God's Universe

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

About the Author