

**In quest of a more scientific and realistic understanding of God and His Role**

How Unscientific the "Scientific" Philosophy of God!

By

Dr. Javed Jamil

Head of Chair, Applied Islamics

Islamic Studies and Research, Yenepoya University

Yenapoya University, University Road, Deralakatte, Mangalore 575018, Karnataka 575022

w: javedjamil.home.blog e: doctorforu123@yahoo.com

---

# Contents

Chapter 1

 Introduction: What's the need of refuting God? 5

 Einstieinianism: Time to Abandon this Physico-Religion 16

 Problems in understanding the Universe 19

Problem of Photon Mass 21

 Gravity has to change to adjust to the demands of Gamma 23

 The Question of locality in Quantum Mechanics 28

 Infinities in Einstein's theory a permanent feature 29

Origin of the Universe 32

Quasars 37

Structural Level Problems 38

Quantum Mechanics 42

 Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR) 51

Rubber-sheet analogy absurd 64

 An important paper by CM Will on the Speed of Gravity 65

 Arriving at some of the Most Fundamental Principles Governing the Universe 73

 Fundamental Principle No.1: motion the sine qua non for the universe 73

 Principle 2: Fundamental Prohibitions 74

 Laws of Nature: Genesis and Enforcement 80

 Light Speed Barrier: the greatest impediment in understanding the genesis and enforcement of Laws of Physics 82

Enforcement of Laws: How? 83

The UTR and God 92

Big Bang 94

Time 105

The bigger Picture 109

 Last Word: God the Head of the State of the Universe 116

Papers and Books consulted 128

Chapter 1

#  Introduction: What's the need of refuting God?

From time immemorial man has talked of God. Most of the humans have believed that God created the universe and sustains it. A minuscule percentage of humans have argued that man created or invented God and their psychological and social needs sustain Him. In sciences too, there has always been huge controversy on the role of God in the creation and sustenance of the universe. The debate between what we understand as Sciences and Religion today – the two concepts attained their current understanding only in the last 2-3 centuries – has been quite vociferous. But what was missed altogether was the impact of the emerging philosophies in Political and Economic domains on the dichotomy between the two. The evolution of knowledge including natural sciences in the last two centuries has been under the influence of what I call Economic Fundamentalism. Industrial Revolution resulted in progressive strengthening of the grip of the industrialists over the world and the ideology they propagated. I would like to quote a paragraph from my book, "The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism" which sums up the actions taken by the forces of economics in strengthening their grip on the world:

"In short, from historical standards, the rise and growth of economic fundamentalism has been quite rapid taking hardly a few centuries. The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of the Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political manoeuvres the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organise a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the people's imagination through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialised sex, in which they have discovered the hen which always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street. They have monopolised the tree of economy. Its fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses, ever keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding the popular movements. They have lynched the 'civilisation', which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilised. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonising the good earth in the name of globalisation."

The new economic philosophy has an overwhelming impact on almost every other philosophy, political, social, legal or religious. Scientific philosophies were not spared either. The impact of the economic fundamentalism on the growth and form of sciences is one of the issues that need a threadbare analysis. The two leading economic theories of the recent times, Capitalism and Socialism and their variants have all been primarily anti-God and anti-religion, though in varying degrees, and their virtual control over all the international institutions including scientific philosophy has led to the predetermined positioning of a "scientific" philosophy regarding God and Creation, which has in fact absolutely nothing scientific about it. How the economic fundamentalists said goodbye to religion and how they used the sciences as their mistresses will be discussed later. But let us first concentrate on the debate about the role of God in Physics.

As I have said earlier, both capitalism and socialism, the two great faces of economic fundamentalism had anathema for God whose fear and love created "unnecessary" impact on human "morals." It was therefore accepted as a fundamental principle by scientists all over the world that God has to be kept out of science at all costs. Heisenberg confirms this when he says:

"The mechanics of Newton and all the other parts of the classical physics constructed after its model started from the assumption that one can describe the world without speaking about God or ourselves. This possibility soon seemed almost a necessary condition for natural sciences to grow."

Why should natural sciences start on "the assumption that one can describe the world without speaking about God" if there was no urgency to disprove God? Speaking about "ourselves" might have rightly been an impediment because it would make things more subjective rather than objective. Moreover, "we" made an appearance only recently in the long history of the universe. But why deny God? Had God's existence been accepted, what harm could it have done to sciences? Still, sciences could have tried to understand "God's mind" and His creation and the laws that governed the universe. The only plausible reason behind this position may be that this would have weakened the position of the economic fundamentalists against religion, which (with the exception of only a few religions like Buddhism and Jainism that appear to be agnostic if not atheistic) had belief in God as the foundation on which it rested. Religion posed huge risks to the advance of the economic designs of the forces of economic fundamentalism. Religion promoted morality, abstinence from certain practices like alcohol, gambling, extramarital sex, homosexuality and simplicity in life. All these positions were seen as the foes of "development", and religion therefore was not acceptable. Faith in God and His punishment to the evildoers would greatly reduce the speed of the "growth".

It is said that Sciences do not accept anything unless it is experimentally proved. This in itself is an unscientific principle because the existence of anything, material, law or anything else, is not dependent on its proof by experiments. Experiments continue to grow in quality and quantity and what was beyond the experimental reasoning three centuries ago is within its reach now. This process will go on. If a few centuries back, we had no idea of supernova, quasars or planets outside Solar system, it did not prove that they do not exist. If even today there are no experimental proofs of a highly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, it does not prove that they are not there. The truth is that we are still in a very early stage of exploring, and depending on experiments alone is highly irrational. Even greater is the truth that we are limited by certain other factors which do not allow us to see the present status of the phenomena and objects particularly in the distant world. Experimentally, there is no way we can prove what was exactly there in the universe around 10000 or 1 million or 1 million years back. We can only theorise on the basis of what we can observe today, the laws we have discovered and the properties we have studied. None of these is beyond revision. Our knowledge after 300 years will be vastly different from what it is today in the 21st Century. Experimentally, it was not proved around 1000 years back that Alcohol causes Cirrhosis or Promiscuity and Homosexuality are open invitations for sex transmitted diseases, that would not prove that they were safe practices from the medical point of view.

The two most sought out and most debated theories – Creation of the Universe and Organic Evolution are nothing but a predetermined, motivated and preposterous attempt to prove that the universe and the life evolved on their own. This is another matter that this was clearly the violation of the Cause and Effect the humans understand from very early times and is a universally accepted law of Physics today. But as the forces ruling the world would not like to see the Creation and Evolution guided by some God or Supernatural Being, they immediately jumped to popularise these theories as the biggest revolutions in the field of Sciences. Darwin and Einstein became gods of science as their theories (even if they were not atheists themselves) created a room for a self-evolved universe.

In spite of the general antipathy in the scientific community towards religion and God, sciences could never get free of God altogether. Top scientists couldn't keep away from talking of God. Einstein and Bohr had constant debates about the role of God in the formation and functioning of the universe. In response to the idea of uncertainty that Quantum Mechanics advanced, Einstein, in the now famous duel with Bohr, remarked, "God does not play dice". To this Bohr retorted, "Don't try to tell God what to do!" The creation of the universe automatically warranted such discussion. Still, every attempt was made to prove that there was no need of God in the creation of the universe and evolution of living beings.

Scientists have always wondered at the beauty of the universe, especially how it has led to the creation or evolution of intelligent beings like us. There is a certain beauty in the underlying plan. John Polkinghorne says:

"...the universe, in its rationale, beauty and transparency, looks like a world shot through with signs of mind, and maybe, it's the "capital M" Mind of God we are seeing....... there is some deep-seated relationship between the reason within (the rationality of our minds - in this case mathematics) and the reason without (the rational order and structure of the physical world around us). The two fit together like a glove."

Another important discussion is centred about the Anthropic Principle. Before the 16th Century, the general understanding of man's position in the universe was based mainly on theological and other ancient concepts, which were represented by Ptolemaic principle. This principle states that we have a privileged position, perhaps in the centre of the universe. Galilee and Copernicus countered this and went on to pronounce that we have no privileged position in the universe. They argued that the part of universe we are living in was like any other part of the universe. But the 20th century cosmology again led to a visible transformation in thinking. It was argued that we ourselves are in fact the products of the evolution of the universe, and had we not been there, there would have been none to appreciate the beauty of the universe. This position is represented by three principles called Anthropic Principles. These three are Trivial, Weak and Strong. Trivial principle regards the existence of human beings as nothing but a mere datum and does not give it any other significance. The Weak and Strong Anthropic principles are based on the acceptance that the existence of human beings is extraordinary. The creation of the human being depends upon a series of striking coincidences. Hawking says, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (A Brief History of Time, p 138) Isn't this strikingly intriguing in itself that on the one hand Hawking talks of "striking coincidences" and on the other of "the remarkable fact.... that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"? Hawking further says, "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million millions, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

The truth is that the "striking coincidences" and "fine adjustments" cannot go together and are opposite to one another. This is like saying that some people, not knowing one another, randomly threw thousands of stones and all of them fell in a way that a fine straight road got formed. And mind it, the living being is a much more developed and complicated structure than a road.

The striking coincidences that led to the formation of intelligent life have been briefly summed up on a website, "St John in Wilderness: Physics and Faith":

"Elements up to Lithium-7 were produced in the Big Bang. All heavier elements were made later inside stars. Hence all of us are "star-stuff". Most of the molecules making up our bodies using elements manufactured in an earlier generation of stars that enriched the interstellar medium through their stellar winds or when they died in supernovae. Our own solar system then formed from this enriched interstellar medium, which contained the elements necessary for life.... However, the synthesis of the heavier elements is difficult -- the only reason they are produced at all is the extraordinary coincidence that carbon has an energy level that is nearly the same as the energies of three alpha particles (helium nuclei) inside a star. This correspondence allows the reaction: three Helium-4 nuclei colliding to form one carbon-12 nuclei (3 4He \----------> 12C) to occur with a high enough probability that a reasonable amount of carbon can be made, and from carbon, still heavier elements. (Physicists say the "cross-section" for the process is resonant, which is a consequence of the matching of the energy levels).

"Paul Dirac (1902-1984), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, noted that very large dimensionless numbers often arise in particle physics and cosmology. For example, ratio of electrostatic force/gravitational force between a proton and electron=0.23x1040; ratio of cosmological distance horizon ("radius of the universe") and "classic electron radius"=3.7x1040. It can be shown from the physics of stars that these large ratios are required for the lifetime of the average star to be in the range of billions of years. The rate of expansion of the universe is to be such that several generations of stars have time to age that is, the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe seemed "tuned" to allowing several generations of stars to live and die (a requirement for the production and dissemination of the heavier elements). The lifetime of an average star has to be sufficiently long to potentially allow a process such as the evolution of life to occur."

Hawking describes the extraordinary combination of coincidences as follows:

"... For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been very slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn Hydrogen and Helium or else would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of star like the Sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flying back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively less ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choices of the laws of science or as support of the strong Anthropic principle."

But even the arguments of strong and weak Anthropic principle have been dismissed by those who do not want to see any Designer behind all this design. They try to explain this on the basis of random selections. For example, the same website ("St John in Wilderness: Physics and Faith") counters this on the basis of Execution Parable. L:

"A perspective on the explanations of "many universes" or "many domains" (Weak Anthropic Principle) versus a Designer (Strong Anthropic Principle) is offered by the Execution Parable of philosopher John Leslie.... You are blindfolded and about to be executed by ten expert marksmen aiming at your chest. The officer gives the order to fire the shots ring out, and you find you are still alive, unscathed! What is the rational explanation for your survival? Leslie suggests there are only two rational explanations: there were an enormous number of executions that day. Occasionally even the most expert marksman will miss, and you happened to be in the one execution where all the marksmen missed, (and second that) your survival was intended and the marksmen missed by design."

Again, this is difficult to understand why there is insistence on finding a solution without God when a solution with God deals problems much more easily. For example, scientists try to argue that as a result of coincidences and accidents, random selections can occur repeatedly in a way that it can lead to evolution of a better and more intelligent life. But they are not ready to accept that more than the probability of finding innumerable number of such coincidences in a way that they lead to what is desirable, the more probable is the presence of a Being who is designing this. This is like assuming numerous coincidences that led to the making of car rather than accepting that it has been designed and manufactured by a company.

It is also entirely incomprehensible why Occam's Razor is also disregarded while discussing the role of God. According to the well-known scientific principle, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". This means the number of entities required for explaining anything must be kept at minimum. If there are many ways to explain something, the easiest and straightest one should be preferred. If there are many roads to reach a specific point, the straightest one should be used. This principle was described by a mediaeval philosopher, Occam of Razor, and is still regarded a strong principle in all sciences. Why then is this principle forgotten when we find that the easiest way to describe the creation and evolution of the universe and intelligent life within it is to accept the presence of an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Wise God.

If the current theories of the creation of the universe are believed, this is what happened: Immediately after Big Bang, some laws of nature all of a sudden came into force without the presence of any legal expert knowing in advance their subtleness and the implications of their enforcement and without any executive capable of implementing them. These laws initiated the creation of a physical world without any Physicist knowing what was happening and to monitor the progress. There was a very complicated and precise mathematics involved with no mathematician around. Then the chemistry started evolving from Physics with many kinds of molecules forming without any expert of Chemistry. Then after millions and millions of years, Biology started coming into existence as the result of chemical reactions, without any Biologist (Zoologist or Botanist) overseeing the complex system of animal and plant kingdom, their mutual dependence and their dependence on their surroundings. There was huge genetics involved with no one there to even know what Genetics was all about. After around 15 billion years, the first one who would have the intelligence to understand and describe what was going around made his first appearance. Before him, there was nothing in the universe that had any elements capable of thinking, analyzing, planning and enforcing. Man, the First Intelligent Being within the Universe, could do nothing but to learn how to survive for next millions of years till about ten thousand years back when he started developing philosophical and sociological principles. And within last 200 years, that intelligent being developed some instruments which could see the universe in significant details. That intelligent being is still crippled in many ways. There are some handicaps, which can become lesser and lesser cumbersome with time to come. There are others, which are more permanent. That intelligent being is totally dependent on the provisions of the universe to understand it and cannot create any one of its own. He has to depend on light, which runs with a tiny speed of 300000 kms per second, a speed with which he cannot even see the Sun till at least 8 minutes have passed. He cannot see any present, whatever he sees is past, even if it is a tiny fraction of a second past. It can see only the near past of the nearby objects and distant past of distant objects. Now, this intelligent being, which got intelligence to try to understand the subtleties of a hugely complex universe, claims of becoming legal expert, physicist, biologist and sociologist who can tell everything about what happened and what is happening in the universe. Poor little chap!

What is more intriguing is the fact that if the Einstein's Light-speed barrier is accepted, it means that the whole creation and the evolution of the universe leading to the evolution of intelligent beings in one or few places of the universe occurred without any effective, fast enough communication between the distant components of the universe, as no communication can be faster than light, and light-speed can be called nothing more than a crawl in the background of the vastness of the universe. This will be discussed in detail later.

In conclusion, we are part of a universe, which requires huge intelligence (of intelligent beings) and highly advanced tools to be understood but required no intelligence (or Being) and tool to be created. What a wonderful conclusion!
Chapter 2

#  Einstieinianism: Time to Abandon this Physico-Religion

Theories come and go but the work of those who labour, day and night, to bring forward these theories in their quest for knowledge must always be admired. Einstein was instrumental in giving a philosophical twist to an otherwise dry subject like Physics. The need of the time is to keep thinking, presenting new ideas and trying to come to the best possible conclusions. In the Nineteenth Century, Newton ruled; most of the Twentieth Century and onwards has been ruled by Einstein. His special and general theories of relativity and the models of the origin of the universe based on his theories have almost become a religion with physicists. In spite of the fact that his light-speed barrier created innumerable problems – mathematical, physical as well as philosophical, that there are mounting evidences against this barrier and that the whole branch of Quantum mechanics is regarded non-local, Einsteinianism rules the Physics. Einsteinianism has become a type of physico-religion, which must rule whatever the nature of the evidences. If any facts apparently seem to be violating the Einsteinian limits, ways must be found out so that they conform to them. This chapter examines the problems related with Einsteinianism and suggests that time has now arrived when this needs to be challenged and confronted.

Light cannot be allowed to adorn divinity, which turns its small speed into an infinite one for all practical purposes. Light-speed barrier is an artificial barrier erected by Einstein's mind. Physicists have unfortunately turned this barrier into a wall that cannot be scaled. This is despite the accumulating evidences at the microscopic as well as the macroscopic level pointing to the brittle nature of the foundation of this wall. To talk of light-speed as the fastest possible speed is as to talk in the tenth century of the speed of the horse being the fastest achievable speed on the earth. And Einstein cannot be allowed to don the role of Final Prophet whose Word cannot be challenged or changed.

When the twentieth century has already met with its end and the second millennium of the Christian era has closed, one feels naturally inclined to look back and see what the second millennium in general and the twentieth century in particular contributed to the history of human civilisation. The relative influence of various historical events and personalities presiding over them will continue to haunt human minds for years. There have been personalities who would occupy the status of great heroes in the eyes of a section of critics and ferocious villains in those of others. There have also been events that would be regarded by some as turning points in the onward march of civilisation, and others would contest it with equal vehemence. The debate will continue. The perceptions will change. With this change in perceptions, the heroes will continue to be transformed into villains, and vice versa. But there have flourished personalities that would defy these differences in perceptions and attitudes of the people. Their views might have been challenged in the past and may be disproved in the future, even to the extent of being decimated forever. Their greatness will still remain unruffled in the eyes of the masses, more so in the eyes of the experts. These are thinkers who have used their intelligence, wisdom, acumen, energy and time to ascertain the truth. Even if what they claimed in their lives as the truth could prove in the end to be only a partial truth or no truth at all, their contribution would always be viewed with respect; for they, at least, strove to know the truth. It is this relentless and selfless pursuit of the truth that gives certain luminaries a place above the rest. The role of reformers and rulers in history is always subject to their impact on different aspects of life, and on the fortunes of different classes of people who tend to adjudge them only in relation to their own interests. But scientists are certainly one genre of history-makers that have always commanded unadulterated respect. They are the "fixed" stars on the horizon of knowledge that will never stop illuminating the ever-turning leaves of the book of history.

The list of scientists who have enlightened the mankind with their invaluable ideas, opinions, researches and findings is not short. But among the pearls of the ocean of knowledge, there are three too brilliant to be missed by any eyes that can see -- Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. These three were no ordinary scientists using instruments and tools to reach certain conclusions. They were sensational thinkers who had an uncanny capacity to first philosophise and then artfully and astutely fit their philosophies, often bordering wild fantasies, into an excitingly fascinating frame of scientific logic. Such were their geniuses that, with a wonderful stroke of logical writing, they outsmarted not only their contemporaries but, in many cases, also their posterity. And among these three, the man who has ruthlessly dominated the 20th century scientific scene is none other than Albert Einstein. It is his ideas of relativity (special and general) along with Quantum mechanics and of course the classical mechanics that form the foundation stones of the theory of Physics. Combined with the Cosmology dominated by Hubble's telescopic vision, they provided us an insight into the structure and functioning of the vast universe.

##  Problems in understanding the Universe

The current state of the knowledge of universe rests primarily on the two important branches: Classical Mechanics (that includes Newtonian Mechanics, Einstein's theories of relativity and Hubble's cosmology) and Quantum Mechanics. Philosophically, the two often seem to be at loggerheads, though both of them have been of huge practical importance. Despite the challenges posed by the Quantum Mechanics to Einsteinian and other classical ideas, the influence of Einstein remains overpowering in the overall scenario. He remains the unchallenged genius of the modern Physics. Einstein demands great respect because he was different. He was not merely a scientist who would concentrate on experiments and try to expound theories on the basis of their results. He was more of a thinker and philosopher who would be constantly haunted by new ideas and thoughts. He did not believe much in experimenting himself; instead he relied more upon what others did and constructed his thought on the results of their experiments. Often on the basis of his new ideas, he would suggest new experiments, which others would gladly perform for him; these would more often than not prove him right. He was not merely a philosopher either who would let his thoughts flow without scrutinising them with the assistance of scientific and mathematical criteria. It is a tribute to his genius that he has been instrumental in opening up new horizons of scientific philosophy, horizons that the mental telescopes of other scientists were not able to discover. Despite his extraordinary confidence in his abilities, he was always ready to widen his concepts to include whatever new was emerging in the world. His theories gave a quantum jump to the knowledge of the universe. But there was one principle that he was never ready to part with, the principle of the constancy of light-speed.

The empirical "constancy" of light-speed observed by scientists led Einstein to declare that light-speed was indeed constant, meaning it cannot change under any circumstances, and there cannot be any speed beyond the speed of light. The whole foundation of Physics has unfortunately relied too heavily on Einstein's obsession for light. It was this obsessive fascination combined with his brilliance that he was able to influence almost every theory of physics so that it did not violate the barrier of light-speed. It will be explained below how Einstein manufactured his ideas about light-constancy and tried to fit everything into it. In doing so, he consciously or unconsciously tried to turn the minibus of light-speed barrier into an omnibus that would absorb the whole universe.

Even from an empirical point of view, this is extremely difficult to believe that a small speed like that of light can be of any help in understanding the functioning of the universe. The universe is so vast that in its backdrop, the light-speed is nothing but mere crawl. To keep the universe functioning the way it is functioning, much speedier ways of communication would be needed.

It is also interesting to note that Einstein's First Postulate says that physical laws in all the co-ordinate systems are the same. This postulate in itself is the cause of contradiction for the postulate of light-speed constancy, as how so vastly distant co-ordinate systems can regularly communicate to know about these laws and keep following them without fail. It can be argued that these laws are the same because they all had their origin in the Big Bang. But soon after the Big Bang they got separated by huge distances, making most of them unable to communicate with one another. Why then do the same laws prevail everywhere in the universe? We know from our daily experiences that the enforcement of law requires a constant vigil in the whole land. What then, makes the matter so obedient all over the universe? This question will also be discussed later in another context. The fact however remains that Einstein's two postulates of special theory of relativity are contradictory to one another. Apart from the fact that different areas have no mechanism to co-ordinate with one another, the laws in them can also only be identical, not the same.

The history of modern Physics is witness to how Einstein used his idea of light-speed barrier to bulldoze almost every other theory; how he constructed theories and formulas to adjust almost every mechanism to its demands. One mistake of light-speed barrier led to hundreds of errors being accepted by the community of Physicists. This is another matter that Einstein and the posterity of physicists did so considering that the falsehood of light-speed barrier was the truth that has to be accepted at all costs.

##  Problem of Photon Mass

Einstein gave the following formula for the relativistic effects

Where v is the speed of the object and c the speed of the light.

This is how the speed changes the mass and size of the object:

Speed | Speed (miles/hour) | Gamma | Length

---|---|---|---

0 | 0 | 1 | 1

20 meters/second | 45 | 1.0000000000000022 | .9999999999999978

100,000 m/s | 224,000 | 1.000000056 | .999999944

.1 _c_ (30 million m/s) | 67 million | 1.005 | .995

.9 _c_ | 600 million | 2.29 | .44

.999 _c_ | 670 million | 22.4 | .045

c | 670 million | Infinite | 0

The first and immediate casualty of Einstein's creation of gamma factor was the light itself. The formula made the travelling of light impossible because, if the photon had mass, which had been a long belief, its mass would become infinite at the speed of light according to the demands of the formula of the special theory of relativity. It would then annihilate rather than sustain the life in the universe. Einstein used his brilliance of mind to accomplish this seemingly huge task by making several suggestions. Some of the ideas about the nature of Photon that have subsequently developed are enumerated as follows: First, light's case is a special one, and this can happen with light only and no other matter. Second, light has no mass at all. Third, light has a negligible mass at the light speed and its rest mass is zero. Fourth, its rest mass may be very small, and may be the result of a certain phenomenon rather than being the actual mass. Fifth, there is no significance at all of the mass of photon at rest because photon does not exist at rest. All these ideas have led to the burial of the mass of photon to let the Special Theory survive.

There is little doubt if any that photon mass would continue to be a problem for physicists. But till the light-speed barrier is there, the final position of the scientists will continue to be in the favour of photon having no mass. Now the position of physicists today is that they differentiate between the relativistic mass and rest mass. "Relativistic mass" is no longer in use, as it has become customary to use "energy" for that; "rest mass" or "invariant mass" is considered an invariant. As the special theory of relativity and some aspects of Quantum Hydrodynamics--the theory of quantum Hydrodynamics would be in trouble, as it would lose gauge variance, which would make it non-normalisable-- made it necessary that the photon must have zero rest mass, most physicists today believe all photons have zero mass. It will be seen later that there is no "rest" in the universe, and to talk of "rest" in a universe dominated by "relativity" is in itself ridiculous. Despite their beliefs, which are more laboured than spontaneous, physicists have been talking of an "upper limit" for the rest mass of photons. The claims of this upper limit vary from 6x10-16 eV to 3x10-27 eV. (A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields.)

In spite of the hullabaloo on the photon mass, the truth remains that a particle is a particle only because it has a size and a mass. Just to make it adjust to the demands of a theory that puts limit on the highest speed, the size and mass of a particle cannot be reduced to zero. If the gamma factor of the special theory holds true, even the size of the photon at the light speed has to be zero, which mathematically means the size of a photon at rest must be infinite. This is because with the increase of velocity, the size contracts leading to a zero size at the light-speed. It is not only the question of mass but also the question of the size of photon, which needs attention. The wavelength too of photon must become zero, if Einstein's gamma factor holds true. To take shelter in the empirical truth for supporting this is deplorable.

##  Gravity has to change to adjust to the demands of Gamma

After the theory of special relativity, the next enormous challenge for Einstein was to incorporate his ideas into the theory of Gravity. Newton's theory of Gravity was founded on a force of gravitation acting instantaneously between distant points, its strength depending on the masses of the bodies and inversely on the square of distance between them. For Einstein, the idea of instantaneously acting forces was an anathema, as it violated his idea of light-speed barrier. If photons cannot travel faster than a fixed speed, how can gravity or the force of gravitation? Another problem was that of the photon. If it is assumed to be having mass, it produces one problem described above; if it is assumed to be having no mass, then any future evidence of attraction between massive bodies and light would pose another serious question: how did light get attracted if it had no mass? What suited Einstein most, was that no mass should ideally be subscribed to photon. But then, what should be done to gravity? His once in a life-time intuition of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration that would lead to bending of light had convinced him that light would bend near a massive object. To answer that bending, there should be a reasonable logic that would silence the critics and convince the fellow physicists. The logic should be such as would explain the bending without ascribing any mass to Photon. Another question that troubled his mind was the propagation of gravitation. If it were to propagate with or less than the speed of light a problem would arise. How do the planets revolve around the Sun in spite of the fact that any wave travelling at the speed of light would take several minutes (8 in the case of Earth and about 5 hours in the case of Pluto) to reach from the Sun to the planet? By that time, the planets would leave the orbit. To find an answer to all these problems, he created, with huge amount of mental exercise that endeared mathematics and mathematicians to him, what is known as General theory of relativity. He suggested that while gravitational effects travel at the speed of light, planets rotate around the sun not because of the force of attraction between them but because of the warping of space-time. Massive bodies warp or curve a large area in their vicinity, and planets move around the Sun because they merely follow a straight line in the warped space-time. This makes us look as if they are rotating around the sun due to the force of gravitation. By the same logic, if a photon is seen bending near a massive object, this too would not be because of the attraction of photon (due to its mass) by the massive body but due to it following a straight line in a warped space-time.

General Theory was surely a clever attempt to turn the supposed universal constant of light speed into an eternal and ubiquitous reality. The motion of planets, for example, in the way Einstein sees it, is plausible if the Sun were stationary. But the truth is that the Sun is not stationary. So, the warping effect of the Sun is also not stationary. It keeps on changing every moment of time at a sufficiently quick speed. The Sun is moving in the Milky Way, around its centre at a speed of around 210 kilometres per second. It means by the time the gravitational field or warping effect reaches the earth, the Sun has moved about 97000 kilometres ahead on its path. It can be argued that the Sun carries the Earth along with it. But to carry again will require a connection between them. And if the whole solar system is moving towards the centre of the Milky Way, it will also require a connection between them. It can be argued here that the warping effect of the Sun was already there in a large area around the earth. But the truth remains that the warping effect will not be the same everywhere and its strength will continue to change depending upon the distance from the Sun. The more distant the object the more difficult it will be to explain it. So, effectively, the Earth moves not around the centre of the Sun, but around an Imaginary centre of the Sun, 97000 kilometres away, (unless we believe the Earth's movement along with the Sun takes place with instantaneous communication). In the case of Pluto, it can be seen that the planet moves around the Imaginary centre of the Sun, which is about 3800000 Kilometres away from the centre. Had the Sun been fixed, it would have been easy to assume that the warping effect of the Sun has already influenced a very big area and curved the space-time there. But with the Sun as well as planets moving, planets should not appear moving around the Sun but around an imaginary Sun, whose centre is different for different planets, increasing with the increasing distance from the Sun. It is not easy to visualise how the Sun drags the planets along with it as well as around it.

Distance of Effective Centre from the Real Centre of the Sun 000 kms.

---

Mercury | 57910 | 40536

Venus | 108200 | 75738

Earth | 149600 | 104719

Mars | 227940 | 159564

Jupiter | 778330 | 544830

Saturn | 1429400 | 1000579

Uranus | 2870990 | 2009692

Neptune | 4504300 | 3153009

Pluto | 5913520 | 4139463

The solar system is part of our galaxy, and is about 30,000 light-years away from its centre. It travels around that centre about once every 200 million years, at an average speed of about 230 kms per second. Our galaxy is moving towards the centre of the Local Group at around 40 kms per second. Thus, warping effect can hardly explain the gravity at a large scale, unless Einstein's light-speed barrier is given up.

Despite the presentation of GTR more than one hundred years back, the theory still remains incomplete and untested. It will be interesting to quote from an article, captioned, "Einstein after Seven Decades" that appeared on Stanford University web page:

"Einstein forever altered our thinking about space, time and the universe, but some of his most basic ideas remain untested and bafflingly at odds with the rest of modern physics......Why after almost eighty years do we still need to test Einstein's theory of general relativity? The answer is that although it is among the most brilliant creations of the human mind, weaving together space, time, and gravitation, and bringing an understanding of such bizarre phenomena as black holes and the expanding universe, it remains one of the least tested of scientific theories. General relativity is hard to reconcile with the rest of physics, and even within its own structure has weaknesses. Einstein himself was dissatisfied, and spent many years trying to broaden his theory and unify it with just one other branch of physics, electromagnetism. Modern physicists seeking wider unification meet worse perplexities. Above all, essential areas of general relativity have never been checked experimentally.......

"Einstein in 1916 could only think of three potential manifestations of general relativity, all minuscule. Mercury's orbit around the Sun should gradually turn in its plane through an angle minutely different from Newtonian prediction -- an effect called perihelion precession... Stars observed near the edge of the Sun should appear slightly displaced outward from their normal positions... Light leaving a star should change colour slightly, shifting toward the red...... For over forty years, these three effects -- weak both in what they tested and in how well they tested it -- were all there was. Starlight deflection proved frustratingly difficult to measure. Mercury's orbit, though better, was subject to Newtonian disturbances. Least satisfactory was the redshift, which was observationally messy and hinged on the assumption (the "Einstein equivalence principle") far short of general relativity. This was at most a half-test.... Worse, competing theories soon appeared giving the same predictions for Einstein's tests of general relativity...... General relativity is a minimalist theory. Its assumptions are few, and (more remarkably) often where other theories predict a non-Newtonian effect, it yields nothing. The theoretical log-jam can be broken by negative experiments -- searches for phenomena that are absent from general relativity and Newtonian gravitation but present in competing theories."

The article then remarks, "Moreover, deep theoretical problems -- some old and some new -- remain. Einstein himself remarked that the left-hand side of his field equation (describing the curvature of space-time) was granite, but that the right-hand side (connecting space-time to matter) was sand. The mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment."

Another important area where the GTR fails is its inability to explain the massive structures called the Great Wall and huge space, the Great Void. Both the wall and the adjacent voids are far too large for classical gravity-based astrophysical theories to explain.

##  The Question of locality in Quantum Mechanics

The development of Quantum Mechanics has a chequered history. On the practical front, no theory has been as successful as the Quantum Mechanics. On the theoretical front however, it has led to a huge philosophical debate that still continues unabated. Physicists now seem to have resigned to the idea that, if there are no practical difficulties, there is hardly any need to bother about the philosophical deliberations.

Quantum mechanics owe its existence among others to Einstein. Yet Einstein did not accept it as a complete theory, because it violated his idea of locality emanating from his universal constant of light-speed that puts a limit on any information travelling faster than light. Locality is a powerful concept—In fact, regarded by many as the most powerful--of Physics that denies action at a distance, or what is called as "spooky action at distance". Locality requires that all the information useful in predicting what will happen at a particular point of time should be contained in a sphere of influence. For example, the sphere of influence of one second is an area of 300,000 kilometre-radius. Bell's theorem, influenced by Bohm's view of locality, tried to prove that locality has to be abandoned in quantum mechanics. His theorem conclusively proved that electrons seemed to know about each other almost instantaneously, because there is no way they could communicate so soon considering the fact that no information could travel faster than light.

Despite the fact that nonlocality is now regarded as consistent with quantum mechanics, Einstein's influence on physics is such that the fundamental idea of the light-speed barrier has not been dropped. Physicists do not take quantum physics as enough evidence against the theory of special relativity. Einstein was right in believing that instantaneity is something that cannot be acceptable; for it will demolish the very foundations of determinism. If determinism is demolished, causality will have no meaning. The future will then become probabilistic and chaotic rather than deterministic. But there is a middle ground possible between locality and nonlocality. (This is what this author has proposed in his new theory.)

##  Infinities in Einstein's theory a permanent feature

Einstein's ideas on relativity lead us to several such consequences as are extremely difficult, at least philosophically, to accept. Even from a purely scientific point of view, there are agonising discomforts in accepting these consequences. Zero, in the normal literal sense, means absence of something. It indicates things or properties that do not exist. For instance, if one says that one has zero money in one's pocket, it means one has no money at all. If a limited company declares that its annual growth in the previous year has been zero, it means, on the basis of the criteria fixed by the company to determine the rate of growth, there has been no growth in comparison with that in the last year. If a boy informs his parents that he has secured zero marks in mathematics, parents would conclude that he could not do anything right to secure even a single mark. If a wife tells her husband there is zero litres of milk left for the preparation of tea, it would indicate that all milk has been consumed and nothing is left. If my wife tells me there is zero kilograms of sugar left in the kitchen, I will immediately order my servant to go and fetch some sugar from the market. Otherwise, I will have to do without my tea, or will have to take tea without sugar, like most of the Westerners do. But the Einstein's theory informs us that the inference I drew, and the action I took, need not be correct. Zero sugar does not necessarily mean absence of sugar. Paradoxically, it may also mean there is surely sugar there but its weight is zero kilograms.

Thus, Einstein's gamma compels us to believe that despite the commonly known fact that mass and volume are basic properties of matter, particles can exist, with zero mass or zero volume. Thus, as soon as a body gets to the speed of light, its size would become zero. Zero size does not mean it has ceased to exist but only that it exists without any size. And still more interesting is the information that the body with zero volume has infinite mass. Thus, it also means a certain thing has almost ceased to exist in space-time and yet has infinite mass, which is detectable in space-time. This formula has led scientists to believe there are many particles that do have zero mass. In fact, in the wake of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the universe has become full of infinities. The world is said to have begun at a Big Bang singularity at which space-time was infinitely curved meaning again it had zero volume and infinite mass. Not only did the universe begin at infinity and could end at singularity according to one section of Physicists, stars too would collapse to form infinities. Roger Penrose, using the way light-cones behave in general relativity, showed that a star collapsing under its gravity would be trapped in a region where the surface of the star would eventually shrink to zero size. This means again that since the surface of the region shrinks to zero size, so too must its volume, and the matter of the star would be compressed into a region of zero volume and infinite density. in the language of physics, it would have infinite curvature of space-time. In fact, Penrose gave singularity theorems, founded on the principle of classical (Einstein's) general relativity, which meant anybody undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. So, within the black hole, there must be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. This singularity is like the one at the beginning of time at the Big Bang. But it would mean instead the end of time for the collapsing body, and of any astronaut who happened to be trapped inside it. At these singularities, all the known laws of science would break down.

Even in Quantum theory of Gravity, attempts to remove singularities have not been convincingly successful. In order to do so, scientists had to assume a so-called imaginary time. In imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. But in the real time, thanks to classical general relativity, there have to be singularities. When general relativity is combined with the uncertainty principle, the problem of removing singularities is still not solved. The uncertainty principle has in fact created another tedious situation. It means even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles having infinite mass -energy. This would curve the whole universe to infinitely small size. In other partial theories, too, infinities occur. To remove these infinities, a dubious mathematical method known as renormalisation was introduced. Renormalisation involves cancelling of infinities by introducing other infinities. Yet another attempt to remove infinities was made through the concept of supergravity. This involved combining the graviton (spin 2 particle) with certain new particles of spin 3/2, ½ and zero. But this method too failed in convincingly cancelling all the infinities.

Thus, infinities that philosophically are divine properties have, in the modern theory of physics, become unavoidable in a universe filled with finites. In brief, the world is supposed to have begun with infinities (at both ends that is, at zero volume and infinite mass) and may also end at infinity or a finite universe having innumerable infinities.

We have to build a theoretical structure that does not associate infinities with the objects of the universe. If a body moves, it has to move with other than zero velocity; if a particle has to exist, it must have some mass and some volume, even if it were extremely small. To determine the masses and volume of a certain existing particle may be practically impossible, but, theoretically, it has to have mass and volume, howsoever small. From Einstein's general theory of relativity, it can be inferred that mass and volume are not fundamental properties of the matter. Thus, even infinite masses can occur at Big Bang and black hole singularities without volumes. Is it not surprising that, at the singularities, the matter has been destroyed in terms of its volume, but is very much in existence as far as its mass is concerned? This half death of the matter is one of the most audacious and repugnant results of the general theory of relativity, which has not been convincingly answered by other theories as well.

Another agonising feature of Einstein's theory is that, by erecting a bar on the maximum possible speed that matter can achieve, which is the speed of light, he has transformed light-speed into virtually an infinite speed. No body, whatsoever, with the exception of photons and some more particles, can achieve this speed. And at that speed, time comes to zero. Again, zero time does not mean time has stopped moving but that time is moving with zero speed. If you are living in a frame moving with light-speed, and if somehow you are able to survive, it does not mean everything comes to standstill there; but whatever events occur would occur at zero speed.

##  Origin of the Universe

The models of the origin of the universe that have been proposed time and again by various physicists too were influenced by Einstein's ideas so much that despite huge problems in the development of these models, **the basic principle of the light-speed barrier was not given up.** This is another matter that some physicists have tried to explain the problems by proposing that, in the initial phase of inflationary expansion, which lasted a very small fragment of a second, the light speed was faster than its speed today on the account of the extraordinary energy available then.

The problems faced by the cosmologists and physicists in different models of the origin of the universe have been summed up by Stephen Hawking in his famous book "History of Time":

"The picture of a universe that started off very hot and cooled as it expanded is in agreement with all the observational evidences that we have today. Nevertheless, it leaves a number of questions unanswered:

Why was the early universe so hot?

Why is the universe so uniform on a large scale? Why does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions? In particular, why is the temperature of the microwave background radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions? It is a bit like asking a number of students an exam question. If they all give exactly the same answer, you can be pretty sure they have communicated with each other. Yet in the model described above, there would not have been time since the Big Bang for light to get from one distant region to another, even though the regions were close together in the early universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information can. So, there would be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have come to have had the same temperature as each other, unless for some unexplained reason that happened to start at the same temperature.

Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever; so that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million millions, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.

Despite the fact that the universe is so uniform and homogeneous on a large scale, it contains local irregularities such as stars and galaxies. These are thought to have developed from small differences in the density of the early universe from one region to another? What was the origin of these density fluctuations?"

It was Einstein's theory of General Relativity (along with Hubble's idea of the expanding universe), which has chiefly been responsible for the belief that the universe began from a singularity of infinite mass and energy density, and almost zero volume. It was mainly his ideas and his equations that compelled physicists to think of the universe beginning at a point where all the present laws break down. It is ironical to believe that present laws were derived from a situation where these laws had no tangible or perceptible existence. Despite many attempts to answer it, the question still remains unconvincingly answered. The universe began at singularity with a huge explosion called Big Bang. This huge explosion was not an explosion we understand in our routine life. This was not an explosion in space but of it. The size of the universe at 10-12 seconds was as small as 10-17 metres. At the instant of singularity, the size was 10-33 centimetre. The initial universe was compressed into a state of extremely high density estimated to be about 1090 kg/cc (kilograms per cubic centimetre) and extraordinary temperatures, perhaps in excess of 1032 °K. Obviously, both of these were without any counterpart in the presently observed Universe. And thanks to the results of the mathematical puzzles based on the Einstein's and other equations huge transformations in the universe occurred within the first second, when the universe had already expanded to a diameter of about 1 to 10 light years., its density had decreased to 1010kg/cc, and the temperature had dropped to 1010 K. What brought these huge changes so quickly still remains largely poorly understood. The problem of Horizon Paradox still haunts the scientists because it is extremely difficult to fathom how the portions of the universe that could not have communicated on account of the limit on the speed of communication can possess similar properties, have the same temperature and look the same.

Despite its successes, the Standard Model has plenty of known problems. In the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, in an article, captioned, "The Dawn of Physics beyond the Standard Model," Gordon Kane has listed ten theoretical problems:

"1. It (the standard model) implies a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the emptiest regions of space. This so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the universe long ago or expanded it to a much greater size.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this cannot be explained by the standard model.

There is reason to believe that in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields responsible for inflation cannot be those of the Standard Model.

If the universe began as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts of matter and anti-matter. This did not happen. The universe is matter. The Standard Model cannot explain this.

About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.

In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field cause particles to have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the form these interactions must take.

Quantum corrections apparently make the Higgs boson mass huge, which would make all particle masses huge, which is obviously not the case.

The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not have the same structure as the other three forces.

The values of the masses of particles cannot be explained by the Standard Model.

There are 3 generations of particles. The Standard Model cannot explain why there is more than 1 generation."

Recently, Quantum mechanics has been used to explain some of the unanswered questions. But almost all the scientists agree that the universe began at the Big Bang. Describing the beginning of the modern theory of the origin of the universe, Hawking says:

"At that time, which we call the Big Bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematicians cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity on which Freedman's solutions are based predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what the mathematicians call singularity. In fact, till now, our theories of science are formulated on assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the Big Bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the Big Bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the Big Bang."

The inflation theory states that the initial expansion was very fast. But scientists have raised several objections to this theory. They have argued that, to expand this fast, objects must have been moving faster than the speed of light. This objection has been answered by the argument that although objects in space cannot travel faster than the speed of light, space itself can expand this fast, carrying the objects with it. This is a strange argument though. Space is no empty space; it contains various fields and may contain Dark Matter. Secondly, there is no proven mechanism for creating this massive expansion. Einstein's corrective force and a concept called false vacuum have been presented to explain the effect. It is argued that, when the Big Bang took place, there was only one type of super-force. As the universe grew, this split into the four forces we have today. The energy released during this split is said to have been responsible for inflation. But the truth remains that this cannot be proved; for until we can perform experiments at 1028°K there is no way in which to prove the theory as either correct or incorrect. Finally, there is no observational evidence of inflation. The evidence flatly contradicts its claim that the universe is a closed one.

## Quasars

Quasars have become controversial on account of the extraordinary redshift they show. The present day understanding of the quasars shows that (I) they are not necessarily star-like and have complex structures, (2) though many of them are radio sources, all of them are not, and (3) the high red-shift is the continuing hallmark of the quasars. Till now, the highest red-shift available is 3.78. On the basis of the understanding of the Doppler shift, any red-shift over that of 1.00 means a faster than light-speed velocity of the source, A value of 2.00 would mean a relative speed of double the light speed. This would clearly mean that they are moving at much higher speeds than the light. But again, Einstein's ghost scared the cosmologists who started finding out alternative explanations for this high redshift. Obviously, these attempts have not been convincing. These have led to still bigger complications. The controversy is summed up in "The Universe of Motion" by Dewey B. Larson. He says:

"While the high redshift problem was circumvented in conventional astronomical thought by this sleight-of-hand performance with the relativity mathematics, the accompanying distance-energy problem has been more recalcitrant, and has resisted all attempts to resolve it, or to evade it. Reference was made to this problem in............. If the quasars are at cosmological distances—that is, the distances corresponding to the redshifts on the assumption that they are ordinary recession redshifts—then the amount of energy that they are emitting is far too great to be explained by any known energy generation process, or even any plausible speculative process. On the other hand, if the energies are reduced to credible levels by assuming that the quasars are less distant, then conventional science has no explanation for the large redshifts....... Obviously, something has to give. One or the other of these two limiting assumptions has to be abandoned. Either there are hitherto undiscovered processes that generate vastly more energy than any process now known, or there are hitherto unknown factors that increase the quasar redshifts far beyond the normal recession values."

##  Structural Level Problems

There are many problems at the structural level also, which the standard model of the origin of the universe cannot fully explain. The universe is made up of billion of galaxies, some of which are smaller and some greater than ours. However, what amazes cosmologists is that most of the universe is devoid of any luminous matter, and is formed of gigantic empty spaces. It is hard to find how these gigantic voids were formed and whether these voids are empty. One thought is that the universe may contain just one gigantic void in which large superclusters and clusters are floating. The other possibility is that superclusters form one gigantic chain within one gigantic void so that it is possible to traverse through one chain to the other. The third possibility is that galaxies cluster to form sheets separating vast regions of empty space just as soap filaments and bubbles formed out of them. These structural features are also not easily explainable by the Big Bang models. If the universe started from a highly dense singularity, what caused these voids to appear? At the same time there are structures like Great Wall, which is a gigantic structure of up to at least 100-200 Mpc scales. The truth is that these structures and more generally the formation of galaxies have been puzzling scientists, because it is difficult to imagine these on the basis of the Big Bang models. Let us reproduce here some of these concerns:

" _My view is that there is something fundamentally wrong in our approach to understanding such large-scale structure—some key piece of the puzzle that we're missing." (Waldrop, M. Mitchell;_ _Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Science_ _, 246:885, 1989)_

"The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists." (Trefil, _The Dark Side of the Universe_ , p. 55)

"We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." (Michael Rowan-Robinson, "Review of the Accidental Universe," _New Scientist_ , Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 18)

" _A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy-formation remains to be formulated." (Joseph Silk, _The Big Bang__ _San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980 p. 22)_

"The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution." (Steven Weinberg, _The First Three Minutes,_ New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977, p. 68)

" _Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarising much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. (P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, "A Cosmic Book,"_ _Nature_ _, Vol. 335, 13 October 1988, pp. 601–606)_

"In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn't look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea." (Peterson, _Seeding the Universe_ , p. 184)

" **The discovery of the Great Wall of galaxies and the filamentary clumping of galactic matter has greatly surprised traditional astronomers who think that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed** —according to their theories, at least. Until these discoveries, almost everyone was betting their house on a uniform distribution of galaxies throughout the universe. In fact, the exact opposite has proved to be the case: galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and even superclusters (clusters of clusters) are distributed in gigantic filamentary and sheet-like patterns....

"Cosmologists have tried shoehorning these discoveries into their existing theoretical structures by hypothesising different kinds of dark matter or by asserting that the Big Bang contained irregularities, which resulted in clumping of galaxies and clusters. However, all these attempts to account for the Great Wall and other structures run into other problems. For example, postulating irregularities in the Big Bang fails to explain the observed uniformity of the universe's microwave background radiation...

"Some cosmologists are trying to piece together models containing both cold dark matter, which may explain the stability of galaxies, and hot dark matter (neutrinos), which may explain the larger-scale structures. However, this approach seems inelegant to many theorists, who are uncomfortable hypothesising agents for which there is no observational or experimental evidence." (New Science Paradigms, The Great wall)

We know now that stars group into galaxies. Some 100 billion of galaxies are observable in the universe. They form huge clusters journeying through space. Galactic superclusters may contain thousands of galaxies and may stretch hundreds of millions of light years across. Superclusters are arranged in filamentary and sheet-like structures, separated by gigantic voids of apparently empty space. Fifteen or sixteen smaller galaxies along with Milky Way and Andromeda form the Local Group cluster of galaxies. Near Local Group, there is huge Virgo Cluster. These clusters and clusters of clusters are moving. The Milky Way and Andromeda are moving toward each other, the Local Group is moving toward the middle of the Virgo cluster; and the Virgo cluster and a neighbouring supercluster are speeding toward a mysterious destination called "The Great Attractor". Moreover, using shape-finders some scientists have been able to show that for a wide range of model universes, clusters of galaxies align themselves to form one-dimensional filaments. Indeed, they predict that the larger the size of a cluster the more likely it is to be filamentary in nature.

Commenting on these structures and their movement, a report on the web-page of New Science Paradigms says:

"These structures and their movements cannot be explained as part of the general expansion of the universe. Conventional astrophysics theorises that they must be guided by gravitational forces. But astronomers have not detected enough matter to account for the tremendous gravitational pull needed to explain the motions of stars in galaxy arms, galaxies and larger structures. For years now, astronomers have been haunted by a sense that the universe is controlled by forces they don't fully understand. Recent observations provide a striking confirmation....

"Astronomers are up against the wall—the Great Wall of galaxy clusters. The Great Wall is the largest known structure in the universe: a 15 million-light-year thick sheet of galaxies, 500x106 light years long by 200x106 ly wide—and it may extend farther, into areas blocked from observation by the spiral arms of our own galaxy. The Great Wall is about 200-300x106 ly from earth. It limits vast voids of nearly empty space containing almost no galaxies at all—only some vast, diffuse clouds of hydrogen.......Both the Great Wall and the adjacent voids are far too large for classical gravity-based astrophysical theories to explain. All theories currently popular among traditional astronomers have great difficulty accounting for such enormous structures. One important observable, the 2.7-degree K cosmic background radiation—which is usually described as the afterglow of the Big Bang—argues for a very smooth, uniform distribution of galaxies. According to conventional astrophysics, the Great Wall is definitely anomalous."

## Quantum Mechanics

Apart from Classical Mechanics and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics is the third important branch of Physics, which has proved most successful in practical terms but equally controversial in the philosophical arena. Quantum Mechanics deal mainly with the matter and radiation at the atomic level. The development of Quantum mechanics has led to several fundamental concepts. The most important of them are:

  1. discreteness of energy

  2. the wave-particle duality of light and matter, and

  3. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The spectrum of light emitted from energetic atoms is composed of individual lines of colour. It is not continuous. These individual lines represent the discrete energy levels of the electrons in those excited atoms. When an electron in a high-energy state jumps down to a lower one, the atom emits a photon of light, which corresponds to the exact energy difference of those two levels. Thus, energy is not released as continuous emission, but in certain bundles called quanta. When an electron jumps from one higher state to the lower-energy state, a photon is released having the energy equal to the difference between those two states. It is this principle, which has given the name Quantum Mechanics to the study of the atomic particles and radiation. It is also the fact that electrons can only exist in some discrete energy states that prevents them falling in the nucleus.

The second important component of the Quantum mechanics is the duality of electromagnetic radiation. In 1923, Loui De Broglie hypothesised that a material particle could also exhibit wave-like properties. In 1927, Davisson and Germer showed that electrons could behave as waves indeed. On the other hand, light was also exhibiting particle like behaviour. It necessitated the duality of light, which sometimes behaved as wave and sometimes as particle, it was argued that light actually acts as a particle and the wave in fact represents only the probability of finding it at a certain position.

The third important constituent of the QM is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously with precision. This was because, at least one photon was required for measurements, and that photon would change the position and velocity of the particle. If we shorten the wavelength, the measurement of position becomes more precise and that of momentum less precise, and vice versa.

Quantum Mechanics led to huge debates, as it challenged many of the previously held philosophical views. Uncertainty principle was presented as representative of the objective uncertainty of nature. It was advocated that one cannot know the truth of nature, as uncertainty is inherent in nature. This and the wave-function-collapse, the formulation of Bell's inequalities and subsequent evidences that they are violated caused an enormous controversy over determinism. It was argued that Quantum Mechanics proved the indeterministic nature of nature, a position that was aggressively opposed by a number of scientists led by Einstein. He once wrote to Born,

"The quantum theory provokes in me quite similar sensations as in you. One ought really to be ashamed of the successes, as they are obtained with the help of the Jesuitic rule: 'One hand must not know what the other does.'"

It is clear from the above sentence that Einstein used to be ashamed of the successes of any theories that did not satisfy his positions, which were mostly the outcome of his light-speed barrier.

The great debate reached a flash point in Copenhagen Interoperation with Bohr being its chief architect. Describing the basic premises of the Interoperation, Darrell Rowbottom says:

".... there are certainly salient characteristic features that most physicists would understand as being 'Copenhagen' in origin:

It is assumed that the wave-function is a complete description of the quantum mechanical state of an individual system or an ensemble of systems prepared in the same fashion..... To be more direct, this is a statement that any parameters in addition to the wave-function, which would further specify a quantum mechanical state, are not necessary. Feyerabend agrees, in his description of this interpretation 'A quantum system does not possess any properties over and above those that are derivable from its wave function description.'

Complementarity between particles and waves is introduced; a quantum entity is described as either a particle, or a wave, depending upon the circumstances. .... My favourite definition of 'wave-particle duality', put forward by Tipler, is: 'Everything propagates like a wave and exchanges energy like a particle'. Bohr's definition, however, was not nearly so precise; he made no reference to situations other than interference experiments in his discussions and furthermore, as Jammer notes: 'Bohr never gave a clear-cut explicit definition of the term "complementarity".' It is important to emphasise that Bohr, himself, did not necessarily believe that it was correct to refer to a quantum mechanical entity as being either a wave or a particle, but rather it was the best way to discuss them in terms of established classical concepts: 'The quantum theory is characterised by the acknowledgement of a fundamental limitation in the classical physical ideas when applied to atomic phenomena. The situation thus created is of a peculiar nature, since our interpretation of the experimental material rests essentially on the classical concepts.'...Nonetheless, it should be noted that the two classical concepts of 'wave' and 'particle', in the sense which complementarity employs them, are considered to be mutually exclusive. But why should we try to explain quantum mechanical entities in terms of just these classical ideas? This is an arbitrary decision, which proves to be restrictive. As Home correctly points out: 'It is... possible to go beyond Bohr's wave particle complementarity by not adhering to classical pictures but still retaining visualisability in terms of wave and particle amenable to an event-by-event realist description.

Any apparent interpretation problems that are based on classical thought are dismissed as being 'wrong'. Squires elucidates, 'If we abandon them then we will have no problems. Thus, questions which can only be asked using classical concepts are not permitted.' This statement should not be seen to imply that classical physics cannot be considered, in principle, to be a 'special case' of the quantum mechanical theory. No explicit attempt is made to say that the correspondence principle is invalid; thus, we are still permitted to expect that the results of quantum mechanics will reduce to those of classical mechanics at a certain parameter limit. The foremost analogy of such a 'classical limit' is the reduction of special relativity to Newtonian Mechanics in the limit of velocities, which are a small fraction of the speed of light, such as those experienced in daily life on Earth.

An anti-realist stance is adopted, and the results of measurements are taken to be the only valid concern in quantum mechanics. In fact, a broader statement is implied, that physical theories should only be concerned with predicting reproducible results that can be empirically tested; this approach mirrors that of the logical positivist 'Vienna Circle', which was very philosophically active in this period. In the words of Bohr: 'The entire quantum formalism is to be considered as a tool for deriving predictions.'...No direct comment is made regarding the physical reality of fundamental particles, or their properties such as mass, charge, or spin. On the contrary, as Home explains, it is assumed that there is 'no physical reality to dynamic properties (position, velocity, energy) of a quantum system, unless they are measured'.

The act of measurement itself is conveniently ignored; no credible explanation of what constitutes a measurement is included. Bohr himself relied on the explanation that the measuring apparatus was 'classical'... 'The essentially new feature in the analysis of quantum phenomena is... the introduction of a fundamental distinction between the measuring apparatus and the object under investigation. This is a direct consequence of the necessity of accounting for the functions of the measuring instruments in purely classical terms.'

In the Copenhagen Interpretation, it can be argued, Quantum Mechanics is considered completely separate. Copenhagen Interoperation was in fact a work of the ideology of Bohr, who went on to say:

"'There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.'

Einstein was a great opponent of Bohr's ideas. Describing their debate over the issues related to Quantum formalism, Home sums it up:

"Bohr's pragmatist thesis was too anthropocentric for Einstein. Einstein held that the primary aim of physics is to construct theories that "approximate as closely as possible to the truth of physical reality." For Bohr however, the main task of physics is to enable us to make sense out of our empirical or perceptual experience. He did not contest that our experience is of an independently existing physical world, but unlike Einstein, Bohr was reconciled to a non-realist and acausal representation of quantum events in terms of a self-consistent, mathematical formalism.' Darell Rowbottom says, "Like it or not, the aggressive tone with which I refer to both Bohr, and his vain 'interpretative' attempt, is unashamedly intentional. The Copenhagen interpretation is not really an 'interpretation' at all, in any meaningful sense of the word. It is simply not acceptable to say 'Do not ask that question', and give no logical reason why the question cannot be asked; this is the behaviour that one would expect of an irate secondary school teacher. Deception and illusion, smoke and mirrors, these are the tools that are employed by the anti-realists in this curious intellectual game. If Bohr and his cohorts truly believed that the purpose of physics is only to gain predictive power, then why bother wasting time in adopting an 'interpretation'? Merely to satisfy the 'ignorant'? Is it not indicative of the dishonest nature of this entire process that, rather than make a clear 'Copenhagen Dictum', which would presumably have stated 'Get on and do the maths', the adherents to this orthodoxy instead entered into a misleading discourse designed to 'comfort' its victims? This wasteful exercise in 'swings and roundabouts' only served to convince scores of intelligent people that it was simply safer to toe the line than it was to question High Priest Bohr, or his flock. "

Einstein was disillusioned with Quantum Mechanics, as he did not like the idea of abandoning the Locality, Causality and Determinism. He also tried to support his ideas through an experiment, called EPR Paradox. But the idea of locality was constantly troubling the quantum physics. Bell's theorem, published in 1964, braved a very strong challenge to the locality. Bell proved that the idea of locality was not compatible with the Quantum Mechanics, as there seems to be a faster than light influence on very distant events. Rowbottom says,

"With the realist approach that I advocate, it should be of no surprise to the reader that I find these results, which are widely accepted as being correct, to be of serious concern. They could be perceived to be an indication that we must abandon not only the concept of locality, but perhaps ultimately determinism or causality, in our pursuit of a description of physical reality. For, furthermore, this type of non-locality is independent of the distance between the particles involved; it implies that a physically real description of quantum entanglement would involve a potentially 'faster than light' connection between the entangled bodies."

It is clear from the above that Quantum Mechanics produces several problems, two most important of which are that it challenges the concept of locality and that it talks of uncertainty, which like a black cloud shrouds the great concepts of classical physics, causality and determinism.

Locality is a constant thorn in the flesh of QM, and many believe the two are not compatible with each other. Rowbottom says:

"So, which of the two remaining options is it that I propose to take? Well, as I have already explained, the successes of the formalism imply that is should be altered only as a last resort; such alterations are, moreover, outside the scope of this dissertation's title. It would seem, then, clear that I should agree with option (b), and 'accept that a realist model of quantum mechanics must be non-local'. Indeed, my conclusion is the same, but with one important proviso." Prof. Home agrees with him, "You are correct in saying that what I meant to imply (perhaps I was not very clear)... is that in order to reconcile with the observed violations of Bell-type inequalities one needs to give up one of the "macroscopic" or "classical" prejudices."

Then Rowbottom remarks:

"The choice to abandon locality, which I indeed support, is based upon 'weighing up' the relative advantages of each macroscopic prejudice, respectively, and reaching the conclusion that locality will require the least intuitive effort to sacrifice. Non-locality is also the most appealing choice because of the work which has already been done in this direction, by de Broglie-Bohm."

It is clear that Bohemian ontological interpretation is much better than the Copenhagen Interpretation. Asserting this position, Rowbottom says,

"I believe that the Bohemian ontological interpretation, combined with environment-induced decoherence, is decidedly superior to the Copenhagen Interpretation. At a small, but necessary cost, namely the sacrifice of locality, we can obtain a real description of quantum mechanics that will serve to satisfy our intuitive needs, and allow us to relate our experience in the macroscopic world to that which occurs in the microscopic domain.

"The other supposed 'price' is the adoption of a 'quantum potential', but I contend that this is entirely acceptable in the circumstances. My 'practical realism' speaks of introducing 'supplementary concepts..., (which) answer more philosophical, and physical, questions than they ask'. In this case, we have managed to retain the objective reality of position and velocity, the principle of determinism, and the principle of causality. As I mentioned, towards the beginning of this dissertation, physicists were willing, for hundreds of years, to accept Newtonian gravity's implied 'action at a distance'; is the 'quantum potential', then, really any different? Is it not possible that this 'apparent problem' will be resolved, in times to come?"

Bohm rightly took the view that the abandonment of causality had been too hasty:

"....it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable. Thus, the conclusion that there is no deeper level of causally determined motion is just a piece of circular reasoning, since it will follow only if we assume beforehand that no such level exists."

There cannot be a more preposterous logic than that the Quantum Mechanics demonstrates a detachment between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds. The crossroads where the present physics seems to be stuck at the moment leaves an unmistakable impression that the two are separate indeed. If the Quantum Mechanics were accepted as different from the macroscopic world, it would only mean that our world has two faces; the outer and greater picture is entirely different from the inner and smaller picture. This is like saying that a living being is totally different from its cells. The problems we face today in reconciling the two is basically the result of the philosophically unfounded principle of locality, which has outlived its utility as a genuine limiting principle in the physical world. Furthermore, the set of laws in the larger world cannot be different from the set of laws governing the inside of its constituents. This is another matter that the significance of different laws assumes different proportions at different levels. The genes functioning within the cells have no parallel in the macroscopic world. But this does not make cells a different world from the world of living beings. Bohm's endeavours to bring in the two closers, is admirable, but he has not succeeded in presenting a plausible ground for his ideas of Quantum Potential and Implicate Order. What brings this Implicate Order into action?
Chapter 3

#  Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR)

The Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR) proposed by this author is based on three main postulates:

  1. The speed of light is not constant but rigid or stable, which will deprive light-speed of the status of the fastest achievable speed;

  2. The universe is not expanding but rotating, a postulate that will make the universe a much-more-easy-to-understand, well-organised, well-knit unit; and

  3. The gravity is an influence travelling with huge speed.

First Postulate of the Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR): Light Speed is RIGID or STABLE, not CONSTANT.

The empirical "constancy" of light-speed observed by scientists led Einstein to declare that light-speed was indeed constant, meaning that it cannot change under any circumstances whatsoever, and there cannot be any speed beyond the speed of light. The UTR proposes that light-speed is not constant but is rigid with an inherent stabilising mechanism in it. As will be seen below, this stabilising mechanism is easily understandable and will change the whole foundation of Physics, which unfortunately has relied too heavily on Einstein's obsession for light.

Let us first concentrate on the difference between constancy and rigidity or stability. Constancy, the way Einstein put it, seems to indicate some form of divine absoluteness in light; its speed can never be changed by anything or any influence. Even if a velocity is mathematically added to it or subtracted from it, it would equal the speed of light. Thus light-speed was not just 300000 kilometres per second, but mathematically and physically, an infinite value, effectively, if not numerically. It is another matter that later it was realised that light-speed can change in several circumstances, and it would be more proper to claim that light-speed remains constant in vacuum. This led to the enunciation of the principle of locality, which means that no information whatsoever can travel faster than light.

The light-speed barrier as maximum achievable speed, created by Einstein, could have been better appreciated if it was impossible only to accelerate and not decelerate light. But the fact that light-speed was not found decelerating under ordinary circumstances evidently points to an underlying stabilising mechanism. Had this mechanism been understood, the science would not have owed as much to Einstein perhaps as it does now. Still, Einstein should be credited with his brilliant understanding of the concept of relativity. Unfortunately, however, this comprehension of relativity led him to develop a formula for gamma factor that imparts the highest limit to the speed of light. The true answer however lies, ironically, in the very concept of relativity that Einstein espoused with such a massive success. The fact is that the stabilising mechanism in light is responsible for the so-called constancy of light. As the mass of a moving object increases with the increase in velocity, what actually happens is that, at the speed of light, a sort of equilibrium is created for the range of masses that various photons possess. (It will be discussed below that any matter in existence must have a mass and volume, no matter how small it is, and it is much better to admit that photon too has mass rather than shout that it does not. Those who do not want to accept this may substitute mass with the frequency of light.) Whenever an external force tries to accelerate the photon of light, this changes the mass of photon in such a way that the increased mass pulls back the speed to the original point. The same happens when there is an attempt to decelerate the speed of light; the decrease in the mass of photon caused by the decrease in speed helps the light to immediately return to its normal speed. It also means that the attempt to decrease the velocity causes a redshift and the attempt to increase the velocity causes a blue shift. Suppose a photon of mass m0 has the speed of light. So, its kinetic energy is m0c². Now, suppose there is an external supply of energy that tries to increase its speed by an amount v. If there was no relativistic mechanism working, then the kinetic energy of the photon would have become m0(c+v)². Now, due to relativistic mechanism operating, m0 increases to m1, and the speed remains the same. Thus, the kinetic energy of photon becomes m1c². So m0(c+v)²=m1c². That means m1/m0 is equal to ², which is the real value of gamma factor, which may be called new gamma factor. It also means gamma factor also tells the relativistic effect if the velocity is decreased, not only when it is increased. So

New Gamma Factor = (c+v)²/c

v here is not the speed of the object, but the change in the velocity.

The stabilising mechanism of light is like the voltage stabiliser used routinely in our houses. It stabilises the voltage by changing the value of the current, when low or high voltage is supplied to it. It will be seen later that this concept of the "rigidity" of light would revolutionise the whole theory of Physics. It can be seen from the following table that there is a huge gap between the energies of different waves of the light spectrum. The frequencies and energy of the different parts of electromagnetic spectrum are as follows:

Table 1frequencies and energy of the different parts of electromagnetic spectrum

Wave  | Wavelength (m)  | Frequency (Hz)  | Energy ((J)

---|---|---|---

Radio  | 1x10-1 | 3 x109 | 2x10-24

Microwave | 1x10-3 -1x10-1 | 3 x109-3 x1011 | 2x10-24 \- 2x10-22

Infrared | 7x10-7-1x10-3 | 3x1011-4x1014 | 2x10-22 – 3x10-19

Optical  | 4x10-7-7x10-7 | 4x1014-7.5 x1014  | 3x10-19 – 5x10-19

UV  | 1x10-8-4x10-7 | 7.5x1014-3x1016 | 5x10-19 – 2x10-17

X-ray  | 1x10-11-1x10-8 | 3x1016-3x1019  | 2x10-17–2x10-14

Gamma-ray | <1x10-11 | >3x1019  | >2x10-14

It can be seen that the frequency changes from 3x109 to 3x1019, which means the ratio between the two is as high as 1010. The difference on both sides of the optical range is as high as 105; this imparts a very high stabilising capacity to light.

It is interesting to note that Einstein used similar reason for the redshift of light passing through a strong gravitational field. When the light passes through a strong gravitational fluid, the force of gravitation tries to slow its speed. But the speed of light has to be the same in vacuum. So, the light changes its frequency causing redshift and uses the energy thus made available to increase its speed. This clearly proves that the idea of light-speed rigidity and an inherent stabilising mechanism is absolutely valid, and it is this stabilising mechanism that provides the right formula. The formula for gamma given above however may need further adjustment once the other postulates of the theory become clear.

Even from an empirical point of view, this is extremely difficult to believe that a small speed like that of light can be of any help in understanding the functioning of the universe. The universe is so vast that in its backdrop, the light-speed is nothing but mere crawl. To keep the universe functioning the way it is functioning, much speedier ways of communication would be needed.

Postulate No. 2 of the UTR: The Universe rotates as a single body (Uniglobe) on its axis

We know that the earth along with its atmosphere and fields rotates on its axis. The planets, asteroids and other components of the solar system along with their respective fields rotate with the Sun at its centre. The stars and other interstellar matter and space rotate in a way so as to encircle the centre of Milky Way. The Milky Way and other galaxies similarly form a rotating body in the form of local group. The Local group and other such groups, form Cluster even if its angular momentum is regarded small. The clusters likewise form Supercluster. Recently, a larger structure known as Megagalaxy has been claimed by some cosmologists. It is natural to assume then that the Universe is constituted of several rotating frames, and that the Universe as a whole also rotates on its axis. I will call the rotating universe working as a single body as Uniglobe, because it is visualised as rotating like the globe of the earth. If the Uniglobe is assumed to be rotating as a whole, it signals huge transformation of the theory of Physics. That this rotation really takes place can explain many natural phenomena and can lead to a completely new understanding of the origin, structure and functioning of the universe. Most importantly, the rotation around their own axis of all the bodies, from the particles to the galaxies, is easier to comprehend than in an expanding universe.

First, scientists have always been puzzled by the question why the mutual gravitation between the constituents of the universe does not lead to a collapse into a single dense body at the centre. What keeps the planets in the orbits so that they do not gradually fall into the Sun? The rotation of the Universe on its axis provides the easiest answer to this problem. The rotational effect alone can compete with the gravitational forces and keep the matter away from coalescing at the centre. This will become clearer in the coming pages.

Second, the red-shift, which is observed and has led to the universally acclaimed principle of the expanding universe, can in fact be explained in a better way by the rotation of the Uniglobe. If the Uniglobe is rotating, obviously the portions distant from the axis will be rotating faster than the ones closer to it. When the light wave from distant zones enters the closer zones, the slower speed of the Zane would try to slow the speed of light. In order to maintain its speed, the light would utilise its inherent energy changing its frequency to a smaller one. Another way to explain is that the energy associated with the photon will decrease in the smaller zone. Both these would cause the red shift. Obviously, the more distant the sources of light are, the more pronounced the red-shift would be. However, as the universe we now see is not the current universe, some of the red shift may be representing the early expansion of the universe. Even the observational "proofs" of an expanding universe do not prove that the universe is currently expanding.

Third, the gamma factor and the rotation of the universe prove that the mass acting as a force increases with the increase in the speed of the object. The energy-mass equation given by Einstein, viz., E=mc² may not necessarily indicate the mass/energy equivalence. If mc² represents the rest mass/energy, what causes this rest mass/energy to be there and survive? This may in fact represent the kinetic energy associated with the mass in the zone, which is moving with great speed along with the rotation of the Uniglobe. It looks probable that the speed of the zone in which the solar system exists is about 420,000 kilometres per second. This much high speed should not cause much of a surprise. Because even on the basis of the red-shift as the effect of the expansion of the universe, there are galaxies the speed of which relative to earth have been found almost as much as the light speed. Taking Quasar BR 1202-0725 as a reference point, the earth would be moving at 282,000 kilometres per second. As this quasar is one of the most distant objects known, it moves away from us at the incredible speed of 282,000 kilometres per second (94% of the speed of light). And if we take the quasar as a point of reference, the earth will be the one moving at this mind-boggling speed. The objects farthest away from us appear to be receding at near the velocity of light. Obviously, in years to come, even farther regions of the universe may be seen, which may appear to be receding with a value greater than the velocity of light. (In fact, already evidence of such regions is surfacing.)

With the speed of the zone of the solar system known, the relative speed of different areas of the universe can be calculated by using the formula given by this author's Universal theory of relativity.

Fourth, the motion of planets and other bodies within the universe is explained by the theory of Universal Relativity better than the Nebular Hypothesis of the origin of the solar system, which still remains a hypothesis.

Fifth, according to cosmological estimates, only one fifth of the total mass of the universe is baryonic matter. It has been observed in clusters of galaxies that the motion of galaxies within a cluster suggests that they are bound by as much gravitational force as is available from 5 -10 times much more matter than can be accounted for from the luminous matter in the said galaxies. Furthermore, the outer stars in galaxies seem to rotate too fast to account for the amount of matter observed in the galaxy. These observations have led to the speculation that there might be dark matter present in the universe, which means this matter is not visible to our instruments. But the UTR will give another explanation, which can count at least for a significant percentage of the ratio between the gravitational effects and the observable mass. According to the UTR, the universe is rotating at a huge speed, and the galaxy in which our planet lies may be rotating at around the speed of 420,000 kms/second. According to the formula of gamma factor proposed by the UTR, the gravitational mass becomes about 4 times at the speed of light. This can account for the discrepancies in the observable mass and the real mass, and it is quite possible that there is much less dark matter present in the universe than is being anticipated.

Sixth, it will help us understand the origin of the universe and the present state of affairs in a much better way. It will demonstrate why there seems to be a hierarchy of various structures in the universe: planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and Megagalaxy. It will be easier to see why all these rotate. (The creation of the universe at the big bang cannot explain the presence of stars and planets. If highly condensed singularity at the big bang started expanding, it would have given rise to a universe with a uniform distribution of matter all over the universe.

Seventh, it will help us understand the mystery behind the detection of different forms of electromagnetic waves from different, often unknown, sources in the universe. Different forms of rays may be due to two reasons. (1) As the waves reach the slower zone from a faster zone, there will be decrease in the energy content shifting the frequency towards the red end (Infrared, microwave and radio waves). The opposite will take place when the waves enter faster zones from the slower zones, causing shift towards the blue end (ultraviolet, gamma, X-rays and cosmic rays). (2) The high energy content of the particles in the faster zones would give rise to high-energy reactions producing some of the waves.

In short, it is easier to explain a rotating universe with rotating components rather than an expanding universe with rotating components. It is in fact highly unlikely to assume the universe as a whole to be not rotating when all its parts are rotating, individually and collectively.

I first introduced the idea of the Rotation of the Universe around its Axis in 1995 in a small booklet, "Beyond Einsteinian Limits". Then I discussed it in detail in 2005 in "Rediscovering the Universe", the previous version of this work. Papers from the work were also carried by several American scientific journals like Nature and Science, Academia Arena and Journal of American Science. Recently I came across a report which indicates that the idea is now gaining weight. A report entitled, "The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos **" says:**

"Physicists and astronomers have long believed that the universe has mirror symmetry, like a basketball. But recent findings from the University of Michigan suggest that the shape of the Big Bang might be more complicated than previously thought, and that the early universe spun on an axis.

To test for the assumed mirror symmetry, physics professor Michael Longo and a team of five undergraduates catalogued the rotation direction of tens of thousands of spiral galaxies photographed in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

The mirror image of a counter-clockwise rotating galaxy would have clockwise rotation. More of one type than the other would be evidence for a breakdown of symmetry, or, in physics speak, a parity violation on cosmic scales, Longo said.

The researchers found evidence that galaxies tend to rotate in a preferred direction. They uncovered an excess of left-handed, or counter-clockwise rotating, spirals in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way. The effect extended beyond 600 million light years away.

"The excess is small, about 7 percent, but the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million," Longo said. "These results are extremely important because they appear to contradict the almost universally accepted notion that on sufficiently large scales the universe is isotropic, with no special direction."

The work provides new insights about the shape of the Big Bang. A symmetric and isotropic universe would have begun with a spherically symmetric explosion shaped like a basketball. If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

Is the universe still spinning?

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

Because the Sloan telescope is in New Mexico, the data the researchers analyzed for their recent paper came mostly from the northern hemisphere of the sky. An important test of the findings will be to see if there is an excess of right-handed spiral galaxies in the southern hemisphere. This research is currently underway.

A paper on the findings, Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z~0.04 is published in Physics Letters B."

I am sure soon more and more formal physicists will come up with papers giving more weight to the concept of the rotation of the universe. The major proofs of the rotation of the universe are to be found from the red shift better explained by a rotating than an expanding universe, the fact that the objects do not fall into one another despite gravity and that every single object in the universe is rotating as well as revolving individually or collectively, which again is better explained by a rotating rather than an expanding universe.

Postulate 3: Gravitational attraction moves hugely faster than light

Gravity has always been a controversial subject with physicists. Describing the development of the theory of gravity, especially the role of Einstein, "Einstein's Legacy" says, "But Newton's theory of gravitation was a "descriptive theory". It did not explain how the force of gravity was exerted, a fact that has an interesting parallel in Einstein's work and which remains a hot topic for future research." (NCSA website) Newton's theory of Gravitation was extremely effective in understanding the day to day phenomena. But with the promulgation of the theory of Special Relativity, Einstein had no option but to present a theory of gravity consistent with his special theory that made any communication by a speed more than that of light impossible. Newton talked of instantaneously acting forces of gravitation. To counter this instantaneous propagation, Einstein gave the idea of the curving or warping of space-time and the propagation of continuous gravitational field with the speed of light. With his concept of the warping of space-time, he could predict many things, which later experiments proved with considerable accuracy. But the theory still remains inconclusive. It cannot explain the huge influence the force of gravitation is having on the overall maintenance and survival of a universe so huge that the transmission of any communication from one corner to the other at the speed of light may take billions of years. How can such a gigantic universe be sustained without any means of communication between them? Despite about one hundred years having passed since the GTR was presented, the proofs of the theory are very few, and alternative theories have also explained those results. Furthermore, even the relatively small-distance-relations between massive objects creates several problems. A massive object cannot maintain its warping effect on a huge area surrounding it without a regular communication. For example, the warping effect of the Sun is spread over distances that light takes minutes to several hours to travel. Moreover, the running of distant planets on a curved path around the Sun could have been more plausible had the Sun been at rest. But the fact is that the Sun itself moves with much greater speed than the planets on a much less curved path within the Milky Way. As discussed before, the planets would have ideally been rotating not around the real Sun bit around a virtual Sun different for different planets depending upon their distances from it.

It makes sense then that we have to find a position between the instantaneous nature of the Newton's gravity and the propagation of gravity with the light-speed, as understood by Einstein. Nothing can move with an infinite speed in the universe, and no forces within the universe can act instantaneously. But for the force of gravity to play the role it does, it must travel with a massive speed, much greater than that of light. This is essential because, in the backdrop of a huge universe, light-speed is extremely slow. If a person has the privilege to be able to visualise the universe as a whole from outside it, a ray of light starting from one part of the universe would look to him to be crawling with much slower than snail's pace. For the universe to sustain itself, it requires a much faster source of communication. As we know that the gravity is the binding force of the universe, gravity must act at a much greater speed than the speed of light. What can that speed be? I will call the influence transferring gravity as Universal Wave.

We have seen that c² appears in many formulas of Physics including Einstein's gamma and the equation of the inherent energy of the particles. Now the question arises: what causes these relativistic effects? It is quite possible that c² in these formulae is not actually the square of the speed of light, but is the numerically equivalent value of the normal speed of the universal wave.

Can we assume that the four forces depend on the speed of the wave/particle that carries this force? The faster the speed, the farther will it reach, and the less would be its strength. So, it can be said that force is inversely proportional to the speed of its propagation. It can also be justified to assume that the constants related to these forces must have 1/the speed of the force-carrying particle/wave as its essential constituent. Now, as we see c² appearing in so many constants, we can assume that this in fact represents the speed of the fastest moving force, that is gravitation. Is it not justified to presume that the gravitation-transferring wave is in fact the Universal Wave? It has both electrical and magnetic components blended in a way that unlike the electric and magnetic forces, it always works as an attractive force, and carries the force much farther with the speed of 9x1010 kms/second. When several universal particles (particles carrying the gravity) combine, they form photons, in which the electrical and magnetic components break in a way that they lie perpendicular to each other as well as to the propagation of the wave. This results in the speed becoming c from c² and increase in the force by almost a similar difference.

This is only an idea that comes to the mind. In that case the speed of the wave that caries gravitation is somewhere near the range of c², or more probably exactly equal to that. When several universal particles combine together to produce a photon, its electrical and magnetic components separate in equal forces, and their acting at right angle to each other as well as the direction, reduces the speed of photon to c. But there is still a lot to explain. However, it can be more beneficial and understandable to give that speed to the speed of Universal Wave, as it will explain the effectiveness of the force of gravitation in the universal affairs in a much better way.

I have used the terms Universal Wave and Universal Particle in preference to gravitational wave and graviton, because the former is being given a much higher velocity, and much more fundamental character than the latter. The higher speed of the universal wave may also explain how light can be affected by a massive object, and the black hole. If the Universal Wave had been of the same speed as that of light, it could not have trapped or pull a photon back. Moreover, if nothing can escape the black hole, how can even the gravity escape if the velocity of its propagation is equal to or less than the speed of light? This will actually reduce the blackhole to an object of no physical significance at all; for in that case, not only can it not be seen but will also have no gravitational effects on anybody. There can hardly be an event horizon in that case, and there will be no danger of an astronaut getting trapped in a massive blackhole unless he hits the surface. For the gravity to escape the pull of the massive blackhole, its speed has to be greater than that of light.

The speed of Universal Wave will also better explain why the planets keep revolving almost relative to the centre of the Sun, and the stars relative to the Centre of the galaxy. Had gravity moved with the speed of light, the distant objects would have moved around an imaginary centre far from the real centre of the body around which they move. The solar system is part of our galaxy, and is about 30,000 light-years away from its centre. If gravity takes 30000 light years to reach, how can it play such a huge role in keeping the group together?

##  Rubber-sheet analogy absurd

The warping effect is also not understandable. First, it could have been more plausible if the massive object was not moving at all. With the massive objects also moving, the Sun for example, the curving path would need to be constantly changing. Secondly, the question arises, why the warping effect would make the space around it curved in a way that the planets rotate around it rather than slide towards it. The usual method of explaining the warping effect is by putting a big ball on an elasticated sheet of cloth (or rubber sheet), which will deepen a certain area around it. Now if a small stone is put on the sheet, it will move towards the bigger stone. The truth is that this example confirms the fact that if gravity is nothing but a warped geometry on account of the presence of a massive body, smaller objects must not have rotated around it; instead they must have been moving towards the bigger object. The comparison with the surface of the earth is misleading, as a moving vehicle cannot gravitate towards the centre of the earth on account of the hardness of the surface. Furthermore, rubber sheet analogy is fallacious on another account. If the heavier ball deepens an area around it, it is not because of the ball but because of the pull the earth creates on the ball. If the rubber sheet is held vertically and the ball put on it, the ball will not deepen an area on the sheet but will slide down vertically along with the surface of the sheet. If the sheet is held at a certain angle, the ball will again slide down, and smaller balls will not gravitate towards the bigger ball but downwards parallel to it. This proves that a massive body like Sun cannot produce a warping effect in its surroundings unless it is being pulled by another distant body with a much greater gravitational effect. Will a big ball produce a deepening of the rubber sheet in a zero-gravity region?

The UTR does not however abandon the concept of warping altogether. Even if warping is there, it will have to be under the influence of a more speedily travelling gravity, rather than with the speed of light. That would better explain the warping effect at huge distances. The UTR will have no effect on the observational evidences supporting the GTR like gravitational lensing.

It will also be seen in the coming pages why this theory can make the understanding of the quantum mechanics and origin of the Universe much easier.

##  An important paper by CM Will on the Speed of Gravity

Now I will quote from a paper, which has proved beyond doubt that the force of gravity must neither travel at infinite speed nor at the speed of light but a finite yet much greater velocity than that of light. The paper entitled, "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" by _Clifford M. Will_ (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4) (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. ISSN 1433-8351) has some very important observations to make:

  1. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to **the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2x10** 10 _c_ **.**

  2. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from **upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.**

  3. "If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light." (Eddington, 1920, p. 94)

  4. The same dilemma comes up in many guises: **Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun? Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? How do binary pulsars anticipate each other's future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow? How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?**

  5. The angle between the true and retarded positions of the source, which equals the angle between the two stars, is called "aberration". It will readily be recognized as the same angle defined in the first view due to transit delay. Indeed, that is generally true: The initial and final positions of the target as viewed from the source differ by the motion of the target during the transit **delay of the projectile. The same difference between initial and final positions of the source as viewed from the target is called the angle of aberration**

  6. If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. Analogous to the Poynting-Robertson effect, the magnitude of that tangential force acting on the Earth would be 0.0001 of the Sun's radial force, which is the ratio of the Earth's orbital speed (30 km/s) to the speed of this hypothetical force of gravity moving at light-speed (300,000 km/s). It would act continuously, but would tend to speed the Earth up rather than slow it down because gravity is attractive and radiation pressure is repulsive **. Nonetheless, the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years.** **There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting. The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one. The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations. From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 10** 8 _c_ **, where** _c_ **is the speed of light. (Laplace, 1825, pp. 642-645 of translation)**

  7. **Another way (besides aberration) to represent what gravity is doing is to measure the acceleration vector for the Earth's motion, and ask if it is parallel to the direction of the arriving photons**. If it is, that would argue that gravity propagated to Earth with the same speed as light; and conversely.

  8. How then does the direction of Earth's acceleration compare with the direction of the visible Sun? By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development **Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun,** where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. In other words, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now. This is additional evidence that forces from electromagnetic radiation pressure and from gravity do not have the same propagation speed.

  9. We find that maximum eclipse occurs roughly 38±1.9 seconds of time, on average, before the time of gravity maximum. If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light.

  10. We should also note that, even in the solar system, the Sun moves around the barycenter in a path that often takes the barycenter a million kilometers or so from the Sun. So, the idea that the Sun's field can be treated as "static" and unchanging is not a good approximation even for our own planetary system. The Sun's motion during the light time to the planets is appreciable, yet its gravity field is continually updated without apparent delay.

  11. Without consideration of why a target body is induced to accelerate through space, and how quickly it receives updates of information about how to accelerate through space, neither the space-time curvature explanation nor the rubber sheet analogy can help us understand why gravity appears to act so much faster than light.

  12. Mercury perihelion advance, and radar time delay can all be consequences of electromagnetic wave motion through an underlying refracting medium that is made denser in proportion to the nearness of a source of gravity. (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 62-67 and Van Flandern, 1994) And it is now known that even ordinary matter has certain electromagnetic-wave-like characteristics. The principal objection to this conceptually simpler refraction interpretation of GR is that a faster-than-light propagation speed for gravity itself is required

  13. However, as we have already seen, finite propagation speeds and conservation of angular momentum are incompatible. Therefore, GR was forced to claim that gravity is not a force that propagates in any classical sense, and that aberration does not apply.

  14. B **oth GR and Newtonian gravity use infinite propagation speeds with aberration equal to zero. In Newton's laws, that fact is explicitly recognized even though aberration** and delay terms do not appear because of an infinity in their denominator. In GR, much effort has been expended in disguising the continued absence of the same delay terms by including retardation effects in ways that are presently unobservable and ignoring aberration. Every physicist and physics student should be at least annoyed at having been tricked by this sleight of hand, and should demand that the neglect of aberration be clearly justified by those who propose to do so.

  15. R **elativists often speak of the field of a body as if it were a rigid extension of the body itself. If such a "static" field has no moving parts, it then would have no need of a propagation speed unless something changes.**

  16. If the field were static in the second sense, then the propagation speed of the entities carrying momentum would give rise to aberration; and the observed absence of aberration demands a propagation speed far greater than lightspeed.

  17. The Sun's path around the solar system barycenter induced by planetary perturbations causes excursions of over a million kilometers, and the barycenter is sometimes outside the physical body of the Sun. So, the Sun's field must be continually updated at all distances to infinity. Surely, this updating requires the propagation of causal agents from the source. And since the source is continually accelerating, the regeneration of the distant field must likewise be a continuous process, requiring propagation. However, propagation involves delays, and even in the solar system, we have observationally ruled out delays as great as lightspeed propagation would produce. For example, the solar eclipse experiment is sensitive to delays in the continual updating of the Earth's field by the Sun as they both affect the Moon, and update speeds of at least 20 are required.

  18. We conclude that the concept of frozen gravitational fields is acausal and paradoxical. Gravitational fields must continually regenerate, like a flowing waterfall. In doing so, they must consist of entities that propagate. And the speed of propagation of those entities must greatly exceed the speed of light

  19. For **the Earth's orbit, = 1 year, = 10** -4 **, and we take as an upper limit to the value 2.4x10** -12 **/year (derived from ½) in solutions using radar ranging and spacecraft data (Pitjeva, 1993). Substituting these values, we get from Earth-orbit data that ³ 10** 9 _c_ **. Using the same equation with binary pulsar PSR1534+12 and the parameters in Table I, we can place the most stringent limit yet from the observed uncertainty in: ³ 2x10** 10 _c_ **.**

  20. A direct experimental verification in the laboratory that gravity propagates faster than light may now be possible. The protocol and preliminary results were reported in (Walker, 1997). It might be tempting to conclude that the speed of gravity is infinite. But these limits on are still a long way from infinite velocity, and Newton's statement, quoted at the beginning of this paper, still seems applicable. Infinite speeds, too, are acausal.

  21. We recently reviewed six experiments bearing on the question of the propagation speed of gravity. Briefly, these are:

  1. a modern updating of the classical Laplace experiment based on the absence of any change in the angular momentum of the Earth's orbit (a necessary accompaniment of any propagation delay for gravity even in a static field);

  2. an extension of this angular momentum argument to binary pulsars, showing that the position, velocity, _and acceleration_ of each mass is anticipated in much less than the light-time between the masses;

  3. a non-null three-body experiment involving solar eclipses in the Sun-Earth-Moon system, showing that optical and "gravitational" eclipses do not coincide;

  4. planetary radar ranging data showing that the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun does not coincide with the direction of arriving solar photons;

  5. neutron interferometer experiments, showing a dependence of acceleration on mass, and therefore a violation of the weak equivalence principle (the geometric interpretation of gravitation);

  6. the Walker-Dual experiment, showing in theory that changes in both gravitational and electrostatic fields propagate faster than the speed of light, _c_ , a result reportedly given preliminary confirmation in a laboratory experiment.

To these, we can now add:

  7. An earlier laboratory experiment with summary description in showed that charges respond to each other's instantaneous positions, and not to the "left-behind potential hill", when they are accelerated. This demonstrates that electrodynamic forces must likewise propagate at faster than lightspeed more convincingly than earlier experiments showing angular momentum conservation.

  8. A new laboratory experiment at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton claims to have achieved propagation speeds of 310 _c_. This supplements earlier quantum tunneling experiments. It is still debated whether these experiment types using electromagnetic radiation can truly send information faster than light. Whatever the resolution of that matter, the leading edge of the transmission is an electromagnetic wave, and therefore always travels at lightspeed. However, such experiments have served to raise public consciousness about the faster-than-light-propagation concept."

It was in 2004 that I gave the postulate of gravity moving much fast6er than light. It is really heartening for me that the paper reproduced above prove what I argued much earlier.

##  Arriving at some of the Most Fundamental Principles Governing the Universe

Now I will discuss some of the implications of the UTR I have proposed.

###  Fundamental Principle No.1: motion the sine qua non for the universe

Einstein had already argued that there is no absolute or preferred frame of reference within the Universe. My theory has made it almost a prohibited possibility that there can be anything at absolute rest. The Uniglobe rotates; so, there is no possibility of anything within the universe acting as an absolute resting frame of reference. The Theory of Relativity has already established that the mass that acts as a force (not the inherent material) keeps changing with the change of the speed of the object. If the absolute speed of the object becomes zero, obviously its mass and energy must also become zero. From the three postulates of the Universal Theory of Relativity, it becomes clear that motion is the most fundamental property in the universe. The existence of the Universe as a whole and each and every single entity within the universe—matter or space-time, is dependent on the motion. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping me from laying down the principle that

Each and everything in the universe seeks to attain the maximum speed possible towards the periphery of the universe (ultimately moving along with the rotation of the universe) and its speed is only halted by its own weight and the presence of objects around it.

All the small particles within an object that are free to leave the object will leave it with a speed determined by their masses and the presence of the forces influencing them. It is this tendency to escape towards the periphery of the universe that gives origin to the various forces. Had this not been the fundamental property of the particles to attain maximum speed possible, these forces would not have arisen.

The lighter particles travel faster; their forces therefore have a wider range. It is also this property to move at the highest speed possible, and to be affected by the motion of the zone of the universe that helps currents, and magnetism to develop. It can be seen that within the universe, nothing can move in a straight line, as the rotation of the universe will have a uniform curving effect on it.

Not only do the particles move with the fastest possible speed along with the rotation of the universe, they also spin as fast as possible on their own axes, as if to imitate the rotation of the universe. This spin again is affected by the mass of the particle itself and the presence of matter around it. When particles are not free to spin independently, they combine to form larger bodies, which then spin as a whole. This will also ultimately explain the conservation of the angular momentum.

###  Principle 2: Fundamental Prohibitions

  1. #### Nothing can be at absolute rest

As the motion is the most fundamental property of all the existing matter and states, due to the fact that the Universe as a whole is rotating on its axis, it follows that nothing can be at absolute rest in the universe. Whether the rotation of the universe as a whole is due to the property of the matter that it seeks to travel at the fastest speed possible towards the periphery or this property is the result of the rotation of the universe can be debatable. But it is surely the second option that is more plausible.

  2. #### Nothing can achieve a zero or infinite while existing

Zero and infinities cannot exist as properties of the matter in the universe. Zero would mean only a negative attribute denoting the absence of anything rather than the existence of anything with zero value. Any matter that exists would have a nonzero mass, nonzero volume and nonzero energy. Likewise, infinities within the universe do only mean a very high value, not easy to determine, or not determined yet. Zeroes and infinities exist outside and not inside the universe.

This position is close to the objectivists' position on infinities. Leonard Peikoff says, "Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. ... For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however, many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The _actual_ is always finite" The UTR has this position not just as a philosophical basis, but as physical reality, which is based on very strong foundations.

Consequently, no forces in the universe can act instantaneously. There has to be a time lag howsoever small it is. Speed cannot be infinite; it has to be finite howsoever big it is. Time can therefore neither stop nor move with an infinite speed.

It means every matter has to have a mass, energy or temperature, size and momentum, which all will be finite nonzero values. It also follows that there can be no singularities in the universe. This will be discussed in detail later.

  3. #### No two things can occupy the same position

This is Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that two similar particles cannot exist in the same state, that is, they cannot have the same position and the same velocity, within the limits given by the uncertainty principle. This is supposed to explain why the matter particles do not coalesce to form soup of very high density under the influence of forces produced by the particles of spin 0, 1 and 2.

There exists of course the exclusion principle in the universe. But this comes as a result of the fundamentals described by the UTR. First of them is that no two particles can occupy exactly the same position, because particles cannot have enough vacuum in themselves to let the other particle fit in it, without altering their states or sizes. Second, every particle tends to achieve maximum possible speed and wants to escape away towards the periphery of the universe, and its speed is stalled only by its own weight and the influence of the surrounding particles and states. No two particles can therefore have exactly the same speed. Third, on account of the rotation of the Uniglobe, different areas of the universe are moving with different speeds. These three factors combine to form the exclusion principle.

#### 4. Nothing can always remain in the same state

As the time can never stop, and as there is no absolute rest, nothing can remain in the same state of space-time. The position of everything--matter or space, continues to change every moment though the change can be too slow or too small to notice. The second thermodynamic principle is the result of the same prohibition, but it will be seen later that there are forces that oppose the thermodynamic principle of the increase in entropy. Left to itself any state or matter will approach disorder and ultimate decay, but with the supply of energy from outside, it can stall or slow the process of decay, for a certain period of time. Similarly, the universe as a whole continues to increase in disorder, but its disorder is resisted by the supply of energies, which have to be from outside the universe. This will be discussed later.

#### 5. Uncertainty of knowledge

It is a fundamental prohibition that man can never know all things with absolute perfection. This however does not necessarily point to the correctness of Copenhagen Interpretation. According to Quantum Mechanics, the product of the inaccuracies in the measurements of the position and momentum is not less than h/m. It follows that the inaccuracies diminish with the increase in mass. So, it can be argued that uncertainty is not inherent in the particle, as has been vociferously claimed by some quantum theorists but only in our limited ability to know the reality. We know that the inaccuracies in the measurement are there because we have to use at least a single photon to measure, and the photon changes the position and momentum of the particle. We can minimise the inaccuracy but not abolish it altogether. The knowledge of man can therefore never be perfect. But it is quite possible that in future, other waves (like Universal Waves) may be detected and used with a better effect. With the knowledge of the rotation of the universe and the velocity of the zone in which the earth lies, the uncertainty can be reduced to a considerable degree. It will point to the reality of the existence and the uncertainty of our knowledge.

As it is known that uncertainty or inaccuracy in the measurement of position and momentum correspond to a certain figure, it automatically follows that this uncertainty too has some kind of certainty, because this has an evident relationship with a certain mathematical constant. Direct relation with a constant signal's certainty and constancy rather than uncertainty.

Uncertainty of knowledge is also because of the fact that we can see neither present nor future; we can only see the past. The past too can be seen only within certain limits. To know, we have to depend upon the means of communication that travel at a certain speed. Presently, we use the means of communication that cannot travel faster than light. We can see with our eyes or instruments the events of the past the information of which has reached them only after the lapse of a certain portion of time. The farther the place of the event, the later we can know of it. It means the greater its distance is from us the more distant past we can know of an event. We cannot know the more distant past of the entities that are closer to us. To summarise,

We can never observe the present and future; we can only predict them on the basis of the knowledge of the past and the laws governing them. The more accurately we know the factors responsible for the event, the more precisely we can predict the present or the future. It can be seen that in fact, nothing known as "present" is presently observable though we know that in reality, present is present.

We can see the past; but our capability of observing the past is limited. We can know the immediate and not the distant past of the objects or events that are relatively close to us.

We can observe the distant past of the distant objects; the more distant the object is, the more distant its past is observable. But the recent past of these events or objects cannot be known.

If in future, we can use a means of communication travelling faster than light, we can observe the more recent past of all events or objects, but we can never observe the present or the future.

#### 6. Nothing can be two-dimensional

As we have already seen, zeroes and infinities cannot exist within the universe; it automatically follows that two-dimensional things cannot exist. This is because for a two-dimensional thing to exist it requires zero thickness. Consequently, we have to have a second look at the string and membrane theories that require the smallest particles to have less than three dimensions.
Chapter 4

#  Laws of Nature: Genesis and Enforcement

To understand the unscientific position of the modern physics, we need to discuss a little more about the laws of nature and their enforcement in the universe.

Here is an excerpt from a news report a few years back,

"God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.""

When I first read this news report, my immediate reaction was: How unfortunate that the opposition to the existence of God has become such a precondition for the think-tank of the New World Order that scientists who oppose God are being given all the attention and those who argue against atheism are normally ignored? Hawking says, " _"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."_ He is saying as if gravity itself did not require creation, as if gravity is itself the Creator not only of itself but the whole universe. He says that the creation of the universe is the automatic consequence of the laws of nature. But the question arises: What is the genesis of these laws and how they are being enforced. In this part, I will discuss the questions related to

Physics tells us that whatever is present in the universe is governed by certain laws, known as "laws of nature". It is these laws and their combinations that are responsible for the Order that exists in the universe, and it is the understanding of these laws that makes predictions possible; it is also the exactness of these laws that makes it possible to have an opinion about the past. What is beyond doubt is that these laws are the same everywhere in the universe; and they have been the same throughout the history of the universe; right from the beginning of the "creation", which is presently considered to have been at the Big Bang Singularity. If these laws are the same and are in place since the very beginning of the Big Bang, it follows that while the universe evolved from a Singularity to the present state and took a long time to evolve, the Laws of Nature appeared instantly without a delay and started governing the evolution of the universe right from the word "go". This means that the laws of the universe had no time to evolve and did not evolve anymore once they came into existence. Who then masterminded the set of laws that would lead to the creation of the universe the way it happened? To prepare a set of laws requires

  1. Thorough knowledge of the purpose for which they are being made,

  2. The matter and the regions these laws are going to govern: and

  3. The ways they are going to be enforced.

While the social laws are enacted for a society or community that already exists; and the problems of which are known, what is unique about physical laws of nature is that they were decided upon before the creation of the system these laws were going to govern. The present theory of Physics fails to describe not only the genesis of the laws of nature but also makes it impossible to understand how these laws are being successfully enforced without failure in a colossal universe. We will discuss these issues in the present chapter. We will see that the current theory of Physics dominated by Einsteinianism is a total failure in understanding the genesis and enforcement of the laws of physics and must therefore be abandoned without delay.

##  Light Speed Barrier: the greatest impediment in understanding the genesis and enforcement of Laws of Physics

In Nineteenth Century, Newton ruled; most of the Twentieth Century and onwards has been ruled by Einstein. His special and general theories of relativity and the models of the origin of the universe based on his theories have almost become a religion with physicists. Despite the fact that his light-speed barrier created innumerable problems – mathematical, physical as well as philosophical, and despite the fact that there are mounting evidences against this barrier and that the whole branch of Quantum mechanics is regarded non-local, Einsteinianism rules the Physics. Einsteinianism has become a type of physico-religion, which must rule whatever the nature of the evidences. If any facts apparently seem to be violating the Einsteinian limits, ways must be found out so that they conform to them. My earlier article, "Einsteinianism: Time to Abandon this Physico-Religion" examines the problems related with Einsteinianism and suggests that time has now arrived when this needs to be challenged and confronted. It also presents a formula that can be used for gamma factor instead of the formula Einstein developed based on Lorentz contraction; this will make light-speed stable, not constant.

As I have said earlier, light cannot be allowed to adorn divinity, which turns its small speed into an infinite one for all practical purposes. Light-speed barrier is an artificial barrier erected by Einstein's mind.

##  Enforcement of Laws: How?

What are laws? Aronson, Harré, and Way (1994) say:

"Laws are invariant relations between properties. We have argued that judgements of verisimilitude are based on similarity comparisons between the type of object referred to by a scientist and the actual type of the corresponding object in nature. The relative verisimilitude of laws can be thought of in the same way, namely as the degree to which the relationships between properties depicted in relevant theories resemble the actual relationships between properties in nature"

Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:

"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."

"Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."

"Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."

By putting a bar on the speed of information or influence, which is a very slow speed in the backdrop of a huge universe, Einstein's theories have not strengthened but weakened causality and determinism. What we see as its result is that, soon after the Big Bang, the portions of the universe start distancing from one another, not only in terms of their physical positions nut also on terms of their ability to influence one another. Soon, most of the components of the universe get so far from one another that it requires not minutes, hours, days or weeks but years for them to communicate with one another. There are huge regions, which require not tens or hundreds but thousands, even millions and billions of years to know about their well being. Effectively, it can be said that if light-barrier is real, the universe's collective existence has no meaning at all; for objects only lying in close vicinity are physically capable of influencing one another, positively or negatively. The Contiguity postulate that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact loses its very meaning. The status of the universe then becomes that of the ancient human society when men and women belonging only to their village or tribe were in a position to interact. The universe at a collective level will then emerge as a very backward organisation where there is hardly any communication between various regions. This is an awkwardly unceremonious proposition to believe; for the universe then cannot even be called an organisation, as every organisation needs a regular communication between at least most of its members. If the news of the death of a star takes millions of years to reach the other stars that cannot even shed a few tears on the death of their fellows, the life of the universe loses the very foundation of collective existence. This makes Einstein's position ludicrous. On the one hand, he has an unshakeable faith in Determinism and is not ready to accept any theory as a complete theory if it violates it. On the other hand, he makes determinism lame by making it unable to move with a significant speed. As a natural corollary to that the principle of cause and effect lose its raison d'être. Theoretically, we can claim that one event is the cause of another event that preceded it. But practically, we delay the effect by drastically curtailing its velocity. The information or force or influence of any kind from the causing effect will only crawl at the speed of light before it reaches its destination changing it the way it wanted to, or the way the affected object wanted to be changed a long time back. What meaning would then causality have? The picture that emerges is of a universe in which a present event may have been determined a long time back in the path of its history, but hardly by events that lie outside the path of its history. In totality it can be said that the present state of the portions of the universe is only the effect of a tubular past leading to the Big Bang, and it has hardly any effect of what has been happening in the rest part of the history of the universe. There is no time for others to take care of one another, or even say "hello," as this hello will take so much time that it would hardly reach the one for whom it was intended. The world thus becomes totally disorganised and individualistic; it is reduced to mere container of selfish individuals with no desire or ability to communicate with one another. But is this the real universe, we know? The universe that stares us is far from that disorganised state of affairs. It seems to be well-organised and well-knit unit. Its constituent parts seem to be constantly in touch with one another. They do not appear to be unconscious of one another's presence; they appear to form a universe that is in a perfect state of harmony, a harmony that cannot be there without mutual trust and knowledge of one another's' limitations and capabilities.

Determinism in Physics has very well-established roots. This is one of the major principles of Classical as well as Relativity physics, and is sometimes referred to as one of the classical "prejudices" along with causality and locality. In QM, probabilistic outcomes play a major role, and future events cannot be predicted precisely. However, Bohemian Quantum Mechanics has clearly established that, if locality can be abandoned, QM can become deterministic in nature. Even otherwise, probability should not be viewed as the opposite of determinism. If a certain outcome is more probable than others, it indicates a certain amount of certainty. The outcome is not wholly, at random. If it can be predicted that the probability of finding an electron at a certain place is greater than at other places, it clearly shows a preference. If a formula can be derived to indicate this preference, this must obviously have a reason. If we know the reason, we can become more certain.

In the currently accepted version of Physics, causality the way it is understood has become geriatric. The ultimate cause was the Big Bang event, when the laws were already formed that will determine every single event in the future universe. The laws that hold today are the same laws without any change whatsoever. Despite such an old age, how they are surviving is not known. What causes them to maintain their sublime nature? Why does a law like the second law of thermodynamics not affect the life of the laws themselves? When everything else degenerates or gets recycled or undergoes evolution, why not the laws? If it is these laws that lead to the evolution and then degeneration and/or recycling within the universe, why do they not degenerate themselves? How come they did not undergo a phase of evolution themselves instead of appearing within an extremely minute fraction of the first second? Who made them, and who sustains them?

If we look at the human beings and the systems that they have created over the ages, we can easily conclude that laws cannot come into force from nowhere. There has to be a mechanism of the genesis of laws; and there has to be a mechanism of its implementation and continued enforcement. The laws that govern human societies are either made by a King, with or without the consultation of his team of experts, or are made by a body consisting of the representatives of the people and/or experts in laws and other branches of human life. The laws meant for the governance of human behaviour, as individuals and as society, have been evolving from time to time, in content, scope and extent. These laws are almost always enacted for a purpose, which serves either the interests of all or the majority of the people or more often the interests of the rulers, indirect or direct, of a country or society.

If we have exactly the same set of laws in America and India, there are only two possibilities: Either there has been a communication between the lawmakers of the two countries, or they have both taken the help of the same sources.

Research conducted by an international team of astronomers shows that one of the most important numbers in physics theory, the proton-electron mass ratio, is almost exactly the same in a galaxy 6 billion light years away as it is in Earth's laboratories, approximately 1836.15.

According to Michael Murphy, Swinburne astrophysicist and lead author of the study, it is an important finding, as many scientists debate whether the laws of nature may change at different times and in different places in the Universe. "We have been able to show that the laws of physics are the same in this galaxy half way across the visible Universe as they are here on Earth," he said.

"The astronomers determined this by effectively looking back in time at a distant quasar, labelled B0218+367. The quasar's light, which took 7.5 billion years to reach us, was partially absorbed by ammonia gas in an intervening galaxy. Not only is ammonia useful in most bathroom cleaning products, it is also an ideal molecule to test our understanding of physics in the distant Universe. Spectroscopic observations of the ammonia molecule were performed with the Effelsberg 100m radio telescope at 2 cm wavelength (red-shifted from the original wavelength of 1.3 cm). The wavelengths at which ammonia absorbs radio energy from the quasar are sensitive to this special nuclear physics number, the proton-electron mass ratio.

"By comparing the ammonia absorption with that of other molecules, we were able to determine the value of the proton-electron mass ratio in this galaxy, and confirm that it is the same as it is on Earth," says Christian Henkel from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, an expert for molecular spectroscopy and co-author of the study."

It is clear that the Laws of Physics pose huge problems – both regarding their genesis and their enforcement. The current theory fails to explain the both. Neither has it had any time for the creation or evolution of laws nor any mechanism for their enforcement. A system without any effective means of communication cannot sustain itself as a system. It will lead to a total chaos, followed by total disaster. It cannot maintain its existence for any appreciable period of time. Enforcement of laws is a must if the universe has to continue to run in a harmonious way. But how the laws are being enforced in the universe is a question that must baffle all the scientists. And if Einstein's light speed barrier is a clear hurdle in understanding the enforcement, this barrier should be dismissed without any further delay.

Locality and determinism are also dependent on each other because if actions are instantaneous without any time lag in between, it cannot be determined, which caused which. Quantum Mechanics is now regarded as nonlocal. The Universal Theory of Relativity proposed by this writer however makes it possible to preserve determinism by abandoning locality in Einsteinian terms and replacing it with superlocality. The UTR establishes that light speed is only rigid and not constant, and has given a formula for gamma that makes it possible for the matter to travel faster than light. The theory has also postulated that the Universe as a whole (Uniglobe) is rotating on its axis and a huge portion of the universe is rotating with a speed faster than light. Furthermore, according to the theory, gravity has to travel at much higher speeds (hundreds of thousands time that of light) than that of light to enable the world to continue with its existence. Thus, Quantum Mechanics becomes superlocal rather than nonlocal. The actions in one part of the world would continue to influence the actions in other parts, and the cause and effect will preserve their sanctity. But all these influences will become much faster than the current physics visualises. Determinism will become not only rapid but more meaningful. Because, in the present state of Physics, while the ability of the past events to affect the future is surely very much there, this ability becomes highly restricted on account of the slowness of the speed with which they can influence others. This also means, in reality, it is erroneous to assume that a certain event has happened in the past; for though it may have happened in the past, for practical purposes it will occur in the future for a distantly lying object. For example, what has happened on the Sun one minute before will actually happen for the earth after 8 more minutes.

Compare this picture of an unsociable type of the universe with the image of the universe that emerges as a result of the application of the Universal Theory of Relativity. Determinism gains enormously in strength in the new theory, for the objects of the universe do not seem to be as far away from one another as in the GTR. The principle of causality is not as meaningless, and of little practical utility, as in the current physics. The distance between different constituents of the universe may still be the same in terms of kilometres. But their proximity is far greater in terms of their ability to communicate with one another; for there is no curb on the speed of information that is exchanged between them. They are not merely dependent on the tortoise of light; they also have the horse of the gravity, which runs hundreds of thousands of times faster for any event to influence another event it has not to wait for thousands of thousands of years; it can do the same within months or hundreds of years; even less if there is an unknown faster means of communication. The horizon of the ability to influence within one second increases hundreds of thousands of times, if the gravity is the means of communication; even more if there are other means hitherto unknown. It is not the tubular history of past events that would affect an event at present or in the future, but a more spherical and wider sum of histories. These histories, unlike the case in GTR, will not necessarily go back to 10-35 second just after the Big Bang, but to almost all the areas of the universe. The universe thus becomes a much better organised social and collective unit; it is not just the individuals that matter but the whole world that plays a role in its functioning. The universe is not merely a land having different tribes or villages not connected to the outside world but a globe having a state like system.

Coming back to the Laws of the Nature and their implementation, let us see it in the light of the UTR. The UTR changes the whole picture in an entirely novel way. The properties of the matter and the laws governing them did not come into existence at a certain point, and then continued their existence on their own. It was not that God chose the laws at the time of the Big Bang, or laws appeared themselves, and then they would continue to exist as they were forever. The UTR informs that the whole universe rotates around its axis. It is this rotation that causes the universe to continuously exist. The properties and the laws of nature are ultimately all the result of the rotation of the Uniglobe. This position has a very interesting impact on the understanding of causality and determinism. If the present events are being caused by the events in the past, it is not merely due to that fact that the past events were responsible for the present. It is also because the continuing rotation of the universe has made it possible for the laws and the properties to survive between the past and the present. The causality and determinism are therefore continuous; they were not created once at the Big Bang, but are being safeguarded incessantly through the sustenance of the universe by its rotation. If the determinism is real, it is on account of the specific properties of the space and time, such as mass (both gravitational and inertial), inertia, energy, etc, and laws such as laws of gravitation, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. If the matter has mass and energy, and it is governed by certain laws, it is not because these are inherent in the matter or in the universe, or they had been created once in the past to exist forever. On the contrary, it is because they are the effects of the non-stop, smooth, orderly and regular rotation of the universe. Causality is therefore continuous. As soon as the Final cause, that is the rotation of the universe will stop, at the behest of the Power that regulates it, all the effects will cease to happen. The matter will lose its properties, the laws will no longer be functional and energy will become unavailable. In short, the universe will become dead. Cause and effect will have no existence.
Chapter 5

#  The UTR and God

Though even based on the knowledge of the universe we have till this date, it is easier to accept than not accept God; the Universal Theory of Relativity can prove to play a decisive role in arriving at the truth. The UTR says that the universe as a whole rotates on its axis. It is this rotation, which has led to the creation and sustenance of the universe, and is responsible for all the properties of the universe as a whole and its parts. Now, the uniform, continuous and uninterrupted rotation requires regular supply of energy from outside. Thus, the universe exists because it is rotating due to an incessant supply of energy from outside the universe, and would cease to function as soon as this supply is discontinued. As the supply of energy is stopped, the Uniglobe will stop rotating and all its components will lose their individual and collective properties. The universe will be dead. The rotation of the universe as a whole thus leads to two fundamental conclusions.

First, if the Uniglobe is rotating, it must be rotating relative to a preferential frame of reference that surrounds it on all sides.

Second, the universe is having an uninterrupted supply of energy from that external source. That external source can be none other than God.

The UTR completely and dramatically changes the relationship between the universe and God. While all the theories of Physics describe the parts of the universe, their properties, their motions, etc, the UTR in addition describes the universe as a whole (Uniglobe). The universe becomes an entity in itself, which can be seen separately from its components. Its relationship with the Creator becomes more profound and subtler. The universe does not merely remain a container of matrices and forces that it is in accordance with the present theories but becomes an existence in itself that bows to God, by rotating itself relative to Him, in response to the supply of provision to it. The universe and God become intimately connected. The former becomes a well-organised state and the later its majestic king. The role of Creator is not limited to somehow cause the beginning of the universe or the Big Bang, after which the universe takes control of itself and the role of God ends forever. In the aftermath of the UTR, it can be seen that the role of God becomes permanent. It ceases not for an iota of time anywhere in the universe. He makes the universe rotate and creates its constituents. He keeps rotating it by continuous supply of the provision for its existence. If the laws in the universe are regularly in force and the energy and mass retain their status, it is on the account of the continuous rotation of the universe at God's behest. Ultimately, He may choose the time of its death and preside over its demise by deciding to abruptly suspend or terminate the supply of energy causing the rotation of the universe to stop within no time. The universe will not die because the entropy would ultimately become universal, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. It will also not die because, due to long, continuous burning of fuel, stars will lose their lustre. Finally, also not because, due to freezing of the planet, animals and planets including human beings will be deprived of the source of their life. The universe will take its last breath because God may decide enough is enough. He may think of replacing it with another kind of the universe with another set of laws and principles. Or, as the major religions of the world believe, He may resuscitate the world to see what they did in the previous world.

## Big Bang

Big Bang has over the course of the last century become something of an established fact regarding the origin of the universe. Even Christian and some Islamic scholars, without realising the farther implications of the theory – metaphysical and philosophical – have jumped into its bandwagon. In the present chapter, I will try to analyse why Big Bang will become known as the Big Blunder in the coming future. I will analyse here the implications of the Big Bang theory with particular emphasis on

  1. the fact that Big Bang is not a theory of the Creation of the universe but only of the distribution of the already created mass-energy in a rapidly expanding space;

  2. the fact that Big Bang only created space;

  3. the fact that there is absolutely no clue as to why suddenly the Big Bang occurred, that is what caused the sudden explosion which initiated rapid expansion of a huge mass-energy condensed in an infinitely small point nullifying the gravity that condensed it; even if God is assumed to have caused this rapid expansion, we have to find the mechanism by which it occurred, and there is no way an infinitely condensed mass will start expanding countering the effect of the immense gravitational force that bound it into a point; and

  4. if the temperature at the point of the Big Bang was huge, how could it be possible when we know that the generation of heat requires movement of particles and any movement required space and there was no space available in the Big Bang singularity;

  5. if an immensely condensed material started expanding why it did not stretch uniformly without creating planets and galaxies' and

  6. why every system within the universe started rotating when the universe in itself is only expanding away from the point of the start of the Big Bang and not all around it.

The theory of the origin of the universe has been undergoing development throughout the history of modern Physics. The knowledge of universe has registered vast increase in the last century. New researches have also led to new controversies. The more the new evidences accumulated and new ideas promulgated, the more the new questions surfaced. Despite huge advancements in apparent knowledge, the true understanding of the universe still seems to be in the neonatal phase. Why did the universe begin at Singularity? What caused the Big Bang? What explains the presence of galaxies, clusters and superclusters in an otherwise homogeneous and isotropic universe? How does the gravity propagate and influence the whole universe? How will the universe end? What is the role of God? What are the philosophical implications of the uncertainty principle and arguably the nonlocal and indeterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics? What is the nature of the particles that form the matter? These and many more issues still need to be resolved or explained more thoroughly. There are other fundamental questions that can be raised. If the laws of nature are there in existence, what keeps these laws in force making them look as if they are eternal? If the matter and space have certain properties like mass, inertia and energy, who/what provides and maintains these properties? If matter-energy cannot be destroyed or created, what maintains them in such an unchangeable condition at the universal level? What sustains the universe the way it is, despite the second thermodynamic principle and what creates Order out of Disorder?

In the Big Bang models based on the General Theory of Relativity, singularity was unavoidable. Penrose-Hawking Theorem proved that singularity at time zero is inevitable and that time-space fabric would break down at the singularity. The Big Bang could not have occurred, it was argued, without the creation by God. But this position has not been acceptable to those who do not want the existence of God within the realm of sciences. So, efforts have been on led by Hawking to find solutions where we can have a no-boundary situation for the universe. Hartle and Hawking proposed a situation where the dimension of time becomes fuzzy turning into a fourth spatial dimension as we approach towards singularity. At that point, time becomes meaningless. And that makes Hawking swell with confidence, which made him remark, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?"

But the truth remains that even this proposition does not abandon the concept of the beginning of the universe altogether. Because there again is an event where time becomes meaningful from a meaningless situation and the universe can be considered to have begun when the time becomes meaningful. The position of scientists regarding the beginning of the universe due to Divine creation has been conceded in an article written to counter the more popular belief. The article captioned "Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology" by Quantum Smith, published in Australian Journal of Philosophy, March 2001 says:

"The idea that the big bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the suggestion of a divine creation seemed so compelling that the notion that 'God created the big bang' has taken a hold on popular consciousness and become a staple in the theistic component of 'educated common sense'. By contrast, the response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively lame. Whereas the theistic interpretation of the big bang has received both popular endorsement and serious philosophical defence (most notably by William Lane Craig and John Leslie, the nontheistic interpretation remains largely undeveloped and unpromulgated."

Now, let us try to visualise what would be the picture of the beginning of the universe after the acceptance of the UTR.

First, the UTR declares motion as the most fundamental property of the universe. If motion is not there, the matter can have no property and there can be no laws in force. The theory says that the universe is rotating as a whole (Uniglobe). It is this rotation that has provided all the properties to the matter. So, it would be in the fitness of things to say there was a time when the universe did not rotate on its axis. The matter then was spread in a huge space in the form of a haze. There was absolutely no movement; the matter did not have any mass acted upon by forces; there were no forces and no form of energy including temperature. Everything, including space was devoid of property. Time did not exist. In short, the universe was nothing but an inanimate ocean of inanimate or dead material, which may have been the debris of an earlier universe. Thus, while the accepted theories of the origin of the universe visualise the universe as beginning from a singularity having infinities and breakdown of laws, the UTR would visualise the origin of universe from a huge space filled with inert material, where there was no law in action. The modern theory is untenable because it is highly unlikely that laws could have originated from a situation where the laws had broken down. The origin of laws from an earlier event witnessing the breakdown of all laws of Physics also disturbs the law of causality. Causality and determinism have been the cornerstones of classical Physics as well as the Theories of Relativity, and was vehemently defended by Einstein and other physicists including the most vociferous opponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The truth is that the origin of law from a situation of lawlessness is something that cannot be acceptable. On the other hand, the UTR would visualise the origin of laws not from a situation where there was lawlessness but from a situation where there were no laws in force yet, because the matter in the universe was not yet in position to understand and follow the laws.

Second, the first step in the origin of the universe would be the beginning of the rotation of the universe on its axis. It will be discussed later how this rotation started. But it is clear that it got underway owing to the supply of energy from outside the universe. As soon as the rotation began, the universe would have awakened from the slumber or got revived from death. The material present in the universe started moving, and with the movement the properties and forces started appearing. The material particles started running towards the periphery of the universe where the supply of energy was coming from, and the gravitational attraction and the kinetic energy created by the motion started attracting them towards one another. Every single particle in the universe and space started rotating. Time started to move. So, the beginning of space-time as a functional entity took place not at the Big Bang but at the beginning of the rotation of the Uniglobe.

Third, with the beginning of the rotation of the universe, the gravitational attraction between the finest components of the haze led to the coalescing of material. One of the likely courses of development would be like this: The massive amount of kinetic energy associated with particles would eventually lead to the formation of nuclei. As the mass-energy of the material in the outer zone will be much greater, the matter from the inner zones will first get attracted towards the outer zones, and a ring like universe may develop. Then the attraction between the matter would lead to condensing of the matter at the centre. The structure that formed in the centre would be a spongy mass with central region containing hydrogen atoms. The temperature within the condensed mass would continue to rise. As the density increased further, the temperature increased even more. When the matter condensed substantially, the pressure in it became too big to keep it as one single mass. It exploded with a Big Bang, and with the explosion the material ran in all directions towards the periphery with extremely high (much much higher than the speed of light), though different, speeds. Soon the materials started concentrating in different areas that gave rise to different components of the universe. The universe continued to rotate and the gravitational forces between the masses led to the development of various rotating frames, which we now know as planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, Megagalaxy, etc.

Fourth, it has to be studied whether the atomic particles that exist today were created in the pre-bang phase or the post-bang phase. It is more likely that the atomic particles had already formed, and even the elements had appeared in the pre-bang phase. To visualise what happened at what stage, the most important point that has to be noted is that the rotation of the universe would impart different speeds to the different areas. Those near the axis will have smaller speed and those farther away will have a greater speed. Therefore, the energy will be the maximum in the outer zones and will smoothly taper down towards the inner zones. What effect will these differences in energy create would be an important consideration in finding out the sequence of events.

Fifth, it has to be studied what form of radiation would have been produced in the whole process. While the big condensed mass at the centre would be rotating with huge speeds, the rest of the space might have been filled with radiation. Can microwave background radiation be that radiation?

It is clear from the above that Big Bang will be a hugely different event from the Big Bang of the current theory. To differentiate the two, we will call the Big Bang in the UTR as the BIG BURST from hereon. The most important distinguishing features between them are as follows:

First, Big Bang started from Singularity having infinite density, zero size and infinite temperature. Big burst would be a much subtler event starting at a massive density and massive heat. But neither it would start from a singularity nor start from a state of infinite heat and near-zero size.

Second, in standard theories, the space-time is assumed to have begun at the Big Bang, but not in the case of the Big Burst of the UTR, which had a phase where time had already begun. In the UTR, Big Burst is not the starting event but an intermediate one.

Third, the Big Bang started from a stage where laws were broken, but Big Burst would start from a previous event, where there were laws already existing. Causality will therefore be better maintained.

Fourth, in the Big Bang, it is hard to imagine how density fluctuations began giving rise to galaxies and stars. The use of quantum mechanics to describe the earliest events is nothing but an attempt destined for failure. The uncertainties of quantum mechanics have been assumed to be the cause behind density fluctuations on the ground that the universe was of an extremely minute size, where quantum mechanics could work. This is an absurd idea because quantum mechanics is related not just to the size of microscopic structures, but also the properties of the subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are not only of extremely small size but also of a minute mass. The universe at the start of the Big Bang, on the other hand, is assumed to have had infinite mass. The heat content in the initial phase was extremely high compared to that in the atom. Furthermore, there is a special relationship between the particles acting within the atom, and between the particles and other atoms surrounding them. Obviously, such relationship was non-existent at the beginning of the universe. The problem of density fluctuations does not arise in the Big Burst, because density fluctuations would have already appeared in the condensed mass, which could in fact have been a spongy structure.

Fifthly, the uniform microscopic radiation can also perhaps be better explained in the UTR.

Sixthly, while Big Bang was an explosion, not in, but of space, there can be two possibilities in the Big Burst. As the UTR assumes the beginning of the creation of the universe with the beginning of the rotation of the universe, the extraordinary speed of the rotation would cause contraction of space, but the gravitational pull among the particles would cause them to get denser. Obviously, there will be a free space or vacuum (with no matter except the particles of different forces) outside the concentrated mass at the centre. The Big Burst can either be a burst into space, or that into the space as well as of it. These possibilities have to be discussed in arriving at the Final Model of the Origin of the Universe.

The vast difference between two theories can therefore be appreciated. In the Big Bang theory, there is no answer to where the infinite mass and energy of the singularity came from, and what was there prior to the Singularity. It leads to the compulsion of the continuous creation of space, for the Big Bang was an expansion of space, which is still continuing, and can continue forever. Where from this space is coming, there is no answer. In the Universal Theory of Relativity, the origin of universe would not begin at infinities, but from a position having absence of any matter with properties. The need of the Creator is there in both theories, but the Big Bang starts at an event where there had already been created a huge energy-mass, while the UTR starts with the creation of energy-mass itself.

Thus, it can be seen that the origin of the universe in the UTR has three main stages which are akin to the stages of human development. First stage can be called a Prenatal or Foetal Stage. In this stage, the foetus of the universe started to form at the centre of the Universe. Once the foetus got fully developed, began the second stage: the Natal Stage or the Stage of Delivery, the Big Burst. The matter gathered in different areas in several rotating frames of universe, like planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. Then started the Postnatal Stage, in which the development of the Universe continued with eventually the creation of the complex chemical structures and living beings.

There are many problems at the structural level also, which the standard model of the origin of the universe cannot fully explain. The universe is made up of billion of galaxies, some of which are smaller and some greater than ours is. However, what amazes cosmologists is that most of the universe is devoid of any luminous matter, and is formed of gigantic empty spaces. It is hard to find how these gigantic voids were formed and whether these voids are empty. In the UTR, these voids and huge structures will be easier to explain. The big mass formed in the centre after the rotation of the universe began was not a singularity as singularities are banned in this theory. As the big mass in the centre coalesced from a haze of matter due to newly acquired gravitational attraction as the result of the rotation, which was at different speeds in different regions, the density fluctuations in the big mass would be obvious. And as the big burst was not just the burst of the space as claimed by the Big Bang, but the burst in the space, the formation of voids can be understood. The great filaments and voids can be explained only by the second postulate of the theory that says that the universe as a whole (Uniglobe) is rotating on its axis. The presence of great voids with nothing but Hydrogen is an important pointer to the truth of the theory. According to the theory, the regions near the axis will be rotating with very small speeds compared to the outer regions. In these spaces, the energy content of the particles will be greatly lower than in other areas. The strong nuclear force will therefore be not strong enough to bind the protons among themselves or with neutrons. The hydrogen alone will therefore be formed. With the big burst, the hydrogen may spread in other areas of voids but the greatest concentration should remain in the regions close to the axis.

It is interesting to see how the UTR blends physics and metaphysics together. It establishes a lasting, never-ending relation between God and the universe. God supplies the universe the provision for its existence and the universe thanks Him by rotating relative to Him, which is its bowing or prostration to God. The UTR has proposed that every particle tries to achieve the highest speed possible and goes towards the periphery of the universe; this speed is slowed by its own weight and the effect of the surroundings on it. Metaphysically, as soon as God started distributing the provision, all particles speeded to receive their shares, and thanked God by rotating individually and collectively relative to Him. It is this combination of providing by God and thanking by the creatures that sustains the universe.

What was the purpose of the creation? Why did God create the human being? These are questions that again lead to the overlapping of physics and metaphysics. Some take the existence of the human being as the sign of God, others the result of Strong Anthropic principle. The UTR takes this to new heights. Before the beginning of the rotation of the universe, God was alone. There was none to recognise Him, to describe His creative designs, His bounties and His powers. He made a plan so that he would be recognised. First, he created the universe, which recognised Him by prostrating to Him and by following the Laws He decreed. Every single particle and portion of space would rotate with the rotation of the universe relative to Him, which in a way meant submitting to Him. Their submission however was of lesser quality, as they submitted not out of their free will but by their inherent nature. God's plan would ultimately lead to the creation of an intelligent being that would have the free will to submit or not submit to the commands of God. All the particles that formed man would still submit to the Creator by rotating along with the rotation of the universe, individually and collectively with its group. But at the social and personal level, he would be free to work in accordance with the demands of God or those of his own wishes. This would give him a privileged position. He would be bestowed upon the intelligence to appreciate the beauty of the creation, to study how it works, to try to know how it was formed and to comprehend his own nature and his relationship with the universe and its creator. Thus, the UTR would combine temporal with spiritual and physical with metaphysical.

Another interesting combination of physical and metaphysical is the fact that there is a relationship between God and the components of the universe based on the principle of collective existence. Atom has a nucleus at the centre, which can be described as the leader of the atomic world. The stars are the leaders of the stellar systems, and stars form galaxies, galaxies clusters and clusters super clusters. Superclusters or even larger structures like the proposed Megagalaxy form the universe. So, every particle is submitting to the God individually as well as collectively in various groups. The Uniglobe submits to Him with all its constituents. God may choose in the next universe a principle by which every individual particle rotates separately relative to God.

God does not play dice nor needs He to be told what to do. He knows what He wants, and how this has to be done. He makes man exist. He provides him the means to survive-- to admire the beauty of His creation, to ponder over the mysteries of His Empire and to endeavour to know His Mind. God has programmed man's life but has given the keyboard and the mouse to him to let him function with sufficient freedom.

## Time

Time also ultimately relates to God. If He is there, He created Time too. Time is the vehicle in which everything that exists has to travel. It is the grinder that breaks, forms and reforms everything and every event. It is an experience, which every conscious individual does realise and every particle does undergo through. The human behaviour turns time not only into an objective observation but also a subjective feeling, which differs from individual to individual. The same period of time can be expressed differently by different individuals; and differently at different times even by the same individual. For humans, time laughs and cries; time runs, crawls and stops; time brings new hopes or new fears; and time sleeps or awakens. Time may even rule our lives or submit to our dictates. For most, at times time blossoms and at times it withers. Whether one is capable of defining it or not, every living and nonliving thing except perhaps the dead knows what time is. Depending upon its magnitude, it becomes moments, hours, days, weeks, months, years, centuries and eras. When time indicates developments without any pattern, it becomes history; when it represents transformation with a visible pattern, it is called evolution. The history of the evolution of the knowledge of time is interesting.

In terms of physics, time is an entity that gives us an idea about the rapidity of the change of an event or events and the position of an object or objects. Time was considered absolute in Newtonian Mechanics. With the transformation of the three-dimensional space into a four-dimensional one, time lost its absoluteness with the beginning of the era of Relativity. Here we shall discuss what impact the UTR will have on time and the Arrow of Time.

The first question arises: When did the time begin? The current theories, based mainly on the Einsteinian ideas of General relativity and Hubble's idea of the expanding universe, describe the initiation of Big Bang as the initiation of time. At singularity, there was no time, which as explained before, in fact meant that time was not measurable. It is argued that time-space continuum had broken at the singularity so that no laws of nature could be perceived. It will therefore be safer to conclude that, according to the Big Bang models, time was already there but was moving with zero speed, that is, it had temporarily stopped moving or was moving with an immeasurably slow rate. At the Big Bang, the clock of time started ticking; the time became measurable. It became a part of the time-space continuum, and has since then been moving. Now, it leaves two questions unanswered:

First, whether time was at any time in the past measurable before the Big Bang or not. Was singularity a result of the collapse of an earlier universe? In that case, time did never in fact die, but only collapsed as a measurable property, measurable through the means that now exist in the universe.

Second, is there any universal time as such? We know from Einstein's theory that time is not absolute but relative, with its value being different in different co-ordinate frames depending upon their speeds. The faster the speed the slower the clock ticks. There is no scope for considering a universal time, which can regard time as a universal phenomenon, related to the state of the universe as a whole.

The UTR answers the questions in an entirely different conceptual framework. It has shown that the universe is rotating as a single body (Uniglobe) on its axis. This rotation of the Uniglobe is responsible for the existence of the different components of the universe individually and collectively and the universe as a whole. There was a time when the Uniglobe had not started rotating yet. It was a non-living, non-moving container having in it a haze of matter without properties. Then the universe was given a switch-on signal, and it started rotating. The process of the birth of the universe commenced, and with it commenced time. Thus, unlike the Big Bang theory in which time existed at singularity but was moving with zero speed, in the UTR, time had no existence at all. Space was there but it had no property. With the rotation of the universe, not only did the time begin but also the space become alive; then this combined birth of space and time combined them together into a four-dimensional universe. (There may be other dimensions not perceived or imagined yet.)

Secondly, the UTR visualises the universe not as mere container of the huge number of parts, but also as a single body, which has its own properties apart from the properties of its parts. There is therefore a universal time as well apart from the times of individual components. This universal time determines the progress of the existence of the universe.

Relative time too assumes a novel proposition in the Universal Theory of Relativity. Einstein's theory describes time only as dilating with the speed. In the UTR, as the universe rotates, different zones of the universe rotate with different speeds. The zones that are away from the axis rotate much faster than the zones that are nearer to the axis. In the areas closer to the periphery of the universe, the time runs much slower than the areas closer to the axis. It leads to interesting results. Our zone may be in a position, relative to which there are certain zones moving faster and others moving slower. So, if somebody is able to somehow reach a zone with higher speed his age will pass more slowly than on the earth. If he wishes to make sure his attending the wedding of his grandson, he can go to a planet in the faster zone, and after passing a few years there, he may come back. While his own age in that period might have passed only a few years, the age of his grandson, would have increased several fold. It will be possible for him to see events and meet persons, which would not have been possible for him had he continued to live on the earth. He has another option, if he does not want to travel. He may send his grandson to a planet lying in the slower zone for a few years. When he comes back, he would have grown by several years compared to a situation if he had passed all his life on the earth. Christians and Muslims may rest assured that Jesus is living in a place lying somewhere in the faster zone, and at the time of his Second Advent, he will still be young enough to show to the world the light of hope.
Chapter 6

#  The bigger Picture

The universe viewed in the light of General Theory of Relativity and Big Bang Cosmology is a passive, clumsily 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 to one another 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 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 Universal Theory of Relativity developed by this author rescues the universe from this sorry state of affairs. This theory resuscitates it, as an entity in its own; it is excitingly lively and systematic. Its components are neither selfish individuals who do not want to connect with others, nor ignorant creatures that have no means of knowing about one another. They are individuals, but they also belong to different tiers of organisation, and ultimately, they are the active citizens of an active State of Uniglobe, which has a unique King. They are the part and parcel of a fraternity that knows its aims and objectives. The Uniglobe provides them the raison d'être by rotating relative to a preferred frame of reference that surrounds it, and as grateful recipients they are ready to be the denizens of the universe significantly contributing in all its activities.:

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. Though previously I had a kind of adoration for Einstein for giving a philosophical twist to Physics, I now increasingly feel frustrated by the absurdity of the philosophy of light-speed barrier, which has created more problems than solutions for understanding the universe. Nevertheless, Einsteinanism still rules Physics. 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 total 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 theoretically 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 c2, 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.

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 fall back in the centre because

According to theories of gravity, mutual attraction between the particles would lead to the collapse of all the matter in the centre, and

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.

The Universal Theory of Relativity will solve these problems in a very simple way. Its postulates of the rotation of the Uniglobe and the principle that everything seeks to achieve the highest possible speed along with the rotation of the universe better explain why the matter does not collapse in the centre. And in the UTR, there is no admission to infinity; there cannot be infinite energy or infinite curvature of space-time in the centre.

The Universal Theory of Relativity remarkably strengthens the gravity so that it becomes a truly important performer in the affairs of the universe. Physicists have always realised the importance of gravity because of its ability to act at long distances and its unique nature of always being an attractive force. But they have not been convinced about the way in which it functions. Newton thought that gravity acted instantaneously, but Einstein made it paralysed by putting a bar on its speed, which cannot be more than that of light. But, due to its ability to influence the distant objects, Einstein had to take the help of Geometry to let it function without disturbing his self-created barrier of highest speed. The UTR has reactivated the gravity by providing it a faster vehicle to travel. It will now be easier to understand the nature of gravity and the role it plays in the administration of the universe. Geometry may still be required to understand it but faster communication will make it easier to understand it as a force to reckon with.

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 Universal Theory of Relativity, on the other hand, makes relativity an effective player, and without causing the infinite problems of infinities. This is a remarkable achievement indeed. The UTR does not challenge the idea of relativity that Einstein proposed but makes it more plausible by reinterpreting the empirical constancy of light. The Uniglobe is rotating with relativistic speeds, except perhaps in the innermost zones. There are areas where relativistic effects, in accordance with the new gamma rather than that presented by Einstein, must be noticeable. They will be seen as having considerably younger age. The Universal theory of Relativity will make it more understandable why the universe looks isotropic and homogeneous in all directions but not of the same age.

It has to be stressed here that physical laws are only qualitatively not quantitatively identical in all co-ordinate frames all over the universe. The velocity with which a man can throw a ball upwards is different for different planets and moons. The value of gravity keeps changing from one place to the other. The UTR tells us that time is moving with different speeds in different zones of the universe. Even the mass and energy related with particles differ from place to place, depending upon the distance from the axis. Chemical and biological laws may take different forms in different areas. Radioactivity may be lesser in faster moving zones. Elements having higher atomic numbers may form there. Chemistry may be more stable. The nuclear reactions in faster zones would produce more energy than the slower zones.

Dark Energy was a wild idea before but has now become an essential part of the discussion of the structure and function of the universe. Today's cosmologists and physicists are in agreement that almost 70 per cent of the universe is made up of dark energy and 30 per cent of dark matter. This means the observable matter and energy form very little of the universe. Einstein had first given this idea in the form of a cosmological constant. At that time, he gave this concept to count for the reason why the matter does not fall back at one place due to gravitational attraction. Omega is the ratio of actual cosmic density to the critical cosmic density. If omega is less than one, the universe will continue to expand forever. If it is more than one, the universe will expand to a point after which it will start contracting. An omega equal to one would keep the universe expanding with the ratio of actual density to critical density staying the same. Another important observation that led to the possibility of the dark energy being present is the fact that the outer portions of the galaxy are rotating as fast as the inner portions. This could be possible only, they inferred, if there is a dark energy present there.

After the presentation of the UTR, we will have to take a fresh look at the concept of the dark energy. A rotating universe with very high speeds especially in the outer regions would be having immense amount of energy. The rotation of the universe is enough to stop the fall of the universe to a single point. It will account for both the dark matter and dark energy present in the universe.
Chapter 7

#  Last Word: God the Head of the State of the Universe

The domination of the world by the forces of political and economic power, which were based on philosophies that were primarily anti-religion ranging from negation of religion in sciences and society to total negation of God, led to motivated, predetermined, laboured attempts by scientists to present the theories of creation – both of the universe as well as biological life on the earth, without involving God. The truth however remains that they have only been able to present unscientific philosophies in the garb of "scientific" philosophies. While there are questions that have and will always continue to haunt the minds regarding the nature of God and His own origin, the truth is that the questions based on His absence are hugely more both in number as well as in tediousness. When we talk of God, the questions that surface are: what after God and where did he come from; why is there any need of a God if we cannot observe him, and why He made the universe the way it is. But the questions become much more numerous and difficult if we presume that there is no God. Why is there such a harmonious functioning of the universe? If there are laws governing the universe, who understood the nature of these laws in advance and their future role in determining the state of the universe? If the laws are being implemented, who is enforcing them in the vast universe? If no system can run without a mechanism of coordination, how such a huge and complex system like universe is running without coordination? When coordination requires continuous communication, how in such a gigantic universe, in which the fastest possible speed of communication is not fast enough to give an effective communication, coordination is going on undisturbed for billions of years. When the dependence of every single particle on numerous other particles is total and not even an atom and a biological cell can exist without mutual cooperation, how they have been able to understand each other's requirements when none of them has intelligence? And as I have already written, how laws came without a lawmaker, mathematics without a mathematician, physics without a physicist, chemistry without an expert of Chemistry, Biology without a biologist and engineering without Engineer? How is there governance without governor and administration without administrator?

It reminds me of an agnostic American lady who asked me a question; if there is God, why is there so much injustice in the world where innocents including children are being killed on daily basis, where exploitation is so rampant and where there is no relief for the sufferers? I gave my answer by asking her what it would mean if God is not there. Suppose there is no God. In that case, there is absolutely no way a slain person can get justice because there is no way he can be born again. Even if his killer is hanged, beheaded or burnt to death, how would it give relief to the one who cannot even witness his punishment? And of course, a large number of guilty escape the punishment. So, if there is no God and no Hereafter, the world becomes a place of perpetual injustice. It is only if God is there and He brings back every dead back to life again, total justice can prevail.

It is clear that the light-speed barrier is too big a hurdle for the development of physics and must be abandoned as soon as possible. Abandoning of that barrier is a necessary requirement for understanding Quantum Mechanics. It is also a must to understand how a vast universe like this can is functioning with harmony, and how a system of laws is in operation all over the universe. Furthermore, there seems to be no plausible philosophical ground that can explain that barrier. Light cannot be allowed to adorn divinity, which turns its small speed into an infinite one for all practical purposes. Light-speed barrier is an artificial barrier erected by Einstein's mind. Physicists have unfortunately turned this barrier into a wall that cannot be scaled. This is despite the accumulating evidences at the microscopic as well as the macroscopic level pointing to the brittle nature of the foundation of this wall. To talk of light-speed as the fastest possible speed is as to talk in the tenth century of the speed of the horse being the fastest achievable speed on the earth.

In short, the comparison between the modern understanding of the universe dominated by Einstein's ideas of relativity and Hubble's ideas of an expanding universe and the more vivid comprehension of the universe as the result of the Universal Theory of Relativity will show immensely striking differences. The comparison is based on three main foundations:

First, the current theories take light-speed as constant, and make it impossible for any matter, or influence to travel faster than light. The UTR describes light-speed not as constant but rigid with an inherent stabilising mechanism, making it possible for matter to achieve speeds much beyond that of light. Moreover, the current theories make matter passive mover along with the expanding space. The UTR makes matter dynamic by proposing that each and every particle tries to achieve the highest possible speed, which is opposed by its own weight and surrounding influences.

Second, the current theories talk of an expanding universe, while the UTR talks of a rotating universe. This brings a massive transformation in the understanding of the structure, function, origin and fate of the universe. It changes in fact the whole philosophical edifice of our knowledge. The rotating universe makes the universe a vibrant entity and not mere passive container of matter, space and events. It is not matter, space and events that form the universe; but it is the universe that contains, guides and regulates matter, space and events. This concept imparts a new look to the relativistic concepts, quantum mechanics and philosophical issues like locality, determinism, role of God etc.

Third, the current theories talk of gravity as a slowly moving (only with the speed of light) but long ranging influence; the UTR makes gravity a much faster, smarter and effective force in the overall governance of the universe.

The space too assumes a special significance. The so-called empty space too is rotating along with the Uniglobe. 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! In the UTR cosmology, space was always there, but it was a dead space having no property whatsoever. With the commencement of the rotation of the universe, space too came alive and got fully functional. The rotation of the Uniglobe is not only sustaining the enforcement of natural laws, the existence of matter and energy but also that of the dynamic space.

Similarly, the UTR better explains the incompatibility of Quantum Mechanics with the "prejudices" of Classical Physics by abandoning the concept of the constancy of light in favour of the rigidity of light; this makes speeds beyond that of light possible. It will be interesting here to understand Bohm's ideas of seeing the universe as a whole, for he seems to have come very close to what the theory of Universal Relativity establishes. David Bohm says:

"It is proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation, family, profession, etc., etc.), which are now preventing mankind from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and "broken up" into yet smaller constituent parts. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and self-existent. _(Wholeness and the Implicate Order)"_

_David Bohm's position of the wholeness of the universe has been described in an article, captioned "Of David Bohm's Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. The article says:_

"Bohm began his theory with the troubling concern that the two pillars of modern physics -- quantum mechanics and relativity theory, actually contradict each other. This contradiction is not just in minor details but is very fundamental, because quantum mechanics requires reality to be discontinuous, non-causal, and non-local, whereas relativity theory requires reality to be continuous, causal, and local. This discrepancy can be patched up in a few cases using mathematical re-normalisation techniques, but this approach introduces an infinite number of arbitrary features into the theory that, Bohm points out, are reminiscent of the epicycles used to patch up the crumbling theory of Ptolemaic astronomy. Hence, contrary to widespread understanding even among scientists, the new physics is self-contradictory at its foundation and is far from being a finished new model of reality. Bohm was further troubled by the fact that many leading physicists did not pay sufficient attention to this discrepancy. Seeking a resolution of this dilemma, Bohm inquired into what the two contradictory theories of modern physics have in common. What he found was undivided wholeness. Bohm was therefore led to take wholeness very seriously, and, indeed, wholeness became the foundation of his major contributions to physics. According to quantum physics, no matter how far apart two quanta of light (photons) travel, when they are measured they will always be found to have identical angles of polarisation. This suggests that somehow the two photons must be instantaneously communicating with each other so they know which angle of polarisation to agree upon. Eventually, technology became available to actually perform the two-particle experiment, but no one was able to produce conclusive results. Then in 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris, a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. There are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them..... This meant that either Einstein's long-held theory that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light or the two particles are non-locally connected. Because most physicists are opposed to admitting faster-than-light processes into physics, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. David Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts merge and unite in one totality. This undivided whole is not static but rather in a constant state of flow and change, a kind of invisible ether from which all things arise and into which all things eventually dissolve."

The UTR has made this wholeness of the universe not just a philosophical conjecture but an established reality. I have great respect for Bohm for his extraordinary insight that was comparable to that of Einstein. But unfortunately, Bohm did not have sufficient time to convert his ideas into a complete theory that would explain everything. More unfortunately, Bohm was closely linked to Einstein who would critique every chapter of the book he wrote. Instead of building a theoretical basis for his results that proved the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, and his idea of the wholeness of the universe, he sat on assiduously submitting these ideas to Einstein's light-speed barrier. This made him think of the universe as a hologram and his quantum potential as an entity that would make the world phantasmic rather than real. The UTR not only confirms that his basic idea of the wholeness was correct in essence, but also establishes the true nature of this wholeness. The theory provides the axis on which this wholeness rotates by concluding that the universe (named Uniglobe in this theory on account of its unified nature) as a whole rotates on its axis. But, unlike Bohm's ideas based on the absence of an objective reality, the unified Order of the UTR is not an illusion or phantasm but a reality. As has been explained at several places in the book and in the beginning of this chapter, the universe after the establishment of the theory of Universal Relativity will transform into Uniglobe, which is a well-established, well-organised, state kind of entity having an unfailing system of governance. Uniglobe comprises the components, not that the components form the Uniglobe. Uniglobe sustains its denizens by arranging provision for all of them, and therefore despite their individual statuses they are also the miniatures of the Uniglobe

What are the prospects of finding a unified theory of everything? The prospects have been certainly on the rise in the wake of the development of Superstring and M-theories. But still there are lots of unanswered questions. The Universal Theory of Relativity, developed with the help of clues from the Book of God, will surely become the gateway for the ultimate unification of the theory of Physics. There are many reasons for this assertion:

First, the UTR raises the status of motion as the most fundamental property of the universe and its components. Mass, energy, inertia, charge and time, and all other properties are the direct result of the motion. If there is no motion, the matter will be dead having no property whatsoever. This is the first important step in the unification.

Second, the rotation of the Uniglobe as a single body makes all the matter and forces a single body having their functional existence due to the collective motion. The rotation of the Uniglobe means different parts of the universe are moving with different speeds, depending upon the distance from the axis. Obviously, the circumference perpendicular to the axis is moving with the greatest speed. This speed has to be millions of times the speed of light. On this circumference, therefore, extraordinary energy situations can be visualised that would be enough for the unification of all the four forces of nature, namely gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. This super fast strip might not have just caused the beginning of the forces in the universe immediately after the universe began to rotate as the first step in the origin of the universe, but must also be having the same nature now. It may be regarded as the Mother of all Forces.

Third, infinities have no place in the UTR. The solution of the problem of infinities by the artificial and dubious mathematical methods like renormalisation is therefore not required in the UTR. The presence of infinities has been the biggest headache in all attempts to unify the forces including the Superstring theories. The fundamental principle that infinities do not exist in the universe, along with the disrobing of light-speed from its infinite status will make things easy for all those who are looking for a unified theory of physics.

Fourth, the presence of Uniglobe as well-organised functional entity will give the universe the unification that no idea or philosophy in the past could give.

Fifth, the Strong Force can be better understood as the effect of the rotation of the universe. It is this force that combines the nucleons together. The immense energy possessed by the nucleons on account of their having a relatively big mass and the extraordinary speed of the universe would make them high-energy particles. Their same size and mass would keep them glued together.

And above all, the biggest unifier is the concept of the Supreme King, Controller, Regulator, Planner, Executer, Sustainer, Lawmaker and Executive Head of the Universe, to whom everything in the universe and the universe as a whole bows – Almighty God.

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. The Universal theory of Relativity hopes to initiate filling of that vacuum by providing an alternative philosophical basis to Physics. Its postulates are logically easy to understand, and have experimental evidences to support them. These evidences will grow in quality and quantity when physicists would take a fresh look at the foundations of Physics in the aftermath of the presentation of this theory. The philosophical discussion will enter a new phase, where physics would ultimately stand on the same podium to express its viewpoint on which metaphysics stands. God will be recognised as the True Lord of the Universe, who holds the ultimate reins. The origin of the universe will become a more interesting field of sciences, and the fate of the universe will be debated with a sense of purpose that seems to be currently missing. Knowledge itself will emerge as a new incarnation; it will be better equipped, healthier and stronger.

To sum up

  1. Immediately after Big Bang, some laws of nature all of a sudden came into force without the presence of any legal expert knowing in advance their subtleness and the implications of their enforcement and without any executive capable of implementing them.

  2. These laws initiated the creation of a physical world without any Physicist knowing what was happening and to monitor the progress.

  3. There was a very complicated and precise mathematics involved with no mathematician around.

  4. Then the chemistry started evolving from Physics with many kinds of molecules forming without any expert of Chemistry.

  5. Then after millions and millions of years, Biology started coming into existence as the result of chemical reactions, without any Biologist (Zoologist or Botanist) overseeing the complex system of animal and plant kingdom, their mutual dependence and their dependence on their surroundings.

  6. There was huge genetics involved with no one there to even know what Genetics was all about.

  7. Now the universe is running coherently without any good enough communication between the parts of the universe;

  8. There are innumerable processes involving numerous mechanisms, numerous probables and numerous properties making every single mechanism hugely complex. In short, the universe continues to be a well-coordinated system without any known mechanism of coordination between different constituents.

  9. The universe remains in remarkable order without any known mechanism of countering the law of disorder

If there is any one answer to all these, it is none but God. Trying to replace God with "Nature" has been a failed attempt by the atheists, nontheists or agnostics. They named it "Nature" in order to give an impression that what is happening is the inherent nature of whatever is in existence. They purposed avoided the use of the word "System" ignoring that there is a System in place which has a highly advanced and precise constitution and provide properties to the particles, collection of particles, individuals and collection of individuals. And of course, they will avoid accepting that the System needs governance and governance needs One who knows all, who can communicate with all and has an overpowering presence. It is His Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience which has made it all possible. Once we attain realization of his Presence, we will be able to realize the True Anthropic Principle: We have not just been created to appreciate the beauty of the universe but to attain realization of its Creator and understand that He created us to follow, like the rest of the universe, His laws and directives.

I have to admit that I am primarily a thinker. I happen to be neither a physicist nor a mathematician. I have built the whole edifice of the Universal Theory of Relativity without using but a very little, primary level mathematics. Even in the little mathematics I have used I might have made errors. I hope physicists and mathematicians will now find it much easier to develop formulas and equations on the basis of the scientific and philosophical foundations I have provided. Then the true picture of the unification of the theory of Physics will become abundantly clear. I do hope this would come sooner than later, and we will soon enter a stage in the history of knowledge when all the fields of knowledge will lie within the belly of the mother of all knowledge, Physics

#  Papers and Books consulted

  1. Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics, David Pratt, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11:1, pp. 69-78,

  2. Processes and Causality by John F. Sowa

  3. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Ben Best

  4. A Brief History of Time, SW Hawking

  5. Afterglow of Creation  
Marcus Chown Published 1996, by University Science Books

  6. Ancient Light, Alan Lightman, Published 1991, by Harvard University Press

  7. Before the Beginning, Martin Rees

  8. Black Holes - The End of the Universe? , John Taylor, Published 1973, by Souvenir Press Ltd.

  9. Black Holes and Quasars and other Mysteries, Stan Joinler

  10. Dreams of a Final Theory, Stephen Weinberg

  11. Einstein's Greatest Blunder, Donald Goldsmith, Published 1995, by Harvard University Press

  12. Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Tolman

  13. The Accidental Universe, PCW Davis, Published 1982, by Cambridge University Press

  14. The Cosmic Blueprint, Paul Davies, Published 1987, by Heinemann Books Ltd.

  15. The Exploding Universe, Nigel Henbest, Published 1979, by Marshall Caverdish Books Ltd.

  16. The First Three Minutes, Stephen Weinberg, Published 1977, by Andre Deutsch Ltd.

  17. The Last Three Minutes, Paul Davies,Published 1994, by The Guernsey Press Company

  18. The Nature of Space and Time, S Hawking and R Penrose, Published 1996, by Princeton University Press.

  19. The Runaway Universe, Paul Davies, Published 1978, by Biddles Ltd.

  20. A Realist Philosophy of Science, Jerrold L. Aronson, (1984), St. Martin's Press, New York.

  21. Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Max Born (1949), Dover Publications, New York.

  22. "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," by Albert Einstein (1905) translated as "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies," in A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, & H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, New York.

  23. "Causation and nonmonotonic temporal reasoning," Peter Grünwald, (1997) in G. Brewka et al., KI-97:" Causation," Kim, Jaegwon (1995) in R. Audi, ed., The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Second edition, 1999, pp. 125-127.

  24. Morphology of galaxies: An overview by R. Buta, Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Alabama, USA

  25. "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae" by E Hubble, 1929. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15:168-173.

  26. Black Holes and Baby Universes by S. Hawking, 1994. Bantam Books, New York

  27. Creation and Time by H. Ross, 1994. NavPress, Colorado Springs

  28. "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event" by D Atkatz., and H Pagels (1982), Physical Review D 25: 2065-2073.

  29. "Singularities in Homogenous World Models" by S. W Hawking and R. Penrose (1965), Physical Letters 17: 246-247.

  30. "Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities" by, R. Penrose (1965) Physical Review Letters 14: 57-59.

  31. "The uncaused Beginning of the Universe" by Quentin Smith

  32. **"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle"** Author(s): **John D. Barrow** & **Frank J. Tipler** Publisher: Oxford Univ. Press

  33. _Of David Bohm's Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, Internet_

  34. The Hubble Law By Don B. De Young (Gospelcom Net)

 See, (http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8467-the-universe-may-have-been-born-spinning-according-to-new-findings-on-the-symmetry-of-the-cosmos)
