The Structure of the Universe

The Structure of the Universe
by Manfred F. Schieder

1. THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

Now let us turn to this part of the matter and consider the structure of the universe and if it is finite or infinite. To tackle this question we must involve ourselves with a paradox that is a contradiction in terms. A contradiction can only be such as long as it contains at least one false premise. False premises lead us to absurdities in all and every instance. Once we have cleared the absurdity out of the way we reach immediately the correct answer. This answer can seem impossible but it is nevertheless true, as Sherlock Holmes observed to Watson.
To start with, if we state, "to reach the farthest point of the universe" we imply a finite universe for "reach" implies a limit, an end. Moreover, astronomers have discovered that the farthest extension of the universe, which is at this time in a state of continuous expansion, lies at some 14,000 million light years away. This is the radius of the universe, its diameter being, thus, 28,000 million light years. A photon requires this time to cross the universe, a rather large but still limited distance. This knowledge revolves around an amazing deduction made by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers (1758-1840). He set up the paradox known by his name when he stated the strange question: "Why is there night?"
The reply to this should be obvious. It is night at a determinate point of the Earth because the sun shines at the other side of the planet and the overwhelming majority of the sky is dark. This seems logical, but as many such things this is a false inference. Truth is different.
At some time during his life, Olbers developed the kind of reasoning which makes a genius and places the name of a man in the books of science. His stroke of genius originated in something that is so rhythmical and all known that we end up by no longer thinking of it. After all, what else can there be in so simple a question as "Why is there night?“ But, as said before, the obvious just isn't. Normally we would say that day turns into night because for a certain time there is a side of the planet rotating through the shady area away from the sun. However, the obvious reply did not satisfy Olbers at all. The truth was hiding beyond.
Being conscious of the repeating rhythm of day and night, he deduced a series of premises, all of which were – or so it seemed – perfectly logical. The problem was that the corollary, the deduction out of these premises, led him to a totally impossible answer. This is what was later called "Olbers' paradox". Let's see what he did to set it up.
The premises were as follows:
a)      The universe is infinite
b)      The amount of stars existing is infinite and they are evenly distributed in space.
c)      All stars have an average brightness.
By "stars" we mean suns or starlike objects, that is, all those objects that have a radiation of their own in the light emitting range. Neither planets, as Earth is, nor satellites, such as the moon, can, thus, be considered stars as they only receive and/or reflect light. This seems very obvious today but it was not like this at all times. As recently as 400 years ago, Giordano Bruno met premature death for establishing the truth that each star is a sun. There is a memorial in Rome identifying the place where the Inquisition burned him at the stake for holding the truth. Truth is always dangerous, however much it should not be so. Truth always leads us to what is right, though many despise this being so.
It seems totally logical to accept that the universe is infinite (Premise No. 1), and we can easily accept that all the stars of the universe have an average brightness (Premise No 3). This calculation does not even need to be precise. If we take into account only the stars, we can see with the naked eye we can already deduce an average brightness. Therefore, the third premise is right.
Now comes an even more important part: What happens if we multiply the average brightness by an infinity of stars (Premise No. 2)? Evidently, if the universe were infinite, to multiply the average brightness by infinity would produce an infinite average brightness. This is also logical.
In fact, we can always find stars or starlike objects in any area of the universe, which we might observe with a telescope. Whatever telescope we take, even the strongest – whose development was, at the time of Olbers, still far in the future – it will show stars or starlike objects (such as accumulations of stars, also called galaxies, and so forth) in the sky. Thus, premise 2 also looks like being right.
However, if there were an infinite brightness, night becomes impossible.
Let us look at this more precisely. Though a very short line of reasoning would convince us that the following experiment is unnecessary it still can help us to better visualize what is meant.
We can mentally slice the universe as if it were an onion, with each layer having the same thickness, say infinitesimally thin. Each layer, from the center to the rim, will have a larger volume than the foregoing one. Using a bit of mathematics we know that the content of each layer increases with the square of the distance (radius) from the center (you, dear reader or, why not, me). Hence, layer 1, whatever thickness we may consider, has a content of 1 quantity of stars (12 = 1), layer 2 (22 = 4) four times as many as layer one, layer 3 (32 = 9) nine times as many as layer 1 and so forth, infinitely...
On the other hand, and also using a bit of physics, brightness decreases with the square of distance, which means that while layer 1 has a brightness of 1, layer 2 has only a brightness of a quarter (¼) of layer 1, layer 3 a ninth of layer 1 and so fourth. Layer 2, having a quantity of stars four times that of layer 1, thus sends only ¼ as much light as layer 1. If we divide both expressions (4 times as many stars as layer 1 by only ¼ of the brightness of layer 1) we see that layer 2 sends as much light as layer 1 (We may call this "1 total unit of light" in both cases, as it is not necessary here to pay attention to the total amount of lumens involved; it will always be the same relation). This repeats itself with layer 3, layer 4 and so forth. Now, in the case that the universe is finite we will obtain a very large sum but brightness would still be limited and, thus, night would be there every night. On the other hand, if the universe is infinite, the sum will be infinite. In this case, we will have an infinite brightness. As a matter of fact, we would be, at all times, surrounded by an infinite amount of light, which would render night to an impossibility. There would be so much light that our sun's light would be a practically unnoticed part of it. In addition, just as true, life would have never been able to evolve in the first place since an infinite amount of light means also an infinite amount of heat. Everything would consist of nothing else but an infinitely hot area. Planets themselves would never have been able to form. The existing infinite heat would have rendered this impossible.
Yet, the sky out there is cold (very cold, indeed), our planet has a reasonable temperature and in spite of all that has been said, there is night.
We are alive, night is dark and it "comes" every night. So there must be something wrong with Olbers' calculation, which is also the reason why it is called "Olbers' paradox". His calculations are right, they prohibit the existence of the night period, and yet, when we look at the sky at night it is, of course, dark. Could it be that one of the premises is wrong?
If we look at it carefully, we will end up with three possibilities: 1) The universe is limited, 2) the universe is unlimited and 3) the local area of the universe is limited but the universe itself is unlimited, consisting of an infinite sum of local areas. None of these three possibilities contradicts the definition that the universe is all that exists.
While the third premise (the average brightness of all stars) cannot be doubted (even at the price of accepting that there are parts of the universe which are dark for, as a compensation, there are other areas which are brighter than the normal rate, and this brings us back to having an average brightness) we must, as Sherlock Holmes did, accept the impossible as the only viable solution. It took over 100 years for scientists to find the evidence of the impossible. The "impossible" is that only a limited amount of light reaches us.
In the 2nd case (an infinite universe) we face an endless amount of brightness, most of which, however, recedes from us at an increasingly speed until it reaches the speed of light, at which point the light can no longer reach us nor will we ever be able to reach it because it speeds away at light speed and no higher speed than this is possible. A higher speed would, besides, involve us into impossible contradictions such as requiring more energy than the universe, even an infinite universe, has available. As much as some religious scientist would like it, the universe is all there is and no additional energy can be obtained from "outside" the universe. A further consideration renders an endless universe impossible, since this would, as we shall see, make the start of a Big Bang impossible as an infinite amount of time would be required for all the existing matter, regardless of light emitting or not, to coalesce at one point, so that the Big Bang could never begin.
Aside from the assumption that the amount of stars and starlike objects existing is very large but still limited, a second possibility – related with premise 3 (All stars have an average brightness) – must be taken into account here. This is the consideration that only a limited amount of light reaches us[1].
We do not live in a static but a very dynamic universe as astronomers have discovered. Everything, even the farthest galaxies, moves and this obliges us to turn to a fact, which always existed but was first described by C. J. Doppler, an Austrian scientist. Doppler explained what since 1824 entered the history of science as the "Doppler Effect". What is this?
We all know that the whistle of an approaching train sounds with a much higher pitch than when the train recedes from us. The same happens with a jet plane approaching and leaving us then behind. The change of pitch happens exactly at the moment when the whistle passes us by. The reason for this relates to the fact that the incoming train is practically pushing the sound waves of the whistle in front of it, thus shortening the length between their crests while at the same time heightening them. The result is a high, penetrating sound. On the other hand, as the train is at the height of the observer to then pass him by, it starts to stretch the waves and decrease their height. This "stretching of space" between the place where the whistle is and our ears makes us perceive a deeper or lower pitch. It is like a flute turning into a trombone. This pushing, crossing the border and "leaving the sound behind" is dramatically demonstrated by jet planes when they cross the sound barrier. Here the effect is so strong that at the moment when the plane pushes through the waves which have accumulated in front of it, we hear a clear and loud "bang". After this, there is total silence in the pilot's cabin. If the train could travel just as fast as a jet plane, we would also hear the "bang".
This effect, which is proper to every type of wave, also applies to light waves as Doppler himself pointed out, and this is the part where "spectral lines" and their shifting come in. But, what is a "spectral line"? Here I will shorten a long story to the absolute minimum.
A prism is a triangularly shaped and polished piece of glass. Newton had the idea of passing a beam of sunlight through it, which allowed him to spread the band into its composing colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet. A rainbow is nature's way of using water droplets as small prisms. Newton had discovered, thus, that the various waves of light have different lengths (the distance from crest to crest) and heights. If we bundle them all together we obtain, of course, white light since the shorter and longer waves combine with each other into one unit. Of all the wavelengths involved, those of the color infrared are the longest, those of ultraviolet the shortest. We cannot view them but we can sense them, though not as light but as warmth in the case of infrared and as dangerous burns in the case of ultraviolet.
Light from any light emitting source is composed of the spectrum just mentioned and it identifies itself by the fact that certain wavelengths are absorbed while others are rejected. This produces lines on the spectrum, the position of which are fixed, thus identifying what elements are present and which are missing in the light emitting source. This, in turn, allows us to detect even in the farthest stars and starlike objects what elements are present or missing. Now, if we move the light emitting object towards us the lines, without losing their positions, move toward the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. The waves are, so to speak, pushed together, which corresponds to the Doppler Effect. When the light emitting object moves away from us, the spectral lines move toward the infrared end of the spectrum. This is a very important fact since, when it was applied on distant suns and starlike objects, it was discovered that most of them are moving away from us, with only relatively few moving toward us. This, in turn, meant that the universe is, at this time, in a phase of expansion.
In fact, the farther away the object is, the more it moves toward the red end of the spectrum until it enters the infrared portion of the spectrum. Further on, the farther it is and the faster it recedes from us the longer will be its wave lines. Due to relativity, however, for any possible "extraterrestrial" living on one of the systems that are receding from us, all would continue to be "normal". The observer would consider that it is we who are speeding away from him. We would be the ones living at the rim of the universe.
This "Doppler effect" (also called Doppler-Fizeau effect) solves Olbers' paradox, since an object far from us and moving at an increasing speed (a fact science has also discovered) sends less light to us until the object is so close to the speed of light that no light can any longer reach us. We do not need to consider a speed of light as such in this case, since there are other facts, which must be taken into consideration at this point, such as an increase of mass. Relativity has shown that the faster an object gets the more massive it becomes. This massiveness makes it extremely difficult for bodies first, and then even for waves such as light to leave it, for massiveness produces an increasingly higher gravitational effect. As mentioned before, in the case of the so-called "Black Holes" nothing can escape these "heavy" bodies, so that they can only be detected by observing waves which pass close to the "Black Hole" but are still at a sufficiently far away distance to avoid being absorbed. Such massive objects, of course, capture all light that may try to escape from them, which adds to a large reduction of existing light.
Would this allow for an infinite universe? After all, if the light waves are being "cut down" and cannot, thus, reach us, could there not be then infinite light sources? Not so, since, again, an infinite universe would, even in this case, signify that an infinite amount of light would still exist, which would allow, of course, that an infinite amount of light reaches us.
Let's again look a little bit closer at objects receding from us, such as any stellar objects like a star, a galaxy or a whole cluster of galaxies could be. As mentioned already speed increases the mass of the object. At low speed, this is unnoticeable, but as it gets closer and closer to the speed of light its mass increases most notoriously. At the speed of light, it would also have an infinite amount of mass and to move this would require an infinite amount of energy. Since infinity is an endless amount it makes no sense to speak of "more" than infinity and this becomes true for both a finite as well as for a theoretically "infinite" universe.
At a very high speed, say, close to the speed of light, the body would at every moment increase its own mass until the mass reaches the limit at which no amount of energy whatsoever could increase its speed any further. This is, then, the maximum speed attainable for the speeding body. The less rest mass any particle has, the higher the speed that can be reached would be. But even such a particle has to obey the laws of physics. The speed of light is, thus, the maximum speed reachable by the photon. It is the limit at which the mass cannot be moved faster, because it has reached the balance between mass and energy available to move that mass. Since the photon's rest mass is almost nil, the maximum mass it can attain is, compared to other objects, infinitesimally small, yet it is the maximum it can ever attain since it lays, as just mentioned, on the point of equilibrium between mass and the maximum energy available to move such a mass[2].
The bigger the mass is, the higher the gravity produced will be. While gravity is a very weak force, the amount of mass can increase it enormously. Such high amounts of gravity can be produced either by a very large increase of matter or, as said before, by high speed. In the case of stars, such as our sun, mass is reached by the sheer accumulation of matter. This matter tends to collapse into the center of the star, which can only be compensated by an accompanying increase of heat, which balances the whole. As an example, envision a pot of water with a rimless lid operating like a plunger, i.e. swimming on top of the water's surface. If we heat the water, it will begin to boil and the water vapor will raise the lid. At a given point, the tendency of the lid to fall into the pot and its being kept "levitating" on the heat escaping will balance out. But the water, in a way similar to the matter burned, which constantly decreases the amount of it, evaporates until the lid reaches the lowest point. At this point on the sun, as well as on any other star, a process sets in which will lead the sun to an intermediate point of rest.
On the sun, the large amount of matter, which also means a high amount of mass, and, thus, a high amount of gravity, will make it difficult for the photons to leave their origin. Since the gravity of light, massive as it is for every photon, is still far, far less than the amount of gravity surrounding it, it will continuously be absorbed by the nearest point of mass around it. In consequence, it takes one million years for a photon originating at the center of the sun to reach its surface and begin its travel through the universe.
As a matter of fact, and just so as to show that a photon responds to the same laws controlling every other particle and its waves in the broad spectrum of waves (this spectrum, if we were to "measure" it in octaves, covers an area of over 80 octaves), is "sensed" by us as "light" since it brings into our visual sensors (our eyes) the images of our surroundings. What we "see" is that portion of the band of light, which the object onto which the photon impinges cannot absorb due to the atomic structures of the different molecules that compound it. Thus, we see leaves in green "color" because the structure of chlorophyll absorbs all the light waves excepting the one corresponding to green.
Against Kant's preposterous declaration that we don't see because we see, we "see" precisely because we see. What do we mean by this? Sight is the capacity of our eyes to make a distinction among the different wavelengths. If all wavelengths were absorbed by the objects everything would be black and we wouldn't be able to see anything (As a matter of fact, eyes would never have developed as this happens with those animals living in constant darkness, who are, thus, using other types of sensors, as bats do, for example). Just as well, if all wavelengths were reflected by all objects all would be white and, again, we could not visually distinguish anything. We "see" precisely because our eyes can measure the difference between the absorbance and reflection of wavelengths. These signals are then transmitted to the brain which evaluates the data, mostly automatically but also very often after a process of thought to eliminate evident contradictions such as the "bending" of a stick in water. Sightless animals or blind human beings require other means to distinguish objects but these means, though helpful, cannot convey the full picture of reality.
The capacities of our senses developed, thus, by evolution in accordance to what really exists.
Seeing has also a direct relation with an expanding universe since a collapsing universe would move every object towards us with the corresponding shortening of the wavelength, the height of the waves increasing at the same time since now the same amount of energy would be compressed into a smaller area. Even if we were somehow able to survive the enormous influx of energy, the glare would render vision useless[3].
The reality of night suffices to show that we are at this time living in an expanding universe. This will continue until the universe reaches a momentary standstill, that is the time when entropy has reached its maximum level and no more energy is available for all practical purposes. However, the universe still has to expand for another 26,000 million light years. By then, the universe will have a radius of some 41,000 million light years[4].
The easiest way to get a practical picture of the expansion think of a balloon on which separated dots have been painted. For a better example of this, visualize the dots to be on the interior surface of the balloon. At first, all dots are placed at a more of less equal distance from each other. Now inflate the balloon. The more you inflate it, the larger it becomes and each dot moves farther away from each other. The same thing happens in an expanding universe. The example is not completely valid, however, but quite correct to get a graphic impression of what is happening, that is that some of the dots are moving towards us (wavelengths shorten) while most of them recede from us (wavelengths lengthen) but also from each other. This happens everywhere excepting the area nearest to us. We are located, as observers, at one point of the globe. While the globe inflates away from us the area nearest to us seems to be closing into us, it seems to come nearer.
The expansion penetrates into nothingness since nothing exists beyond the universe, same being by definition, as mentioned already, all that exists.
To cover all the ground we may now ask: Could something escape, that is, go beyond the point of farthest expansion? At the point of the rim of the universe matter is traveling at the maximum possible speed, and this supposition itself is only theoretical since to reach such a speed all mass would have to be massless at rest point, as, again theoretically, the photon is, though even here we must understand that at total rest point not even a photon can be absolutely massless. It has surely an extremely low mass but cannot be devoid of it altogether, in the same relation as it is known that even at absolute zero helium possesses a rest movement which implies that a rest-energy is still present. Only the non-existing implies the peculiarity of a total lack of mass for only what has a mass can be detected, since it produces an effect on a sensor.
Coming back to "escaping beyond the rim" this would require a speed higher than the one at which the farthest object (however small) is now receding. Nothing can reach a velocity higher than the maximum possible (the speed of light). Further on, scientific considerations reached the conclusion that a speed superior to light would not mean an advance but a move backwards in time. This closes the case. It closes the case also in another sense: even if a speed higher than the speed of light were to be accepted as possible: the particle having it would not "escape" the universe but merely be the farthest endpoint of the radius making up the universe as the total of existence (again by definition: the universe is all that exists). The farthest particle "beyond" the rim of the universe is really "creating" space.
Let's add here a short additional explanation related with this. Every space must be viewed as an empty area of absolute vacuum surrounded by four points of matter, three of them belonging to one plane and the fourth being situated outside of it. This is a pyramid of emptiness surrounded, as just said, by four points of matter. This space is both empty and a vacuum since it doesn't contain anything. However, should we place anything within the space described such object would immediately become the new fourth point of a smaller pyramid whose space would again be a vacuum. Based on this we could follow this reduction infinitely, in a way similar to the Russian Babushka dolls where a larger doll contains a smaller one and so forth. Hence, based on these extended descriptions of what space is, the place beyond the farthest point of the universe can neither be considered to be a space (for it doesn't respond to the rules of what space is nor a vacuum, for precisely the same rule). We must, therefore, speak here of nothingness, for beyond the farthest point of the universe there is, precisely, nothing.
After this short detour, we can now continue with our main subject. The expansion should continue for the next 26.000 million years, at which time there will no longer be any practical energy available. Total entropy (practically total coldness) will reign in the universe. Then the collapse back should set in. How this will happen is still a matter of debate among scientists (some fall into the trap to require more energy than is available and are tempted – we know this part already – to take it from non-existence) but science has time enough to come up with a logical solution. We do not need to care about it for the content of this article. The fact remains – and will remain forever – that the universe is all that exists. Hence, it is within this fact that science has to search for and find the answer!
Basically, since the universe is all that exists and no other "outside" energy source is possible, the problem relates directly to finding a solution to the perpetual motion, that is the motion of a mechanism that, without any losses due to friction or other forms of dissipation of energy such as entropy, would continue to operate indefinitely at the same rate without any "external energy" being applied to it. But this is a false solution, for entropy exists, which means that it must take part of the solution itself[5].
Having explained the necessary existence of night we can now turn to the "Big Bang" and its explanation for a pulsating universe, i.e. one expanding and contracting continuously. Could an infinite universe be in harmony with such a Big Bang? Additionally: could there be other explanations?
Big Bang is the generally accepted theory that the existing matter composing the universe continuously explodes-expands-contracts-explodes again-expands again-contracts again and so on and on infinitely. This Big Bang theory is quite feasible – for example in relation with audible evidence provided by the echo of the last Big Bang - though yet subject to ample debate. However, should it be true, it must be based on a finite universe. A continuously expanding universe (which, due to its expansion, must not be confused with an infinite universe) cannot exist, as the steadily increasing amount of entropy would inevitably lead it to a total stop. On the other hand, does an infinite universe allow a Big Bang to happen? It would not, since the starting point of the Big Bang requires that all matter first reunites. An infinite universe would not allow this, i.e. that all matter moves first together, as there would never come the time when the whole infiniteness of matter could reach the total state of collapse. The collapse could never happen since it would take an infinitely long time for the infinitely existing matter to get together. The Big "Bang" could never happen.
In other words: an infinite universe involves an infinite amount of matter (energy). However, as seen on the foregoing paragraph, this has consequences. Those unaware of this fact may now declare that the universe is infinite, that it is all just a matter of the majority of stars and starlike objects to be receding from us, which would make it impossible for the light of these receding stars to ever reach us, at least in the present state of the universe. We must remember, however, that a "majority" of infinity is still infinity and so there still will be an infinite amount of matter surrounding us.
Once the flight stops and the process reverts to a state of collapse, an infinite quantity of light would pour back. But then, and precisely this is the consequence, no Big Bang situation could ever form under such a condition for, as stated already, the collapse of an infinite amount of matter (energy) requires an infinite amount of time. At no moment could there be a Big Bang under these circumstances since it could not form as the accumulation of stars would never end.
Some will now say that this problem can be overcome by the relation existing between the diameter of a sphere (which is a finite number) and the perimeter, which results in Pi, an infinite number. As the whole universe can be considered a sphere (with its border limited from the center, which is also the reason why I presented the universe as a sphere several pages ago), we come up, as with every other sphere, with the fact that it is limited in diameter while the content itself, at least theoretically, is infinite. To make this statement clearer visualize a ball: infinite in content, due to Pi (a never-ending number), with a strictly defined diameter at any point of its surface[6]. But the edge of the ball is not determined by its content but by its diameter. Between these two facts, the diameter is the defining one. This means that even if the surface of the ball is theoretically infinite, its content is not. It suffices to fill the ball with any liquid to find out that the moment arrives when it is filled and even under pressure at that.
In the process of contraction prior to a Big Bang the amount of light returning to a central point would be first so large that the whole process would consist of light, but as all space between objects would be "crunched" up to the smallest physically possible point, which would then be the smallest size of the universe from where the next expansion would start, this object would be made up only of gamma waves. During the collapse the tremendous increase of light and heat first and shortest possible waves later, would exterminate all living matter – and all matter as such as well - to turn it into sheer pure energy, but the amount would still not be infinite due to the shrinking diameter. Finally, there would only be one big “Black Hole” of pure energy as starting point for the next “Big Bang”.
Then the process would start anew, and after some thousands of millions of years, life would form and flourish again in a continuous, infinitely extended cycle, always involving everything existing and, as already mentioned, to finiteness-constrained matter [7]. In addition, since matter involves and obeys the characteristics of what it is we can leave as mere fantasy statements such as "the next universe would have other physical and chemical laws".
In the preceding process of explanation, we have reached an additional conclusion, which allows us to clear Olber's paradox:
a)                  The universe is NOT infinite.
b)                  The amount of stars existing is NOT infinite. They are evenly distributed in space.
c)                  All stars have an average brightness.
And this is why we have night.
In relation with the absoluteness of the universe, we can word it also as follows: To consider “God” as origin of the universe does not provide an explanation as this would require an answer to “Who created ‘God’?” [8] and the answer to this leads to an infinite regression. Besides, considering that “God” existed always and establishing this as a dogma that is not to be questioned sets up a false answer. The contradiction can be eliminated by stating that the universe existed eternally, which corresponds to saying that the universe itself requires no explanation at all. The universe is merely, by definition, all that exists and has, thus, no origin as such. Within it all that exists has an origin, and, thus, this origin cannot be searched outside of existence since nothing exists outside of the universe. The universe is, by definition, all that exists, i.e. the axiom that “Existence exists” – and ONLY existence exists: THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.[9] Which puts the matter to rest.

[1] Would all light emitting objects recede from each other with the speed of light no light from any one would reach any other. However, it is not at all important that a light emitting object recedes at the speed of light. As soon as the frequencies enter the area of the radio frequencies (waves become longer and, thus, less waves are contained within any given second), light disappears and becomes a radio wave (at the border of the observable universe we find an increased quantity of radio frequency emitting objects). A further important detail must be added: an increase of speed also increases the mass and the higher this mass becomes the higher will also become gravitation. Such a high gravity retains all light and does not allow it to escape, as it happens with the "black holes", enormously massive bodies that capture every piece of matter and every wave of light that nears them. At a certain point, the enormous amount of retention exercised by gravity compensates the speed to light.
[2] Could there be an explanation for the shifting of the spectrum towards the red end different from the increased speed for, after all, it seems rather improbable that whole galaxies, which are rather heavy bodies to say the least, can reach the speed of light since an object must almost lack any mass to reach the ultimate speed possible in the universe? Yes, theoretically it could be. An expanding universe starts from a Big Bang but the expansion following the "Bang" takes time. The universe, at this time, has a radius of some 14,000 million light years. Since our solar system is only some 4,700 million years old, it is evident that it is almost 9.3 thousand million years younger. This distance between the rim and us amounts to a rather very long wave of light, which means that such a wave would be rather a radio wave. This could explain quite comfortably that so many radio waves are reaching us from the rim and almost no light comes from there. The light waves, through the stretching of the wave, could have, thus, easily become radio waves. But this has not been confirmed so far and must be, thus, considered a mere speculation.
[3] In the context of this article, we do not need to enter considerations such as the evolution of life as both an evolution of all kinds of living sensors and the teleological effect that sensors always had on the direction taken by evolution through the thousands of millions of years gone by.
[4] This calculated radius is far from being exact. Some scientists consider that the standstill will only be reached after the universe has expanded for some 500,000 million years. Only then will the collapse set in and it will take another 500,000 million years for the next Big Bang to be ready. For the time being, such speculations lack any importance in the context of this writing.
[5] Leonardo da Vinci demonstrated already that a Perpetual Motion, a continuous movement is not possible. Hence, an alternative for it must be found. The objection that this does not provide a workable solution for the time being is of no importance in relation with it. Many other such questions will still appear in relation with other scientific areas. The problem, at least, has been, so to speak "nailed down". To search for a solution "outside" the universe provides no solution at all since it corresponds to an impossibility that has been considered already.
[6] Arithmetic and geometry provide excellent examples of limited infinities. Starting with a number and adding each time half of the foregoing number directs the total sum toward the next higher integer, without ever reaching it (e.g. 1 + 0,500 + 0,250 + 0,125 + 0,0625 + 0,03125 and so forth nears you to the integer 2 without ever reaching it). Here we have an example of a limited infinity. Another such example can be obtained from geometry. Imagine a triangle, with each side 1 foot long. Now cut each side in three parts. Take the middle part of each side and replace it by an equilateral angle obtained by cutting the part taken in two. The result is a six-pointed star and, of course, instead of the three original sides we now have twelve sides. If we apply the same procedure to each of these sides and repeat this as often as we wish we will obtain a more and more detailed polygon. A circle drawn around the original triangle would at no time be crossed by any of the resulting vertices. We could continue the procedure mentioned endlessly since the circle towards which we move has, of course, an infinite perimeter (Remember the relation of the diameter to the circumference). In this specific instance of infinity we misled, however, the observer in relation with the area covered by the original triangle since the length of the middle piece taken does not allow us to construct an angle that fits the space left open. If we move the two remaining lengths closer to each other for the angle to fit in without leaving a gap we reduce the original area. On the other hand, if we want to keep the original area we must construct an angle that fits in, but to do so we must add material from outside the construct that would be equivalent as saying that "we add energy by taking it from outside the system." If we were to think of the original triangle to stand for the universe itself we would have to take the additional length from outside the universe, but this is impossible since the universe is all there is and nothing exists outside of it.
[7] For the sake of covering all possibilities, we must accept the probability of a "Gondwana-like" event of alternating Big Bangs. The continents of our planet evolved from a splitting up of Pangaea ("all lands"), a concept originally proposed in the 1920's by the German geologist Alfred Wegener. The resulting plates began to drift apart one from another which, of course, produced and still does produce catastrophic effects such as earthquakes and seaquakes (Tsunamis). At some point of earth's evolution, set very, very far in the future, all these plates, drifting apart, will meet again and produce another Pangaea. This is, at least theoretically, possible, though there may never be the time available for it to happen since by then the sun might have expanded into a Red Giant engulfing all its planets prior to its collapse into a White Dwarf. As the universe is all there is and its shape being approximately a sphere it could well be that the expansion of matter could pack it, also in a far away future, into the start of the next Big Bang, the result being a continuously alternating event, each one starting from the opposite end of the previous one.
A further point can be taken into consideration, at least as a mental consideration: "Local" Big Bangs happening in any part of the universe as a local event (a certain huge quantity of matter accumulating on one point and then exploding) but astronomical observations have not given any credibility to this idea.
Finally, we must consider what consequence a 3rd possibility, mentioned earlier in this chapter, would have on the definition of "universe". Let us consider that at the rim of the local area of the universe (LAU) another LAU or many other LAU's exist, composing a finite or infinite amount of LAU's in every possible direction, the sum of all of them being the total universe. Could we then speak of "Multiverses"? Such "Multiverses" are beloved fantasy-products of many astronomers. Given such a possibility, we would have to investigate the mechanical effects of interpenetration at the rim where, as a fact, not yet fully explained events are taking place. Whatever conclusions we may then reach in relation with this mechanical interpenetration would not change, however, the definition itself. We would merely have to talk of "this part or portion of the universe" (or LAU) and "the other parts or portions of the universe" (or LAUS) since the total, even infinite sum of all these portions, would then make up what the definition of universe stands for: all that exists. "Local" Big Bangs would be possible in this case (a fact which has, however, not been observed so far). Yet not even this possibility would allow the "existence" of a "God" or "Maker". The definition of Universe would continue, thus, to be valid. Additionally, the fact of the infinity of light would turn up here too, a fact whose consequences were considered already earlier in this writing.
[8] What "God" created "God" and so forth, as in the poem "Chess" by Jorge Luis Borges.
[9] Religiously minded people (including all those believing in esoteric and other such superstitions, with religion being the greatest superstition of all, as Karlheinz Deschner indicated in his writings) will come up with the argument that the "realm of soul" remains outside the universe. Mark Twain has replied to this in his excellent fashion when he asked, "Does the soul remain sober when the body is drunk?" In other words, even if this "realm of soul" should exist it would still be dependent on the definition of universe, i.e. all that exists. If it exists it is part of the universe, if it does not exist it does not belong neither to the universe nor to "anything else". It just is not.

Discuss this Article (10 messages)