The standard or received cosmological model of the universe was derived directly from the geometrical conceptualization of space-time in the general theory of relativity. This cosmological model based upon general relativity is rather elegant and parsimonious, as it has stood for most of the past century, and accounts for its orthodoxy as much as the corroborative evidence that has been found. It leads to a description of the possible shape, origin and evolution of the universe on a cosmological scale.

This cosmological scale is rooted in certain presuppositions about the universe, especially in what is referred to as the cosmological principle. In general, this received model can be interpreted as being both a single-state and a zero-state model. The cosmological principle states in general that the universe is self-consistently composed of a statistically homogeneous and isotropic distribution of mass and energy in space-time. There is no average state property of this distribution that defines a preferred region in space-time, or what can be called statistical homogeneity, or a preferred direction, or statistical non-isotropy. The universe therefore has no center or axis.

The principle of congruence that I have adopted is implied in the cosmological principle, such that the physical properties governing the distribution and interaction of mass, energy and space-time hold in all areas. In other words, there are no known or assumable regions of the universe where different or preferred physical properties hold.

If we take a sufficiently large sample of space-time, we have what can be considered a fairly random and average sample of distribution of galaxies of different types, elliptical, spiral or irregular. This sample would be considered statistically approximate to any other sample of the standard universe. The galaxies are also randomly oriented about their gravitational planes, and there can be no significant net angular momentum for a sufficiently large region of space as this would entail a non-isotropic region.

Observable data tends to support this hypothesis, and by itself it does not discount significant local distortions or stochastic variations of unlimited magnitude. It states a kind of equilibrium line of asymptoptic stability of normal space-time in the large. Observations of blackbody radiation and cosmic radiation in the background appear to be fairly isotropic.

The cosmological principle implies an ideal-state cosmological model of the universe in which all local departures from its average equilibrium are canceled out, and the density of matter and energy in the universe is regarded as constant in the large.

Before proceeding with my dynamic state model, it is important to note several facets about the cosmological principle. In general, universal congruence determines that in a sufficiently large sample, we would expect some form of isotropic equilibrium and homogeneity of overall structure, in spite of many possible localized variations. But this question begs the underlying question of an infinite state universe, and in the standard model implies a finite state universe. In other words, we cannot tell arbitrarily what a sufficiently large sample may consist of in terms of some larger frame of reference. This is a basis for the presupposition of universal relativity of the dynamic state universe.

It is clear that the cosmological principle holds for the most part within the observational sphere of our point of view. It is derived from observational data, and is clearly definable within the parameters of what may be called the observable universe. The problem is that the inferable universe may, at least in theory, include a larger region of reality than that encompassed by the observational sphere embraced by the cosmological principle. I would argue furthermore, as a basis for universal relativity and the extension of the principle of universal congruence of physical properties, that the total universe is an instantaneous universe, or occurs with universal simultaneity, though this is always totally unobservable to us. In the course of this work, I will demonstrate clearly how the observable universe is not isomorphic with the instantaneous or the inferable universe.

I would claim that the cosmological principle holds true for most if not all of the observational sphere of the universe, though with increasing depth of resolution, it is increasingly possible that the principle is less true. I would offer a revised form of the cosmological principle, and say that:

1. For the total instantaneous universe, there is some larger, relative form of homogeneity and equilibrium of structure though we may not yet understand this cosmographic structure completely.

I will not claim that the observable homogeneity and isotropic nature of the observational sphere that we currently exist within necessarily holds equally true everywhere and for all time. I would furthermore state that our understanding of this cosmological principle is perhaps also constrained by our own relativistic understanding of physical reality, such that it's presuppositions are partial and therefore incomplete.

In general, I would hold forth that the standard model is based upon a nearly perfect linear conception of space-time and cosmological structure. Furthermore, it describes only the observational sphere of our own relative position in the universe.

I would claim, for a number of reasons to be elucidated in the next chapter, that we must conclude that all physical phenomena in the long run and in the large follow a non-linear state-path trajectory, including the universe itself. Furthermore, I assert emphatically and unequivocally that the observational sphere may have intrinsic relativistic constraints and limitations set upon our point of view that make it impossible to prove or disprove the standard and un-revised form of the cosmological principle.

The standard and received cosmology comprehends the universe as a kind of gas cloud in which galaxies are like atoms. This defines an extremely large cosmological scale, though we cannot guess what the actual scale may really be, especially if we suppose an infinite-state universe. The cosmological principle defines the cosmological scale such that it is substantially and mechanically the same in all directions and at all points.

Within such an ideal isotropic-state universe defined by the standard cosmological principle, there are possible three kinds of motion, and these three possible directions lead to three types of cosmographic structure which are variants of the three-dimensional Robertson-Walker metric. The three types of possible motion are:

1. No motion at all.

2. Spatially uniform contraction.

3. Spatially uniform expansion.

I will assert that in the larger structure of the inferable universe based upon a dynamic or dynamical state model, all three forms of motion may be co-occurring at the same time, in locally differentiated regions, and upon larger regional and interregional scales. This appears to violate the cosmological principle, and leads to a revision of this principle.

In an expanding or contracting model of the standard isotropic-state universe, the relative velocity of any two material particles or points is proportional to the distance between the two particles, and this yields a two-dimensional analog of the spheroid surface of an expanding balloon. In the motionless model, we assume a standard uniform hyperplane.

These three possibilities lead to three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric, known respectively as:

1. The Hyper-plane, or the three-dimensional analog of a two-dimensional plane surface.

2. The Hyper-sphere, or the 3-D analog of the surface of a sphere.

3. The Hyper-pseudosphere, or the 3-D analog of a negative curvature of an inverted sphere, that cannot be simply visualized in two-dimensional geometry.

A certain measure of uniformity underlies all three subtypes, and the subtypes are derivative of the values assigned to the variables of this measure. This measure has come to be known as the Hubble constant, and is the constant of proportionality that has dimensions (time)^-1.

The Hubble constant (H) is given as the fractional change of wavelength of light spectrums from a galaxy at distance L, and is given by:

HL/c

This number H is related to the scale factor of Friedmann model universes derived from solutions to Einstein's general field equations for the Robertson-Walker metric. The observational value of 1/H of 2 x 10¹⁰ provides a rough measure of the age of the universe by the standard isotropic-state model.

Observational cosmology has involved the measurement of two important numbers, the Hubble constant, or H, and the deceleration parameter, or q₀. This parameter determines whether the expansion of the universe is uniform (q₀ = 1/2), decelerated (q₀ > 1/2), or accelerated (q₀ < 1/2), corresponding respectively to the three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric given above. Most cosmologists favor values greater than 1/2, though recent evidence suggests otherwise.

The Hubble constant is based observationally upon the uniformity of expected red shifting of light spectra, which is interpreted as the Doppler effect upon light as a result of recession of the source. The red shift is the systematic displacement toward longer wave-lines of lines in the spectra of distant galaxies, as well as of the continuous portions of the spectrum. Red shifts have two fundamental properties:

1. Fractional red shift is independent of wavelength, verified within the ranges of the radio radiation of neutral hydrogen atoms to the visible light spectrum, and is interpreted as evidence of galactic recession, as no other known mechanism explains the phenomenon.

2. Red shift is correlated with apparent magnitude such that when red shift is interpreted as recession velocity and apparent magnitude with distance, the speed of recession is proportional to the distance, and is the basis of the Hubble constant.

Red shifts observed equivalent to 1/5 the speed of light have been observed, and the red shifts of quasars are even greater, though this has been interpreted alternatively as predicted Einstein shifts that are the result of abnormally strong gravitational fields. The Einstein shift is predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, and is the shifting to longer wavelengths of atomic spectra in the presence of strong gravitational fields. This results from the slowing down of periodic processes in the presence of strong gravitation, and the amount of Einstein shift is proportional the difference of gravitational potential between sender and receiver. Some attempts are made to explain observed red shifts on the basis of Einstein shifts, but the distinguishing between Doppler and pressure effects in spectral lines is difficult, and it has been determined as separable for known sources.

In the model I offer what I consider to be several alternative variants of the Einstein shift as an explanation of the observed red shift. These depend upon a reinterpretation of gravitation within a framework of universal relativity, rather than general relativity. In fact, there are possible several different mechanical explanations for the red shift other than the Doppler effect, and any of these do not have the space-time conundrums that are implicit to the interpretation of the galactic recession.

The Hubble constant is the rate of increase of the inferred velocity of recession of galaxies as a proportion of distance, according to the standard isotropic state model. The value is given as approximately 17km/sec per 10⁶ light-years, plus or minus at least 10%. It is given variously as between 20 and 60 km/sec per 10⁶ light-years. It was established observationally by Edwin Hubble in 1929, hence its name. It is regarded as the best evidence of the expansion of the universe, which was predicted by Einstein's own cosmological model. This expansion is not apparent in locally defined regions characterized by exceptionally strong gravitational fields, within galactic clusters, for instance. But as greater depth is measured, these local regional perturbations of the general pattern become a rapidly decreasing fraction of the total measured velocity.

The best approximations of the Hubble constant would hypothetically be derivable from local observations based upon brightness and luminosity and spectral components, but the non-homogeneity of local distributions and the non-isotropic effects of local gravitational fields prevent this measurement from being made. Thus, the Hubble constant may exist on a gradient relating to the relative distribution on larger cosmological scales, though no evidence for such a gradient has yet been found. The recessional velocity appears in the larger samples taken in different sectors of the universe to be:

1. Regular

2. Linear

3. Isotropic

4. Relatively non-random

Attempts are continuously applied to study the long-term change of the Hubble constant by studying spectral lines of very distant and very bright sources. The received model based upon these observations placed the age of the observable universe at 14 x 10⁹ light-years, plus or minus 1 billion, with another interval for their formation estimated variously between virtual instantaneity of a hot-big bang model, to 1 to 4 billion years for colder evolutionary models. Given these ages and the value of the Hubble constant, it has been determined that this data is consistent with a value of zero for the deceleration parameter, suggesting that the expansion will never stop.

The challenge of this model is the relativity of space-time, and the uncertainty involved in inferring the current disposition of the universe from past points of observation. This challenge is taken up further in this work as critical to our understanding of the universe. The three-dimensional Robertson-Walker constructs are cast in a 4th dimension that is time-dependent. This is the single arbitrary metrical scale factor. Thus the three-space of the galactic atoms occurs in a fourth temporal dimension that relates the constant coordinate distance between galaxies to a physically meaningful distance. In the standard isotropic-state model, space-time is uniform in the large and in the long run, and is a measure of both distance and age. In a contracting or expanding hyper-spherical metric, the universe exists on the surface of a balloon in three dimensions that is expanding or contracting in the fourth dimensional frame of reference, but which has no intrinsic boundaries. It is finite yet unbounded, which seems metaphysically paradoxical.

Einstein field equations enter into the interpretation of the standard isotropic-state universe by providing a differential equation for the metric scale factor, though these equations cannot determine the type of metric, which remains an observational problem.

In 1922 Friedman obtained two solutions for the field equations representing the special case of the pressure of "galactic gas" being negligible compared to its density, which model is realistic of the present and immediate sphere, but not for very distant and very early spheres. Einstein himself assumed on observational criteria that the universe was static and showed that there could be no solution of the field equations consistent with this assumption of a static state. He invoked the cosmological constant by adding an extra term to the equations in order to provide a state of uniform equilibrium in the cosmological construct of space-time. Friedmann's solutions were non-static and remained consistent with the cosmological principle. In 1932 Einstein and Willem de Sitter demonstrated a third solution, but proved that there could be no other solutions. The Friedmann solutions offer a model of curved space-time; the Einstein-de Sitter model provides a flat space-time.

These three solutions of the general field equations yield the following properties for the three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric:

1. For the Hyper-plane model, the scale factor increases from zero and becomes indefinitely large.

2. For the Hyper-spherical model, the scale factor increases from zero, reaches a maximum and then contracts back to zero.

3. For the Hyper-pseudospherical model, the scale factor increases from zero, and becomes indefinitely large, changing more rapidly than in the hyper-plane case.

In all these models, the universe begins with an explosive "big bang" and expands, such that for the earliest epoch the behavior of the scale model is almost identical for all three models. Observational evidence remains ambiguous as to the current disposition of the inferable universe derived from these dynamical alternatives.

It is evident and important to remark before proceeding that the standard isotropic-state model of the universe is a zero-state model. It is also, implicitly, therefore a finite-state model in some larger, bounded sense. In other words, it presupposes a zero-point beginning that is relatively violent as a cosmic moment, for the entire universe. It also implies therefore, that there is some outward limit of the expanding universe.

Einstein's cosmological models yield time-evolutionary solutions for the universe before observational evidence of the Doppler shift was discovered. The adoption of the cosmological constant was consistent with the lack of observational evidence. Subsequent to the discovery of the red shift, until very recently, this term has been seen as unnecessary to account for static-state universes, based upon observational validation of the model of universal expansion, and was regarded by Einstein himself as his greatest theoretical blunder.

The Einstein-de Sitter universe expands from an infinitely condensed state at time t = 0 at a rate such that the density varies at 1/t². The Hubble constant is inversely proportional to the product of G, Newton's gravitational constant, and the density. Euclidean geometry remains unaltered, such that the volume of a sphere of radius r equals 4/3πr³ and matter expands infinitely at all times.

The Friedmann model with negative space curvature behaves similarly to the Einstein-de Sitter model, expanding indefinitely from an infinitely condensed state, but the density falls off faster with time, with the reciprocal of the Hubble constant being between t and 1.5t, depending upon the exact curvature. The universe extends infinitely at all times, but the geometry is non-Euclidean, with the volume of the sphere being greater than the standard Euclidean formula 4/3πr³.

The opposite Friedmann model with positive curvature does not expand independently but reaches a degree of maximum distension or minimum density, from which it reverses and begins contracting, which phase is equal in duration to the expansion phase, return the universe to its original zero state. This lends itself to a cyclical longer view of the universe that is metaphysically appealing. The value of t in this model is less than in the other two models, and the density of matter is greater. The curvature of the model is a closed space, such that it is a finite-state universe, though it has non-Euclidean geometry of a spherical volume less than 4/3πr³.

The retention of the cosmological constant yields other possible models. Alternative cosmological models have been offered by Paul Dirac in 1938, and also by H. Bondi, Gold and Fred Hoyle in 1948.

The Dirac model is metaphysically appealing and elegant, and has some corroboration from observational evidence though it conflicts with some aspects of physical theory. It points up, among other things, the relativity of general relativity, and the inherent observational and theoretical constraints of the received isotropic state model. The Dirac Model is based upon the observation of a dimensionless number of the order of 10³⁹ that can be derived as the ratio between electrostatic force and gravitational force between a proton and an electron, and, alternatively, as the reciprocal of the Hubble constant in atomic units of time. Dirac postulates a near permanent equality between these two combinations that reflect physical quantities, and this leads to three possibilities. Either:

1. The strong coupling atomic constants are not all constant in time,

2. Newton's gravitational constant is not constant in time,

3. The universe is in a steady state.

Dirac's cosmology proceeds from the second alternative above, and leads to the hypothesis that the gravitational constant, G, is dynamic and changing. The Brans-Dicke field theory of gravitation developed in 1961 conforms to Mach's principle, a general philosophical principle that states that the motion of a particle is only significant in reference to the rest of the matter in the universe. Geometrical or inertial properties are meaningless in an empty universe devoid of any matter. Thus the behavior of any particle is determined by the total distribution of matter and should not appear as intrinsic to the property of the empty space it contains. Hence, physical constants are relative to position distribution of matter. According to the Brans-Dicke field theory, the expansion of the universe causes a decrease in the gravitational constant, or G. The gravitational field is thus described by a tensor and a scalar, with the equations of motion being identical to general relativity theory. The scalar field leads to an arbitrary constant whose value is unknown. In the late sixties, Dicke invoked observational evidence of the trajectory of Mercury and the oblateness of the Sun for his theory. This evidence accords with Dirac's cosmology, and leads to the view that as the gravitational fields grow weaker, mass-bodies like the earth, the moon, and the sun, are becoming less dense and wider in spherical diameter than otherwise expected.

The Holye-Bondi-Gold steady-state model rest upon the hypothesis that the statistical properties and description of the physical universe remains in equilibrium in spite of its expansion. Hence new galaxies will be created at a regular rate to fill in the new spaces of the universe. This creation is alleged to occur as the result of the continuous production of new hydrogen atoms per quantity of space-time. This model is related to Holye's theory of star formation based upon specific binding energies intrinsic to hydrogen gas clouds that contract under their own gravitation to a temperature near 10⁴ K. At this temperature, it attains its own equilibrium with its own specific binding energy. But it cannot remain in this equilibrium state indefinitely, because temperature would have to increase. Hence the cloud contracts. A cloud in less than equilibrium will, according to this theory, break up into smaller clouds in self-gravitating equilibrium. This process will recur repeatedly until the fragments are so dense that they are no longer transparent to their own radiation. Gravitational contraction offsets then radiation loss, and the net result is hierarchical stratification of astronomical bodies.

This conflicts with the principle of energy conservation, but the discrepancy is alleged to be minor. It predicts a different relation between red shift and apparent magnitude the differences of which are upon the borderline of observability.

The steady-state model conflicts with the existence of background blackbody radiation, and hence is not regarded as a viable model, though it does have some logically attractive aspects.

Cosmic blackbody radiation is observed to be fairly uniform and isotropic throughout the background of the observational sphere of the universe. Discovered first in 1965, it has subsequently been shown to range between 20 cm and 9 mm in wavelength, and is consistent with the model of thermal blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin. The mean energy density of about 10^-12erg/cm³ exceeds the mean density of all other forms of energy in the universe, with the exception of the energy associated with rest mass associated with Einstein's formula E = mc², which lies between 10^-9 and 10^-8 erg/cm³. The number density of photons in the blackbody radiation is extremely high, about 600/ cm³, compared to interstellar star-light photon density of 1/ cm³, and cosmic number density of protons of about 10^-6 to 10^-5. Any cosmic particles entering this blackbody distribution interact with it, extracting energy from electrons of the particles and producing cosmic rays. Gamma rays interact with blackbody photons to produce electron-positron pairs. Other interactions of atomic nuclei and protons are also known to occur.

A blackbody is an ideal thermal radiator that emits in each part of the electromagnetic spectrum the maximum energy obtainable per unit time from any radiator due to its temperature alone. A blackbody also absorbs all energy incidental to it. Real radiators are defined by two extreme conditions; that of a perfect reflector and a perfect absorber. These ideal conditions are never realized. Blackbody is the name derived from a perfect absorber of radiation, like carbon or soot, which appear black at room temperature.

The cosmological implication of this isotropic microwave background is that the only known means of its production is by interaction with matter. Dark matter is one observation of the physical universe. The present-day universe, at least in its theoretically understood state, could not have produced such a background. Hence, the steady-state universe, which hypothesizes that present conditions always prevailed, is seen as being inimical to this evidence. Furthermore, the present universe appears nearly perfectly transparent to microwave radiation.

The blackbody spectrum might have been created at an earlier state of a relativistic universe that was in a condensed state that was not transparent to microwave radiation. The present blackbody background would be a permanent residual effect, with only its average temperature gradually decreasing with inferred expansion of the universe.

Looking deep in time should show increasing background energy relative to matter, and the two fields were presumed equal about 10⁴ years after the big bang. Previously, the universe would have been dominated mostly by energy. George Gamow put forward a theory demanding such an energy dominated cosmology in 1948, relating the formation of the chemical elements in the initial stages of cosmic expansion and implying the presence of a blackbody radiation field of much greater temperature than evident today. Current temperatures imply a cosmic abundance of helium of 28% by weight. Alternatively, the blackbody background is alleged to have been created by a phase of supernovae generation early in the cosmic expansion period, producing as well heavier elements that constituted condensation seeds. It postulates as well that a great deal of "missing mass" may be bound in spent super novae cores that are non-radiant.

The problem of "missing mass" has led to the question of dark matter in the universe. Dynamical arguments based upon inferred recession of galaxies yield values of total mass for the universe much greater than estimates based upon observational counts of visible galaxies. The inference is that these galaxies contain a high proportion of non-luminous matter, or dark matter. Still, the presence of dark matter, evident by black body radiation, remains unsolved and unexplained.

Last, but not least, is Oskar Klein's theory of the meta-galaxy, which do not take the cosmological principle as the starting point. In this model, the visible universe is part of a larger but finite and bounded system called a meta-galaxy, and this belongs to a larger system and so on, ad infinitum. Originally the meta-galaxy existed at much lower densities that present and contained equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. The meta-galaxy collapsed, releasing large amounts of energy, until the collapse reversed. It explains Dirac's coincidence between the two dimensionless numbers, though it does not sufficiently explain the possible separation of matter and anti-matter on a large scale.

*****

Given this accounting of cosmology, I will state that almost all the theories given above hold some degree of truth, and all the theories, as covering law models, are only partial explanations. The alternative cosmological model I offer borrows from almost all these models, even the steady state model, and yet, I put forward, it retains its overall parsimony once its basic principles are comprehended and their implications made clear. I offer an alternative cosmology that takes as its departure a revised cosmological principle that is based upon a paradigm of the principles of universal relativity.

The foundations for my dynamic-state model of the universe are rooted in the principles of universal relativity. These principles represent a basic revision of the cosmological principle, such that the universe in a larger frame of reference, which I take to be similar to Klein's theory, is a meta-state system. Thus, homogeneity and isotropism of the observable universe are relative properties that cannot be assumed in the largest and deepest physical context, at least not without some major modifications. In general, the universe is basically non-linear and unstable in the larger structure of the long run. This accords with the observation of all mechanical systems that obey thermodynamic laws.

I will postulate a model that demonstrates an alternative and adequate explanation of red shift, and that explains both blackbody radiation and dark matter. I will account for the changing value of the gravitational constant, and explain the evolution of the universe.

This model was derived from a set of observations about the normal physical structure of the universe:

1. Normal gravitational radiation, even from a gravity system like the earth, appears to be non-thermodynamic in character. Gravitation therefore cannot be accounted for strictly in terms of the mass-system that contains it. There is intrinsically a problem of missing mass.

2. Normal space-time appears to interact with mass-systems and energy systems in complex relativistic ways, and yet is basically an "empty" construct, like a glass that holds water. In terms of theory, it has no intrinsically defining properties except those relativistic properties derived from the considerations of energy and mass systems contained within it.

3. Normal physical properties of motion, time and energy permit no discontinuities of structure. There can be no fundamental or sudden lapses of structural order in the universe. Time always travels in one direction, and things always travel in one direction.

These observations led to a fundamental conclusion that we must amend our basic conception of space-time to account for gravitational phenomena in a more consistent and non-discontinuous manner. Essentially, my conclusion is that:

A. Gravitation arises not from matter or mass-systems, but from the space-time construct itself, and is intrinsic to this structure. Therefore:

1. The interactions between space-time and the matter and energy it contains are complex in ways that lead to a revision of thermodynamics to account for gravitational-mass dynamics.

2. Space-time is not an empty structure containing energy and matter, like a glass containing water and ice. Space-time is itself composed of some invisible substance that I call spime and that interacts with energy and matter to produce normal gravitational effects.

3. The substance of space-time is essentially equivalent to the substance of energy and matter, as a mass-based system, such that there is a fundamental unity of structure between them.

There have been many spin-offs of this spime-mechanical theory of the space-time construct. It has led to:

1. The postulation of principles of universal relativity governing change and continuity of structure in the physical universe.

2. The postulation of a unified field theory that construes all forms of energy or force naturally occurring in the universe to be variant properties tied to particularistic-entities and interacting within a larger universal field. Essentially, all force is composed of a "zeroth force" associated with a peculiar "zeroth entity" and which can be referred to as "quintessence."

3. A cosmological model of the dynamic state universe that is inherently complex.

I will postulate a relative zero-state universe and a relative isotropic state universe, and these relative values are essentially equivalent in any realizable system as non-zero state and non-isotropic state universes in the larger meta-system. I would claim that stochastic differentiation of the universe as a minimally organized system or meta-system can be the only reasonable and most realistic explanation of our cosmogony. There is no reason in our observations of the structure of cosmographic patterning not to assume increasing and infinite stochastic differentiation. This principle ultimately contradicts the initial assumption of the cosmological principle. It is therefore expected that there are larger order non-isotropic patterns occurring in the universe that are basically beyond our observational sphere, but which can be directly deduced from the correct mechanical model of physical reality. I would claim that my model of the universe proceeds from the following presuppositions and observational evidence:

1. The total universe is simultaneously co-occurring and hence universally instantaneous. We cannot observe the total universe, or even most of the current state universe, by conventional or known means. We must infer it as implicit to our understanding of reality as cosmologically continuous and consistent.

2. Space-time, as a relativistic construct, is essentially isomorphic with the energy and matter it contains, such that there is continuous interaction between these three alternative physical states. This explains gravitation and gravity systems as relativistic fields and accounts for the omnipresent background of blackbody radiation and dark matter, which is assumed to be the negative self-mass of space-time itself. We can substitute this model for a Machian universe as well, thus assuming that events can occur even in otherwise "empty space-time."

3. Relativistic space-time constraints affect our observational sphere, but are themselves relative to the variable structure of space-time itself in a larger frame of reference, such that the universal integrity of the instantaneous universe can be assumed regardless of our observational or other physical space-time constraints. It leads to the notion of instantaneity of co-occurring events as being governed by some kind of "action at a distance" which is interpreted as a form of "gravitational well system."

4. We may infer a complex and multi-state universe that is infinite and unending, and that is in the larger structure non-isotropic with our own observable universe, which is interpreted as being a positive physical state-universe.

5. The positive physical state universe that we exist within is possibly expanding within its own observable sphere, though this cannot be observed directly by means of the alleged Doppler effect. The red shift of light that appears everywhere uniform with increasing depth of field is interpreted as the long-term asymptoptic instability of light as a self-propagational field system itself, within a space-time manifold that is expanding. In other words, it is a property intrinsic to light in the long run, and such shifting is expected to increase with increasing depth-distance and normal expansion of space-time. Instead, I would claim that universal expansion can be accounted for as an expectation of a model of the universe that is continuously dynamic and growing in its own intrinsic chaos. It suggests that there is possibly a huge gravitational vortex that is decentralized and interstitial in character, in which space-time is flooding out and galactic systems are "pulling away" from one another continuously. Because it is and always was infinite, the continuous expansion of the universe leads to a polynomial expansion or inflation of its state-complexity and state-dynamics.

In order to more fully account for this alternative model, I will attempt to summarize what I regard as the intrinsic short-comings of a big bang cosmology and the related cosmological principles, as well as the limitations of general relativity itself to account for all observable or possible phenomena. At the same time, I attempt to explain as thoroughly and as summarily as possible what I consider to be the most important presuppositions of a dynamic-state cosmology. Then I attempt to explain this alternative model, and to demonstrate its relationship to basic properties of physical reality that are inferable and derivative from it, particularly regarding gravitation and energy fields.

Before leaving off, I wish to take into account one more aspect of general and standard cosmology that I believe to be important to its conceptualization. It has to do with the stochastic and hierarchical distribution of physical phenomena, entities and event structures in the observational universe. Non-uniformity is a common feature of the astronomical universe, and appears to occur on every level. The standard isotropic-state universe presumes this observational stratification of naturally occurring phenomena as but deviations about a common equilibrium line. This is true, but it does not necessarily lead to the presuppositions of the cosmological principle. The standard cosmological model, in other words, presumes a self-consistent universe, which implies, among other things, a zero-state, a finite or bounded state, and a fundamental element. On the other hand, both extensive and intensive observational evidence presents at every level and at every point a compositional or constituent model of physical reality that is complex at any level of reductive analysis or emergent state properties. Thus, we find super galaxies, galactic clusters, galaxies, star systems, planetary systems, asteroids, and then, if we want to go the other direction, we find intensive atoms, subatomic particles and even possibly constituent or parton models of these. This hierarchical stratification of naturally occurring physical phenomena, indeed, of all naturally occurring systems, suggests that thee is an inherent tendency or a basic state property toward non-uniformity of physical pattern or structure that is manifest universally over a wide range of conditions.

The consequence of this observation, which proceeds from the hypothesis of universal congruence of physical properties, is to conclude that there can be no non-relativistic frame of reference in relativistic cosmology for the cosmological principle to be ultimately defined within. This is especially true considering the space-time constraints of our observational sphere that prevents us from ever knowing the exact instantaneous distribution of the contemporaneous universe. In other words, we cannot know what a statistically large sample should be to be sufficient for our cosmological model. There is remarkable uniformity and non-isotropic structure above the super-cluster level, at least within our observational sphere. But this observational sphere is tied to a remote past and is itself is of inherently uncertain size. The uniformity and isotropic structure we are capable of observing is not directly a statement of distance. In other words, is the observational sphere smaller, larger or equal to the Euclidean sphere its depth of focus determines. Thus, the isotropic structure and homogeneity apparent to the observational universe is as much a statement of historical continuity of cosmological structure through time as it is an inferable statement of cosmographic continuity of structure across instantaneous space.

Even so, this sense of great space-time depth that the observational sphere encompasses may be but a small cross-section of a much larger and deeper system that we call the universe. If the principle of universal congruence is to apply in the largest system possible, hierarchy of structure must be a part of this larger system at every level.

Furthermore, one basic conclusion that comes from these speculations about cosmology is to state that, just because we do not see or notice it, does not mean that it is not there.

We cannot see the exactly contemporaneous disposition of the universe, but we infer its existence by what continuity of structure we do observe. We may not be able to see all the mass and energy embedded in space-time in any direct way, just as we cannot normally see the air molecules that give to wind its great erosive force and power. But we can infer its existence from the pressure effects it does have upon our world. And so it is that we must now proceed in constructing a new model of our universe.

I bring into question the received cosmological principles and their derivation from Einstein's general field equations, as an insufficient model of the inherent dynamics of the space-time construct. Relativistic properties are attributed to this construct, but these properties themselves may well be relative to a larger physical frame of reference. In other words, presuppositions of universal homogeneity and isotropic structure are fine for our observational sphere of the physical universe, but they do not embrace or account for those possible phenomena that occur beyond this sphere in either an extensive or an intensive sense.

One central issue is the problem of gravitation. I offer a spime-gravitational dynamic model that shows the effect of gravitation and gravity-fields to be a complex set of interactions between the normal space-time construct and the energy and matter that is a part of that field. These effects give rise to thermodynamics, but they are themselves essentially non-thermodynamic. In other words, thermodynamic phenomena are a subset of this larger realm of spime-gravitational dynamics.

If we posit that gravitation travels at the speed of light, then we are left with the conundrum that our own gravitational sphere can be no greater than our observational sphere. If this was the case, then we could not assume instantaneity of a co-occurring, contemporaneous universe, and this would violate our principle of universal congruence by introduce a realm of discontinuities of structure. Gravitational radiation must be seen as different from either the effects of spime induction and replacement occurring in gravity systems, or from the production of gravitational waves in space-time as a result of perturbation of gravitational field lines in this construct. Furthermore, I propose that normal space-time gravitation as we understand this is not a uniform and isotropic phenomenon. It is a variable in complex ways and therefore permits other types of motion than is assumable within the relativistic field equations. The relativistic field equations are therefore held to be covering law models governing a narrow range of physical phenomena that occur normally within our observational fields.

We may speculate that what we normally refer to as gravitational energy, as composed of gravitons and behaving in ways very similar to light energy, albeit on a much weaker scale, is a positive form of expression of another form of gravitational energy. This energy is embedded within the structure of space-time itself, and that I call negative gravitational energy. It arises from the normal and non-reciprocal interaction between space-time and matter. Gravitation as a field system that occurs naturally in the universe constitutes therefore a well system that is essentially bottomless.

Furthermore, I would claim that this negative gravitational energy naturally occurs at velocities much greater than the speed of light, and in its quintessential sense, is instantaneous. Only by this means can we presuppose that the contemporaneous universe that exists fundamentally beyond our sphere of observation continues to hold itself together in some predictable way.

We may therefore conclude that invisible boundaries naturally occur in the universe in the structure of space-time. These boundaries are a function primarily of distance and energy, and that are otherwise invisible to us and fundamentally beyond our sphere of observation. We may further conclude that space-time is not a static phenomena, and is capable of perturbation and stochastic motions that are not consistent with Einstein's general field equations or with received relativistic cosmological models. Spime normally appears to flow through the universe, giving to the entire space-time construct an intrinsically dynamic property.

We may say that this flow in the largest sense is directionally isotropic and probably random, but in even large regional senses that embrace our own observational sphere, it is probably quite non-isotropic.

The expansion of the universe is therefore an apparent phenomenon that encompasses our observational sphere but which may not include the total universe. We can say that the Gravitational constant is deflating, and this is giving rise to the expansion of the space-time construct, but this pattern is normal and in a state of much greater equilibrium than we realize. This is an expected long-term outcome of any spime-gravitational system that has natural dynamic properties.

Finally, we must begin with basic precepts that we perhaps cannot ever prove, but which seem necessary:

1. The universe is infinite.

2. There cannot be nothing.

If we imagine some zero-state, then we must ask, what happened before and what gave rise to that zero-state. If we imagine some bounded and hence intrinsically finite system, we must ask, what lies outside of or beyond those bounds. We cannot logically do otherwise. The leap of faith towards a sea of infinity is much sounder than the leap of faith to a finite island in a larger unknown sea.

I attack relativistic cosmology with a relativistic meta-cosmology. I claim that what is construed as relative, largely based upon the principle of equivalence between energy and mass, is itself relative to a larger more universal frame of reference based upon the principle of the equivalence of both energy and mass to the space-time construct itself. The big bang cosmology can be seen as derivative of Einsteinian relativity, and hence is very parsimonious within this theoretical system. Yet it leads to some logical contradictions and observational paradoxes that prove impossible to reconcile.

In general, I will summarize what I consider to be the primary shortcomings of a big bang model:

1. It is impossible that we can observe in the depths of space-time the big bang, if our own system was itself a part of that event. In order to do this, we must assume several things about light propagation that is unreasonable to assume:

a. Light eventually travels in perfect circles, and is itself linearly perfect. Then we have a paradox of looking down a well of mirrors, of seeing a continuously repeating big bang.

b. The observational sphere in backward time must not widen to embrace larger regions, but must eventually shrink to embrace a focal region.

It seems more reasonable to assume that light does not travel uniformly in perfect circles, but, as a natural thermodynamic phenomenon, is in its long-term state-trajectory actually non-linear. It also seems more reasonable to assume that with increasing depth of time resolution of our observational sphere, we are in fact embracing ever wider, not ever narrower, regions of space-time.

2. Red shift cannot directly be a measure of recession, because recession must imply a unidirectional phenomenon and space-time expansion is omni-directional. Directly, red shift must be a measure of this space-time expansion as it is omni-directionally experienced as a function of distance. In a relativistic frame of reference, galaxies aren't going anywhere very fast, but the space between them is increasing. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that red shift is a function not of the source that created the light, but of the properties of the space-time medium through which the light is propagated. This suggests the following:

a. The space-time medium of light propagation constitutes a field system that has a non-linear influence upon light passing through it. This is consonant with the idea that space-time is a "non-empty" substance with its own intrinsic properties.

b. Light, as a field system, is self-propagative in ways that are independent of its source or receiver. Hence, light is also, in the long run, non-linear.

3. The space-time relativity of light entails that we cannot know the exact contemporaneous disposition of the instantaneous universe, though we must conclude that this contemporaneous universe coexists with our own world. If gravitational phenomena are an intrinsic part of this space-time relativity and gravitation is constrained by the parameter of the speed of light, then the gravitational sphere we infer must be exactly isomorphic with the sphere of observation we are observing. This leads to a conundrum that there is no direct gravitational relation between co-occurring phenomena in the contemporaneous or instantaneous universe. We cannot then infer even an expanding balloon model in a gravitationally unified way. This violates certain principles about the basic continuity and congruence of structure that we hypothesize about the instantaneous universe. Hence, it leads to several observational conclusions:

a. Gravitation cannot normally obey the parameters imposed upon energy and matter, and hence occurs in its own dynamic field system that is instantaneous. In other words, we must assume that the contemporaneous universe is being held together in a consistent and coherent way by gravitational forces that are not constrained by normal relativistic space-time contraints and that therefore transcend our observational sphere.

b. These forces permit other kinds of motions of the space-time construct than allowed for by the conventional relativistic model and that remain beyond the boundaries of our normal observational sphere.

c. With increasing time, the gravitational constant of the universe may indeed be deflating or dynamically fluctuating, and this may account for the apparent expansion of the space-time construct. In other words, the relative densities of the universe may be changing fundamentally through time, but we cannot thereby conclude that there was once a "hot big bang." This fluctuation is in a larger state of greater equilibrium and in greater dynamic perturbation than allowed for by an un-revised cosmological principle. We can only account for the expansion of space-time either by the deflation of the gravitational constant, or by the produce of space-time itself. Both processes appear to be occurring, in a relativistic way.

4. The above consideration of the isomorphic character of gravitation within the sphere of observation leads to the question of the original gravitational field of the cosmic egg. If it was infinitely condensed, then it must have contained infinite gravitation, much as a black hole. Black holes that are very large are known to be very stable structures by the same theory that created the big bang. Either the cosmic egg had no gravitational field, or the titanic forces of its explosion were so powerful as to obliterate the structural unity of this field. Gravitation does not seem to be fully accounted for in the big bang model.

Besides these basic observational problems with the big bang model, there are some abstract and philosophical reasons of incoherence and inelegance of explanation for not accepting this model as a valid description of cosmogony. To summarize these reasons, I would state the following:

1. The big bang implies necessarily a zero-state and a bounded state universe. Furthermore, this original state of the universe appears to have been infinitely condensed. No scientific explanation is given in terms of this model for how this original state arose in the first place. In other words, from the standpoint of science, we must seek some causal and mechanistic explanation that is based upon stochastic process, and we cannot assume some kind of a priori original creation event that cannot be explained scientifically.

2. The current local and regional stratification of the universe is defined basically in terms of the original fragmentation of this infinitely dense cosmic egg--the egg exploded, and in the process of its explosion created all the bits and pieces of the current universe. This kind of model appears to defy a naturalistic explanation of stochastic differentiation of phenomena, in which complex constituent entities arise from simpler states and entities. Observational evidence of physical reality suggests an amazing natural stratification of phenomena at all levels, such that smaller entities and properties give rise to more complex derivative states. In other words, in the natural patterning of physical reality, complex states arise derivatively and integrally out of simpler and more basic states, and not vice versa. Once complex states arise, as working systems, they are then subject to decay back to simpler states, as demanded by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, we must explain first the rise of a complex cosmic egg in the first place, before we then seek to explain its subsequent decay. This type of expected explanation is not forthcoming from a big bang model.

3. If we can assume normal creation pathways for stars and planetary systems that were independent of the big bang event, such as the evolutionary development of new stars and new galaxies, and if we can coherently extend these kinds of pathways in a manner that obeys the laws of conservation of energy and mass, and that are consistent with our observational evidence, to include a wider range of other inferable phenomena, then there is no reason to assume more exotic origination phenomena occurring to account for these same kinds of systems.

It is for these kinds of reasons, as well as for philosophically intuitive reasons of the questions of infinity and finite-states, that I have rejected the big bang model as a sufficient explanation for the dynamics involved in the universe. We must therefore seek a more sophisticated cosmological model.

Relativistic theory is essentially correct as a description of the geometrical effect of gravitation upon the space-time construct. It does not fully explain, I believe, exactly what gravitation or the space-time construct really are or may be. It only describes in very elegant mathematical terms the normal relationships occurring within such a system. I believe that we cannot arrive at a realistic and sufficient cosmology, unless and until we have arrived at a unified field theory that serves to explain all physical phenomena in a consistent and coherent way. I believe a geometrodynamic theory of multiply interconnected space approaches such unification, but so far it lacks the complete mathematical elegance expected of a finished field theory. Furthermore, it must be reconciled fully, I believe, with quantum theory. I do not presume in this work to offer a unified field theory, but only to suggest its possibility.

I would only suggest, as one conclusion from this work, that there is some kind of relationship occurring between electromagnetism and gravitation that may not be fully understood. We can speak possibly of a conservation of charge in a manner that we can refer to a conservation of mass in any transaction of energy. For instance, two gravitating bodies will seek what I refer to as relative gravitational unification such that there is no gravitational disequilibrium between two different mass objects. This is a property inherent to and definitive of gravitational attraction. Relative gravitational equilibrium can be understood as similar or homologous to charge balance. Two separate mass objects in gravitational relation to one another behave as if two oppositely charged particles, such that opposites attract. Gravitational attraction is in this sense homologous to magnetic attraction of oppositely charged particles. It can be presumed that field lines exist between two mass objects, or, comparatively, two oppositely charged particles such that there is a mutual binding force occurring between them. In other words, they come to constitute a unified field system, one that is often described by unification or alternatively by spin bound or rotationally polarized states. It is a paradox, that though electromagnetic force is many times more powerful than gravitational force, electromagnetic force really only expresses itself in very small constituent entities, in terms of electrons and protons, while gravitational force appears to be cumulatively expressible in very large mass bound objects. We might speculate that the magnetic field in which electromagnetic energy is expressed is essentially equivalent to the spime field in which gravitational energy gains expression, albeit the former occurs in much more concentrated states while that latter occurs in much more distributed and diffuse states. We might speculate furthermore, that the concentration of this electrostatic energy could only arise and gain expression as the result of magnetic polarization of the constituent entities.

Another way of conceiving this is to say something like this: the charge interaction of energy in a magnetic field is equivalent to the mass interaction of matter in a gravitational field, the difference being a matter of relative density distribution and binding polarization. The former form of force field appears to occur in concentrated but short-range patterns, while the latter appears to occur in distributed but long-distance patterns. It is as if electrostatic force gives up distributional potential for greater power, while gravitational force yields power for greater distributional potential.

Understanding the relationship between charge and mass appears to me to hinge upon understanding theoretically the similarities between charge imbalance, on the one hand, and gravitational disequilibrium between mass-objects, on the other. The most straightforward explanation of gravitational disequilibrium I can offer is that of a basic perturbation or interference of intrinsic spime-gravitational field lines occurring between two distant objects within mutual gravitational fields. If the spime induction model is correct, this can only be explainable in terms of the mutual destruction of the space-time manifold between the two mass-objects until one of two possibilities occur. Either there occurs gravitational unification of the two mass-objects as a single gravitational object, which would be the equivalent of the neutralization of charge, or directional motion occurs in the system in such a way as to offset the disequilibrium in a consistent and continuous way. Angular spin cannot by itself defeat the gravitational disequilibrium between two mass objects, though mutual gravitational attraction usually results in such rotational spin, and creates both precession and periodic oblation. Such spin can only result in an object defeating its own gravitational field, i.e., through centrifugal force offsetting gravitational force. Only directional motion, which is the equivalent of energy of momentum, can offset and counteract the effects of mutual gravitational disequilibrium such that the space-time manifold between the two mass-objects will not become destroyed. Such velocity must be sufficient to create an angular momentum that is equivalent to the mutual attractive force occurring between the two mass objects in order to balance or offset that mutual attraction.

The mutual destruction of the space-time manifold between two or more mass objects bound gravitationally can be understood as the mutual perturbation of the normally occurring spime-field by means of spime induction. A way of looking at this phenomenon is to suggest that the normal structure of space-time as it occurs becomes destroyed or imbalanced between the two objects, by means of the mutual gravitational field lines created in a similar manner that magnetic field lines will occur between two oppositely charged particles. The gravitational field between any two mass objects will collapse in the same manner, with the same results of state-path trajectories, regardless of the relative mass differences of the two objects. A marble will enter into the earth's gravitational field and achieve unification with the earth in the same manner, with the same state-path trajectory and acceleration, as a massive meteorite. The difference of course, will be the achieved momentum of the differently sized objects upon impact. The gravitational system of a galaxy has precisely the same structural patterning as that of the earth and the moon or as the gravity system occurs in this solar system. The difference is that of scale and relative magnitude of the forces involved.

This kind of model suggests that gravitational field lines established between two mass objects become destructive through mutual interference, which leads to the destruction of the space-time matrix between them. We can speculate that all mass differentiated objects seek gravitational unification of some relative form, such that there will occur stable field lines between the objects that are nondestructive.

This leads to the speculation that the consistency and isotropic uniformity of pattern in the universe is to be expected in equivalent types of gravitational systems. Upon larger scales and magnitudes of gravitational attraction, we expect gravitational distribution, stratification and relative unification to occur over vaster and vaster distances. If we have not observed yet a larger scale stratification of the universe, in accordance to the cosmological principle, it does not necessarily mean that such a larger form of gravitational system does not occur. It may be so vast as to encompass our achieved observational sphere by many orders.

If the dynamic state cosmological model is correct, it is to be expected that with increasing depth of space-time of our observational sphere, there should be overall less higher order stratification of phenomenal event patterning and gravitational structure occurring.

The property of charge, like the property of mass, appears to be very fundamental to a description of physical reality. We know both to be equivalent to energy, and we know the latter property to be relative to gravitation in much the same way as charge is relative to the electromagnetic field it occurs within. We understand charge as a force in terms of imbalance of charge differentials as a result of electromagnetic polarization. The key in relating this to mass imbalance of gravitational differentials is to understand in a homologous way how gravitational disequilibrium may occur between two mass-objects. We understand that motion may counteract gravitational attraction, and motion is equivalent to the inertia of energy. Indeed, energy intermediates between all mass-gravitational interactions. If we wish to counter the gravitational pull of the earth to launch a spaceship beyond its grasp, we must apply a certain amount of energy in a consistent and directive manner. If the same ship reenters the gravitational field of the earth, it falls like a meteorite until it disintegrates into energy upon impact.

I will hypothesize that mass displacement within a gravitational field requires energy applied in some form of directive pressure. Such displacement, in whatever form it occurs, is equivalent to acceleration. In this sense, uniformity of motion is equivalent to relative rest. Such mass displacement creates a relative gravitational imbalance, which can be described as the energy of resistance to such displacement, in a way homologous to how charge imbalance results from the displacement of electrons. Charge balance is equivalent to gravitational unification of mass--both represent a form of relative rest or equilibrium and both are related to a phenomenon that I call spin synchronization. In the case of charge polarization, a balanced magnetic field is created. In the case of mass unification, a balanced gravitational field is created--both fields are equivalent in the same space-time construct.

Another way of saying this is to put forth that charge is nothing but a special form of mass that is spatially unbound, creating a electromagnetic field and giving rise to energy. We might say that electromagnetism is a charged gravitational field. It is to be expected that an electromagnetic field must have very similar state characteristics as a spime-gravitational field. In a sense, on a basic level, they are mechanically the same except for differences of mass and charge binding. Electromagnetic fields are relatively independent of mass, and gravitational fields are relatively independent of charge. In a sense, mass can be thought of as the positive complement of charge and both have a complement of negative spime energy.

This may be explained if we can demonstrate the three-way mutual equivalence of space-time (or spime) to energy and mass, as in the following diagram:

We can only understand the interrelationship between electromagnetism and gravitation if we understand the substantive and mechanical value of the missing third term, or of spime, as constitutive of the space-time construct. The space-time construct of classical general relativity is basically a self-consistent model. It possesses relativistic properties and has a geometric description or geodesic curvature, but it is nothing more or less than uniform emptiness defined in terms of, and in turn defining, the shape of the things it contains, albeit mass and energy.

I propose that both gravitation and electromagnetism as differential forms of energy arise from the same source in the substance of the space-time construct, such that their positive expression is always in relation to a differential imbalance with a negative complement that their non-reciprocal occurrence produces. Ultimately, both forms of energy arise from the same kind of negative "mass-energy" or spime gravitation contained in the spime matrix, as a result of the internalization or non-reciprocal binding of this matrix into internally unitary or particularistic structures. In its normally occurring form, the spime matrix is minimally integrated by means of field lines that arise as the result of spin synchronization of its constituent elements. This negative energy is naturally reciprocal and self-neutralizing or self-canceling. We only experience and can infer its existence indirectly by means of the non-reciprocal effects of its interaction with matter and energy.

This must be seen as a complex system of interaction in which there is both essential equivalence and conservation. Electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation arise as the result of the charge dissociation or polarization of basic nucleonic mass objects--in other words, it arises as a result of the creation of a proton-electron pair. The possibility of this polarization occurs in the first place because mass itself is constituted by energy that is in a spatially bound state, and charge polarization is an intrinsic property of energy. To go one step further, gravitational displacement and gravitational radiation arise as the result of mass displacement of the same basic nucleonic mass-objects, and in turn result in electromagnetic displacement as well. This is possible because mass objects itself are constituted by gravitational spime, and mass displacement is an intrinsic property of spime.

We can further speculate that electromagnetic energy arises spontaneously and exists in reciprocal form in the normal spime matrix, in an equivalent way that mass-gravitational energy arises spontaneously and exists in a similar reciprocal form. In fact, they are differential expressions of the same negative or complementary-state mass-energy.

Most of the alternative cosmology built within this work is based upon this theory and its systematic extension to account for an understanding of the basic physical structure of reality at all levels as this is found to naturally occur. Much of this theory depends upon our understanding of electromagnetic energy and its patterns of propagation through space-time. In general, we have adopted a very linear model of this pattern, though this would seem to violate an essential property of reality, that of its inherent non-linearity. Light cannot be a perfectly determined system. Indeed, thermodynamics, the essence of light, posits that there can be no perpetual motion machines of any type, and yet we attempt to make light into a kind of perpetual motion system.