SECTION HOME       GENERAL DIRECTORY     ALPHABETICAL INDEX
MASS DECREMENT COSMOLOGICAL MODEL
    Having built this fine inner working model from the ground up, using the premise that nothing is substance, and seeing that some degree of correlation exists between itself and the real world in terms of many of its details, by going back to the basic premise of the Principle of Similitude, is there any metric (scale) relationship between it and the real world?
    We know that simple waves can abound in great quantity, providing their wavelengths are not too small relative to the distance between surfaces.  We also know that when this distance is quite large, clearly in excess of three times the wave's diameter, the wave will undergo auto convolution (self-convolution) and decay around its perimeter.  When this happens, the wave decays into numerous and more complex residual motion;  increasing the field density in this finite region around the perimeter of the wave and generating more and smaller simple waves.  It is a self regulating process, a positive feedback:  if the field is not dense enough for the propagation of simple waves, the waves by virtue of their own decay, increase the field density.
    In time, or from one instant to the next, the field will have this potential to everywhere increase in density, with on average, smaller and smaller simple waves propagating through it.
    The actual development of self convolution was done by hand drawings, by simply taking a straight line, drawing a nicely smooth bell-shaped distribution of unit motion on it, and then extending the corresponding vectors of motion from one unit instant to the next, to see what might happen.  Once it was recognized that the line, the line also representative of a surface where it is cut by a flat plane, would fold back upon itself, no further excursions were tried, thus the generation number and size of the resultant waves was never pursued, therefor these values remain unknown in this model.
    Despite not applying any mathematical applications to this model which might otherwise reveal the rate of increasing field density, along with other limitations, such as not knowing if simple waves moved with a specific speed through and throughout the field, nor their expected wave diameters, two things were certain: (1) that the field must in time increase in density and (2) that more and more, smaller and smaller simple wave diameters would begin to appear.  From this, one could readily imagine the random appearance of smaller and smaller field configurations because of the greater frequency of occurrence of smaller waves which manufacture them.
    Again, the Law of Similitude is evoked, not in application to an inertial system, when it was mistakenly called on before, but upon a system of geometry and with greater perspicuity.  I suspicion, that our ancestors knew of its fundamental goodness, despite its misapplication by them.
    Our field has a mesh, a gauge, a fine structure so-to-speak, and so far everything hypothetically is based upon it:  the presence of waves and the presence of configurations.
     We understand that the frequency of occurrence of configurations, as a matter of pure chance, nearly spontaneous generation if you will, will be be more often in a highly dense field rich in simple waves, for it is these waves which set portions of the field into a spiral array, or a radial array.  There is also the anticipation, that curious gut feeling that Similitude cries, that if the field is different in the size of its mesh, and those building blocks are different in size, should not its products be different in size?  Remember, this is not and engineering matter, but a geometric matter.
    A field long ago, say ten billion years ago, and ten billion light years across, hypothetically speaking, would have a relatively coarse mesh than to the same field today.  Objects within the field, say a perfectly cubic region consisting of twenty seven unit cubes would be smaller by today's standards, than a similar, if not the same cubic conglomeration, of ten billion years ago.  The problem of course, is that if this hypothetical model were to be the real thing, as objects within and of the field, we would also be size variant;  getting smaller like everything else, because our building blocks would precisely those phenomenal results stemming from these field configurations.  Ourselves and everything around us, especially our measuring sticks and scientific equipment would be becoming smaller, not only progressively in time, but with every stage of inception.
    Clearly then, time would be unmistakably speeding up, with the length's of pendulums becoming shorter and shorter, causing them to swing faster and faster.  This is of course remains under the assumption that mass remains invariant while all this is all happening.  In the final analysis, we as observers would not know what is going on, for as our traveled distances shrink making our trips quicker, our clocks tick proportionately faster, making it all seem the same.
    Unlike the omniscience of these two absolute frames,  we as observers are in a far more subjective condition, as though we are more or less standing on the cubes, while the frames grow larger and larger.  Since these frames are both invisible to us and set at billions of light-years across though, we would be unaware of them getting bigger, or is it we smaller?  At a real earth ground zero, it would be hard to tell which of these two options is correct.
    Of these two possibilities, science has chosen to interpret this relative change as an expansion, no doubt because such a choice more closely matches religious mythology.  Conversely, to think that the Universe has always been, and is evolving through a process of mass decrement, though in the long run, a more rational choice, runs smack in the face of divine genesis.  In all respects, rather than being the best choice among astronomers and physicists, an expanding universe is the most popular choice.  Bear in mind that neither Sir Fred Hoyle, the proponent of the excellent steady-state hypothesis nor Hubble, thought too highly of the possibility of galaxies in flight as a sensible cosmic paradigm.
    Ultimately, such an errant view, that galaxies are racing away in opposite directions, because of some cosmic explosion, all as part of the Standard Model, has forced scientists to adopt some fairly wild concoctions in the adaptation of such a view to real physical processes, such as essential fudging of Big-Bang supportable thermonuclear process rates and background radiation projections by Gamow, et. al., at its very inception.
    At the same time as all of the support for the Big-Bang was rolling in, no one tried to reinforce any of the deficiencies of the Steady-State model, such as Olber's paradox and old matter.  Proponents of the possibility of tired light were met head on and cut down,  just as reports of successful test results in the measurement of luminiferous ether were wholly ignored at this very critical time.  As results, in the decades following, scientists have been forced to adopt even more fixes for a patchwork model.
    To balance the act, a lot more matter racing outward was needed, so they made up dark matter, the stuff of the Cosmos and the fluff of the Higgs boson, dubbed the God particle.
The contemporary irony of the whole matter rest in the Higgs boson.  Theoretically essential, predicted and hailed into existence with machines so illustrious, big and expensive (the Tevatron), anything else will be failure...the sickening and inevitable failure of atomism after over two thousand years of trying, not to mention, the fledgling Standard Model.  The irony is of course, they need a lot of Higgs bosons to compliment the vast amount of dark matter needed essential for the Big-Bang to work, and they haven't even got one legitimate hit!
    From the failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment in 1883 and until now, scientists have taken some pretty awful theoretical turns, so what has happened?
    For one, the men of European science were never able to break the shackles of the church nor separate themselves from the politics of the day, until around the early middle of the nineteenth century, despite the earlier secular philosophy of the United States, which today has almost all but vanished.  But during the better part of the nineteenth century, because scientific technology was flourishing on all fronts, theoretical science may have been developing itself in greater obscurity than ever before, and the questions concerning the propagation of light hardly of religious interest per se.
    By the end of the century the progression of science was changing so swiftly, neither theoretician nor theologian had any idea in which direction it might turn:  a godless science or one supportive of the tenets of religion, namely that of genesis.  Just the discovery of Island Universes was causing debate steeped in mythology, rather than reason.
    There is no question that the grip of religion directed and influenced scientific study through the ages, the Catholic church by and large the greatest threat in Christendom to scientific advancement, never relinquishing its teachings of an earth centered cosmology, until the mid 1800.  Equally too, Judaism held sway against the teachings of many prominent Jewish scholar at a most fertile moment in modern science between the turn of the century and now, a period of one hundred years, no doubt putting the kabash on anyone promoting a secular or atheistic cosmology.   Indeed and without question, there is hardly a Jewish scientist who could possibly propose anything other than a pantheistic premise to the Cosmos.  The mere idea, that it makes sense (panlogism as understood to be included in pantheism), can only distort the Cosmic wheel, the same going for Christians too.  If one goes to church or goes to synagogue, they cannot be open minded; there being no other rational option, Georges Lemaitre, clearly illustrating this.
    I am sure historians will look back and wonder as to what happened to the advancement of knowledge, comparing the great losses during the extended Dark Ages, to a rather shorter period of history directly after the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, setting mankind back proportionately even further.
    I truly believe that if both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein had been a devout atheists, they would not have been heard from, any more than Galileo Galilei, and not simply through house arrest, respectively.
    Thus, if we go back to the possibility that the Universe is not so much expanding, but that we are getting smaller in time, completely alters everything.  Rather than emerging from something very small, akin to the cosmic kernel of Georges Lemaitre, metrically digestible coming from zero, and oh so nicely fitting into the ancient Genesis Model, we would be coming downward and inward from outer space, from a race of giants of antiquity and gods whose beards in size, might flow across the heavens, and atoms as big as moons!
    Instead of dark matter rushing outward, there would be no dark matter anywhere, but instead a giant and infinite field, pulsating with invisible energy and waves and wavelets passing to and fro.  Open the door to this domain, and you have J.R.R Tolkien's howling primal chaos just waiting outside.  So in actuality, we have two models, one you think is real, derived from the interpretation of Hubble law, and the other about which, you know very little, including Georges Lemaitre and Albert Einstein.  But possibly, it is too late to convince you, but then again, this is really your choice.
    There is nothing in the Standard Theory which might provide any catalytic possibility to Being, other than God, something quite profoundly believed by our mentor himself:   Albert Einstein.  Though genius, his way was caught between theology and science;  a contradictory predicament in itself, always leading to the predisposition of divine genesis, without rational escape, nor without a tincture of philosophy.  This poor guy indeed, a gypsy Jew in many respects, was unfortunately caught in the vice of the Catholic church, with the supreme pontiff of Catholic science on his neck, Georges Lemaitre, one to be greatly honored, being inducted by Pope Pius XI into the Pontifical Academy of Science, telling he (Einstein), “Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.”  Well George, your grasp of philosophy, if not wholly absent, is woefully short of Alfred North Whitehead's.
    Besides Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest, leading the pack to a new scientific world order, was George Gamow (pronounced, gamoff).  Now Gamow, besides not only being a popular fiction writer, "One, Two, Three, Infinity" being one of his best known books among college students, taught mathematics, teaching us that there are two kinds of infinities (a).  (This should appear as the Greek letter alpha, symbolical of infinity.  If not, set up your browser to use incoming fonts, not its default fonts.)
    Actually, if one wants to lint pick, there are four kinds of infinities: (1) plus infinitesimal, (2) plus infinite, (3) negative infinitesimal and (4) negative infinite.  In example, a circle of infinite radius would represent a plus infinite infinity.  A point of infinitesimal radius would be representative of a plus infinitesimal infinity.  A location on the abscissa of a rectangular coordinate frame of reference, as far as possible to the right of the origin (by convention) would be a plus infinite infinity, and to the left as far as possible, would be a negative infinite infinity.  There is no example in nature of a negative infinitesimal infinity, other than a negative implosion of an evolutionary universe in perhaps negative energy states;  and Georges Lemaitre would have hardly liked that.
    What is really missing in all this dialogue, is reference to the observer rather than to god, after all, it is our issue, in our comprehension of the universe, not god's.  However, in all fairness to the observer's god, I will delineate between the two.  The observer shall be termed the discrete observer, taking up very little space in the universe, and the observer's god shall be termed the omniscient observer resting outside the event horizon of the physical universe, if not the spiritual universe.
    In the case of the discrete observer, which would be we humans, we would be concerned with changes in the universe relating to spatial changes.  An omniscient observer, god, would conversely be interested in our both the universe's and our spatial change.  Neither observer concerns themselves with their own possible change.
    In consideration of the event horizon, the edge of the universe, we are allowed several views.  First, a out rush of the material of the universe as a positive infinite infinity (A), as measured from its edge, would be indeterminate as necessitating a variable infinite infinity.  If (B) the universe is getting smaller, edge to edge, from some former infinite status, this is a negative change of an infinite infinity.    In contrast (C), if the universe is expanding from some infinitesimal state, this is a positive change of an infinitesimal infinity, and is represented by the Big-Bang model.  Conversely, if the universe is getting smaller, edge to edge, from some former state as an infinitesimal infinity (D), and is classed as a negative change of an infinitesimal infinity, and is obviously indeterminate and meaningless.  The following chart represents this.
 
 
 
 OMNISCIENT
 OBSERVER
DISCRETE
 OBSERVER
CHANGE
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
INITIAL STATE
INFINITE
(A) Indeterminate. Greater than infinite.
(B) The universe becomes smaller in time.
(A) Indeterminate to observer.
(B) Objects in the universe would become closer
in time.
(Not Observed)
INITIAL STATE
INFINITESIMAL
(C) The universe becomes larger in time.
(D) The universe becomes smaller than zero.
(C) Objects within the universe would be flying apart. 
(Big-Bang)
red-shift
(D) Indeterminate to observer. The universe becomes smaller than zero.
    Between the two observers, there is complete symmetry.  In the case of the discrete observer, no negative change has ever been observed, only positive change.  The same might be true of the omniscient observer, but we don't know that.
    In the case of the discrete observer, in reference to positive change, the Big-Bang represents a positive change in reference to spatial variance corresponding to Hubble law and Gamow's infinite class infinity.  This view lacks comprehensive and consistent theory, much of what there is, being heavily doused with myth, mysticism and dogma mixed with social coercion, all under the guise of science.  Historically, of this there is no question.
    The principle error in both Gamow's and Lemaitre's thinking is that they forgot which observer they were, I assume a common mistake among those who try to think like the gods.
    No matter what we may say, think or which to show about our observations, we cannot see to the edge of infinity, thus making claim as to what the universe might be doing from an omniscient perspective, for it is hardly in ours, theirs, nor science's province. (Reference to left-hand blue square for possibility C.)
    Given possibility C, the only thing as observers we can say is, that things are moving apart, not that the universe is getting bigger.
    However, Lemaitre was so determined to prove the universe was created, he more than willingly put the cart before the horse, with Einstein, Gamow and all the rest, falling in behind.  What a waste of good minds.
    Without question, in chorus they sang, behold, and God created our universe in one giant burst of fireworks;  in “a day without yesterday” we have become.  And Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened”, while Alfred North Whitehead, James Clerk Maxwell, Ernst Mach and Sir Fred Hoyle looked down at their feet muttering, "What have they just done!"
    Really, I ask you.  How could they, after a few decades after turning classical physics upside down, whilst dispatching luminferous ether to the hinterlands, encountering the remarkable discovery of galaxies outside our own, all of which seemed to be racing away from us, rashly conclude that god created this?  Why would anyone seriously consider drawing conclusions from anybody's mathematical fudges, rashly accepting the scientifically perverse conclusion, that God did it?
    Most scientists who read Lemaitre’s paper accepted that the universe was expanding, at least in the present era, but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite millions of years had passed before the universe came into existence. Eddington himself wrote in the English journal Nature that the notion of a beginning of the world was “repugnant.”
    After Arthur Eddington died in 1944, Cambridge University became a center of opposition to Lemaitre’s theory of the Big Bang. In fact, it was Fred Hoyle, an astronomer at Cambridge, who sarcastically coined the term “Big Bang.” Hoyle and others favored an
approach to the history of the universe known as the “Steady State” in which hydrogen atoms were continuously created and gradually coalesced into gas clouds, which then
formed stars.
    If you believe in the Big-Bang, then you have forgotten that there is no evidence as to the size, if finite, nor change of size of the universe, nor that there is a thing called time, or a thing called space, nor that there is or is not anything called a field, nor an ounce of knowledge about points which can move, nor that force can be caused by geometric forms, and as such, you are arcane.  This is all quite expected if you operate inside the ivory towers.  Step outside and enjoy the sunlight.
    Knowing that Hubble law is evident, with variations both expected, sought and imposed with new evidence, all that we derive from it is that light from more distant sources has shifted towards the red-end of the electromagnetic spectrum relative to our instruments.
    Interpolating this observation into the potential extreme range of stellar illumination directly implies that such light can encroach upon pure heat of such low magnitude, that it approaches zero Kelvin, the sum total of which matches observed background radiation.
    Given that we did not know why, at the time of these discoveries, and as well the short intervening years, solutions were sought, such as the Doppler effect of light sources in motion and tired light.  Despite many attempts to support the notion of tired light, light does not get exhausted, but rather blocked, reflected, absorbed and consequently readmitted, but nothing, inclusive of inter-stellar grains, could explain tired light.  On the other hand, because the Doppler effect could be demonstrated at the local level, why not apply it to the Cosmic level?  Concurrently to this, the Steady-State model had its own bag of riddles, such as Olber's paradox and old matter.  What science had, was several problems seen as one, and the one problem was the annoying construct that God might not have created the universe, because at the time, the universe was consider by most astronomers as being timeless under the Steady-State model;  much I am sure, to the annoyance of a group of Belgian priest, who seized the moment of science's confusion, on its pathway to truth.
    While all this was happening, science was ignoring the potential of field theory, which Einstein was devoted, P.A.M. Dirac's variance of space-gauge, which surely Hawkings, if anyone, should have looked at in order to gain a keener understanding of a Cosmos unmanufactured by some god, and undisclosed measurements of luminiferous ether rolling in at the early part of last century (about 90 years ago!).
    Today, as we look back, though technological science has made stupendous gains, theory has been on par with alchemy, which might be expected if you are primarily looking for gold or god.
    Throughout this entire time, the question and definition of space had been largely ignored, save luminiferous ether, when today, students are taught that space-time, hugely misunderstand, can cause the refraction and dispersion of light;  namely, its wave characteristics.
     Whatever you want to believe, even adamantly so, whether it is the Standard Model, or field theory based upon the fundamental studies of dynamic geometry, each remains as such, a model, and at most a hypothetical model, and certainly not theory, as many anxious might wish.
    Thus, in the evaluation of Hubble's observations concerning the red-shift, one can interpret it as either the sign of Doppler recession. or as the metric decrementation of the size of material objects in time.
    As only a model, as I submit to you, the metric decrementation of the size of material objects affords great advantage in both the understanding and appreciation of a new geometry, a new physic so based upon these geometric principles, and a new cosmology where the red-shift is nothing more than the variation in time and space at the receptor location of light coming from very far away, and hence long ago, from a world where things were a little bit slower and bigger.
   As part of this model, a simple wave is considered to be analogous to a quanta of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Since it is not a field configuration, it is not subject to any variance in space-gauge, or more exactly the mean distance between surfaces belonging to the Random Field.  Thus, once set in flight through the field, the variation of the field density does not in any way, through any mechanism, alter the wave diameter, nor any frequency modulations of the simple wave.  The field density is inversely proportional to the mean distance between surfaces, or the space-gauge.  As previously noted, this change in density, does however, greatly affect the metric size of field configurations.
    In this model, a certain type of field configuration, named a radial configuration, can be equated to the real world, as being analogous to a neutral heavy particle, namely the neutron;  that a second type of configuration, called a spiral configuration, can be equated to the real world as being analogous to a charged heavy particle, namely a neutron;  and that both kinds of configurations are subject to metric decrement (not mass decrement) in time.  If correct, one then can say that both protons and neutrons can undergo metric decrement in time.
    Also in this model, certain waves able to propagate through the field can be equated to real world counterparts.  These waves, called simple waves, are thought to be analogous to electromagnetic quanta and do not undergo metric decrement, nor are in any way, intrinsically altered by the field.  If correct, then one can say that photons are not altered by the field in terms of their wave size or modulation frequency.
    In the real world then, light emitted by an atom will be of variables of certain size and frequency.  As it propagates through space, these variable will not be changed by the field in time, thus remaining constant in time.
    In the real world then, when light arrives at some later destination, the atoms at this destination will be smaller than those atoms during and at the time of emission.  Thus, any observer measuring these values will find that the incoming light does not match the current laboratory standards:  its frequencies being slower and quantum size being larger.
    If this is correct, then we have a way to measure the change in field density in time through Hubble's observations of galactic red-shift.
    At a distance of 59 million light years away, lies the Virgo cluster, its light sufficiently visible for spectrographic analysis.  The K-line of calcium coming from the stars in Virgo, observed on earth, is measured at 397.4 nm (nanometers).  The laboratory value for the K-line is 395.1 nm, a bit shorter.  The difference is 2.3 nm.  The proportional change based upon the laboratory standard is 0.0058213 nm.  Since these photons are traveling for 59 million years, the annual change in field density is 9.87 x 10-11 parts.
    Besides Hubble's observations for long range distances in the measurement of the rate of change of field density, we also have the local measurements conducted by Thomas C. Van Flandern, giving indirect and unintentional support to this cosmological model.
    In a very extensive and exhaustive study of the lunar period using a cesium clock in order to measure the exact time certain stars became occulted by the moon's limb, an ongoing task taking many years, Thomas C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, discovered that the moon appeared to be taking longer in orbit by about two thousandths (.002) of a second annually.  This would be the extra time required for its forward limb to occult a star of a precisely known position, giving an average delay throughout the study of 22.2 x 10-11 parts annually.

    Most of this delay is caused by a slowing down of the moon in orbit because of tidal friction between the earth and moon and modest, if not negligible delay, attributed to meteorite impact, which came to 15.0 x 10-11 parts annually.   The remaining delay, otherwise unaccounted, which came to 7.2 x 10-11 parts annually, is now known to be caused by a delay in occultation of the continuously shrinking moon diameter, due to material decrement caused by an increasing field density.   Since the earth as well, is continuously growing smaller, compounding the increase between the earth-moon distance, surface-to-surface, the study was further confirmed by bouncing radar signals off the moon.   At the time, no one was sure why this was happening and thus these findings were published in The Amateur Astronomer, later to become Scientific American under the then inappropriate title, Is Gravity Weakening?  This was in February 1976.
    As we see now, in direct comparison with the more distant evaluation of field density variance of 9.87 x 10-11 parts, proves the uncanny observable support to this hypothesis, heretofore overlooked by science, and in particular, astronomy.

    The actual field density cannot be determined from any information provided her, only its rate of change.  To determine the field density, with good approximation, the radial configuration is evaluated in terms of its decay time.

MORE

SECTION HOME       GENERAL DIRECTORY     ALPHABETICAL INDEX