According to conventional cosmology, the universe began with a bang.  The alleged expansion of the universe points back to that supposed explosive beginning, the so-called Big Bang.  Entropy, that incurable cosmic disease, portends the hypothetical time when there won't be any more energy gradients by which any thermodynamic process can operate.  It follows that all creatures and processes in the universe, at least those that rely on energy transfers, look forward to the eventual energy death of the universe.

That generally accepted cosmology has a certain anthropomorphic appeal:  birth, growth, decline, and death.  However, it lacks the elegance of simplicity.  A rational consideration of it suggests that it might be flawed.
0

•

The spectrum of light from distant stars has shifted toward lower frequencies.  The further away we are from a star, the more pronounced is the observed red shift.  We know that there's a red shift because we can observe it.  The accepted explanation of the red shift is that it's a Doppler effect.  However, there's a better explanation than that.

0

•

A consequence of the Doppler effect explanation of the red shift is the idea that all of the matter in the universe is flying apart, with us at the center, and that the more distant it is from us the faster it's moving away from us.  It's an inherently silly notion.  After several hundred years of research and study, we've circled right back to where we started.  We've progressed from being at the center of a spinning cosmos to being at the center of an expanding universe.

0

•

The idea that everything in the universe is flying apart suggests the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.  However, calculations of the age of the universe, using data obtained from the Hubble telescope, suggested that the age of the universe is about 8-12 billion years.1  Sadly for the Big Bang theory, a typical estimate of the age of a star is 15 billion years, which makes many stars appear to be older than the universe.  How those stars managed to survive the cataclysmic Big Bang is only one of the problems that arise from the discrepancy.  Where they existed before the Big Bang is another such problem.  Why they were there at all, before the beginning of the universe, is yet another.  You get the idea.

0

•

There's also the problem of the missing mass.  That is, 90% of the mass that the theoreticians expected to exist in the universe couldn't be found.2  I don't know why they expected that particular amount of mass but they previously speculated that it was tied up in the form of dark bodies, dwarf stars, or perhaps dark nebulae, all of which were merely difficult to observe.  Research using the Hubble telescope didn't reveal the expected accumulations of such matter.

0

•	Supernovae can radiate, for a few days, with more power than an entire galaxy.  I'm not aware of any satisfactory explanation, in the generally accepted cosmology, for such power.

0

•	What keeps all of the matter in the universe from eventually ending up in a black hole?

0
It seems clear to me that we need a better cosmology.

Page 1

I believe that the conventional cosmology begins from erroneous assumptions.
0

•	There isn't any reason to assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect.

0

•	If the red shift isn't a Doppler effect, then there isn't any reason to assume that the universe is expanding.

0

•	If the universe isn't expanding, then there isn't any reason to assume that it had an explosive beginning.  The Big Bang is a silly notion.

0

•

There isn't any reason to assume that the processes that we've observed in the universe are the only processes by which the universe operates.  Easily observable processes are more likely to be observed than others.... 0 Vry's Law No observation, however simple, can be made except by those predisposed to make it. —Vry, in Helliconia Spring by Brian W. Aldiss 0 ... but they're not necessarily more likely to exist than others. 0 Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (a simplified restatement by somebody)3 In any closed mathematical system there are an infinite number of true theorems which, though contained within the original system, cannot be deduced from it. —Kurt Friedrich Gödel (April 28, 1906 - January 14, 1978)

0

•	The generally accepted cosmology relies too heavily for its justification on complex mathematical calculations.  Such calculations have been inappropriately elevated to the status of proof.  Mathematics doesn't prove anything.  It only describes things.4

0

•	The generally accepted cosmology is way too complicated.

0
The generally accepted cosmology is a good example of the answers only serving to further complicate the questions.  Complex and obscure theories such as extra dimensions, curved or warped space, relativistic effects of gravity, and an ever-expanding universe are nothing more than extravagant and unsuccessful attempts to accommodate bad assumptions.  The only purposes that they serve are to complicate the technical jargon and to discourage understanding.  Of course, that does serve to enhance the job security of the scientists.

Page 3

To understand the universe, we ought to start with the universe itself, and not with rigorous mathematical calculations and complex theories.  Understanding should proceed from observation, from imagination, and from intuition.  It can be formalized theoretically and mathematically afterward, if that's even desirable, by people with the talents and mentality best suited to those jobs.

The first thing that's needed is a different set of assumptions.  They must allow simpler explanations.  Such assumptions might provide a different view of the universe.  Here's such a set of assumptions.
0

•

The red shift is exactly what it appears to be.  That is, the light has decreased in frequency as it has traveled.  The further it has traveled, the more it has decreased in frequency.  Thus, the further away a star is, the more its spectrum has shifted.  That's a lot simpler explanation of the red shift than assuming that the stars are all flying away from us.

0

•	The geometry of space is Euclidean.  By that, I mean that distances are linear, without warps, curves, discontinuities, or other peculiar phenomena.

0

•	There are processes in the universe whereby the universe will continue to exist forever.  The universe didn't have a beginning.  It won't have an end.  It is eternal.

0

•	The universe doesn't have any physical limits of extent, that is, boundaries of distance.  It is infinite in three linear, mutually perpendicular directions.

0

•	Gravity doesn't distort space.  It only deflects the direction of travel of matter.  If it also deflects the direction of travel of photons, then reconsider your understanding of photons.

0
These assumptions lead to a much simpler and saner cosmology.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 5

There are two opposite and parallel processes by which the universe operates and by which it is maintained forever.  Those two processes are gravity and entropy.

It's generally believed that entropy is irreversible, inevitable, and that it will eventually cause the universe to coast to a stop.  However, the interaction between gravity and entropy prevents that from happening.  The way in which it happens isn't obvious.  I originally deduced it, many years before I began writing this essay, as part of my speculations about the red shift.  However, the process fits neatly into the simple and sane cosmology that I envision.

Here's how gravity reverses the energy degradation that's caused by entropy.  As photons travel, they lose energy along the way.  A photon cannot lose kinetic energy because it must travel at the speed of light.  The only kind of energy that a photon can lose and still remain a photon is the energy that we perceive as its frequency.  Such a loss of energy therefore results in a reduction in the frequency of the photon.  We see that reduction in frequency as a red shift.  The energy loss events are spontaneous, like radioactive decay.  They have an extremely low probability of occurrence.  However, given a potentially infinite number of objective years of travel time, the energy loss events can and do occur.⁵  I don't claim to understand the mechanism.  I'm happy to leave that as an exercise for the physicists.⁶

Each such energy loss event results in the transformation of energy into an extremely small particle of matter.  Each time that such an event occurs, the energy of the photon is reduced and a particle of matter is deposited in space.  Such particles of matter are obviously quite small.  Each one corresponds to the lost energy that we perceive as the reduction in frequency of the photon.

As the red shift occurs over vast intergalactic distances, particles of matter are strewn thinly along the photon's path.  Gravity is the force that is inherent in the particles.  It's the force that brings them together into pebbles, planets, stars, and galaxies.  The deposition of those particles by photons and their accumulation by gravity is the process by which the consequences of entropy are reversed, so that the energy death of the universe never occurs.

Entropy is the other of the two opposite and parallel processes by which the universe operates and by which it is maintained forever.  Within stars, matter that was accumulated there by gravity is converted back into energy and dispersed throughout the universe, where photon decay can convert it back into matter again.  The cycle endlessly replenishes the eternal universe.

Page 7

I've asserted that the universe is three dimensional, linear, infinite, and eternal.  Given such a simple universe, the night sky ought to be white, not black.  Here's the reason.  If photons don't decay then, given my assertions, photons have to travel until something gets in their way.  In that case, regardless of which direction you look, you're looking in the direction of a star, however distant it might be.  You ought to be able to see the light from that star.  Thus, the entire sky, whichever direction you look, ought to be entirely blanketed by a background of stars.  The night sky ought to be white.

There are at least two things that can explain the black sky that we observe at night.  Both of those things are consequences of the red shift, as I understand it.  First, there might be material in space, between you and any star toward which you're looking.  The further away the star is, the more of that material there might be between you and it.  If the star is far enough away then there might be so much of the material between you and it that the material completely blocks your view of the star.  What's in the way are the tiny particles of matter that were deposited by decaying photons.  That also explains the missing mass that the scientists couldn't find, way back at footnote 2 on page 1.

The second reason that the night sky is black instead of white is that the further a photon travels, the more particles of matter it deposits.  The more particles it deposits, the further its frequency is reduced.  Eventually, its frequency is reduced to the point where the next particle of matter that it deposits reduces its frequency to zero, and it ceases to exist.  The night sky is black because there's a limit to how far photons can travel.

Those two phenomena define the visual horizon of the universe, which we perceive as a black background.  We cannot see beyond that visual horizon.  Within it, we can see the bodies and the materials that reside within the universe.  Beyond it, the universe continues without end but we cannot see it.  However far our descendants might travel, they will never approach the visual horizon.  It will move as they move, remaining always at the same distance from them.  It is eternally unattainable.  Thus, any observer will always be at the exact center of the observable universe.

There's another fascinating consequence of my cosmology.  Given infinity in a Euclidean universe (see page 5), each and every point in the entire universe, without exception, is at the exact center of the universe.  Think about it.  No matter which direction you point, there's exactly as much of the universe in that direction as there is in any other direction.  So, you're at the very center of the universe.  It gets even better.  The exact same thing is true for anybody, anywhere in the entire universe.  No matter which direction he points, there's exactly as much of the universe in that direction as there is in every other direction.  So every creature, anywhere in the universe, is at the exact center of the universe.  An infinite Euclidean universe consists entirely of nothing but central points.  The ancient practitioners of the geocentric cosmology were closer to the truth than they ever imagined, but in a way that they could never have imagined.
 
 
 

Page 9

What keeps all of the matter in the universe from eventually falling into a black hole?  After all, the inability of energy to escape from a black hole prevents the dispersal of energy.  Thus, by the mechanism of black holes, gravity traps matter and energy.  That prevents entropy from functioning.  It appears to interrupt the eternal processes of the universe.  There must be some way for energy to get back out of a black hole or, given the fact that the universe has been here forever, all of the matter and energy in the universe would by now be in a black hole.  It's obvious that we need to consider black holes.

What would the universe look like to a black hole?  By considering gravity, I can answer that question intuitively.  Gravity is a conservative force.  By that, I mean that energy is conserved in a gravitational process.  Something thrown up comes back down to the same elevation with the same kinetic energy with which it was thrown, discounting of course losses due to friction, collisions with other objects, and so forth.  However, kinetic energy lost to other objects or substances will be acquired by those objects or substances.  That energy will appear as kinetic energy when those objects or substances fall.  So, on the average, energy isn't lost when something is thrown up and then falls back down again.  Therefore, the material that erupts from the "surface" of the body within a black hole will fall back to that surface, on the average, with exactly the same amount of energy that it had when it erupted.  Thus, looking up, a black hole would "see" the universe as a perfect reflector.  This leads to an interesting intuitive model of a black hole.

Consider a black hole to consist of a spherical reflector facing inward with a "kernel" at its exact center.  As an idealization, regard the kernel as having a diameter in the conventional sense and the reflector as having an effective radius at some distance above the center of the kernel.  Of course, the kernel might not have a definite surface and the reflector is only a convenient way of thinking about the effect of the gravity field around the black hole but just bear with me.

Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we can consider the material in the black hole, whether it's matter or energy, to be just material.  That material can then occupy one of two regions.  It can exist within the kernel or it can exist above the kernel, in the region between the reflector and the surface of the kernel.

In fact, material will be continually erupting from the surface of the kernel.  That's true because the kernel will be hot.  Whether or not there's any nuclear process at work is irrelevant.  Energy can't escape from the black hole.  Therefore, the black hole will contain all of the energy that it had when it became a black hole plus all of the energy that it accumulated from the captured debris that fell into it after it became a black hole.  Some of that debris might be stars or possibly even entire galaxies.⁷  The thing will be hot.

Page 11

Density in the kernel will be high.  Density near the reflector will be low, relatively speaking.  There will be a density gradient between the two extremes.  The average density of the entire black hole will depend on the total mass of the black hole as compared to the effective volume of the black hole, out to the reflector.  The total mass will be nearly constant but will increase with time as debris falls past the reflector from the outside.  The effective volume will vary according to the effective diameter of the reflector, as determined by the interaction between the kernel and the reflector.

Given sufficient time, and the black hole has infinite time at its disposal, a random fluctuation might result in more material going up than down at some instant.  If more material than usual erupted from the surface, a slight and temporary reduction in the size of the kernel would result.  The total mass of the black hole would be temporarily distributed over a larger than normal volume, resulting in a slight reduction in the average density of the black hole.  That would reduce the steepness of the gravitational gradient and allow material to rise higher before it fell back to the kernel.  In terms of my simple model, it would increase in the effective radius of the reflector.  It's reasonable to speculate that such a little increase in the amount of material going up might be followed by a little increase in the amount of material going down.  In that case, a greater than normal amount of material would impact the surface of the kernel shortly afterward.  The effect would be to increase the average density of the kernel.  That would increase the steepness of the gravitational gradient and pull the reflector in by a small amount, increasing the average density of the black hole.

Given enough time, the pulses might not completely taper off to the normal random condition.  Instead, they might establish a permanent oscillation.  Here's why.  Each time that there's a larger than average amount of material moving out, the reflector will retreat from the kernel.  That will make it easier for material to move out, away from the kernel.  That results in more material than normal falling back toward the kernel, some time later.  Each time that there's a larger than average amount of material moving toward the kernel, the reflector will collapse toward the kernel.  That will increase the impact of material hitting the surface of the kernel, compressing the kernel.  That will result in more material being thrown upward, a short time later.  A permanent oscillation might be established in which the average density of the black hole would oscillate drastically between two extremes.  The effective diameter of the reflector would also oscillate.  Such an oscillation might be stable.  It might continue for eons and be completely invisible from outside of the black hole.

One possible consequence of such an oscillation is that, eventually, the reflector might fall so close to the surface of the kernel that it would momentarily attempt to dive below the surface.  Since it's a perfect reflector, nothing can get past it.  Therefore, it couldn't dive below the surface.  Instead, it would tend to compress the kernel.

Page 12

Eventually, the reflector might be blown so far above the surface of the kernel, and allow so much of the material in the black hole to momentarily disperse into such a large volume, that the average density of the black hole would become significantly reduced.  The gravitational gradient might be so slight that it would be unable to contain some or all of the rising material.  That's the same thing as saying that the reflector would become less than perfect, allowing at least some of the material to escape from the black hole.  If enough material escaped, if the black hole lost sufficient mass, then the black hole wouldn't have sufficient mass to maintain its reflector.  If that happened, then the reflector would be destroyed.  All material that was moving upward at greater than escape velocity would escape.  All that would remain of the black hole would be a quantity of material that lacked sufficient energy to achieve escape velocity.

This is all entirely intuitive.  I'm happy to leave the rigorous development of the scientific explanations to the scientists.  However, even in its intuitive version, it's as good an explanation of a supernova as any that I've heard.  It explains how a supernova can outshine an entire galaxy.  It also provides an explanation of how all of the material of the universe doesn't eventually end up trapped in a black hole.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 13

The cosmology that I envision is, of course, entirely intuitive.  I don't regard that as a deficiency.  I don't see any reason to assume that understanding must be based on complex theories, devious assumptions, or excruciating mathematical acrobatics.  That approach results more in egotism and job security for cliquish specialists than it does in understanding.  I believe instead that the universe is fundamentally understandable and entirely accessible to all of us.  Any theory too complex for ordinary people to understand is a flawed theory.  Simplicity in science, as in other things, is a great virtue.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 15

Here's another possible explanation of the universe as we see it.  Maybe we're inside of an oscillating black hole.  If we're in the expansion part of the oscillation, then that would explain our perception that the universe is expanding.  It would be because the black hole, of which we're a part, is expanding.  If the reflector is moving outward at the speed of light, or nearly so, then that might explain the black sky that we see at night.  It would also provide an argument in favor of the universe, that is, our situation inside of the black hole, having a beginning and an end.  Those would be the beginning and the end of this current oscillation.  Just a thought.

Here's a variation on the thought.  Maybe the reflector of our black hole disintegrated fairly recently, as such things go.  Maybe everything that we see in the universe is the expanding debris that has recently escaped from our erstwhile black hole.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 17

anthropomorphism ...  n.  Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.  —anthropomorphic  adj. —anthropomorphicallyadv.

Page 19

ANTONYM:  inelegance.

Page 20