# Cosmology: Hubble Redshift

The Wave Structure of Matter Explains the Red Shift with Distance with Huygens Principle,
not Doppler Shift due to Expanding Universe / Space

(If the redshifts are a Doppler shift) ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time. (**E. Hubble**, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937)

A few years later **Hubble** showed, by special investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae, that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increases regularly with distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in regard to our present knowledge only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large - as required, according to Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory. (**Albert Einstein**)

### Introduction

Modern Cosmology is founded on the belief that the Hubble Redshift
with distance is caused by a Doppler Shift due to receding Motion of the stars
/ galaxies within the universe, thus leading to the conclusion of an expanding
Universe from some primal 'Big Bang'.

The Wave
Structure of Matter solves the many problems and contradictions of this
Big Bang theory by deducing that the Hubble Redshift is actually caused by decreasing Wave interactions with distance.
This also solves the problem of uniting the finite and the infinite, i.e.
how our matter can be finite yet exist within infinite Space. The solution
is simple - but because it requires a new way of thinking about matter as
a wave structure of space (rather than a discrete 'particle') it takes the
mind a little while to adjust.

Geoff Haselhurst

### Introductory Quotes on Edwin Hubble & Cosmology

About 1929 the American astronomer **Hubble** demonstrated the existence of a strange correlation between distance and speed of the nebulae: they all move outwards, away from us, and with a velocity which increases proportional to the distance; or, in other words, the system of the spiral nebulae is expanding- just as the primitive comparison of this system with a gas had suggested to earlier thinkers. Now if one regards the expansion to have been the same in the past as it is today, one is led to the idea that the whole system must have had a beginning when all matter was condensed in a small 'supernucleus,' and one can calculate the time interval since this 'beginning of the world' and the present instant. The result obtained from Hubble's data was 2000 to 3000 millions of years.

Meanwhile the relativistic cosmology initiated by Einstein and De Sitter began to ripen in the hands of Friedmann, Lemaitre, Tolman, Robertson and others. A series of new possible models of the world were discovered between the extreme cases found by Einstein and De Sitter, and the question arose which of them fitted the empirical facts best, in particular those facts established by Hubble. Today there are many ramifications and refinements of the theory and there has been so enormous an increase of observational material that it is difficult to judge the actual situation. Earlier ideas which seemed to be most fertile have turned out to be too narrow or even wrong. (**Max Born**, Einstein's Theory of Relativity)

In the years following his proof of the existence of other galaxies, **Hubble** spent his time cataloguing their distances and observing their spectra. At that time most people expected the galaxies to be moving around quite randomly, and so expected to find as many blue-shifted spectra as red-shifted ones. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red-shifted: nearly all were moving away from us! More surprisingly still was the finding that **Hubble** published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy's red shift is not random, but is directly proportional to the galaxy's distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant that the universe could not be static, as everyone previously thought, but is in fact expanding; the distance between the different galaxies is growing all the time. (**Stephen Hawking**, 1988)

In 1929, **Edwin Hubble** made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means at earlier times objects would have been closer together. .. Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense.

(**Stephen Hawking**, 1988)

Only after the astronomer **Edwin Hubble** had
studied the motions of galaxies and independently discovered that the universe
was expanding. (**Margaret Wertheim**, 1997)

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact.

(**Eric Lerner**, 1991)

It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities.

(**Mitchell**, 1997)

There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion leads to an origin of this expansion which lies 'only' about a billion years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is in no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome.(**Albert Einstein**)

Present evidence shows that the Big Bang, initially introduced to explain the Hubble expansion, does not make predictions that correspond to observation. It is clearly contradicted by Tully's observations of supercluster complexes and by the more recent confirmations of large-scale structures. This returns us to the problem: What caused the Hubble expansion? The cosmological debate will not be resolved until this basic question is answered. The question of the Hubble relation remains unanswered, and other fundamental questions about the cosmos must also remain unanswered until an adequate theory is found. Far more theoretical and observational work is needed. (**Lerner**, 1991)

### The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains Hubble Redshift with Distance from Huygens Principle, not Doppler Shift due to Expanding Universe / Space

Suppose we were to accept 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. Matter is not going to set itself in motion. (Aristotle, 340BC)

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. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

As people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and their society, this debate has implications far beyond the realm of science, for the core of the cosmological debate is a question of how truth is known. (Lerner, 1992)

### Introduction

To begin we briefly explain how matter, as a Spherical Standing Wave, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space. From this foundation we calculate the 'Equation of the Cosmos' and show how this correctly deduces both Mach's Principle and the Hubble redshift with distance (without assuming a Doppler shift due to receding motion and thus an expanding universe). We then consider Einstein's ideas, and with some minor corrections, show how this new foundation solves many of the current Problems of Cosmology.

### Our Finite Spherical Universe Perpetually Exists Within an Infinite Space

Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Einstein, 1954)

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 rather abstract and confusing idea!) The solution is far more simple and sensible, and is found instead from Huygens' Principle.

Christiaan Huygens found that a surface containing many separate wave sources appeared, from a distance, as a single wave front with the shape of the surface. This wave front is termed a 'Huygens combination' of the separate waves. This explains how matter's spherical In-waves are formed. The Out-waves of other SSWs (spherically distributed in the Space around us) combine to form a Huygens' combination wave front which forms the spherical In-wave of our wave-centers.

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. (Smolin, 1997)

Most importantly, this Huygens' sharing of waves means that once you go out past a certain distance in Space (the size of our finite spherical universe) you can no longer count the Out-waves of farther distant matter as direct contributors to our In-waves, as these waves have already become part of closer wave-center's In and Out-waves and thus have already been counted as contributing to our In-waves. As we shall explain, this sharing of waves is a profound discovery (Wolff, 1994) as it leads to the solution of the connection between the infinite and the finite, explains Mach's Principle, and explains the redshift with distance without assuming an expanding universe.

### The Equation of the Cosmos

So let us now explain, with a little basic mathematics, how we can now deduce the finite size of matter (which determines the size of our spherical universe) within an infinite Space.

Imagine a clear balloon, and you had a 'marker pen' that could make black dots on the surface of the balloon. If you were patient you could cover the balloon in black dots until the balloon was completely black and no light could get inside the balloon. Thus if we know the size of our dots, and how many dots we are allowed to use, then we could calculate the surface area and size of the balloon such that all the dots would just cover the balloon and block out the light.

This analogy is valid with our finite spherical universe within an infinite
Space. The 'size of the balloon' is the size of our universe we wish to
calculate. The size of our black dots is the size of the wave-centers ('particles'),
the number of our black dots is the number of 'particles' in the universe.
(We assume a 'particle radius **Re = ****10 ^{-14}**
and number of particles

**N = 10**as consistent with current observations of matter in the universe.) Thus if we assumed that all matter in the universe was distributed on the surface of a sphere, such that the wave-centers completely filled this surface, then this means that the Out-waves of any more distant matter would not directly contribute to our In-waves as they must flow through (and become part of) one of these 'shielding' wave-centers, thus we have already counted their wave contributions. (While the real universe obviously has some matter closer and some farther out, this approximation is adequate for calculations.) Our equations are; Area of wave-center =

^{80}**pi Re**; area of

^{2}**N**wave-centers =

**N pi Re**; the radius of a spherical universe that has this surface area is

^{2}**4 pi R**; which reduces to the Equation for the Radius of our universe

^{2}= N pi Re^{2}**R**;

The Equation of the Cosmos: **4 R ^{2} = N Re^{2}**

Substituting in our values for N and Re we get a Radius of the universe **R = 10 ^{26}** m

Currently the classical calculation for the Hubble radius of the universe is

**10**

^{26}**m so the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter has deduced the same value using the above simple assumption!**

^{ }These simple calculations suggest that the redshift with distance is actually due to the decreased sharing of waves with distance (as we share less of a common spherical universe) and thus distant matter contributes less to our wave-amplitude and mass-energy density of space (the cause of our mass/energy) which we see as a redshift (energy decrease) with distance. This seems to be a most profound solution, for it explains and solves many of the current problems of Cosmology (as explained below) by finally solving the Problem of the Finite and the Infinite, how matter, with finite mass and spherical size, can perpetually exist in a finite spherical universe within an infinite Space.

### An Infinite Space

Throughout history there has been common agreement amongst many philosophers that Space (and time) are most likely infinite, as Einstein explains; If we ponder over the questions as to how the universe (space), considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density. (Einstein, 1954)

Unfortunately for Einstein an infinite Space led to many problems.

This view of an infinite space is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory requires that the universe should have a kind of center in which the density of stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this center the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of space. (Einstein, 1954)

Clearly Einstein thinks this 'island' universe unreasonable, nonetheless, it is a logical consequence of Newton's force laws that as the radius R of the spherical universe tended to infinity then if this infinite matter in distant Space contributed to the mass of our matter, our matter would necessarily have an infinite mass - which it clearly does not.

In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a modification of Newton's law, in which he assumes that for great distances the forces of attraction between two masses diminishes more rapidly than would result with the inverse square law. In this way it is possible for the mean density of matter to be constant everywhere, even to infinity, without infinitely large gravitational fields being produced. We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of a center. Of course we purchase our emancipation from the fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the cost of a modification and complication of Newton's law which has neither empirical nor theoretical foundation. (Einstein, 1954)

The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter in an infinite three dimensional Space now provides this new theoretical foundation which deduces exactly what Einstein and Seeliger required! There is no 'island' of masses in an infinite empty Space. Instead, matter is distributed uniformly throughout an infinite Space, but due to the Huygens' sharing of waves it contributes less and less to our In-waves, and thus our mass, with increasing distance (and once we reach the size of our Spherical Standing Waves {size of our universe} then farther distant matter does not directly contribute to our In-waves nor to our gravitational forces). Thus the force laws with distance do decrease more rapidly than would result with the inverse square law.

This not only prevents our mass from becoming infinite, but also solves a number of previously puzzling problems.

i) This infinite space and matter prevents our finite spherical universe from collapsing upon itself due to gravitational forces. (Thus there is no need for an expanding universe - this is explained when we shortly consider Einstein's famous antigravity cosmological constant.)

ii) Our universe is perpetual and does not become 'impoverished' over time (as it necessarily would if it was an 'island' universe as required by Newton's Law). As Einstein explains;

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 now easily solved by realizing that due to this matter outside our finite spherical universe there are as many waves flowing into our universe (forming our In-waves) as there are flowing out (our Out-waves).

iii) Olbers' Paradox.

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, 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 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.

### Mach's Principle and How the Distant Stars Determine Our Inertial Mass

Ernst Mach (1883) stated that Newton's law of Inertia **F=m.a**, was established by all the matter of the universe. At that time the unknown origin of Newton's inertia law attracted frequent attention. Mach (very cleverly) saw the connection between inertia and distant matter in the universe from considerations on the following experiment, which produces two fundamentally different ways of measuring a body's rotation in Space:

First, without looking at the sky, one can measure the centripetal (inertial) force on a rotating mass m using Newton's law in the form **F=ma=mv ^{2}/r** to find circumferential speed

**v**. The second way is to compare an object's angular position and circumferential speed v relative to the distant fixed stars. Remarkably, both methods give exactly the same result and this was a great mystery at the time.

Mach realized that the inertia law required a means to link the inertial behavior of each body with all other matter (the stars) of our universe. The obvious problem of the 'particle' conception of matter is to explain how all the distant matter of the universe could instantaneously act upon a moving body here on earth.

This paradox is completely resolved by the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) which shows that all distant matter establishes its presence throughout the universe by their In-waves and Out-waves which produce a nearly uniform mass-energy density of space throughout Space. Thus the 'presence' of distant matter from our universe already exists at each point in our Space. Nothing is instantaneous and the waves only travel at speed c. Further, the Equation of the Cosmos confirms that the mass of an object is determined by all the other matter in the universe (as it is their Out-waves that form our In-waves, and thus our mass-energy density of space and Mass) as required by Mach's Principle. Thus the universe is finite (within an infinite Space), spherical and Machian, as required by Einstein's general relativity;

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 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 indicate that the universe would necessarily be spherical. (Einstein, 1954)

### Explaining Einstein's Famous Cosmological Constant & Further Prediction

We begin with a good summary from Halton Arp on Einstein's famous 'Cosmological Constant (which is really just an assumed anti-gravity force to prevent a finite spherical Universe from gravitationally collapsing).

Like most people, I grew up with the received wisdom that Einstein's General Relativity was so profound and complicated that only a very few people in the world understood it. But eventually it dawned on me that the essential idea was very simple, and it was only the elaboration's that were complicated. The simplest mathematical expression of General Relativity is; G = T

The T represents the energy and momentum of a system of particles. In order to describe their behaviour in great generality, they are considered to be in a space whose geometrical properties (e.g.. curvature of space-time) are described by G. Now the solution to this equation tells us how these particles behave with time. The important feature of this solution is very simple to visualize, either the initial energy is large and the ensemble continues to expand or the energy is small and the ensemble collapses under the force of gravity. This is the unstable universe which distressed Einstein and caused him to introduce the cosmological constant (a special energy term) which just balanced the universe.

But in 1922 the Russian Mathematician, Alexander Friedmann, put forth a solution in which the spatial separations of the particles expanded with time. At first reluctant, Einstein later embraced the expanding universe solution so enthusiastically that he renounced his cosmological 'fudge factor' as 'the greatest blunder of my life'. The Lundmark-Hubble relation was in the air at the time, and it seemed an ideal synthesis to interpret the redshifts of the extragalactic nebulae as the recession velocity of their expanding space-time reference frame. But basically, the theory was that the galaxies at our time were expanding away from each other, and therefore must have all originated in a 'Big Bang'- that is, the universe was created instantaneously out of nothing. (Arp,1998)

Let us now consider Einstein's thoughts on the subject of his famous Cosmological (Anti-Gravity) Constant;

My original considerations on the Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity were based on two hypotheses:

1. There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space (the finite spherical universe) which is everywhere the same and different from zero.

2. The magnitude (radius) of space (finite spherical universe) is independent of time.

Both these hypotheses proved to be consistent, according to the general theory of relativity, but only after a hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a term which was not required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from a theoretical point of view ('cosmological term of the field equations'). (Einstein, 1961)

Einstein is largely correct with his two hypotheses - his problem was that
he had to assume that the universe was finite and spherical (because of
Mach's Principle and that matter's mass is finite), and this necessarily
meant that gravity would cause it to collapse upon itself. Thus he required
a 'cosmological constant' (effectively a repulsive or anti-gravitational
force) to prevent the matter in a finite spherical universe from collapsing
upon itself. As we have explained, our finite spherical universe is only
part of an infinite Space that continues to be filled with an average distribution
of matter. Thus this matter external to our universe gravitationally attracts
our matter and thus prevents the matter in our universe from collapsing.

This explains Einstein's need for a cosmological constant - but it is not
a gravitationally repulsive force as Einstein imagined (and which we do
not observe), rather, it is simply the normal gravitational attraction of
matter outside our finite spherical universe which prevents our universe
from collapsing. Now this leads the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and
the WSM to make a very important prediction:

That the motion of distant stars behaves as if there is anti-gravity due
to the gravitational influence of matter outside our finite spherical universe.

(Due to our increased powers of observing the distant universe perhaps it
is now possible to confirm this prediction. Please
me if you have any information.)

NOTE - This was confirmed by observation in 2008. See;

https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm#predictions

But as chance would have it Einstein found another explanation and thus famously renounced his cosmological constant as 'my greatest mistake'.

Friedman showed that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis 1 (average density of matter) without introducing the less natural cosmological term into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready to drop hypothesis 2. Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in which the 'world radius' (radius of the finite spherical universe) depends on time {expanding space}. In that sense one can say, according to Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space. (Einstein, 1961)

So Einstein realized that if the universe was expanding (i.e. remove hypothesis 2) then there was no longer any need for his cosmological constant to prevent the universe from collapsing. Now initially Einstein had rejected this idea, but then a remarkable coincidence occurred which caused him to change his mind. Einstein continues;

A few years later Hubble showed, by special investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae, that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which increases regularly with distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in regard to our present knowledge only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an expansive motion of the system of stars in the large - as required, according to Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory. (Einstein, 1961)

One thing that is very interesting (and disturbing) is how knowledge gets corrupted over time. This particularly applies to the idea that **'Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding**'. He did no such thing, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance - one possible cause of this is the Doppler shift due to matter moving away from other matter (an expanding universe). Now this is a profoundly different thing to say (and it is how a careful scientist like Einstein expresses it), and yet it is simply amazing as to the number of respected scientists who say that Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding (which is not science!)

As Eric Lerner correctly notices;

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory as scientific fact.” (Lerner, 1991)

It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities. (Mitchell, 1997)

Below I quote a few scientists who have made this error, simply because I wish to strongly make the point about how we begin to assume things to be true, above and beyond what the observation tells us. (Scientist have a responsibility to be careful, and should clearly recognise the distinction between empirical facts and their further interpretations!)

About 1929 the American astronomer Hubble demonstrated the existence of a strange **correlation between distance and speed of the nebulae**: they all move outwards, away from us, and with a velocity which increases proportional to the distance. (Born, 1964)

In 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, **distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us**. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means at earlier times objects would have been closer together. .. Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense." (Hawking, 1988)

Only after the astronomer Edwin Hubble had studied the motions of galaxies and independently discovered that the **universe was expanding**. (Wertheim, 1997)

It is also important to realize that the modern conception of the 'Big Bang' is that Space itself is expanding, and as the Doppler shift only applies to the motion of matter in Space thus it is unscientific to apply this empirical observation to the expansion of Space. Thus the 'Big Bang' is without both empirical or theoretical foundations, it is, quite simply, not a scientific theory.

In conclusion of this argument we should emphasize two things;

i) That Einstein's Cosmological Constant is largely correct, but is caused by the gravitational forces of matter outside our finite spherical universe (within an infinite Space) which prevents our universe from gravitationally collapsing.

ii) Thus there is no need for an expanding universe, and then they would have realized, from the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter, that the redshift can be correctly calculated from Huygens' Principle and the decreasing wave interactions with distance.

### Explaining the 'Quantified' Hubble Redshift with Distance

Another problem with the expanding universe concept is that the redshift with distance is quantized, as Arp clearly explains;

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. (Arp, 1998)

Arp is also very close to the truth when he writes;

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. (Arp, 1998)

The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter sensibly explains these 'quantum' or discrete standing wave interactions.

## Help Humanity

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

*"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)*

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)

Tweet Follow @philosophytruth | |

Geoff | |

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)*

Legal Disclaimer and Privacy Policy