Cluster Abell 2261

Cluster Abell 2261
A "Local" Big Bang - the Abell 2261 Star Cluster

Friday, 31 August 2018


There is a fundamental failing in almost all human thought about reality.  Whether it be a Religious Garden of Eden or a Scientific Big Bang, they all but insist that our existence, our reality, has a beginning – and there is an absolute block to any detailed knowledge as to what preceded or precipitated that beginning.  That is despite almost all advances in knowledge push the "beginning" farther back.  So it unreasonable to announce that the current scientific favorite (Big Bang Theory) has to be the final step we will ever take.  It is not even fair to state that must be the truth for the present knowledge we have of the Universe.  It is entirely illogical and inconsistent with how science has evolved; sometimes that evolution is through a new view/order of the already documented data available to Science. Supported by the advance of theories experienced throughout its existenceof the human race.  This site begins the detailing of the Theory of Relativistic Perspective - it is a scientific examination of the difference there would be in theory logic if you were examining reality from a Relativistically distorted Perspective - and, the resulting re-model of The Big Bang Theory.  A much more comprehensive theory does exist, but the aim, for now, is to poke a few grey cells gently.  All new ideas take some time to accept.  Hopefully, yours will be quicker than this writer.  It took me five years to develop and confirm the mathematical arguments I needed to convince myself that while it is not entirely sure (no Scientific theory ever is), it is very entirely debatable - at least, in a contest with current thinking.
So the fundamental declaration: formulas for Relativity would be different if you plug in what a distorted observer would see.  While you may perceive the Starship "Enterprise" get shorter zooms past (because of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction), from the perspective of Captain Picard and the crew, you are getting longer.  But there are valid equations for those alternate, distorted perspectives.

Those are new ideas that are indisputable mathematically.  But let's try and get our perspective right.  Imagine that you'd been sitting in a classroom, in 1920, listening to the Einstein Ph.D. fellow lecturing  — you admire him, though he looks a little strange with the curly hair and round glasses.  He had come up with a paper called “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light" — an explanation of the Photoelectric effect.  It was one of those ideas that seemed simple once suggested, but you wanted to see if he’d agree to you were there parallels between dislodging electrons through Photon impact and electron conduction.  Since conduction consisted of one electron impacting an atom, that led to the expulsion of one on the opposite side.  That led to another atom and another electron and so on.  There was a kind of parallel to the ELECTRO-magnetic force of photons dislodging electrons.  Or maybe he'd claim that was what theory was about to start.

But then he goes off into that odd idea about the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887.  How the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation reasoned that all things get thinner the faster they go.  You’d rejected that idea as soon as you’d heard it.  But this fellow claimed to have come up with an expansion of the equation and where that expansion led.  He goes through the experiments that established that contraction, and the mathematical reasoning that supported it.  Even though you’ve heard about those before, it alarmed you a little to hear that this fellow had swallowed the idea whole.   You’d be hoping to be getting some relief from that weird notion.  It seemed so contrary to what you knew the world to be.  But then he goes on to describe how that simple well-documented FACT led to equations that establish that the mass of an object increases as it goes faster and that time passages within that object slowed down.  Both of them would be in the same proportions as it gets thinner.  Finally, he shows how the mass equations can use the binomial theorem to produce another equation that 
defines/quantifies the relationship between matter and energy:

          e =mc2

Not only do you have trouble understanding that relationship, but also, when you DO understand it, it seems stupid — as much as you admired the Good Doctor on the “Heuristic” business.

You try to work with it again and again, and you do begin to see some of its logic — though you don't know ENTIRELY what it means.  And you spend the rest of your life coming across new aspects of what it means.  "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" can be argued to be the most fundamental and important theory of our reality — but Special Relativity never won a Nobel Prize.   It just takes a while to comprehend and accept the "Moving Body Dynamics" business - Relativity was/is just too weird.

All new ideas need to work with everyone to get accepted.  No matter how incontestable the arithmetic/logical reasoning and ease of understanding is, the first thing you do with a  new idea is to reject it.  That's because of the simple fact is that almost all new ideas are wrong ideas.  Mathematics can be an amusing toy, but it is also a wonderfully flexible and deceptive toy.  Sophisticated enough mathematics can “prove” just about anything.  So it is not an unquestionable mathematic proof.  Some research fans may subconsciously reject this reasoning.  They see the more complicated the explanation is, the less likely the uneducated is to understand it.  So that means it is more likely to be right.  But if you think about, it's the opposite.  If it takes account of the appropriate issues - and Relativity does allow accounts for them all - the simpler the mathematical logic is, then the more incontestable it is.  It lessens the room for invalid presumptions/deductions.

So let's start with a poke at the overly conservative and limited left side of your brain that always insists on logic.  Hopefully, we will be able to convince it of a simple and incontestable idea. Having the limited/conservative side of your cerebral cortex on the left "logic" side will then make it a little easier to convince the same cortex's right "artistic" side of the same idea.  Teach that right lobe that the Relativity Theory that IT knew when it was just a "baby" brain might have some other twists that it never learned.  Working together, those contesting lobes will probably to swallow the idea.  They'll even be able to come up with some new aspect of the idea independently that will make the whole thing seem more reasonable.

We’ll go as basic as we can.  The Classic Relativity time equation:


Means the faster you go, then the closer your velocity |v| gets to the speed of light |c|.  So the expressions |v/c| or |v2/c2| gets closer to one|1|.  Then the expression |(1-v2/c2).5| gets closer to zero.  If the value of the denominator declines in any fraction, the value of the fraction expression becomes greater.  Time' slows and whatever is accelerating you, accelerates you more and more slowly — it becomes harder and harder for |v| to reach |c|.   Just about everyone knows that now: the maximum speed in our reality is light speed.  

Another aspect of that slowdown in time is a slowdown in the velocity of light/EM, strong/weak nuclear and gravitational forces. Otherwise one of those four would APPEAR to increase.  So more and more of the energy Bosons decay into the surrounding matter, increasing the mass of the MATTER - though again, note that the mass of the ENERGY associated with whatever body is accelerating will LOSE the same proportional mass.

Now switch to General Relativity.  It is arguable that the most important equation in General Relativity is parallel to the Special Relativity Time equation:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – 2GM/rc2).5

If you consider that the equation for escape velocity is:

         VelocityEscape = (2GM/r).5

That would mean that,

         VelocityEscape2 = 2GM/r

So a valid re-write of the Relativity equation would be:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – (2GM/r)*(1/c2)).5

That could also be written as:

         Time’ = Time/(1 – (VelocityEscape2)*(1/c2)).5
         Time’ = Time/(1 – VelocityEscape2/c2).5

And suddenly, the equation makes more sense.   You could reason the maximum ESCAPE velocity was c — light speed.  Which is perfectly logical, because, again, Relativistic distortions are observed to slow and weaken all other Bosons (the Photon, the Gluon and the X/Y Boson), as was noted before, they surely have the same effect on the fourth Boson (the Graviton).  General Relativity could also be labeled Gravitational Relativity.

That is what the whole theory is.  How could a Gravitational Boson not be affected by relativity?  Then the unexpected exceptions to all OTHER current physics theory for the Big Bang Theory are not needed.  Matter particles would descend into any Schwarzschild Object, where the free energy made available by the slowing of all Bosons (and the conservation of energy) would go, primarily, through a metamorphosis from pure energy into kinetic energy attached to the matter particles — making them go faster.  Part of that energy goes directly into the mass of the matter because of relativistic effects.  The particle might even get back out of the S.O. because that "impassable" border that is so celebrated in modern science is the point at which to escape the S.O., you would need to be moving at light speed.  But there is nothing to prevent you from passing it — or just going into orbit outside it.  The above also suggests, that like Special Relativity, because of the Time distortion, you will APPEAR to be going faster than you are.  Just as in Special Relativity, the mathematics for observations from a distorted perspective and undistorted perspective have to be different, because the data those observations would produce would be different.

There also are unconsidered consequences to the slowing of Bosons.  If the kinetic energy of all matter particles were to decrease in exact proportion to the Boson slowdown, then it might be reasonable to say that there would be the real-time slowdown imagined in endless Science Fiction stories.  But that is completely unreasonable.  What that would mean is that with increasing General Relativistic distortion the energy — be it kinetic or Bosonic, would disappear.  Conservation of matter/energy can be argued to be one of, if not THE, fundamental rule of all reality.  There is a parallel in Special Relativity.  According to time distortion theory, the Bosonic energy associated with a moving object would HAVE to reduce because the object would be moving faster - all the Bosons would lose mass because they would be moving more slowly.  The MATTER mass increases in precisely the same proportion.

So the higher the Relativistic distortion (Special or General) slowing of the Gluon would mean that the Strong Nuclear force holding the nuclei together would weaken.  Though the repulsive force exerted by the matching EM charges of the protons would decrease by the same proportion - if there were no other considerations, things would stay the same.  But though the nuclei would be no more likely to  break up, their structure, the pull/push of Strong Nuclear Force/EM would weaken in parallel, making that structure more fragile.  The enormous amount of kinetic energy pressed upon them by the combination of Relativistic effects on the slowdown of any Boson particle and conservation of matter/energy would mean they would go much faster and faster, and collide with each other in that more fragile state — thus going further and further down the Periodic Table.

That would explain why the oldest part of the Galaxy – the Core – would have the highest proportion of Population II stars.  Strictly by the rules, they’ve had the longest time to develop heavier elements (Iron, Cobalt, Nickel, Uranium, etc.), so they should have the highest proportion of those same heavy elements — but they don’t.  Population II stars are almost all Hydrogen/Helium.  That would not make sense if it were the oldest part of the Galaxy.
And the Relativistic limit to escape velocity of lightspeed would mean that any matter object or atom or particle could get close enough to that light speed limit and break free — leaving all those lonelier and lonelier Bosons behind, desperate to link up with some single Baryon, Lepton, Quark, whatever.  And they all get a greater and greater amount of kinetic energy in the process.

It is one of the most fundamental ideas in Science is that the fusion of Elements separates energy and matter into higher atomic numbers.  But then that matter/energy would be reunited by Relativistic effects. The atoms undergo fission back down to Helium, Tritium, Deuterium, and Hydrogen – so the life cycle of all elements is renewed.  Also gives more time for the formation of super-ferric elements – Cobalt, Molybdenum, Uranium, whatever.  Current theory says only Supernovae could do that[a].    There is no real agreement on Supernova frequency, but citing a moderately recent article in Astronomy & AstrophysicsA New Determination of the Frequency of Supernovae[b], that they happen every 100 years means things are kind of limited.

It might sound like a loony idea initially, but it is a supposition that is VERY confirmable mathematically.  Also takes away the whole problem of where the Universe (Universes?) came from to start. That's basically what Big Bang Theory is saying: all the matter/energy we observe came to be in the form of a tiny, Schwarzschild scale pinpoint that spontaneously exploded into what we know as our Universe today.  Doesn't say how that Cosmic Egg came to be laid in the first place.  Or why the Universe would be so finite, in that sense.  There has never been any limit to our Universe demonstrated.  Whenever the technology/the Science improves, we learn of the farther boundaries of our reality.  We discover that we inhabit a 4 dimensional sphere.  But if four scalar dimensions exist, then it is unreasonable to say there would not be outside as well as an inside to that 4-dimensional sphere.  It is time we supposed a more scientific infinity to our reality — in time and space.  This theory espouses the notion that the Universe (or our part of the Universe) was nothing but Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) - or something like it: an infinite cloud pure energy of unknown density.  What brought about that cloud is currently unanswerable, but the presently inconceivable notion of negative energy (i.e., opposite of matter/antimatter/energy) would suggest that the whole infinite mega-Universe began from nothing.  While that is an uncomfortable notion both logically and with current knowledge, but it would resolve the question of where reality itself had its genesis.

That thinking overcomes another problem: the matter/antimatter imbalance.  The current theory supposes that matter was favored gigantically in the transformation from energy to matter.  But even if you presume that it was 1.0E+1,000,000,000 (in Standard Notation, that's a '1' followed by a trillion zeros) more likely for energy to transform from Boson particles to matter instead of antimatter, the probability for a Universe this size of forming would be approximately 1.0E-56.  Admittedly, though that probability has been calculated, the terms in the calculation are very debatable.

But increasing the likelihood of antimatter over matter particles even by a nonillion (1.0E+30) times the unreasonable number cited above would mean a Universe where antimatter particles could never be formed as effortlessly as they are now in the laboratory.   And making matter particles LESS likely decreases the overall probability of a Universe our size into the inverted GoogolPlex range.  The improbability made even worse by the insistence of current theory that the formulation of the MATTER component of our Universe came to be in a quantum time scale catastrophic event.

On the other hand, Relativistic Perspective allows for a  fantastically Googolplex scale improbability of a group of free Bosons happening to all collect with sufficient adjacency to spontaneously form a tiny "White Hole" — the Parallel to a Black Hole/Schwarzschild object, but formed with the absorption/masses of Bosons.  The improbability scale will never be known, but that scale would not matter in infinity.  Once it came to be, that White Hole would continually absorb Bosons, not losing any of them through Hawking Radiation — as each Boson entered the Hole, it would go slower and slower because of the Relativistic distortion, getting closer to the center.  There is no conservation of Bosons principle. It would be comparable to an ever-increasing redshift, though the overall energy would increase through increased signal strength.   The White Hole becomes denser and denser (and redder and redder!) through a greater and greater absorption of free Bosons.

We know that all matter, both through gravity and transmission through that matter increases the redshift.  The latter redshift could be theorized to occur through absorption of each Photon by a molecule/atom/nuclear particle, and re-emission at a lower frequency.  Inside the White hole, there would be no matter, but an increasing MASS of energy; moving more and more slowly — a lower mass for each Photon/Boson, but an ever-increasing NUMBER of those Bosons - there's no "Law of Boson Conservation" as there is with matter particles. It would lead the energy concentration being high enough with slow enough moving Bosons, that it would eventually lead to the formation of matter quarks.  It may be that the fundamental "Catalyst" boson to the transformation would be the newly confirmed Higgs Boson.  Perhaps even more fundamental than those we encounter now.  It is currently impossible for us now to duplicate the ultra-high energy density conditions that would be accompanied by ultra-high Relativistic distortion - but that is still a valid supposition.  Who knows?  Maybe the Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top Quarks are as simple as matter ever is.  Though there have been many times in our quest for knowledge when an absolute declaration is made about something.  Sometimes even with a rider that there is no possibility that there may be inaccuracies or logic mistakes to that declaration.  Physics (and The Big Bang Theory[c]) is no exception to that rule.

To get back to the energy "decay": the baby/non-baby matter quarks absorb more energy and become big grown-up quarks, then Baryons, and Leptons.  And when enough of those get together, a star is formed.  Formed spontaneously from nothing but energy, a matter object is established.  It will both expel the matter particles it is composed of (in processes ranging from solar/stellar wind to Stellar Flares, to Variable star expulsions, to Novae to Supernovae) and produce higher and higher Atomic number elements.  Then it sinks back to Black Dwarf/Neutron Star/Schwarzschild Object status and absorbs matter and energy.  But it has also expelled a great deal of matter, manufactured from pure energy.  Where there was nthing but energy before.  It is worth noting that, eventually, any relativistic object will absorb enough matter and energy that it has the effect of re-separating the nuclei.   A neutron star isn’t a form of matter from the periodic table any more: it is just a bunch of individual neutrons.  Determining something that limits escape velocity to a maximum of light speed, as R.P. does, what you are doing is letting neutrons — that would then decay into simplified hydrogen atoms — escape.  Some may think that a necessary addition to that proposal would be that antimatter would have an opposite gravitational reaction with matter - repellence instead of attraction.  Another currently unknowable question.  
There is also an alternate cause for the apparent increasing redshift dependent on the distance of the origin of the EM signal.  Energy decay would be something that allowed a higher redshift to spontaneously occurring over great distances.  Current theory mathematically requires the objects we observe on the edge of the Universe to have moved to that edge at more than 20 times the speed of light.

It sounds a little simplistic, but there are many more mathematical, logical arguments on the other pages of this site to support the idea.  There are lots of footnotes/references (mostly academic) too, almost all of them directly accessible on the net.  And it all rests on one fundamental, inarguable, undebatable principle: that Relativistic effects will look different from the perspective of the distorted object than they will to someone observing those distortions from outside.  The simple Michelson||Morley experiment was the first one of many, many testaments to this reality in Science.  The Relativistic linear distortion would make a non-moving observer think a moving body is getting thinner, but the travelers on that body would think that you (the observer) are getting longer.  Just like on Star Trek.  And that principle would be for all Relativistic distortions.

Though that view of the Universe suggests one theorem: there is no current logical postulate on any of the Universes physical constants or its titanic favoring of matter over antimatter — so if other Local Universes form, would there be some variation?  Would a Scientific community in a Local Universe formed entirely of positrons and negative charge nucleons label our flavor of reality as composed of a terrifically unlikely substance they'd call "antimatter"?

A final point: before The Big Bang theory gained the current stranglehold it has on Cosmology, there were three propositions made: the Big Bang, the Cyclic Universe, and Continuous Creation.  Relativistic Perspective has all three of those ideas as part of its substance because parts of ALL three of those ideas overcome the shortcomings of the other two.  And almost all of the ideas are reasoned directly from the Theory of Relativity.  The full body of Relativistic Perspective will include the General Relativity expansion hinted to earlier.  There will also be a more detailed definition of zero velocity; a reasoned equation defining Relativistic Radial distortion;  Our Local Universe (and an INFINITE Cosmos); a scientifically logical alternate source for matter and a Summary (probably  incomplete) of failings in logic and the contradictory evidence for a finite "Big Bang" Universe.
If you think about it, the above argument leads to the spontaneous creation of matter or antimatter in an infinite reality.  Natural matter/antimatter production events could begin the production of Local Universes – though they each would be gigantically unlikely.  Universes like ours separated by unknowable distances – Trillions, Quadrillions, even Googols or Googolplexes of light years||parsecs.  Who knows?  Maybe the existence of any form of matter increases the probability of the synthesis of more of the same.  Then suddenly, the presence of any  of matter always reaches a balance point where the destruction of old matter and the creation of new matter happen at the same rate.

All you have to do is suppose infinity, and suddenly, the probability becomes unimportant.

Hopefully, you're not — like what seems to be all Theologians, Humanists, and Scientists — afraid of that infinity.

[a] Nuclear Synthesis [HyperPhysics||Astrophysics;
[b] A new determination of the frequency of supernovae  Cappellaro, E.; Turrato, M. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 190, no. 1-2, Jan. 1988, p. 10-16. The article can be retrieved at
[c] The European Magazine, in an interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer the Director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, “Will we eventually learn something about before the Big Bang? 
Heuer: I doubt it.”
The Pencil Nebula

This site was authored by David G. Taylor
 I can be contacted on my Cell: 780-999-6134
My e-mail is:

No comments:

Post a Comment