"COSMIC PERSPECTIVE"

by Harold W.G. Allen

Physics Abstract

In the process of reconciling evolution with the concept of a Purposeful creation, valuable insight was obtained into such phenomena as gravitation and radiation propagation. Gravitation is inferred to possess a "dual" nature - with attraction upon the small-scale gradually giving way to repulsion upon the large-scale. A viable distance/repulsion formula is introduced which is capable of explaining expansion of the universe as well as resolving many "missing mass" problems now vexing astrophysicists. The strange paradox arising from the Michelson-Morley light experiment is seen to have a simple and logical solution without abandoning the "law of addition of speeds." Subsequently, the Big Bang creation model is shown to be in error, and all previous objections to a Steady-state cosmology are revealed to be unfounded.

INDEX

Introduction
Big Bang versus Steady-state Cosmology
Gravitational Interaction
Propagation of Radiation
The "Small Bang" Scenario
The Distribution of Quasars
Cosmological Constant
Veron + 2001 Quasar Catalog
Conservation of Mass-Energy
The Microwave Background
Our Proximity to the Cosmic Edge
The Enigma of Galactic Redshifts
Calibration of Hubble's Constant
Summary

Introduction

The very complexity of nature has caused science to be divided into multiple fields of inquiry. This specialization is not without a price. While obviously necessary in order to obtain deeper insight into a specific phenomenon, it is also true that a full solution may encompass many seemingly diverse fields, or even have its roots buried in the realm of philosophy! It is hereby contended that sufficient clues are now available to link much of the physical aspect of creation with the Principle or Motivation upon which it is surely based.

During my attempt to reconcile our astronomical universe with the premise of a Purposeful Creation, it was found that the path clearly led to a viable explanation for the force of gravitation. It soon became evident that accepted views of radiation propagation have been in error following an unfortunate misinterpretation of the classical Michelson-Morley light experiment of 1887. Yet another discovery was a promising distance/repulsion (D/R) formula of gravitation, which was capable of explaining the observed expansion of the universe. This same formula was also able to resolve a number of "missing mass" problems currently vexing astronomers - revealing such problems to be largely a case of "missing physics" instead of one of unseen matter!

The ensuing "New Cosmology" is bound to have a profound impact upon physicists and astronomers alike. Not only is the popular Big Bang cosmology ruled out by available evidence, but all objections to a revised Steady-state creation model are seen to be without foundation.

Highlights of this research, much of which is expounded in my books, Cosmic Perspective and New Cosmology, follows:

Big Bang versus Steady-state Cosmology

To understand current preference for a Big Bang cosmology, it is perhaps instructive to ponder why earlier versions of the Steady-state principle - a sole alternative - were doomed to failure. First, there was no physical explanation for the expansion of the universe. Next, the spectacle of injecting an endless amount of new matter into an already infinite universe posed a genuine dilemma and a violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy. Further objection arose with discovery of the microwave background, which was interpreted as the vestige of a primordial fireball announcing cosmic birth. Yet another blow seemed to come from evidence provided by the radio telescope. Confronted with an apparent "surplus" of radio sources with distance, Steady-state supporters were at a loss for an explanation. Big Bang proponents, on the other hand, were quick to argue that this increase was to be expected if the superdense version is valid, since in probing the depths of space man is viewing objects as they were in the remote past when these sources were presumed to be closer together and less scattered by expansion. Faced with such logic many cosmologists abandoned the idea of Continuous Creation.

However, to an unbiased investigator the Big Bang model is also beset by grave contradictions. For instance, since it is generally agreed that the life of a quasar is much less than the implied age of the universe, one cannot avoid wondering why nearby quasars are still shining brightly if they were all formed about the same time as others whose light would reveal them to be in existence more than a dozen billion years ago. Likewise, some sections of the universe appear to be far older than others. An example of this would be the great clouds of hydrogen gas revealed in the spectrum of quasar 3C 273 by the Hubble Space Telescope. Separated by distances of several hundred million light-years, these gas clouds are almost certainly of comparatively recent origin and pose an embarrassment to Big Bang cosmology. (See "A Quasar Lights Up the Universe," Astronomy, September 1991.) Furthermore, the remarkably uniform "honeycomb" pattern in the distribution of superclusters, since noted by astronomers, is clearly contrary to what might be expected upon the basis of a Big Bang explosion. (See "Large-scale distribution of galaxies at the Galactic poles,"Nature, February 20, 1990.) Still another objection to an explosive origin is the incredibly homogeneous flux of the microwave background. Once considered strong evidence in support of such a model, it is highly questionable that condensation of galaxy clusters could occur in the limited time allowed by any Big Bang. (See "The Big Bang Never Happened," by Eric J. Lerner.)

More recent condemnation of Big Bang cosmology is to be found in a study of type Ia supernovae. To the astonishment and consternation of many scientists, it has now become necessary to postulate a negative side to gravitation in order to account for observation. (The highly respected journal, Science, cites the discovery of a "cosmological constant" as "the most important scientific advance of 1998.") What has caused this sudden conundrum among certain members of the scientific community? As reported in a number of astronomy journals, studies of distant type Ia supernovae (which are of remarkably similar luminosity) have revealed that expansion of the universe is not slowing down with the passage of time. (This slowing of cosmic expansion is a firm requirement of traditional viewpoint, which would consider gravitation to be solely an attractive force propagated indefinitely into space.) Instead, supernovae research has disclosed that the universe is expanding at a rate consistent with the premise that if you double the distance you also double the speed of recession. In turn, this must indicate a steady repulsive factor and rule out any form of Big Bang cosmology, leaving us with only one alternative - namely, an Eternal or Steady-state universe featuring the principle of renewal through continuous creation. (It so happens that a precise mathematical formula, describing in some depth this newly inferred "cosmological constant," already exists and is to be found in chapter three of Cosmic Perspective!)

Still more recent evidence against the Big Bang creation model has surfaced in an observation by NASA’s orbiting Chandra X-ray Observatory. Revealed in an image of the distant galaxy 3C295 (about 5 billion light-years away), the intense X-ray flux (several times greater than the entire spectrum of radiation emitted by our own galaxy) is ascribed to the presence of a supermassive central black hole. It is reported that within a radius of about a million light-years from 3C295 there are "more than 100 galaxies and enough material to make 1,000 more." It is also stated that "the cloud and its cluster of galaxies are among the most massive objects in the universe." (Astronomy News Web site announcement, November 23, 1999.) What does such incredible celestial density signify? Quite simply, it exhibits all the characteristics of a "Small Bang" site as expounded in Cosmic Perspective! This object is totally against the dictates of Big Bang cosmology, since any concentration of gas and dust of this magnitude would surely have been among the very first to have condensed completely into stars and galaxies. Instead, we have before us matter of incredible density which has failed to condense even after roughly 10 billion years following a supposed Big Bang explosion! On the basis of the "New Cosmology" we are most likely viewing a "Small Bang" creation site which may possibly have an antiquity as recent as a hundred million years or so. It may be freely predicted that many more such primordial creation sites will be found with future observation.

Of fundamental cosmological importance, and to the consternation of many Big Bang proponents, a Johns Hopkins News Release (July 7, 2004) has revealed a rather disconcerting picture of galactic evolution.  It is reported that, in a survey of some 300 high-redshift galaxies, a surprising number of massive and fully mature galaxies have been found to exist only a few billion years after a supposed beginning of the universe!  This unexpected evidence is totally against traditional cosmological viewpoint and evolutionary theory, which invariably features the formation of only small and immature galaxies at such high redshifts.  As stated in the news release, astronomers have now discovered "highly developed galaxies that just shouldn't have been there, but are."  Needless to say, this latest observation is quite compatible with dictates of the "New Cosmology," which predicts a certain mixture of massive/older galaxy clusters interspersed with numerous smaller/younger galactic systems.

Gravitational Interaction

Although science has succeeded in formulating certain laws whereby gravitation exerts its influence, there remains much to be clarified. Why, in fact, do all material particles attract each other? How is this force able to express itself across vast distances? By what speed is this influence propagated?

In the course of attempting to reconcile biological evolution with the assumption of Cosmic Purpose, it became evident that there must be a continuous creation of infinitesimal matter forms in the supposed vacuum of space - from whence a hierarchy of increasingly larger corpuscles must subsequently arise through the process of fusion. It also followed that the initial size of this creation had to be closely related to the ratio in the strength of the electrical charge of a positive/negative pair of particles versus their gravitational influence, since it is logical to suspect that the mass-energy locked up in a proton nucleus does not exceed that of the halo by an exorbitant figure. (Hence, theory implied that such a "maximum" particle is comprised of some 10⁴⁰ of the most elementary quanta.) It was further presumed that the phenomenon of gravitation is due to a reciprocal exchange of these same infinitesimal quanta - at basically the speed of light - by the various material particles comprising our physical universe. (The speed of light may be viewed as the "escape velocity" of minute quanta from association with some larger and more fundamental structure.)

Proceeding upon the basis of a universal sea of infinitesimal quanta, it is to be inferred that whatever communion a material body may receive from an external source, so it must promptly relinquish an equivalence of energy. (Were a body able to retain every quantum it encounters it would, of course, tend to grow indefinitely.) In general, ejection of "surplus" quanta will be in the opposite direction from whence received. This rather selective emission may be presumed from a rapid rotation of the primary body, with its tiny core embedded in a halo of minute quanta, and in conjunction with the premise that no physical interaction can take place in zero time. Carried momentarily in the flow of a swiftly rotating halo, an invading quantum will be allowed to escape and resume its original course once rotation has swept it to the point where the primary no longer poses an obstruction. At this stage we appear to have an explanation for the noted wave characteristics of matter, with such oscillation being attributed to periodic absorption and emission of quanta of varying size.

Gravitational attraction itself may well hinge upon acquisition of what might be termed "neutral quanta." That is to say, following an inevitable collision of quanta there will prevail a brief instant when respective motions are neutralized to some extent, or even canceled altogether as in head-on collisions among quanta of similar size. When these quanta are in turn struck by other miniature projectiles - from the direction of an attracting mass - they will be absorbed into the halo of the attracted particle without the customary force of impact. Whirled about the primary, this "fuel" is subsequently ejected at the velocity of light, and in much the opposite direction from whence it was received - imparting a recoil action sufficient to propel the particle toward the attracting body! (A predominant energy flow, from an attracting source, will assure that the bulk of this "fuel" will be swept toward the attracted body from the direction of prevailing mass.)

Upon this premise we can now see why it becomes more difficult to accelerate material bodies moving at high speed - simply because any act of applying external force must reflect the inability of gravity to propagate at full efficiency when this communion is limited to the velocity of light. However, rather than be misled by traditional relativistic notions of increasing mass with extreme motion, it will be acknowledged that it is really a case of declining gravitational efficiency with increased relative motion, as such movement makes it harder for quanta to catch up to rapidly receding bodies. The popular but highly nebulous idea of mass becoming infinite at light speed is seen to be quite illogical. (Indeed, radiation is propagated at just this speed and nobody has ever claimed infinite mass!) In effect, science has tolerated a misstated formula which gives the right answer for the wrong reason. (Actually, a body moving at extreme speed in a gravitational field will incur a slight increase of mass as it is unable to eject encountered quanta in zero time.)

Yet another adjustment to Newtonian mechanics is indicated by theory. There is reason to believe that the reaction time of quanta (encountering a material particle) is related to the factor of size - in the sense that more massive quanta will demand more immediate expulsion. Accordingly, it may be deduced that larger quanta will be exchanged in such a way as to impart a repulsive thrust, as expulsion occurs before there is time to be carried very far in the rotary flow of a particle's halo. Hence, it is to be inferred that gravitation possesses a "dual" nature, with the repulsive aspect generally masked by a preponderance of energy so exchanged as to cause attraction. It is only when great distances are involved that this latent ability of gravitation to repel is able to manifest itself, where it eventually does so in rather dramatic fashion: our expanding universe!

Since the rate of cosmic evolution requires expression in terms of physical expansion, it was necessary to advance theory to the effect that repulsion originates as a force equal to the square root of the value of the proton. Upon this basis repulsion is seen to radiate, from the immediate vicinity of a proton nucleus (about 1.5x10^-13cm), as a negative force some 10²⁰ times weaker than the positive influence of gravitation. It must also be presumed to increase with separation in the form of a twofold increase for every fourfold increase of distance, effectively neutralizing all attraction at a distance of roughly 17 million light-years. Beyond this point galaxies will be caused to engage in cosmic expansion - exactly what is observed.

Additional evidence in support of this D/R aspect of gravitation - which is totally against the dictates of any Big Bang - may be found in the "bubble-like" arrangement of galaxies that has been noted by astronomers. (See "A Slice of the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, March 1, 1986.) Contrary to expectation, most galaxies tend to reside toward the edges of "shells" or "bubbles" - with near voids at their centers! This is precisely the pattern to be expected should gravitation manifest a "dual" nature. It is quite incomprehensible in terms of traditional cluster dynamics based solely upon gravitational attraction, which should clearly feature central concentrations of mass.

The "missing mass" enigma, currently confronting astronomers, may well be resolved upon the premise of this same distance/repulsion (D/R) scale. For years it has been a mystery as to why two methods, customarily used to determine the mass of a gravitationally bound cluster of galaxies, should give very contradictory results. One procedure, known as the "virial theorem" technique, depends on measuring the motions of member galaxies and relating this information with the principle that such relative motion is a function of mass. Alternatively, by computing individual galaxy masses through their rotation, simple addition will yield the total mass of the cluster. Without exception, a discrepancy of some 10 to 20 times is typically found in favor of a higher mass determination by the first method. Recognition of a long-range repulsive factor, inherent in an exchange of infinitesimal quanta, affords a most plausible explanation for this puzzle. Prevented from pushing each other apart by the superior binding force of gravitational attraction, this repulsive aspect must reveal itself in terms of enhanced galactic motions. In short, it is translated into the "surplus" kinetic energy which appears to imply additional mass. The issue is thus seen to be one of missing physics, rather than missing mass. (Similarly, excessive motion of galactic extremities may be explained without recourse to postulating the presence of unseen mass.)

By way of a recent update of information, relevant to gravitational theory, an interesting observation has come to light with regard to NASA’s Pioneer space probes. (See "A Space Mystery," Newsweek, October 4, 1999.) Contrary to expectation, the two probes (moving outward in nearly opposite directions) are slowing down at a rate which cannot be explained upon the basis of current laws of gravitation. Although this discrepancy would appear to be only one part in ten billion, the actual modification of gravity needed is likely of the order of one part in 170,000, at the distance of the Pioneer probes. The additional ingredient may be ascribed to the inferred distance/repulsion aspect of gravitation. The big question which arises is why the probes are slowing down instead of accelerating. To grasp why this is so we must consider the cumulative effects of what might be termed a fourth expression of gravitation - namely, a time lapse factor in which it is conceded that no physical reaction can take place in zero time. Since the force of gravitation is believed to propagate - at close to the speed of light - from atom to atom, it follows that a massive body will resist acceleration more than a tiny object. (The difference in mass between the Earth and a Pioneer probe is of the order of some 10²².) Consequently, it will be seen why any assessment of gravitational strength, based upon planetary or stellar bodies, can never reflect the true influence of gravitation upon a much smaller object such as a space probe. Invariably, it will be slightly more efficient with respect to the smaller object, and the "principle of equivalence" law, long cherished by physicists, will have to be modified accordingly.

Incidentally, rather graphic confirmation of this principle is given in chapter four of Cosmic Perspective, under the subtitle of "The Microwave Background." In such instance the cumulative effects of this very time lapse phenomenon are revealed to be at work upon the large-scale, as gravitational repulsion is unable to accelerate entire galaxies of stars with the same degree of efficiency as tiny microwave corpuscles.

Propagation of Radiation

Insight into the nature of gravitation leads inescapably to a major revision of current views of radiation propagation, as such corpuscles must interact with the myriad swarms of infinitesimal quanta that are assumed to populate space. Should radiation attempt to pass through a given region in excess of the velocity of light, it will encounter resistance which swiftly reduces its motion to that of light speed: "escape velocity" of gravitational quanta. Conversely, passage at less than light speed must result in absorption of quanta with reduced impact - from whence acceleration is achieved through subsequent ejection at the velocity of light. For all intent and purpose, radiation will be propagated at the speed of light relative to wherever it happens to be at any instant of time!

We are now in a position to understand an otherwise surprising result of the Michelson-Morley light experiment. When it was noted that light always arrives at a constant velocity - independent of the motion of source or receiver - it set the stage for a profound revolution in physics. Unfortunately, events took a rather bizarre turn. Instead of seeking an explanation in some as yet unexplored property of space, physicists sought to circumvent the problem by dismissing the possibility that an unknown influence could act to regulate the speed of radiation. Thus it came to pass that the distance of a receding source (in light-years) was held to depict the number of years that such light has spent in transit - regardless of the additional distance covered during time of passage. The mystery of how radiation could leave an object and - simultaneously - approach all others in its line of flight at the same speed (irrespective of whether they are approaching or receding), remained just that: an obscure mystery.

Confronted with the spectacle of quasars with redshifts indicative of recession velocities in excess of light speed, astronomers have for some years been using a relativistic formula which reduces such motion to more plausible levels. What seems to have escaped notice, however, is that this formula really constitutes a surreptitious reinstatement of the "law of addition of speeds" - a valid law of nature from which radiation was supposedly exempted following a misinterpretation of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment!

Due to cosmic expansion there must prevail a steady outward pressure tending to push radiation toward the periphery of the universe. An important consequence of this outward streaming of space will be a bending of radiation received from all directions not in harmony with this overall flow. (Click here to view Fig. 1.) In essence, there will appear to be a general deflection of images toward the center of the universe!! (As we shall see, this prediction affords an excellent test of theory through a study of quasar distribution.)

In addition to this "cosmic arcing" of radiation, yet another instance of bending may be deduced as a result of gravitational repulsion, which acts to push radiation away from a massive galaxy when it passes within a certain range. However, this more localized "galactic arcing" must ensure that whatever radiation does reach us will do so from a somewhat different angle - namely, from a direction closer to the intervening galaxy. Thus a noted concentration of quasars - in angular proximity to major galaxies - is really an illusion produced by D/R arcing. (Click here to view  Fig. 2.) But since a displaced image must come from surrounding regions, it is expedient to examine outlying areas in expectation that they will show a dearth of quasar images. An excellent correlation of theory with observation is indeed forthcoming in the research of several astronomers (notably Arp and Burbidge), who have unwittingly provided strong confirmation of the premise of a D/R factor.

With fresh insight into the propagation of radiation, it now becomes possible to eliminate the Big Bang model on additional grounds. Redshift measurements of distant receding objects are seen to express both true velocity of recession and the distance by which source and receiver has increased during light transmission - a factor requiring assessment in terms of extended transit time.. Since quasars have been detected with redshifts beyond Z=4.0 (equivalent to a transit time of about 72 billion years), it follows that we have already observed light with an antiquity some tens of billions of years greater than what is allowed by any Big Bang! (Click here to view  Fig. 3.)

Not only does this lengthy passage rule out an explosive origin of the universe, but it provides an explanation for a supposed "surplus" of radio sources with increased distance. Instead of our telescopes probing equally into space and time, at extreme redshifts it is a matter of far more time than distance. Hence, it is really a case of observing substantially more than one generation of creation, within the context of a Steady-state universe, rather than detecting more sources in a smaller volume of space!

The "Small Bang" Scenario

Proceeding upon the premise of a continuous creation of elementary quanta, in the voids of space, it remains to be explained how a needed condensation into evolved material particles is accomplished. With "repulsive" quanta converging from surrounding galactic systems, a chain reaction effect will arise as these larger corpuscles interact with newly created quanta. In due course, a deluge of minute matter forms will be caused to flow toward central meeting points between the superclusters of galaxies - producing supermassive black holes that will facilitate fusion into mature particles. It is surely more than a coincidence that the energy, expended in this condensation, is precisely equal to that required to push an equivalence of mass apart and create an expanding universe.

By postulating but two opposed states of rotation on behalf of initial quanta, it is possible to account for the positive/negative aspect of matter. If, in addition to opposed equatorial rotation, we also infer opposite polar rotation, the end result will be two overall rotary flows that are totally unaffected by any angle of approach. (The various particle spins, theorized by physicists, may be thought of as merely secondary traits superimposed upon a more basic and much faster motion.) When two unlike rotary flows are brought together their halos will move in harmony with each other at the point of interaction. In contrast, two bodies of like rotation will oppose and clash. Considering these opposites of harmony and disharmony, it is not difficult to associate them with the effects of attraction and repulsion, respectively. In essence, the electrical charges of matter may be ascribed to oppositely swirling halos of tiny quanta enveloping a far denser nuclear body. In all probability, this powerful short-range force is simply a highly condensed rotary flow of gravitational energy - perhaps, small wonder why past failure to explain gravitation should also coincide with the inability to define electricity. (A neutral particle may be depicted as one in which the halo is so disrupted as to negate or cancel any specific rotary flow.)

The issue of particle size or mass must surely hinge upon motion- rotary or otherwise - in terms of the velocity of light, which poses a boundary between association or isolation. Hence, as vast swarms of minute quanta converge toward a developing black hole creation site, they will enter into fusion by reason of favorable relative motion. Upon reaching the electron/positron level, rotation will have grown sufficient to forbid further incorporation of quanta. This introduces a new and comparatively limited round of matter-building, in which electrons and positrons are combined to produce protons only - a biased preference which may be presumed due to the angular momentum of the rotating central black hole, as it acts to restrict the angle through which fusion may occur. Again, extreme rotation must serve to eventually terminate the evolutionary process.

As rotation of the innermost region of such a creation site approaches the speed of light, so negation of gravitation will result in the central regions being pushed to escape velocity. Prevented from dispersing at an early stage, by the sheer weight of inflowing matter forms, intense outward pressure will continue to build up. The inevitable outcome must be a stupendous explosion which blasts all but a core fragment into the depths of space - whence these ejected particles will later condense to form a supercluster of galaxies!

Although on a vastly higher scale than a supernova explosion, widely varying circumstances will mask visible signs of a cataclysmic Small Bang. With a mass some trillions of times greater, combined with a much more favorable ratio of relative motion between dispersing matter and radiation, gravitation is able to incorporate all but a minute fraction of escaping quanta into stable material particles. (The formation of primordial helium, hitherto presumed to originate in a Big Bang explosion, is now seen to have a logical explanation in the concept of "Small Bangs.")

The peculiar nature of quasars may well be resolved upon the basis of Small Bang vestiges. With the passage of time the luminosity of such an object will drop more than a hundredfold, eventually ending up as a massive central galaxy similar to M87, which was likely a quasar in our region of space some 10 billion years ago.

The Distribution of Quasars

Since we see quasars as they were billions of years ago, we also see them as appearing in positions distorted by the curvature of their light as it is influenced by expansion of the universe. To date, a weakness of all quasar surveys may be ascribed to the relatively small number cataloged, and to the somewhat less than ideal homogeneity with regard to the manner in which some quasars have been found. Nevertheless, while such unfortunate bias has yet to be negated, and is likely to persist until completion of a more thorough celestial search, it is extremely doubtful if the overall scenario will be seriously affected by current limitations. What is presently available is actually tantamount to a typical sample poll, from which a great deal of useful information may be obtained concerning the structure of our dynamic universe.

Upon analysis of a comprehensive quasar survey, published by the European Southern Observatory, a most instructive pattern is noted. Containing a total of 2,720 members (of at least absolute magnitude -23.0), it is at once evident that the vast bulk of quasars reside in two major clumpings. (Click here to view Fig. 4 and click here to view Fig. 5.) Not only are these two concentrations situated in exactly opposite directions of the sky, but a highly conspicuous shortage is observed at right angles to such aggregations - a distribution which is totally against the dictates of the popular Big Bang cosmology! Moreover, when the most luminous of these quasars are considered as a group, it is revealed that an overwhelming proportion of high-redshift/high-luminosity quasars are centered about the constellation of Sculptor in the Southern Hemisphere - a region which is also seen to be essentially devoid of high luminosity quasars of low redshift! In contrast, the opposite hemisphere is characterized by a mixture of high and low redshift quasars.

Although it might be thought that the center of the universe must lie in the midst of the high redshift clumping, this is most certainly not the case. Upon the basis of a Small Bang/Steady-state cosmology, and an eccentric cosmic location, the central regions of our universe should display a wide variety of redshifts. On the other hand, the nearby edge is bound to be deficient in brilliant low-redshift quasars - simply because there is less room for new and highly luminous quasars to be formed! Furthermore, a concentration of high-redshift objects (toward the immediate edge) is to be expected by reason of the virtual entrapment of radiation, which allows us to view multiple generations of quasars with greatly extended light transit times. Accordingly, it will be concluded that the cosmic center is probably located near the coordinates of R.A. 13 hours and Dec. +30 degrees. The nearby cosmic edge is likely to reside in the general vicinity of R.A. 1 hour and Dec. -30 degrees, very possibly within the borders of the constellation Sculptor.

Quite inexplicable in terms of any Big Bang interpretation, the mystery of a dichotomous quasar distribution is therefore seen to have a perfectly logical solution. It is clearly much more than a mere coincidence that the congested central core of the universe is accompanied by a pronounced right angle shortage - a phenomenon invariably produced by the prescribed bending of extragalactic light. The prodigious edge clumping, with a preponderance of high-redshift quasars, has a ready explanation upon the premise of our eccentric cosmic location and a revised concept of radiation propagation. Instead of visualizing strongly redshifted radiation as having come from the nearest outskirts of the universe many billions of light-years away, it is really our own Milky Way which has done most of the traveling! Moving outward more than half the radius of the universe since the formation of our galactic system, we are only now encountering the light of long extinct quasars which has literally hung suspended - almost in a state of total entrapment - close to the cosmic edge for enormous periods of time. When we observe high-redshift quasars, with light transit times of tens of billions of years, we are actually viewing very ancient images which might well be described as celestial fossils - the real objects having ceased to exist eons before our Earth was born. It may be presumed, in fact, that - in the direction of the nearby edge - all quasars (and most galaxies) are nothing more than ghostly apparitions of long extinct phenomena!

In assessing the distribution of quasars, over the expanse of the heavens, it is most instructive to plot luminosity versus redshift. If we adopt a lower limit of absolute magnitude -29.0 and a redshift minimum of Z=2.5, we find a total of 65 qualifying quasars in the aforementioned European Southern Observatory catalog. Upon plotting these high luminosity objects on opposing hemisphere charts, it is found that a preponderance (41 to 24) is located in the direction of the inferred nearby edge. In point of fact, almost 2/3rds of these exceptional objects are situated in an area comprising only 1/3rd of the heavens. This translates to a ratio of more than 5 to 1 in favor of an unhomogeneous distribution. (When luminosities of at least -30.0 are substituted, the ratio is increased to 6.5 to 1.)

Of equal significance is a pronounced shortage of low-redshift quasars of high luminosity residing in the vicinity of this same nearby cosmic edge, where they are quite conspicuous by their absence! Most abundant elsewhere, they are almost totally absent in this one particular direction. Needless to say, an explanation is demanded for yet another strange anomaly. An embarrassment to Big Bang cosmology, this peculiar shortage will now be conceded to arise by reason of our highly eccentric cosmic location, as reduced volume of space acts to impose a rather drastic restriction as to where luminous quasars of recent vintage may be formed. In this general direction of the sky, it must surely follow that the last light of many neighboring quasars has already passed us en route to more central regions of the universe.

Valuable insight into this most biased distribution may be obtained through analysis of the quasar sample following its division into a series of successively higher redshift bins. Expressed in multiples of Z=.200, and with an edge group member considered to be one residing in this same 1/3rd portion of the heavens, we are enabled to construct a truly amazing picture. (Click here to view Fig. 6.) With virtually zero difference at Z=.200, substantial excess luminosity (away from the edge) is quickly encountered and observed to peak in the vicinity of Z=.400 - from whence the luminosity differential is seen to proceed in the opposite direction! Effecting a complete reversal between Z=1.80 and Z=2.00, a progressive surplus of intrinsic luminosity (in the direction of the edge) will be noted to characterize the remainder of the higher redshift bins. Nor is this variation one of minor consequence. From Z=.400 to the limit of detection, the combined bin differential average translates to a brightness factor of some 360% - a factor which is direction oriented! Even when modified appreciably, by considering only the total average luminosity of all quasars within this same spread of redshifts, we are left with an overall luminosity surplus that is 174% higher in the direction of the nearby edge. Most assuredly, this striking pattern is not at all compatible with an explosive Big Bang origin.

A “Cosmological Constant”

Impressive evidence against Big Bang cosmology is forthcoming from a study of type 1a supernovae. This type of supernova is produced when a white dwarf star acquires a critical amount of gas from an evolving binary companion. When the mass of the degenerate dwarf star reaches some 1.4 times that of our Sun, it will literally explode with predictable violence. Since the factor of luminosity is a function of mass, such explosions are of remarkably similar brilliance. As a result, this allows astronomers to use these objects as a reliable means of determining distance quite independent of redshift.

To the astonishment and consternation of many scientists, it has now become necessary to postulate a negative side to gravitation in order to account for observation. (The highly respected journal, Science, cites this discovery of a “cosmological constant” as “the most important scientific advance of 1998.”) What has caused this sudden conundrum among certain members of the scientific community? As reported in a number of astronomy journals, studies of distant type 1a supernovae have revealed that expansion of the universe is not slowing down with the passage of time. (This slowing of cosmic expansion is a firm requirement of traditional viewpoint, which would consider gravitation to be solely an attractive force propagated indefinitely into space.) Instead, supernovae research has disclosed that the universe is expanding at a rate consistent with the premise that if you double the distance you also double the speed of recession. In turn, this must indicate a steady repulsive factor and rule out any Big Bang cosmology, leaving us with only one alternative— an Eternal or Steady-state universe featuring the principle of renewal through the process of Continuous Creation.

It is somewhat ironic that the very concept of a “cosmological constant” (or D/R factor), which Einstein later considered to be his ‘greatest mistake,” should now be given the credence which it has always deserved. Hopefully, such observation will serve to bring cosmologists back to reality and to finally bury, once and for all, the idea of a Big Bang creation.

Incidentally, the premise of a D/R factor leads to yet another prediction capable of verification through observation. By reason of a steady outflowing of quanta from the vicinity of the cosmic center, there is bound to be a tendency for newly forming galaxies to adopt a common orientation of their axis of rotation— namely, one whereby a galaxy’s polar axis will tend to be aligned in a center/edge direction.

This preferred orientation may be ascribed to the way in which the flow of D/R energy impacts a roughly spherical cloud of condensing gas. Should cloud rotation become elongated in a contrary direction, D/R pressure will act to impose repulsion in a conflicting manner to extremities of such elongated systems. In effect, it will make it more difficult for galactic rotation to commence with axis perpendicular to the cosmic center/edge. However, if the axis of rotation was to line up with the cosmic center/edge, there would be no opposing influence. Hence, it is to be inferred that a preponderance of elliptical and spiral galaxies should exhibit traces of this common axis of rotation— in spite of any later influence imposed by interaction with companion systems. (This prediction has since been verified by observation. See the Astrophysical Journal Letters, April 1, 2006.)

Veron + 2001 Quasar Catalog
(23,760 brighter than -23.00)

This most recent quasar catalog is seen to represent an 8.7-fold increase over that of the earlier (1985) listing previously studied by the author. As mentioned before, it is apparent that a definite bias exists in the compilation of quasar candidates, both with regard to search patterns and to search methods. (In particular, there is a temptation to concentrate unduly upon regions which had already been proven to be rich fields for discovery.) Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that such listings do convey an informative picture of quasar distribution and other relevant characteristics— even upon the rather limited basis of a simple Northern and Southern Hemisphere comparison. See the following statistics:

Of fundamental importance, it is at once noted that a strong dichotomous clumping of quasar images is not only substantiated in this new catalog, but it is virtually double that which was revealed in previous studies! (Such an opposed clumping is a firm requirement of the "New Cosmology.") In turn, this more intensive study of the "edge group" region has resulted in detection of a disproportionate number of fainter quasars— thereby distorting statistics in favor of reduced average luminosity in the direction of the nearby edge. (Also a victim of distortion is statistics relating to high-luminosity/low-redshift quasars, which will favor an increased ratio of these objects to be found in the vicinity of the edge.) When allowance is made for biased observation, it will be seen that previous indications of enhanced intrinsic luminosity (toward the edge) are still quite valid.

By way of illustration, and upon the basis of this newer sample, it may be noted that there are some 446 to 284 quasars (of absolute magnitude -28.00 or higher) situated in the direction of the nearby edge (R.A. 0,1,2 hr and - Dec) as opposed to a similar region of space toward the cosmic center (R.A. 12,13,14 and + Dec.). This translates to a 1.57 to 1 ratio of higher intrinsic luminosity in the vicinity of the inferred edge of the universe.

Thus it will be concluded that this latest quasar sample does not pose a contradiction with respect to earlier analysis of a somewhat smaller listing. Hopefully, in the foreseeable future, astronomers will come to realize the importance of performing a more homogenous and unbiased survey of the heavens in their quest to compile a truly realistic picture of quasar distribution in terms of location, redshift and luminosity.

Conservation of Mass-Energy

We are now in a position to remedy a major weakness inherent in previous versions of Steady-state cosmology. Of itself, the principle of continuous creation violates a most fundamental law of physics involving conservation of mass-energy - a concept whereby the total value of cosmic matter forms is viewed as a fixed commodity. The simple truth emerges to the effect that it is absurd to postulate a creation factor without an equal and opposing annihilation factor! To grasp why this must be so we need only to ponder the obvious contradiction arising from ideas of continuous creation and a universe of infinite dimensions. How can a universe exceed infinity? Clearly, continuous creation is a process which must transpire within the confines of a universe finite in physical dimensions. Moreover, there is but one viable explanation as to how this limitation may be imposed upon matter - namely, through disintegration at the cosmic edge!

Insight into the mechanism of this inferred annihilation factor may be found in certain drastic consequences which arise from a mandatory reinstatement of the "law of addition of speeds." For instance, at the very boundary of the universe, where expansion is equal to 100% of the speed of light, the outward flowing of quanta will precisely cancel any inward motion on the part of radiation - causing it to become trapped indefinitely in a cosmos which is infinite in time! As a result of this cumulative effect, a "shell of energy" - of positively staggering intensity - is bound to exist at the periphery of the universe, totally annihilating entire galaxies of stars and planets as they strike this impenetrable shield at the velocity of light! (So concentrated is this fateful energy field that it may, in fact, be likened unto an encircling black hole!) Quite invisible to the most powerful telescope, such a prodigious energy barrier must surely reside at the cosmic periphery, where it acts to balance creation in rather dramatic fashion.

Confirmation of this momentous prediction is already at hand in the aforementioned quasar study, in which there is seen to be a marked tendency of intrinsic luminosities and extreme redshifts to be a great deal higher in the direction of the nearby edge. Inasmuch as the energy output of a quasar is bound to diminish with age, as it slowly evolves into a massive galaxy, it follows that higher luminosity is also a strong indication of youth! The obvious conclusion is that something must be preventing normal aging of quasars in this one region of the sky. Invariably, it must be interpreted as a selective effect imposed by premature disintegration at the boundary of our physical universe - from whence an equivalence of mass-energy is subsequently reincarnated as infinitesimal quanta in the great voids of space.

The Microwave Background

Considering the remarkable uniformity of the microwave background, it is clear that what is needed is a ubiquitous production mechanism - one more characteristic of the absolute zero of outer space than of the extreme temperature and utter chaos of a primordial fireball. The most probable scenario to emerge likely involves elementary matter forms strewn throughout the expanse of space, where the chief source of energy which may be encountered is the larger "repulsive" quanta responsible for expansion of the universe. In the last analysis, the microwave background reflects the average temperature of matter in the cold isolation of space!

While much remains to be explored in depth, it may be inferred that quanta of a certain size range will infrequently come together in frigid space, where they are able to remain in association long enough to enter into a degree of fusion. Although only a small fraction may congeal into such radiation, what is produced will be propagated back and forth among components of the intergalactic medium. Thus a sea of microwave radiation may be seen to arise through creation in the vast cradle of space, rather than originating in a superdense explosion.

Since passage through a uniform field of microwave radiation must give rise to a Doppler shift, measurements have been made in order to determine the direction of our motion through space. It has been reported that the temperature is slightly higher in the direction of the constellation Leo; while it is less by an identical amount in exactly the opposite direction. This has been interpreted to mean that we are moving toward Leo at about 600 km/s. What may well be wondered, in view of quasar evidence to the contrary, is why a study of these objects should indicate movement in almost exactly the opposite direction!

To resolve this paradox it is essential to contemplate certain aspects of cosmic expansion in terms of the "New Cosmology." Inasmuch as absorption and emission of quanta cannot occur in zero time, it is most logical to infer that a massive galaxy will resist acceleration more than individual material particles. Indeed, in order to impart motion to vast star systems, it is necessary for the impetus of D/R quanta to be transferred from atom to atom - a somewhat less than instantaneous process as galaxy components are held together by gravitational attraction. It follows, that this time lag will enable outward bound radiation to have a slight advantage over similar corpuscles attempting to propagate toward us from the direction of the nearby edge. In effect, any time lag in our Milky Way's outward acceleration is tantamount to reducing the Doppler shift of incoming quanta (from the vicinity of the cosmic center) - thereby explaining why the microwave background radiation is observed to be a trifle warmer toward the center of the universe. (Incidentally, this "time lag" principle affords a most plausible explanation for a somewhat vexing astronomical peculiarity, in which the smaller of equidistant companion galaxies is always revealed to exhibit a slightly higher redshift. In essence, the stronger flow of "repulsive" quanta from the more massive system acts to push its radiation along with greater efficiency.)

The small discrepancy between microwave observation and quasar distribution, as a means of determining our orientation with respect to the cosmic center and nearby edge, would appear to have a ready answer. It may well be ascribed to residual orbital momentum stemming from the Small Bang which gave us birth. It would, in fact, be rather surprising if no vestige at all remained of the strong initial rotary motion of matter - now comprising our Local Supercluster - following its origin as expelled hydrogen (and helium) atoms from the region of a rapidly swirling black hole creation site.

Foremost in our minds must be the question of Earth’s present location in space, as it rushes toward oblivion at the periphery of the universe. The task confronting us is to assess the actual degree of retardation (or time delay) imparted to radiation reaching us from remote sources situated in the direction of the nearby cosmic edge. If this key factor can be determined, with reasonable certainty, it should be possible to calculate our proximity to this impenetrable boundary as a function of such distortion.

Two basic approaches to this problem appear feasible. One method consists of examining a sample of highly elliptical galaxies (in the direction of the edge), so oriented that one end is pointed toward this fateful boundary. By reason of the near entrapment of radiation— at the cosmic edge— the side closest to the edge will invariably display an artificially enhanced redshift. In turn, this must result in an apparent increase of galactic rotation— hence "excessive" mass— for the system. If one is able to properly estimate the true radial distance traversed by radiation, from various reference points on such samples, calculation should reveal the degree of time retardation characterizing the very region of space that we now occupy. Once a determination is made of this key ingredient, relatively simple analysis of appropriate celestial phenomena will afford an answer to the momentous question as to how much time remains before our planet’s rendezvous with destiny.

A second method of determining this vital retardation factor involves a study of cosmic edge galaxy associations featuring discordant redshifts. By making a more realistic assessment of the true radial separations, among components of such gravitationally connected systems, it becomes feasible to deduce the degree of time delay imposed upon radiation as it attempts to propagate against the outward flow of D/R quanta. Although a measure of uncertainty is bound to be inherent in estimating genuine radial separations, it will at least afford a "ballpark" idea of the distortion factor involved. Armed with this crucial factor, one may likewise determine our proximity to the cosmic edge.

While acknowledging that a study of many discordant redshift associations will be required in order to reduce error, it so happens that suitable examples already exist— examples which will allow us to proceed with confidence upon both fronts.

By a stroke of irony two galaxies, appearing visually to be in close contact but long considered to be widely separated in radial distance, may well provide the means to deduce this key time retardation factor. Situated in the immediate direction of the cosmic edge, NGC 450 appears to be a typical spiral galaxy viewed almost face-on and associated with a much smaller elliptical system known as UGC 807. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) The smaller galaxy is inclined to us at an angle, with one end of the elongated companion pointing in the general direction of the nearby edge. What has served to convince mainstream astronomers that this optical pair is widely separated in space is their very different redshifts. While NGC 450 has a redshift of some 1,863 km/s, UGC 807 is clocked at 11,587 km/s. Traditional interpretation of recession velocity into distance would translate into 111,780,000 LY and 695,220,000 LY, respectively, based upon a universe of some 18 billion light-year radius. Thus a separation of about 583,440,000 LY is generally believed to exist and to rule out all possibility of physical interaction.

Yet another strong argument, implying a separation measured in hundreds of millions of light-years, is that of rotational velocity. In compliance with a firmly established law of physics, galaxies of high mass must invariably rotate at higher speeds. The rotation rate of NGC 450 is of the order of 145 km/s; while the observed figure for UGC 807 is some hundreds of km/s— indicative of a much larger and more massive galaxy! Seemingly, therein lies further crushing evidence against the pair residing anywhere close to each other. In short, the rotational velocity of UGC 807 implies a massive system which would have to be hundreds of millions of light-years more remote in order to appear visually only 1/3rd the size of NGC 450. Moreover, should we place the pair in close association, with mass/size/luminosity commensurate with rotational velocity, UGC 807 would be so big that it could literally swallow NGC 450. Subsequently, in the eyes of the vast majority of astronomers, there was no question but what the two galaxies must be widely separated in space.

However, with knowledge of how radiation is really propagated through space, along with insight into a more realistic cosmological model, it is now prudent to revisit this intriguing pair of galaxies. Once it is realized that an enormous distortion of redshifts exists in the vicinity of the cosmic edge, by reason of the near entrapment of radiation, the stage is set for a major discovery. Indeed, it becomes feasible to refute the two principal arguments against close association of NGC 450 and UGC 807— while also allowing us to make a reasonably accurate determination of our distance to the nearby cosmic edge, and of the key retardation factor prevailing in this region of space.

Crucial to a resolution of this factor is an estimation of the true radial separation of this optical pair. The UGC 807 system must now be recognized as a rather small elliptical galaxy, possibly no more than 10,000 LY across at its greatest extremity, and with a radial separation from NGC 450 that could be no more than a few thousand light-years. In assessing this issue of excessive rotational velocity, it may be computed that a galaxy with the corrected size and mass of UGC 807 should exhibit a rotation speed of only 75 km/s, instead of the measured hundreds of km/s that astronomers would use to infer a much higher mass/luminosity/size figure. Tending to complicate matters somewhat is the direction of rotation of UGC 807, which could be either toward or away from our line of sight. If toward us, then to determine the factor of enhanced redshift we would have to add 75 km/s to any observed figure. If intrinsic rotation is away from us, this 75 km/s must be subtracted to give the system’s true rotation.

Proceeding upon such a basis, it is informative to examine statistics relating to the noted excess rotational velocity of UGC 807, a study of which was published in The Astrophysical Journal, 271 (pages 556-563), in an attempt to disprove Arp’s contention of discordant redshifts. In two plates (#1808 and #1813) multiple redshifts were obtained over the expanse of the elongated galaxy. In one plate there are 27 measurements, which range from 11,297 km/s (NE corner) to 11,705 km/s (SW corner). The other plate contains 24 measurements, ranging from 11,268 km/s (NE corner) to 11,689 km/s (SW corner). The average redshift differential translates to some 415 km/s— increasing steadily from NE to SW. What is so significant about this study is that it is the SW end of the galaxy which points almost directly toward the nearby cosmic edge—precisely what must be inferred from principles inherent in the "New Cosmology," which requires radiation closer to the edge to be the most affected. Indeed, had this increase proceeded in the opposite direction, it would have posed a definite contradiction to theory!

In pursuing an attempt to deduce a radiation retardation factor, from a revised distance/time estimate of the radial transit of radiation reaching us from opposite edges of UGC 807, it is perhaps in order to consider the redshift differential (either 490 km/s or 340 km/s) in terms of the velocity of light (300,000 km/s), and in conjunction with the inferred radius of the universe (18 BLY). Thus such a delay factor would receive expression as the redshift differential divided into the velocity of light and multiplied by the radius of the universe divided by an estimated radial light transit distance.

By way of example, should we tentatively postulate a radial light transit distance of 100 LY, we may derive the following statistics (rounded figures) for this crucial radiation time delay factor:

490 km/s (+ rotation) = 300,000 delay factor
340 km/s (- rotation) = 200,000 delay factor

Needless to say, a radial light transit differential, for the UGC 807 system, will change statistics in a non-linear manner— essentially, following the curve (1+Z = square root of C+V over C-V) that is mandated by reinstatement of the "law of addition of speeds." (Note: a reduction in this time delay factor, by increasing the radial light transit distance across UGC 807, must translate into increased distance from the cosmic edge.) Our present location, relative to the cosmic periphery, may be found by dividing the radius of the universe by this same radiation time delay factor.

Should we be so bold as to adopt a retardation factor of the order of 300,000, this would tend to imply that our immediate region of space is likely situated some 60,000 LY from the black hole barrier so believed to enclose the universe. Alternatively, should we substitute a delay factor of 200,000, it would be indicative of a current location some 90,000 LY from the nearby impenetrable cosmic boundary. Hopefully, a more precise figure will be forthcoming with additional study.

Armed with what might well be considered a rather simplified but plausible estimate of the degree of the near entrapment of radiation, in the region of space under consideration, we may now contemplate the true radial separation between NGC 450 and UGC 807. Inasmuch as it will be seen to have taken 583 million years for this radiation to traverse a distance that has been reduced enormously by a deduced radiation delay factor, it is expedient to put such a factor to test. Upon the basis of a retardation factor of some 300,000, this would imply a true radial separation between these two galaxies of about 2,000 LY. By the same reasoning, a delay factor of 200,000 would give a figure of roughly 2,900 LY, etc. (While a separation of only two or three thousand light-years may seem a trifle close, in view of the degree of observed physical interaction, it must be understood that gravitational influence is the product of both proximity and time of proximity, as well as mass. In this instance, there is every indication that the two systems have only recently approached each other.)

The immediate task now before us is to see if this deduced retardation factor leads to realistic separations with regard to other physically connected galactic systems featuring discordant redshifts and residing in the vicinity of the nearby cosmic edge.

In pursuing a study of such examples, one especially promising association involves NGC 7603, a large Seyfert galaxy with a smaller companion system evidently attached by a curving filament of luminous stars and gas. The redshift of the larger galaxy is indicative of a traditional recession velocity of some 8,700 km/s (Z=.029); while that of the smaller galaxy is 17,000 km/s (Z=.057).Upon the basis of traditional views of radiation propagation, a radial separation of some 504,000,000 light-years is indicated— clearly an absurd distance for two systems displaying every sign of past contact! Application of a radiation retardation factor of 300,000 would merely require a radial separation between NGC 7603 and its companion of approximately 1,700 LY in order to equate theory with observation. Clearly, such an adjusted separation is certainly far more plausible than what has long been accepted by mainstream astronomers.

Rather startling observational evidence, concerning the NGC 7603 system, has come to light via the research of Halton C. Arp, a leading astronomer and cosmologist. His observations afford a new and somewhat serendipitous opportunity to deduce our present location with respect to an inferred fateful edge of the universe. It also affords a way to put the theorized radiation retardation factor to a crucial test.

Located within a relatively narrow band of stars and gas, extending from NGC 7603 (Z=.029) to its smaller companion (Z=.057), lie two much higher redshifted spherical objects of Z=.243 (Object #2) and Z=.391 (Object #3). Although it is tempting to assume that these two recently detected objects are simply distant quasars, whose images have been displaced by a combination of "cosmic arcing" and "galactic arcing," there are very convincing arguments to the contrary.

A most rational assumption for the luminous bridge of stars and gas, which connects the two galactic systems, is to presume a grazing passage (some millions of years ago) of the smaller galaxy with NGC 7603. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) During this encounter a considerable quantity of stars and gas were drawn from the extremities of the large Seyfert galaxy. What needs to be explained, upon the basis of any quasar interpretation of the two high redshift objects, is just how they both managed to lie within this relatively narrow band. Even allowing for "arcing" of their radiation, it is quite against the odds that their images should appear embedded in the midst of such a narrow connecting stream of stars and gas.

One promising alternative to a quasar interpretation of Object #2 and Object #3 is to think in terms of globular clusters. Inasmuch as such spherical clusters of stars are to be found in great numbers orbiting major galaxies, it is reasonable to assume that— in the process of a grazing passage— one or more of these clusters would be caught up in the companion’s gravitational grip and caused to pursue a trajectory consistent with the plane of interaction. Furthermore, it is logical to presume enhanced luminosity on the part of any globular cluster so affected, either by reason of mergers with other clusters or through incorporation of nearby stars and absorption of interstellar gas.

In this event, a viable explanation would seem to exist for the observed redshifts of Object #2 and Object #3. The fact that #3 is the more redshifted object is not nearly as peculiar as might first be thought, since it would simply require a higher acceleration toward the direction of the nearby cosmic edge. With the passage of time, a relatively small initial difference of velocity and distance will lead to a large magnification of redshift and time of light transit. (The closer we are to the cosmic edge, the more intense this magnification will be— literally reaching a factor of millions, or even billions, for an observer situated at the very periphery of the universe!)

On the whole, it may well be concluded that the globular cluster scenario is likely to prove the most credible solution for the two anomalous objects which have been detected within this narrow band of luminosity extending from NGC 7603 to its smaller companion galaxy. What now requires urgent investigation is how the trajectory of this connecting band— which shows surprisingly little variation of redshift over most of its length— can be utilized to make a reasonably accurate determination of our proximity to the cosmic edge.

The very fact that there is found to be so little deviation of redshift, along the band of connecting luminosity, is a strong indication that the grazing event with NGC 7603 must have transpired at a rather flat angle to our line of sight. As we shall see, this deduction does not bode well for the long term prospectus of our region of space— including that of Earth! It is more than a little disturbing to note that such comparatively low implied radial separations are characterized by so high a redshift differential. (To the extent that a smaller radial separation is indicated, so closer proximity to the cosmic edge must be inferred.)

Assuming a radiation retardation factor of 300,000 or 200,000, the following statistics (rounded figures) may be derived relating to true radial separations of the four anomalous objects in question, of which there are six possible relationships:

NGC 7603 (Z=.029) and Companion (Z=.057)
    Radial separation is Z=.028, or 504,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 504,000,000 divided by 300,000 = 1,680 LY If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 2,520 LY.

Object #2 (Z=.243) and Object #3 (Z=.391)
    Radial separation is Z=.148, or 2,664,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 2,664,000,000 LY divided by 300,000 = 8,880 LY. If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 13,320 LY.

Companion (Z=.057) and Object #2 (Z=.243)
    Radial separation is Z=.186, or 3,348,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 3,348,000,000 LY divided by 300,000 = 11,160 LY. If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 16,740 LY.

NGC 7603 (Z=.029) and Object #2 (Z=.243)
    Radial separation is Z=.214, or 3,852,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 3,852,000,000 LY divided by 300,000 = 12,840 LY. If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 19,260 LY.

Companion (Z=.057) and Object #3 (Z=.391)
    Radial separation is Z=.334, or 6,012,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 6,012,000,000 LY divided by 300,000 = 20,040 LY. If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 30,060 LY.

NGC 7603 (Z=.029) and Object #3 (Z=.391)
    Radial separation is Z=.362, or 6,516,000,000 LY (uncorrected distance). If retardation factor is 300,000, then their true radial separation is: 6,516,000,000 LY divided by 300,000 = 21,720 LY. If this factor is 200,000, then such separation would be 32,580 LY.

In rounded figures, radial separation statistics (in light-years) for the NGC 7603 system, based upon other possible radiation retardation factors, follows:

Thus it would appear that evidence now points to a rather truncated future for mankind— conceivably, focusing upon a figure of some 60,000 or 90,000 years? (If a retardation factor of 400,000 or more is substituted, it would imply that we have only 45,000 years, or less, remaining.) It is to be expected that study of a larger sample of associated galactic systems—displaying discordant redshifts and residing in the direction of the nearby edge— will reduce present uncertainty. (Indeed, once a sufficient number of such connected systems have been subjected to analysis, any complications posed by our inability to determine intrinsic direction of rotation may then be ignored through the process of averaging.)

Due chiefly to the courageous efforts of astronomer Halton C. Arp, whose work has generally been ignored by short-sighted members of the scientific establishment, a wealth of information has been made available concerning discordant redshifts. Upon the basis of theory inherent in the "New Cosmology," it is perhaps in order to list a few additional examples of distorted redshifts of galaxy associations residing in the vicinity of the cosmic edge.

NGC 1232
Located at R.A. 3 hr. and Dec. -20 degrees is a large spiral galaxy (redshift 1,776 km/s) known as NGC 1232. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) At the end of one of the spiral arms lies a small companion system with a redshift of 6,552 km/s. Although there is impressive evidence that they are physically connected, mainstream astronomers have persisted in their view that they must be separated in space by distance fully commensurate with traditional redshift interpretation— namely, by a radial separation of some 287,000,000 LY. We can now see how the radiation retardation factor has served to drastically distort redshifts. In this instance, a factor of 300,000 would translate into a radial separation of some 960 LY; while a factor of 200,000 gives 1,430 LY — clearly a far more realistic scenario than what would otherwise be the case. (Incidentally, a logical explanation is forthcoming for a second apparent companion to NGC 1232. Displaying a redshift of some 28,000 km/s, this compact object would seem to shine through the disk of the nearby galaxy, which should serve to redden it considerably. To the surprise of many astronomers, it is observed to be quite blue in color! There is now every reason to suspect that it is indeed a distant background system which, due to myriad encounters with D/R quanta, has had its light bent in such a manner as to project an image in front of the galaxy’s spiral arm. Most assuredly, this proffered explanation is able to resolve a mystery which must otherwise stand in flat contradiction to established precepts.)

AM 0328-222
Situated in the region of the cosmic edge, AM 0328-222 is another spiral galaxy with what appears to be an interacting companion located close to one of its spiral arms. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) The very fact that there is a redshift differential of some 17,925 km/s between them has quite understandably caused mainstream astronomers to dismiss the possibility of physical connection, since traditional interpretation would infer a radial separation of about 1,075,500,000 LY. Applying a radiation retardation factor of 300,000, we get a true separation of roughly 3,580 LY; while a factor of 200,000 gives a figure of 5,380 LY, etc. It may well be concluded that this is yet another instance in which galactic redshifts have been dramatically distorted in the vicinity of the cosmic edge.

AM 2006-295
Lying in the immediate direction of the nearby edge, AM 2006-295 is an unusual two-arm open spiral system with what appears to be a slightly curved elongated galaxy situated within one arm of the main galaxy. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) On the whole, it presents the appearance of a three-armed spiral (or two merging systems) which should not exhibit a discordant redshift. However, to the astonishment of observers, there is a difference of 22,350 km/s. Given traditional interpretation, this would be indicative of a staggering 1,341,000,000 LY radial separation. Application of a radiation retardation factor of 300,000 would imply a true separation of about 4,470 LY; while a factor of 200,000 would give a radial separation of 6,700 LY. (Were we to assume a real separation of 1,341,000,000 LY, it would make the interloping third arm of a size and luminosity that would most certainly border upon the absurd!)

AM 2054-221
The system known as AM 2054-221 appears as a large closed-ring spiral which has just been grazed by a smaller companion. (See photo, courtesy of Halton C. Arp.) In fact, it gives every impression of a more massive galaxy tearing loose a band of stars and gas from the trailing edge of the smaller system as it passed by. But instead of displaying comparable redshifts, there is observed to be a differential of some 36,460 km/s. A recession velocity of this magnitude would normally be translated into a radial separation of a whopping 2,173,400,000 LY. Upon the premise of a radiation retardation factor of 300,000, this enormous distance is reduced to about 7,240 LY; while a factor of 200,000 gives a true separation of some 10,870 LY. Once again, such an adjustment of distance/velocity/redshift statistics, in the vicinity of the cosmic edge, is surely indicated.

In view of this cosmic edge "compression of images," it may well be asked why there are not more reported instances of discordant redshifts among cluster members. Quite simply, the answer would seem to be that such instances do exist, but they are generally unnoticed because many redshift differences are so great that they appear to require membership in other galaxy clusters! It is only when close angular proximity is noted that the issue of anomalous redshifts is raised. Also a strong contributing factor is the reluctance of many astronomers to seek evidence which would challenge the credibility of long accepted views involving the redshift/distance scale. (Should posterity come to accept the momentous prediction of an impending extinction at the cosmic edge, it will be conceded that it was only made possible through the astute observations and courage of Halton C. Arp. In spite of rejection by many members of the scientific community, his pioneering research into the phenomenon of discordant redshifts must be recognized as one of the greatest achievements in the annals of astronomy.)

Although not generally realized, it must be stated that there exists today an almost unbelievable degree of bias in such professions as astronomy and physics— with strong overtones extending into cosmology. Regrettably, it has now reached the point where many budding scientists are actually afraid to voice criticism of a Big Bang creation, or to challenge any facet of Einstein’s relativity theory. To do so is to risk one’s career, as critics are promptly ostracized and few (if any) science journals will accept their papers for publication. Moreover, dissenters have little hope of obtaining a research or teaching position. It is the shame of our society that true science is thwarted by a governing clique of so-called "authorities" who fear loss of prestige should their views be proven false. One can only hope that this unjustified prejudice will soon give way to an atmosphere of genuine science, in which there is a willingness to examine evidence in an impartial manner.

The Enigma of Galactic Redshifts

Yet another instance of anomalous redshifts, which will be seen to have profound cosmological implications, involves galaxies of our own Local Supercluster. In this regard a most informative catalog of galaxy redshifts, depicting both distance and location, was compiled by astronomer R. Brent Tully. Entitled Nearby Galaxies Catalog, this comprehensive listing of some 2,367 galaxies forms the basis for a hitherto neglected study.

Proceeding upon premises inherent in the "New Cosmology," it is expedient to plot such galaxy redshifts as a function of distance and direction. Dividing the combined redshifts (in km/s) of a large sample group by their total distance (in LY), it is possible to make an interesting discovery regarding average implied velocity of recession per MLY of separation. With further subdivision into a number of bins relating to celestial location and distance, certain startling facts emerge which cast even more doubt as to the validity of Big Bang philosophy.

Embracing a study of some 1,590 relevant sample galaxies, certain essentials of this analysis are summarized in Table 1 (Click here to view Table 1). A mere glance is quite sufficient to disclose a truly astonishing pattern - one in which the average redshift (per MLY) is revealed to be considerably higher in the direction of the cosmic edge. (Indeed, such redshifts are seen to be fully 31% higher than those of galaxies occupying an identical volume of space in the opposite direction of the sky!) The overall picture is unmistakable and cannot possibly be negated by unfounded arguments of limited statistics. There is a definite and symmetrical decline of galactic redshifts (per MLY), extending from the vicinity of the nearby cosmic edge toward the center of the universe.

Yet another very remarkable observation is that of a pronounced reduction of center group redshifts from the "under 50 MLY" bin to the "50 to 100 MLY" bin. Involving quantities of 153 and 405 galaxies, respectively, the difference between these two adjoining bins is an amazing 55%! Needless to say, this sharp decline of redshifts is a fact demanding clarification.

By coincidence, the cosmic center is seen to lie in the very same quadrant of the sky as the Virgo Cluster, a dense concentration of galaxies at the heart of our Local Supercluster. Thus it may be argued that gravitation acts to impose a measure of "infall" upon surrounding systems. While this might serve to enhance the redshifts of some galaxies lying between us and the M87 Virgo group, and to reduce the redshifts of others located behind this massive cluster, gravitation alone cannot be the real story. This premise is borne out by the fact that most of the sample galaxies - between our Milky Way and the nearby cosmic edge - have quite similar redshifts (per MLY) to those residing between ourselves and the Virgo Cluster. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2 (Click here to view Table 2), adjoining bins (extending 20 MLY on either side of the Virgo group) are affected differently! The bin closest to us is 9.74 km/s higher; while the opposing bin is only 2.87 km/s lower. If the force of gravitation is responsible, both bins should vary by the same amount. Clearly, a more subtle factor is involved and we must look elsewhere for a full explanation.

In order to place matters into perspective it is advisable to ponder the origin of nearby redshifts, as a mystery of sorts is seen to beg an answer. Specifically, why do so many nearby galaxies exhibit a redshift? One should expect that the random motions of nearby cluster members would serve to guarantee a roughly equal mixture of blueshifts and redshifts. Of the 2,367 galaxies listed in the Nearby Galaxies Catalog, only 19 are seen to possess a blueshift, and 9 of these are due to rapid orbital motion about supermassive M87 and several large companion systems. The 10 remaining blueshifted galaxies are all situated within a few MLY of Earth and tend to be strongly concentrated toward the nearby cosmic edge. In the face of this exceedingly biased redshift/blueshift distribution, it is little short of obvious that a nonvelocity factor must be deeply involved in the vast majority of all Local Supercluster galaxy redshifts.

In all probability, a solution is to be found in the interaction of radiation with the myriad swarms of D/R quanta so believed to permeate space. It will be contended that it is the ability of our Milky Way to retard incoming radiation - through ejection of D/R quanta - that is largely responsible for nearby galactic redshifts. (It has already been established that, in every instance where two equidistant galaxies are of widely differing mass, it is always the smaller system which displays the higher redshift. In turn, this must lead one to conclude that a more massive galaxy is better able to facilitate the propagation of expelled radiation through ejection of a stronger flow of "repulsive" quanta.)

The origin of nonvelocity redshifts may thus be thought of as the outcome of two opposing influences. On the one hand, the propagation of radiation - between galaxies - is assisted by the flow of D/R quanta streaming outward from the emitting galactic mass. Conversely, all galaxies must act to slow approaching radiation through ejection of this same "repulsive" quanta. However, it is important to realize that the chief influence is bound to be the one imposed upon incoming radiation. (This assumption is rooted in a combination of large-scale scattering of D/R quanta over distance and small-scale "focusing" of such quanta as it is condensed in proximity to a massive galaxy.) Hence, the noted "surplus" of galactic redshifts - toward the cosmic edge - may well have a ready explanation in the premise of extinction at the boundary of the universe, which acts to severely restrict the flux of inward flowing "repulsive" quanta. As a result, a superior outward flowing stream is enabled to impose a degree of retardation, or time delay. In the opposite direction, a stronger flow of D/R quanta will permit our Milky Way to reflect this energy back toward the cosmic center (much as a mirror reflects light), which would account for the above average redshifts in the centrally located "under 50 MLY" group.

To the astonishment of the astronomical community, it has been reported that the redshifts of certain members of our Local Supercluster are actually declining with the passage of time! (See: W.G. Tifft, The Astrophysical Journal, 382; pps. 396-415, December 1, 1991.) Through analysis of observational data, compiled during the course of the past decade or two, it is claimed that (in this time) a reduction of typically 1 to 2 km/s is probably the rule rather than the exception. Should future studies uphold this amazing claim it will clearly present astronomers with a puzzle to end all puzzles.

By way of coming to grips with such a problem it is advisable to ask one pertinent question. In short, how is it possible for nonvelocity redshifts, which take millions of years to arise, to be negated in but a small fraction of this time? Clearly, an explanation requires some sort of mechanism capable of producing a sudden and drastic impact upon radiation as it enters our Milky Way's sphere of influence.

In an encouraging test of "New Cosmology" theory, a simple and most logical solution comes to mind. It has hitherto been presumed that both radiation and gravitational energy (including D/R quanta) are propagated at essentially the same velocity - namely, the speed of light. But what if "repulsive" quanta travel slightly faster than radiation? (The very premise that gravitation can flow from a black hole, while radiation cannot, is consistent with this hypothesis.) A difference of only a fraction of one percent can be shown to have a significant impact upon radiation that has been in transit for some millions of years. Moreover, should D/R quanta be slightly less affected by cosmic arcing, this repulsive force will reach us by a more direct route and in less time. Together, this ability of "repulsive" quanta to outrun radiation (which is constantly having its speed adjusted through interaction with the infinitesimal quanta of space) will lead to the spectacle of a rapid decline of redshifts with respect to an Earth observer residing in the immediate vicinity of the cosmic edge.

To grasp the full picture of how this differential velocity could cause a sharp reduction of nearby redshifts, it is well to ponder matters in conjunction with the annihilation factor so believed to await us at the boundary of the universe. Since the last D/R quanta (emitted from a long-extinguished galaxy) will be seen to have passed us before arrival of its last radiation, it follows that the normal ability of the Milky Way to retard incoming radiation will dwindle rather abruptly - simply because our system will no longer have any "repulsive" quanta to eject toward such inbound corpuscles. As a direct consequence of this sudden cutoff of the means with which to slow approaching radiation, a situation must prevail whereby the nonvelocity redshifts of many local systems are reduced by reason of extinction at the cosmic periphery. Conceivably, a detailed study of the rate of change of neighboring redshift sources may one day afford a new and totally independent method of determining our proximity to this most portentous boundary - an opportunity which hinges upon accurate assessment of the inferred transit time differential between radiation and D/R quanta.

Calibration of Hubble’s Constant

Efforts to calibrate Hubble's constant (the rate by which the universe is expanding) have been at the frontiers of astronomical research for well over half a century. Today, the consensus of opinion among most astronomers, utilizing a variety of methods, is that the universe has an age/radius of somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. However, this lower figure is in open conflict with strong evidence that the oldest stars of our Milky Way's globular clusters were formed at least 15 billion years ago. For this reason, an antiquity toward the higher estimate is generally preferred in an attempt to reconcile cosmic age with theories of stellar evolution.

Actually, there is conclusive proof of Big Bang fallacy merely by pausing to examine redshifts within the confines of our own Local Supercluster. It so happens that the average redshift (per MLY of separation) is of the order of 22 km/s. But since members of our supercluster are constrained by gravitational attraction, this would require the true rate of cosmic expansion to be a great deal higher! Therein lies an insoluble problem for supporters of all forms of Big Bang cosmology, since admission of higher redshifts (per MLY) only serves to compound an already serious contradiction. (A redshift of 17 km/s would imply an age/radius of about 18 BLY; while 22 km/s gives a figure of 14 BLY; 30 km/s implies 10 BLY; and 40 km/s only 7.5 BLY.)

The problem for Big Bang proponents gets rapidly worse when we assess galactic redshifts in relation to distance traveled since the time of their birth. If we tentatively adopt a figure of 15 BY as being consistent with both Hubble’s constant and the ages of our oldest stars, then it may be calculated that a system now 20 MLY distant (with an average velocity of recession of some 330 km/s over the past 15 BY) will have receded about 16.5 MLY since forming out of the interstellar medium. A galaxy currently situated 40 MLY distant will have moved away by not less than 33 MLY; while another at 100 MLY will be adduced to have traveled over 82 MLY in this very same interval. Should we go back in time to their formation we are faced with the rather ludicrous situation of having condensed our entire Local Supercluster, consisting of thousands of galaxies, into a tiny volume of space likely of the order of no more than 30 MLY in diameter! Such enormous density would clearly possess so strong a gravitational field that no system could have managed to escape to their presently observed positions - revealing that there is something drastically wrong with the idea that such galactic redshifts depict true motion of recession. This radiation does, in fact, reflect a substantial time delay factor imposed by reason of interaction with the inferred D/R quanta and the ubiquitous interstellar medium.

Based upon available criteria, it seems reasonable to presume that a recession velocity of roughly 17 km/s (per MLY) may be adopted as being as good as any other figure in mapping our universe. This would yield a cosmic radius of some 18 BLY - being the point where recession is equal to the speed of light relative to the center of the universe. Hubble’s constant would then translate to some 12 billion years.

Summary

Science seems to have a way of progressing in cycles, exhibiting periods of stagnation interspersed with sudden quantum leaps forward in response to new ideas and advanced technology. There is every reason to believe that conditions are now favorable to remedy serious misconceptions that have clouded such fundamental issues as the force of gravitation, radiation propagation and cosmic origin. Hopefully, in assessing the many revolutionary implications inherent in Cosmic Perspective, the scientific community will not allow the instinctive prejudice of man to refute ideas simply because they require admission of past error.

Upon contemplating the premise of an Eternal Universe, it may be concluded that we now stand at the threshold of a new and exciting era of cosmological/philosophical research - the surface of which has barely been scratched. The challenge is admittedly without parallel; but the reward will surely justify the effort.

H.W.G.A.
revised 01/03

Return to Index of Cosmic Perspective Abstract

Return to Home Page

Email Harold W. G. Allen with your comments. 
           Discussions and Questions Welcome.