Comment / Share

  Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst


What is the Most Simple Cosmology & Does it Work? How our Finite Spherical 'Observable Universe' Exists within Infinite Eternal Space

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. (Albert Einstein, 1918)


The purpose of this Cosmology page is to explain how the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in infinite eternal space is consistent with current astronomical observations. You will need a basic understanding of the (WSM) before you read it (see links on left side of page). And try and keep in mind that you are not reading some abstract mathematical explanation - WSM cosmology describes how you exist in this space of the universe and interact with everything around you.

1. Our Finite Spherical Universe is all that Exists.
(Which led to the Big Bang Theory for the Creation of the Universe).

To briefly summarise, if the universe is finite (and all there is) then there are only three options.

1. The universe is static - then it needs an antigravity component to stop it collapsing (Einstein's cosmological constant).

2. The universe is contracting (there is no evidence for this).

3. The universe is expanding (the redshift with distance supports this if it is caused by Doppler shifting due to receding motion - this is the path Cosmology went down).

But this has numerous problems; e.g. what caused the big bang, what is it expanding into, what is outside the boundary of the finite universe?

2. Our Finite Spherical 'Observable Universe' exists as part of Infinite Eternal Space.

Spherical standing wave. On truth and reality, the metaphysics, philosophy and physics of space.The most simple explanation is that only one thing exists, space, thus it is necessarily infinite and eternal. From this most simple foundation we can then deduce that matter must be formed from waves in Space, where the electron is a spherical standing wave. The wave center forms the 'particle' effect, the spherical in and out waves explain how matter is in continual two way communication with other matter (waves) in the space around it. The Wave Diagrams page is useful for picturing this.

The obvious question then arises: "Where do the in waves come from that form our matter?"

The answer is simple, from the out waves of other matter around us in space (which is a direct consequence of Huygens' Principle). From this we can deduce that every wave center 'particle' is at the center of its observable universe within infinite space.

Most importantly, when you deduce this you find that each wave center only receives waves from a finite amount of other matter - thus the energy of matter is finite. See the Equation of the Cosmos. This also means that the size of matter is finite - matter is the size of its finite spherical observable universe within infinite space.

This explains why when we look around us in space we see that we are surrounded by other matter (planets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) and that we seem to be at the center of our observable universe. The WSM cosmology deduces that this is true wherever you are in infinite space.

NOTE: To avoid confusion I use the terms observable universe or Hubble Sphere rather than universe. Our observable universe exists as a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. We can only see and interact with other matter within our observable universe.

So we see that there were actually two paths to explore - cosmologists went down the 'Big Bang' path of the universe being all that exists and ignored the other more simple explanation founded on a finite observable universe within infinite Space (though this only works if you understand the Wave Structure of Matter in Space).

From these two cosmology theories we can then show that a cosmology founded on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Infinite Eternal Space is the most simple, that it matches observations correctly, and explains and solves many problems currently caused by the Big Bang creation theory of Cosmology.

This Differs from the Big Bang Theory in Two Ways

WSM cosmology describes an infinite eternal perpetual system. There is no beginning or end to space and its wave motions that form matter.

While the observable universe is finite in both theories, in the Big Bang theory the universe is all there is, whereas in WSM cosmology the observable universe (Hubble sphere) is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space.

What does the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) Cosmology Explain?

1. Redshift with Distance

It is a remarkable coincidence that there are actually two ways that you get a redshift with distance. Only the big bang explanation was considered which is the most complicated explanation, the most simple explanation was never considered because it depends upon the recently discovered wave structure of matter in space.

In Big Bang cosmology, the universe is all that exists, thus to prevent it gravitationally collapsing an expanding universe was proposed. The discovery of the redshift with distance seemed to confirm this, where the redshift is assumed to be a Doppler effect of receding motion due to an expanding universe.
The problems with the Big Bang theory are obvious!

What is a 'Big Bang' and how does it create Space, Time, Matter and Motion?

What is outside the expanding universe?


In WSM Cosmology, the observable universe is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. We can only see and interact with other matter in this region. Thus there is no need for an expanding universe, as other matter around our observable universe prevents it from collapsing. This is the equivalent of Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity constant, but it is just normal gravity of matter outside our observable universe within infinite space.
So why the redshift with distance?
Because as we look at matter farther away from us, we find that we share less overlap of a common finite spherical observable universe (Hubble sphere). And this means that there is less energy exchange, which equates to a redshift with distance.

The Cosmological Redshift Explained by the Intersection of Hubble Spheres
This article shows that each wave center 'particle' is the center of its finite spherical observable universe (Hubble Sphere) within infinite Space. As two wave center 'particles' move apart there is less overlap of common Hubble spheres / observable universes, thus less wave interactions with increasing distance, thus less energy exchange which then provides a simple sensible explanation of the redshift with distance.

2. How our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within Infinite Eternal Space

Can we visualize a three-dimensional universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Einstein, 1921)

In fact it is possible for a finite spherical Universe to form within an infinite Space. Unfortunately for Einstein, he incorrectly imagined a 'curved space' such that if you traveled far enough you would return to your starting point (a very abstract and confusing concept).

The solution is far more simple, and is found instead from Huygens' Principle. Three hundred years ago Christiaan Huygens, a Dutch mathematician, found that if a surface containing many separate wave sources was examined at a distance, the combined separate waves of the sources appeared as a single wave front with the shape of the surface. This wave front is termed a 'Huygens Combination' of the separate waves.

Thus the out waves of all the other matter around us within our Hubble sphere must necessarily form our spherical in waves. This unites finite matter with infinite space due to this sharing of waves.

Thus the mass / wave energy density of matter is finite because it is determined by a finite amount of other matter. See the Equation of the Cosmos.
This is very important as it unites our finite temporal world of matter within in infinite eternal space. This is one of the great deductions from Milo's Wolff's pioneering work on the Wave Structure of Matter.

3. Einstein's General Relativity and Cosmology

We see that this finite spherical universe agrees with Einstein's logic on the structure of the universe as deduced from general relativity. His quote is broken up into three parts;

i) Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions from a point, and mark off each of these the distance r with a measuring rod. All the free end-points of these lengths lie on a spherical surface. With increasing values of r, (the spherical surface) increases from zero up to a maximum value which is determined by the 'radius of the universe'.

ii) But for still further increasing values of r, the area gradually diminishes to zero.

iii) At first, the straight lines which radiate from the starting point diverge farther and farther from one another, but later they approach each other, and finally they run together again at a 'counter-point' to the starting point. Under such conditions they have traversed the whole spherical space (of our finite spherical universe). (Albert Einstein, 1916)

It is important to realize that Einstein does not explain what happens at the 'radius of the universe' that causes an expanding spherical surface to begin to contract (because he did not know!). The solution is now solved using Huygens' principle as we have previously described. Thus;

i) Describes the out waves from the wave center, these carry on going out and become the in waves of distant matter.

ii) Describes the in waves - but rather than still going out these waves are coming back in and have been formed by the out waves of all the other matter in our finite spherical Universe.

iii) Thus the point and the counter-point are united as the wave center of Spherical Standing Waves the size of the Universe.

The 'Radius of the Universe' is the sphere where the in waves (from distant matter's out waves) contribute to our spherical in waves, and this determines both the size of matter, and thus the size of our observable universe within infinite space.

4. Mach's Principle

This also deduces Mach's principle which states that the mass of a body is determined by all other matter in the observable universe. Thus we can now understand why the following quote from Einstein, based on the ideas of Ernst Mach, is true (and important).

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

5. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is sensibly explained due to radiation from cold matter in interstellar space. Since we only measure one source of CMBR this means that there cannot have been a 'Big Bang' otherwise we would observe two sources of cosmic background radiation.

The expression "the temperature of space" is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K ), essentially the same as the observed, so-called 'background' temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a 'fog' and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. (Van Flandern)

6. Formation of Light and Heavy Elements

It is claimed that the Big Bang theory is necessary to explain the formation of different elements in the universe. However, more recent studies show that these elements are formed from the energy of stars exploding (supernova).

... in 1957, after years of steady work - aided by advances in nuclear physics and stellar observations - Margaret and Gregory Burbridge, William Fowler and Hoyle published a comprehensive and detailed theory showing how stellar systems could produce all the known elements in proportions very close to those observed to exist. In addition, the theory accounted for the growing evidence that the elementary composition varies from star to star, something that would not be possible if the elements were produced by the Big Bang. The new theory was rapidly accepted as substantially correct. (Eric Lerner)

7. Quantised Redshift with Distance puts us at the Center of the Universe

Astronomers have confirmed that galaxy redshifts are quantised. Thus according to Hubble's law, where redshifts are proportional to the distances, galaxies must be grouped into spherical shells concentric around our Milky Way galaxy. The shells being around a million light years apart with us at the center. The odds for the Earth having such a unique position in the universe by accident are less than one in a trillion. As Halton Arp writes;

The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps - certain preferred values - is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. Their problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components of velocities, then galaxy velocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be continuously distributed. For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment. So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this Chapter shows that extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away.

In addition it appears increasingly useful to view particle masses to be communicated by wave like carriers in a Machian universe. Therefore the possibility of beat frequencies, harmonics, interference and evolution through resonant states is opened up. ... My attitude toward this result is that in a Machian universe there must be some signal carrier for inertial mass coming from distant galaxies. (Arp, 1998)

The wave structure of matter deduces this perfectly. Each wave center 'particle' is at the center of its observable universe within infinite space. And the quantised redshift is a property of waves, just as the quantum properties of light are explained with waves.

8. Why our Finite Spherical Universe does not Become 'Impoverished'

Einstein explains a further problem with the concept of the 'island' universe as required by Newton's Law;

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

This problem is also solved by realizing that matter is distributed uniformly (on the very large scale) throughout infinite Space. However, only a finite spherical region of this other matter contributes to our in waves and thus our finite mass. This means that there are as many waves flowing into our finite spherical universe as there are flowing out. This perpetual finite spherical universe within infinite space would not become impoverished over time, exactly as Einstein (and sensible logic) required.

9. Olbers' Paradox Solved

Olbers pointed out that if the number of stars were infinite, we should observe the entire sky with the light intensity of the surface of a star like the Sun. Obviously we do not observe this! As Lerner explains;

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

The solution to this paradox is the same as for the other problems discussed above. Huygens' sharing of waves (which explains our finite mass within an infinite space) also explains why we only 'see' the finite number of wave centers (of matter in distant stars) within our finite spherical universe. Thus the number of observable stars and the resultant brightness of the night sky are finite rather than infinite.
We should further add that the 'divine' positioning of matter in infinite space needed to prevent 'matter from collapsing into a series of heaps' is simply due to the fact that matter is a wave structure that depends upon the out waves of other matter around it. This limits how the wave centers can be distributed within an infinite space.

10. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to Closed Systems

The reason why our universe remains ordered (can evolve complexity) is because it is part of an infinite perpetual system of waves within infinite space. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (not infinite systems), as Lerner clearly explains;

Boltzmann propounded a new concept with profound cosmological implications. The universe as a whole, must, like any closed system tend toward an equilibrious state of entropy: it will be completely homogeneous, the same temperature everywhere, the stars will cool, their life-giving energy flow will cease. The universe will suffer a 'heat death'. Any closed system must thus go from an ordered to a less ordered state - the opposite of progress.
The tendency toward equilibrium is supposed to hold only in 'closed systems' and because the earth is heated by the sun, it is not a closed system. The universe we observe is simply not decaying; the generalization of 'the law of increasing disorder' to the entire cosmos is unsupported by observation. (Lerner, 1991)

11. On the Past, Present and Future and the One Way Direction of Time

The solution is to understand that time (and matter) are really due to the wave motion of space, which is directional. Time is just a human construct to measure this rate of change / motion - there is just the eternal now of vibrating space.

Lerner explains this important problem of why Time must be directional, contrary to the laws of modern particle physics;

This is one of the deepest paradoxes of conventional physics today. According to all the laws of physics there should be no distinction between past and future, no direction to time. Since the second law says that entropy necessarily increases with time, and thus the past and future differ, the second law, too, is contradicted.

In relativity theory, for example, time is simply the fourth dimension - there is no more difference between past and future than between left and right. There is no flow of time: all the equations would look the same if time were reversed. Newton's laws and the laws of quantum mechanics also are what physicists call 'time reversible'; they define no unique direction for time. If one were to make a movie of two billiard balls colliding, for example, it would look just as credible if it were run in reverse.
But in the real world, there is a difference. If it is two raw eggs that collide and break in the movie, it would look absurd in reverse. The two eggs would assemble themselves out of a puddle and roll off. In the real world babies are born, never unborn, they grow up, never down, and eggs are scrambled, never unscrambled. These processes are all irreversible: time moves forward, toward growth or decay.

Hence the fundamental question: If the laws of the universe have no direction in time, why does the real world?

The conventional answer to this question is, strangely, the Big Bang. The Big Bang started the universe off in a highly orderly and regular state - a 'perfect' state of very low entropy. Since the universe must run down through states of increasing disorder, closer to equilibrium (the state in which there is no flow of energy), the direction of time is defined.

Thus, if there was no Big Bang why does time move forward?

The importance of the answers extends far beyond their role at the center of a consistent cosmology. They strike at the heart of some of the greatest mysteries faced by science, philosophy and religion - the questions of the nature of human consciousness, the relation of mind and body, and free will. The distinction between past, present, and future is basic to our experience of consciousness - we are conscious in the now, we remember the past, but we cannot know the future. It also is central to our idea of free will, for it implies that our actions in the present affect the future, that the past is fixed but the future can be changed. How can these ideas be reconciled with a concept of physical laws in which past, present and future all exist equally and cannot be distinguished?

The real world is continually coming into existence, created by an infinitely complex web of instabilities and interactions. As Prigogine puts it, 'Time is creation. The future is just not there.'
Time's irreversibility is based on the continuity of space, on its infinite divisibility. (Lerner, 1991)

Once we realize that it is not time but the wave motion of continuous space which is fundamental, then it becomes obvious why time is directional. It takes time for in waves to flow into their wave centers, thus the in waves are the future, the wave center is the present, and the out-waves are the past. This is important for it explains why time is directional because the wave motion of space is directional. Thus we no longer need the Big Bang theory or the second law of thermodynamics to explain the flow of time.
This also means that space itself does not experience time. Only matter, as the wave motion of space, experiences time. Thus space must be eternal.

12. On Freedom: Our Universe is Necessarily Connected but not Deterministic

It is very important to appreciate the difference between a necessarily connected universe (as explained by the Wave Structure of Matter) and a deterministic universe which requires knowledge of the 'initial conditions' from which things, being necessarily connected, can then be determined.

Again the solution is obvious, for we live in a finite and necessarily connected universe, but because it is within infinite space, and continually has waves flowing into it from infinity, they can never be pre-determined. This explains the uncertainty of Quantum Theory and that we can never know where each successive in wave will meet at its wave center, thus we can never know both the future motion (momentum) and position of the 'particle'. This then deduces Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

This limited freedom and limited determinism within infinite space is explained in more detail in the Free Will Vs. Determinism page.

13. Black holes / Worm Holes Do Not Exist

Black holes and worm holes are mathematical constructs - infinite energy densities do not exist - time travel does not exist - faster than light travel does not exist. As Tesla astutely wrote;

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

Most importantly, the measured velocity of stars near the center of our galaxy contradicts the the supposed black hole they claim exists there. As Lerner writes;

In 1989, however, new evidence developed which will probably doom the black-hole hypothesis. Gas and plasma near the center of galaxies has always been observed to move at a high velocity, up to 1500 km/sec for our own galaxy, and similar or higher values for others. These velocities are generally treated as evidence for a black hole whose powerful gravitational field has trapped the swirling gases. But the two scientists at the University of Arizona, G.H and M.J. Rieke, carefully measured the velocities of stars within a few light-years of the center of our galaxy, and found the velocities are no higher than 70km/sec, twenty times slower than the plasma velocities measured in the same area. Since the stars must respond to any gravitational force, their low velocities show that no black hole exists. The high-speed gases must therefore be trapped only by a magnetic field, which does not affect the stars.

Albert Einstein did not believe in black holes either, even though you now read that his general relativity deduces them! His view was that nature had natural limits that prevented infinite energy densities from occurring. He was correct.
Having said that, it is quite possible that matter forms into high energy density states that do not emit and absorb light, and thus can only be 'seen' by their gravitational effects.

14. Dark Matter

The rotational motion of galaxies cannot be explained with modern physics' theory of gravitation. To explain this anomaly they filled the universe with 'dark matter'.
In the wave structure of matter gravity is due to the slowing of waves in higher energy density space. This explains why light curves past the sun, it is simply refraction. And because matter is made of waves this also explains why objects attract one another, as the wave center 'particles' always re-position in the direction of slowest incoming waves. i.e. Where there is more matter thus a higher energy density space and slower incoming waves.

However, because of the many errors in modern big bang cosmology / particle physics it is hard to know what the true facts are and thus the solution to the problem. Below are three possible explanations.

i) Given that they incorrectly treat matter as discrete particles, yet also as energy fields in space-time, it is possible that their calculations of the energy density of space are wrong. In the WSM all of space is full of waves, matter 'particles' are just where the waves are coherent. Matter is really a structure of the universe - thus they may have incorrectly calculated the energy density (wave energy) of space, and are calling the true energy 'dark matter'. Because their gravitational theory has the wrong foundations (in WSM gravity is simply the slowing of waves in higher energy density space) thus if the energy density is higher than they realise this would explain higher gravitational effects needed to explain the rotation of galaxies.

ii) There may be matter waves in states that are not easily seen. This is quite possible, we only see matter when it emits light, and this depends on it having electrons bound in certain wave patterns in the atom / molecule. These bound electrons (wave centers) act as spherical resonators for resonant coupling (light).

iii) It is possible (likely?) that there are electromagnetic effects that are influencing the rotational velocity of galaxies that they are unaware of (see the electric universe). Given that electromagnetic effects are 1040 times larger than gravitational then this would only need to have a tiny contribution to have significant effects. (In the WSM electric charge is due to changes in wave velocity with wave amplitude where higher wave amplitude = higher wave velocity.)

Gravity and charge are explained in the following WSM articles;

Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
Wave Equations in an Elastic Medium Space
Truth Statements on Physical Reality

15. Predicted Motion of Distant Galaxies Confirmed

Finally, the WSM cosmology predicts that motion of distant galaxies will behave as if there is matter all around them, whereas in the big bang cosmology there would only be matter on one side (the inside, as there is no 'outside').

This prediction was made in 2003. You can use the wayback machine to view our cosmology page dated 11th of February 2003 to confirm this (see section 1.6).

This was confirmed by observation of distant galaxies in 2008 (and was subsequently attacked and dismissed by Big Bang cosmologists - for the obvious reason that it contradicts Big Bang cosmology!).

ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2008) -- Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe.

"The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this. .. The distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion."

Journal reference: A. Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Kocevski, H. Ebeling. A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: results and cosmological implications. Astrophysical Journal Letters, Print edition October 20, 2008; online week of September 22, 2008.


It is fitting to end with some astute comments from Eric Lerner on the relationship between cosmology, society, morality and truth.

Today, another scientific revolution is beginning, one that may change our view of the cosmos as radically as the last. And today it again seems likely that the effects of this revolution, both social and scientific, will be profound. If the universe is truly infinite in time and space, then the implications go well beyond cosmology to the whole of our view of nature, to religion, philosophy and society as a whole.
Teilhard de Chardin anticipated many of Prigogine's more concrete ideas. But equally important, he argues that only this prospect of an unlimited future can be the basis for human morality, even for human activity - the only prospect that can prevent humanity from despairing. If mankind came to believe that progress would halt, then "mankind would soon stop inventing and constructing for a work it knew to be doomed in advance. And stricken at the very source of impetus that sustains it, it would disintegrate from nausea or revolt and crumble into dust. ... If progress is a myth... our efforts will flag. With that the whole of evolution will come to a halt - because we are evolution."

But the new ideas of the emerging scientific revolution bring an entirely different outlook. If the universe is evolving from an infinite past to an infinite future, if human development is only the latest stage of continual progress stretching through the unlimited reaches of time, then the very idea of an "end to history" is ludicrous, an unfunny joke.

If there is something wrong, then it must be fixed. Such an outlook offers a hope of renewed progress. It asserts that scientific advance and technological development are not at an end, but could be starting a new period of explosive growth. It provides the motivation human beings need to join together in collective efforts rather than to fragment into self-cantered anarchy. It shows that the technology exists to eradicate want on earth and open the path outward into an infinite universe. (Lerner, 1991)

And the following quotes from Thomas Kuhn's famous work on 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' are very relevant;

All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. ..Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance.
It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.

Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin Of Species, wrote:

" Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume... I, by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. ... But I look with confidence to the future - to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality."

And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that;

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
(Thomas Kuhn, 1962)

The Wave Structure of Matter is the most simple science theory of reality and it clearly works by correctly deducing the laws of Nature.
The only difficulty is that it is new, and most people have been brought up with 'particle' physics and the Big Bang theory, so it takes a while for our minds to adjust to this new way of seeing things. But the Wave Structure of Matter in Space is simple, sensible and obvious once known.

Geoff Haselhurst

Metaphysics: One Infinite Eternal Continuous Substance

While this may surprise some people, both ancient Indian and Greek philosophy & metaphysics realised that matter interacts with ALL other matter in the observable universe, thus there is clearly a connection between the structure of matter and the structure of the observable universe.

The roman stoic philosopher king, Marcus Aurelius explains this beautifully (below), though many philosophers and mystics have realised this interconnection of matter in Space (this dynamic unity of reality is the founding principle of ancient Greek & Indian Philosophy).

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many. (Rig Veda, 1200BC)

All things come out of the one, and the one out of all things. (Heraclitus, 500BC)

All phenomena, link together in a mutually conditioning network. (Buddha, 500BC)

When the Ten Thousand things are viewed in their Oneness, we return to the Origin and remain where we have always been. (Sen T'sen)

“Existent’ is indivisible, for where is the second power, which should divide it?
But there cannot exist several "Existents," for in order to separate them, something would have to exist which was not existing, an assumption which neutralizes itself. Thus there exists only the eternal Unity.” (Parmenides, 450BC)

But indeed even if the One is more like a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole Universe will be undivided either in quantity or in form. ... You cannot have parts of the infinite and the infinite is indivisible. (Aristotle, 340BC)

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

Likewise, Western Philosophy and Physics has come to the same conclusion.

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

Spinoza on SubstanceA substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it. ... No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely. (Spinoza, 1673)

If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would be seen as it is, infinite. (Blake, 1800)

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

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


This is of course fundamentally important to our understanding of what Matter is, what the Universe is, and what Space is. The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) within infinite space solves this problem of understanding the interconnection between our matter existing in our finite spherical observable universe (many finite temporal things) and Space (the one infinite eternal thing).

Currently, Cosmology is obscured by an incorrect belief in the ‘Big Bang’ - that the universe is expanding, and thus had a beginning at some time in the past. This is not correct, for the simple reason that the observed Hubble redshift with distance is NOT caused by a Doppler shift due to receding Motion (an expanding Universe), but rather, is caused by diminishing wave interactions with distance.

Further, the Wave Structure of Matter explains that Time is caused by wave Motion, thus only matter in space, as the spherical wave motion of space, experiences time. Space is eternal (does not experience Time) thus it cannot be created at some time in the past. As Aristotle wrote;

It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of their unchangeability. (Aristotle, 340BC)

Motion must always have been in existence, and the same can be said for time itself, since it is not even possible for there to be an earlier and a later if time does not exist. Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it. (Aristotle, 340BC)

Likewise, as only one substance exists, space, it cannot be created (there is no other substance to create it).

Again, both ancient Indian and Greek Philosophy correctly realised that something is never created from nothing ex nihilo, thus something has eternally existed;

Without beginning or end (through eternity) this world has continued to exist as such. There is nothing here to be questioned. In no place or time was this world ever observed otherwise by anybody in the past, nor will it be, in the future. (Madhva, 1250AD)

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

Unfortunately, the 'Big Bang' theory for the creation of our Universe is now well established, and many careers are founded on this concept. Thus it is natural that the emerging school of dissident scientists who disagree with this theory will cause conflicts within the academic world that, sadly, often have little to do with determining the truth. While I do not wish to become embroiled in this debate, nonetheless, as philosophers of science we are bound to follow the truth, as Tolstoy wrote;

Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it. (Leo Tolstoy)

And from this most simple foundation of One thing, Space, existing as a wave medium it becomes obvious that the belief in a 'Big Bang' is founded upon a basic error, and that once the truth is realised then we find that the problems and paradoxes of modern Cosmology are solved simply and sensibly. See Problems of the 'Big Bang' theory of Cosmology.

Geoff Haselhurst

Einstein's cosmological constant

I received a letter about this page which made the following interesting point;

I am a bit reluctant to include any of the anti big bang stuff you include here. This is not only because I have not had time to ponder it in detail. The thing that worries me most is that I thought that Einstein once described his cosmological constant as his biggest blunder. Is this true? Was he fooled by the arguments of others?

Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).
Two problems;

a) What surrounds this finite spherical universe? (Einstein used his spherical ellipsoidal geometry of General Relativity to propose curved space - if you travel in any one direction you will curve around and eventually return to your starting point). This is not correct (it is a mathematical solution only).

b) What stops finite spherical universe gravitationally collapsing (thus Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity Constant).

Two discoveries, one theoretical, one empirical sent Cosmology down the path of the Big Bang Theory for the creation of our universe.

a) Friedman used Einstein's equations to show that an expanding universe was possible by the equations, and solved the problem of the collapsing universe and thus removed the need for Einstein's Cosmological constant. Einstein was reluctant - believing in a static (non-expanding universe).

b) Then Hubble famously showed the relationship between distance and redshift. If Doppler shift caused this redshift then it meant stars / galaxies were moving apart.
Einstein, swayed by this argument, changed his mind - thus his comment 'My biggest blunder' referring to the Cosmological Constant.

However, this is not the correct solution, in fact Einstein's cosmological constant is largely correct, but it is not caused by anti-gravity within the universe, but by the gravitational forces of matter outside our finite spherical universe within an infinite space.

Basically, to understand Cosmology you must understand this relationship between the finite and the infinite. The big bang does not explain this. It was not until Milo Wolff applied knowledge of the Wave Structure of Matter to the study of the Cosmos that this problem could be solved.

Space is Infinite (one thing existing must be infinite) but our spherical observable universe is finite. Matter is finite. We unite these two finite things, matter and observable universe, by realising that matter, as a spherical standing wave formed by other matter's out waves, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within infinite Space. Matter and our observable universe are the same thing / are united.

Due to this sharing of waves, only a finite number (about 1080) other Spherical Standing Waves combine with our matter. This is calculated in two different ways in the section on the Equation of the Cosmos: Deducing Finite Size of Matter and Universe - one by myself (simple) and one by Maths Physicist Milo Wolff (mathematical, logically equivalent). This correctly deduces the size of our observable universe within infinite space. Thus there are an infinite number of finite spherical universes within an infinite space.

Reply to a Letter on Cosmology

The following is from a letter I wrote to a (very nice) woman who has been studying the WSM Cosmology. Hopefully it helps further clarify the above comments about the meaning of our Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Space.

When people first consider the Wave Structure of Matter there seems to be this common mistake of thinking of one wave center / spherical standing wave on its own in infinite space (which is clearly not how reality is, as there is obviously matter all around us). That thought leads to imagining the spherical standing wave structure as infinite.

However, the correct way of thinking (since it matches reality of what we experience), is that the space around us has lots (and lots!) of other matter. And calculations show that wherever you are in an infinite space (as a wave center) YOU ONLY INTERACT WITH A FINITE SPHERICAL REGION OF THAT INFINITE SPACE AND OTHER MATTER (which we call our Observable Universe).

It is only this finite amount of other matter that directly contributes to your in waves. i.e. Applying Huygens' principle - their out waves combine to form our spherical in waves. This is calculated in two different ways in the section on the Equation of the Cosmos: Deducing Finite Size of Matter and Universe and correctly deduces the size of our Observable Universe within Infinite Space.

This Equation of the Cosmos is very important, because it is basically solving the fundamental problem of the relationship between the Finite and the Infinite. i.e. How we can exist as part of Infinite Space, and yet only have a finite mass (wave energy density). This then explains Mach's Principle - how all matter in our Finite Observable Universe determines the mass (mass-energy density of space) of matter / space - and most importantly why that is finite (within infinite space).

So we see that each wave center 'particle' is really the center of its own universe. (We are each the centers of our own universe - what a nice thought). And this applies to any matter, wherever you are in an infinite space. So effectively finite matter and the observable universe are the same thing - matter is a wave structure of the universe if you like! Thus if you imagine infinite space, there is an infinite amount of matter in it, and thus an infinite number of finite spherical universes.

When matter is close to other matter, then its universes (in and out waves) overlap and you get matter interactions. For us, matter 1,000 billion light years away is outside our Finite Spherical Universe and we can't interact with it / see it. It does not contribute its out waves directly to our in waves - it is hidden behind other matter.

So the Wave Structure of Matter Cosmology explains how we each exist as the center of our Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Space. I exist as the center of mine, you as the center of yours. But it just so happens that our centers are close together so we share 99.9999.........% of a common universe - which is why we can interact with one another, write to each other on the internet.

And if you think about it, you will realise that this must also cause a redshift with distance, because distant matter shares less of a common universe, thus less wave interactions, thus less energy exchange (which we see as a redshift with distance). Any smart mathematicians here can deduce this - just work out how the volume of two overlapping spheres changes as you move them apart - this should equate to redshift with distance (another meaningful deduction from the WSM - though I should add that there may be other factors affecting redshift, certainly the work of Halton Arp suggests there are).

This also explains another central and profound problem of Cosmology - why our Finite Spherical Universe does not gravitationally collapse. In an Infinite Space it is obvious that matter outside our Finite Spherical Universe, due to its gravitational forces, prevents our finite sphere of matter / universe from gravitationally collapsing. This then removes the need for both an expanding universe (which led to the idea of the Big Bang), or Einstein's antigravity / cosmological constant (which, is really just a gravity force from matter outside our Finite Spherical Universe within Infinite Space). So Einstein was close to the truth with his Cosmological Constant!

Help Humanity

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)

Albert Einstein"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)

Biography: Geoffrey Haselhurst, Philosopher of Science, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, Evolution. Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the fundamental problems of human knowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is Easy to Help!

Just click on the Social Network links below, or copy a nice image or quote you like and share it. We have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. In doing this you will help a new generation of scientists see that there is a simple sensible explanation of physical reality - the source of truth and wisdom, the only cure for the madness of man! Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst (Updated September, 2018)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)

Copyright 1997 - 2018
We support 'Fair Use' of these pages for Academic & Non Commercial use.
You are welcome to use images and text, but please reference them with a link to relevant web page on this site. Thanks!

Creative Commons License