NOTE: PLEASE SEE MY (J.P. FENYO'S) DISCLAIMER THAT FOLLOWS THIS FIRST ARTICLE ON
THIS PAGE! I DO NOT TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE VIEWS HELD BY DAVID PRATT, EVEN AS
THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE WOULD AGREE ON!
Exploding the Big Bang
David Pratt
If light from stars or galaxies is passed through a prism or grating, a spectrum is obtained, consisting of a
series of lines and bands. These spectra can be used to identify the atomic elements present in the objects
concerned, as each element has a distinct spectral "signature." But if we compare the spectral lines of
distant galaxies with those produced by the same elements on earth, we find that in every case the lines are
displaced towards longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as the redshift, and is the subject of intense
controversy. The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret
the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A
growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the
universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].
G. de Purucker rejected the theory of an expanding universe or expanding space as "little short of being a
scientific pipe-dream or fairy-tale," and suggested that the redshift might be caused by light losing energy
during its long voyage through space [2]. This is known as the tired-light theory, and is supported by several
astronomers. Paul LaViolette and Tom Van Flandern, for example, have reviewed several observational
tests of the different interpretations of the redshift, and conclude that the tired-light, non-expanding-universe
model explains the data much better than the expanding-universe hypothesis [3]. To bring the big bang
model into line with observations, constant adjustments have to be made to its "free parameters" (i.e. fudge
factors).
According to the big bang theory, a galaxy's redshift is proportional to its recession velocity, which
increases with its distance from earth. In the tired-light model, too, we would expect redshift to be
proportional to distance. The fact that this is not always the case shows that other factors must be involved.
Numerous examples of galaxies at the same distance having very different redshifts are given in the
landmark book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, who works at the Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik in Germany.
He also gives many examples of how, for over 30 years, establishment astronomers and cosmologists have
systematically tried to ignore, dismiss, ridicule, and suppress this evidence -- for it is fatal to the hypothesis
of an expanding universe. Like other opponents of the big bang, he has encountered great difficulties
getting articles published in mainstream journals, and his requests for time on ground-based and space
telescopes are frequently rejected.
Arp argues that redshift is primarily a function of age, and that tired light plays no more than a secondary
role. He presents abundant observational evidence to show that low-redshift galaxies sometimes eject high-
redshift quasars in opposite directions, which then evolve into progressively lower-redshift objects and
finally into normal galaxies. Ejected galaxies can, in turn, eject or fission into smaller objects, in a cascading
process. Within galaxies, the youngest, brightest stars also have excess redshifts. The reason all distant
galaxies are redshifted is because we see them as they were when light left them, i.e. when they were much
younger. About seven local galaxies are blueshifted. The orthodox view is that they must be moving towards
us even faster than the universe is expanding, but in Arp's theory, they are simply older than our own galaxy
as we see them.
To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of
elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero
mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to
another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by
electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases
and therefore redshift decreases.
When astronomers first saw active, disturbed galaxies neighboring each other, they immediately jumped to
the conclusion that they were in the process of colliding. Arp comments: "By ignoring the empirical evidence
for ejection from galaxies, they illustrated an unfortunate tendency in science, namely that when presented
with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one" (p. 104). Despite the modern mania for
galaxy mergers and black holes, it is ejection processes that are the most ubiquitous, and may provide a
key to redshift anomalies.
In the 1950s, after some initial reluctance, astronomers came to accept the evidence that jets of radio-
wave-emitting material could be ejected in opposite directions from the nuclei of active galaxies. Further
examples of ejection are provided by spiral galaxies: large knots are sometimes seen along spiral arms, and
companion galaxies on the ends of the arms. There is fierce resistance, however, to the idea that high-
redshift objects can be ejected by low-redshift galaxies, because this would demolish the fundamental
assumption on which the big bang is built -- that the redshift is caused entirely by recession velocities.
Nevertheless, the evidence is compelling. Pairs of ejected objects often line up on either side of active
galaxies and are connected to their parent galaxy by luminous filaments ("umbilical cords"). However,
establishment scientists insist that all cases where low-redshift and high-redshift objects appear to be
physically associated are merely chance combinations of foreground and background objects, and they
attribute the connecting filaments to "noise" or "instrument defects."
Mainstream astronomers believe that the normally very high redshifts of quasars indicate that they are
situated near the edge of the visible universe, and are rushing away from us at velocities approaching the
speed of light. To explain why many quasars lie very close to low-redshift galaxies, it is fashionable
nowadays to invoke the theory of gravitational lensing: the image of a background quasar is supposedly
split into multiple bright images by the gravitational field of a foreground galaxy with a large mass. The
Einstein Cross, for example, consists of four quasars aligned across a central galaxy of lower redshift, and
is regarded as a prime example of gravitational lensing -- despite the fact that Fred Hoyle calculated the
probability of such a lensing event as less than two chances in a million, and despite the presence of
connecting material between the quasars and the galaxy nucleus! The assumption that redshift equals
velocity has led to galaxy masses being overestimated, and more reasonable estimates indicate that
genuine gravitational lens effects are probably very rare.
If the universe is expanding, redshifts should show a continuous range of values. Instead, however, they
are "quantized," i.e. they tend to be multiples of certain basic units, the main ones (expressed as velocities)
being 72.4 km/s and 37.5 km/s. This phenomenon, says Arp, "is so unexpected that conventional astronomy
has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence" (p. 195). He
suggests that redshift quantization could be due to episodes of matter creation taking place at regular
intervals.
The redshift-equals-velocity assumption has led big bangers to conclude that galaxies in groups and
clusters are moving much faster than they really are, and since the galaxies' visible mass cannot account for
these rapid motions, this has given rise to the current obsession with "dark matter." Some 90% of the matter
in the universe supposedly consists of this hypothetical, never-detected stuff. Arp, however, shows that in
every group of galaxies investigated, companion galaxies always have systematically higher redshifts than
the central galaxy they are orbiting. The only reasonable explanation for this is that companion galaxies
have intrinsic, excess redshifts arising from their younger age; they are born from the central galaxy and
expelled into its near neighborhood. In galaxy clusters, too, smaller, younger galaxies have been found to
have excess redshifts. Redshift quantization indicates that the orbital velocities of galaxies must be less
than 20 km/s, otherwise the periodicity would be washed out. Once this is accepted, the need for immense
quantities of dark matter vanishes.
In addition to the redshift, another important piece of "evidence" for the big bang is said to be the cosmic
microwave background radiation of 2.7 kelvins, which is supposedly the afterglow of the primordial
explosion. Arp, however, argues that the extraordinary smoothness of the background radiation provides
strong evidence against an expanding universe. A much simpler explanation is that we are seeing the
temperature of the intergalactic medium.
Current expanding-universe theory seems headed for oblivion, but the large number of professionals with
vested interests in its preservation means that its demise is likely to take a very long time. Even some
mystically or theosophically minded writers have tended to jump on the big bang bandwagon, believing that
the theory is essentially correct, provided we recognize the workings of divine intelligence going on behind
the scenes. But even divine intelligence would not be able to save the big bang!
The idea that space can expand like elastic is one of the many illogical features of the standard big bang
model. Space must be infinite, for if it is finite, where does it end and what lies beyond? It's true that big
bangers have concocted a theory which allows space to curve round upon itself so that it is both finite and
boundless -- but this merely indicates the extent to which they have abandoned reality in favor of abstract
mathematical theorizing. If space is infinite, then clearly it cannot expand for, as H. P. Blavatsky says,
"infinite extension admits of no enlargement." She also indicates that the "outbreathing" of Brahmâ (the
cosmic divinity), as described in Hindu philosophy, refers not to a physical increase in size but to a "change
of condition" -- "the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless objectivity" (The Secret Doctrine 1:
62-3). In other words, outbreathing and inbreathing can refer to the unfoldment of the One (the spiritual
summit of a world-system) into the many (the lower, material realms), and the subsequent reabsorption of
the many into the One, in a never-ending cycle, or cosmic heartbeat, of evolution and involution.
Arp is one of a growing number of scientists who are returning to the idea of an infinite, eternal universe,
subject to constant transformations [4]. He believes that matter is created continually -- not from nothing, but
from the materialization of mass-energy existing in a diffuse state, in the form of the all-pervading "quantum
sea" or "zero-point field." The universe, he says, is constantly unfolding from many different points within
itself. He also believes that after a certain interval elementary particles may decay, so that matter merges
back into the quantum sea. This closely corresponds to the theosophical notion of periodical materialization
and etherealization, except that in theosophy the process is not confined to our physical plane but embraces
higher worlds of consciousness-substance as well -- worlds whose existence is pointed to by a wide variety
of physical phenomena [5].
Our Milky Way galaxy is a member of the Local Group of galaxies, which belongs to the Virgo
Supercluster, and our nearest neighbor is the Fornax Supercluster. What do we know about what lies
beyond? Mainstream cosmologists insist that we know a great deal. Powerful telescopes reveal many faint,
fuzzy objects with high redshifts that are assumed to represent distant clusters and superclusters, which
form immense sheets of galaxies, separated by huge voids. Arp writes:
An enormous amount of modern telescope time and staff is devoted to measuring redshifts of faint smudges
on the sky. It is called "probing the universe." So much time is consumed, in fact, that there is no time at all
available to investigate the many crucial objects which disprove the assumption that redshift measures
distance. (p. 69)
He says that, given the misinterpretation of the redshift, distances may be wrong by factors of 10 to 100,
and luminosities and masses may be wrong by factors up to 10,000: "We would have a totally erroneous
picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles in our
intellectual history" (p. 1). He presents many pieces of evidence indicating that some faint "galaxy clusters"
actually consist of young objects ejected from nearby active galaxies. The same applies to most of the
rather peculiar-looking objects to be seen in the "Hubble Deep Field," a famous image of very high-redshift
and supposedly extremely distant galaxies.
We have no reliable way of knowing how far the local Virgo and Fornax Superclusters are from the next
superclusters, and there is therefore no certainty that any of the objects we observe lies outside them. In
other words, we may be seeing far less of the universe than is generally believed. Even some of Arp's
closest allies are very reluctant to contemplate the possibility that the cosmic distance scale as a whole is
seriously wrong. Whether Arp's radical views will be confirmed remains to be seen, but he is undoubtedly
right when he says: "We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!"
(p. 249).
References:
Apeiron (http://redshift.vif.com), 1998, p. ii.
G. de Purucker, Fountain Source of Occultism, Theosophical University Press (TUP), 1974, pp. 80-1;
Esoteric Teachings, Point Loma Publications, 1987, 3:28-30; The Esoteric Tradition, 2nd ed., TUP, 1973,
pp. 435-8n.
Paul LaViolette, Genesis of the Cosmos: The ancient science of continuous creation, Rochester, VE: Bear
and Company, 2004, pp. 280-3, 288-95 (http://etheric.com); Tom Van Flandern, "Did the Universe Have a
Beginning?," Meta Research Bulletin, 3:3, 1994, www.metaresearch.org.
See Halton C. Arp, C. Roy Keys and Konrad Rudnicki, eds., Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big
Bang, Plenum, 1993.
See "Worlds within worlds", http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/worlds.htm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in Sunrise, December 1998/January 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big bang, black holes, and common sense
Black holes, redshifts, and bad science
Cosmology and the big bang
Homepage
IMPORTANT NOTE FROM J.P. FENYO: THEOSOPHY AND MADAME BLAVATSKY'S IDEAS ARE
IMPERFECT THEORIES ON SPIRITUAL ISSUES AND THE FACT IS THAT THEOSOPHY HAD
RATHER DISTURBING ANTI-JEWISH UNDERTONES AND BLAVATSKY WAS ANTI-SEMITIC. BUT
MANY IDEAS HELD BY THOSE WHO SEE TRUTH IN THEOSOPHY ARE ACTUALLY VERY
CORRECT! EXCEPT THAT JEWISH KABBALAIC THINKING (SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY) IS
ACTUALLY MUCH CLOSER TO THE TRUTH AND IS NOT IN ANY WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! I, J.P. FENYO,
SUBSCRIBE TO KABBALAIC SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING AND TO THE ROOT
PHILOSOPHY OF JUDAISM AS EXPRESSED BY THE FIRST GREAT MONOTHEIST MOSHE-
AKHENATON!
My Grand Cosmological Existence Theory : Mega-Whoopee .
Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher
The totality of all that has existed, exists and is constantly changing and will exist is without limit, is eternally physically
changing, has always been changing and will always be changing, and the only aspect of everything that is eternally
permanent, and non-transformative is the reality of a separate, yet sometimes connected, Spiritual Reality of Grand Souls
and their sub-Souls.
The reason we observe most of what is called Red Shift is most generally due to light that has travelled through tremendous
distances in space and has been weakened by energy particles over such immense distances! Those of us in the growing
minority of Theoretical Physicists tend to call this phenomena 'tired light'. But that is a misnomer and only explains most of
what is observed.
If you were to put a white light laser beam through enough condensed Hydrogen gas you would get the variations of 'coloring'
associated with what is called Red Shift! This experiment would only prove that most of the billions of Galaxies we now know
of are relatively stationary, but that all are actually heading, in different directions at variable speeds, in virtually all possible
directions, as would be dictated by Super-Massive Gravitational Pulls!
The Big Bang Theory is very wrong indeed!
The idea of an infinitely small singularity suddenly inflating at an infinite speed outwards and expanding into what we now
know to be hundreds of billions of Galaxies or more, is nothing but insensible nonsense and non-science. It is non-science
because it is based on a false interpretation of apparent observable phenomena and sub-atomic activity research, i.e.
Quantum Physics, that is flawed!
Generally speaking here is what generally happens throughout infinity:
Super-Massice Central Galactic Stars tend to collapse almost as soon as they come into existence, at the birth of any new
Galaxy. These become Super-Massive 'Black Holes', which is also a misnomer, since 'Black Holes', whether the much
smaller type that we know even exist in our own backyard, local cluster of stars, of our own arm of The Milky Way or the Super-
Massive ones at the Core Central Region of our spinning spiral Galaxy (and all Galaxies spin from at least one core if not two
or more), are not really holes as we generally would think of holes. They are poles of self-collapsing stars and mega-stars
which, instead of releasing atomic particles-energy and light, absorb all matter, energy and light by sucking them inside
through their polar spin-points and forcing these physical particles to condense at unimaginably super-tight compactness!
And then at some point what is absorbed becomes too much even for a collapsed star to absorb and are super-ejected in the
form of super-fast super-beam projections or cause the whole 'Black Hole Star' to super-explode!
What most physicists and astronomers have concluded about Red Shift is simply a serious misinterpretation of visible
phenomena! True, on the sub-atomic quantum physics scale of research into the nature of physics we find apparent evidence
for the so-called Big Bang! But actually what we are observing at that level is the behaviour of relatively local cosmological
phenomena, such as the quantum mechanics of the largest of all Physical Phenomena: i.e. Galaxies! Each Galaxy was
created by a somewhat similar Big Bang process, ad infinitum! But the totality of all Galaxies is a reality of eternal flux that
has no actual beginning nor end, and which goes on throughout all INFINITY! To the mediocre minds of most scientists, being
that most scientists are mediocre-minded and lack sufficient multi-disciplinary scientific thinking; the idea of an eternal infinite
totality of all reality seems to be an absolute impossibility! They cannot fathom the notion of an actual totality that is truly
infinite! In fact, most human beings do not like, better yet:; find abhorrent, the nauseating notion that all reality if eternal and
infinite, and that the Grand Dog of All Stories, or, being that I am a Cat Lover, the Grand Cat of All Stories, has neither a tail
nor a head, neither an end or a beginning!
For us who are wise and daring enough to conceive the eternal infinite universe there is no such thing as real
NOTHINGNESS! And even our own sense of existence is eternal, albeit our personal awareness of individual self-being is
not eternal and on a psychological level death is a semi-finality! Which is to say, that your soul, my soul and all the souls of all
living biological entities are actually connected and of the same exact nature, and one's sense of 'being' does not end with
one's separation from one's previous mental awareness of being! And that there are no absolute individual souls, but that all
souls are of the same interconnected essential ONENESS, however strange and unfathomable that seems to be to us while
we inhabit our separate brain-body minds! Absolute death is an impossibility, just as absolute NOTHINGNESS is an
impossibility! ALL THAT IS REALLY IS ALL THAT IS! NOTHING IS REALLY NOTHING AT ALL!
The INFINITE TOTALITY OF ALL REALITY IS ETERNAL CHANGE BEING EXPERIENCED BY ETERNAL NON-
TRANSFORMATIVE BEING-NESS! And WHAT WE SENSE AS G-D IS THAT ETERNAL, INDESTRUCTIBLE, NON-
TRANSFORMATIVE SUPER-SOUL or GREAT SPIRIT WHICH WE ARE ALL ACTUALLY PART OF!
And the PHYSICAL and NON-PHYSICAL share the same 'SPACES' but, thought they 'touch' and 'connect' to form
LIFE, are actually two distinct and separate realities, whereby one never experiences itself and the other
experiences the other!