A TV program and a book made me decide, once and for all, that at the borders of the observable the laws of logic are no longer valid. Maybe they will be replaced there by other laws, which we don’t know (yet), but probably they will, if they exist, be beyond the scope of human capabilities to understand. For the time being we ‘ll have to live with ignorance about any systems, logic, or predictability in this world around the borders of observation.
When I read that an observation itself influences the behaviour of a tiny hardly observable particle, like if I observe a tree and make it suddenly appear at farther or nearer distance from me, just because of my observation, or when I read that half a particle, separated from the other half, influences the behaviour of the other half, even at a distance of billions of light years, then I try to understand that further research will be needed to explain these magical phenomena.
But there is more: take the cosmological “law” of Hubble. It assumes that objects in the universe are moving away from each other. This finding is based on the observation that the color of far-away galaxies shows a shift to red which can only be attributed to the fact that it moves from us, like the sound of a train shows a shift in pitch when it moves away from us standing along the railway (the “Doppler effect”). The farther away the galaxy, the more red-shift it shows, so the faster it moves from us. Hubble’s law says that the distance from the earth at which a galaxy is located, divided by the speed at which it moves from us, is constant. In other words, there is a linear correlation between distance and speed: the farther away a galaxy is located from us, the faster it moves from us.
We don’t talk here about miles or even parsecs (= the distance between Earth and Sun) but about millions of Megaparsecs, billions of light-years (a light year is the distance that light travels in one year). We talk about the borders of the universe, the borders of the observable things and events. The Andromeda galaxy, for instance, is located four million light-years away from us, and it moves towards us instead of away from us. This is “allowed” by Hubble’s law, because the distance to our own galaxy is too small (!), and gravity overrules Hubble.
So far, so good. We have to take into account that this knowledge about the universe is very, very recent. People like Einstein gave a boost to cosmology. Before him, we thought that the universe consisted of only the galaxy where we live in, our Milky Way, and in the nineteenth century we were, despite the invention of telescopes, still at about the same level as the ancient Arabs or the Greek (the Middle Ages saw a decrease in knowledge because the Bible was propagated as the ultimate source of all insights).
So the danger is exists that our scientists rely too much on a scientific construction that is built on too weak assumptions. Calculation and logical construction of formulas is patient, computers will always do their work, neatly and correctly according to the rules of mathematics and logic. But we already discovered that on cosmological scale, Euclidian (=traditional, generally understood and accepted ) mathematics don’t work, e.g. the shortest distance between points is, on cosmological scale, not the straight line between the two points, as we all accept it is. Don’t ask me why, I’m not a mathematician or cosmologist.
Now I’m approaching my point, my big question. There is a big anomaly in this story of far-away galaxies that move away from each other (and, according to another cosmological law, by consequence, also from us on Earth). In several publications that try to explain the findings of scholars to us lay-people, I have read that the farther we look into the cosmos, the farther we look into the past. So when I see the planet Mars, I don’t see Mars in its present situation, but in the situation it was twenty minutes ago. The image of Mars takes twenty minutes to travel from Mars to my eyes, at light speed. The same must hold for a galaxy at 10 billion light years away, or a galaxy at 10 million light years away.
Referring to Hubble’s law, scientists discovered around 1990 that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Note well, that the expansion speed already accelerates according to Hubble's law itself in a linear correlation with distance, but now it had been discovered that it also accelerates as a total, so Hubble's acceleration has to be multiplied by a certain factor. Up to then, Hubble’s law was helpful to reason that this expansion rate would be decreasing in time, because of the gravity force. Then there would be a period of balance, after which the universe would start to shrink, ending up in the “Big Crunch”. A nice, symmetrical theory which would explain for a periodic sequence of several universes one after the other: after the “Big Crunch” or maybe even simultaneously, there would be a new “Big Bang”. But now this whole beautiful theory had to be overhauled and replaced by the view on a completely dead and cold universe in the far future with extinguished stars (not stars anymore) moving away from each other, dark and not “aware” of each other, in an unimaginably big empty space without any light or whatever: the almost complete nothing would be achieved, absolute minimal temperature (zero degrees Kelvin) would rule everywhere. So this idea of an expanding universe is not the whole story, it’s also expanding at an accelerating rate. The scientists try to explain the aberration from the laws of gravity by introducing a new force, so weak, that it only works at cosmological scale. It’s more or less the opposite of gravity, it’s pushing objects away from each other.
But my point is: OK, so far so good, but if we are looking back into the past, don’t we have to conclude then that this accelerating speed also took place in the past? Why do cosmologists shout from the roofs that our universe “is expanding at an accelerating rate” when they observe this rate in situations that have been millions, billions of years ago? The closer we get to our Earth, the more recent observations we make, and we see that not that long ago, this speed of moving away objects and galaxies is gradually slowing down, neatly according to Hubble’s law. Preliminary conclusion: the universe is expanding at a decreasing rate, just the opposite of what cosmologists are concluding.
I said “preliminary conclusion” because we also must conclude that we cannot observe things or events beyond the border of the speed of light. We are not able to observe the here and now elsewhere, because of the speed of light, just like we are not able to hear the hammer fall on the pole the moment it hits the pole, when the pole is being hammered a few hundreds of meters away from us. We hear this a second or so after we have seen the hit. We don’t even see it the moment it hits the pole, but the time it takes for the image “pole-hitting hammer” to reach our eye is so extremely short that it’s not observable (although it exists). The only thing cosmologists can do is writing the history of the universe, and extrapolations to the future are doubtful. It’s already impossible to imagine a universe that is distributed evenly all around us, and that looks alike regardless of any location in the universe, with no observable centre or clustering of matter indicating a centre where the Big Bang could have taken place some 13 billion of years ago as the scientists have calculated with the aid of Hubble’s law.
I find myself alone in this question, I read about it nowhere . Everybody seems to take for granted what the scientists proclaim. Either I am struggling with a question just like an ignorant student who still has to see the light, or I’m just concluding something very simple, not by formulas and arithmetic, but by reasoning. But maybe there is a third explanation for my question, the one I referred to in the beginning: we are confronted with the borders of our observable world, and then all kinds of anomalies and illogical phenomena will appear. I think that’s the area where creation starts. Creation isn’t an event that took place in the past, it’s still going on, and we are trying to catch its mechanisms, but must admit we are restricted in our observation and calculation capacities. It’s hard to accept, but true.
When I read that an observation itself influences the behaviour of a tiny hardly observable particle, like if I observe a tree and make it suddenly appear at farther or nearer distance from me, just because of my observation, or when I read that half a particle, separated from the other half, influences the behaviour of the other half, even at a distance of billions of light years, then I try to understand that further research will be needed to explain these magical phenomena.
But there is more: take the cosmological “law” of Hubble. It assumes that objects in the universe are moving away from each other. This finding is based on the observation that the color of far-away galaxies shows a shift to red which can only be attributed to the fact that it moves from us, like the sound of a train shows a shift in pitch when it moves away from us standing along the railway (the “Doppler effect”). The farther away the galaxy, the more red-shift it shows, so the faster it moves from us. Hubble’s law says that the distance from the earth at which a galaxy is located, divided by the speed at which it moves from us, is constant. In other words, there is a linear correlation between distance and speed: the farther away a galaxy is located from us, the faster it moves from us.
We don’t talk here about miles or even parsecs (= the distance between Earth and Sun) but about millions of Megaparsecs, billions of light-years (a light year is the distance that light travels in one year). We talk about the borders of the universe, the borders of the observable things and events. The Andromeda galaxy, for instance, is located four million light-years away from us, and it moves towards us instead of away from us. This is “allowed” by Hubble’s law, because the distance to our own galaxy is too small (!), and gravity overrules Hubble.
So far, so good. We have to take into account that this knowledge about the universe is very, very recent. People like Einstein gave a boost to cosmology. Before him, we thought that the universe consisted of only the galaxy where we live in, our Milky Way, and in the nineteenth century we were, despite the invention of telescopes, still at about the same level as the ancient Arabs or the Greek (the Middle Ages saw a decrease in knowledge because the Bible was propagated as the ultimate source of all insights).
So the danger is exists that our scientists rely too much on a scientific construction that is built on too weak assumptions. Calculation and logical construction of formulas is patient, computers will always do their work, neatly and correctly according to the rules of mathematics and logic. But we already discovered that on cosmological scale, Euclidian (=traditional, generally understood and accepted ) mathematics don’t work, e.g. the shortest distance between points is, on cosmological scale, not the straight line between the two points, as we all accept it is. Don’t ask me why, I’m not a mathematician or cosmologist.
Now I’m approaching my point, my big question. There is a big anomaly in this story of far-away galaxies that move away from each other (and, according to another cosmological law, by consequence, also from us on Earth). In several publications that try to explain the findings of scholars to us lay-people, I have read that the farther we look into the cosmos, the farther we look into the past. So when I see the planet Mars, I don’t see Mars in its present situation, but in the situation it was twenty minutes ago. The image of Mars takes twenty minutes to travel from Mars to my eyes, at light speed. The same must hold for a galaxy at 10 billion light years away, or a galaxy at 10 million light years away.
Referring to Hubble’s law, scientists discovered around 1990 that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Note well, that the expansion speed already accelerates according to Hubble's law itself in a linear correlation with distance, but now it had been discovered that it also accelerates as a total, so Hubble's acceleration has to be multiplied by a certain factor. Up to then, Hubble’s law was helpful to reason that this expansion rate would be decreasing in time, because of the gravity force. Then there would be a period of balance, after which the universe would start to shrink, ending up in the “Big Crunch”. A nice, symmetrical theory which would explain for a periodic sequence of several universes one after the other: after the “Big Crunch” or maybe even simultaneously, there would be a new “Big Bang”. But now this whole beautiful theory had to be overhauled and replaced by the view on a completely dead and cold universe in the far future with extinguished stars (not stars anymore) moving away from each other, dark and not “aware” of each other, in an unimaginably big empty space without any light or whatever: the almost complete nothing would be achieved, absolute minimal temperature (zero degrees Kelvin) would rule everywhere. So this idea of an expanding universe is not the whole story, it’s also expanding at an accelerating rate. The scientists try to explain the aberration from the laws of gravity by introducing a new force, so weak, that it only works at cosmological scale. It’s more or less the opposite of gravity, it’s pushing objects away from each other.
But my point is: OK, so far so good, but if we are looking back into the past, don’t we have to conclude then that this accelerating speed also took place in the past? Why do cosmologists shout from the roofs that our universe “is expanding at an accelerating rate” when they observe this rate in situations that have been millions, billions of years ago? The closer we get to our Earth, the more recent observations we make, and we see that not that long ago, this speed of moving away objects and galaxies is gradually slowing down, neatly according to Hubble’s law. Preliminary conclusion: the universe is expanding at a decreasing rate, just the opposite of what cosmologists are concluding.
I said “preliminary conclusion” because we also must conclude that we cannot observe things or events beyond the border of the speed of light. We are not able to observe the here and now elsewhere, because of the speed of light, just like we are not able to hear the hammer fall on the pole the moment it hits the pole, when the pole is being hammered a few hundreds of meters away from us. We hear this a second or so after we have seen the hit. We don’t even see it the moment it hits the pole, but the time it takes for the image “pole-hitting hammer” to reach our eye is so extremely short that it’s not observable (although it exists). The only thing cosmologists can do is writing the history of the universe, and extrapolations to the future are doubtful. It’s already impossible to imagine a universe that is distributed evenly all around us, and that looks alike regardless of any location in the universe, with no observable centre or clustering of matter indicating a centre where the Big Bang could have taken place some 13 billion of years ago as the scientists have calculated with the aid of Hubble’s law.
I find myself alone in this question, I read about it nowhere . Everybody seems to take for granted what the scientists proclaim. Either I am struggling with a question just like an ignorant student who still has to see the light, or I’m just concluding something very simple, not by formulas and arithmetic, but by reasoning. But maybe there is a third explanation for my question, the one I referred to in the beginning: we are confronted with the borders of our observable world, and then all kinds of anomalies and illogical phenomena will appear. I think that’s the area where creation starts. Creation isn’t an event that took place in the past, it’s still going on, and we are trying to catch its mechanisms, but must admit we are restricted in our observation and calculation capacities. It’s hard to accept, but true.
