Foundation of the history of the Universe

It always comes to this

Stephen Mooney

In 1929 an astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble discovered that the electromagnetic emission (light) from distant galaxies appeared as redshifted. Light has a wavelength that goes from the short blue end of the spectrum to the long red end. Redshift is when the emission is increased in wavelength. To account for this, some Physicists proposed that the redshift was due to the galaxies accelerating away from our point of observation. They equated this with the Doppler Effect, which sees sound waves increase in length as the source of the sound moves away from our point of observation. This interpretation requires that the Universe began from an extremely small and dense clump of matter that exploded, and that it’s continuing to expand as a result. How this clump of matter exploded is not explained. The majority of the Physics establishment believe in what became known as the big bang theory.

In response to Edwin Hubble’s observation, a Swiss Astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky proposed what he called the tired light theory. This stated that the increase in wavelength of the light from the distant galaxies was due to nothing more than it losing energy and increasing in wavelength as it travels across the Universe. It’s a simple fact that as light travels it fades and increases in wavelength.

There is something called Olbers paradox. This states that if the sky is full of galaxies and stars then it should be flooded with light. The sky is full of galaxies and stars. The reason that it’s not flooded with light is due to the fact that galaxies and stars are at various distances from us and their light fades and increases in wavelength as it travels towards us. The further we look out into the Universe, into regions which at first appear to be empty black space, the more galaxies and stars we discover. The tired light theory is obviously correct.

 

Although there are obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things (infinite variability) then we wouldn’t observe the discrete types that we do observe. There are finite possibilities within infinite space and time. You don’t need to believe in a mythical religious god to obtain eternal life, because it’s a given fact of existence. We live and die forever. This essay is being written, has been written, and will be written an infinite number of times.

 

One of the great benefits of Science is its capacity to accept its mistakes in interpretation and conceptualisation. We always come to the realizations presented here. Do these realizations initially involve just one particular individual or many different individuals within particular frames of space and time? If it’s one or many, each will still attain these realisations an infinite number of times.

 

There is no reason to believe that the Universe is anything other than a completely physical and materialist process. The present state of establishment Physics, with its reliance upon mathematics and measurements, is an abstractionist paradigm that fails to adequately represent the fundamental nature of the Universe. The appeal of the big bang theory is that it allows Physics to believe that they have establishment a measurement which can see as an objective fact.

 

Establishment Physics imposes its laws upon the Universe without an adequate understanding of how those laws exist. This includes their idea of four distinct fundamental forces. There is the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity. Each of these is theorized as occurring by way of force carrying particles. This is said to entail coupling, which for the nuclear and gravity forces is the result of attraction. For the strong nuclear force, the attraction is between neutrons and protons forming a nucleus and is seen as involving a particle called a pion. The weak nuclear force involves the attraction between electrons and a nucleus, and is seen as by way of w and z particles. For the electromagnetic force the particle is called a photon. For gravity, the particle is the graviton. Then there is the fact that Physics believes that gravity only involves attraction and not repulsion.

 

The force carrying particles theory doesn’t represent the most fundamental explanation. It’s better to begin with electrostatic attraction and repulsion. Physics sees electrostatic attraction as being caused by dislike charges, and repulsion by like charges. I see attraction being caused by the absorption of electromagnetic emission, which can be more simply referred to as emission, and as being a result of bodies having inequivalent emission. Repulsion, on the other hand, is caused by the emission of bodies being equivalent and the bodies pushing away from each other via this emission. Like charges equates with equivalent emission, and dislike charges equates with inequivalent emission.  

 

The attraction that underpins the nuclear and gravity forces has the same cause: the absorption of emission. There’s only one fundamental force in the Universe, and that’s the absorption and emission of bodies from the absolute microscale to the absolute macroscale. In terms of Occam’s Razor, “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” Or, in the words of Aristotle, “The more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation.” The difference in the strength of the forces is due to the difference in the absorption and emission capacity of bodies. We could call the nuclear forces microscale gravity, and gravity a macroscale nuclear force.

 

Given the absorption and emission process or mechanism, the space between bodies is composed of the emission of bodies and is not a vacuum as is sometimes assumed by Physics. The emission of a body forms a field around the body. Absorption and emission is via this field, which falls-off in density with the distance from the body. An emission field and a gravity field are one and the same thing.

 

The process of the absorption of emission is actually a process of absorption and emission so that there is not always an on-going gain of absorbed emission by the body being attracted. When the emitted emission encounters the impacting emission it creates a density of emission as a collection of particles which also absorbs and emits. In this way collections of particles, which can be called waves of emission, are constructed all the way back to the source of the impacting emission. The convergence of emission of different or equivalent wavelengths is a fundamental aspect of the Universe.

 

Physics sees the electromagnetic emission as both a wave and a particle. However, it doesn’t explain how each is connected to the other. It’s simply accepted that it forms a wave/particle duality.

 

The experiment which is said to prove that the electromagnetic emission can act as a wave and not just a particle involves passing it through a screen with two slits. The emission is then collected on a screen behind the one with the two slits. When the emission hits the collecting screen it appears in discrete bands, with the band in the centre being the densest and the bands away from each side decreasing in density. This is said to be the result of the two waves of emission interfering with each other. When the experiment is conducted with individual electrons projected at the two slits, the bands can be seen to be gradually built-up from spots where the electrons hit the collecting screen.

 

The accepted interpretation of this experiment overlooks an important matter. The screens have emission fields and as the particles of emission and the electrons pass through the slits they are deflected through interacting with this field. The centre band on the collecting screen receives the most hits because it’s subject to the particles of emission and electrons passing through both slits. The bands leading away from the centre receive fewer hits simply by virtue of them being further from the two slits.

 

As the emission travels across the Universe that which is not absorbed by other galaxies and stars sees the particles de-construct and disperse to a point that we can call the groundstate of the Universe. If this groundstate didn’t exist then the particles would be subject to infinite de-construction and dispersion, which is unacceptable. The groundstate involves cycles of absorption and emission, which involves the emission that is not absorbed being impacting emission.

 

In 1964 two astronomers named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered, by way of radio telescope, that the space (emission) between galaxies was composed of what they described as microwave radiation, which they assumed to be left over from the big bang. This is called the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CBMR). This is nothing more than the emission from galaxies and stars near the absorption and emission groundstate of the Universe.

 

As a Physicalist I see everything as composed of that substance we call matter. Consequently, I reject the idea that energy is anything other than made of matter and a product of the motion of matter. I also reject the idea of anti-matter. When two particles approach each other and are mutually de-constructed, it’s not a case of matter meeting anti-matter. It’s a case of the emission of the particles acting as pressure on each other and causing their mutual de-construction. If the two particles had a perfect equivalence of emission they would repel each other. They must have an inequivalence of emission, and have attained their maximum absorption capacities. I would predict that one of the particles would de-construct before the other.

 

If the space between bodies is composed of emission which is composed of matter, then how is it possible for us to see through this matter? We don’t see through space (emission). We see with space (emission). The image of a body is impacted upon our retina and that image travels to our retina by the same process as the emission between all bodies.

 

Contrary to the belief of some Physicists, matter is not inert at any level of its construction. All atomic scale matter decays back to a more fundamental element. At the sub–atomic level, an individual particle absorbs and emits and rotates and pulsates. If you observed an individual particle it would be seen to rotate and pulsate and have an emission field. Particles are essentially little pumps absorbing and emitting.

 

An electron being attracted to a nucleus would move towards the nucleus when it’s absorbing emission and then pushes away when its emission becomes equivalent with that of the nucleus. At its furthest point from the nucleus its emission capacity would have been exhausted so that it would once again absorb emission from the nucleus. Instead of electrons orbiting the nucleus, they form a field or cloud around the nucleus. The same back and forth absorption and emission process also applies to the attraction between protons and neutrons.

 

Isaac Newton established that gravity can be seen as proportional to the product of the masses of two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. This produced a mathematical representation of gravity as a force, but left it as a magical action-at-a-distance in that it offers no adequate explanation for the mechanism or cause of the attraction. In his Principia Mathematica of 1687, Newton states that, “…bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other.” This contradicts the idea that gravity does not involve repulsion.

 

Physics accepted that gravity involves acceleration, but doesn’t offer an adequate explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission explanation, the acceleration is a product of the fact that the density of an emission/gravity field increases with the decrease in the distance to the body that is doing the attracting.

 

Bodies of different quantities of matter are seen as all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration. Once again, Physics doesn’t have an adequate explanation. Bodies absorb emission in portion to their quantity of matter from all directions, which results in them all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration.

 

Millions of dollars of public money has been spent on building gravity wave detectors. As a gravity wave and an emission wave are one and the same thing, this is a complete waste of money. Such is the consequence when you pursue something without first understanding its fundamental cause.

 

Many Physicists claimed that there must be missing “dark matter” that holds galaxies together and sees them form into clusters of galaxies. The galaxies and the clusters of galaxies are obviously held together through the absorption of emission via their emission/gravity fields.

 

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed an anomalous rotation in Foucault's Pendulum, in that it moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the “Allais Effect”. When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission/gravity field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The slight reduction in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth, results in less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster. This demonstrated that gravity can be partially shielded. If you want assistance with obtaining a high or long jump record you should do it at aphelion, around the 4th of July when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, and during a solar eclipse.

 

The original torsion balance experiment to determine what Physics calls the universal gravity constant, designated with a G, was conducted by Henry Cavendish and published in Philosophical Transactions of 1798. Cavendish discovered that heating one of the bodies on the balance resulted in repulsion: “... the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before moved forward”. This contradicts what Physics believes about gravity.

 

The bodies used on a Cavendish torsion balance vary in their quantity of matter between different apparatus. The absorption of emission between the two bodies occurs while they are absorbing emission from their surroundings. This accounts for the relatively consistent rate of attraction between the bodies.

 

For Albert Einstein, gravity was seen as caused by curved or warped space. This idea works because curved or warped space equates with the increase in density of the emission/gravity field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.

 

The occurrence of the emission called light from a distance galaxy or star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is a case of particles being deflected (attracted) by absorbing emission from an emission/gravity field. This is the same process as an electron being deflected within an electromagnetic emission field.

 

As the gravity of a body is the result of the absorption of its emission, it’s not possible for a star to collapse under the increase in its own gravity (emission) and form a blackhole. The blackhole theory is based on seeing gravity as caused by matter, in-and-of-itself, with the absence of an adequate explanation for its cause.

 

With the Earth being attracted to the Sun through absorbing its emission via the Earth’s emission/gravity field, part of this emission could reach the inner most core of the Earth. The inner most core could be a dissymmetrical duality. This could involve one large and one small state of matter, and could see the emission/gravity field being generated from this duality. As one part increases in matter through absorption exceeding emission, the other would decrease in matter through emission exceeding absorption. As one attains a state of maximum absorption the other attains a state of maximum emission. The process of absorption and emission then reserves, accounting for the reversing of the magnetic poles of the Earth. The same mechanism could apply to the Sun with its eleven year cycle of the reversal of it magnetic field.

 

A planet can be seen as a state of absorption exceeding emission, whereas a star can be seen as state of emission exceeding absorption. The attraction between two stars would be much less than that between a star and a planet, because stars would absorb much less emission than planets. Physics presently sees gravity as always proportional to the quantity of matter of a body, and so sees the attraction between two stars as greater than that between a planet and a star. The quantity of matter of bodies is allocated by Physics with their abstractionist procedure. It’s simply not possible to determine the actual quantity of matter of a planet or a star.

 

Stars obviously contain a very large quantity of matter. Binary stars are a clear example of the weak attraction of bodies whose emission exceeds absorption. The two stars absorb emission from each other and from the surrounding environment of emission. One balances the other, keeping them in orbit around a central point. If the stars where attracted to each other simply as a consequence of their quantity of matter, then they would be drawn together completely.

 

There was an experiment conducted by one Don Kelly which demonstrated that “A special arrangement of magnets and coils fell slower in drop experiments when the special coils were energized.” (New Energy News, Vol. 5, No. 7, Nov. 1997) The results of these experiments demonstrate that the greater the emission of a body the less the absorption capacity. Newton’s universal law of gravity doesn’t reflect this reality. The universal law of attraction should state that “all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity.”

 

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon derived from a tidal bulge in the Earth due to its attraction of the Moon. It also claims that as the Earth tries to drag this bulge along its rotation is decreased, and that this loss of angular momentum is transferred to the Moon lifting it into a higher orbit. This could only occur if the angular momentum (rotation) of the Earth was responsible for holding the Moon in orbit. It’s not. What holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and stops it from crashing into the Earth, is it’s absorption of emission from the Sun counter-balancing its absorption of emission from the Earth. Only by the density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun increasing and/or the density of emission/gravity field of the Earth decreasing can we account for the Moon moving away from the Earth.

 

The rotation of natural satellites (moons) which are close to a planet has been eliminated so that they are locked to the rotation of the planet, whereas those which are further from the planets still have rotation. The satellites which are close to the planet are subject to the greater density of the emission/gravity field of the planet than those which are further away, and it’s this which causes them to lose their rotation. 

 

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can be explained by the increasing density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.

 

It’s assumed by Physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth would have been less in the past than it is now.

 

The Physics Idea of measured “universal constants” is mistaken. Just because you can measure something on Earth at a particular time doesn’t mean that the result can be applied to anywhere and at anytime in the Universe.

 

As emission travels through interaction with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It could not possibly have a specific speed throughout the Universe as is claimed by Physics. If you measured the speed of emission called light at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission/gravity field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface.

 

An example of the abstractionist interpretation by Physics involves the variability in the rate of atomic vibration. An experiment conducted by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating in 1971 measured the rate of vibration of caesium beam atomic clocks. This involved placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and two others in airplanes above the Earth and travelling in opposite directions east and west. The clock in the airplane going east lost time, the clock going west gained time, and both did so relative to the clock on the surface. Relativity theory sees the difference in the times recorded by the clocks as due to “time dilation” through their relative motion. Physics treats time as a separate dimension and a thing-in-itself. Time is a measure of duration or process of real physical things. To treat time as a separate dimension and a thing-in-itself is to commit the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

 

The airplane going east was moving ahead of the rotation of the emission/gravity field of the Earth, the airplane going west was moving against the rotation of the emission/gravity field, and the clock on the surface was moving with the rotation of the emission/gravity field. It’s the clocks differing impact with the emission/gravity field of the Earth that accounts for any difference in their rate of vibration.

 

Another “time dilation” experiment involved placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and another above the surface. This involved a different type of clock, one developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It’s based on an electrically charged aluminium atom which vibrates between two energy levels, and is called a “quantum logic clock”. The clock above the surface vibrated faster than the clock on the surface. Physics claimed that this proves that time, as a thing-in-itself, runs faster above the surface of the Earth than at the surface due to the clock moving faster with the rotation of the Earth than the clock on the surface. Both clocks absorb and emit, and this is connected to their vibration. The difference in the time keeping of the two clocks is due to the difference in density of the emission/gravity field in which they are located. The decreased density of the emission/gravity field above the surface of the Earth involves decreased emission pressure acting on the clock allowing it to vibrate faster.

 

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, observed that the rate of atomic de-construction (decay) varies with the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest point from the Sun (aphelion), the rate of atomic de-construction is increased. This occurs because the density of the Sun’s emission/gravity field impacting upon the Earth is decreased. A spacecraft travelling away from our solar system would encounter decreasing density of emission and have an increasing rate of atomic de-construction, and eventually completely de-construct. We can’t be visited by aliens because their spacecraft would de-construct during the journey.

 

Physics has seen the nuclear strong and weak forces as independent of the broader emission context in which they occur. The two nuclear forces involve the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. Every planet is subject to the increasing density of the emission of a central star. Equally, every solar system is subject to attraction to a source of emission within a galaxy and that involves the increasing density of that emission. This leads to the universal law of matter which states that, “the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission.”  This law applies to all matter, including that of emission.

 

Our solar system involves a central star and eight planets. The four inner planets can be categorized as solid matter, compared to the outer four which appear to be largely composed of gas. The gas of the gas planets must be retained by the planets by gravity. This would require a core large enough to generate the emission/gravity field which through its absorption would retain the gas atmosphere of the planets. A fundamental difference between the solid matter and gas planets is their distance from the Sun. This sees the solid matter planets being subject to a greater density of emission from the Sun compared to the gas planets. In terms of the law of the stability of matter, the solid matter planets would have greater atomic stability than the gas planets.

 

Global warming may be connected to gravity through an increase in the underlying density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The atmosphere of the Earth is retained by the Earth through the atmosphere’s interaction with the emission/gravity field. The atmosphere doesn’t just hang there by way of magic. Equally, it’s not magic that sees the density of the atmosphere decrease with the increase in its distance from the surface of the Earth is tune with the density of the Earth’s emission/gravity field. If the overall density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth increased over time, the density of the atmosphere would increase through more of the chemicals which make-up the atmosphere being retained for a longer period of time.

 

As our solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy, it’s subject to attraction through the absorption of emission within the galaxy. If the emission of the galaxy increased over time, this would result in an increase in density of the emission/gravity field within the solar system. This in turn could result in an increase in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. An exploding star within our region could have an impact upon the Earth through increasing the density of the Earth’s emission/gravity field resulting in an increase in the average temperature of the Earth for a period of time.

 

The Earth has experienced extended cold periods called Ice Ages. We could see this the other way around. The cold periods could be the norm, interspersed with long periods of increased temperature due to exploding stars within our region of the Milky Way galaxy. Such events could have happened thousands of years ago, and have an impact on the Earth over an extended period of time.

 

Elliptical galaxies and the cores of spiral galaxies are composed of emission. As they can’t exist without being constructed, they must emerge from the groundstate through the on-going absorption of emission. It would require sufficient density of impacting emission for an elliptical galaxy or the core of a spiral galaxy to emerge from the groundstate. This indicates that they must not emerge at an extreme distance from other galaxies.

 

If the heavier elements are constructed from Hydrogen through nucleosynthesis in stars, how is Hydrogen constructed given that the primordial nucleosynthesis of Hydrogen in the big bang never happened? Hydrogen is never constructed in the first place. It’s infinitely recycled through the construction and de-construction of stars. The matter left over from an exploding star that does not go into the construction of planets, de-constructs back to Hydrogen due to the low density of emission in accordance with the law of the stability of matter. This accounts for why there is an abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe. If Uranium can de-construct (decay) back to Lead in the density of emission that is the context in which the Earth presently exists, then all the elements can de-construct back to Hydrogen in a context of extremely low density of emission.

 

Some Physicists claim that the Universe involves inherent uncertainty because it’s not possible to measure with absolute precision at the extreme microscale. As everything absorbs and emits, the emission and absorption of the measurement instrument interacts with the absorption and emission of that which is being measured. It’s nothing more than this purely physical process which underpins the inability to measure at the extreme microscale. In fact, this inability is evidence that everything absorbs and emits. This is the very basis of the nuclear and gravity forces, and thereby the fundamental mechanism upon which the Universe is built. 

 

Death proceeds life. Our attitude to death guides the way in which we live. There are those who believe in a religious eternal life and are prepared to forgo their life in the here and now to obtain that existence. There are those who believe that we only live once and use this to justify selfishness. Being subject to the infinite existence of our present existence, changes everything and nothing. While we don’t need to worry about existing forever, we do need to be concerned with how we live because that’s what we will experience forever.

Nature and nurture do not form a duality. On a regular basis, Science produces evidence for our intellectual and physical abilities being derived from our Biology. Even the motivation to realize the potential of those abilities is biologically derived. To take credit for your personal achievements is an absurdity. Arrogance is the ignorance of the nature of Human existence. As we’re individually unique, to realize your potential is to be the best in the world in your category of one.

 

Cultural beliefs and practices impact upon individuals. The extent of that impact varies in accordance with the biological make-up and the learning capacity of individuals, with the learning capacity having a Biology basis.

 

Our understanding of the Universe and ourselves should be built from the most fundamental and broad-based foundation. This in turn should be derived from the most rational interpretation of scientific observation. The course of Human intellectual evolution involves times of regression. However, overall, the path of history is one of progression through the acquisition of Science based knowledge. This is an inevitable consequence of our innate desire to understand the nature of the Universe and ourselves.

 

*           *