180fraudcosmos.html 
Date: 07/04/05

This is a copy of a webpage.

Source: Cosmology

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL ON COSMOLOGY - SOME SHORT PAPERS

EARLY ASTRONOMY


© Copyright 2003 William c. Mitchell

Thousands of years ago, having developed the ability to count elapsed days, but without knowledge of the Moon's orbit about the Earth, or of the Earth's orbit about the Sun, humans were able to establish some facts about the Moon, the Sun, a star and a planet.

They were able to determine that there was a "full" and a "new" Moon, that had a cycle of about 28 days.

By counting the days from the earliest appearance of the Sun above the horizon, and its latest disappearance below the horizon, and perhaps by counting the days of the highest and the lowest position of the Sun above the horizon, they were able to determine the "yearly" cycle of the Sun to be about 365 days.

After establishing that "calendar", observations of the position of the brightest "star" (now called Venus) relative to the horizon could be recorded. After years of such observations, the cycle of its position and path across the sky could be determined. The same process could be used regarding the cycle of the "red star" (now called Mars); and perhaps for other "stars".

Based on that information, several centuries before Christ some ancient Greeks were able to determine that the Earth was orbiting the Sun, and that the Moon was orbiting the Earth. However, those ideas were not generally accepted until many centuries later.

Contributing heavily to that long delay was the "establishment" that opposed any such considerations. The false beliefs of Aristotle, Ptolemy and the church prevailed. To propose that our planet was not the center of the universe could result in very serious consequences.

Although the consequences might not be as dire these days, we are faced with a similar situation in the field of cosmology. On that subject, the "scientific establishment", and the presentation of ideas in opposition to Big Bang Theory is considered heresy. At the very least, that can be fatal to the career of the those who suggest that BBT is faulty, or even to those who might suggest other cosmological possibilities.

As in the case of the early astronomical observations, if wise men of our day had the courage to question established ideas, acknowledge the many flaws in BBT, and give proper consideration to alternative possibilities based on newly available astronomical data of recent years, they would undoubtedly abandon BBT and develop some new ideas concerning the cosmos.

SOLAR SYSTEMS FROM SUPERNOVAS

(As published in GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, Vol. 13, No. 3, Pg. 54, May/June, 2002)

Astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists have accepted the premise that stellar systems develop from the remains of supernovas. Some question regarding that possibility are presented here.

As a baseline, consider the Sun with mass 2x1030 kg and radius 695,090 km, and assume that the solar system has radius equal to the distance from the Sun to Pluto, 5.9x109km. The supernova SN1987A is estimated to have a mass about twenty times that of the Sun , or 4x1031 kg. Suppose that a supernova of that size were to explode. Ignoring the fact that some of the mass might remain as a neutron star or a black hole, assume that all of its mass became evenly distributed throughout a spherical volume with the radius of the solar system. The mass density would only be about 3x10-11 times that of the Sun. That low density alone would seem to deny the possibility of the accretion matter from such a supernova to form a solar system.

But worse than that, because much of the matter of a supernova leaves it at very high speed velocity, far greater than its escape velocity, would mean that no more that a small percentage of its matter would remain within the volume of a solar system. Suppose the mass of the supernova spread over the volume of a galaxy such as the Milky Way - which has has a radius of 50,000 light years and a thickness of about 2,000 light years. At 9.47x1012 km/light year, the volume is 2.67x1052km3. The resulting mass density is then about 1.5x10-33 gm/cm3 - about 10-33 the mass density of the Sun.

Furthermore, a major portion of the mass of a supernova leaves it in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos. The velocity of those is at, or very near, the speed of light. Therefore, virtually none of their mass-energy would remain within the space of a solar system, or even a galaxy.

It has been estimated that only one supernova in 40 years might explode anywhere within our entire galaxy. That would seem to rule out the possibility of matter from more than one supernova explosion gathering to a significant density within the space of a future solar system.

An additional major factor is that a star like the Sun is estimated to contain over 99 percent of the mass of the solar system, and it is initially composed almost entirely of hydrogen. Because a star uses up almost all of its hydrogen before it explodes as a supernova, it can provide, at most, only a tiny fraction of the amount of hydrogen that is required to form a new star.

It is known that hydrogen is present in interstellar space. However there is no reason to expect that a supernova explosion could cause it to accrete to form a new star. It would seem that once star-birth from supernovas had been suggested - and at the time that did seem to be a reasonable suggestion - a critical examination of the idea was never undertaken.

SPEED AND DOPPLER


© Copyright 2002 William C. Mitchell

The Velocity of Sound and Its Doppler Shift.

1. Assuming that there is no wind, regardless of the speed of a train relative to a fixed point in surrounding space (ignoring the relatively low combined speed of the Earth's rotation, its solar orbital speed, and galactic rotation,), the sound from its whistle travels from it at the speed of sound in still air, S.

2. If that train and we are both stationary, the sound we hear is at the frequency produced by the whistle.

3a. If that train moves toward us at a speed, T (for "train"), and we are stationary, the wavelength of the whistle sound is shortened by a factor of 1-T/S. The sound we hear is ar a reciprocally higher frequency.

3b. If that train moves away from us at a speed, T, and we are stationary, the wavelength of the whistle sound is lengthened by a factor of 1+T/S The sound we hear is at a reciprocally lower frequency.

4a. If that train is stationary, and we are moving toward it at a speed, W (for "we"), the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is shortened by a factor of 1-W/S.. (The periods between sound wave peaks are shortened.). The sound we hear is reciprocally higher frequency.

4b. If that train is stationary, and we are moving away from it at a speed, W, the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is lengthened by a factor of 1+W/S. (The periods between sound wave peaks are lengthened.) The sound we hear is at a reciprocally lower frequency.

5a. If that train moves toward us at a speed, T, the wavelength of the whistle sound is shortened by a factor of 1-T/S. If we are moving toward it, the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is also shortened by a factor of 1-W/S. The wavelength of the sound we hear is shortened by the product of those two factors. The sound we hear is at a reciprocally higher frequency.

5b. If we are moving away from that train, the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is also lengthened by a factor 1+W/S. The wavelength of the sound we hear is changed by the product of those two factors. Depending on the speeds of the train and us, the frequency of the sound we hear may be higher or lower.

6a. If that train moves away from us, the wavelength of the whistle sound is lengthened by a factor of 1+T/S. If we are moving toward it, the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is also shortened by a factor of 1-W/S. The wavelength of the sound is changed by the product of those two factors. Depending on the speeds of the train and us, the frequency of the sound we hear may be at a higher or lower.

6b. If we are moving away from that train, the observed wavelength of the whistle sound is also lengthened by a factor of 1+W/S. The wavelength of the sound we hear is lengthened by the product of those two factors. The sound we hear is at a reciprocally lower frequency.

The Velocity of Light and Its Doppler Shift.

1. Assuming space to be empty, regardless of the speed of a star relative to a fixed point in surrounding space, light emitted from that body travels at a speed, c.

2. If that star,and the Earth both are both stationary in space, the light we see is at the wavelength emitted by the body.

3a. If that star moves toward the Earth at a velocity, V, and the Earth is stationary, the wavelength of its light is shortened by a factor of 1-V/c. The light we see is blueshifted.

3b. If that star moves away from the Earth at a velocity, V, and the Earth is stationary, the wavelength of its light is lengthened by a factor of 1+V/c. The light we see is redshifted.

4a. If that star is stationary in space, and the Earth is moving toward it at a velocity, E (for "Earth"), the observed wavelength of its light is shortened by a factor of 1-E/c. (The periods between light wave peaks are shortened.) The light we see is at that shorter wavelength, that is, blueshifted.

4b. If that star is stationary in space, and the Earth is moving away from it at a velocity, E, the observed wavelength of its light is lengthened by a factor of 1+E/c. (The periods between light wave peaks are lengthened.) The light we see is at that longer wavelength, that is, redshifted.

5a. If that star moves toward us, the wavelength of its light is shortened by a factor of 1-V/c. If the Earth is moving toward it, the observed wavelength of its light is also shortened by a factor of 1-E/c. The wavelength of the light we see is shortened by the product of those two factors. The blueshift due to the velocity of the Earth increases the blueshift due to the velocity of the star alone.

5b. If the Earth is moving away from that star, the observed wavelength of its light is also lengthened by a factor of 1+E/c. The wavelength of the light we see is the product of those two factors. The redshift due to the Earth's velocity decreases the blueshift due to the velocity of the star alone.

(Regarding observed redshift or blueshift, it should be noted that,the combined speed of the Earth's rotation, its solar orbital speed, and galactic rotation, may not be negligible compared to the relative approaching or departing speed of some stars or galaxies.)

6a. If that star moves away from us, the wavelength of its light is lengthened by a factor of 1+V/c. If the Earth is moving toward it, the observed wavelength of its light is also shortened by a factor of 1-E/c. The wavelength of the light we see is the product of those two factors. The blueshift due to the Earth's velocity decreases the redshift due to the velocity of the star alone.

6b. If the Earth is moving away from that star, the observed wavelength of its light is also lengthened by a factor of 1+E/c. The wavelength of the light we see is lengthened by the product of those two factors. The redshift due to the velocity of the Earth increases the redshift due to the velocity of the star.

Conclusion.

As in the case of the increase or decrease of the received wavelength of sound, the redshift or blueshift of starlight (electromagnetic radiation) is a function of increasing or decreasing relative velocities. In the case of sound, the received wavelength may be due to the speed of its source, it may also due to the speed of the receiver, or it may be due to the combination of those speeds.

The case of stars and other bodies in space the redshift or blueshift of the received wavelength of starlight may be due to the speed of the body in space, and portion of it may be due to the speed of the Earth in space, which is precisely analogous to the Doppler shift of sound.

Although it is widely accepted that the observed speed of light from a remote source is independent of the speed of the receptor, that is incorrect. It is equal to c plus or minus the speed of the receptor!

(Because it has nothing to do with science or the real world, consideration of "cosmological redshift" due to the expansion of the space of the universe, as believed by BB theorists, is omitted in the above discussion.)

THE HOODWINKING OF ASTRONOMY, COSMOLOGY AND ALL OF SCIENCE


© 2002 William C. Mitchell

Abstract. Astronomers, cosmologists, and other scientists, both professional and amateur, and all who read, see or hear the media regarding subjects related to cosmology, are ever being hoodwinked by the cosmological "establishment". Thus it has become accepted by almost all that the space of the universe is expanding and that its size and age, and the distance to remote bodies in space, are based on firm data and logic. But they are actually the contrived results of the erroneous assumptions of Big Bang theorists.

Introduction.

According to Hubble's law, the wavelength of received radiation increases as a function of the departing velocity of matter in space. The establishment is convinced that the accepted interpretation of redshift data provides a proper indication of the distance and velocity of matter throughout the space of the universe, and thus provides proof of an expanding universe.

Although Big Bang cosmologists (BBers) frequently refer to that redshift as Doppler shift, that is inconsistent with Big Bang Theory (BBT) that claims redshift to be "cosmological," that is, it is the result, not of expanding matter in intergalactic space (IGS), but of the expansion of space itself. However, not only is the expansion of the matter of the universe subject to serious question, but the expansion of space is beyond the realm of reason.

Redshift and an Expanding Universe

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and even BB cosmologists, tell us that the redshift of stars in our galaxy, the redshift of nearby galaxies, and the blue shift of some of both, are Doppler shifts, that is, they are due to their motion relative to us. Periodic astronomical observations of the distance to stars within our galaxy, and that of some relatively nearby galaxies, confirm that the redshift of those receding from us corresponds to their receding velocity, and that the blueshift of those approaching us corresponds to their approaching velocity. Therefore, it cannot be denied that Doppler shifts are real. However, when it comes to very distant galaxies and quasars, BB cosmologists insist that their redshifts are due to the expansion of space .

Despite considerable reason to deny the expansion of space (and even the expansion of the matter of the universe) BBers cling to that belief. Some ideas that deny that belief are as follows:

  • If the universe were expanding at any more than a small fraction of the rates postulated by BBT, the accretion of matter that is necessary for the formation of galaxies would be impossible. (Computer modeling of matter accretion and galaxy formation performed by BBers invariably neglects consideration of the relativistic velocity of expansion of the early BB universe, which would make those processes impossible.)

  • Increasing distance between galaxies can provide no explanation for the formation of giant galactic structures, nor can it explain the collisions of galaxies that are often reported in the literature.

  • If accumulations of matter had somehow occurred, the extremely weak gravitational attraction of matter at their edges couldn't overcome the rate of expansion of a BB universe, and they would gradually be dispersed.

  • The local gravitational attraction of various bodies, such as galaxy-star, star-planet and planet-satellite systems, is said to overcome the expansive force of the universe. But, in order for that to be so, the attractive force between all of those pairs would have to be of just the proper magnitude to overcome the expansive force of the universe; an obviously impossible situation.

  • Any cosmology that incorporates an ever expanding universe, beyond a distance I refer to as the c-barrier (Whitrow's paradox), requires relative speeds greater than that of light.

  • BB expansion, that is, the acceleration of matter to the speed of light or greater, would have required infinities of energy.

  • The nothingness of empty space can't have momentum as is said to cause the expansion of the space of the BB universe.

  • The nothingness of empty space can't respond to gravity as is said to cause the deceleration of expansion of the space of the BB universe.

  • Any cosmology, such as BBT, that postulates the expansion of space is erroneous. Empty space is nothing; and "nothing" can't expand. (There may be matter or energy throughout space, but space itself, by definition, is nothing.)

The absence of expansion of the universe presents a problem as to how radiation from distant bodies in space becomes redshifted. However, cogent solutions to that problem have been proposed by a number of prominent scientists. Most of those involve some phenomena that can be put under the general heading of "tired light", and certainly the gravitational redshift of distant massive bodies adds to their total redshift. Those, and other related topics, which are presented elsewhere, are not pursued in this paper.

Lorentz Transformations Applied to Empty Space.

The accepted equation for velocity as a fraction of the speed of light, V/c, as a function of redshift, Z, is V/ c = [(Z+1)2 -1] Ö [(Z+1)2 + 1], which has been derived from the Lorentz transformations, and provides the basis for what has become the accepted interpretation of redshift data .

For small values of redshift that equation results in V/c equal to Z, which is in accordance with Hubble's law. However, when Z is greater than about 0.1 (and the relative velocity of a distant body is more than about 10 percent of the speed of light), that equation makes a correction for velocity in accordance with Special Relativity, which prevents the speed of expansion at the edge of space from exceeding the speed of light (the c-barrier). A plot of that expression would show that, as redshift increases, the slope of that plot deceases and V/c approaches 1. That is, the velocity of expansion doesn't exceed the speed of light. (When Z equals 2, V equals about 80 % of c and, when Z equals 5, V equals about 95 % of c.)

As an illustration of the application of that accepted interpretation of redshift data , if a quasar has a redshift of 2, that puts V/c at 0.8. Because BBers typically assume the age of the universe to be in the range of 10 to 15 BYRs, that puts that quasar's age in the range of 8 to 12 BYRs, and its distance in the range of 8 to 12 billion light years.

However, if it is space that is expanding rather than the matter in that space, the result of the above equation is equivalent to applying the Lorentz transformations to the speed of the space rather than the speed of matter. Although those transformations might apply to speeding matter, there is no logic, mathematics, or experimental evidence in support of their application to empty space.

The use of that concept results in the erroneous determination of the speed and distance of remote bodies in IGS. (It seems strangely suspicious that the above mathematical material is absent from generally available BB papers and books. It was very difficult to find its source. Is it intentionally hidden from critical examination?)

The Big Bang Speed Problem.

According to the above equation, a quasar or galaxy having a redshift of 3.5, would have a speed of about 90 percent of the speed of light and a "look back" of about 90 percent. Assuming the age of the universe to be 15 billion years, as it often is, the age of that quasar (or galaxy) would be about 90 percent of that, or 13.5 billion light years, and it would be observed as it was 1.5 billion years after the BB.

That quasar (or galaxy) would be reported to have been seen as it existed 13.5 BYRs ago. Because 13.5 billion years are believed to have elapsed since it was seen at a distance of 13.5 billion light years, perhaps it has traveled at least another 13.5 billion light years from us, putting its present distance at, at least, 27 billion light years. If its recessional speed is proportional to its distance, as are all distant bodies according to BBT, its relative speed might now be twice as great as it was when observed, or about 1.8 times the speed of light.

[BBers could have no knowledge of what happened to that quasar (or galaxy) since it was last seen. However, astronomer and BB cosmologist Maarten Schmidt suggested that it would have "burnt out" by now. But, even if it burnt out or blew up, some of its remains might now be at least 27 billion light years from us, and departing at 1.8 c.]

Because BBT is based on General Relativity, which denies the possibility of relative speeds greater than that of light, one might think that this anomaly would be troublesome to BBers. But when that is been presented to them, it is characteristically dismissed with the declaration that the presenter has "a poor understanding of the curvature of four-dimensional space-time".

Seeing Quasars Too Distant to be Seen.

The application of Lorentz transformations to IGS, in the form of the above equation, allows BBers to limit the size of their universe to agree with Friedmann's solutions to General Relativity equations. However, a little analysis can show that, if quasars are of the size indicated by variations in the intensity of their radiation, as believed, and if some of them are at the great distances indicated by the accepted interpretation of redshift data, those quasars would not be seen as more than points of light by the most powerful telescopes presently available. Yet it is claimed that features of those are clearly seen.

Also, if those quasars were at the distances determined by the accepted method, spectrographic data would be inadequate to determine their redshifts. However, their redshifts have been determined. Even though their distances are limited by the use of that method, rather than by the linear application of a Hubble constant, they cannot be as distant as BBers believe them to be.

[The linear application of a Hubble constant would result in much greater distances. Distance in millions of light-years would equal the speed of light in km/sec times redshift, divided by the Hubble constant in km/sec/million light years (D = c Z/H). Assuming a Hubble constant of 65 km/sec/Mpc, for Z = 2, distance to an object would equal 30 million light years; and for Z = 5, its distance would equal 75 billion light years. There must be some other cause, or causes, of redshift!]

The Big Bang Age Problem.

Some stars are believed to be considerably older than the age of the universe as reckoned by BBers. In order to minimize the impact of that problem, they assume an erroneously great age for their universe. The age that is often chosen is equal to what is known as Hubble time. However, that age would only apply to a universe that has been expanding at a fixed rate ever since the BB, a condition that is not accepted by BBers.

The size of their universe is also based on that assumed age. As mentioned above, they assume that its size in billions of light years, is equal to its age in billions of years.

Of the three possible BB universe cases (as determined by Alexander Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's General Relativity equations), some BBers espouse a "closed" universe case that would eventually cease to expand, and thereupon proceed to collapse; some espouse an "open" universe case that would forever continue to expand; but in recent years, the so-called "flat" universe case has become popular. That universe would ever expand exactly at its escape velocity, at a rate on the borderline between that of the closed and the open cases.

But, according to BBT, in each of those accepted cases the age of the universe would be shorter than that of a fixed-rate case (which is not one of the accepted Friedmann solutions to Einstein's equations). The closed case would have an age very much shorter, the flat case would have and age at two thirds of that fixed rate case, and the open case would have an age between that and the age of the fixed rate case. As a result, the Hubble time, which is the time it would take for the universe to expand at the Hubble rate ever since the BB, is erroneously chosen by BBers. Undoubtedly, the reason for that choice has been to minimize their age problem.

Without providing any basis for their opinion, BBers frequently state that the BB happened as much as 15 billion years ago. Using a Hubble constant of 65 km/sec/Mpc (equal to 20 km/sec per million light years}, the age of the BB universe would be 15 billion years. However, BBers do not accept the fixed-rate universe upon which that is based; and, because some stars are known to be older than 15 billion years, even that deception is totally inadequate to solve their age problem.

Regardless of what is claimed to be overwhelming evidence for a Hubble constant of about 65 km/sec/Mpc, some BBers (most notably astronomer Allen Sandage), insist on a lesser value of about 50 km/sec/Mpc that would increase the age of their universe to almost 20 billion years. BBers believe that might solve their age problem, However, that can't do it. Because that age is still erroneously based on a fixed rate of expansion, even with that artifice, the age of the BB universe would be 2/3 of Hubble time, or about 13 billion years; still far less than the known age of some stars (and some astronomers have stated that it would have taken at least 100 billion years for gigantic galactic formations, such as the "Great Wall" and the "Southern Wall", to have formed) even after all of those deceptions and distortions of their own interpretation of redshift data BBers fail to provide a coherent solution to their age problem.

Conclusions.

In summary, this paper has attempted to show that the accepted interpretation of redshift data of BBT is erroneous by presenting the following appalling lack of science and logic:

  • Space, which is nothing, cannot expand to cause the redshift of radiation from distant bodies in space as believed by BBers.

  • It may be valid to apply the Lorentz transformations to matter in space, but it is not valid to apply an equation based on those to empty space.

  • The use of that equation results in the erroneous determination of the distance and relative velocity of bodies in space.

  • Although they would disagree, according to BBer usage the present velocity of some distant bodies in space would be greater than the speed of light.

  • The distances quasars and galaxies having high redshifts could not be as great as determined by BBers, or as believed by others who have been hoodwinked by the accepted interpretation of redshift data.

  • BBers erroneously, and in violation of their own theory, derive the age and size of their universe.

  • Regardless of misguided efforts to do so, BBers have failed to solve their age problem.

Those items should be more than sufficient to demonstrate the illogical and unscientific nature of the accepted interpretation of redshift data.

It might be thought that erroneous beliefs and troublesome anomalies of BB cosmology should not be of much concern to other fields of science. But the unfortunate result of their acceptance has been that most people involved in astronomy, astrophysics, other sciences and, as a result, the general pubic, have adopted the results of the accepted interpretation of redshift data. The distances, speeds and ages of remote bodies in space in a universe assumed to be of curved, expanding space are therefore based on erroneous concepts and contrived assumptions rather than scientific fact and logic.

It is time for all of science, and the public, to wake up to the fact that they have been hoodwinked by the BB cosmological "establishment".

ADDENDUM TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION REGARDING "COSMIC EXPANSION"

It has been reported* that the observed brightness of some distant supernovas (that are thought to have the same brilliance upon their explosion) is 20 percent dimmer than expected. That is said to provide evidence that the universe was expanding slower in the past, and thus must have been accelerating over the past several billion yeas.

It has been suggested by some scientists (who, although skeptical, in all probability, are BBers) that intergalactic dust could account for the dimming of light from distant supernovas. Perhaps that suggestion has some merit. However, it should be remembered that the distance and age of bodies in space are based on the accepted interpretation of redshift data in a Big Bang universe having curved, expanding space; all of which has been shown to be totally erroneous in the above discussion.

In the real universe of non-curved, non-expanding space, the redshift of radiation from remote objects in space is more likely to be what has been referred to as "tired light" phenomena, most likely due to the presence of vast amounts of hydrogen in the space of the universe. (Irregularities of the the distribution of hydrogen, and well as other matter in the universe, might easily account for nonlinearities in the relationship of redshift to distance.)

For decades BBers have struggling with a serious problem that they call the "age paradox". Because here are known to be stars much older than the age BBT provides for (and formations of galactic structures that might have taken hundreds of billions of years to form) they have ever tried to stretch the age of their universe to alleviate that problem. Obviously, if the expansion of the universe was slower in the past, that would ease the BB age problem problem.

Until a few years ago, BBers rarely considered the possibility of accelerating expansion; not even a fixed rate expansion, but only open, flat, or closed universe rates of expansion at considerably less than than a fixed rate. The introduction of accelerating expansion is just one more of a continuing series of attempts to modify BBT to solve its many problems.

* See "Hail the cosmic data revolution" in SCIENCE NEWS, October 11. 2003.

HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE


(From Chapter 28 of BYE BYE BIG BANG - Hello Reality)

It is accepted by the establishment that the universe will ultimately succumb to a high entropy death, as believed to be demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Those cases where evidence is found of local decreases of entropy are explained similarly to the statement by physicists Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau in The Conscious Universe: "Even though the second law of thermodynamics is not violated globally and entropy increases overall, (there are) organic life forms, that end up being more ordered at the expense of the environment which acquires a higher entropy."

However there have been many scientists who have suggested that the heat death of a universal increase in entropy will not occur. Several examples of those that might suggest the possibility of a decrease of entropy in a recycling universe are presented here.

British physicist and engineer William Rankine, who, as early as 1852 speculated that, "the world, as now created, may possibly be provided within itself the means of reconcentrating its physical energies, and renewing its activity and life," and William MacMillan who said, "that there was no reason to assume that entropy would always increase and leave the universe as a dead soup of radiation."

Frederick Soddy believed that waste energy from one "cycle of evolution" is utilized to build new matter in another, "an equilibrium condition would result, and continue indefinitely," and James Jeans suggested that the creation of new generations of astronomical bodies "out of the radiation set free by the combustion of the old."

Paul Davies said that the "laws of physics bestow upon matter and energy an uncanny ability to organize themselves, a dispensation to arrange themselves and evolve...from simple to complex," and Barrow & Silk have told us that,"on small scales, entropy undoubtedly decreases as matter rearranges itself to form highly ordered living systems....[but] The net amount of disorder or entropy in the universe...does not increase significantly as stars form and die."

Helge Kragh has written regarding Hoyle's SST, "As in the earlier cosmologies of Nernst, MacMillan and physicist/cosmologist Robert A. Millikan, there was no heat death in Hoyle's model. He argued that although the entropy increases locally, the creation of matter prevents a global increase of entropy toward a maximum value," and that William Crookes also rejected the cosmic heat death of the universe.

Also according to Kragh, "Most likely, Nernst's interest in cosmology received inspiration from Svante Arrhenius, the great Swedish physical chemist (Nobel laureate in 1903)....Unwilling to accept the universal heat death, Arrhenius searched...for mechanisms that would obliterate it. He believed he had found in radiation pressure a mechanism which allowed the possibility that the cosmic development can take place in a continuing cycle, where there is no trace of any beginning or end."

As mentioned above, Richard Tolman, stated that he saw "no evidence against the assumption that the material universe has always existed."

John Boslough has written in Masters of Time that Stephen Hawking believed that, "if the universe eventually collapsed...the dissipated energy lost during the entropy process would begin to gather itself together, then gradually work to reverse entropy. Disordered states would gradually become more ordered."

Roger Penrose's clearly indicated his belief that, when the recycling BB universe re-explodes, its entropy would be at a very low value. Presumably, if that is acceptable to Penrose for a BB universe, it should also be acceptable for RUC. It would seem that all of those who had accepted a recycling BB universe must have believed that entropy must have been reset to zero or to a very low value.

Japanese physicist Yoichiro Nambu, famous as the originator of the idea of quarks and other advances in particle physics, "calculates that virus-size particles, when placed in a cusp-shaped container violate gravity and entropy. Perhaps they conceal a clue as to how life-forms defy entropy and become ever more organized," and Seth Fraden of Brandeis University is quoted (in SCIENCE NEWS in 1998) as having said, "Scientists, however, are discovering with apparent glee how often the road to disorder if paved with a little useful order. It's still not fully realized how general that phenomena is and how rich in potential,"

James Paul Wesley has written in Advanced Fundamental Physics (in 1991) that, "Human bodies, themselves, constitute thermodynamic order created out of a sea of chaos: their bodies are a pool of low entropy compounds created out of an environment of high entropy compounds. Humans derive high utility mechanical energy or work from low utility disordered thermal energy which can create little order," and he asks, "What are the conditions that permit low entropy stars and planets to evolve out of high entropy clouds of gas and dust?...Astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists have recognized the fact that stellar formation from gas and dust clouds constitutes an entropy reducing process; but no one seems to have here-to-fore appreciated the extremely important general significance of this fact."

He goes on to say that, "All of the thermodynamic ordering processes that we see in the universe, including life itself, arise from the fact that deep space is cold, a sink at 2.7° K into which high entropy waste radiation can be dumped. The validity of the primary law for ordering processes in nature depends upon the coldness of deep space."

Wesley may have gotten much of that correct. But, apparently because he has been taught that MBR photons throughout space are at that 2.7 K, he has accepted that to be its temperature. But of course, that isn't so. Those photons are not there, and, in any case, radiation passes through distant space without heating it. (Does the sun's infrared radiation warm the empty space between it and Earth?) The true temperature of the empty space of the universe is zero K.

[It should be understood that only matter can be heated by EMR; not empty space. But it can't be any old matter. It's particles must have some "conductivity," and it must be "tuned" to the wavelength of the particular radiation. That is, like the elements of a radio antenna, it must be large enough to intercept some of the energy at that wavelength and reradiate some of it. If the particle are too small (compared one quarter of that wavelength) they will not "receive" that "signal," that is, it will not be "heated," and it will not reradiate that energy.]

Although the ideas about exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics may by correct, there is an alternate possibility for escape of the universe from heat death (which Wesley has touched upon) that doesn't require denial of that long tested and accepted law.

It is suggested here that matter may be regenerated and that galaxies are able to form as a result of energy that accumulates in space without violating that law. That energy includes all of the EMR, that spews into IGS at the speed of light from all the stars that exist in all the galaxies in the universe, which includes all of the "dissipated" heat energy from all of those. It must be remembered the Second Law, that requires the nonreversibility of ever increasing entropy, was invented to deal with the lack of usefulness of heat (energy) at temperatures lower than ambient for the generation of mechanical energy in what is called "heat engines."

Here on Earth, and undoubtedly throughout the universe, when matter has a temperature that is above that of its surroundings (above ambient), that differential in heat "potential", if sufficiently great, can be utilized to produce mechanical energy. But when the differential temperature is at or below ambient, that is impossible. That idea has been extended to the belief that low energy heat, that is, long-wave EMR, can be of no use in the universe, and thus gradual cooling, (heat dissipation) will eventually cause its death.

The Second Law had to do with the practical problem of power generation here on Earth, and the key to that is the idea of differential temperature. As one example of this, there have been experiments where the difference in sea water temperature from that of "quite cold" at depths to "somewhat warm" near the surface has been used to produce power.

In the same manner, long-wavelength heat energy that is radiated into space is not lost. Its available energy, although low compared to the temperature of some of the matter of galaxies, is relatively high compared to the absolute zero temperature of empty space. Thus its energy might well be used in the processes of new galaxy formation; and the universe may not die the heat death. That reasoning does not deny the Second Law. Instead, because the temperature of empty space is zero, the difference between radiated energy and the coldness of space can be utilized in the generation of new galaxies.

The temperature of ice is 273 degrees C or K above absolute zero, and even the coldest temperature on the Earth of about -73 C (-100 F) is 200 degrees (C or K) above absolute zero. It would seem that nature should be able to utilize the energy available in those temperature differentials. Heat radiation, even at temperatures that low, is EMR, which (with the exception of a small percentage of redshift) like any other radiation, can travel vast distances through space without loss of energy; and that energy can be utilized in galaxy formation processes in IGS.

Nowadays EMR in the microwave range, at frequencies lower than infrared by a factor of about 100,000 (photons having energy that much lower) is regularly utilized to cook our food. For a whole century EMR in the low radio frequency range, at frequencies lower than infrared by a factor of about one billion has been used to produce detectable signal energy in antennas thousands of miles from their source. Those phenomena illustrates that energy in the infrared range, and well below it, might be utilized in space in other natural processes.

Some theorists have stated that the temperature of empty space is quite high. However, empty space is nothing, so that its temperature can only be considered to be absolute zero.

Some BBers have indicated their belief to be that the temperature of space is that of the MBR, 2.7 K. However, radio astronomer Adrian Webster has reported in a paper on the MBR in 1974 that the temperature of formaldehyde found in space is about one degree K. That raises the question of how the formaldehyde ever got that cold. If, according to BBT, the temperature of space is that of the MBR, it should have warmed the formaldehyde to 2.7 K. That bit of evidence tends to confirm two important ideas. One is that the equivalent temperature of empty space is below 2.7 K (undoubtedly zero); and the second is that, because it is not true that space is warmed to the temperature of the MBR as believed by BBers, they are denied a reason to believe in its presence.

(In support of that, recall the quotation in Chapter 6 from John Gribbin that, "what Olbers is telling us is that the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Most of it is cold, in spite of the efforts of all the stars in the galaxies pouring out energy to warm it up.")

As mentioned above, EMR from the sun can propagate through space without heating it. Certainly, that must apply to intergalactic space. Vacuum cannot be heated. Therefore, one might expect that the differential between the energy of low level radiation and the zero temperature of empty space might be utilized.

As an alternative to the many suggestions of violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics of the past, what is presented here might explain the ability for the formation of new galaxies without denying that law, and without condemning the universe to heat death.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

Impossible Correspondence Index
 .