PHYSICS NOTE NO. 5
SUMMARY THEME OF PART V OF THE PHYSICS OF CREATION
Copyright © Harold Aspden, 2001
COSMOLOGY AND THE SPACE DOMAIN
Cosmology is the ‘science of dealing with the nature of the universe’, according to a modern dictionary, but the word ‘cosmology’ is not to be found in the dictionary of equivalent size, the ‘Concise Oxford Dictionary’, 3rd edition, that I won in 1939 as my first school prize. It seems, therefore, that cosmology, as a scientific pursuit separate from physics and astronomy, is a relatively new field of endeavour, even though the universe has been in existence for quite a long time. The question of “How long?” is what occupies the mind of the cosmologist.
So one might well ask whether we are any further forward in the quest to fathom the mysteries of Creation than we were in 1939 at the outbreak of the second world war. Now, at that time, geologists had established that age of the Earth was about 4 billion years and, so far as I know, that still applies today. Ask yourself then what you might assume to be the age of our sun. To me it seems feasible to assume that when the sun was created it was spinning a little too fast and so was unstable until it shed matter which formed planets and so absorbed most of the sun’s angular momentum. On that basis I would presume that our sun was created about 4 billion years ago, yet I find that cosmologists are trying to convince us that the universe, including our sun, was created many billions of years before that.
When I try to understand the basis of their belief I find that much depends upon the cosmological model of creation that one imagines, given two common assumptions. These are, firstly, that the universe as a whole is expanding steadily from a point at which the universal clock which regulates time itself is supposed to begin to tick and, secondly, that gravitation acts on a universal scale with no boundary range limits governing the constancy of its inverse-square of distance force relationship.
These assumptions seem to be me to be quite out of line with good science discipline. Although one can infer that the spectral red shift evident in the radiation from very distant stellar galaxies implies a doppler frequency shift, as if their distance from Earth is increasing, it is quite a step to argue by extrapolation that the universe must have been born in a so-called ‘Big Bang’ at a single point in space at time t=0. That begs answers to three rather obvious questions. “Where did the energy come from?” “How did that enormous quantity of energy get itself compressed into a tiny point-sized form?” “What kind of physics governed things before time t=0?”. These are so impossible to answer that one surely must discredit the notion on which they are founded. One simply cannot justify extrapolating the doppler red shift theme backwards in time to plot on an imaginary time chart a moment when the universe was created!
Similarly, why should we assume, without evidence in proof, that Newton’s Law of Gravity (or its Einstein equivalent) apply fully over a range that extends over distances measured in tens, hundreds or even thousands of light years, not to mention ranging over distances of ten thousand million light years that are the basis of the standard cosmological models?
Where, may I ask, is the physics that addresses the question of why an electromagnetic wave travelling through space for years and years and so being attenuated in intensity can contrive to keep its wave frequency constant? Where, may I ask, is the physics that demonstrates that the force of gravity is a force that has unlimited range of action? Why, indeed, does the universe expand in defiance of a universal force of gravity that, to a normal mind, implies contraction by matter being subject to mutual attraction? If, as with our Sun and Earth, matter is kept apart by the inertia of orbital motion, then one wonder if the whole universe is rotating and, if so, what it was that caused that rotation? The ‘Big Bang’ hypothesis has indeed so much to account for that one surely must give a hearing to the alternative theory discussed in this work.
I accept that the resolution of these issues experimentally by observation and measurement seems not to be feasible, but that does not mean that we can avoid probing the foundations of our theories to look for errors of omission that can cast light on these questions.
From such effort I have discovered that there is geological evidence in body Earth that can be interpreted as showing that gravitation has a range of action of the order of the distance travelled by light in 300,000 years. It emerges from a correlation of the historic reversals of the Earth’s magnetism with events when Earth traversed a boundary in space across which the force of gravity is ineffective. I reasoned that space had a property somewhat similar to what we see in a ferromagnetic material, namely domain regions bounding the coherent action that accounts for the instrinsic ferromagnetic state, a state of negative potential which accounts for the force of mutual attraction. That led many years ago, as one can see from Part I of this work, to a full-blown theoretical insight into the nature of the force of gravity, but those domain boundaries in the ferromagnet have their counterpart in space and so confine local gravitational action to a limited range.
In presenting a full account of this subject here in ‘The Physics of Creation’ much of the text of ‘Physics Unified’ between pages 164 and 174 and of ‘Modern Aether Science’ between pages 153 and 160 will be reproduced.
The fact that the force of gravity has a limited range of action certainly destroys the basic assumption of several cosmological models that support the Big Bang hypothesis. Geological evidence has guided the way forward and left us to contemplate a universe in which our sun was created some four billion years ago. Next, as to the wave frequency attenuation problem, and the bearing this has upon the Big Bang hypothesis, this was resolved by uncovering two basic errors in fundamental physical theory, one concerned with the radiation of energy by the accelerated electron and one concerned with the lack of dynamic balance in Maxwell’s wave equations.
The first of these errors was well discussed in both of the above books and also in the earlier work ‘Physics without Einstein’. It has already been discussed in Physics Note No. 1 and is an important topic to be covered in Part I of this book ‘The Physics of Creation’. The other error, however, came only to the author’s attention after writing ‘Physics Unified’ and was dealt with by a comprehensive set of references, in a paper by the author published in 1984. See 1984e This topic is important and it justifies further elaboration in this Part V of this work.
The main point of the argument involved is that an electromagnetic wave in transit through free space will inevitably encounter electrons created transiently by the aether’s ongoing attempts to create matter from any surplus energy that may be present. These electrons obstruct the waves in a way which acts selectively on one of its two oscillatory components needed to assure dynamic balance. This affects the ratio of the amplitudes of oscillation of these two components and that causes progressive loss of wave frequency.
The theory governing the activity attempting to create matter affords an estimate of the number of those obstructing electrons per unit volume of space and from their effect in presenting a scattering cross-section one can deduce the wave energy attenuation rate with distance travelled. In turn this allows calculation of the wave frequency attenuation rate and the result is that the theory yields a value of the Hubble constant H that puts H-1 at 3.6 billion years.
The author does not intend to expand on this theme by speculating as to how this theory affects the way we interpret red shift data from far off astronomical objects, save to suggest that the above implies a considerable distance in light years for a source having a very large red shift. There are so many different cosmological models based on different assumptions, some being further confused by use of Einstein’s theory and the complication which it adds to interpretation of doppler effects. Instead, it suffices to present the argument against the expanding universe theme with its Big Bang scenario and leave the reader to accept that we are part of a universe that tends to keep its equilibrium over vast regions of space divided into domains each subject to its internal gravity action, but there being the occasional sporadic explosion in such a domain when equilibrium breaks down, gravity is lost, and chaos prevails for while pending, as it were, a cooling phase which carries the region of that domain through the equivalent of its ‘Curie point’ at which gravitation reappears and restoration of order follows. The latter could well be what one sees as a supernova, a rare event, but all part of what ultimately is a steady-state universe experiencing matter creation and decay as an ongoing activity and having no known bounds.
In the next section of this book, Part VI, we shall come down to earth, as it were, and focus on what the aether implies as a possible energy source that can benefit future generations.
The Lectures relevant to this Part V of ‘The Physics of Creation’ will, when written, be listed for access here. In the meantime, the reader may find it of interest to inspect those Lectures which have been entered in the corresponding Physics Note 3 relating to Part III.
to return to the main site index.