Another discovery besides the microwave background, but much less well reported, from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was a glow produced by the universe's very far galaxies showing that star formation was “already” intense 11 billion years ago, a fact which would be quite at odds with a 12-billion years-old universe. The lack of reporting seems to come from such data going against the big bang hypothesis. Telescopes seeing well in the infrared will hopefully give us more data in the near future on this unwanted phenomenon.

My approach (phase 1) predicts a cosmic background really dependent in frequencies upon the intergalactic medium (dust, local gravitational wells, etc), on the various sources and sinks of space, and not related at all to a “beginning” of any sort for our universe.

Later investigations by Kashlinsky and Odenwald confirm the “very significant levels of star formation in the early universe,” this “early” universe wording being meant as the high redshift part of the universe. They indeed talk about “galaxies” at redshifts z much greater than 1, neglecting to mention the odd appearance of such astronomical objects and thus questioning their identification as “galaxies.” (See The Odd-Shape of High-Redshift Galaxies is Telling Us Something Fundamental. What? for a discussion of high redshift galaxies.)

Also, as in the case of hydrogen absorption lines (see High Redshift Hydrogen Absorption Lines Interpretation Questioned), the large amount of high redshift infrared may reflect the accumulation of material across much greater distances than can be assumed through the universe expansion hypothesis.

Article [1] first recapitulates the properties of type Ia supernovae identified in the 1992 paper [2], which gave the impetus for the surveys to be discussed in the article. Branch and Tammann identified then the “standard candle” property of such supernovae, which would be detectable at distances of the order of z = 1 or greater. A cosmological standard candle is a celestial object with known absolute brightness; so by comparing this brightness to its apparent one, its real distance can be found. Here it is noted that, even though supernovae are not all of the same absolute brightness, their data can be related to a common value.

At first sight, this finding would have been great news for Edwin Hubble, as the 1929 identification of redshifts he did for relatively near galaxies could be at last (70 years later) confirmed or denied as an expansion of the universe by checking very different celestial objects at much greater distances than he could reach in his time. Instead, the official reason for the surveys was to find out whether there was a deceleration of this postulated expansion, not for one moment asking, as good science calls for, whether Hubble's finding could be finally identified as being a limited (relatively) local effect or not!

Dr. Livio's article [1] identifies the official reasons for going ahead with a new set of supernovae surveys, this time at an even higher redshift (refer to phase 1 Appendix A of my study, and my 2004 paper on a new many-spaces model of the universe, backing up the Hubble constant data coming from NASA submitted to Elsevier). The main reason is instead to find out whether the observed dimmer brightness is caused by other effects than “accelerated expansion.” If this phenomenon indeed comes from acceleration then at some point earlier in time there would be a deceleration. I have sent a message to Dr. Livio (mlivio@stsci.edu) on 1/6/2000 to somewhat correct the course of the investigation, as follows:

“In your article I found in the Science magazine issue of last Nov. 26, you advance that 'observations of SNe Ia supernovae at higher redshifts will be particularly important' in order to decide whether there is indeed an acceleration in the universe expansion. In a work of mine I call also for such additional observations. However I point out there that an increasing spread of SN magnitudes for a given redshift may be found which clearly does not come from observational errors. Such spreads were found at lower redshift but have so far been dismissed. This dismissal looks in my theoretical approach (unconventional to say the least) to have been done simply on a lack of a theory to explain these spreads. You may want to look at Appendix A of the first phase of my work as you can find it at...If you do find such increasing spreads, please remember me.”

Dr. Livio acknowledged my message that day.

Five (5) years later (2004), additional data have been obtained giving 16 additional points up to z = 1.55, and the same trend with increasing spreads is indeed found as I predicted in 1999. This time Reiss, the coauthor of [3], identifies at last in [4] that there was “a moment, about 5 billion years ago, when the cosmological constant began to win...” Reiss apparently is still making no connection with the age of our sun even though he just mentioned it... And, of course, nothing is still being said about error bars making it impossible to draw a curve across all the points without missing many bars!! It is now (2004) obvious that nothing will change their misreading of the data in order to fit the present cosmology until a new theory is recognized... Dr. Livio did not remember me of course.

Moti Milgrom, an astrophysicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, proposed MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) in 1983 as an alternative to the Dark Matter hypothesis, which was brought out in the late 1970s as a way to explain the surprisingly high speed of hydrogen gas clouds that, in the 1960s and 70s, were found swarming around spiral galaxies by several astronomers. Although they did see a rise in cloud velocity close to the galactic center as Newtonian mechanics predicts, the farthest clouds were not found slowing down as predicted. Their speed remained in fact rather constant.

However, the Dark Matter hypothesis was a far-out approach with no experimental evidence as to what could be the unseen matter (and now, after 25 years of frantic search, this is an “embarassment for Science” as PJE Peebles said). Milgrom tried then another approach where the pull of gravity declines in direct proportion to the distance instead of the square of the distance once this pull falls below a given threshold, the “critical acceleration”, about one-trillionth the force of gravity on Earth.

The problem with such an approach is that it postulates a non-linear phenomenon related only to the mass of the galaxies involved, especially not to their brightness. So when Low-Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies were observed (1999), an unrealistically much smaller amount of mass was needed in the MOND theory in order to explain the observed speed of their clouds.

In the space generation approach presented in phase 1 of my study, the brightness of galaxies directly affects the size of the “space systems” the radiation of their stars generates. The flux of light decreases in proportion to the square of the distance as gravity does from galactic masses, but, unlike gravitation, this flux has to compete with radiation from elsewhere. A solid angle of sight then comes into play within the “celestial sphere” at the location considered - Here I will refer to the end of my Geometric Algebra page for further details.

Within this approach, the observed rise in cloud velocity close to the galactic center is not due to gravitation but to the rotation of the space system as a whole (with its content) versus the background space generated by the electromagnetic radiation of surrounding galaxies.

Away from the center, the space system is maintained by the stars and ionized gas wherever they happen to be in the galaxy. However, this system becomes more and more “diluted” in the background space, with lesser amounts of light being emitted from the smaller density of stars compared to constant background radiation coming from outside the galaxy. Rotation of the content versus this background space decreases, but much less than if the dynamics was solely due to gravitation.

An interesting aside of this analysis is that, more opaque to external radiation the galaxy is and more dark matter will be required to account for its dynamics. This is the case of dwarf galaxies, which have been found to require more dark matter than other types for their dynamics.

Gravitation has an effect only in material space systems small enough that the relative strength of their space can be considered constant; such systems are then “arenas” for the dynamics of their content, and gravitation can be then represented by a “field”. At large enough scales, where matter is localized far apart in space systems as we have just discussed, gravitation has no effect; at these scales our universe is governed solely by space generation and elimination processes. Such a dynamics remains to be investigated.

One last remark: Physicists promoting dark matter love to mention the bending of light by galaxies as “intuitive proof” of its existence. However, the bending of light at the scale of galaxies can be seen instead as a space system effect, very much as if light (radiation) from the galaxies was increasing the “thickness” of space in their neighborhood, thus producing an optical lense for the light merely going through it.

The observation of astronomical objects with a redshift higher than z = 1 identifies “galaxies” , i.e. sets of objects appearing to have the same redshift and in the same angular area of the sky. We assume they are galaxies from these two observations. However these objects do not have the form of galaxies as they are observed up to z = 1. As I describe in Appendix A of the phase 1 of my study, this fact may point to the concept of residual redshift. Anything before z = .33 has its redshift coming exclusively from the generation of our space system. By z = 1 the redshift becomes mostly residual, i. e. comes from space systems different from ours, and the uniformity of redshift disappears.

This concept fits what is being observed in the shape of the “clusters” of objects taken as “galaxies.” We think they are connected objects due to their same redshift and angular location. But under the residual redshift hypothesis the observed redshift comes from one or more space system in-between us and the objects which may be very far apart from each other, not from the objects themselves, and thereby the odd shape of the observed “galaxies.” In general the observations at redshifts higher than 1 appear to be fundamentally misinterpreted through the assumption of an expanding universe, and present observation are telling us so. However it will take new higher resolutions to settle the matter, and may take decades if ever to be settled. The Ia supernovae surveys of the future have much more of a chance to tell us the truth at last.

This article identifies that layer-structure cuprates (including rare-earth atoms) appear to display a collective quantum state that the article calls a “quantum protectorate.” With regard to this hypothesis and its lack of conclusion about the physical origin of this protectorate, and specifically to the last sentence of the article about finding “the precise mechanism for the final superconducting transition,” suggesting that Tc is determined by the need to reduce the frustrated kinetic energy of the system, I would like to propose (speculate) here a mechanism that could involve a collective dynamics of the crystal lattice nuclei themselves, especially the heavier nuclei found in the subject crystals.

Such a collective dynamics would result from the system finding it less energy demanding by keeping the nuclei in different spatial locations at the same time (quantum spatial states), and thus creating a double layer of “reality” in one planar direction of the crystal, very much in the sense of the isolated “Schroedinger Cat ions” that have been observed in the past five years to be “in two places at the same time”. As I envision in phase 1 of my study then the d electrons (atom electronic outer layer) would find themselves in a 2D layer of space outside normal space “in-between” the layers of the cuprate lattice, and thus be “quantum protected” from thermal and impurity effects.

Such a dynamics would have a Tc dictated by the inertia of the nuclei involved in the layers and the space generated would be an “leptonic space” as I call it in the study. At least the natural 2-dimensional aspect of the dynamics fits the structure of the subject crystals as well as the superconduction phenomenon itself. The cuprates involving rather heavy nuclei would then display superconductivity as long as such a space could be maintained by the photons emitted by the electrons shuttling between the layers of reality while the energy of the phonons in the lattice is not large enough to destroy that space due to the inertia involved.

Phase 2 of my study identifies the possibility of such double-reality layers at the level of microbiological supramolecular structures enabling a “quantum protectorate” at biological temperatures, very much in the spirit of the microbiological phenomena studied by Herbert Froehlich a couple of decades ago. Maybe high Tc superconductors are another manifestation outside Life of what I am envisioning in living materials.

This article outlines our knowledge about the composition of the high-velocity gas clouds (HVCs) in our Local Group of galaxies, and points to a new failure of the Dark Matter Hypothesis through observing the absence of “pristine, primordial relics” from a big-bang that would have originated our universe. I have sent a message to Dr. Zwaan as follows on 26 May:

“Reading your article in Science Magazine of the 5th of this month on 'Galactic Pollution' and your end words 'This leaves galaxy formation theorists to wonder where the satellites predicted by their cold dark matter simulations are,' I must inform you that this new failure of the Dark Matter Hypothesis is a direct corroboration of my own preliminary and highly controversial theoretical approach which discounts such an hypothesis.”

Here I first quote:

“When astronomers peer at very distant quasars, they see a forest of absorption lines due to hydrogen atoms.”

This fundamental observation is then interpreted within the Universe Expansion Hypothesis as:

“When the universe was just a couple of billion years old, it was filled with enormous clouds of hydrogen [the 'primordial' hydrogen]. But when they look at younger, not-quite-so-distant quasars (say, 5 billion years old), researchers find far fewer lines. Apparently, a few billion years ago, as galaxies swarmed into clusters and the universe generally grew lumpier, most of the hydrogen atoms disappeared.”

However the critical distance identified in this interpretation is 5 billion years, roughly the z =.33 redshift corresponding to the age of our sun. As Appendix A of phase 1 in my study identified, beyond this redshift we do not know the real distances of the objects observed, and such distances could be much greater than we believe at this time. So the observed hydrogen absorption “forest” is more likely to come from these much greater distances, and thus much greater amount of hydrogen in-between.

The article goes on to describe why hydrogen in intergalactic space would be in an ionized form. Here the article discounts the “cosmic plasma” effects that were pointed out by H. Alfven two decades ago (as I mention in phase 1 of my study), such effects having been discounted in the past 20 years since they did not admit the big bang hypothesis, an hypothesis which became dogma for other reasons than scientific ones.

Finally, the article fails to mention that because of the large amount of ionized matter in intergalactic space as the article points to, you have an excellent reason why the sky is dark at night even though the universe is infinite in size, the dark sky being a fact that Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg in their youth thought was proof of the limited size of our universe! (And the accumulation of this ionized material in turn would be limited by attraction in the various galaxies and their central space elimination sinks as my study describes.)

This Science's Pathways of Discovery article describes a number of astronomical data in light of the big bang hypothesis. I will not go over the profoundly misleading (propaganda?) aspect of that article when it comes to how this hypothesis came about in the 20th century. It will suffice for me to refer to my Q & A page where I mention that the cosmic background blackbody radiation was anticipated by Eddington in the 1920s with the proper temperature without that hypothesis, while Alpher came up in 1949 with a temperature 20 times too high by using it! But let me comment on Rees' words from a box within his article:

“The extrapolation by astrophysicists and cosmologists back to a stage when the universe had been expanding for a few seconds deserves to be taken as seriously as, for instance, what geologists or paleontologists tell us about the early history of our Earth: Their inferences are just as indirect and generally less speculative. Morover, there are several discoveries that might have been made over the last 30 years which would have invalidated the big bang hypothesis and which have not been made - the big bang hypothesis has lived dangerously for decades and survived.”

Comment: It survived at the price of inventing “epicycles” upon epicycles, such as Guth's speculation about “inflation” in the 1980s, a much-faster-than-light expansion of the universe, a speculation which goes directly against the fundamental basis of General Relativity identifying space as connected with its content, and thus inherently limiting any universe expansion to the speed of light!

Today's physicists could not dismiss such a speculation since they apparently have forgotten the physical basis of the GR formalism as Einstein originally envisioned, keeping only the formalism as the content of our physical knowledge and understanding in the line of Mach. The observed flatness of the universe is a simple feature (like the Copernican view of planets revolving around the Sun) for which we had to go through all sorts of contorsions (such as Inflation) in order to explain it within Rees' cherished and convoluted hypothesis. The “epicycle” idea of Ptoleme was in fact less convoluted.

Rees continues with:

“Here are some of those absent observations:
(1) Astronomers might have found an object whose helium abundance was far below the amount predicted from the big bang - 23%. This would have been fatal, because extra helium made in stars can readily boost helium above its pregalactic abundance, but there seems no way of converting all the helium back to hydrogen.”

Comment: The observed proton jets out of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN's) which are manifestly sources of new hydrogen are conveniently forgotten, as the possibility for AGN's to be something else besides black holes, notably sinks of space whereby helium and other matter are most likely recycled. The self serving line believing in black holes for AGN's forces the convenient “no othey way” stance above.

“(2) The background radiation measured so accurately by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite might have turned out to have a spectrum that differed from the expected 'blackbody' or thermal form. What's more, the radiation temperature could have been so smooth over the whole sky that it was incompatible with the fluctuations needed to give rise to present-day structures like clusters of galaxies.”

Comment: The blackbody form of the cosmic background radiation was identified in the 1920s by Eddington WITHOUT assuming the big bang hypothesis. The irregularities in that background can come from many sources, and a smooth background would be a priori very unlikely. Such small irregularities prove nothing.

“(3) A stable neutrino might have been discovered to have a mass in the range of 100 to 10⁶ electron volts. This would have been fatal, because the hot early universe would have contained almost as many neutrinos as photons. If each neutrino weighed even a millionth as much as an atom, they would, in toto, contribute too much mass to the present universe - more, even, than could be hidden in dark matter. Experimental physicists have been trying hard to measure neutrino masses, but they are seemingly too small to be important contributors to dark matter.”

Comment: It was assumed as part of the original Pauli's hypothesis about neutrinos, and until recently, that neutrinos had no mass. It was in fact a surprise to find recently they had a very small mass, and this because we wanted desperately to find a reason for the observed “missing solar neutrinos.” There were no hypothesis as Rees mentions above from the start. To this day we have still the problem of the (70%) “missing mass” to get to an observed flat universe! The 1998 Ia supernovae surveys are conveniently interpreted (at the price of ignoring “noise in the data”!) as an accelerating expansion to give that missing mass, an interpretation which appears to be quite wishful indeed. To this day, 20 years after hypothesizing “dark matter” (Hawking/Sciama) to defend Newton/Einstein theories for large scale phenomena, dark matter is as wishful, and still as independently unconfirmed. It appears instead to be an excellent hint that our universe is made out of “space systems” as my study describes.

“(4) The deuterium abundance could have been so high that it was inconsistent with big bang nucleosynthesis (or implied an unacceptably low baryon density).”

Comment: As for hydrogen vs. helium abundance (see above) the deuterium abundance proves nothing. A galaxy recycling its matter via its AGN can produce the same thing as what is taken as a big bang product.

“The big bang theory's survival gives us confidence in extrapolating right back to the first few seconds of cosmic history and assuming that the laws of microphysics were the same as now.”

Comment: This survival is a testimony to the dogmatism of present Astrophysics based on a formal system having no physical understanding backing it up, and on fear that a lot of lifetime works will have been for naught. For the sake of true Science, facing all the anti-Science sentiments we can see now everywhere (confusing Science and Technology), we must get rid of this semi-mystical hypothesis, even if this goes against the wishes of the pope. Humanity may not have enough imagination after all.

After several months of wait, due to an extra careful review apparently, this key article finally gets published in the main part of Science Magazine. [There were precursor reviews of it, before publication, all the way back to June. The full article was published first in August through “Science Express,” on the Web, not on easily accessible magazine paper as full reports normally are.]

On the crucial subject covered I remember that, toward the end of the 1970s, and for then 10 years, constant speeds had been found in star rotation within spiral galaxies regardless of their distance from the center, something of course straight against Newton and Kepler's Law. Stephen Hawking was then asked about this weird fact, and coined the term “dark matter” in a tongue-and-cheek manner back then for the journalists. Newton and General Relativity (GR) had to be correct, as without GR being completely correct, his lifetimework would have been for naught: There had to be unseen matter in order to get constant speeds, of course...

The problem is that this simplistic put-off does not appear to work any more, 25 years later. Elliptic galaxies do not display constant speeds for the objects gravitating around them, as they just follow Kepler. The paper above (especially the one available on the Web for subscribers only) tells the full story.

We may have to finally look at spiral galaxies now as they should have been looked at back in the 1970s, and wonder about GR in their case. If there is no dark matter we should have to consider the disk shape these galaxies prominently display, and wonder whether gravitation has the same strength on the sides as on the edges of that disk, especially wonder about whether the characteristics of space are really independent of its content besides the simple presence of matter. I mentioned earlier, in the section The MOND Alternative... , the importance of (E-M) brightness in the process defining space. See also the end of my Geometric Algebra page for an introduction to my approach on this matter. This dependence of space on the quantum dynamics of its content (radiation in this case) is something that Einstein could not think about knowing the state of astronomical information when GR was conceived.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has allowed a mapping of the visible universe (at about z ~0.1 with 205,443 galaxies) larger than a previous one in the late 1980s. As then, an enormous structure has been discovered in galaxies configuration, and called again a “Great Wall.” This new wall is almost twice as long as the previous one, with the survey going deeper in space. Back in the early 1990s the first wall was a great difficulty for the Big Bang Hypothesis as there appeared to be no way then to explain how such a structure could have come to be in the relatively short time since the Big Bang. Back then, a “free” parameter had already been introduced ten years earlier by the term “dark matter,” which helped explain away the CMB data of the early 1990s, but 70% of the mass needed to get to a flat universe as otherwise observed was still missing. Since that time, Type 1a Supernovae surveys were done (around 1998), and conveniently interpreted as telling us what that missing mass was, “dark energy”, with some semblance of connection to Einstein's rejected “cosmological constant.” My monograph tells another story on this wishful conclusion.

That explanation was also first received with a lot of skepticism by leading cosmologists such as P.J.E. Peebles, but now it has been placed in the bin of acceptable things. This move was a necessity. Now, with at least two “free” parameters that we can tweak, not to mention the many other “free” parameters of Modern Cosmology born out of the Big Bang Hypothesis, we can make almost any data that comes in the way against the Big Bang turn into a “proof” of that theory. This is what has happened with SDSS and its comparison with the Microwave Background (CMB) data. Max Tegmark, the spokesman on that subject says:

“The cosmic model stands tall. It's depressing if you would like to see everything go down in flames.”

My answer to him is that now, much more than earlier, the cosmic model is flying to pieces, and in fact looks more and more of the “epicycle”-type concocted by Ptolemy to account for what was seen in the Old Greek sky. Himself said one year earlier in the last paper listed above:

“In a pure baryonic universe with no cosmological constant [i.e. no dark energy], Large Scale Structure fluctuations would predict CMB fluctuations 11 times larger than observed. This discrepancy is of course an ancient result, one of the original motivations for introducing the notion of non-baryonic Dark Matter.”

This was said before the twice-as-big Great Wall was observed this year. z = 0.1 is still very close to us compared to other surveys such as the Type 1a Supernovae surveys of 1998, which go to z close to 1 - What size Great Walls are we going to find at these distances? And then how much dark matter and dark energy will be needed to match the CMB data?

P.J.E. Peebles gave an assessment of the situation before this new survey, and he somewhat admits the difficulty of the situation in present cosmology, unlike Tegmark. On top of this, his rather optimistic assessment did not of course include the fact the dark matter hypothesis is now seriously in question as a result of recent elliptic galaxy observations- see previous article.

One important remark of Peebles in the paper cited above, related to the subject, is that we have seen “solid body” rotations close to the center of disk galaxies, making the dark matter explanation for observed galactic rotations given in the late 1970s even more dubious. Such solid rotations instead reinforce further the much more straightforward approach of “space systems” as I advance in my study.

It is not often that we get the privilege to see how much fantasy can be drawn by an unexpected physical phenomenon. Since 1998, the news websites have been abuzz with a “mysterious force” that was pulling the NASA spacecrafts toward the Sun (or Earth) more than Newton's gravity was predicting, from the MOND hypothesis to quantum gravity and many other ideas of that sort. So I took the bull by the horns and put out a simple proof that the weird force was nothing more than the famous Hubble effect seen via a round-trip of e-m rays (and so giving a “blueshift” instead of a “redshift”). See my Hubble Effect paper on this.

I did find someone else who thinks in that line, but he wonders whether this is truly a local phenomenon from his quantum approach. I show that it is via classical physics, but the established Cosmology personnel don't want to see it even close to that way for fear to show the Emperor as being in fact naked... The neat thing is that we now have the Hubble Constant known to a precision better than ±1%. Wow.

The even MUCH NEATER thing is that this gives the indirect proof there is no overall universe expansion, and therefore NO BIG BANG - even though each galaxy space expands, being a physical electromagnetic quantum entity. A new cosmology is coming out of these latest experimental facts when you add to them (1) the observed flatness of the universe with no dark matter and dark energy found around (Occam's Razor is in action here!), and (2) the fact we see galaxies in their present size, not their past size (i.e. as if unexpanding), as well as (3) the fact there is an arrow of time in a physical space as Einstein envisioned, vs. the mathematical (geometric) form with no substance that his mathematician successors invented for it with total disreguard of the unphysical assumptions they were taking in order for their cosmological formalism to work.

The conclusion of that paper is that, as for the world of Copernicus, our universe is not a single world by far, even at the ultimate scale.

This cosmology paper has been submitted to the journal Frontier Perspectives. (There is no way any “respectable” journal would accept it.) The Hubble paper has been submitted to Elsevier on Feb. 14th, 2004, and, after a long wait, was rejected as I expected on May 3rd. See the comments here. It is too bad for the rejector (and Elsevier) that this matter will be discussed by NASA-JPL and ESA at a workshop in May, as experiments will be defined there to double-prove that the rejector was wrong (maybe he will be retired by then so he won't suffer financially :-).

I had to address now this subject (the gravity "shield" experiment). It was there when I wrote my monograph, but back then (1998) I felt this was just “bad science;” yes, the experiment was reported poorly, and nobody could reproduce any of the stuff supposedly found. Then recently I found that another experiment (the "beam" experiment) was also reported using a different set-up, and this time it had enough details to reproduce it. What is remarkable about these experiments is the amount of speculations they brought up (especially oriented toward NASA), and so little valid useful theory they induced! (See for example the third article referenced among many others like it.) So I had to put out a paper (follow this link) on them. This forced me to read the last report very carefully. I could not find anywhere that the experimenter checked the other side of his apparatus! This was obviously due to the preconceived assumption he had a "beam" of gravity, i.e. gravitons! It is remarkable how preconceived theoretical ideas can stop you from seeing reality. Of course I may be wrong about the "beam"... but what did Einstein say for that eventual situation?

“Mounting evidence suggests that Glial Cells, overlooked for half a century, may be nearly as critical to thinking and learning as neurons are.” This headline by Scientific American would be an eye-opener for anybody who has not read my 1999 thesis “on the Origin of Space.” Back in 1999, nobody was looking at glial cells. The sad part of this is the very fact that still nobody has acted on my work even though it has been on the Web for 5 years now, and purely chemical considerations are still used in research on the nervous system. This article is no exception. Even though researchers say that they want to “think out-of-the-box,” as obviously for them the subject is new, they have manifestly no idea how to do that kind of thinking (which is part of true science). Their lack of interest for my thesis is the proof of that. BTW this article is full of “mysterious” non-local behaviors of cells, but it never raises the question of the adequacy of the tools and the line-of-thinking they keep on using. In particular, it never wonders whether a chemical computer has any likelihood to be able to generate a thinking mind. How about that for “out-of-the-box” thinking? This is more like “more-of-the-same” wishful thinking trying to portray itself as something else, as deep down they know how limited they are in their outlook of Life.

The long list of articles bringing new evidence of Life being based on more than chemistry keeps on getting longer everyday. Here are the parts of the updated thesis showing the most obvious cases for everybody to see. Is “thinking out-of-the-box” (i.e. true Science) so hard that nothing is going to be done out there?

A set of experiments performed by Maurice Allais back in the 1950s is telling us in fact quite a lot about space being built by its contents. Allais published a book in France in 1997 on the “anisotropy of space,” reminding us (in French) of his past work. The 1999 memoir to NASA referenced above has at last (2004!) been translated into English so everyone can now get to know what Allais saw, including NASA (I helped a bit in that translation).

A problem casting a shadow over his experimental results is that Allais himself believes to this day that there is an “aether” as it was believed at the end of the 19th century: Like his compatriote Poincaré earlier, he apparently misses entirely the point of Maxwell's equations and their Lorentz transformations forcing themselves upon Newton's and Lagrange's Classical Mechanics with their Galilean transformations, as the introduction p. ix of Bergmann's book referenced above reminds us. This inevitably leads to Einstein's Relativity (which includes the impossibility of defining simultaneous events) regardless of the Michelson-Morley experimental results (which are really only a side story for Relativity). Allais misses also the fact, recognized by Einstein himself, that Relativity fails to identify the physical origin of space, making space a purely mathematical entity with no substance, even though that theory gives space a physical character like an aether. So Allais is very far from being in a theoretical position to understand the idea of space having sources, as I identify in my thesis, and thus to this day far from a meaningful interpretation of his own experimental findings.

Yet

(1) The periodic changes of pendulum direction he observed are indeed going preferentially with the Sun - while gravitational effects such as the tides go with the Moon (24h harmonic in the theory of tides is preponderant vs. the 25h component) - and thus give a totally different set of harmonics in relative values from gravitational effects, as Allais himself points out,

(2) When a solar eclipse occurred, Allais' pendulum changed direction quickly, and before the center of the eclipse was reached.

Both of these experimental facts tell us that the Allais effect is tied to the Sun being a major source of space for us (the closest by far), and thus the screening of its electromagnetic emission (generating space) via Earth or via the Moon will change the axis of anisotropy in the space we live in. The eclipse behavior tells us further that the major part of the solar disk generating space is at the center of the disk, so as soon as that center is covered by the Moon, we no longer have our space maintained by the Sun, and instead by the stars of our galaxy, thereby the observed early change of direction in the spatial anisotropy.

This effect is not a new “field,” contrary to what Allais believes: We are talking instead about the electromagnetic fabric of space at the location of the pendulum. The uneven fabric is realized through the momenta of its virtual photons, acting on the dynamics of the pendulum by giving unequal momenta to its vertical disk, and thus forcing a change of swing plane.

In the same fashion, Dayton Miller in the 1920s observed an anisotropy in space via a slightly unequal speed of light in different directions. This is explained in the same way the Allais effect on pendulums is explained: As a result of space sources such as the Sun, virtual photons don't have an average zero momentum. At a given location in space, there is indeed a non-null zero point momentum (vector) of electromagnetic origin, very much like there is a non-null zero point energy (scalar), also of electromagnetic origin making up the fabric of space. We must point out that it is not because a zero point energy was observed in the 1940s that Relativity could no longer be valid, and so with the zero point momentum experimentally found by Miller in the 1920s and by Allais in the 1950s. The slight changes of light speed with direction and the periodic changes in pendulum swing plane are totally unrelated to Earth motion - they are just screening effects of a local space source, the Sun.

Finally, the interest by NASA in 1999 for the Allais experiments was in the hope of finding a way to explain the Pioneer spacecrafts anomalous accelerations that were observed back then. But we have shown that such anomalies are due to the expansion of our galactic space, something of course extremely controversial but yet indubitable. The anisotropy of space as experimentally found by Allais and Miller is an electromagnetic emission screening effect that can be felt only when solar emission screens are around, such as planets and moons. So the Pioneer spacecrafts, being far away from planets and moons, cannot be affected by Allais' locally observed anisotropy of space.

Jose Almeida presents his 4-Dimensional Optics (4DO) theory at the referenced site above. I extract below the connection with my concept as described there:

“In its present stage the theory assumes only that there are certain relations between numbers, mathematically expressed by a small number of equations. These equations are related to Dirac and Maxwell's equations and are recursive, in the sense that the geometric space where they are written is influenced by the solutions. This leads to the concept of Dynamic Space, a space that contains and is contained by the dynamics under study. Examples of dynamic spaces are galaxies or atoms, when their respective dynamics are considered in isolation. Ultimately everything participates in the grand Universe dynamics, thus creating Universal Space. For the purposes of analysis, though, it is frequently more convenient to adopt the simplified view of isolated dynamic spaces which are observed by non-intervening observers from their Observer Spaces. Most important in forming the dynamic space concept has been the dialogue with R. Gouin and reading his text 'On the origin of space.'”

There is in fact a profound difference between the above Dynamic Space concept and the concept of space found in my “origin of space” work. In my work, space is NOT all-encompassing as 4DO ended up seeing per the text above, and as such there is no “Universal Space” in my own approach. When a space contains a quantum dynamics, such a space is generated by that dynamics in accordance with a recursive “source equation” for that space. As in the EPR experiments, this dynamics is multivalent in its realities until it interacts locally with the contents of the space considered as the reference or classical reality, and this in a NOW event seen as a “wave function collapse.” So the Universe is not contained in a single space, but in a superposition of spaces that exists only through the dynamical interaction between the contents of its component spaces, thereby leading to an irreversible stream of changes. This irreversible stream of wave function collapses is itself perceived as time in an all-encompassing space by present theories, including 4DO. In my approach, the Universe is thus an infinite plurality of matter-space systems, very much like the plurality of worlds originally imagined by Copernicus.

The split of that pluralistic universe into galaxies is a natural one resulting from the limited speed of light. It certainly is not an arbitrary selection choice by the theoretician. The same can be said for the microscopic scale: Nuclei of atoms are bound space-matter systems embedded in an electromagnetic space, itself the space we see as “ordinary space.” They certainly are not a free choice of split out of the rest of space by the theoretician. Atoms are certainly not separate spaces, only their nuclei are. [The presence of such embedded spaces is at the origin of the wave function collapses and the classical world through the distinguishable landscape they create in an otherwise undistinguishable world.]

The confusion appears to originate from the mathematical space common between 4DO and my theory. I do see physical spaces being generated within such a common mathematical space, but the relations between the various spaces are exclusively via the interactions between the material contents across the spaces - as they occur in the EPR experiments. (See my cosmology for more details.) The common mathematical space does not intervene in the evolution of the physical spaces. Maintaining a single mathematical space (with no physical substance in spite of supporting physical effects such as curvature or refraction indices) as 4DO proposes is a sure way to get a world in need of an origin in time, i.e. with a big bang, or requiring a Genesis myth in order to make sense, very much like General Relativity did.