme circumstances.

Clearly, if, for example, the density of the Substrate units were significantly changed (for some external reasons), the necessary matching of the orbit with the rotations of its caused vortices to, thereafter, cause quantized orbits would also change, and the orbits will be at different radii (and different energy levels) though still close to what they were in normal circumstances. We must determine how the behaviour of the vortices will be affected in a more densely packed Substrate within the atom.

Now, if this caused the transitions between energy levels to be slightly lower, the energy of the released radiation would be less, and the frequency would undergo a Redshift – one that is intrinsic to the “atom plus Substrate system” in those conditions. Also, a crucial factor (perhaps within, or very close to, a Black Hole) could involve a truly massive matter density, which might well distort the relationship between the orbiting electrons and the Substrate.

The more pressing problem is to explain redshift that is merely from distant and past objects, but is internal rather than due to Doppler Shift. How could the radiation be altered either in initial production within the atom, or in transit while being propagated by units of the substrate?

NOTICE: the very different demands upon Theory, between fitting purely formal (or even statistical) patterns to measured data, and the alternative of explaining that data via physical reasons in some form of concrete analogistic model. The former method is purely formal, includes no content or context information: it is merely a quantitative form-fitting to ideal mathematical forms, whereas the latter MUST involve both content and context and explain phenomena in terms of substances and their properties in particular defining conditions.

You can find more on Redshift, Aether and Substrate Theory in the latest Special Issue of SHAPE.

Penrose and Ideality

Why Cosmology is Irretrievably Broken

As a serious and active theoretical physicist and mathematician, I have been inevitably driven to Philosophy, in order to try to explain the many apparently unavoidable contradictions encountered literally everywhere in both of these disciplines. And, it was there, within Philosophy, that I had been irrefutably presented with a damning indictment of both the bases, and of the assumptions, underlying these disciplines, which are also present, in the usual Basic Formal Logic type of reasoning used there too.

Such an extreme realisation was, itself, of course, a very long way from being an immediately-arrived-at conclusion. For, on the contrary, those very same now-rejected beliefs had been, without any doubt, a tremendously empowering past achievement by Mankind, and had led to significant progress in their attempts to make sense of their finally coming-to-be-thought-about World.

Indeed, to this day, most people, even including most professionals, and in these very same fields, do not, as yet, even doubt their crucial underlying premises, and have stuck, consistently, to them, ever since their major revelation by the ancient Greeks. For, they were, and still are, neessary-simplifications of Reality, and still retaining a true-if-limited measure of Objective Content within them.

They are often true-for-now, and hence wholly dependable in the short term. Indeed, in some cases they even appeared to be true-for-ever, such as in Number, for example! But in reality it depends on what you are counting - for, if your 1 + 1 is a Man and a Woman, it could, in time, equal 3, or 4 or even more. Then, as the parents die, it can decline, maybe even to 0! Yet, who would give up Number as a truly valuable concept, because of this clear time-dependence: it still has true value in many relatively unchanging scenarios.

Indeed, the key-misleading-assumption involved, when applied generally, has a name: it is termed Plurality. Put simply, Plurality asserts the permanence of certain things, ideas or beliefs, and their independence of other simultaneously-present entities or happenings. It was intuitively arrived at by the Greeks, in their first major revelation - that of Mathematics, originally concerned with perfect shapes in Euclidian Geometry, but soon extended to the whole discipline involving all Pure Forms.

And, let us be crystal clear, with Mathematics, within its well-defined bases, Plurality is, indeed, always valid! Its very power depends upon its definition of perfect shapes, or more generally, Perfect Forms, for this enabled the whole discipline to be built into a relatively consistent and developable system.

But, this was only at all possible by limiting study to Pure Forms alone, which, as a consequence, also made it necessarily conform to Plurality too. But, consequently, Mathematics does NOT apply to Reality, as such, but only to this reflection of its Pure Forms and nothing else - basically, it is true only of a parallel and restricted World, which we term Ideality.

Roger Penrose and some Ideality

Now, the problems with my chosen disciplines arose, when situations unavoidably involved Qualitative Changes. For, Mathematics, as originally defined, excluded this possibility entirely, but also for the very same reason could still be developed into a remarkably informing descriptive discipline, when restricted to things conforming to Plurality - that is to only quantitative changes, usually only within what are termed Stabilities.

But, my consequent turn to Physics (from my first love, Mathematics) didn't help, for the benefits of Mathematics in staying with Plurality, had also been exported illegitimately, first, to Formal Logic, and thereafter to the Sciences too.

Though Physics, for example, was temporarily rescued by a form of Positivism which allowed the co-existence of various contradictory stances which could be switched-between with the long-standing pragmatic excuse of, "If it works, it is right!" So, an amalgam of stances were simultaneously-allowed, including Materialism (from Reality), Idealism (from Mathematics), Pragmatism (from his Hunter/Gatherer past), Plurality (from Formal Reasoning), and even Holism (from attempts, in spite of all the above, to physically-explain real phenomena).

The major crisis, was finally unavoidably precipitated, in the 20th century, by the increasingly-emerging failure of the above amalgam, which led to the dropping of Physical Explanation totally, and the whole-hearted embracing of Mathematics as the "sole-saviour", particularly in Sub-Atomic Physics, but also with a devastating carry-over into Cosmology too.

Now, this particular essay was precipitated by a video on the internet by Professor Roger Penrose upon the assumed-cause - the Big Bang, and inevitable final-demise, of our Universe! Penrose started by mentioning his resolute faith in Mathematics, and, in particular, of Einstein's Relativity Equation, and though he didn't question the Equation, he felt that certain prior assumptions, upon which it was erected, might well be erroneous.

Interestingly, he located the difficulties within the Singularities seemingly occurring at either end of that existence - the Big Bang beginning, and the Zero ending, indicated within the equation by its effective blowing-up at those singularities.

His problems were with the (indisputable-for-him) Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicated that the trajectory of that whole History was -

from a High-Energy, Random-movement, Minimum Entropy Start

onto a Low-Energy, Random-movement, Maximum Entropy End

It didn't make sense in Penrose's conception for it seemingly went from Chaos to Chaos via Structured Foms and even Life? But, his doubts weren't because of Penrose's "rich and wide" experience of Reality: for he, on the contrary, only "dwells" exclusively in a pluralist world determined-and-describable only by Mathematics!

Indeed, if you expected any Explanatory Physics, from his then-emerging Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, you will be sadly disappointed.

Both in the Universe's Origin (as in a Big Bang)

and in the Universe's Demise (as in a Terminal End)

they are described as being in an identical Conformal featureless "Flatness".

You have to remember his total dedication to pluralist Mathematics: in "explaining" anything, he actually says, "The equations deliver all these outcomes"! No references are made to any actual Substances and their properties. Absolutely everything comes from the Abstract Equations alone, and, ultimately, all his descriptions will be shown as the consequences of Formal Equations - they, we are told, determine-everything!

Yet, such means not only do not, but also cannot, deliver Qualitative Change, so all adherents to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, with their Maths-only stance, can never ever explain such changes: they can only, in the old pragmatic way, switch between equations because - "If it works, it is right!" That is NOT Science. It is Idealism as embodied in purely Formal Equations. It can only ever be descriptive, but never explanatory, so it actually terminates Science to be replaced by a dry and dead formalism.

Now, with justice, the response to all of this might well be to demand that this critic must deliver the alternative to this Dead End, and that is certainly a legitimate position to take. Yet, the routes taken in the whole of Mankind's various intellectual disciplines, over millennia, have unavoidably brought us to this significant current Impasse. The contradictions have been built into the Amalgam of such Premises, which were all retained, in order, pragmatically, to be able to achieve the many required particular outcomes, in a variety of areas.

And, that Amalgam must now be dismantled, via a route admitting of, and dealing comprehensively with, Qualitative Change.

But, in spite of several heroic attempts to do this, particularly since the Dialectics of Friedrich Hegel, some 200 years ago, this has not been achieved, primarily, because such an undertaking has never been systematically-and-comprehensively applied to Science, and, crucially, to Physics.

And, the usual restriction is, invariably, to only ever do Studies of Stability, either natural or arranged-for, which is now required to be extended beyond the point where formalist equations FAIL - where each-and-every essential Stability dissociates, and where the Real World processes, which alonedeliver the Qualitative Changes, termed Emergences,or even Revolutions,must now be the New Focus.

This is not new, descriptively, of course - for in Biology, Evolution is both totally accepted and well described. And, Geology has revealed the 4 billion-year-long History of the Earth, and even the time of the Origin of Life, and the Tempo of its consequent stages of subsequent development - its Evolution!

But, what are rarely, if ever, investigated, are the relatively short Interludes of Emergent Change, which are totally unavailable by current scientific methods, which ONLY EVER investigate Stability! It has been shown that an interlude of Qualitative Change is a cataclysmic transformation, requiring, initially, repeated Crises within the current Stability, which turns out to be a self-maintaining balance of multiple-opposing-factors, and which finally totally collapses - seemingly heading for a Nadir of Dissociation - that is, in fact, a complete dissolution of the prior System-Stability involved.

Yet, consequently, this then allows the still-existing individual processes, from the prior Stability, along with co-existing others, to find new "partners", in both conducive-cooperating and opposing relationships, which ultimately achieve a wholly new self-maintaining balance, in a new Stability, at a new and different level!

We currently recognise the Stabilities, upon either side of such a Transforming Interlude, but know nothing of the process which brought-about The Change. We use the passing of Threshold values, in certain Key Parameters, to signal when to switch getween the alternatives, but we can never explainthe conyent of that transition!

Now, such an absolutely necessary inclusion of these changes into Science is not just a dream! It is already underway, with a major Holistic attack upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its many consequences. The ill-famed Double Slit Experiments have been fully explained, purely physically. And the quantization of Electron orbits in Atoms has also succumbed to the new approach. Of course, the very heart of this endeavour has been to produce a coherent, consistent and comprehensive Holist, Materialist Philosophic Stance. And, the demotion of Mathematics from its current primary position to that of a flawed but useful Handmaiden in both Science and Technology has been necessary.

How can Science become Holist rather than Pluralist?

This undertaking, almost exclusively by a single individual (the writer of this paper), has amounted to over 1,000 papers, published at a rate of approximately 9 per month over the last 9 years, but based upon a lifetime's involvement, at a professional level, in all the disciplines addressed.

Postscript: The obvious question that may be considered important, about this philosopher/scientist, must be, "to what tradition or milieu does this researcher belong?" He has been a aspiring Dialectical Materialist since early adulthood, but only began to make significant philosophical contributions in the last 20 years.

Ideality: The Promised Land

...or the World where modern Cosmology dwells

Surveying current Cosmology takes us by a well trodden route into a strangely unreal world!

But, it isn’t new to most physicists, either now, or in the past, because they always very easily slipped-sideways out of Reality, and into the much more conducive Parallel World of Pure Form, in their sincere attempts to formulate eternal, Natural Laws of Reality.

It was an alluring and thrilling move, for, on the very first step inside the portal to the new World, everything which had taken them there reappeared, but here with a veritably scintillating beauty! And, it appeared both understandable, yet also literally infinite: It was truly the Promised Land.

And, the reason for this was the settled-upon-ground that clearly promised answers to all the innumerable questions about The Nature of Reality. This assumed ground was that Everything-in-Reality was due entirely to a set of fixed Natural Laws, which added together in various amounts to deliver absolutely everything possible. This was initially just assumed, but later was encapsulted into The Principle of Plurality.

It hadn’t been found immediately, historically, for studying Reality-as-is had long proved both perplexing and difficult, but things gradually changed with Man’s ever increasing control over investigative situations, until finally the state was reached when Reality’s variabilities were finally under such control that the studied situations suddenly focussed remarkably into extractable relations, and this was the Key!

Beyond this door spread the whole world of Pure Form alone - Ideality, and our explorers crossed the threshold into the World of their dreams! Remarkably, this world had been glimpsed long before that point was reached: for it had occurred in Ancient Greece, when simple shapes were idealised, via drawing them, into perfect forms, which, thereafter, proved to be much more amenable to further study, yet close enough to the real versions to be very useful! Indeed Mathematics, as it came to be called, was the first intellectual discipline for Mankind, and set things up for the much later breakthrough into Experimental Science.

So, when the time came, to peer-through that open door, they already knew what they could do there, and didn’t hesitate to enter.

Yet Reality and Ideality are not the same thing at all!

Indeed, the forms that occur in Reality are caused by real physical and other properties and effects: they are consequences of real concrete causes. And to make things even more difficult, many such causes are always acting simultaneously, and holistically - everything can affect everything else, things can evolve - you cannot assume eternal Natural Laws at all.

So, in Reality, causes must be primary, and Form secondary - a symptom.

Also, each Form can be caused by various different confluxes of many possible causes - so finding-a-Form can never explain a phenomenon, it can only describe its observed ‘Shape’! And, crucially, Forms in Reality are variable: it is a holistic realm. While, all the Forms in Ideality are fixed: it is a pluralistic realm. Things in Reality are real, while those in Ideality are Pure Forms and nothing else.

Purely Formal models, such as Equations, do not reliably pertain in Reality: they are distorted simplistically, idealistically and pluralistically, and each one can relate to many different situations. Forms may be universal, but they are never causal.

So, their use in the real world is limited to stable situations and modified, rigidly-maintained artificial domains (technology): while their use in further theory is doomed to eventually deliver multiple impasses.

In watching a lecture at Oxford University by Nima Arkani Hamed upon “Why the Universe is so Big?”, where he seamlessly slipped from considering Sub Atomic Particles to the Universe as a whole, it was clear that he considered that he was using a basis common to that entire range, despite its unfathomable vastness.

And as he went on to discuss the sizes of major constants in his equations, it was clear that to him, they were not arbitrary fixers to bring purely formal equations into line with a tailored part of Reality, but were Universal Constants of Reality itself.

He is, of course a mathematician, and very much an idealist, rather than a pragmatic one. And, his profound reasoning was NOT about Reality, but a deep, deep journey into Ideality as an uncoordinated whole.

And sadly, there is no reason why Ideality should deliver a consistant-and-comprehensive pattern for everything within it. For, as a competant mathematician myself, I am well aware of its formal extensions - into negative numbers, graphical representations, operators, complex numbers and even Quantum Loop Gravity, String Theory and the Multiverse!

So, whilever the investigator can continue to pick out of his bottomless bag of formulae, the right one for a given situation, the lack of unity in the scheme as a whole can be ignored, But, it clearly isn’t, as inferred, the sole basis of everything. How can it be: it is only abstracted Form?

So, Cosmology is not what it purports to be: based upon formal Mathematics, it deals only in concretely- unsubstantiated Form, and cannot be corrected by experiment. And, with a steadfast Pluralist Stance, and fixed-for-ever Natural Laws, it can never address the true holistic richness of Reality.

Indeed, the whole approach is totally ill-equipped to ever address Qualitative Change and Creative Development: it worships Stability, for that is all it can possibly see - the rest falls outside its domains of applicability. As all truly significant developments only occur in relatively brief Emergent Interludes, the engines of change are completely unobservable within each and every prevailing Stability.

Stability is taken as the only reliable situation we can study - things must be still, or we must hold them still. The approach views Reality via a series of ‘stills’, like photographs, any variation is via purely quantitative change only, and delivering no hint of anything other than a mere continuation of the same.

It is locked into a pre-Hegelian, idealistic mode, philosophically, and convinces itself of innovation due to its sophisticated, ever-developing Mathematics and increasingly complex technological applications.

But, from an explanatory view, it is as dead as a duck! We are at a dead end scientifically.

This paper has just been published in the latest Special Issue of SHAPE Journal on The Philosophy of Physics:

Special Issue 56

Christmas Bumper Edition

Merry Christmas readers!

Here are TWO new issues of the journal for December.

Special Issue 47 - The Essential Universal Substrate

This issue is a discussion of the philosophical principals behind a new kind of 'aether theory' - one that is staunchly materialist but that transcends the pitfalls of classical physics. 

Issue 47 - Big Bang Dilemmas

Here is a new collection of papers examining some fundamental problems with the Big Bang theory, and the flawed philosophy of physicists that lead to it.

New Special Issue: The Atom & the Substrate I

This new issue of the journal is the first in a landmark series outlining an entirely new approach to Sub-Atomic Physics. This will consist of two substantial issues containing work of truly great significance.

Such fanfare is not hyperbole. In the second of these installments there will be a full refutation of the too long incumbent Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, both in general, and as a study of the Atom. Finally this regressive interlude in Physics can be stopped and the science re-orientated upon a wholly new path. For not only is this a debunking of Quantum Theory, but of the flawed pluralist position that preceded it.

These two new issues will be published online in quick succession, starting here with The Substrate and followed by The Atom. The issues tackled within are fundamental both philosophically and physically, and present for the first time, a purely physical explanation for quantisation.

Read it here.

The Fall

The Real Origin of the Big Bang? 

Let us assume an almighty collapse of Universe-wide proportions of a prior and flagging Universe, which is finally running out of steam, but still carrying within it the developments and constructions of eons.

Clearly, such a cataclysmic event would have to signal the termination of some prior and stable phase, in which the Universe had been developing within a generally acting set of conditions: the most likely, considering what we know of our presently existing Universe, being one of a long-standing and continuous expansion.

Effectively, only a switch to a new, all-prevailing dominance of Gravity, could cause the termination of that phase, and begin such an all-encompassing collapse.

The universe, throughout its spread, would then begin to fall back, on increasingly more extensive fronts, towards its overall centre of mass. Of course, the question, as to where the collapse would begin, certainly presents the first difficulty.

Close to that centre of overall mass, the effective pull inwards would, necessarily, be small. For, very little matter would be there compared with the universe as a whole. And, also, most of the matter, outside of such a position, would tend to cancel out, leaving only a small imbalance to effect such a pull.

The most likely place, therefore, where the pull towards the centre would all be both one way, and due to the combined mass of the whole Universe, would have to be at the extreme peripheries. For, all the gravitational pull, in such positions, would be inwards, previously overwhelmed by some prior cataclysmic event, which threw everything outwards at a colossal speed and swamped, by that initial impulse, any purely gravitational pulls in the opposite direction. BUT, that event could never be a continuous pressure outward, but something of a short duration, the involved momentum would be continually opposed by the general, inwards pull of Gravity.

Clearly, at some point the expansion would run out of steam, and a switch to a collapse would ensue!

Let us assume, therefore, that the collapse would commence at these extremities. And, as it got closer to the centre of mass, the pulling force would increase, so the fall would continue to accelerate.

But, if that Universe were at all like ours, it would not be uniform: it would consist of innumerable concentrations – from planets and suns, to dust clouds and galaxies. And, if the collapse, from the outer edge, were occurring inwards as some sort of wave, this increasing flow would encounter various differing elements of a fragmentary universe, picking up extra weight, but definitely not uniformly, but instead in various fits and starts – sometimes of absolutely colossal proportions.

It would be like a strong flow of water, superimposed upon a relatively calm pond, but also having various floating centres of different sizes in a relatively stationary ground.

The Fall would not be a simple contraction!

Not only would it cause spinning vortices of some of these obstructions to be created, but it could also precipitate local collapses, and even trigger local explosions and supernovae.

In such tumults, what survives could be from many such sub-phases, and include some surprising survivors too. And, as these would be local any explosions, they would not be sufficient to reverse the speed of the general collapse but would, themselves, be twisted like vortices, creating temporary pauses in the general collapse, and also temporary stabilities within these spinning remnants.

Imagine the event, in all positions, like a fast flowing stream, with individual local obstructions and even explosions, twisted into vortices – all accompanying the general flow.

This indicates that during the fall, many such temporary reversals would inevitably occur, with the effect of breaking up the involved material objects into more and more fragmentary units, but not all of the same minimal size Instead, they would be produced in a diversity of different sub-phases, from different stages of prior development.

Ultimately, we assume a total-universe-involved final crunch, at the centre of its mass, which would result in a final gigantic explosion. But, this would, most certainly, NOT be in a “dimensionless dot” – a Singularity, composed entirely of totally disembodied Pure Energy and nothing else.

Such idealist myths are the extrapolations of Mathematicians, NOT scientists! Clearly, the cataclysm will always precede any such state, and will be diverse throughout its initial execution. The overall result will be generally outwards, but radically altered by its almost continuous and varied sub-phases, all the way down to that final Daddy-of-them-all – the ultimate reverse into an explosion!

This could, indeed, be our famed Big Bang, which would then start a new overall expansion, and the building of a Different and Original, New Universe.

But, as with all such cycles of catastrophe and re-construction, what is produced will never be exactly the same as that which was lost.

Indeed, in spite of the tremendous proportions of the whole Event, it would not start from a single given point in time, but be the final consequence of a whole series of crises, pauses and even temporary rejuvenations.

The final turn around would be the culmination of all these contributions, and would commence in different ways and at different times, until the whole process moves were entirely outwards in an enormous Explosion.

Both the Singularity, and its nature of pure, disembodied Energy are false extrapolations of abstract equations taken well beyond their applicability.

They are Formal Myths!

The actual event has been elsewhere generally traced as a common trajectory in what are termed Emergences, which occur in all kinds of developments, and at all Levels, and none of those investigated are the least like the current consensus by the mathematical cosmologists, who currently rule the roost!

Let us be clear, all sorts of entities, at many different stages of development, WILL come through this gigantic event, and thereafter significantly play a major role in the subsequent developments. At No Point was there only Energy. All strictly pluralist attempts to track the trajectory of the development of the new Universe, from “known” and “eternal” Laws, will never deliver anything of value. They are merely intellectual exercises, based upon incorrect assumptions and principles.

To even begin to tackle the suggested Big Bang, researchers must first turn away from Formal Logic and Pure Mathematics, and begin to study the crucial transforming events of all significant development – the Emergences of the wholly New.

And, no single development path will produce any relevant results. The process will, on the contrary, consist of many diverse strands from the outset, with very different contents, depending upon what happened to those ultimate remnants during the Fall.

The simple bottom-up conceptions, of the pluralist cosmologists, ascribing all subsequent differentiations to initial quantum fluctuations, in an initial Singularity, is clearly unfounded speculation, based entirely on a narrow regime of particle accelerators and atom smashing for their evidence.

IT is the diversity of surviving bits from the Fall that determines these consequent developments. For, that produced final mix, may well include fragments from all sorts of phases, and so the trajectory, of developing competitions and dominances, will be entirely NEW, because of the local unique mixes, and different in different localities, which will then come together to generate new crises and resolutions. Indeed, even during the new general expansion, there will be surprising localities, n that supernovae could be occurring, and local collapses of surviving galaxies completing their final stages of the Fall!

This seems to ensure that though these ideas imply an oscillation between successive collapses and expansions, and, therefore, looks like a never-ending repeat, it will never be mere repetitions.

Every single Universe will, indeed, be different, with its admixture of fragments from diverse phases in the prehistory of the Universe, very different victories in the various competitions, and hence different stabilities will be inevitably established.

It isn’t merely repeating the same every time!

Clearly, the mathematical Singularities play no part in this development, based essentially upon the Theory of Emergences. For, such dramatic transformations never do relate to such formal abstractions, in any known cases! 

For, such Singularities occur when simplified and idealised processes (rather than the actual real ones) inevitably “bomb-out”, and something totally unpredictable from those prior formal descriptions, replaces them. In all real processes, such cataclysms do not totally terminate all previous histories, or deliver pristine and pure beginnings. They will be both dirtier and replete with elements of the past, and will, on turn around, beget a wholly new development.

Plumbing the Depths?

The amazing diversity of modern cosmological theories reveal the almost infinite variety possible when Reality is replaced by Ideality as the stage for all phenomena.

In New Scientist (2935), a short article by Lisa Grossman, entitled Cosmic Baby Snaps at Bubbly Birth, various theorists construct their contributions to “explain” unevenness in the current Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which they attempt to encapsulate into purely formal patterns alone. And, with that, we immediately leave the restricting confines of concrete Reality for the unlimited expanses of the purely Formal – that is the place where the “essences of everything”, that always deliver entirely alone today’s “explanations”, actually solely dwell – the World of Pure Forms alone that we call Ideality!

With every discovery, today’s scientists immediately put chalk-to-blackboard and find-a-form that will fit the newly obtained data.

It is the current method of explaining things by form alone, and it delivers Absolute Truths rather than old-fashioned, explanatory hypotheses, for in Ideality all forms are absolute, that is its strength (and, of course, also its weakness).

There is, of course, a seemingly physical language that is always used, with apparently physical forces, entities and their properties, but they are all secondary embellishments to the real nitty-gritty – the primary Forms involved, which actually drive Reality!

Let us relate just a few tasty morsels made available by such methods, as outlined in Lisa Grossman’s account! There is, before everything else, a Metaverse (prior to our and all other Universes), in which bubbles arise (like air-bubbles in a boiling liquid), each of which will then become a new Universe. BUT, wait for it, the densities of these universes (remember they are bubble-shaped) will be less than that of the producing Metaverse, so .the fabric of spacetime within them will inevitably be saddle-shaped.

Have you got that?

NO? Well, never mind, if you are a modern physicist, you will stop worrying as soon as a form-that-fits is put into your hands (or even one you have put together for yourself).

Oh, by the way, do not consider what will happen if the bubbles collide, for you would get absolutely nothing from such an event. The bubbles will all be expanding at the Speed of Light, so nothing from that boundary could possibly get back to anyone within that Universe, and, if it could, it would get “all mixed up” with the Big Bang data, and would be impossible to disentangle.

Aren’t you exalted by all these theories?

If your answer is, “NO!”, then you are right!

But, if your answer is “YES!”, may your God help you!

Cosmic Dust Clouds

Just how do the truly vast cosmic dust clouds form?

You would think that with a Big Bang initial stating point, followed by a series of supernovae a little later, that everything would be flying apart, and along roughly radial paths from their “explosion points”. And it is not at all clear how such a “dispersive” set of circumstances could erect such clouds of something or other, light years wide, so that they should end up as relatively stable, and long lasting structures.

There is, of course, the usually proffered “explanation”, which has “quantum fluctuations” present from the very first instant, which therefore, would “build-in” an unavoidable unevenness, and hence lead to many local concentrations. But, lets face it, such is a groundless dream, totally lacking in any concrete evidence – some sort of backwards extrapolation to explain the inexplicable in terms of the current, established Copenhagen prejudices. But that certainly isn’t it!



Now, the very fact that the clouds are opaque to light indicates that they must include particles of Matter (i.e. dust of solid elements) that are much larger than Hydrogen or Helium atoms, and hence could only have been produced from matter building stars in supernovae. For, current theories have all elements above H and He, produced by fusion in a series of sequential star forms, and finally dispersed, far and wide, by Supernovae.

Yet though that may explain our clouds’ contents, it really doesn’t explain their seemingly static state, which can be confirmed by that other consensus theory, that put down the demise of such stability to the shockwaves of subsequent supernovae, that break the “balancing stability”, and start a gravity-based concentration around local centres. For, with that theory, it is admitted that Gravity-caused aggregation alone is insufficient to end that state.

So, how did these clouds come to be in such a state originally?

Let us initially take some of the usual ideas and where it seems appropriate, add a few more.

The concept of a Big Bang of Pure Energy alone surely has to bite the dust? It is an internally contradictory idea that has been patched up with various speculative add-ons – the most significant one being that it didn’t expand into a pre-existing and totally Empty Space, but actually created Space itself as part of the same Big Bang process.

So, from a vanishingly tiny dot (the Physical Singularity) we have Energy, sufficient to construct a whole Universe, which, nevertheless, was full(?) of “quantum fluctuations”, and created Matter as it also created its own, required Space.

NOTE: In a nutshell this has Energy from Nothing making all Space also out of Nothing, and producing Matter as it went: an interesting Origin, don’t you think?

It was certainly NOT, we are assured, any sort of explosion, for that would require both pre-existing Matter and Space. Instead, we are told, it was a kind of emanation(?) of Pure Energy, creating Space and Matter as it went: a whole Universe, its actual Space and absolutely all of its contents, had spewed out of Nothing! But, surely creating-Matter is NOT merely the reverse of creating-Energy-from-Matter as in Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs? The pre-requisites for both of these are both Matter and Space.

So, just how does disembodied, Pure Energy condense(?) into Matter? And what is the Form of that Matter when it is first produced?

The problem is that Fusion needs Matter to work!

Indeed, it fuses smaller units together to make larger units, but with a necessary loss of some of the matter involved into Energy. You cannot reverse that to get Matter out of Energy alone! And what do they mean by “concentrate” or “condense”? How do you squeeze Energy until it produces Matter? Or is it somehow self-squeezing? Do they mean that after a certain, threshold density of Energy it becomes stable Matter?

But surely as all this energy was originally in “zero” Space, and then continuously had more and more Space as the process progressed, doesn’t that mean that the energy-density MUST be getting less and less, and will never again reach those earliest levels?

The received wisdom (if we allow a temporary slipping into “explosive” ideas) is that Hydrogen and Maybe Helium were produced by the Big Bang, though clearly some even smaller “bits” would have had to have been produced first, as both Hydrogen and Helium are combined entities.

So, in spite of these clear anomalies, let us initially stick with the consensus scenario, and have unevenness from the start, and as soon as Matter was created, it started to pull together in the more dense parts of the density spread. The idea is that these would very rapidly grow into stars of truly immense size, and as that volume increased, accelerate through the stars history, so that they would very quickly (in cosmological terms) exhaust all the matter-growing phases producing Helium, Carbon, Oxygen, and so on all the way to Iron, before really exploding in a truly giant Supernova.

Of course several of these would go through these stages more or less simultaneously, so even the explosion-less Big Bang soon produces massive actual explosions, which according to current theory are the ONLY situations in which all the higher elements are produced (remember, our Cosmic Clouds are of dust).

We now have, therefore a cataclysm of Supernovae – all exploding outwards, but as yet still in a relatively tiny Universe (compared to now). Clearly, these explosions would “bump into” one another, and in certain areas “cancel out”. Perhaps this was the actual source of our vast, light-years-across, dust clouds, which, in consequence become relatively stable: They might, as whole “clouds”, still be moving, but internally the individual movements of the components from both involved Supernovae may approach a “random mix”, and thus produce a stable overall state within the cloud [Both gravity pulls and collisions could in time achieve such a state].

This, I’m afraid, is the best that I can do with current theories, though I must admit that I cannot really agree with the majority of their “standing-ground” – their founding assumptions. For, they are clearly purely formal and abstract, indeed mathematical bases.

By abandoning “old-fashioned” “Physical Explanations”, and instead relying exclusively upon Equations, as the true essences driving Reality, they have abandoned a materialist standpoint for a completely idealist one.

All their bases are purely formal abstractions, which they develop in solely mathematical ways.

The trick of turning multi-dimensions as used to cope with multi-variable relations, into a many dimensional Universe, and thereafter develop from their Equations and formal extensions, purely formal “explanations” for everything, places them squarely in Ideality – where mathematicians dwell, turning their backs upon Reality, which is the only land for real physicists.

The turning point was, without any doubt, the victory of the Copenhagen standpoint of Bohr and Heisenberg at Solvay in 1927, as an almost inevitable development of the mathematical achievements of Planck with his Quantum, and Einstein with his purely formal Relativity.

The slope became so steep it was impossible to stop the slide, without directly questioning the enormous formal (mathematical) inroads into Physics, which the vast majority depended so vitally upon, and the whole Sub Atomic Community began the slide, headlong down to Idealism.

To those who disagree with this standpoint, may I mention String Theory, the Higgs’ Boson, Theories of Everything, involving 11 (or more) dimensions, Branes, Parallel Universes to name only a few...

Are these not purely formal speculations without any real Physics whatsoever? Of course, they are! 

Mathematics, as a discipline itself, deals in the purest of Forms, which they get from glimpses in Reality, and which are increasingly “nailed down” by the most careful construction and maintenance of Domains to eliminate almost everything but a final, formal relation. What crucifies such methods is that these “farmed” results are then believed to be the eternal, underlying truths of Reality.

They aren’t!

So, the current theoretical position is an amalgam of constantly new facts, due entirely to mammothly developed technology, and the farming of the Domains studied, and the purely formal relations thus extracted, though, of course, always related to those supplied by the mathematicians, who have been studying such Forms, in their own pure terms alone, for millennia.

Indeed, the new legitimacy inverts the established Scientific Method, by expecting to find essences and even new entities, hidden in their beloved Equations, rather than in Reality. While, at the same time, constraining experimental work into the ever narrower, and higher energy area of forced collisions as THE only experiments worth pursuing. And all that is founded upon the assumption (which has become a Principle) of Plurality – where found relations are presumed to be independent of their contexts, and hence actually eternal, additive components, capable of producing any complex situation.

New Special Issue: Cosmology II

I am convinced that backwards extrapolations of purely-formal present-day relations alone cannot ever deliver even a purely formal description of the Origin of our Universe. The reductionist belief that you can do this is certainly profoundly mistaken. And this is because it uses a still-shot of what is available now, and without any possibility of investigative intervention, to be wholly sufficient to trace all the way back to that very distant Origin. It isn’t! For that trajectory from Origin to Now is full of a transforming and creative History, certainly NOT included in our equations (unless you consider them to be eternal). No matter how it is dressed up, and no matter how far equations and patterns are taken to deliver it, such methods are incapable of delivering the known significant ingredient of this actual Development – the creation of the Entirely New!

Mankind has always had a problem with these unavoidable occurrences, when wholly new and impossible to predict elements, not only appear, but also frequently change the whole game.

NOTE: The total failure of all scientists specialising in that field, to deal with the Origin of Life on Earth, whether creeping ever closer to it from inanimate matter upwards, or tracing evolution backwards from the top down. Neither set of methods can ever deliver: they are the methods of Stability and not of Revolution!

You can see why Gods were considered essential!

But, more practically, these pieces of magic, though inexplicable, did take many clearly universal Forms, and, in addition, the more easily accessed developments did indeed display dependable and repeated phases. So, it was in these areas that Man began to seek a handle upon his World. The former was evidently an embryo Mathematics, and the latter became an embryo Science. This author has for some time been involved in formulating a new kind of scientific investigation, still using Form and its prediction advantages, but concentrating upon a holist view of interactions and developments, particularly when Stability breaks down and what is termed an Emergence transforms the situation totally. The question here is, “Can they deliver an alternative to the current Cosmology?” Let us speculatively muse upon this possibility.

Read the issue

New Special Issue: The Expansion of Space Itself

Now, it must be admitted from the outset that to oppose, as I certainly do, this assumption of the Expansion of Space Itself as an alternative to the simpler conception of the Big Bang, then it is clearly a major undertaking. And, if I along with everyone else working in this area, limit myself to investigating the formal questions alone, then I couldn’t possibly succeed.

For, in such an approach, the truth or falsity of any position can only boil down to the obeying of the Rules of Form, and hence ultimately to those of their undoubted basis – Formal Logic.

It is then about mathematical conceptions and formulations as the supposed essences of Reality.

My opponents (who I readily admit, can find appropriate Forms for literally anything) would certainly demand that I should do likewise: it is the only truth that they recognise!

But, I cannot and, indeed, will not, join them in their exploration of the World of Pure Form alone – of Ideality! For I am a scientist and philosopher, and therefore require explanations of everything I study. To give me an equation is to give me a succinct and accurate description only, and then only for a particular contrived and maintained Domain: it contains NO explanations whatsoever (unless you deem, “Obeys this equation!”, as an explanation).

Now, those who take the opposite view would most certainly demur, and insist that Reality is caused by the obeying of these types of formal relationships: obeying a disembodied formal relation delivers such results!

NO it does NOT!
In actual fact, concrete Reality delivers formal patterns and relations, but only in the most carefully constructed and maintained conditions.

So, I will tackle the problem, as the best physicists always have, by attempting to explain why things happen as they do, and NOT merely by how they seem to happen.
Hence this couple of papers can only be a start to this necessary task. Though most scientists can and do, with any evident problems, solve everything piecemeal – and each with its defining equation, that is never what I do.

The first paper addresses the mathematicians’ idea of the Expansion of Space Itself, while the second paper questions the actual contents of what we choose to call Empty Space.

Read the Issue

Brian Cox: A Wonder of the Universe and His Reification of Time

As is usual whenever I am watching that shining star of TV Science, Brian Cox, delivering yet another repeat of one his many programmes “explaining” the intricacies of Modern Particle Physics to the uninitiated, I'm afraid that I cannot help but get very angry.

For, in spite of his status as a professor in a prestigious British University, and his high level work both in America and at CERN with the Large Hadron Collider, he continues, in spite of the acclaim he evidently receives, to be a very poor scientist.

But, it is not, I suppose, entirely his fault alone.
For the vast majority of his colleagues and predecessors over the past eighty-odd years certainly believe in exactly the same things and stand upon the very same ground and assumptions as does he.

All of them, when pressed to “explain” their area of study, are sure to resort to the same sort of narratives about what has been going on in the Universe since their (almost holy) Big Bang - the universally agreed Origin of Everything. And, lets face it, such a significant group delivering such a wide-ranging account, is almost certain to steam-roller through almost any possible complaints and queries of a puzzled and uninitiated public.

And these scientists know this.

They are aware that though they are more than satisfied with what they are doing and the way that they are doing it, that is still not sufficient for the general public. The plethora of these TV spectaculars and many similar articles proves that the final establishment of these ideas cannot yet be said to be totally complete.

So, the reasons for my disgust, is not only at this current “scientific consensus”, but also that it attempts to prohibit the very standpoint and method that made Science the Glory it had become in the past. And finally, I get really angry at Brian Cox’s attempt to blind us with his mammoth pile of 20th century “scientific inventions”, to give that final extra credence, to the currently agreed consensus.

But, you might with justice ask, “How can the scientists of the past have been so marvelous, and those of today be so bad?” It is a fair question, and to answer it must involve the exposure of the gigantic Crisis in Physics of the early 20th century, stemming from the discovery and definition of the Quantum.

For 30 years, contradiction after contradiction quickly removed plank after plank of the previously considered banker assumptions, and, in the mounting tumult, two rival groups battled for domination.

One Group, the traditionalists, was led by Albert Einstein and many top physicists, while the other group, the “revolutionists”, was led by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, who pressed for a totally “new” approach.
And the acceleration of the decline occurred when the Solvay Conference in 1927 led to the defeat of the traditionalists and the triumph of those led by Bohr.

Amazingly, on the basis of the evident inability of Science to solve the contradictions exposed over this extensive period, the new group suggested that the old approach involving Explanation, must be not only abandoned, but also actually prohibited. The alternative to the inadequacies of the past was proclaimed to be The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. And, in spite of the obvious prestige of their opponents, this group carried the day entirely upon pragmatic grounds.

“Why did you need Explanation, when you could find formal ways of predicting things adequately for use?”, was their basis. The “new men”, in spite of their “radical” stance, still could not cope with the Quantum in terms of any sort of consistent and coherent explanations: so explanation must be dispensed with! No matter how they had tried, it just didn’t seem to make explanatory sense. Particles could act like waves, and waves could act like particles, and what was evidently exactly the “same thing”, could switch between these two “modes” in merely different circumstances. “The Wave/Particle Duality has killed explanation”, they insisted. And their conclusion was that Mankind would never, and indeed, could never; explain things at this level of Reality. ALL Explanation had to be abandoned as being “beyond our ken!”.

But there were very long-standing reasons why this retreat was lauded as a “Revolution”! For many centuries most scientists had always been content with extracting relations from Reality, and finding Forms that would fit such “real data”, for they knew how to tailor such Forms into useable Equations, with which they could confidently predict for any chosen conditions. If they couldn’t explain but they could predict, that was considered enough! It was certainly the view of the Engineers, during that enormous period of dramatic progress, termed the Industrial Revolution.

And this remained true after the both the Quantum Crisis and the Copenhagen “revolution”.  BUT, and it is a very big BUT, though they could still predict; it was of a very different kind. For the first time NO accompanying explanatory narrative was possible. Only Equations remained! Scientists had to take what these meant on trust, and this released them to use literally any Forms that could be made to fit the data. For example, Wave Equations, which classically could give the amplitudes at a given point at a subsequent given time, were now radically re-used to give probabilities for all possible “particle” positions throughout a whole wave, as to whether it would be there at a given time. It was certainly NOT how such equations had been used before, but it did allow a kind of prediction that could indeed be effectively used.

Probabilities and Statistics had long been developed to do similar things for random sets of events, like the throw of dice, of the turn of a playing card, but these were of very special cases with sets of equally likely events or what would be most probable knowing many prior cases. And it was this pure Mathematics that the New Men of Science integrated into their Wave Equations. As with the Ptolemaic theory of the planets, they had found a mathematical method that could predict perfectly, but was entirely wrong in any associated  “explanatory” narrative! In the very same way, they didn’t know why, but they had a handle on how!

Now, it is quite clear that any dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist may well wonder why this was so reprehensible, and the answer is that all Explanations – Physical Theories, were henceforth being rejected as invention, and mere man-made constructs, and the only way to deal with experimental data was to extract from it Natural Law. And in consequence it was now deemed that such laws, themselves, made things happen. Things obeyed the Natural Laws of Reality: Equations gave you everything that you needed. They were no longer mere descriptions – Pure Forms, but had been transformed into supposedly driving essences that made Reality what it was. The materialist basis of Science had been abandoned for a Kantian form of idealism.

And it turned out to be much worse than even that!
For instead of experiments being devised to deliver new knowledge, relations and patterns, and hence allow major improvements in old explanatory theories, or even complete replacements, things were turned completely around.

The ONLY reliable place to even search for new forms, processes and even “entities” was deemed to be within the Equations themselves! From a Real World based discipline, Science was transformed into one where equations were the sole reliable source for any developments in what was now called “Theory”. And it was from them that all sorts of new properties and even “new” entities were identified and became the contents of new “theories”.

This negated the whole basis of prior Science and theories, which had always involved causal explanations, but these were dumped, and instead equations derived from data, were henceforth dubbed as “theories” in themselves. But, of course, all equations are only overall purely formal descriptions of the patterns displayed, so this New Science was not resident in Reality, but a reflection of it in that very different World – that of Pure Form alone – indeed in Ideality!

Now, though curtailed, the above reasonably extensive preface was essential to establish the ground from which our TV star must be criticised.

Brian Cox is most certainly of the Copenhagen School. And though mammoth experiments are still conducted by this School, they are almost exclusively in High Energy Accelerators, where particles are smashed together at ever-higher speeds and energies, in order to find from among the shattered debris of the consequent destruction, some “new entities”. And these must match to the forms devised by “theorists” from Equations. The “Higgs Boson” is just such an extraction, and the LHC was expressly designed and built to find this crucial and purely theoretically devised particle, which the new theorists say was the basis for the first appearance of Matter itself in the Universe, during the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang.

Now, it must be stressed that this whole group of physicists DO NOT explain phenomena, as they would have attempted to do before Copenhagen. They, when asked, would immediately produce equations and with a series of these alone show that their experiments matched to the Forms involved.

Now, Cox, to his credit, knew that he could not do this in a TV programme.
He knew that his TV audience would not know what he was on about, if all he could offer were equations. They didn’t dwell in Ideality as he was pleased to do, but in concrete Reality. So, he attempted to explain the new physics, and his only available method was to avoid Theory (in the previous explanatory sense), and instead revert to the oldest methods of Science – the use of Analogies.

NOTE: In an episode of the TV quiz show QI, wherein Brian Cox was a member of the panel, and Sub Atomic Physics “came up”, one of the comedians, who were amazed at what Cox had to say, insisted that she only understood anything in terms of Analogies! And that turned out to be Cox’s own solution to “explaining things” too.

Cox also, rather cleverly, looked for his analogies in the most devastatingly magnificent scenery of the Natural World and seen Universe. In “illustrating” what is basically Ideality, he walked through multiple natural scenes, or showed images or animations of elements in the Heavens, and made his various analogies with parts of these breathtaking images, to infer that real ground lay behind his almost beyond-belief ideas.

Crucially, in the episode that I have been watching, he was attempting to explain the origin of all the known elements in the universe via Fred Hoyle’s brilliant theories involving Nuclear Fusion in Stars.

Now, this is certainly very important stuff, but though he knew all the relevant equations he had to deliver some sort of “explanatory narrative” via his analogies. He had to show how all the elements came originally from Hydrogen nuclei in the core of the first stars, and then subsequently in a series of later revolutionary reformulations of such stars. But, it is clear that he was (and usually is) in deep trouble with this. He just couldn’t find an analogy that had any merit at all! So he ended up with attempts that were, to say the least, pathetic.

He initially used soap bubbles created by the usual child’s toy – by blowing through a small plastic hoop that had been dipped in a strong soap solution, Now these individual bubbles would occasionally stick together to form pairs, triplets and higher order collections, which he mapped onto the various nuclei of the elements.
But Hoyle’s mechanism was Nuclear Fusion, and soap bubbles were in NO way at all similar to that process. There was nothing in common with the real thing except arithmetic.

Now, such was never the scientific use of analogy, so it must be said to have totally failed to deliver on this phenomenon. But, he isn’t alone. This generation of scientists can only describe the appearance of things and never explain. So Cox’s soap bubbles were a kind of description, if a poor one. Any attempt at delivering a cause to the uninitiated, was made even more difficult by the prohibition of such things. Handicapped by not being able to use equations, and banned from explanatory theories, Cox could only give a purely descriptive model.

A little later in the same day, this writer caught another of Cox’s Wonders of the Universe episodes, and in this he was exposing the nature of what he called Deep Time.

Now, of course, the everyday conception of things sees such a tiny sliver of time, that what is changing (i.e. everything) appears instead to be totally constant, and Cox correctly exposed that, in many areas, only the study of things over truly colossal periods of time could expose what was actually going on. But, even this could mislead...

As time is expanded, for many iterations, all that becomes evident is “change” – and seemingly in small increments. The really big and radically transforming changes only appear in the record as inexplicable discontinuities. So, it was important that he also correctly showed that studying the Heavens allowed this like no other possible investigation, because the further that you looked into Space, the further back in time was what you saw. [This was because of the finite Speed of Light]. And, by far the most revealing content of studying the Heavens over vast periods of time even though the observer is fixed in NOW, meant that the cataclysmic changes could be actually observed. The most telling of these are, of course, the Supernovae.

But, sadly it must be said, he then went on to ascribe what happened over billions of years to... Time itself(?).

He made Time the cause(?) of the developments.

You may not believe this so I suggest that you look at his programme and notice how he talks about Time in dealing with the evident history of Reality as revealed in the Heavens. For here you cannot use complication and incremental inconsequential changes to “add up” to all major Qualitative Transformations.

Clearly, even with Cox’s own descriptions, the History of Stars is a drama of periodic catastrophe and re-igniting upon an entirely new basis, and finally in Supernovae. Reality actually develops qualitatively via Emergent Events!

Yet he felt he had to subordinate what he was describing to his Natural Laws, which are eternal and are expected to produce everything automatically at every consequent level.

So he settled upon Time itself as the active agent.

Sad isn’t it?

Issue 22 of SHAPE

Read it here

Issue 21 of SHAPE

Read here

First part of a two-part issue on the Shell-Shaped Universe
(see video in previous post)
Part 2 will be published in Issue 22 of the Shape Journal next month.

“Chasing the Do-able” may well accelerate growth in Science, but the consequences will invariably, as in all such undertakings, cause the growth to be both etiolated and aberrant by such a process, with a major canker at its very heart, almost unavoidably included from the start. And Cosmology is certainly no different! Vast strides have been made, but have they all been in the right direction? The answer has to be a resounding,”No!”

How can such conceptions as Physical Singularities and Parallel Universes be anything other than frigs imported from that seductive World of Pure Form alone, which we term Ideality? And the nature of that “door” to such developments can, at the time of opening and entry seem to be not only harmless, but also positively encouraging. For in that wide-open view, all things seem eminently do-able.

The turning points were, of course, Einstein’s contribution on Relativity and the general acceptance of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory as bases for an entirely new turn in Physics and Cosmology.

No longer was Explanation the “number one” priority! Mathematics and the worship of Equations seemed eminently preferable. But also, many consequent assumptions were unavoidably taken as the foundations for this New World, and not least was the belief that light could propagate across entirely Empty Space without any transmitting medium whatsoever, and to “solve” the resulting problems, the Particulate Nature of Light (via moving Photons), became a cornerstone of the new system.

The following, alternative set of ideas, in contrast, turns its back upon such premises, and instead requires a particular form of medium for light propagation, and therefore makes transmission across totally Empty Space impossible. By such changes, the whole Universe is transformed!

Now, to immediately proceed along such a route cannot be done. For, though some sort of self-consistent body of ideas can be constructed, there are other, much more profound and significant philosophical standpoints and consequent methodologies to be addressed too. We must start by not looking forwards to the New Ideas, but by looking back to the Big Bang itself, and seeing it in a wholly new way.

Issue 22 will continue investigating these ideas and look deeper into their ramifications. We also have a new video up on our youtube channel, boldly titled, The Shape of the Universe!

The Shell-Shaped Universe

What Shape is the Universe?

A new issue will follow this video in coming days, explaining further how the theory of Empty Photons could have dramatic ramifications on how we see the Universe. Could the known Universe exist in a thin shell? Could every galaxy be an illusion? Watch this space to find out more...

Review: Horizon - Before the Big Bang

At last it seemed that the crucial unanswered questions were finally being addressed.

“What had happened before the Big Bang? What had actually caused it to occur?”

But, I should have known better! What causes can you ever find when you have long ago dispensed with such things, for mathematical forms of its essential equations?

Read Review

New Special Issue on the Big Bang - The Origin

Read it here

The Theory of Emergence - Coming Soon!

What is an Emergence? It is a special interlude of major qualitative change, in which a new level of reality is both generated and maintained. Such a Level is not a mere re-organisation, but involves wholly new entities, properties, relations and even Laws which did not exist previously. The template for such an Emergence has to be the Origin of Life on Earth. Only after the creation of the first living things did they inhabit a new Level of Reality, with its own laws. We call this collection of laws Biology, and institute a whole new science with its own scientists. But this, though without doubt the most important Emergence was certainly not the only one. Every science has had its own birth via an Emergence, and indeed from the Big Bang onwards all significant qualitative changes were created within Emergences, as have been all since that event.

As so many of my philosophical ideas revolve around this theory of Emergence, we have decided to publish a special issue of the Shape Journal, dedicated to its explanation and exploration. Watch this space...

Issue 2 of Shape

Issue 2 of the Shape Journal is now available here.