Trafford Publishing: God's Universe: A New Theory of the Universe

Here is the full reference card for this book...

If you'd rather place an order by talking to one of our cheerful order desk clerks, please call 1-888-232-4444 (USA and Canada only) or 250-383-6864. From Europe, ring our UK order desk clerk at local rate number 0845 230 9601 (UK only) or 44 (0)1865 722 113.

God's Universe: A New Theory of the Universe

by Les Burgess

215 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #05-2497; ISBN 1-4120-7602-1; US$17.04, C$19.60, EUR14.00, £9.80

An extrapolated theory of relativity answers many currently unanswered questions about the universe, the cosmic horizon, red shift, age, shape, light velocity, UFOs, and the mind of the universe, God.

Read more!

About the Book About the Author Excerpts Catalogue Information

About the Book

A mind expanding new theory of the universe
A more complete view of the space-time continuum
This is the first step forward in cosmology in 100 years
And in religion in two millennia
Is there a cosmic horizon? Yes, every observer has one. It is formed by the exponential attenuation of electromagnetic waves to infinity. Is the universe expanding? No, it is relatively static but everchanging. Why are we at the center of the observable universe? Every observer sees himself at the center. Can a space ship exceed the speed of light? Yes, but only in its own time frame, not in an observer's time frame.
Can anything be lost or escape from the universe? No, we cannot even approach the edge because there is no edge, and there is no center. This supports the probability of constant regeneration despite the great loss of matter converting to energy in stars. Four-dimensional space-time is a continuum and has a different geometry to three-dimensional space. We cannot visualise its shape in a single 3-dimensional image. All is relative to the observer.
What limits the speed of light, and why is it a constant? It is limited to observers because of the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time. Time does not exist to light. It moves instantaneously in its own time frame, but a constant ('c') 300,000 km per second in any observer's own time frame.
Einstein showed that the time frame of matter that moves at light-speed contracts to zero and its mass increases to infinity. Motion is only relative to other matter; absolute motion does not exist to nature (but acceleration does), which explains much. Nature stores the kinetic energy of acceleration in increased mass (law of conservation of mass/energy) in the ratio E=mc squared. Light has energy and energy has mass (Feynman). There are lots of experiments at the quantum level where light appears to move instantaneously to everyone's surprise and mystification. One is described in the magazine Science (AAAS) March 17, 2000 pp 1909-1920 called 'Spooky Action'.
Does a straight line in space form a spatial circle? Yes, but it would need to be 20 billion light years long, and 20 billion universal years (in the time frame of stationary observers) would have passed between the beginning and the end of a light-speed journey. With the right technology space ships can exceed the observed (but not the actual) speed of light (which is infinite, meaning instantaneous motion) because of the time contraction in accelerated objects.
The mysteries of the universe are greater than man ever thought. Scientists need to think in four (and five) dimensions instead of three plus a limited view of time. Their minds are locked in 3 dimensions preventing a true understanding of relativity. This is why no advance in cosmology has been made since Einstein, and the universe continues to mystify, because more recent observations do not fit the currently widely accepted expanding-universe theory. For instance, the ages of some galaxies exceed the time available since the supposed 'Big Bang' commencement.
The geometry of four-dimensions seems irrational to 3-dimensional thinking. If we can't understand it we have to accept it in the face of hard evidence. The mathematics of Riemann, Minkowski, Kaluza, Klein and Einstein have opened the door to multi-dimensional logic, but where is the understanding to apply it to the real universe?
Where is the proof, or supporting evidence, for all this? The supporting evidence is in the recent astronomical observations described in my book and elsewhere. For me, the best supporting evidence is that all the pieces of the 4-dimensional continuum theory fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, producing a wonderful picture.
The proof for the cosmological statements is in the work of the aforementioned mathematicians. Einstein's equation for the universe shows it to be "static, spherical in shape, and bounded. It has constant curvature" (p.156, 'God's Equation' by Amir Aczel). Also on the same page: "Einstein's universe is a three-dimensional analogy of the surface of the earth. Here, a ray of light or a particle travelling along a geodesic (a curve of shortest distance between two points) will eventually return to its point of departure - however, this will take a very long time. Such a universe is finite but unbounded. Einstein's universe has curvature that is time-independent. The universe is homogeneous, that is, it looks the same everywhere. It is also isotropic, that is, it looks the same in every direction the observer may look - there is no preferred direction in space."
I agree with Dr Aczel on everything except on the important point of time independence of the curvature. Current thinking on the model of the universe is that space is time-independent, even Einstein seemed to think like that, otherwise he wouldn't have worried about gravitational contraction. But it is essential that space and time be integrated into a single continuum, otherwise light would be observed to move at infinite speed and gravity would crush the universe, also the validity of relativity theory depends on it. Space curves one second for every 300,000 km. Events at that distance are one second behind the observer's time frame. Events at our cosmic horizon would be 10 billion years behind - if we could see them. The curvature of space-time governs the observed speed of light. The universe is spatially a little smaller than the red-shift effect indicates. We should soon have a more accurate figure based on other known methods of measurement. The red shift of Supernova 1997ff indicates that it is 10 billion light years distant but its known brightness indicates 7 billion.
All light from an object exactly on an observer's cosmic horizon (a single point in space on the opposite side of the universe) would commence travelling 'sideways' following the curved surface in a simplified 3-dimensional visualization of the surface of a sphere, its waves becoming exponentially attenuated to infinity as it travelled halfway around the globe. If the observer moved, the point would also move, in his view, correspondingly. There would be a considerable volume of space adjacent to the point that he could not see until the attenuation factor decreased enough to allow the light waves to become detectable. The energy of light and the force of gravity are not lost. They are only undetectable or diminished from the cosmic horizon relatively to the observer. To gain a better comprehension we would have to study the analytic (algebraic) or coordinate geometry of higher dimensions that Einstein used.
Why didn't Einstein see the shape of the universe as I do? Actually, I think he did, at least tentatively. But he couldn't understand why it wouldn't collapse under its own gravity unless it was expanding, which was a novel idea in those days because the universe appeared to be no bigger than our own Milky Way galaxy, and that wasn't expanding. Hence he devised an additional unknown constant force to rectify his perfect equation to fit the observed facts. When Hubble later found the red shift and deduced that the universe must be expanding, Einstein said that his insertion of the constant (to counteract gravitational collapse) was his 'greatest blunder'.
Professor Stephen Hawkins from his book, 'A Brief History of Time', p.68: "...nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." Also, "If the rate of expansion one-second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." And what could cause it to happen at all, unless it had an everlasting pre-history? Nothing happens without a cause.
What I think Einstein missed was the idea that, due to the 180 degree curve of space-time at the cosmic boundary (my explanation, something to do with the angular change) not only is light attenuated (causing the 'red-shift') to infinity and none-reality to any observer, but gravity behaves the same way. This limits the effect of gravity to localities of greater than average density, such as clusters of galaxies. These are kept from collapsing by centrifugal forces. More distant galaxies would tend to have equal and opposite as well as diminished gravitational effect. The universe is a continuum, not a sphere. It is only spherical from any single point of observation for which events on its horizon have no significance. This permits the universe to be in equilibrium, self-regenerating, everchanging. and everlasting. If God is from 'everlasting to everlasting' then the same logic can apply to the universe, providing it is self-sustaining. It is a lot more believable than inexplicably beginning from a point.
I doubt that Einstein realized that light (the alter ego of matter) exists in a spatial but timeless dimension (motion can only be instantaneous or no motion at all), and that its observed finite constant speed is due to the curvature of space-time. I know how difficult the 4-dimensional continuum universe is to see because it has taken me over fifty years to 'get the picture' or 'get my head around it' as one person remarked, to which I replied, "Have faith, and look at everything from an observer's point of view". This is the essence of relativity theory. We don't have to understand it, just accept it, as long as it fits the evidence.
It is also a widely held view that nothing can travel faster than light-speed which is patently wrong - there is no limit to speed from the accelerated object's point of view. Infinity is impossible to attain because of increasing mass. The accelerating object's time frame also contracts as defined by the Lorentz relativity transformation equation. It is the stationary observers who can never see anything travelling faster than light-speed. We could never see a light-speed spaceship coming to earth because it would arrive at the same instant that its original image arrived. Universal time on its home planet, as on earth, would pass at one year for every light year travelled. A very fast ship could see earth rushing towards it far in excess of light speed because its time frame would have contracted in the process of acceleration. Light does not accelerate. It can only exist in a state of continuous motion.
The time-contraction effect could easily be demonstrated by accelerating a camera to a high speed and taking pictures of a time-dependent astronomical phenomenon such as a binary star, or any moving system anywhere. At close to the (observed) speed of light the system should be clearly seen to be revolving faster. The same inverse effect would apply to mass (and length in line of motion). The mass of stationary objects would appear to decrease as the accelerated observer's mass increases.
We have to view the universe from the point of view of observers (theory of relativity), all of whom are separated by space or, in the case of different degrees of relative motion (energy level differences), different observations. Also, as an observer moves, his boundary of experience (cosmic horizon) moves with him, which is why nature does not recognize absolute motion, only acceleration.
Given all of the above it is evident that the universe is not expanding. The red shift on which the expanding universe theory is based is almost certainly an effect of the curvature of space-time on electromagnetic waves traversing a 180-degree curve over a distance of about 10 billion light years, the radius of the universe. The universe is finite in the spatial dimensions but infinite in the time dimension. As telescopes see further into space they should see newer galaxies with high x-ray or ultraviolet emissions, which are converted to visible light by the attenuation of wavelength. A little further then a rapidly decreasing density of visible galaxies and then nothing (except low-energy 'background radiation') as attenuation rapidly increases through infrared to infinity. To see what lies beyond we would have to look in the opposite direction.
In the NZ Herald Sept. 15 2006 it was reported from the journal Nature that University of California astronomers, Richard Bouwens and Garth Illingworth, using the Hubble telescope exploring the limits of observation, found possible evidence for only one galaxy when they expected many. "The bigger, more luminous, galaxies were not in place 700 million years after the Big Bang, said Illingworth. Yet 200 million years later there were many more of them." This is the most recent confirmation of my description of the 4-dimensional continuum, which is the true nature of space-time. We cannot picture it in the mind because it is impossible in a single view of the universe; we have to be there (in imagination) and see as an observer at any particular point would see, then everything falls into place. It takes a little faith. The kind of mathematics that describes the properties of higher dimensions is called 'analytic' or 'coordinate' geometry (the study of geometrical relations by algebraic methods).
Will the universe ever end, and was there a beginning? Planets, stars and galaxies begin and end but the universe goes on forever. There is much recently discovered scientific corroboration from observatories for the above cosmological statements. "A Nasa spacecraft has detected dozens of new-born galaxies in Earth's part of the universe. These unexpected cosmic infants were discovered with the Galaxy Evolution Explorer, which managed to spy them because of the huge amounts of ultraviolet light they emit as they furiously form stars out of gas, astronomers say." (New Zealand Herald, Dec. 23, 2004).
The regeneration process probably involves 'Black Holes' reconstituting matter from light (all electromagnetic radiation). It is likely that every galaxy has a massive Black Hole at its center. They are only detectable by their intense gravitational effect on nearby stars. Even light cannot escape from a Black Hole. Gravity, like acceleration, also contracts time. . Astronomers recently announced that 26 thousand light-years from earth our Milky Way galaxy has "a massive black hole at its center called 'Sagittarius A', containing the mass equivalent to 2.6 million suns crushed into very small volume" (New Zealand Herald Oct.15 2003).
To reassure religious people, I believe that God is the continual Creator and Sustainer of the universe. In the Old Testament God, communicating with Moses, identifies himself and uses the personal pronoun 'I' with regard to nature. I think of nature as being the 'brain' of God (are we just thoughts in God's mind?). Nothing is impossible to God except error. Miracles are events of divine intervention and much more subtle and common than we can know. God seems to prefer to do things in a natural way rather than a magical way. Spectacular miracles, rare though they are, help us to believe.
I have become convinced that UFO's exist; that they travel here instantaneously in their own contracted time frame, using multi-dimensional technology (no friction and no sound, and they don't seem to be controlled by our laws of physics). I believe their purpose is to save life on earth before our complete self-destruction, doing God's will - as divine beings always do. Divinity is a whole new separate subject. We have to become divine in order to survive.
It means perfect communion with God, with divine powers and thoughts that come only from God who controls all things. This is optimum freedom. But there is a big difference between being an incarnate 'Son of God' (as Jesus taught) and being God. God creates, executes judgment and destroys; his children do not. God has other agents of destruction. Jesus, in heaven, speaks as God in the Book of Revelation. There is only one God, but he is omnipresent. Divine incarnate beings are localized but possess all knowledge and power for God's purposes. They are also invulnerable and immortal.
Is man a trinitarian being in the image of God? Yes, my explanation of the Holy Trinity and analogy with the human brain: sub-conscious (the transcendental 'Father'), conscious (the finite expression or word, 'Son') and nervous system (the executor and communicator, 'Holy Spirit'), gives some understanding of this. Think hard about the amazing everyday performance of the human brain (which evolved from the nervous system forming a composite whole), how ideas and words come to mind in rapid speech for instance.
Does relativity apply to God's revelations? Yes, this means that, although God doesn't change, his revelations to man do. Only the perfect man can receive the perfect revelation. What does the future hold for mankind? Be prepared, at least be well informed. There is a message for Jews and Moslems: This may be your last chance to understand Christianity.
Earth's climatic changes may be increasing exponentially with apocalyptic consequences, meaning these may be the beginning of the biblical 'last days'. Nothing is so important as correct belief. The logic of God and nature are one. There is no such thing as coincidence. I have had some unique, though rare, 'religious experiences' which confirm in my mind my beliefs and perceptions. I have recounted these in my book for the reader to consider. My purpose is to enlighten people who think science has all the answers and that God does not exist, and to guide the thinking of seekers after truth; in particular, people who do not understand the trinitarian nature of divinity. If I offend some people it is intended for their own good.
The greater part of my book, and much more controversial, is the religious deduction that divine revelation follows a pattern of relativity to the people and the times. Religions reflect the lifestyle or culture of the people. I am not saying that religions are man made; I am saying that God decides what is appropriate for them at that time. The form of divine revelation varies. Christianity is somewhat an exception to the rule in that it is a perfect religion for end times: ie judgment for salvation. How can God justify saving (raising to immortality and divinity) sinners? He has done this by sending a savior, Jesus Christ, a localized form and finite presence of the infinite transcendent Father, who described himself in his human form as the Son of God, although he commonly called himself the Son of man. His life and teaching were both appropriate to his mission by divine will.
What is unique in my teaching is that God is the ultimate scientist and logician, creator and source of all things (God cannot sin), and the ultimate dramatist. Nature, through natural evolution, is designed to produce conflict, stress and drama. God's purpose is to raise man to divinity in true communion with himself and with nature, of which God is the head and mind.
I seek to restore people's weakened faith by explaining that the logic of science and nature is also the logic of God. It is becoming increasingly clear that mankind is capable of self-destruction, including the enlightened as well as the unenlightened. All evolutionary societies probably pass through this stage of too much power of destruction for a dysfunctional world. Doomsday is prophesied in the Bible, but salvation is also promised to those who believe. There is no limit to God's power.
Will scientists read this book while it contains religious teaching? Will believers read it while it teaches that the universe has always existed and that we are the product of 4 billion years of evolution? It cannot be denied that we have a lot in common with animals, but some of us seek a higher, closer to the divine, level. Sentiment in the New Testament is quite different from the Old Testament, which I think is more Judaic than Christian. It is a mistake to interpret the Book of Genesis literally, although it is true that God creates all things, and the story of creation is told in a poetic style that was understandable to early man. Well-intended motivation to preserve the idea of the immutable word of God in the Bible is demonstrably misguided, because Jesus changed several injunctions in the Old Testament. Societies and their needs change and God changes his revelation to be appropriate to the circumstances according to his judgement.
Essentially, I have told the truth even though it is likely to upset a lot of religious people. To deny the truth in defence of religion shows a fault in belief or interpretation or understanding of Holy Scripture. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me" (John 14.6). The logic of salvation in his teaching is evident: forgive that you may be forgiven; do not judge others lest you be judged likewise; love your neighbor as yourself so that God may be justified in loving you. God is justified by his righteousness. On a more personal note, we are exhorted to resist temptation, which is sinful or ungodly desire that degrades and enslaves, and to have faith. God is in perfect control of all things and continually exercises judgment. The children of God love the truth. Belief in God strengthens, and Christianity guides. Seek enlightenment for God is Light. I have also included ideas about some other subjects of general interest.

About the Author

Excerpts

Catalogue Information