A New Universe Theory

I quote from one reference:

“It was 1576 when British astronomer Thomas Digges modified Copernicus’ idea of the universe. What Copernicus thought was a clearly defined 'outer rim,' said Digges, was really unbounded space filled with stars stretching infinitely in every direction. Though Digges couldn’t have known it at the time, a big-bang explosion started our universe in motion and, in doing so, produced cosmic microwaves. As Digges peered into the sky, these rays were traveling through that unbounded space; their detection confirmed the big-bang theory and earned Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

“The radiation led physicists to believe that space is expanding and that matter is spread more or less randomly through it. In the 1980s, Alan Guth at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Andrei Linde at Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow came up with the idea that the universe ballooned in a rapid burst soon after the big bang, and that burst exponentially increased the size of the universe. This new theory of “inflation” set the stage for modern multiverse theory.”

Another reference by Alan Montgomery, Mathematician, and Lambert Dolphin, Physicist, is as follows:

“The possibility that the velocity of light, c, is not a fixed constant is reconsidered by statistical analysis of the historical measurements collected from four sources. Our hypothesis testing of the selected data shows the measured value of the velocity of light has decreased over the past 250 years. Furthermore, the probability of some systematic or experimental problem was found to be low. Brief analysis of constants other than c suggests that those constants which involve atomic phenomena and units of time are also apparently changing. A third set of constants with no obvious dependence on c were analyzed and show no apparent variability with time. A variable velocity of light implies that atomic clocks and dynamical clocks do not run in step---that atomic time has been decreasing with respect to dynamical time. “

Another about red shifted light from distant galaxies:

“Current cosmological models cannot explain this grouping of galaxy redshifts around discrete values across the breadth of the universe. As further data are amassed the discrepancies from the conventional picture will only worsen. If so, dramatic changes in our concepts of large-scale gravitation, the origin and "evolution" of galaxies, and the entire formulation of cosmology would be required.

“Several ways can be conceived to explain this quantization. As noted earlier, a galaxys' redshift may not be a Doppler shift, it is the currently commonly accepted interpretation of the red shift, but there can be and are other interpretations. A galaxys' redshift may be a fundamental property of the galaxy. Each may have a specific state governed by laws, analogues to those in quantum mechanics that specify which energy states atoms may occupy. Since there is relatively little blurring on the quantization between galaxies, any real motions would have to be small in this model. Galaxies would not move away from one another; the universe would be static instead of expanding.

“This model obviously has implications for our understanding of redshift patterns within and among galaxies. In particular it may solve the so-called "missing mass" problem. Conventional analysis of cluster dynamics suggest that there is not enough luminous matter to gravitationally bind moving galaxies to the system.”

I have always wondered about that cosmic microwave background radiation. If it was produced by the big-bang fifteen billion years ago, how can that radiation still be around? If it traveled in a straight line, as most physicists and cosmologists believe it does, it would now be at the farthest reaches of the universe, long gone from our small inner corner of that universe. I have my own theory that can account for it being around and for numerous other strange conditions in a universe where radiation does not go in a straight line at all. In 1988 I wrote an essay about my theory. Since that time I have read nothing to refute it.

Relativity and a completely new concept of our universe - A very new and different way of thinking about our universe - by Howard Johnson - 1988


In 1905, Albert Einstein published his first dissertation on his new “Theory of Relativity.”This theory, was hardly noticed when it was published. Among other new concepts, it held that the path of light is bent or curved by gravity, particularly that of large objects like the sun or black holes. On July 6, 1918 the following comment by Sir Arthur Eddington was published in Scientific American Supplement, “The position we have now reached is known as the principal of relativity. In so far as it is a physical theory, it seems to be amply confirmed by numerous experiments (except in regard to gravitation).”

The theory put forth in the 1916 paper lacked experimental proof. Several Astronomers, including Arthur Stanley Eddington, in charge of Cambridge Observatory, used a solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 as an opportunity to test one prediction: that light rays from a star would be bent as they passed close by the gravitational field of the sun. When the prediction appeared to be proved accurate, Einstein was hailed by the science community and achieved almost an apotheosis in the public mind. The following is an excerpt from the Scientific American Supplement of December 6, 1919:

“The results of the total solar eclipse of May 29 last were reported at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, held on November 6. The results were most satisfactory. The star images are well defined and the resulting shift at the limb is 1.98", with a probable error of 0.12". This result agrees very closely with Einstein’s prediction of 1.75". It was generally acknowledged at the meeting that this agreement went far to establish his theory as an objective reality.”

I am an amateur cosmologist and claim no fame or special expertise to back up my own theory. It is merely a concept developed over many years of thought on the subject. For that reason I am presenting my theory as a thought provoking variation on the concept of how the universe operates. It is a combination and simplification of the many theories and ideas proposed over the years concerning the speed of light, the expansion of the universe (as conceived from information on red shifts of distant galaxies), the relation between gravity and the speed of light, and perceptions we seem to take for granted as true and factual. Is important to recognize that perception is reality to most people. The perception of the absolute linearity of light to the mammalian eye is the basis for our sense of space and time whether it is true or not. Humans and some primates are the only ones who can understand the spacial displacement of light passed through lenses and reflected by mirrors.

My reasoning is based on the following:

It has been proven that the trajectory of light is bent (speed is changed) when light passes near a large object. (The sun, a star or a black hole.) Perhaps it never goes in a straight line, but is constantly wandering, bent by gravity as it passes by or through all kinds of collections of matter.

We, on our earth, are in a specific location in the universe and our movement relative to the universe is infinitesimal, even over very long (to us) periods of time.

The universe in its entirety has a huge mass and so a very large gravitational force. There is no question but that this force effects the path and the speed of light within the universe. This is true even though the dispersion of known mass (mostly in galaxies) in the universe is lumpy and irregular.

We perceive light as traveling in a straight line path no matter how circuitous is the actual path. Star photos taken during the May 29, 1919 eclipse proved this. The true position of the stars that appeared close to the sun was different from the apparent, observed position during the eclipse. Gravitational lenses in space sometimes cause multiple images of the same objects to appear in several positions, all different from the true position. No matter the true path light takes to a human observer, that observer perceives the light to be coming directly to him in a straight line from its source. That would be true, even if the actual path were a randomly distorted and irregular, spiral, helix, circle or arc. The red shifted galaxy we see so clearly could even be our own in the distant past should the light circle back and intersect our current path.

Would it not be true that at a position at or near the outermost reaches of the universe, the pull or force of gravity of the entire mass of the universe would be completely in one direction, that being toward the center of mass of the universe? Would it not be possible that this force of gravity would be strong enough to “bend” light back into the universe, keeping it from escaping? This would, in effect, provide an event horizon for the universe, much like that of a black hole, where light cannot escape, but would be turned back into the universe. Were this the case, the visual effect on an observer within the universe would be the same as that we presently see. Our universe could even be considered a type of “black hole” from which energy or matter can never escape.

If the above facts are true, all light we see is truly traveling in a path that is not straight but is affected or curved by the gravitational effect of the mass of the universe. The speed of light at the point in space time where we are is relative to the masses of all objects from planets to stars to galaxies to that of the entire universe in relation to our own position. If there is a way of calculating the relationship of the mass of the universe, our position relative to that mass and its dispersion, and our measurement of the observed speed of light, it is beyond my knowledge.

If this theory is true, our universe is a finite object with a specific mass, a specific size and a specific set of physical laws. It may or may not be expanding as the “red shift” of distant galaxies could be an effect of changes related to the position of ourselves as observers relative to the overall gravity of the universe. Such being the case, there could be many other universes of varying sizes distributed throughout space time in a similar fashion to galaxies within our universe.

Who knows?

CLICK here to go to Howard Johnson's website.

To contact author, Howard Johnson Click Here!