Dear Parvez,
There are many who are questioning not just my
theory but even my right to give a theory. They
forget that if and when my theory is
established, I will not be here debating that
theory with people like Gill or Farzana. And if
a theory becomes established, it is more
understood than debated. But let’s forget my
theory altogether. Lt’s dump it in a dustbin.
Let’s just debate the current theory of Physics
based on Einstein’s Special and General Theories
of relativity, Hubble’s cosmology and Quantum
mechanics. I am just asking 2-3 questions and
reproducing a few paragraphs from one of my
essays. I invite all the members to try to
answer these questions and debate what I have
said about the implications of the current
theory of Physics. I request the participants to
be objective and discuss the issues involved
without involving me.
I am just asking a few questions:
*1. When and how in a universe that started
suddenly expanding from a zero size singularity
of infinite mass-energy (infinite curvature) all
the components of the universe started rotating
around their own axes and around other objects?
How does an expanding universe explain the
rotation of all its components?*
*2. If the universe is as huge as it is
estimated to be and there is a system involved
in its functioning, with physical laws same
everywhere, how can this system sustain itself
without a system of very high-speed
communication between all the parts of the
universe?
Remember that Einstein has created a
light-speed barrier which makes it impossible
for any communication to travel faster than
light. And in the backdrop of huge university,
light is nothing more than a crawler. *
*3. Who made Laws, who is enforcing them all
over the universe? Cantherefore be enforcement
of laws without any enforcing agencies?
Remember that Laws suddenly came into existence
at the time of Big Bang and did not evolve like
the universe evolved.*
*4. How can Big Bang Theory be regarded as
theory of creation when it
neither created matter, nor energy and only
created an ever expanding
space?*
*5. Why all the planets, asteroids, satellites
and other components of the solar system revolve
in the same plane and the same direction?*
Now a few excerpts from my essay:
The Ultimate Picture
The universe viewed in the light of General
Theory of Relativity and Big Bang Cosmology is
/a passive, clumsy stark looking collection of
individual groups of matter/. Quantum Mechanics
makes it even more shambolic by shrouding it in
the dark clouds of uncertainties. The universe
itself appears to have hardly any dynamic
existence. It seems to be a *universe, which was
in a highly excited state at the time of Big
Bang, but has since then lost its virility*; it
has willy-nilly bequeathed all its properties to
the material that it contains without
retaining anything for itself. The sphere of
the universe itself continues to expand *without
anything adding to it except an
increasing emptiness in space*. It is becoming
more and more hollow with the ticking of the
clock; its hollowness is making the components
of the world strangers with every passing moment
of time, because galaxies are falling apart from
one another. The distance between all the parts
of the universe is growing but the vehicle of
communication, that is available to them, is
limping with the same old velocity. /The space
is continuously growing, and growing fast; where
it is coming from, nobody knows. The expansion
of the universe is not expanding its wealth,
resources and means; the communication is
getting harder, the overall density is
declining and the matter is huddling into
ghettos.
God has either been banished to a place from
where He cannot regulate or control it, or has
been converted into a nominal Head of a defunct
State soon after the first tiny fraction of the
second of the beginning of the creation/. Even
if He is there, He cannot play any
discernible role. There are many, of course,
who are not ready to
assign anything or any role to God, in the
past, present or future,
declaring Him to be the creation rather than
the creator of the
creatures. …..
The chief foundations of the modern Physics
comprise the two mutually
contradicting theories of Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics. One argues
that there can be no communication faster than
that of light, the
other vehemently challenges it by apparently
enabling particles to
communicate at much higher velocity.
Nevertheless, Einsteinanism
rules. This is despite the fact that Einstein
himself accepted that
light constancy was /logically difficult to
explain/ but empirically
proved by experiments. Ironically, in his
development of the special
and general theories, he depended on empirical
facts, but did not
accept the same logic in Quantum mechanics,
where he insisted on
refuting the experimental results on the basis
of his idealism,
founded on the empirical constancy of light.
The question here is:
*can anything empirical be illogical?* Whatever
we observe as the
results of experiments has to be based on
certain laws, and even if
our experiments or we differ from what is
actual or real there has to
be a basis of this difference. There was
nothing diabolical with the
empirical “constancy” of light-speed. *The
absurdity is the
unexceptionable fascination Einstein developed
for light, turning
constancy into an absolute dogma that gives
light a sheet anchor
role.* Taking a clue from Scriptures perhaps
that often describe God
as “Light”, he too started believing light as
divine. This resulted in
his giving a kind of absoluteness to light that
was only a prerogative
of God. He had developed an unshakeable belief
in his heart and mind
that nothing can surpass light in attributes.
This was evident in his
entire approach in the development of the
infrastructure of physics.
He made the light-speed constancy as the
foundation stone of the
edifice he wanted to construct. This, not his
idea of cosmological
constant described by him as /“my greatest
blunder”,/ was in truth his
greatest folly. *There is no logical reason why
a small speed like
that of light—small in the backdrop of the
gigantic universe—can be
accepted as the maximum*. It was perhaps his
belief in the
absoluteness of light that he devised a formula
for gamma that had the
stamp of divinity for light. It made impossible
for anything to travel
faster than the electromagnetic wave-particle.
It *positioned light as
the Final Criterion relative to which all
speeds would be measured and
all the properties of the matter would change*.
This is also perhaps
the reason that he used c^2 , instead of a
numerical constant, in his
famous mass-energy equation. Does that not mean
that he might have
believed everything was created ultimately of
light? And as nothing
has so far been proved to travel faster than
light, no physicist has
dared challenge his ideas. *The increasing
likelihood of the
nonlocality of quantum mechanics, the apparent
faster than light
speeds of quasars, the faster than light
initial expansion of the
universe—all these evidences have faded before
Einstein’s thunderous
claim. Physicists have simply prostrated before
the idol of Einstein.*
But, how long? Einstein’s dominance on physics
continues because there
have not emerged alternative ideas that can
provide the philosophical
basis for a new theory of Physics.
There are many questions that have to be
answered. As the
theory of Physics stands today, there is still
doubt why the universe
does not fallback in the centre because
(1) According to theories of gravity, mutual
attraction between the
particles would lead to the /collapse/ of all
the matter in the
centre, and
(2) The Uncertainty Principle leads to the
conclusion that even empty
space is filled with pairs of virtual particles
and antiparticles.
These pairs would have an infinite amount of
energy and therefore they
would have an infinite amount of mass. That
will curve the universe to
an /infinitely small size/.
It will also be noted that, while Einstein
talked of
relativity, there are no more than a few
evidences in the current
physics to observe the relativistic changes
that his theory
visualises. The relativistic speeds are not
anywhere seen, except in
the expansion of the universe itself in some
areas, which is
ironically regarded as the speed of the
expansion of space and not
that of matter; matter is only /dragged/ with
the space. Moreover,
there seems to be very little practical utility
of the relativistic
changes in understanding the universe as a
whole, as the relativistic
effects become pronounced only when the speeds
become very close to
the light speed. The use of the relativistic
changes in understanding
the origin of the universe has in fact only
further confounded it; *it
has produced singularities, which like their
infinite nature pose
infinite problems*.
The Big Bang cosmology starts from a
singularity, which is a point,
and then the space is created; this creation of
space continues till
now, and will continue forever. But this /space
is progressively
diluting all the properties of the universe and
its components. /The
contradiction here is for all to see. While,
neither matter nor energy
can be created or destroyed -- even natural
laws cannot be created or
destroyed --, claims the current Physics, space
is being continuously
created. *This leaves us in an aesthetically
shabby situation where
nothing can be created or destroyed, except the
empty space,* which is
being continuously created, and according to
some models (like
oscillating universe, closed universe, etc.)
can also be destroyed.
The universe before its beginning was a
/single/ /space-less
singularity/ , and the universe now /has
enormous space with numerous
singularities/ inside it. What a massive gain
for space, while nothing
else has gained anything!
The stage is all set for a long discussion. I
will intervene only when
required, because now it is the current theory,
not my theory, is in
discussion. I even ask the qualified Physicists
to take part in the
discussion.
Dr Javed Jamil |
|