I sent this comment to Johan Masreliez, author of the Scale Expanding Cosmos (also a popular book titled “The Progression of Time”) and in full agreement he is forwarding the comment to other lists. We have found that our cosmological models are in strong agreement.  I thought I would post it here, as it turned out to be a fairly concise description.

TO: Johan Masreliez and other discussants

Hello,

I reached very similar conclusions to Johan’s SEC after a long and nearly coincident period of development without knowledge of each other. My approach was from a systems theory perspective, looking at ‘whole’ causal structures. I found a mathematical object that seemed to be universal – a wild claim by itself. So, I then went about applying it to extrapolate the idea as far as possible and see where it falls apart. I applied it to what it might imply about the cosmos and space time, and the result was the same scale expansion Johan discovered from the equations. The theory I applied began in biology by the mathematical biologist Robert Rosen and his mentor Nicholas Rashevsky. They did not consider cosmology, only biology, but I was testing its universality. I’m convinced it works and is the more parsimonious view of nature.

The meta-model of space time results in dual time scales — I call it ‘observational’ time and ‘intrinsic’ time. The French mathematician Robert Vallee also derived this conclusion and published it as the ‘intrinsic time of natural systems’.  Intrinsic time — what Johan associates with the atomic clock — has an infinite history. It scales as the log of observational time which is defined to be linear with an origin. If you take the log of zero you get negative infinity. One could also say that the expansion is exponential because the scale of space-time is self-referenced.  E.A. Milne was close to this idea in the 50’s. Ernst Mach had it intuitively but didn’t develop the mathematics, and although Einstein tried, his General Relativity ended up making the current compromise in which space expands and time does not. Interestingly, Einstein did not support the BB model[1].

What I’m finding is that the scientific community in the past several centuries needed to believe in some universal, given reality. This came from our intuitive feeling that something must be prior and greater than ourselves, and because our sensory experience is linear, we naturally project that there must have been an origin. Those two facts taken together would imply, naively, some kind of God who created the universe and remains as a greater reality. Now this three letter word refers to that prior or greater reality that we can’t know but project as a necessary ‘existence’ or perhaps ‘non-existence’ if existence means measurability or knowability. Science has to distinguish what can be known from what can’t. It doesn’t need to deny a larger infinite reality, even one that is holographically present in us, but it can’t begin formulating theories on the basis of something undefinable.

So, for everyday science it was fairly obvious to assume linear time, which we experience, and conservative matter and energy, which can be proven under most normal circumstances. The problem comes in extrapolating these working theories back to an origin – which we threw away at the beginning. Now we have an empirical idea for the origin that we started out knowing could not be empirical.

Actually, current physics preserves the compromise with standard religion by leaving origins to a distant God. But conflict still arises over whether or not that God can interfere in creation once it is set to run automatically.  Put more scientifically, the problem is if the laws governing the origin of a system participate in the laws of its operation, and perhaps vice-versa. If they do, we have complexity. Apparently, we have complexity.

If we take a machine, say a car, we can say it is governed strictly by the laws of operation. But is it?  The goal of the design engineer was to build something that would act that way as long as possible. But every mechanical device has a mean time before failure (MTBF). The reason is that all natural systems redesign themselves as they operate. The engineer is a kind of magician who separates these two laws long enough for us to rely on the mechanical properties, under limited circumstances.

Origin and operation are not miscible systems. So, this principle must also be true of the universe. In SEC the universe is re-designing itself (re-scaling) as it operates. That is what it must do as a natural system.

Regarding gravity waves and evidence for the Big Bang, the BB is a perceptual illusion. It will not go away as such. It is a singularity in the perception of history. Furthermore, even though SEC and my R-theory say it never had local properties as such, it is quite ‘real’ in our observational world. There are measurable properties of relativistic objects, even though relativity tells us that those properties don’t exist in the objects own local spacetime. We literally get something from nothing, and both remain true. It is something AND it is nothing; take your pick.

So as Johan says, we can describe it in either way and still be describing the same phenomenon. However, the better description, which is SEC, will lead to greater insights and further development. The theory we currently have is stagnant. We have already discovered its limits. Very little further development can be done. That is the problem with it, not that it is “wrong” in any practical sense. As its proponents are quick to point out, it works … up to a point.  So did Ptolemy’s circles.  The real question is “what’s next”?

On that point, the new theory does not need to be shown to be perfect. Like the previous one it will need development. In fact, if you follow my reasoning above, its value in the first place is that it leads to further development of science whereas the old theory does not. So the criteria for taking that leap are retrospective – about the old theory and its weaknesses, especially where it has revealed a paradox. The new theory need only be feasible and more parsimonious with respect to what the old theory covered.  Right now the current theory of space-time physics is perhaps the least parsimonious view science has ever had. It has violated one of its own fundamental principles. Which means to me simply that it is too complicated; the way they are calculating it and the assumptions those calculations are based on do not allow us to see important variability. We assume universal mass and energy, for example, and the new physics says all properties we measure are not just relative with respect to velocity, but relational with respect to gravity. In other words, mass is an artifact of expansion – the exponential scaling and re-design of spacetime itself.

I’m not sure what is described as gravitational waves that were supposedly discovered. But they are certainly mathematical entities in the present equations. I’ve just argued that mass itself, which we take as a prior universal, and which we can ‘prove’ exists (using the same equations), does not appear in a more universal frame of reference. It is an artifact of our view into history. I think in the same way that the energy of a relativistic particle is an artifact of our relative frames of reference, and is not an actual property of the particle. In this way we can ‘discover’ many particles depending on how we arrange our view. And I wouldn’t say the discovery is meaningless either, because these properties do have effects in our local world. It is just that their origin is not substantial or universal as such. So, the same can be true for gravitational waves. They can be properties of the geometry and not evidence of a big bang any more than they are evidence of the SEC geometry. The same was true of the CMBR. While it can be touted as being consistent with a BB view, it is not evidence of a BB any more than it is evidence of the geometrical properties of SEC. As another analogy, we can say that gravity is evidence that mass is real, but Einstein gave an alternative view that it is evidence of curvature of space-time geometry. Both can be ‘true’ depending on viewpoint.