Letter to the Editor of the New Scientist Magazine

A response to the article, “Did our cosmos exist before the big bang?” in the December issue of “New Scientist” magazine.

Dear Sirs,

In response to your article (Dec. 13-19, 2008, page #32) on the Recycled Universe, and your joy over the elimination of one of the problems with the Big Bang (starting solely from a singularity), I would offer an alternative “new” theory that eliminates ALL of the problems with the Big Bang.  I would like to tout The Comedy-Recycling Theory (of the Entire Known Universe) as an even better alternative.

The real problems with understanding the Big Bang consist of two major errors science has bought into, virtually without challenge or discussion.  The first is the acceptance of the expansion of the universe.  Hubble did find increasing red-shift with increasing distances of galaxies starting in the late 1920’s.

The small problem was, this was not EVER reconciled with the EXCEPTION, the Great Attractor, where blue-shifts increase, up to a point.  The only way to reconcile these is to accept that most of the redshifts and blueshifts observed are gravity-based (curvature caused).  Essentially, our universe is a CLOSED universe, with a “preferred reference frame” mandatorily superimposed over it.  The blueshifted area runs faster then here on earth, or more correctly, we are farther from the center, and we are slowed-down more than the center.  Further outside our location, red-shifts continue to increase, all the way out to the outer edge.

Notice, this means that, contrary to the Theory of Relativity’s claims, there is not like here, timewise.  The “Great Attractor” runs faster than earth, and everywhere further out from the center of this universe than earth is more redshifted to us.  Note, this greatly simplifies understanding our universe, as is seen.  This means that the type 1a supernova used as “standard candles” of brightness are not standard, but differ timewise in brightness from the center to the outer edges.

Surprisingly, the outer volumes of our universe are worth less energy, and therefore cannot collapse inward without picking-up more energy, which they do not have, and cannot obtain.  This makes our universe perfectly stable (not expanding, and not expanding at an expanding rate, either).  Note: This immediately solves the horizon problem, and explains the flatness problem.  This also explains simply why our universe appears very close to omega, (appearing to be almost full of matter) because it always is exactly full.  Note: this solution also does not need either “dark energy” , or” something from nothing”, to continually fill, expand, and accelerate our universe.

Based on the principle of Occams’ razor, the C-R theory uses simpler ideas to accomplish and explain our universe, as we actually see it.  All the major problems (5 unexplained anomalies) with the Big Bang disappear.

Although experts will disagree, and whine about violating the second law of thermodynamics, the C-R theory takes care of that objection, too, but I will leave that out of this letter.  I would offer www.cr-theory.org/pdf/aprilfoolingscience.pdf as specific alternative and improved theory to replace the big bang, or simply www.cr-theory.org is a much better overall explanation of our universe for your magazine’s readers.

Jerry Reynard (author: C-R theory)

Here is a link to the article Did our cosmos exist before the big bang?