Reinventing the Universe
perchance you wonder at this show:
But wonder on, till truth make all things plain.”
"A Midsummer Night's Dream"
© 2002 Jerrold G. Thacker
My name is Jerrold Thacker and I have had an ongoing interest in astronomy for over 50 years. During that time, after countless hours of research, I have become convinced that the universe is very much different than the picture astronomers would have us believe.
I consider myself to be an Astronomical Devil’s Advocate!
This web site will explain what I believe to be wrong in today’s astronomy, and plausible alternate explanations for everything I think is wrong. Specifically, topics to be presented include:
· The Doppler effect as an explanation for the redshift of galaxies is wrong, and the universe may be essentially static,
· There is no reason to believe there was ever a Big Bang,
· Quasars are probably not very distant, and do not emit the tremendous energies attributed to them,
· There is no such thing as a “massive black hole”,
· Astronomers have virtually ignored the bending of light by strong gravity fields, which causes the following,
o A strong gravitational field will create a cluster of star images, which will create the false illusion of a galaxy or star cluster,
o Black holes should be the brightest objects in the sky, because of the bending of light near their surface,
o Huge numbers of star/galaxy images we see are actually optical illusions,
· Pulsars are not rotating neutron stars,
· There is no missing matter in the universe,
· The cosmic background radiation was predicted by Eddington in 1926 as the temperature of starlight,
· A minor modification to the theory of gravity can easily explain most of the major problems now facing astronomers,
o What quasars are, and why they have such high redshifts,
o The missing solar neutrinos,
o Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays,
o An alternate explanation of pulsars,
o Why we can’t find black holes,
o What is at the center of galaxies.
This is obviously a tall order! I am essentially attacking virtually every aspect of today’s astronomical beliefs. Only an outsider such as myself could do this. The powerful peer-review lobby in the astronomical world would crucify any astronomer who dared to challenge contemporary beliefs (e.g. Halton Arp). If you are interested in thinking “outside the box”, carry on.
This web site is designed to briefly discuss each of the topics above, and then provide links to more detailed information on each. As it could take a long time to wade through all the links provided, I suggest you bookmark this page, and come back to it from time to time.
Enjoy the journey. If you peruse some or most of the topics below and still believe what astronomers are telling us, then I have failed my purpose. Please feel free to contact me with your comments and observations.
In the early twentieth century, Edward Hubble discovered that the light from nearly all faint galaxies was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (i.e. was redshifted), and that the fainter they were, the greater the redshift. He developed what is now called the Hubble Law – a linear relationship between the redshift of a galaxy and its distance from us. That is, given the redshift of a galaxy, its distance can be determined fairly accurately from the Hubble Law.
In searching for the source of this redshift-distance relationship, other astronomers “decided” that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect, caused by motion of the galaxies away from us. And apparently, the further away a galaxy was from us, the faster it was moving away from us. And in all directions!
This assumption about the Doppler effect as the cause of the observed redshift then gave rise to the concept that the universe was expanding in all directions. This then led to the conclusion that this expansion all started many billions of years ago with a massive explosion – the Big Bang.
If the Doppler effect is not the cause of the redshift, then what is? The link below will take you to an explanation for an alternate cause of the redshift – the Shapiro effect. And if the Shapiro effect is the source of the redshift, then there is no reason to believe the universe is expanding, and no reason to believe in a Big Bang!
There are various ways to measure the approximate distance to galaxies, and many studies have shown that the Hubble law provides a satisfactory estimate of distance to most galaxies. Recall that this law uses the redshift of a distant galaxy to ascertain its distance.
But then quasars were discovered. These were point sources of light, looking very much like ordinary stars on a photographic plate, but they had one very special feature. They had very large redshifts!
Even though astronomers still do not understand quasars, even after 39 years of study, they quickly decided that the redshift was due to extremely high velocities of recession. Quasars, they surmised, were receding from us at speeds nearly at the speed of light, again in all directions. And even though the Hubble law had only been verified for nearby galaxies, they decided to use it to determine the distance to these quasars – a leap of faith completely unsupported by any evidence. Using this Hubble law, astronomers now are finding quasars they think are up to 20 billion light years away! This means their light started out toward us at least 5 billion years before the most current estimates of the age of the universe!
In my opinion, using the Hubble law for estimating the distance to quasars is very bad science, and leads to completely unsupportable conclusions about the distant universe. It is one of the major reasons I doubt much of what astronomers tell us.
To make matters worse for astronomers, significant number of quasars have been found to have proper motion (i.e. appear to move across the heavens) – a clear impossibility if they are billions of light years away.
Astronomers are becoming convinced that at the center of most galaxies lies a “massive black hole”. These are thought to be objects with gravitational forces billions of times that of the sun.
These objects are thought to be black holes. But astronomers have not even identified a single small black hole for sure, even though they are thought to exist in large numbers. And they have absolutely no idea how a massive black hole could have formed!
This is an example of bad science at its worst. It’s a made-for-media expression or concept, with absolutely no basis in science. It is one more reason to question everything astronomers tell us.
There is more revealing information on black holes in a later section, as well as an alternate explanation for what is at the center of these galaxies.
The bending of light by gravity was first predicted by Albert Einstein, and first observed during a solar eclipse in 1919 by Arthur Eddington. It made Einstein world-famous, and brought Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity to the forefront of modern science. Many experiments during that time have amply verified that a light ray passing near a gravitational source is bent toward the source. Numerous examples of the “gravitational lens” effect have been found in outer space.
What astronomers have not told you (or do not realize) is that an object with a large gravitational force will create multiple images of each star located behind it. That is, we will see two images of each distant star, instead of one. One of the images will be the original, or “true” image, and will appear at its normal place in the sky. The second image is caused by light from the distant star passing near the gravitational object and deflected by its gravitational field toward us. It is a “false” image, and will appear to be near the gravitational object. The gravitational object will appear to be surrounded by star images, although they are false images. What we see will look like a star cluster, or even a galaxy! But the star images are not real! If the gravitational object is rotating, it will drag a distorted gravitational field with it, and we will see a distorted field of false star images!
In other words, many of the star clusters and galaxies we see in the universe may be false images!
Black Holes should be very bright!
The discussion above was for an object with large gravitational forces. The false images it creates by the bending of light will pass far enough from the object to be visible separately from the object, so that a star cluster effect is seen.
A black hole will also create false images of light from distant stars by the bending of light by its gravitational field, but all the light will appear to come from the black hole itself. In fact, each black hole will concentrate light from every other object in the universe, and they should appear as the brightest objects in the sky!
So where are they? We don’t see them, although by all accounts they should be there. The fact that we don’t see them lends support to some conclusions provided in a later section (hint, black holes are not stable!).
An explanation for why there may not be any missing matter in the universe
Astronomers estimate that as much as 90-99% of the mass of the universe is not visible to us. This is sometimes called “dark matter” or “missing mass”. They decided that there must be this missing mass to explain some strange observations in the light curves of some nearby galaxies. But since they made it up, it isn’t surprising that they can’t find it!
There is an explanation for the observed light curves that does not require missing matter, or a revised theory of gravity. It is found in a combination of the bending of light by a massive gravitational object, the rotation of that object, and the Shapiro effect. Click here for more details.
Pulsars are considered by astronomers to be rotating neutron stars. The regular flashes of light or radio energy are considered to occur when a beam of energy from an area near the equator strikes the earth as it rotates, much as the light from a rotating lighthouse beacon reaches us once each revolution. But there are two things wrong with this:
· If we see only those pulsars that are oriented so that their axis of rotation is perfectly perpendicular to us, there must be vast numbers of them we don’t see,
· Some millisecond pulsars would be rotating up to 600 times per second, with surface velocities up to 50% of the speed of light – highly unlikely!
A later section presents evidence that pulsars are actually pulsating neutron stars and black holes, and not rotating neutron stars.
Astronomers have found that wherever they look in the universe, a universal background microwave radiation is found, with a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin (just above absolute zero). They point to this radiation as proof of the Big Bang. But there are several things wrong with this:
· The background radiation is extremely uniform, varying by less than 1 part in 100,000 throughout the sky. But the universe is quite clumpy, and if the Big Bang caused the radiation, it would be expected to be clumpy as well,
· The original prediction by George Gamow was that the Big Bang should leave a radiation level of 5-10 degrees Kelvin, but it is measured at 2.7 Kelvin, degrees, far cooler than predicted,
· As far back as 1926, the brilliant scientist Arthur Eddington calculated that the temperature of starlight should be 3 degrees Kelvin! Very close to the measured value! That’s probably what the CBR is.
The conclusion is that astronomers will grasp at any straw to try to justify the Big Bang, but this one doesn’t do it Click here for more about the Cosmic Background Radiation.
The standard view of gravity is that every particle has a gravitational force directly related to its mass. Thus an electron, neutron or lump of gold would have gravitational forces which only varied by their respective mass. And while this has been generally shown to be true, all experiments have been done with essentially static materials – objects in their normal state. There have been no experiments conducted with materials altered states, such as highly ionized, or highly compressed. Is the gravitational force of a “free” atomic nucleus the same as one which is at the center of an atom, constrained by a shell of electrons and the forces of nearby atoms? Perhaps not!
In the section on gravity I explain how the gravitational force of an object such as the sun may consist of two components. The first component is the standard gravity due to the mass of normal matter. The second component derives from the number of “free atomic nucleus” contained within it, such as would be expected in the super-heated core. The modified theory of gravity may be explained simply as follows:
· Ordinary matter has gravitational forces directly proportional to mass,
· Atomic nuclei which are free to move about have extremely high gravitational forces,
· The observed gravitational force of an object such as the sun or a star is the sum of gravitational forces from ordinary mass and those gravitational forces generated by “free” atomic nuclei contained within the object,
· If there are gravitational forces from “free” atomic nuclei, then the actual mass of the object is less than would otherwise be calculated from its gravitational attraction,
· An atomic nuclei which is completely constrained (as within a neutron star or black hole) loses all its gravitational force,
· Any “free” atomic nucleus not associated with an object (such as a cosmic ray or in a fusion reaction) is highly gravitational.
This new theory of gravity does not contradict the present theory, merely expands on it to areas not previously considered. Click here for a more complete discussion of this modified theory of gravity.
This new gravity theory can explain a lot of things which have been serious problems for astronomers:
This web page is kind of a throw-a-way. It is my explanation for why the motions of the planets and suns in our solar system are the way they are. Check it out, and ignore it if you wish. But it explains things that have never been explained before!
What I have tried to show with this web site is that the universe may be completely different than astronomers are telling us. There are alternate explanations which not only provide a new and unique view of the universe, but which also solve some years-old problems as well. It may sound complicated, but everything stems from just three simple factors:
· The Shapiro effect is the cause of the redshift of distant galaxies, and not the Doppler effect,
· The effect of bending the light from distant stars by strong gravitational fields should be given full consideration, using accepted science,
· Consider a simple modification to the theory of gravity which ascribes special gravitational properties to atomic nuclei.
Will you ever look at the universe in the same way again? I hope not.
Please contact me with your comments. I respond to all e-mail. Jerrold Thacker
Copies of my book are available.