E. Cosmological Implications


This following and short Section E was drafted in 2007 but has been radically amended by the subsequent section F below inserted in 2011. I have left it in the website if only to demonstrate how my conjectures on cosmology developed over four years.

The proposals in section D above lead to a fascinating supposition that if the edge of the universe for whatever reasons starts to reduce its expansion rate, then light velocity would also reduce pro rata. If it then not only slowed but ultimately reversed then presumably light and all electromagnetic radiation would also duplicate this action and start to reverse back into their respective sources. The possible result would also be that time would also reverse, until everything was rendered symmetrical in the big crunch. The conclusion that the rate of expansion of the universe controls everything within it, via the factor of light velocity, would seem to be consistent with the prevalence of this fundamental great constant which appears everywhere in cosmology and physics. I also have been unable to avoid deriving a few conclusions by extrapolating the possibilities in section C4 above on how and why time might reverse, but these would appear so off the wall that I will exacerbate incredulity any further by attempting a description. But, there are some questions familiar to modern science which remain conundrums and on which Duplication Theory might be able to cast some light. One of these is Mach’s Principle, and another is the question of definition of inertia, although these are probably closely linked.

One of my earliest moments of surprise at scientific phenomena was when I first saw the giant Foucault’s pendulum in the hall in the Kensington science museum. When it was explained to me that this swung in harmony with the stars rather than the rotation of the earth, I was staggered, and wanted to know why this should be. Nobody could explain and from what I have read, it still seems to completely baffle and embarrass the experts, who are still without a simple explanation for what seems a very simple effect. This led me over the years to speculate that there is something terribly awry with our current understanding of the concept of inertia. When I then later made a further large assumption about the way in which the mass of the universe spreads out in the big bang process, it also occurred to me that there might be a surprisingly simple answer for the problem of Mach’s Principle.

A more immediate possibility is that of the question of the existence of dark matter that is currently exercising so many eminent minds in physics. There is a possible very simple explanation that suggests itself according to the conditions outlined above, although I am hesitant to put it forward as a possible answer due to it being so obviously far too simple. Briefly, if the big bang has an outward expanding singular edge at light velocity, then not far behind the radiation edge will be the first elements of mass formed in the universe traveling out at close to light velocity. If this were so then it also stands to reason (justified by observation of what happens in most explosions) that that there will be a significant amount of mass formed in that explosion, perhaps the majority of the mass involved in that explosion, traveling near the edge, and crucially such mass would be traveling at near light velocity.

From the Special Theory of Relativity, we know that mass traveling at near the singular velocity of light will appear to others moving at slower velocities, to have greatly magnified mass. If there were a possibility that this were so then the problem of the universe being about 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and 5% visible, could perhaps be resolved. No doubt a competent mathematician could run some figures on this possibility without too much trouble assuming he might first be half convinced that there was a small possibility of a result here. A positive result here might then lead to a possible simple answer of the unsolved problem of Mach’s Principle. I am surprised that the unavoidable principle here that a small mass is acted on by every other particle of mass in the universe seems to have been ignored by the greater body of physicists, presumably because they can offer no solution. If an answer to the conundrum were to be found then this might also lead to a possible alternative definition of the nature of inertia, which seems to me to be well over due for revision, as I have already mentioned, I have not been able to precipitate out any well formed prejudices of my own on this subject yet, other than it is a subject due for major reappraisal.

There is a possibility of redefining inertia in terms of Duplication Theory. Although I have not been able to produce anything specific or concise yet, the general gist of my deliberations is along the following lines. the more complex a structure, or the larger number of repeated equal intervals there are in three dimensions al space, the more will that structure increase its potential to interact or resonate with a similar structure in the same location, or relatively the same location, at some point later in time. That is a direct result of the theory, but by he same argument, the more complex such a structure, the more will it tend to resonate with itself through time in that one location. In other words the more complex it is, the more resistant it will be to being moved or accelerated to another location. This is inertia, or at least another way of demonstrating why increasingly complex or heavy masses will resist being moved away from one location or from their current line of motion. It is the quality of structures in space have to resonate with themselves both in the future and in the past that give mass its inertia. A further implication is that a single point of matter has no inertia until it is considered in conjunction with another point of matter, although quite what one does with this last observation I am not sure. It is the fact of a relationship coming into existence that gives mass its quality of inertia rather than any other notions of solidity we might have.

How this then fits in with gravitation is another matter, and I have always been uneasy with the fact that two separate masses are attracted together rather than repelled. It strikes me it would be much more consistent with electromagnetism and the strong and the weak nuclear forces, if gravitation were a repulsive force. This inconsistency causes me to consider that there is something about gravitation that we have completely failed to observe, and probably the main reason why it has not yet been reconciled mathematically with the three other forces. If my notion of the closed and finite universe were taken more seriously and the implications carefully considered, then I anticipate it should be possible for the mathematically gifted to come up with some interesting results. No doubt we shall have to wait for the astronomers to discover some new evidence on the subject of light velocity of the age or size of the universe before that happens. When it comes to cosmology it is not surprising that the major breakthroughs come from investigations of the astro scale.