OPEN-SITES Info

Top: Science: Physics: Modern: cosmology:

Introduction: Cosmology Quotes

Roman Stoic Philosopher Marcus Aurelius on the Stoic conception of the Universe as a Dynamic Unity. "Frequently consider the connection of all things in the Universe. ... Reflect upon the multitude of bodily and mental events taking place in the same brief time, simultaneously in every one of us and so you will not be surprised that many more events, or rather all things that come to pass, exist simultaneously in the one and entire unity, which we call the Universe. ... We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a Citizen of the Universe'." (Marcus Aurelius, 170AD)

Leibniz - Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670) "Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general." (Leibniz, Monadology)

Bradley. On Metaphysics. (Bradley, 1846-1924) "We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole." (Bradley)

Albert Einstein on Cosmology "The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them." (Albert Einstein, 1918)
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"And since, as history abundantly shows, people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society, this debate has implications far beyond the realm of science, for the core of the cosmological debate is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity. The emerging revolution in science extends beyond cosmology. Today the study of the underlying structure of matter, particle physics, is intimately tied up with cosmology - the structure of the universe, theorists argue, is the result of events in the first instants of time. If the Big Bang hypothesis is wrong, then the foundation of modern particle physics collapses and entirely new approaches are required. Indeed, particle physics also suffers from an increasing contradiction between theory and experiment. Equally important, if the Big Bang never occurred our concept of time must change as well. Instead of a universe finite in time, running down from a fiery start to a dusty, dark finish, the universe will be infinite in duration, continuously evolving." (Lerner, 1992)

Lee Smolin, 1997: It can no longer be maintained that the properties of any one thing in the universe are independent of the existence or non-existence of everything else. It is, at last, no longer sensible to speak of a universe with only one thing in it. "It can no longer be maintained that the properties of any one thing in the universe are independent of the existence or non-existence of everything else. It is, at last, no longer sensible to speak of a universe with only one thing in it." (Lee Smolin, 1997)

Introduction: Cosmology

As most people realise, Cosmology is the study of the large scale structure of the Universe, and for the past 50 years Cosmology has been dominated by the 'Big Bang' Theory. This theory is founded on the empirical observation of the relationship between the increasing distance of stars and the redshifting of light which they emit. If it is assumed that this redshift is caused by the Doppler effect, then these stars must be travelling away from us. Thus we are led to the conclusion that the Universe is expanding, and therefore, if we calculate backwards in time, it logically means that the Universe must have formed from some initial point. This is known as the 'Big Bang' Hypothesis.
However, recent work by well respected astronomers such as Halton Arp suggests that the redshift cannot be related to distance (as the Big Bang theory requires) and consequently Cosmology now finds itself in a state of conflict.
The purpose of this article is to explain the history of Cosmolgy over the past 80 years, since it first evolved from Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity (which describes gravity, a force that extends across the universe and significantly influences the motion of stars, galaxies and galactic clusters).

Cosmology: Einstein's Relativity requires a Finite Spherical Universe

"According to the theory of Newton ... The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of space.
... This conception in itself is not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into an infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"Newton was undecided on whether his laws of gravitation preclude an infinite collection of matter. He thought that only a divinely precise positioning of all the stars could prevent such an infinite collection of matter from collapsing into a series of heaps. Much later, in 1832, the astronomer Heinrich Olbers pointed out that an infinite universe seemed to imply a paradox. If there were an infinite number of stars, if one went far enough in any direction from earth, one would hit a star. This implied that the sky should be uniformly bright, as bright as the surface of the sun, which it obviously is not." (Lerner, 1991)

"This view of an infinite space is not in harmony with the theory of Newton.
The latter theory requires that the universe should have a kind of center in which the density of stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this center the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of space." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Clearly Einstein thinks this 'island' universe unreasonable, nonetheless, it is a logical consequence of Newton's force laws as he explains below;

"According to the theory of Newton, the number of 'lines of force' which come from infinity and terminate in a mass m is proportional to the mass m. If, on the average, the mass density Po is constant throughout the universe, then a sphere of volume V will enclose the average mass Po V. Thus the number of lines of force passing through the surface F of the sphere into its interior is proportional to Po V. For unit area of the surface of the sphere the number of lines of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional to Po V/F or to Po R. Hence the intensity of the field at the surface would ultimately become infinite with increasing radius R of the sphere, which is impossible." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Further, Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe. The Universe cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is determined by all other matter in the universe, and as the mass of a body is finite, thus all other matter in universe must be finite.

"I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in favour of the hypothesis of a finite universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertial mass of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to interactions between it and the other bodies in the universe, as indeed, ever since Newton’s time, gravity has been completely reduced to interaction between bodies." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

This causes several problems;
a) What surrounds this finite spherical universe? Einstein used his spherical ellipsoidal geometry of General Relativity to propose curved space-time - if you travel in any one direction you will curve around and eventually return to your starting point! Thus you have an unbounded yet finite universe.
b) What stops a finite spherical universe gravitationally collapsing (thus Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity Constant).

2. Two discoveries, one theoretical, one empirical sent Cosmology down the path of the Big Bang Theory for the creation of our universe.
a) Friedman used Einstein's equations to show that an expanding universe was possible by the equations, and solved the problem of the collapsing universe and thus removed the need for Einstein's Cosmological constant. Einstein was reluctant - believing in a static (non-expanding universe).
b) Then Hubble famously showed the relationship between distance and redshift. If Doppler shift caused this redshift then it meant stars / galaxies were moving apart.
Einstein, swayed by this argument, changed his mind - thus his comment 'My biggest blunder' referring to the Cosmological Constant.

"Like most people, I grew up with the received wisdom that Einstein's General Relativity was so profound and complicated that only a very few people in the world understood it. But eventually it dawned on me that the essential idea was very simple, and it was only the elaboration’s that were complicated. The simplest mathematical expression of General Relativity is; G = T
The T represents the energy and momentum of a system of particles. In order to describe their behaviour in great generality, they are considered to be in a space whose geometrical properties (e.g.. curvature of space-time) are described by G. Now the solution to this equation tells us how these particles behave with time. The important feature of this solution is very simple to visualize, either the initial energy is large and the ensemble continues to expand or the energy is small and the ensemble collapses under the force of gravity. This is the unstable universe which distressed Einstein and caused him to introduce the cosmological constant (a special energy term) which just balanced the universe.
But in 1922 the Russian Mathematician, Alexander Friedmann, put forth a solution in which the spatial separations of the particles expanded with time. At first reluctant, Einstein later embraced the expanding universe solution so enthusiastically that he renounced his cosmological ‘fudge factor’ as ‘the greatest blunder of my life’. The Lundmark-Hubble relation was in the air at the time, and it seemed an ideal synthesis to interpret the redshifts of the extragalactic nebulae as the recession velocity of their expanding space-time reference frame. But basically, the theory was that the galaxies at our time were expanding away from each other, and therefore must have all originated in a ‘Big Bang’- that is, the universe was created instantaneously out of nothing." (Arp, 1998)

"My original considerations on the Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity were based on two hypotheses:
1. There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space (the finite spherical universe) which is everywhere the same and different from zero.
2. The magnitude (radius) of space (the finite spherical universe) is independent of time.
Both these hypotheses proved to be consistent, according to the general theory of relativity, but only after a hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a term which was not required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from a theoretical point of view ('cosmological term of the field equations')." (Albert Einstein, 1952)

Einstein is largely correct with his two hypotheses - his problem was that he had to assume that the universe was finite and spherical (because of Mach's Principle and that matter’s mass is finite), and this necessarily meant that gravity would cause it to collapse upon itself. Thus he required a 'cosmological constant' (effectively a repulsive or anti-gravitational force) to prevent the matter in a finite spherical universe from collapsing upon itself.

"Hypothesis 2 (a static finite spherical universe which requires a repulsive cosmological constant to prevent it collapsing) appeared unavoidable to me at the time, since I thought that one would get into bottomless speculations if one departed from it.
However, already in the 'twenties, the Russian mathematician Friedman showed that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis 1 (average density of matter) without introducing the less natural cosmological term into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop hypothesis 2. Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in which the 'world radius' (radius of the finite spherical universe) depends on time {expanding space}. In that sense one can say, according to Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space." (Albert Einstein, 1952)

So Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding (i.e. remove hypothesis 2) then there was no longer any need for his cosmological constant to prevent the universe from collapsing. Now initially Einstein had rejected this idea, but then a remarkable coincidence occurred which caused him to change his mind, and led to the current confusions of Cosmology. Einstein continues;

"A few years later Hubble showed, by special investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae, that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increases regularly with distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in regard to our present knowledge only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large - as required, according to Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory." (Einstein, 1952)

It is important to appreciate how Albert Einstein is careful in how he writes about Hubble's discovery of redshift with distance - he does not say that Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, but correctly writes that this is one possible theoretical interpretation (unlike many modern scientists - as the next section explains).

Cosmology: Empirical Facts Vs Theoretical Interpretations

One thing that is very interesting (and disturbing) is how knowledge gets corrupted over time. This particularly applies to the idea that 'Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding'. He did no such thing! Hubble discovered a relationship between increasing redshift with distance - one theoretical interpretation of this is that it is caused by a Doppler shift due to matter moving away from other matter (an expanding universe). Now this is a profoundly different thing to say, and yet it is disturbing to Science that so many respected scientists have written that Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding (which is not science!) As Eric Lerner and Bill Mitchell write;

"In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact." (Lerner, 1991)

"It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities." (Mitchell, 1997)

Below are quotes from a few scientists who have made this error, as it is important to make the point about how we begin to assume our theoretical interpretations are true, above and beyond what the observation / empirical facts tells us;

"About 1929 the American astronomer Hubble demonstrated the existence of a strange correlation between distance and speed of the nebulae: they all move outwards, away from us, and with a velocity which increases proportional to the distance; or, in other words, the system of the spiral nebulae is expanding - just as the primitive comparison of this system with a gas had suggested to earlier thinkers. Now if one regards the expansion to have been the same in the past as it is today, one is led to the idea that the whole system must have had a beginning when all matter was condensed in a small 'supernucleus,' and one can calculate the time interval since this 'beginning of the world' and the present instant. The result obtained from Hubble's data was 2000 to 3000 millions of years.
Meanwhile the relativistic cosmology initiated by Einstein and De Sitter began to ripen in the hands of Friedmann, Lemaitre, Tolman, Robertson and others. A series of new possible models of the world were discovered between the extreme cases found by Einstein and De Sitter, and the question arose which of them fitted the empirical facts best, in particular those facts established by Hubble. Today there are many ramifications and refinements of the theory and there has been so enormous an increase of observational material that it is difficult to judge the actual situation. Earlier ideas which seemed to be most fertile have turned out to be too narrow or even wrong." (Born, 1964)

"In the years following his proof of the existence of other galaxies, Hubble spent his time cataloguing their distances and observing their spectra. At that time most people expected the galaxies to be moving around quite randomly, and so expected to find as many blue-shifted spectra as red-shifted ones. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red-shifted: nearly all were moving away from us! More surprisingly still was the finding that Hubble published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy's red shift is not random, but is directly proportional to the galaxy's distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant that the universe could not be static, as everyone previously thought, but is in fact expanding; the distance between the different galaxies is growing all the time. ...
In 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means at earlier times objects would have been closer together. .. Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense." (Hawking, 1988)

"Only after the astronomer Edwin Hubble had studied the motions of galaxies and independently discovered that the universe was expanding." (Wertheim, 1997)

Science should always remember to clearly and carefully distinguish between empirical observations - and theories / interpretations founded on those observations!

Cosmology: Further Problems of a Finite Spherical Universe

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - How can a Finite Spherical Universe be Ordered & Complex

Eric Lerner has obviously been strongly influenced by Prigogine and therefore he writes well on Time and Thermodynamics. Thus it is useful to use his knowledge as a simple way of demonstrating the solution to this interesting problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which suggests that over time our Finite Spherical Universe should become more disordered.
One explanation for why our universe remains Ordered is simply because it is part of an infinite perpetual system, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to Closed systems (not infinite systems), as Lerner clearly explains;

"Conversely, if one asserts that the universe had no origin in time, then one must explain how it is that the universe has not completely decayed into uniform equilibrium in the infinite time that it has already existed. How is order maintained? How is progress possible?
... Pope Pius XII wrote; ‘Through the law of entropy, it was recognized that the spontaneous processes of nature are always accompanied by a diminution of free and utilisable energy. In a closed material system, this conclusion must lead eventually to the cessation of processes on a macroscopic scale. This unavoidable fate, which ... stands out clearly from positive scientific experience, postulates eloquently the existence of a Necessary Being.’
... Pope Pius XII concluded that a flagging universe necessarily must come to an end, but more significantly, requires something outside itself to imbue it with order at the beginning - a direct link between the idea of ever-increasing disorder and Christian theology.
From this proof, Boltzmann propounded a new concept with profound cosmological implications. The universe as a whole, must, like any closed system tend toward an equilibrious state of entropy: it will be completely homogeneous, the same temperature everywhere, the stars will cool, their life-giving energy flow will cease. The universe will suffer a 'heat death'. Any closed system must thus go from an ordered to a less ordered state- the opposite of progress.
... Boltzmann was aware that his ideas contradicted the notion, then widely accepted, of a universe without beginning or end. The present-day universe is far from a state of equilibrium, comprising as it does hot stars and cold space. If all natural systems 'run down' to disorder, the present state of order must have been created by some process that violates the second law at a finite time in the past. Conversely, at a finite time in the future, the world will cease to exist, becoming a lifeless homogeneous mass: human progress is but an ephemeral and inconsequential episode in a universal decay.
... Boltzmann found his results disturbing. Since he rejected a supernatural origin of the universe, he tried to argue that, in an infinite amount of time, extremely improbable events do occur, such as the spontaneous organisation of a universe, or a large section of it, from a prior state of equilibrium. The second law is, after all, a statistical one stating what is likely to happen, not what must happen.
..some thermodynamicists pointed out that Boltzmann had proved far less than he claimed. He assumed that gas began in a high degree of disorder, close to equilibrium, and never got far from it. Moreover, he only allowed for atomic collisions, but took no long-range forces, such as electromagnetism or gravity, into account. In most real physical situations, though, these restrictions aren't valid, so Boltzmann's proof is not applicable. A century later scientists were to demonstrate that, in the general case, Boltzmann's law of increasing disorder simply isn't true.
... Poggio goes on to point out that it is a gross over extrapolation of the second law to assume that because it works in certain simple situations on earth, it would work everywhere in the universe. He too points out that fusion is an example of building up, not a decay, of the universe. 'Let us not be too sure that the universe is like a watch that is always running down,' he warns, 'there may be a rewinding. The process of creation may not yet be finished.
... To be sure, the tendency toward equilibrium is supposed to hold only in 'closed systems' and because the earth is heated by the sun, it is not a closed system.
... The universe we observe is simply not decaying; the generalization of 'the law of increasing disorder' to the entire cosmos is unsupported by observation." (Lerner, 1991)

Cosmology: Infinite Eternal Universe Vs Finite Spherical Universe

History shows that religion has always had a strong influence on Science. As recently as 400 years ago Bruno was burnt to death for writing on an Infinite and Eternal Space, which contradicted the Catholic Church's doctrine that God created the heavens and earth.

"In his major work, paradoxically entitled On Learned Ignorance, Nicholas returned to the central idea of Anaxagoras - an infinite, unlimited universe. In contrast to Ptolemy's finite cosmos circumscribed by concentric spheres with earth at their center, Nicholas argued that the universe has no limits in space, no beginning or ending in time.
Nicholas's infinite universe is populated by an unlimited number of stars and planets, and, of course, has no center, no single immobile place of rest. The earth, he reasoned, must therefore move, like everything else in the universe. It appears at rest only because we're on it, moving with it. He cast aside the geocentric cosmos entirely. (Nicholas of Cusa, a German-born bishop, born 1401)
Giordano Bruno traveled to England and befriended its leading political and scientific figures; and when he returned, he popularised Copernican theory on the continent. Bruno took Digges's version of the infinite, Copernican universe and purged it of remaining Ptolemaic elements, such as the perfect spheres that carried the planets' orbits. He made this infinite universe, with its infinite inhabited worlds, the basis of his philosophy, integrating Nicholas of Cusa's thinking, even going beyond it. Bruno explicitly challenged the idea of creation ex nihilo, arguing that the universe must be unlimited in both space and time, without beginning or end." (Lerner, 1991)

"Present evidence shows that the Big Bang, initially introduced to explain the Hubble expansion, does not make predictions that correspond to observation. It is clearly contradicted by Tully's observations of supercluster complexes and by the more recent confirmations of large-scale structures. This returns us to the problem: What caused the Hubble expansion? The cosmological debate will not be resolved until this basic question is answered.
The question of the Hubble relation remains unanswered, and other fundamental questions about the cosmos must also remain unanswered until an adequate theory is found. Far more theoretical and observational work is needed." (Lerner, 1991)

"Einstein had first formulated his conception of a static, finite universe in 1917, two years after developing the general theory of relativity. But he soon saw its flaws. A static, closed universe could not remain static, because its own gravitation would cause it to collapse.
Clearly, Einstein reasoned, something prevents the collapse of the universe, something like the centrifugal force of rotation, but not rotation itself. This force must somehow increase with distance: it had never been observed on earth or in the solar system, but it must be strong enough at cosmological distances to overcome gravity. He introduced a new term into his equations of gravity, ‘the cosmological constant,’ a repulsive force whose strength increases proportionally to the distance between two objects, just as the centrifugal force of a rigidly rotating body increases proportionally to its radius. But this force, he thought, acts in all directions equally, like gravity, so it does not disturb the symmetry of the universe.
To preserve his conception of a static universe, Einstein set the cosmological constant to a level that would balance gravity exactly, so that its repulsive force neutralized the tendency of the universe to collapse.
In 1924 new observations changed the picture radically. For a decade, astronomers had been measuring the spectra of stars in nearby galaxies. In nearly all cases, the spectra shifted slightly toward the red. Scientists had long known the simplest explanation of these redshifts is that the galaxies are moving away, shifting the frequency of light to the red (an analogous phenomenon makes the pitch of a train whistle rise as it approaches and fall as it recedes). It seemed strange that, rather than moving randomly, the galaxies all seemed to be moving away from each other and from us.
.. Lemaitre developed a new cosmological theory. Studying Einstein's equations, he found, as others had before him, that the solution Einstein proposed was unstable; a slight expansion would cause the repulsive force to increase and gravity to weaken, leading to unlimited expansion, or a slight contradiction would, vice versa, lead to collapse. Lemaitre, independently reaching conclusions achieved five years earlier by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann, showed that Einstein's universe is only one special solution among infinite possible cosmologies- some expanding, some contracting, depending on the value of the cosmological constant and the ‘initial conditions’ of the universe.
Lemaitre synthesised this purely mathematical result with Wirtz's and Hubble's tentative observations, and concluded that the universe as a whole must be expanding, then any of the cosmological scenarios that led to expansion could be a valid description of the universe. But cosmic repulsion and gravity are not delicately balanced- repulsion predominates in an expanding universe.
Lemaitre put forward his hypothesis of an expanding universe in a little-known publication in 1927, and within two years his work and Friedmann's had become widely known and accepted in the tiny cosmology fraternity. By this time, 1929, Hubble had published the first results showing the redshift relation, apparently confirming Lemaitre's idea of an expanding universe."

"But if the universe is finite in space, then it must be finite in time as well, Lemaitre argued. Thus the non-singular solutions that Lemaitre found- in which the universe has no beginning- were unacceptable. The only ones that corresponded to Lemaitre's philosophical views were closed in space and limited in time. Eddington gave him a further rationale for looking at singular solutions- the second law indicates that the universe must have originated at a state of low entropy.
From these two philosophical premises, Lemaitre developed his concept of the ‘primeval atom’, the first version of the Big Bang. At a 1931 meeting of the British Association on the Evolution of the Universe, he put his ideas forward for the first time. Beginning from the idea that entropy is everywhere increasing, he reasoned, quantum mechanics (developed in the twenties) shows that as entropy increases, the number of quanta - individual particles in the universe - increases. Thus, if we trace this back in time, the entire universe must have been a single particle, a vast primeval atom with zero radius. He identified this instant with the singularity of some relativistic solutions. Just as uranium and radium atoms decay into subatomic particles, so this giant nucleus, as the universe expanded, explosively split up into smaller and smaller units, atoms of the size of galaxies decaying into atoms the size of suns and so on down to our present-day atoms." (Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, 1991)

In ending this article on Cosmology it is interesting to consider a quote from Aristotle, written over two thousand years ago, which shows that the Ancient Greek philosophers had already considered the cosmological idea of a 'Big Bang' creation of the Universe (and rejected it as unreasonable).

"Alternatively, suppose we were to accept the mythical genesis of the world from night or the natural philosophers' claim that 'all things were originally together.' We are still left with the same impossible consequence. How is everything to be set in motion, unless there is actually to be some cause of movement? Matter is not going to set itself in motion - its movement depends on a motive cause." (Aristotle, 340BC)

-------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Geoff Haselhurst

based

1. http://www.SpaceandMotion.com/Cosmology.htm - Summary of the History and Evolution of Cosmology founded on Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. On the Wave Structure of Matter and how a Finite Spherical Universe can exist within an Infinite Eternal Space (existing as a continuously connected Wave Medium).

open-sites

find your easy way

MAIN Menu

Wise Words