A Closed Universe is Our Home
In the popular media, it is always said that our universe is open, expanding (with expanding expansion), has no center and no edge. The C-R theory would dispute that strongly, and in this blog I would like to argue the case, and present the C-R theory side.
Let me start with the basics. If you understand gravitational curvature, it must superimpose a preferred reference frame over a closed universe. There will be minimum curvature (bending, warping, shape-influencing pulling) at the center (actually zero from the surrounding mass, plus a base amount, if any, added from any possible larger external surroundings (unknown to us, but quite possible).
For any spherical item, a light bulb, a basketball, a planet, a ping-pong ball, a bowling ball, we are not surprised that it would have a center, and an outer edge roughly the same distance from the center in all directions. Such is also the case for our universe.
If one can imagine any structure as large as our universe, it does not take all that high of a density to completely close off that structure. It does take a lot of matter, however, with the size being so enormous that all human-based comparisons seem inadequate. Nonetheless, the C-R theory states that our universe appears almost exactly filled with enough matter to almost close-off our universe most simply because that IS now the case, and always has been so.
The red-shifts observed everywhere in this universe are almost entirely because of a gravitational effect. It is known that more intense gravity (such as that on the surface of this earth) runs slower than less “bent” gravity, such as that experienced by a GPS satellite some 22,100-22,200 km above earth’s surface. Although the satellite’s time slows down some 7 microseconds per day from the higher orbital velocity, the satellite gains almost 45 microseconds per day from the lesser gravitational strength at that height, for a net gain of about 38 ½ microseconds per day. Technically, we do not notice that because the clock circuits aboard the satellites are programmed to “miscount” the true time, to correct for this extra time gain.
In the big scheme of things within this universe, this amount is miniscule, but does serve as a guide to much stronger actions. At the farthest objects we can see, the red-shift is very strong, and the slowdown is substantial. Notice also that the objects we do see farther away ARE NOT running at the same clock-rate as we experience here on earth, but they are substantially slowed-down. That means that they are not emitting light at the same rate as they would here on earth, and this is why we also see them dimmer.
The second item about that condition is that, since the objects there ARE NOT like objects here on earth, but are really slowed down as they appear, when scientists here on earth see their light and then CORRECT their red-shifts as if they really WERE the same as here on earth, they mis-correct those objects, and conclude that they must be dimmer than scientists imagined (which they ACTUALLY ARE), then mis-conclude that the perceived expansion of this universe is accelerating, or expanding even more!!
This means that in all probability, the size of our universe has been severely overestimated (by a factor of 10 or more), and the amount of “missing” mass needed to fill-up this universe has been also greatly overestimated.
Another area of common error is that conventional, Newtonian-type understanding of a closed universe is that it must start collapsing almost immediately, unless there is a “mysterious” dark energy present to counter the incessant pull of gravity. From a good understanding of curvature, this is clearly not the case. Notice that the most curved matter in this universe is at the outer edges, with curvature decreasing until, at the center, curvature is minimum. This greatly stabilizes the closed universe, and keeps it from collapsing. This also means that matter at the outermost edges of this universe is the most “downhill”, energy-wise, from a gravitational curvature point-of-view. When conventional scientists were figuring-out the equations they tried to use to understand the overall structure of this universe, they totally disregarded the reference-frame that a complete gravitational curvature would impose over the contents.
Since the C-R theory is based upon a concept-based understanding, and not derived from studying equations (book-based simple solutions from lab-models), a new understanding was reached sensing the inherent stability of any closed universe.
If one tried imagining known items, like a bowling ball, or a large bolder, or a ping pong ball, and imagined that they were in imminent danger of collapse (which they are not), one could get the sense that our universe is just as stable, and just as unlikely to collapse. Those that imagine the imminent collapse are somewhat like the scientists back around 1900 who imagined the hydrogen atom’s electron collapsing into the proton, based upon Maxwell’s equations. (see The Ultraviolet Catastrophe ).
The simple way to tell that such a time-rate change is going on in this universe, is nature’s answer, hidden in plain sight. That is the blue-shifted region we know as the Great Attractor. This volume of the universe displays objects that are blueshifted to us, instead of red-shifted. While a giant, weird gravitational anomaly might explain such behavior, a much simpler explanation is provided by the C-R theory. The C-R theory explanation is that: We live in a closed universe, with the preferred reference frame superimposed over us, and we are not at the center. The maximum blueshifted region corresponds with the center of the entire universe. That volume of space is running the fastest, and is un-slowed-down in any way. We here on earth are more slowed down, hence those faster-clocking areas appear blueshifted to us. NOTE: If such a thing is seen, we would expect that behind the Great Attractor we would detect no additional in-falling of matter from behind, towards the attractor. Although there is some amount of large mass there, as is common in almost all known galaxies, there is nowhere near enough mass to cause the proposed “attractor” that conventional theory expects.
Also note, if the Great Attractor really was some giant anomaly, then relativity demands that everything everywhere in this universe should be identical, and many Great Attractors should be seen. Alas (for those expectations) there is one, and only one.
If the Great Attractor is caused by gravitational slowdown, then our universe should have one, and only one center, thus, only one place of maximum blueshift. Additionally, in all directions, including far behind the Great Attractor, the far-reaches of this universe appear with the same red-shifts in all directions.
Note: In a closed universe, we do not violate conservation of energy continually. We do not need to accelerate ALL the contents of the universe, and we do not need to accelerate the acceleration rate too. Our universe’s contents are forever contained, and forever intact, and secure. The overall inside density is exactly sufficient, and will never fall short, and will never gain additional mass or energy. Technically, because the universe is contained, the contents of this universe will never fade-out or dilute over time. The 2.7 K radiation we measure from earth will never change it’s value over time. The temperature value will change with changing location (provided a sufficient distance has been covered).
PREDICTION: In the time it takes the Milky-Way galaxy and Andromeda to pivot around their common, center-of-mass-axis 180° , the redshift-blueshift of the respective viewpoints will reverse. Prediction: If we could ask someone in Andromeda right now, how they see us on planet earth (and environment), they would announce they see us as redshifted.
If they did see us as blueshifted, then the C-R theory would confirm that our two galaxies were on a collision heading.
NOTE the simplifications gained by the C-R theory viewpoint. Our universe regains its simplicity, and things happen for a good reason. There are no more strange expectations of wild happenings on an ongoing basis, with energy appearing from seemingly nowhere.
There is another consideration that the C-R theory also has an opinion on. That is why do galaxies seem to have much greater gravitational presence extending out to the visible edges of the galaxy. The simple answer is that the coupling of orbital motion observed in matter more distant from the center of a galaxy is held in place not by gravity, but by electromagnetic actions (and interactions) between the stars in the radial arms. It is not the gravitational mass of the galaxies that holds the spinning galaxy arms in place, but electromagnetic interaction on a massive scale. The large polarized current flows almost hold-hands with the other stars, but are not dependent nearly as much on gravity as standard theory has supposed.
I will not cover the source of the currents in this blog, but earlier blogs will describe a simple mechanism whereby stars may produce much greater current flows (hence magnetic fields) than standard theory ever supposed. The interaction between those currents, with collimated flows, locking currents, and magnetic binding may help to explain why galaxies hold together, rather than fly apart. The C-R theory proposes that we never need any type of dark matter to gravitationally bind galaxies together.
The C-R theory proposes that the amount of magnetic-electrical currents flowing in galaxies may be billions of times stronger than conventional theories suppose. Check the earlier blog on the double negative ionization of ALL the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere to get some idea of the level of currents that may be emanating just from our sun. Combine, unite, and synchronize these currents into mutually joined fields, and local gravity may not be needed to explain the motions observed in the outermost stellar-spiral arms of a galaxy, the furthest from the galaxy’s core.
There should be a new version of a very simple experiment anyone can do at home to test out a new concept of gravity, which has been hidden in plain sight for many years, on line after I return from vacation. The experiment is demonstrated in the on-line video: Disproving the world’s greatest experts on gravity , but the sound is not as good as the visual portion. I have a new version already shot, and awaiting editing, but not currently ready for display.
For the inquiring reader, who has always wondered, what would it be like inside a Black-Hole C-R , I have very good news for you. You already know, and have seen it anytime you went out and looked at the night sky. We (humanity) live inside a giant Black-Hole C-R , or more correctly, in the Active Zone C-R portion of a Black-Hole C-R, which is a C-R theory exclusive idea, unique to the C-R theory. Of course, our universe is much bigger than the normal, lesser Black-Holes C-R we almost “see” in this universe, and these smaller Black-Holes C-R most certainly don’t have the inside elbow room that our entire universe contains. The principles are the same. The smaller individual Black-Holes C-R may have solid, liquid, or plasma filled active centers, and are thus unlikely to contain any advanced civilizations.
Just as our universe contains many billions of lesser Black-Holes C-R , it is conceivable that the Black-Hole C-R containing our universe may be a part of a yet larger mega-universe, further outside our visible range. Since we are insulated, isolated and closed-off from this outside range, with a likely Neutral Zone C-R buffering the barrier, and consuming any external matter or energy the yet larger Black-Hole C-R might ever consume, we are unlikely to ever know the answer (and if we did know the answer, it would almost have to be as a result of a universe-sterilizing catastrophic failure, or an “inward release” of our universe’s Neutral Zone C-R . If one thinks of the equipment damaging energy release from the confined protons experienced at the LHC during it’s opening weeks of testing, and multiplies that by a full universe’s worth of hot, even more sizzlingly-energetic protons, one gets the idea what might await our most “meddlesome” progeny in the billions of years to come.
The likelihood of the above scenario ever happening is highly unlikely, due to many built-in safety mechanisms inherent in our universe’s design. (We couldn’t even start such meddling until we reached the outer edges of our universe, which is a very long time off.) If is far and away more outrageous than even such trivial (single stellar system) energy-harnessings like a proposed Dyson sphere. This is where an advanced society harnesses or harvests (confines and captures) the entire stellar energy output of a sun, like ours, for their use and pleasure.
Such an arrangement could theoretically provide 10 billion humans each with the equivalent energy of our entire planet’s worth of solar energy for personal use. Even with a horribly inefficient recovery system, we could hardly imagine having that amount of energy at our beck and call. There might even be enough that some people would be willing to share their abundance with anyone in need. It might also drive up the value of such “useless” commodities as abundant cold or a shady spot.
Back to reality. I have heard much speculation on our universe, it’s size, it’s age, it’s ultimate fate, it’s seemingly illogical nature, and it’s ultimate un-knowability. I believe that the C-R theory has better answers, much more human friendly to clear understanding, and with a much better fit to the real world, as actually seen. I certainly would like to speak-up as an advocate for a return to common sense simplicity, and give humanity a better alternative to believe in, with a far brighter distant-future. After I return from a brief vacation, I will try to add-in illustrations to this blog.
I would like to cover restoring entropy in my next blog, and explain why our closed universe looks as “youthful and energetic” {barely a day over 13.7 billion years old} that the big bang supposes. I often cringe when I see specials on TV spouting such preposterous views on our universe which so clearly do not make sense, and do not agree with our daily experiences. I would like to champion a return to having Conservation of Energy as a fundamental pillar of physics, and not have it so clearly disregarded as modern thinking has gotten-away-with since at least 1929.
As always, your comments and questions are welcome.
This section of the blog, last modified June 22, 2009.