INTRODUCTION

Chapter Nine

Cosmological Systems

Gravitational unification is such that it contains nested structures of space-time manifolds, and we can speak thus of many kinds and levels of cosmological system: Stellar Systems, Clusters and Galaxies, Super Galaxies, Black Holes and Neutron Star Systems, Quasars, Nebulae of various scales. We can also speak of asteroid systems and cometary clouds or cluster systems.

We might refer to the possiblity of larger or smaller scale systems. We can speculate for instance on the total universe as a metasystem or metastate system of some kind. We can speculate on energies and scales even below that of space-time itself, that might give rise to the organization of space-time and its gravitational effects.

All of these systems and possible systems involve the organization of matter, hence of energy, usually in vast quantities, upon different scales, and the outcomes of this organization upon different scales. In all instances, gravitational attraction seems to be the key controlling variable, and in all cases, the greater the gravitational attraction, the different the outcomes for the distribution and behavior of matter in space-time.

The universe is vast. Our observational sphere of the Universe encompasses billions of billions of galaxies, and we are yet constrained by relativistic considerations of light-speed to be unable to observe larger regions of the instantaneous universe. We know such an instantaneous universe, a universe that exists now, this instant, everywhere, must exist. Everything about our notions of scientific objectivity tells us that this must be so, and yet we cannot observe this universe, only infer it from our knowledge and deductions about what we can observe.

The universe as a system, or as a set of systems, or as systems within systems, or as something that contains all physical systems, leaves us with a lot to ponder and apparently, a lot of seemingly imponderable questions. Is the universe infinite, or not. Everything in the darkness of space, suggests infinity, and yet infinity, like eternity, is a problem that is very difficult to wrap even our imaginations around, much less our sense of scientific reason. If, for instance, all systems are de-facto limited and finite, with an end and a beginning, however long-lived or however large, then either the universe is a system that is somehow limited and finite, or it is something greater than a system, a metasystem perhaps, that is not a system but contains all physical systems. And the rub is, we may never be able to demonstrate, empirically in a manner considered adequate for scientific validation, the final answer one way or another. At some point, perhaps, all we are left with is a kind of leap of faith, to accept it as one way or another, without sufficient empirical evidence.

Upon some level, this seems to be what happens, as it appears that building cosmological models that are whole, complete and self-sufficient, requires certain symbolic liberties of knowledge that extend beyond our observational and empirical evidence. This seems to be so with whatever cosmological model we develop, whether we honestly admit it or not, or whether we regard whatever model we do commit to as "scientific" or not.

What is offered is a cosmological model of the universe as a kind of metasystem, perhaps as a system of systems that it contains, or alternatively as a universal context for all possible physical systems.

We can consider that all systems have a history, and in a sense, a genealogy of systems-based development. If we could trace the history of all systems back to some ultimate starting point, we might be surprised to find all systems ultimately coming from the same singular first action of some primordial system, and that all subsequent systems that have occurred have differentiated and come from this single point or source of origin. If we might imagine some very fundamental basic force or entity, with its own simple set of properties, that somehow diverged to become two, which in turn might have become four, and then eight, and so on to create what we know of as the universe today, and all that is materially contained within this universe.

We can imagine that, though the total amount of matter in the universe may now be infinite, there may have been a "time before time" when in fact the universe was empty or devoid of any matter as we understand it today, and that matter somehow mysteriously accumulated as the result of some as yet undiscovered processes, and as matter accumulated, it gave rise to exponentially increasing amounts of matter for a very long time. If we accept this hypothesis as true, then the current state of matter and its growth in the universe must in fact be not infinite or unlimited, and though of a very grand scale, remains ultimately finite today.

As strange as this may sound, it may not in fact be very far from the truth, though we may never know one way or another or have any way of demonstrating what the universe looked like in the time before time. If we can imagine a universe empty of all matter, then it would essentially consist of empty space-time, with no sense of an edge, or center, or necessarily of any direction. We might ask, what would its grandest scale have been, and whether something like scale would have even mattered. The first sets of stars to emerge might have been rather puny runts, more like mice than giants--or perhaps it was just star-dust and clouds of hydrogen that gradually accumulated throughout the universe, spreading larger and larger.

A pristine state of the universe in the time before time would probably have seemed, if we could have experienced it, a rather undifferentiated and uniform affair. We would notice no obvious incongruities to its vast emptiness. I have conjectured a "cold fusion" universe (as opposed to the "Hot Big Bang") as the gradual accumulation of hydrogen gas clouds, and then the gradual organization of stellar masses within these massive clouds, more or less uniformly through at least our own observable region of the universe. Even today, who knows, there may be regions of the universe that remain relatively lacking in any form of matter except perhaps the most primitive and rarefied hydrogen. These regions may surround our own little observational corner of the universe like a huge ocean surrounding a small set of islands.

If we can hypothesize that matter cannot be infinite, we might suggest that space-time, the stuff that contains the matter, may in fact be infinite and in a sense, always self-consistently present since the time before time before time. Whose to say--the little bit of matter that is contained in all the galaxies that we can possibly in time come to see through our largest and most powerful telescopes, may have been due to a strange cosmic butterfly effect in the primordial empty space-time, a strange series of distortions and disruptions from which substantial, but still cosmically trivial, quantities of hydrogen ions emerged and gradually accumulated. Whatever we might imagine to be the beginning of the universe, we must come to terms with a scale of size, of largeness, which is simply unimaginable and which dwarfs to virtual nothingness anything we may know or understand as large. Even if the matter in our universe was the result of a "big bang" it is possible that this big bang still was but a small pop of a space-time pimple on the back of a huge universe, and that all that we embrace as the many, many galaxies of this universe are in fact only a small fraction of the total volume and depth of space-time that lies out somewhere beyond.

The Foundations of Physical Reality and the Cosmological Paradigm

It is assumed cosmologically that the basic chemical and structural relations that are informed by the Periodic table of the elements will apply wherever we may look or reach in the physical universe. We assume that matter is structured universally in the same precise ways, and that the laws that govern chemical and physical reactions on earth are the self-same laws governing such reactions anywhere else in the universe. Hydrogen that makes up our sun is the same hydrogen that makes up all the stars that we may see in our universe.

What can be called the cosmological concept is based upon the deductive hypothesis that:

1. All fundamental physical systems are universally the same; i.e., all motion, matter and energy that occurs on earth and in the solar system can be assumed to be the same in the furthest corners of the universe.

2. The general principles and laws governing physical systems are the same universally.

The cosmological concept presumes a certain basic consistency of pattern and relation in the universe, that however variable in derivative pattern systems may prove to be in the large and the long run, in a fundamental and basic sense things remain more or less the same.

All the energies we understand arise as a consequence and in context to the atom and its structure. Light as we know it, or any alternative forms of electro-magnetic energy arise as a consequence of the motion of the electron about the nucleus. We only sense and know this energy by the effects it induces as a result of its transmission to other atoms. The electron, by itself, does not induce these effects. Energies of the Strong and weak forces occur only in conjunction with the nucleus and subatomic particles that are found in relation to the nucleus. Likewise, it is to be hypothesized that gravitation occurs only in conjunction with matter, and hence arises from the fundamental units of matter, namely, the nucleus.

Hypothetically, these energies arise as the function of basic subatomic motions that occur in given relational fields. I assume:

A. these motions to be of the following characteristics:

1. Fundamentally indeterministic; i.e. quantum motion

2. oscillatory in periodic cycles

3. complexly rotational

B. Such motions arise only in relative proximity to the subatomic field that induces such motion.

C. The shift of the basic motion gives rise to the transmission of the form and amount of energy that is associated with the change in the levels of energy that the difference in motion entail

D. The transmission of energy arising from such shifting subatomic motions results in a basic perturbation of the space-time continuum that connects the atom as a system to a larger physical field, and this perturbation of the space-time continuum is propagated in specific ways through the space-time manifold until or unless acted upon by interfering counter-forces: i.e., interception, interference, resistance.

E. The perturbation of Light and Gravitational Energy reveals important structural information about the basic structure of the space-time continuum.

We have not yet explained sufficiently the transmission of these energies through apparently empty space-time. Space-time constitutes a medium of transmission that appears to be near perfect if not perfect in its "noiseless" qualities. Only light and gravitational energy are known as yet to be thus transmissable long distance through space-time.

The logical conclusion that the universe is infinite in extent and infinitesimal in its fundamental structure is derived from the following relationships:

1. The fundamental event structure of space-time is open because it is universally constrained by principles of unidirectionality and irreversibility of change. This basic openness entails that the universe cannot be closed. If it were not open, then we would expect that event structures would repeat themselves on a basic level.

2. The laws of thermodynamics according to the cosmological principle are universally applicable, therefore we cannot define a system that is thermodynamically self-contained without a larger energy sink that contains it. Cosmological extension of the laws of thermodynamics therefore demands an infinite system.

3. A relativistically closed structure that is the received cosmography is based upon a cosmological isotropism of basic structure that is in violation of a perfect cosmological principle. The curvature of space-time may be non-uniform and non-constant. I believe it is logically possible to demonstrate a relativistically dynamic, rather than static, cosmography by the inference of universal simultaneity which is derivable from the cosmological principle.

4. Derived from 3 above, we may state that the observational universe is non-isomorphic with the inferrable universe, and that a conventional relativistic cosmography is based upon an observational and not an inferential model of the universe. An inferential universe contains all possible observable universes as only partially overlapping subsets. In order for this to occur, the inferential universe must be extensively open.

5. Light that travels omnidirectionally from any relative point source in the universe can be said to have no preferred direction of curvature, and the instantaneous sphere of light created by any single source must grow in all directions at the same rate and instantaneous size. Even if the curvature of light were uniform and were such that it eventually described a large circuit, it could not be said to return to the same source from which it originated. We must see space-time in this sense "spiraling" in an open-ended manner rather than merely closed upon itself.

6. If the universe is expanding, then this expansion is either only apparent, cosmologically non-isotropic and hence omnidirectionally random, or in a open spiral consistent with 5 above (or any permutation of these possibilities). If expansion of the universe is occurring, a not unreasonable assumption to make, then we can claim that it had no single original source, and this process of expansion is being effectively countered by as yet unknown complementary processes. These processes may not be so much a "reverse expansion" as they are a continuous "filling" in of the interstitial seams of the universe.

7. The fundamental structure of space-time upon which an inferential cosmology is based contains a relativistic structure that is defined primarily by the constant speed of light and that therefore describes a restrictive observational cosmology. The basic gravitational structure of space-time can be said to be dynamic and instantaneous in its constraints, and contains the thermodynamic or electromagnetic structure of all possible observational universes. We would expect therefore at the cosmological extremes of size and event scale that the basic laws of relativity are violated and that the general or specific theories of relativity will not be directly applicable on these levels.

The relativistic model that Einstein gave to cosmology was one that was based upon a static or fixed structure of space-time. A dynamic model of universal relativity suggests that space-time is fluid and has its own dynamic properties that are independent of and underlie the properties and forms of energy that it contains or that become expressed within it. In this regard, we must not confuse the cause with the effect in our explanation of the basic structure or universal cosmography of physical reality.

Extensive infinity is based upon and derived from intensive infinitudes. If this is to be considered at least hypothetically correct, then we might assert the following:

1. There cannot be nothing in physical reality--what is apparently nothing is upon another level something. There is therefore no point of finite divisibility at which we may separate something from nothing, and there is no boundary of extensive integrity beyond which we can say nothing exists.

2. Fundamental something in the universe cannot be made or destroyed, but only transformed from one state to some alternate state. The universe as a fundamental something always existed, and exists in infinite amounts and to infinitesimal degrees.

3. Observable energy states that are instantaneous in the universe is a basic physical event-pattern that controls change and alteration in the universe. Energy is not made or destroyed because it is neither something nor nothing. Rather it is a process of change that is continous and non-discrete in its structure.

4. The real structure of the universe describes a continuum of instantaneous event structure that is stratified by size-scale. It may be said that the universe exists along infinite parallel dimensions based upon the size-scale of its event structures and relativistic integration. Another way of stating this is that the rules of order (properties of space-time and gravitation) governing event structure and relations at one level are different in quality and quantity than those at another level, and that therefore the universe as it exists on a subatomic level is structured differently than a universe as it may be inferred or observed on a super-galactic scale. These two different scales may be said to be directly independent of one another, and only indirectly related to one another through intermediate size-event scales. This constitutes the basis for the theory of universal relativity.

5. Space-time varies extensively in terms of its relative density, which is cosmologically equal and non-isotropic but which varies locally in an isotropic and deterministically assymetrical manner. This fluctuation of space-time density is experienced in terms of gravitational effects and in the inertial effects of motion. It may be said that space-time density in matter or the supermatter of a black hole is far greater than the space-time density that may be found in the middle of intergalactic space.

Differential density of space-time governs the fluid dynamics and direction of flow of space-time. Space-time always flows from regions of less to greater density, which is the opposite of what one would expect of a thermodynamic system--gravitational and electromagnetic radiation is the effect of this flow pattern and provides the central cosmological mechanism by which space-time becomes redistributed. The central hypothetical mechanism is what is defined as gravitational displacement and replacement upon a fundamental level. Because space-time is everywhere in constant flux and transition, it continuously replaces itself. Rates of replacement are far greater in denser regions than in less dense regions, and when densities obtain a certain level of concentration, matter is formed which interacts with space-time to produce radiant energy in several forms. Radiant energy released from the system is only slightly affected by the dynamic flow of space-time, except in extreme cases, and represents a redistribution of space-time in the universe. Radiant energy therefore represents a basic fluctuation of space-time density that propagates from a more dense source to a less dense sink. The overall pattern of space-time dynamics, gravitational displacement replacement, and radiant thermodynamic redistribution describes what can be called the gravitational cycle and the relative state of gravitational equilibrium within which any system exists.

The effect of gravity systems in determining the trajectory of falling objects and of orbiting objects is a consequence of the locally isotropic flow of space-time toward regions of greater density. Objects without counterresistance fall to earth because they have no choice in the matter. They are carried there by the natural flow of the space-time manifold in which they are contained. This space-time manifold connects the internal matrix of the object, composed fundamentally of spime, with the external universe.

There is a fundamental identity of all state-patterns in the universe. Everything is composed of spime. The derivative patterning of spime is variable, and even in apparently empty space-time it is possible that spime may take a variety of basic forms. At a fundamental level though, there exists only a basic unity that I have dubbed the zeroth entity. This may be related to what is called "quintessence" and it may exhibit properties of supersymmetry. We must ask whether the law of symmetry would necessarily apply at such a basic level--it may or may not. If it did, we might speculate that there existed such a set of states that we could call anti-spime. We would actually refer to an anti-particulate event-entity.

For every fundamental event-entity of which spime is composed, there is at least one anti-event entity. Supersymmetry might imply multiple contraposed or alternative event entities and possibly multiple dimensionalities within which these event-entities could coexist.

Space-time is a fundamental substance (dubbed "spime") of which all energy and matter are composed and derived. Spime is in continuous fluctuation and displacement.

Cosmological Systems

There is perhaps for science no greater problem than the question of the structure of our shared physical reality. In the grand sense this involves the problem of the Cosmos, or our cosmological comprehension of the universe as some kind of unity or whole. We are at all times in the universe--the universe unfolds everywhere around us and moves forward with us through time. It never leaves us and we cannot be separated from it. We cannot escape the laws of physical phenomena that govern the universe and constrain us in some many ways. We are in fact a part of the larger universe--and the atoms that compose our bodies, the water, the carbon, the nitrogen compounds, are the same atoms that compose the distant stars we may observe at night. The universe surrounds us and contains us and constrains us in all that we are and in everything that we might do.

It is clear that our understanding of cosmology is far from complete and far from sufficient. Our small observational sphere is like a kind of time-bubble that we cannot really get outside of in order to view the larger structure of the universe in a contemporaneous sense. When we look deep into space, we are looking deeply into time to see what existed and the events that occurred long, long ago. We know in principle that the universe exists, as it exists now, outside of this observational sphere, but we have no clear way of penetrating through it to see the current configuration of things. We must rely upon indirect evidence and inferences we can make about things in the universe, and in relying upon inferences to construct a model of the inferable universe, we draw heavily upon certain premises we make about the structure of reality and the distribution of matter and energy in the universe. These premises are known as the cosmological principle and it constitutes the basis for our formulation of alternative state models of the universe.

The problem of scale becomes an important consideration in relation to cosmological presuppositions. We really do not have a clear idea of the true scale of the total universe, and, if the notion of an infinite and open-ended structure of reality is correct, then there really is no finite and non-relative scale we can assign to the universe. In an infinite state system, scale becomes a dimensionless variable. The question of scale becomes important as well on the smallest side of things--there is a possibility that upon the smallest scales we know of, the universe may in fact exist as something of a "scale free" system--in which scale does not really matter. It is important to realize that the universe exists in a universally contemporaneous or instantaneous sense, and this sense occurs upon multiple levels of scale simultaneously--we can see the universe as a collection of galaxies, stars and other planetary entities, or we can see it at the level of the atom as an vast uneven distribution of molecules, or we even see it in terms of the fundamental energies and particles that constitute atoms, or possibly even as the "field" that embeds everything else in some as yet mostly mysterious manner.

Scale is in fact an important property of all systems, large or small. Physically, all real systems articulate upon some scale. The articulation of a system is in fact relative to the scale on which it occurs, and we are aware that upon different scales, different kinds of systems, exhibiting very different kinds of properties, become articulated and expressed.

In a model of an open and infinite state universe, we are left with a scale-less universe in the large. The largest systems in the that seem to exhibit any possible structural order may be galactic clusters or super clusters. Super clusters do not appear to be completely unified gravitationally. It suggests that gravitation in that region of space-time has served to create amorphous collections of galaxies in relative proximity to one another and in relative distance to any other galaxies. This is not a completely unified gravitational system in the sense that we understand the solar system to be gravitationally unified.

We have observed no larger structures at which gravitational unification can be inferred to be occurring. This is not to say that organized structures may not exist in the universe perhaps based on something other than gravitational unification--some models suggest that the observable universe at least has some larger sense of order to its structure though not necessarily based upon gravitation as we understand this. It is at this scale and level that we can speak of cosmology proper, in terms of hypothetical models of alternative cosmological systems that may best explain what phenomena we can observe and can infer on the basis of our observations.

The question of cosmology is a problem of several parts. The first part is the problem of the largest structure of the total universe. The second part is the explanation of the history of this structure, and in particular, the problem of its origination. The third part is the problem of fundamental structure of physical reality, that may be presumed cosmologically to be true in the total universe. The final part is less obvious, but concerns how the largest structure is accounted for in terms of the smallest structures. This last part really is a systems based argument. The last part of the problem relates what can be called the problem of the universal structure of reality to the problem of the reality of the universe. The two problems are interrelated on several levels, at least, but they are not completely one and the same problems, or totally isomorphic to one another.

I take up the question of cosmology because no view of the world could be considered scientifically complete, whole or sufficient without an accounting for the basic structures and the larger formations of our physical world. More importantly, a realistic approach and adaptation to the world, depends upon having a comprehensive cosmology.

Great Depth of Space-Time and the Origin of Matter

Known structures in the universe provide evidence for a grand sense of depth of age and for a vast distance--far, far greater in scale that accorded by contemporary cosmological theories.

Basic questions remain to be answered clearly. The following points are a propos:

1. There is only one know pathway in nature for the production of matter of high atomic number, and that is within the stellar furnace.

2. All matter that exists can only have been produced in this manner--the earth, the planets, were therefore produced by an ancient star system.

3. Planetary matter in our own solar system must therefore have been captured at an early point by our sun, as remnants and left-over shells of earlier, extinguished stars.

3. Great gravitational systems are common in the universe, and these systems are productive of high levels of energy and matter.

4. The principle pathway for the production of pristine or original hydrogen remains unexplained.

5. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and must be produced in prodigious quantities on a continuous basis.

Cosmological and Universal Frames of Reference

Cosmological and Universal frames of reference are perhaps, in the best of possible worlds, complementary to one another, but they are not isomorphic or identical to one another. A universal frame of reference deals primarily with what can be called the universal structure of reality, often interpreted analytically in terms of fundamental structures, which is applied by means of a cosmological paradigm to the whole of the universe. The cosmological frame of reference is the kind of universal state model we adopt to explain the patterning and order of all reality, in an all inclusive and non-exclusive sense. I think this latter part of non-exclusiveness is important to the kind of model we adopt. A truly universal frame of reference would be truly comprehensive and therefore non-exclusive. There could be no structure we could imagine to exist, or discover to exist, that would lie outside of this frame or fail to be accounted for within the framework.

We can of course choose to reject a systems-based frame of reference, especially a universal frame of reference, in the first place.

The attribution of universal change in a system implies with it the notion of infinity, for a system always changes would admit of no absolute or permanent end states that were completely without change. Such a system, at least in that one set of dimensions, would not be infinite but finite in structure.

Cosmological Systems and Universal Meta-systems

A system may not be infinite. A system is by definition "definite" and delimited. It is finite in size, life-span and duration, and direct behavioral outcomes. Only a meta-system, or a system of systems, may be considered infinite. An infinite meta-system may hold or contain as subsets other meta-systems, even an infinite number of meta-systems, each in themselves infinite and containing an infinite number of sub-systems. A thing that is finite is a system, and a finite system has a boundary. It follows, and can be demonstrated, that a boundary is a basic part of the definition of all systems, and all kinds of systems, and boundary mechanisms are fundamental aspects of any system.

It follows that if we are to define the universe as a finite system, and not as an infinite meta-system, then we are going to have to eventually define that system in terms of some kind of boundary-maintaining mechanism in relation to some larger meta-systemic framework.

We are led back to our basic definition of all natural systems--every system is a part of a larger meta-system, and is framed by that larger meta-system. No natural system may occur in isolation from a larger meta-system framework. If we are to seek an explanation of universal cosmologies therefore in terms of finite systems, we must still seek to contextualize these systems in terms of some larger meta-systemic frame of reference. The only alternative would be to adopt a meta-systemic frame of reference in the first place.

In a sense, then we are left with the proposition of considering whether the universe may be a single system, in a sense, as a finite entity, or as a meta-system. The trouble is, that science, conventionally articulated, is at its best when it is dealing with finite systems. It is not used to dealing well with meta-systems. So we have a basic challenge, of dealing scientifically with cosmological structures that may be meta-systemic in structure, and that transcends the form of systems explanation that is typical of standard science.

The Problem of Infinity

The problem of infinity is one of the most perplexing and difficult problems to try to logically or empirically resolve. It is a problem lacking even in concise or conclusive formulation, much less in proof.

I'm inclined to argue for the infinity of the total universe and of cosmology in a universal sense, if only because, in my simple mind at least, it is easier to imagine an infinite universe than a finite one that is not contained in something larger than itself. I see the property of infinity of the universe not as an impossibility, though it is a complexity. We know of many mathematical counting systems that are logically infinite, and we know that not only does the universe appear to be ordered in a mathematical manner at many levels, but that its astronomical size and numbers tends to approach the large numbers we can only have in very large and basically infinite mathematical number systems. If we count out to the 16th billionth light-year in any direction we may look in the universe, then why should we stop at 16.1 billion light-years and say that the universe does not probably extend to 17 or 18 or even higher billion light-years.

With infinite systems, there can be a subset of a larger system that is itself infinite. Thus whole numbers are a subset of real numbers, and yet the set of whole numbers themselves are infinite. With infinite systems, the relationship of the subset to the larger set that contains it can be expressed as a ratio formula or a percentage, based upon averages of a sample set. We can state, for instance, that original matter may have formed at some deep juncture of our cosmological past (a time frame possibly encompassing trillions of years) and that though the formation of this first pristine matter was very rare and unlikely, it may have been occurring somewhere else in the infinite vastness of the universe, and though it may have been an event that occurs only once in a radius of 10 billion light years, if the universe is infinite, then we can express the ratio of occurrence as 1/10⁹, and this itself would represent an infinite number. And let's say that over the trillions of years, the amount of secondary matter that has formed has increased gradually, such that we end up with 1 galaxy every 100,000 lightyears radius, and we express this ratio as 1/10⁶, with it still representing a much larger number or proportion of the whole than the first number, but both would still be infinite.

We really have a difficult time fully comprehending the implications or imagining the possibilities and paradoxes of an open, infinite state model of the total universe. Our observable universe may have a boundary beyond which, for as deep as the telescopic eye might peer, as we look into the well of space-time, there appears only empty, black space, but somewhere out there may be other universes, more or less the same as our own in terms of its elements and star systems, and however far apart that universe may be, on average from our own, there may be in fact an infinite number of such universes out there.

As vast as the total universe may be, for instance, the contemporaneous state universe is happening everywhere in the same instantaneous moment, notwithstanding the relativistic considerations of non-simultaneity of event structure. We can imagine a kind of extension of the Cosmological Principle, that might state that similar kinds of events happen more or less during the same epochs of the universe, no matter how far apart. On the other hand, this idea may not be incongruent as well with the notion that the observational universes that might be how there somewhere, no matter how far apart, may be evolving along their own timelines, completely independent of one another, such that some universes may be much older and more "evolved" than other universes.

We might hypothesize a principle about the macro-state of the total universe as being the combined averages of all the micro-states of the sub-universes, the potential observational universes, and that the distribution in one quadrant or sector of space-time of matter is more or less similar to the distribution, on average, over any other similar quandrant or sector of space-time, and the larger the sector, the more accurate and representative would be the average distributions in relation to the whole structure.

As hard as it may seem to imagine an open, infinite state universe, I believe it is even more difficult to logically think about a closed, finite state universe, the kind implied by the Big Bang model. The reason is that we must then imagine, however larger or small that model, the something of which it is contained within. We cannot imagine a completely self-contained universe that is finite in its fundamental dimensions.

What is infinity, and what is an infinite meta-system? It appears to be a property we attribute, at least as a possibility, to the physical universe and thereby, by implication, to the universal structure of reality. In the first place, I would define an infinite meta-system as one that is fundamentally open as a meta-system framework--it has no boundary or finite limit, in at least one or more dimensions. It is possible to conjure up cosmological constructions for instance that are finite in most but not all dimensions. I think some of the current cosmological models for instance are basically finite in three dimensions but implicitly infinite in the fourth dimension, or possibly vice versa, infinite in three spatial dimensions but finite in the fourth dimension of time. A boundary then is a finite limit we place upon a meta-system framework, as a system. A boundary defines a system as a system, as something finite in time or space, in a physical sense.

The property of infinity I take to be something that is basic and fundamental to systems, especially certain kinds of systems. We do not need to resort to large numbers to prove them. Logic alone allows us to demonstrate infinity, even if only by induction. But the question is why and how has nature chosen to organize itself in terms of basic unending series?

When we look at physical systems, we see not one form of infinity, but several different possible kinds. There is the infinitesimal form of infinity that we associate with the reductio ad infinitum of always dividing a thing in half, and then the half in half, and so forth. Nature appears to do this, at least down to the level of the subatomic particle, and some would argue, even further down to such exotic entities as quarks or strings. There is the extensive form of infinity that we more typically associated with boundless space. Then there is the temporal form of infinity, that is called eternity. I would also be inclined to suggest that there is another more complex form of infinity we may be dealing with, what I would call dimensional infinity that comes with the fundamental relativity of certain kinds of variables we are dealing with.

In consideration of the different kinds of infinity we may deal with, it seems important therefore to stipulate beforehand the kind of infinity we are referring to when we are talking about a cosmological system, and it is important not to lump all these forms of infinity into a single framework as if implicitly one and the same thing.

I will state the following--either the universe is infinite or it is not. I don't think we can have it both ways at the same time. A system that starts off finite, does not become then infinite, and a system that has begun infinite, cannot just then become finite.

The key question to try to answer with cosmological systems is whether the universe is infinite or not. If the universe is infinite, then it must have a composite structure, systems made of other systems, in turn composed by other systems, so on ad infinitum. If the universe is finite, we must speculate at some level some self-consistent or self-constituent frame of organization that does not need to be explained by resorting to subsystems.

The paradox of this question is that though it is difficult to try to comprehend an infinite system, it seems even more difficult to try to reconcile a system that is not infinite but contained within something else. The problem of infinity, though it exists in our basic mathematical counting systems, is difficult to resolve in scientific terms that seeks specific causal explanations and reasons for specific event structures.

We can safely start off with an infinite universe, because, in a universe that is infinite, we do not need to justify origins or zero-state conditions, nor do we need to define boundaries, self-consistent structures or after-states. It appears to me that we are not at least as dialectically sound if we start of with a model of a finite universe, as then, not only do we need to account for all these things, but we must also explain how the universe may or may not be contained within some larger or antecedent state.

If the universe is infinite, and by logical extension, eternal, then it has no finite limits, and it always existed. Something that always existed, was never created in the first place. It is a kind of system or "meta-system" if you will, that never had a beginning and will never had an end. Science cannot stomach something that just is, that never had a beginning that cannot be somehow explained in rational terms.

I am inclined to think the universe is probably infinite and eternal. And I'm inclined to the opinion that it is infinite in a number of different dimensions and meanings of the term, for it is probably not just infinite in an extensive sense, but also infinite in an intensive, or infinitesimal, sense. In other words, whatever fundamental structure we take to be the basic unit of physical reality, we can examine that structure more closely and we will always find it to be a composite structure made of subsystems at an even finer scale of resolution, and ultimately, there may be no lower limit to this process.

The problem in science is to try to answer how and why the universe may be infinite, without resorting to faith based answers or arguments in some form of predetermined logic. The problem is also that whatever answer we may come up with to explain what lies before and behind, we are then troubled with trying to solve the riddle of what accounts for the preconditions to what it is we invoke for our explanation. This never seems to quit.

I feel in this manner of explanation we are caught in a kind of hen or egg dilemma, which we cannot escape, unless dialectically we come to terms with the cosmological scale of the universe as a kind of hen and egg system, and see this kind of system as part of a larger evolutionary framework of developmental systems.

The laws of thermodynamics imply infinity of scale in a number of ways. If energy is always conserved, and it cannot be made or destroyed, then energy always existed, in whatever form it may have taken. If energy in any finite system must always escape to a containing environment, a basic ground, then we cannot define any system that is completely self contained, that is not a part of a larger environment. Even something as large therefore as a hypothetical self-contained physical universe, would in principle have to be contained within some larger environment.

There is a basic logic about this--an infinite system can contain a finite or unlimited number of finite systems, but a finite system cannot contain an infinite one.

Even more importantly, we know from mathematical systems that an infinite meta-system may contain a number of subsystems, in fact an infinite number of subsystems, each of which are themselves infinite in size. How can we then compare the size differences of two systems, both of which are infinite? The systems can only be compared logically according to dimensional variables that can be used to define and build the system. We know one infinite system may be larger than another for instance if the former contains the latter, which would be a subset of the former, and not the other way around, or if we know that for every member of the latter, there are two, or three, members of the former.

The first hypothetical framework of a fundamentally dynamic cosmology are the following:

Change is universal and continuous in the large and the long run--there was no period of Time in which change did not occur.

The entire universe changes instantaneously upon a fundamental level. There is no place in the universe in which change does not occur.

Change appears to be always conservative--basic energies in the structure of the large and the long run are conserved before and after the change event.

Change is dynamic in the structure of the large and the long run.

Quantum change upon a basic level may be discontinuous.

Large scale systems arose out of the integration of smaller scale systems.

The evolution of the universe has been one of the emergence of larger scale systems from smaller scale systems.

In such a model, there are no first, primary, fundamental or ultimate event structures--whatever set of events we refer to, there is presumed to be some prior set of events that give rise to those event patterns. There are no static or changeless states.

According to the model suggested by this framework, explanation of origins gives way within a systems theoretic framework to an explanation of dynamic change of systems, with the suggestion that the universe has been in a process of continuous evolutionary development forever, and in general we explain this development in terms of the emergence of systems from subsystems, and from prior systems to present systems.

If a "meta-system" is infinite and eternal, then we do not need to explain cosmological origins in any final sense, as something that lasts forever had no beginning. If we hypothesize this "meta-system" is fundamentally dynamic however, we do need to try to explain the changes as we observe them and can possibly infer them from deductive and inductive logic.

In other words, we explain change at any given level in nature in terms of both the subsystem and meta-system dynamics that can sufficiently account for that change pattern. We do so not in a specific sense, but in a general way. In this sense, systems do not just "originate" or come into being without predication or the stochastic predetermination of pre-existing systems. In this process, there is no "first or original system" that occurs, from which all changes ensue, but to which no change itself can be attributed.

I do not know if we can ever satisfactorily resolve the problem and paradox of Infinity, especially in the consideration of universal cosmology. I think the best we might be able to accomplish is a partial logical explanation or solution, but this in itself must be inductively insufficient. We really have no way of really knowing whether or not somewhere out beyond the vast reaches of deep space there might not occur some finite barrier--a wall of water perhaps, that serves to define the limits of the known cosmological structure the beginning of some unknown cosmological structure.

Universal State Models

It may well be argued that the total universe is something that will always exist beyond our basic ability to observe or sufficiently comprehend. The vast and potentially unlimited dimensions of the universe render any simple model we may construct limited and insufficient to the requirements of realistic representation. Therefore a final answer to this basic problem may remain ultimately and forever beyond our scientific capacities to answer in a sufficient manner.

Universal state systems may be conceptualized as more or less formal cosmological models of the universe, based upon presumed universal characteristics. We cannot model the total universe in all its complexity, but we can seek to model the whole in partial terms, in terms of various aspects of the whole that may lend critical insight. This is especially relevant when dealing with cosmology from the standpoint of systems-based theory. We seek to describe structural patterning of the whole in terms that allow us to understand the universe as an entire structural system, as a thing in and of itself that can be comprehended as such. A large part of the problem of describing and explaining the universe as such is because we obviously cannot step outside of its boundaries in our world. We cannot go outside of it in order to comprehend it from an outsider's point of view. It would be like trying to describe the exterior of a house from the point of view of being in the interior, trying to peer through the many windows.

The kind of universal state model we adopt is based upon certain implicit presuppositions of reality, and different such state models will lead to different kinds of consequences and constructions. The kind of cosmological construction we end up with influences the way we see and think about the universe, whether this is in fact a realistic or accurate model or not. If for instance we hypothesize a finite and zero-state model, we are inclined to search for fundamental self-sufficient states and primary start states from which everything else can be explained in logical or historical order.

In conceptualizing different cosmologies, it is useful to invoke what can be called alternative state-models of the universe. The total universe, which can be considered the overall structure of patterning, all inclusive and comprehensive, can be distinguished from what we can call the "observable universe." The total universe presumably includes the observable universe as a subset, but we presume that the total universe is always somewhat larger than what we can observe.

The observable universe is always assumed to be a subset of the total universe. Even if we could observe a much larger instantaneous sphere of the compass of physical reality, we could never presume that we would be able to see the whole universe. Whatever physical limitations we find for our observations, we would be pressed to ask what lay beyond those limits. This dilemma leads us directly to the question of an infinite universe.

We bridge the difference between the observable universe and the total universe, which we know to exist on an objective presupposition of the cosmological principle, by means of making inferences about the total universe on the basis of what we can observe. We use logical deductive and inductive inference to contrive models of what can be called an "inferable universe" that approximates a total universe system, or at least attempts to bridge the gulf between our observation and the truth of the matter.

Infinity itself is a kind of inferential structure. Whatever number or size we may designate, we can always then logically determine a number or size that is greater. Whatever frame we may set for our view of the universe, we can always infer if by logic alone, the probability of some larger containing frame.

Zero, finite state models must eventually pose some kind of self-consistent state or frame upon reality--in other words it must eventually seek a form of explanation which does not have to refer to antecedent or extraneous factors, but which is wholly self-contained. The trouble with this form of argument, from a symbolic standpoint, is that it results in a conceptual system that is identical to and inseparable from ideology. We cannot fundamentally prove self-consistent states, because we cannot fundamentally disprove them, in at least the intrinsic terms that they are defined by in the theoretical frame of reference. We can only prove or disprove a frame if we are allowed to step outside of its logical implications and structure.

How do we conceptualize a total universe, whether it is infinite or finite in structure? If it is finite, then in what do we imagine it to be contained within and what could we define as outside of that structure. There was a time when the Milky Way galaxy was thought to be the boundaries of the universe, and that was not very long ago. The boundaries of the observable universe have been pushed back a considerable distance since then, and some might argue that the inferable universe is even much larger still.

Our models of cosmology refer implicitly to various kinds of state systems. What I refer to as a zero-state model is a cosmology of a universe that is in some manner bounded, defined by some start state, some fundamental structure or some basic limit. A zero-state model is by inference a finite-state model of the universe. This is contrasted to a non-zero-state model, or an infinite state model, which, though in our explanatory structures we may forever approximate or approach a zero-state explanation, we cannot achieve it in any absolute or final sense.

We may also contrast a single-state model with a multi-state cosmological system. A single state-model would be one in which the universe was approximately the same everywhere, in all dimensions. In a multi-state or "meta-state" model, the universe as a total may comprise in a sense multiple different universes which somehow attach to one another, or run parallel to one another in basic dimensions.

Conceptualizing cosmology in terms of alternative state systems allows us to explore the possibilities of alternative cosmologies in a systematic manner, and the implications and presuppositions that may be associated with each kind of state-model. A hot big bang model that hypothesizes a cosmic egg in the beginning is really a zero-state, finite state model of the universe. The kind of model we implicitly adopt will determine the structure of implication and outcomes we arrive at in terms of alternative cosmological constructions. A zero, finite state model of cosmology for instance, can do certain things, like provide a hypothetical historical time-line of events from a start state to some finish state, but it cannot do other kinds of things, like explain how this cosmic egg might have come into being in the first place.

The model of cosmology that I'm inclined to argue for is one that is a non-zero-state, single state, dynamic state and a meta-state system. This model seems at least dialectically to be the most satisfactory explanation of observable phenomena from a systems point of view. Any other kind of model, for example a zero-state, multi-state, static state system, results in too many logical conundrums to seem tenable. The dynamic state model I have developed is a one that has been achieved logically, and that ultimately I believe rests upon its own logical coherence and general consistency with observational frameworks, but the logic of the system then depends upon one's primes and one's point of view.

From the standpoint of total cosmology, a meta-state system would be one that always encompasses and surrounds, but is itself never encompassed or surrounded. It does not exist "in and of itself" in some independent way, but is always a part of some larger framework of pattern and order in the structure of reality.

A single state cosmology seems to me more consistent and consonant with the cosmological paradigm--basically that things are the same in all parts of the universe, and what we find locally is not essentially different from what we can presume to exist remotely in the universe. The cosmological principle states that there is no overarching preferred sense of directional order to the universe--the universe as a total is somewhat haphazardly, randomly and chaotically articulated. This is not to say there is not universal order to its patterning, but this order itself does not exist within a single unified system. Another way of looking at this is to suggest that the universe as a whole does not constitute a single, well integrated system, but consists of a meta-system of possibly an infinite number of systems that are not deterministically organized in relation to one another.

With non-zero, infinite state models, we do not necessarily have to explain the "origins" of a system in terms of some initial or original start state. If a system is infinite, it is also by inference eternal, and if it is eternal, it had no beginning and will have no end. What we seek to explain instead are not first or final states, but one of several systems based mechanisms: 1. The rise of states from subsystem states; 2. The developmental sequence and deterministic order or trajectory of systems in terms of basic state changes; 3, The predictable outcomes of developmental systems in terms of the long run and the structure of the large.

The greater the number of states we attribute cosmologically to the universe, the greater the complexity we can infer from the universe. Cosmologically, I'm inclined to accept a model of a single-state universe, though not ruling out completely the possibility of a mult-state universe, or rather multiple universes. From the standpoint of scientific accounting and accountability, a single-state model is perhaps the only provable one we can have. This is not to say that multi-state universes cannot exist--even an infinite number of alternative universes--only it is liable to be very hard if not impossible to prove in any satisfactory way.

The Cosmological Principle & Paradigm

Cosmology is that branch of astronomy concerned primarily with the overall structure of the physical universe. Einstein's general theory of relativity made possible for the first time a self-consistent description of an unbounded self-gravitating medium. In general, the general relevance and applicability of science and scientific knowledge depends upon our ability to extend its results and inferences to a larger structure of physical reality. The ability to do so rests upon fundamental presuppositions that we make about the structure of our physical reality--that for instance what we experience in terms of physical reality here and now is what can be experienced virtually anywhere in the universe. The basic structure of physical reality is assumed to be everywhere the same even if we cannot directly prove or demonstrate this in a completely satisfactory or unequivocal manner.

The cosmological principle states that the universe is statistically isotropic in direction and orientation. In the largest sense, there are no preferred directions or orientations in the disposition of galaxies or clusters. This seems born out by observation for the most part, though the question of scale becomes important especially when we consider the likelihood that the universe may be infinite in extent.

The implications of the cosmological principle is that the universe is in its most basic and largest sense statistically self-organizing and that there are no larger over-arching structures that determine the organization of the universe in the largest sense. Observational evidence except for the apparent recession of galaxies seems to bear out the notion of the random distribution and orientation of galaxies, clusters and super-clusters in the universe. It seems strange to think indeed that a universe that is infinite in size can be anything other than randomly distributed. An infinite system cannot have a structure, because all things with a structure must be contained within some larger framework. An infinite system would have to be fundamentally self-containing and self-consistent.

A cosmological paradigm I would define as a general model of the structure of reality that we apply to explain the construction of the physical universe. Different models may be developed, leading to different outcomes in cosmological construction.

Basic cosmological principles that we adhere to, either implicitly or explicitly, include the following:

1. Universal Isomorphism of Fundamental Physical Structures: The fundamental structure and dynamics as we encounter this in our everyday physical reality, is presumed to be isomorphic with the structure of physical reality everywhere in the universe, under similar conditions. To put it simply, if we see stars in the distant reaches of space, we presume the basic structures that formed these stars are similar to or the same as the ones that formed our own sun.

2. Universal Statistical Isotropy of Dynamic Event Structures: Matter and motion in the universe is, in the structure of the large, is statistically homogeneous and isotropic--"no average property of the distribution defines a preferred place or a preferred direction." The universe therefore has no center and no main axis.

3. Universal Symmetry & Equivalence of Fundamental Physical Structure: In whatever event structure we may observe, fundamental principles of equivalence and symmetry always apply. For every particle of a certain kind created, we can presume that an anti-particle of the same kind is also simultaneously created. All energy equations always balance to zero. Mass is fundamentally equivalent to energy, so forth and so on.

One of the basic considerations of a cosmological scale has been in the presumed kinds of motion: 1. no motion; 2. contraction; 3. expansion. The presumption of static (non-dynamic) space was demonstrated by Einstein to be inconsistent with his relativistic field equations. He revised his equations to include a new hypothetical constant, called the "Cosmological Constant." Relativistic field equations have been found for instance to admit of two kinds of dynamical solutions to the problem of the distribution of matter in space. Friedmann models show Space to be possibly curved, either positively or negatively. Einstein and Willem de Sitter developed a third solution to the field equations based upon a model of Space that is flat.

Armed with these basic assumptions, we infer by deduction the larger patterning of reality in terms of a total cosmology. We cannot directly see the total universe in an instantaneous or contemporaneous sense. The speed of light limits our observational sphere to a compass of the universe that is severely constrained in space-time. We depend upon the validity of our cosmological inference structures therefore in order to seek to build models of the total universe.

I'm inclined to a fourth cosmological principle, which would be stated in something like the following form:

4. Universal Statistical Complexity of Dynamical Space-Time Structures. In other words, in the larger structure of the universe curvature of Space-time may be encountered in a statistically homogeneous and isotropic manner--either in the form of negative space curvature, positive space curvature and flat space. Models of the dynamical state universe that I have constructed entail that this may be so. In other words, the structure of space we would encounter in a gravitationally unified system, like the solar system for instance, or upon earth, is fundamentally different from the structure of Space as this may be found in deep-space between different galactic clusters, or in other regions situated as these may be between different gravitational systems. We cannot specify universally a preferred orientation of the curvature of space-time. In the total volume of Space in the universe, we expect something like Einstein's cosmological constant to apply, and that the universe though locally dynamic everywhere, is universally static.

The dilemma of applying a cosmological paradigm to understanding the cosmological structure of the universe in a statistical manner is that we do not have a predefined volume of Space that would meet quantitatively criteria of a "sufficiently large volume."

If we set our sites merely to the limits of our own Milky Way, we would be inclined to reject the cosmological principle. There occurs no magnitude of statistical departures from strict uniformity or isotropy, given that such departures are always locally relative. I am inclined to impose a fifth cosmological principle, stated thus:

5. Universal Relativity of Dynamic Event Structures: All non-zero departures of variation from statistical homogeneity and isotropy of dynamic event structure are relative to the local space-time frame in which they occur. There are no non-relative, non-local, dynamic event structures that may occur.

It is beyond the scope of this brief note to further develop the argument for this last principle, except to state something like the following, in an open and hypothetical infinite universe, there occur no non-local, non-relative patterns or structures that are deterministically non-random. Any dynamic event structure that occurs, or that may occur, is relative to the local cosmological frame of reference in which it occurs.

The cosmological principle forms the core of a larger framework of related principles that I have called the cosmological paradigm. I am inclined to adopt not only the cosmological principle, but what I would call an entire cosmological paradigm based upon logical deductions from the central principle. In other words I would adopt what I would call a strong cosmological argument, namely that what we see is pretty much what we get everywhere in the universe. We should expect few exotic features, and no parallel universes or alternative dimensional universes (none that we can prove or demonstrate for that matter.) It is not to say whether or not parallel universes might exist, only that we probably have no way ultimately of knowing or demonstrating these alternative realities.

I'm inclined to think wherever we might get to in the larger cosmos, we will find things pretty much the way we find them here--the same matter, the same protons, the same gravitation, the same stars, etc. I expect no huge pain of glass in the universe that defines the limit, or an ocean of water in which the universe sits like a bubble. I expect in other words no dramatic state changes between the local area of the universe and hypothetically any contemporaneous area of the universe we might magically find ourselves within. Things generally do not just disappear in the night. Stars we observe in the heavens are pretty much the same ones in the same places, observed thousands of years ago. Stars just don't blink in and out of existence in the night sky, at least not most of the time.I adopt a strong cosmological paradigm in part because it keeps our scientific accounting systems as simple as possible, and in part because, in whichever direction we may peer in the night sky, we so far see nothing so remarkable that might suggest otherwise. We need to be able to carry on with the illusion that the science that works well for us on earth is the same science that will successfully carry us to the stars. Even if the universe is inherently and fundamentally dynamic, it is not so dynamic as not to have some fundamental sense of universal order about it--in fact, to hypothesize a dynamic state universe depends upon the presupposition of a strong cosmological paradigm, of a universal sense of order in event pattern. Otherwise the universe would only be chaotic and non-sense.

The cosmological principle is based upon the idea of that the whole or total universe is not gravitationally unified. I believe I can restate this in another way from the standpoint of dynamic state systems--no infinite structure may be gravitationally unified as a single system. The most we can expect from an infinite state is a meta-system that is locally organized in an infinite number of localities. This seems to be what we observe when we peer out into deep space.

The structure of the universe, gravitationally speaking, in the large and the long run, appears to follow the cosmological principle quite well. There are no observable overarching frameworks of gravitational unification. We may be mistaken in this matter, but presumably not and we prefer to proceed on the basis that we are not mistaken. In fact, if anything, the observable universe in the structure of the large and the long run appears to be "falling apart" everywhere, perhaps because it is not gravitationally unified.

There are no preferred non-local directions in the larger universe. Even the curvature of space-time must have no uniform value everywhere, and hence in the larger structure must be relatively flat and open in all directions. I would reject out and out even a Big Bang explanation simply because it seems to violate the first cosmological principle--there would be a general sense of preferred direction in the pattern of the recession of the galaxies from a previous state of greater concentration of matter and energy to a successive state of ever greater diffusion of matter and energy.

In the first place, systems appear to "work" and to increase order against a background of disorder. Systems appear to sustain themselves against a background of disorder.

The Simultaneous State Universe

Models of the universe based upon the observable sphere often fail to take adequately into account the problem of the depth of space-time involved in these observations. If we apply a strict cosmological paradigm to the structure of the whole universe, we must assume that there occurs at this time, now, a universe of vast dimensions, what can be referred to as a Simultaneous State Universe. This notion is easy to infer in terms of the moon and the planets. We have sent people to the moon and probes to many of the planets now based implicitly upon this presumption--the idea that the moon has a contemporaneous existence with the earth, and that we can predict its trajectory and hit is as a distant target and it will still be where we think it will be by the time we get there. When we shoot for a distant planet, we do not do so by line of sight--we shoot to intersect it in its orbit around the sun based on what we can infer from its current and past trajectory.

According to a cosmological paradigm, therefore, we must presume the contemporaneous existence of a total universe, co-occurring now and in an on-going sense. We know that, given the vast distances of space-time involved, we cannot observe directly the contemporaneous disposition of galaxies and far-off star systems. The best we can do is to infer as much as we know about them based upon what we can tell about them from past observations, even if these observations are essentially millions or even billions of years old.

I think it is this that I find most remarkable about the inference of Big Bang cosmology, as it is inferring a Simultaneous State System based upon observed patterns of systems that are tied to a very remote and distant past. If recession of galaxies has been occurring continuously over the past 16 billion years, then we must assume that the universe now is in fact much more broadly dispersed as a Simultaneous State System compared to what we can observe of the past 16 billion years. This may in fact be the case, and then we would have to assume that the actual locations of far-off systems from the earth is much greater than we can assume through our observational measurements.

It is not only difficult to guess exactly what the Simultaneous State system is like now, but ultimately it may be impossible to tell.

The cosmological paradigm supports the notion of a Simultaneous State System, and the presupposition of a simultaneous state system reinforces the notion of the cosmological paradigm. We are lead to believe, in conclusion, that what we are observing in the universe in the large and in the long run is a fairly stable steady state system. We observe a Milky Way galaxy that has been in tact probably for thousands of years, continuously, even if it is something on the order of 160 thousand light-years in diameter. We would not be incorrect to assume that its simultaneous state is more or less the same as we observe in the starlight from 100 or more thousand years ago.

The bottom line, it seems, is that things in the universe don't seem to change that much, that quickly. When we look to any appreciable depth in the universe, we observe galaxies that are even 6 or 8 billion years old in terms of their light. It is unknown if an observer from one of these galaxies would be able to observe us or not, whether or not our galaxy is that old in the first place such that its light would be reaching that far off place. Assuming it is, we can say that that alien observer would be seeing our galaxy not as it is now, but as it was about 7 billion years ago.

There is reason to assume, from the cosmological principle and what we can observe of the universe, that even if we cannot observe directly remote areas of the universe as they contemporaneously exist now, what we do observe approximates more or less what does simultaneously occur in a contemporaneous sense. Galactic structures that occur proximately to earth appear more or less the same as those that appear remotely, and this suggests, in terms of their structure, a fundamental long term stability of pattern. The distribution of our own galactic super-cluster, of a diameter of some 150 million light-years, appears more or less similar to what we can observe of even more remote clusters and super-clusters in the night-sky. What this suggests is a strong sense of stability and continuity between the deep past and what can be referred to as the remote and far-off, but Simultaneous present.

We should expect few if any abrupt discontinuities across the inferable breadth of a Simultaneous State system, even if we ultimately cannot guess the exact distribution or the exact state of any existing star systems within its contemporaneous sphere.

Doing so is not a leap of blind faith, even though we are blind to observe the Simultaneous State Universe, but it is an act of sound judgement based upon what we do know and what we can see about the universe.

Another way of looking at this problem is to assert that the line of continuity that connects our remote past to our present, which we presume to exist in our observable universe, is a similar line of continuity that projects out in all directions from the remotest and earliest window we have upon the universe.

Cosmological Parallax: Observable and Inferrable Universes

It is evident that what we can hypothesize by application of the cosmological paradigm consists of what can be referred to as the Simultaneous State Universe, which is the total universe that exists now, at this moment. It is evident that this is not completely isomorphic with the universe that we observe at any instant, because we are constrained by the constant speed of light and by the vast depths we observe. We cannot see the Simultaneous State Universe, and we cannot know the exact distribution of the current distribution of the total Universe at any one instant. The Simultaneous State Universe may be said to be essentially beyond our reach or even beyond our sphere of observation or observability.

The greater the depth of space-time we collect light from, the greater the parallax difference between what we see and what we must infer to exist in a simultaneous sense. This sense of cosmological parallax corroborates to some extent with what we call the red-shift and the apparent cosmological recession of galaxies. We cannot observe an appreciable recession of galaxies in a simultaneous sense of what is happening now--we only find greater inferred recession with greater depths in space time that we appear.

In fact, it is likely that there are very large regions of the simultaneous state universe that we will never be able to directly see or observe. It is for this reason, if no other, that I think it is highly unlikely that we will any time soon come into contact with intelligent alien life forms unless perchance these forms have evolved proximate to our solar system. Otherwise they are likely to remain, in a contemporaneous sense, beyond our effective reach.

Cosmological parallax is of no significant concern in our observations of our own solar system for instance, or even in our own neighborhood of local stars. It becomes a much bigger program when we venture to observe increasingly remote objects.

The question becomes, how do we overcome our sense of cosmological parallax between observable and inferable universes, and how can we realistically infer a cosmological model of the Simultaneous State Universe? Only by invoking and projecting onto the universe at large what we assume to be the correct cosmological paradigm. We find relatively long lived galaxies occurring proximately and distally--they assume a range of forms and a random axial orientation in space-time, suggesting non-isotrope distribution.

If we can assume the simultaneous state of our Milky Way galaxy, we can reasonably infer a simultaneous state for more distantly removed galaxies. In other words, there appears to be a certain order and stability of the organization of the Universe in the proximate regions of Space, and these appear more or less to be similar to the order and stability of more distal regions we do observe in greater time depth. It can be concluded that, though we cannot directly observe their current disposition, there is a long-term stability and order to most systems, more or less like our own. Of course, there will be occurring in a simultaneous sense major event structures that, remote as they are from us, we will not notice for a long time to see.

We can make some inferences. One I like to make is in the inferable size of the universe based upon what we can see. If we see galaxies to a space-time depth of 16 billion light-years for instance, and we can infer that light from those distant sources carried omni-directionally, we can conclude that the Simultaneous State Universe is probably at least 32 billion light-years in diameter, and probably at least 64 billion light-years in diameter if we assume that the light that travels from our own point of origin carried omni-directionally during the same time frame.

This of course only olds if we presume a more or less flat or non-isotrope structure to the curvature of space-time. If space-time is isotropically curved in some way, then it is possible that this light that would be 64 billion light-years in circumference would in fact have traveled in some huge circular arcs. Of course, such presumptions go against my presumption of a strong cosmological paradigm, and so I like the values of 64 billion light-years for an inferable diameter instead. Of course, if this is true, then we can expand the circumference even larger through deductive logic--assuming any galaxy on the perimeter of a 64 diameter would be also omni-directionally broadcasting its light for at least 64 billion light-years, and we end up with a total diameter of something like an incredible 172 billion light-years.

The observable universe appears constituted by protonic systems of matter, more or less the same in construction and constituency. Systems of considerable space-time depth appear similar and consistent to systems locally proximal to our own.

Olber's Paradox and the Inferrable Universe

Olber's paradox is this. If the universe is infinite in size, then the deeper we look in space, the greater the number of star systems we should see, until we see an infinite number of such systems. If we could record a year long time-lapse photo from a spot in space 10 billion light-years in depth, it is likely that we would see something like Olber's effect occurring, which would be a grainy surface lighted at many different points.

Olber's paradox resolves itself on some basic principles:

1. The total density of matter in the universe is infinitely smaller than the total size of the universe in terms of its total Simultaneous volume of Space.--no matter the resolution of our telescopic instruments, whatever space-time depth we are capable of observing, the ratio of matter to space at that depth will only decrease and not increase.

2. With increasing depths of space-time, the ratio of the volume of matter to the volume of Space drops exponentially.

3. If the Universe is very, very large and very old, there are probably galactic star systems that are further away from us than they are old, in terms of their distance in light-years. We will not see the light from systems that are essentially 5 billion light-years away from us but only 4 billion years old.

4. With increasing space-time depth, the ratio of systems that are further than they are old will increase compared to systems that are older than they are far away.

Why might Olber's paradox be of interest to us in making inferences about a Simultaneous State Universe?

The further away an object is, the brighter it would need to be in order to be observable from the earth. There are objects even relatively close to earth that are basically unobservable because they are either not bright enough or not large enough to be observed with our current light resolving powers.

Given a certain level of resolving power to our telescopic instruments, we might state the following principles:

1. At any given depth, there will be a percentage of objects in the night sky that will remain unobservable.

2. With increasing depth, the percentage of objects in the night sky that remain unobservable will increase, and the percentage of observable objects will decrease.

3. With great depth, the percentage of objects in the night sky will fall off to almost nil.

4. There is a depth beyond which no objects I the night sky will be large enough or bright enough to be observed from the earth.

These values of course will depend upon the resolving power of our telescope instruments--the greater the power of our instruments, the greater the depths of vision involved and the greater the percentage of visible versus observable objects at any depth. Regardless though, the same principles will hold.

Though cosmologically speaking we can say that matter in the universe is probably distributed more or less randomly, we cannot assume that this distribution is uniform or even. In fact, from what we observe, we can deduce a fairly non-uniform and non-isotrope distribution of matter in the universe. Matter that is most apparent to us is collected into fairly large systems and in no region appears to have a fairly uniform distribution.

The random but uneven distribution of matter in the universe further helps to resolve Olber's paradox, because only a random distribution could present to us at some point a uniform background of light from multiple or infinite distant sources.

Models of the Total Universe

According to the theory of the Dynamic State Universe (DSU) all cosmological systems tend in the long run toward gravitational unification of various complex kinds. This means that all systems in the beginning started from relatively un-unified states and gradually evolves through a sequence of sometimes predictable steps toward more unified systems. Gravitational unification in the long run entails a degree of self-organization of systems in nature and the generation of spontaneous motion of mass-bearing bodies of matter in relation to one another. Gravitational unification in the long run tends to occur in larger and larger context, encompassing increasing distant systems, and tends toward a common center of gravitational unification.

According to this theory, then, there are no original centers of the universe. The universe will in time develop large regional centers, which will in time coalesce into some larger constellation depending upon the overall distribution of mass.

This theory is predictive based upon the model of spime-gravitational mechanics. All bodies of matter, no matter how small or large, dense or rarefied, have or eventually achieve focally concentric gravitational fields that structures the relative space-time manifold and that are said in the structure of the long run and large to be gravitationally unified. Any single body may be subject to the motional and gravitational dynamics of multiple gravitational frames. We are for instance bound to the earth, which in turn is bound to the sun, which in turn seems bound to the Milky Way. We would expect that the Milky Way in turn is bound to or eventually will become bound to a local cluster of Galaxies with an increasing degree of regularity and order.

Spime appears to be fluid, and this fluid dynamics appears to occur as a fundamentally stratified well-system with possibly a continuum of an infinite range of levels or strata. Within this continuum we can have multiple layers or levels of gravitational flow in all directions simultaneously.

Models of the Origin of the Solar System

We can only account for the matter contained in the earth, the other three rock planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the Giant Gas Planets of Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn, and Uranus, as well as the larger asteroidal planet, Pluto and Charon, as the product of ancient star systems of relatively small size in the core of which this matter, in large quantities, was produced. Either these ancient stars burned out and formed single core masses, or else at some stage in their sequence expanded violent to produce a shattered cloud of remnants. Our own sun, at some stage in its path through the Universe, picked up these remnant fragments. These fragments then coalesced over time to produce the configuration that we are familiar with. The location of the major planets along a major plane about the Sun can be ascribed to the tendency for planets to have found stable trajectories about the central axis.

Almost certainly, large quantities of Asteroids in the Asteroid belt and meteorites contained in the Kuiper belt and in the more distant comets must have been the by product of burnt out suns or stars that have been split apart as the result of collision, internal forces or proximity to other large gravitational bodies.

We may conclude therefore that the matter contained in the current Solar System has the following characteristics:

1. It was the end-product of fusion reaction pathways that occur only within a star of relatively small size.

2. It is very old matter, far predating our estimates based upon established theories of solar system origin.

3. Radioactive decay of long lived elements would provide a measure of the age at which fusion reactions ceased (previous Star fusion) and fission reactions and decay patterns began to occur in absences of further fusion.

The alternative model is that the Sun at some early stage in its development was part of a larger binary system involving an older and possibly smaller star--either the gravitational forces of the two stars in conjunction, or alternatively the late stage collapse of the second star, resulted in the distribution and gradual redistribution of solar system mass that eventually achieved the status as we know it today.

We can identify the Solar System as it exists today as a Tertiary Gravitational system that involves the spontaneous movements of multiple large gravitational bodies about a common center. We can identify within this multiple Quaternary Gravitational systems that involve the complex motions of lunar orbitals around major planetary bodies.

This system is very old, and probably evolved through several stages. It is conjectured that:

1. This system evolved first from a primary gravitational system, involving possibly a single star forming region or cloud

2. This primary system eventually developed and coalesced into a secondary gravitational system, that involved the separation of the cloud into a binary star system, or alternatively the capture of a second star by the first primogenitor star.

3. This system eventually evolved into the tertiary gravitational system that was precursor of our own solar system that involved the early self-organization of the basic planets about the sun, and the coalescence of these planets.

4. This system eventually evolved into the super-complex kind of Quaternary system that we observe today.

Some of the present day components of the Solar System were possibly captured stray bodies of matter, mostly likely when the sun passed through a region of gallactic space possibly more cluttered by debris than what appears to be the case at this time. This is especially the case for bodies within the Solar System with largely elliptical movements that are not in the same direction or along the same axis of rotation as the majority of the planetary bodies. There was a period of the early formation of the Solar System as a tertiary gravitational system in which there was much more meteoritic and asteroidal debris that currently seems to be the case, and in which much of this debris was far less organized into stable mutual trajectories than is currently the case. The crashing of these smaller bodies into larger gravitating bodies was a part of the self-organization and stabilization of the earlier solar system, including the coalescence and unification of multiple gravitating bodies into a single unified system.

It is likely, based upon analysis of lunar rocks, that our own moon is a captured satellite that formed a stationary satellite system. We can conjecture the following components of this theory:

1. Tertiary gravitational systems will tend in the long run to be self-sorting, with spontaneous motion arising from the forces involved in multiple gravitational fields.

2. Tertiary gravitational systems will tend to stabilize along a major axis or plane of rotation.

3. Tertiary gravitational systems will tend in the long run to coalesce into stable configurations.

This is derived and predicted from a theory of gravitational mechanics and dynamics, and this kind of theory of the origin and development of the Solar System is in keeping with this theory as well as with a larger theory of a dynamic state universe that predicts, among other things:

1. The universe is far older and more complex than otherwise attributed by previous theories.

2. Parts of the universe have passed through multiple stages of development.

3. All complex atomic matter is derived from a single main developmental sequence that begins with:

a. spontaneous formation of hydrogen gas from light and gravitational forces arising originally from turbulent space-time flow (white-sources)

b. hydrogen gas clouds coalesced and condensed to create star forming regions in which larger gravitational bodies emerged through unification.

c. hydrogen based and hydrogen burning stars of different sizes form to produce varying quantities of helium and lower number elements in various percentages.

d. Stars tend to be self-fueling entities that maintain relatively stable long term life spans lasting (X x 10⁹) many billions of years.

e. Stars will develop over the long term super hot plasma cores consisting of higher number and super-heavy atomic nuclei; the pathways of development of nuclei of different percentages and weights must be super complex

f. Eventually, in the life-cycle of a typical solar-sized star, internal gravitational forces will develop which will result in the demise of the star as a hydrogen-producing/hydrogen burning generator. The star will pass through a phase of expansion involving internal reorganization of its structure, eventually blowing off or losing its lighter gases, and then increasing in temperature as it produces greater percentages of higher number nuclei. No new hydrogen gas is produced, and what hydrogen remains is either lost through solar wind or consumed in higher number fusion events.

g. Once its basic hydrogen supply is depleted and all available or new hydrogen is used in higher number events, the remaining structure, just a shell of a furnace, then either explodes, disintegrates under its own gravitational forces, or implodes, or else, if of small enough size, it cools down to the point that it becomes a brown dwarf that is astronomically relatively invisible.

The Development of Galaxies

If we apply the framework of gravitational dynamics/mechanics to larger structures such as galaxies, we can hypothesize that galaxies may have a typical state-path trajectory through the universe and they they tend to This kind of model of the origin of solar system is suggestive of a taxonomy of galaxies and a model of gallactic development.

The problem in conjecturing about galaxies is that the degree of gravitational unification observable in galaxies is different than found in well developed formations such as the Solar System. The distances involved are much greater, the gravitational forces much weaker and vaster, and the number of primary units in such systems so much greater--astronomically so.

The observation of galaxies appears to invite its own dilemmas. In the main, galaxies do not appear to be united on any higher level of unification except possibly for gallactic clusters which appear to be relatively loose formations of relatively proximate galaxies. Galaxies have been observed to have collided with one another, and we can speculate as well that a single large galaxy in time may eventually evolve and split apart into two distinct, proximate galaxies.

Further, in the astronomical observation of galaxies, we see particular galaxies from a very limited angle and possibly from only one single side--it is difficult if not impossible to determine the exact configuration of a galaxie--whether from a distance it is a truly spherical epliptical galaxy or rather like a plate or discus eliptical. We do not, in other words, have the luxury of being able to pull a galaxy from the night sky and observe it as a specimen in our telescope from limited angles--in general, our observational parallax is severely restricted, from a single virtual point of view.

Also, the time frames we are implying are so vast that it is difficult if not impossible to determine the direction of development of any single system--whether it is a spiral turning eliptical, or an eliptical becoming more spiral.

According to theory, epliptical galaxies should come in two basic kinds--early stage elipticals and late stage elipticals. Early stage elipticals will emerge from irregular galaxies and should tend to organize along a major plane or axis to appear discus shaped. The stretching of the eliptical will continue along a major plane/axis to form long arms that eventually begin spiraling. The center shrinks and at the minimum phase of concentric orientation might possibly disappear to form two separate galaxies formed of either arm. The galaxy then eventually takes on a classical pin-wheel spiral shape with a definite center. Eventually the center will begin growing again and become more prominent, with a true spiral galaxy emerging with the arms full rotated about the central axial plane. Eventually the arms will begin to reemerge with a growing center, until a late-stage eliptical emerges that is tightly organized about a center and that contains at its center one or more very large black hole systems.

The spiral galaxy can be understood as a gravitational vortex about a common center. The original galaxy would lack a concentric or central gravitational orientation or sense of unification. It would be predictably "irregular" in shape.

We can speak of the evolutionary development of galaxies based upon the theory of gravitational mechanics.

a. Early galaxies will be elliptoidal with a complex center lacking any great measure of unification.

b. These galaxies will in time stretch out both along a major plane and a major axis of gravitational rotation.

c. This stretching will gradually continue until a bar shaped configuration occurs.

d. The bar shaped configuration will tend in the long run to elongate until spiral formations appear on the ends, which spiral formation will continue to grow to the point of maximum distension of the galaxy. Spiralling is an expected shape for a galaxy sized gravitational system

e. Eventually, the distended arms of the pin-wheel galaxy will reemerge with the central region of the galaxy.

f. In time, the center of the galaxy will begin enlarging into a stable true eliptical formation with either a single primary gravitational center or alternatively a single black-hole system that is unified and stable in configuration.

Such an end state galaxy will tend to be stable and long lived unless and until it collides with another galaxy, or possibly it recycles to produce a new generation of stars--a second generation galaxy which repeats the original state-path trajectory. We can speak of a stable black-hole system composed of one or more central black hole stars with any number of orbiting solar systems.

If a galaxy does not produce many new stars, it is likely that the percentage of old and dead stars it possesses increases in proportion to the degree that the galaxy itself becomes like an astronomical fossil.

This conjectural state-path trajectory of galaxies implies that stars should migrate along the arms of the spiral galaxy, traveling first away from the center as the system distends, and then returning back towards the central region of the galaxy. It is unknown if star type or size determines the state path trajectory of a star, or its original position in relation to the Galactic center. It is conjectured that larger and denser stars will have both a shorter state-path trajectory and one that is more tightly bound to the center, while smaller and lighter stars will tend to have a much longer state-path trajectory that may result in a wide peringrination between the center and the outer-most regions of a galaxy.

Stars of galaxies also appear to begin motion in the same general direction, rather clockwise or counter-clockwise. The arms of spiral or bar galaxies suggest either a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction of spin. This motion is the main motion of the galaxy that is self-organizing about a common central region and defines the main axis of rotation as well as the main plane of rotation, which is always perpendicular to the central axis of rotation. Why this central motion should be either one direction or another is a mystery, but may be completely by chance--the flip of a cosmic coin.

Galaxies should be seen as very long-lived and hence very old systems in the universe. They on average probably have a life span at least a thousand times older than that of any star system they contain (Ayears x 10¹²).

As a consequence, we can conjecture that a single galaxy will be the context for the life and death of many different star systems and that successive generations of stars may come to follow the path of the life cycle of a galaxy.

Based upon the cosmological principle within the framework of a Dynamic State universe, at any single instant in the universe new gallaxies should be forming and old galaxies coalescing, but these should be relatively few and far between, observationally speaking. Most observable galaxies will be along some intermediate stage of their state path trajectories. In the structure of the very long run, we would expect as well the increasing frequency of end-state galaxies, and the decreasing relative frequency of beginning state galaxies. Otherwise, within our immediate observational sphere, we should expect a relatively random admixture of mostly intermediate, young and old galaxies.

We would also expect in the long run the coalescence of galactic clusters or super-clusters based upon increasing degrees of complex unification. In other words, in the structure of the long run, the universe will organize itself, albeit from the very small, and very local, to the very largest and grandest of scales.

Upon the horizon of our observational compass of the universe, we see what are the oldest structures available to us. If these are basic galaxies, then we should take to heart the fact that even upon the very edges of our observational sphere galaxies already formed and themselves very old present to us a vision of the universe that is as old as it is large.

On the Origin of Galaxies

If the larger regional structure of the distribution of mass/matter in the universe is reticulated, then we can claim that the universe is fundamentally isotrope on a regional level of organization.

If the theory of spime dynamics is correct then a typical sun-sized star will in the course of its life time produce one billion (1.0 x 10⁹) its own mass in free secondary hydrogen. Thus, mass systems in the universe can be construed as self-propagating and growing in their total mass output, defying on a basic level the laws of thermodynamics conventionally construed. We need not thus invoke an explanation of primary or pristine production of hydrogen without the preexistence of mass based systems. Such an explanation is necessary and cannot be ultimately avoided, but it is possible that such processes, which may be occurring yet now, happened so remotely and occur so distantly in space-time that they are difficult to empirically validate or verify. On the other hand, they may be so common place that they are occurring literally beneath our very noses without our knowing it.

Galaxies have their origin in very large cloud formations of hydrogen, however formed. These vast oceans of hydrogen appear as self-consistent bodies in the universe, and within their interiors it is assumed that various kinds of forces may be at work in massive star formation process--not just one or two stars at a time, but hundreds or even thousands of stars being created simultaneously, grown out of the surrounding gases and plasmas drifting like a fog through space.

Because space-time in the structure of the large and the long run are thought to be infinite and open, it becomes possible that an unlimited amount of matter can be produced and yet not exhaust the total reservoir of negative energy locked upon in spime. However much matter has been produced in the Universe, and this amount is vast, the total amount must be finite in terms of count or volume, and though this number would continue to grow astronomically in a non-linear manner, the universe regionally or in terms of a larger framework never appears to become full or "filled up" with matter.

Last Updated: 08/25/09