22) Problems of Big Bang Theory as Origin of Universe with reference to the timing of history

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) was born as a result of Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding in 1929. BBT was initiated by the Belgium priest and cosmologist George Lemaître. It postulate that the origin universe was started by the explosion of a primeval atom, which later evolved to be called the big bang "singularity". The story is very well known, there is no need to go into details here. So, has Big Bang Theory succeeded in explaining the real origin of the universe? I am afraid not! Because first of all, Big Bang does not explain the origin of its primordial singularity, and if Big Bang does not explain its own origin, then how can it explain the origin of the universe? We all know that Big Bang Singularity is a hypothesis. Lemaître once said  "The primeval atom hypothesis is a cosmogenic hypothesis which pictures the present universe as the result of the radioactive disintegration of an atom".  Actually all things that evolve out of a hypothesis must still be hypothetical. However, science has habit of trying to verify a hypothesis with experiments. That's fine! But there are certain limits. Firstly, experimental confirmation must be very precise and repeatable in numerous times, leaving no doubts whatsoever. Secondly, initial postulate must be at least realistic or credible and acceptable to logical rationality. One criterion to fix this problem in science is that all mathematical calculations must be in real terms or real numbers, never in imaginary quantities. If one knows a certain hypothesis is not realistic or at least plausible to start with, then even the best experimental confirmations are never enough, because the brain never really accept it. Not until a channel of explanation is built between the hypothesis and experimental results. There is a general consensus that the laws of physics should be elegant, simple and harmonious. These factors often act as excellent guides for pointing physics towards laws that might be valid and away from those that are false. An important writer once wrote "Beauty in any context is hard to define, but we all know it when w see it"... .   

But has Big Bang Theory truly explained the expansion of universe? After all that's how the theory got started. Bang! and voi la! There is your expansion! That's English cosmologist Fred Hoyle coined the theory "Big Bang". Well, that too, I am afraid won't do either! There have been many arguments against the theory of Big Bang universe. The newest ones are the over whelming discoveries during the entire last decade of the 20th century by various teams of scientists from US, Europe, UK and Australia (in fact, also scientists and researchers from different parts pf the world. Please read this InterNet Page http://www.cosmologystatement.org  which is an open letter signed by all sorts of scientists to the scientific community about their views on and against the Big Bang theory). Their combined discoveries from actual observation using space telescope and ground based telescopes all over the world invariably points to the decisive consensus that galaxies are receding away with greater speed than before, in fact, faster than the speed of light, therefore, the expansion of the universe has acquired a new name ever since. It is generally referred to now as the "Accelerating Universe"..... 

If there had been a big bang, even after the hypothetical Inflation, then the expansion of universe could only have slowed down with the passing of time, due to the gravitation of masses in the universe. The increased speed of mutual recession between galaxies can only mean that there is a continuous exertion of force from the individual galaxies. This of course cannot be the scenario of a big bang explosion, or plus Inflation, because after the big bang explosion there is no more force left to accelerate the receding speed between galaxies. The increasing speed of galactic expansion requires continuous exertion of force. Therefore, the recent discovery by all major groups of global astronomers has decisively taken the usefulness out of the big bang theory, since it can neither explain the origin of universe, not even its own singularity, nor can it explain the expansion of the universe, for which it was brought into existence. As it has obstructed the emergence of new ideas long enough, many scientists are saying why waste any more costly time, energy and money arguing about big bang theory, which is plagued with numerous difficulties..... Let me quote an example from a passage from the book "The Cult of the Big Bang. Was there a bang?" ISBN: 0-9643188-0-6 by William C. Mitchell ( to whom I have also given my earlier booklet, also called "Regenerating Universe" in 1998) :-

".... Of science and philosophy it is said that entities are not to be postulated beyond necessity. The following list is presented as an illustration of some concepts of modern BBT (Big Bang Theory) that may have been postulated beyond necessity and some of the associated BBT problems (in alphabetical order). 

Age Problems, Anthropic Principle, Background Radiation Problems, Big Bang Everywhere, Center of the Universe Problem, Chaotic Inflation, Chronology Problems, Collapsing Universe, Conservation of Mass/Energy, Convergence Problem, Copernican Principle, Copernican Problem, enormous Cosmic Repulsion, Cosmic String and Sheets, Cosmological Principle, Curved Space, Cycling Universe bounce Problem, Deceleration Problem, Domain Walls, Exotic CDM, Expanding Space, Fine-tuning,  Flatness Problem (Critical Mass/density), gigantic Galactic Formation, Grand Unified Theory, Gravitational Red Shift, The Great Coincidences of the Dimensionless Constant, the Great Event (Decoupling), Homogeneity, Horizon Problem, Inflation (Exponential Expansion), Isotropy, Light Element Problems, Magnetic Monopoles, Many Worlds, Missing Mass, Multiple Domains and Universes, Negative Energy of Gravity, New 10^1, 000,000 Inflation, Quasar Problems, Singularity (Cycling or One Shot), Smoothness Problem, Speed-of-Light Problem, Superluminal Flares, Symmetry Breaking, Theory of Everything, gigantic Vacuum Fluctuations, and Zero Net Energy... (The above list contains 48 major problems)

If ever a crop was ripe for William of Occam's razor, this is the time for harvest. It's totally unreasonable for scientists to continue to expend time, energy and expenses to generate support for a complex and terribly flawed BBT. In a recent article, commenting on the prevalence of violations of scientific method, cosmologist Robert Oldershaw said, "In the light of all these problems, it is astounding that the big bang hypothesis is the only cosmological model that physicists have taken seriously."  It's time for some alternative theories to be developed, presented and examined..... "   

Imagine a patient was ridden with 48 illnesses, and the sicknesses were becoming increasingly severe with every new discovery, what hope would there be for the patient to recover back to health? What causes all that complexity of controversies? I have a strange feeling that timing of history has much to do with it. The19th and 20th century were the age of revolutionary discoveries and feverish competitions with some degree of confusions, which should slowly even out in the 21st century with the advent of globalization, computerization and the pressure from the reality of space age. Mankind's inability to hold growth in population, coupled with the unstoppable speed of advancing knowledge and the ever greater need of natural resources, are now forcing the opening of an infinitely greater age, the age of cosmology and space technology. Indeed, we have barely entered the reality of a cosmological age, when the knowledge of all our cosmological environments are becoming paramount. If 500 years ago Copernicus hadn't taken risks to start the "Heliocentric Age", scientific knowledge could still be medieval, but he had, and ever since then, no one could stop or hold up the advance of science. However, the heliocentric world describes only our solar system. The next important step is to describe the galactic systems and then the structures of the entire universe. Today the human not only flies in the air, he is already living and working above in cosmic space and claims to have stepped on moon many times. He should hardly make another step further without knowing truly what kind of universe he is stepping into. But how? In the 21st century nobody burns scientists alive, but enough scientists have found it tough to break through the existing norm of cosmological belief.. 

Nevertheless, the 20th century proved that discoveries of electromagnetism and quantum physics have come through the test of time with flying colors amidst the confusion of curved space, dilated time, 4th dimension, and singularity. During the confusion many new ideas were fascinating and quickly snatched upon. Theory of relativity has much to do with it. Einstein was not the original developer of the mathematics called Lorentz Transformation, which formulated the theory of dynamic space and time by merging the linear phenomenon to the wave propagation phenomenon. As a result he was led to believe that linear velocity was completely identical to the speed of wave propagation. In believing that there is no difference whatsoever between the two phenomena mathematically, and through his personal assumption that speed of light is the "top limiting speed" of all motions in the universe, Einstein incorporated the belief in his Special and General Relativities, in his Energy-Mass equations and in his Principle of Equivalence. Those were the years when quantum physics and wave physics were still in their very early developments, and little was known about the true nature behind the seemingly constant and limiting speed of light in the late19th century and early 20th century. If Einstein had not treated the two said phenomena as exactly the same, then probably many problems that plague theoretical physics and cosmology would simply disappear in thin air, and of course, the theories of relativity would not have existed. This is a crucial point!. So, are the two phenomena, i.e. linear velocity of real objects "V", which belongs to classical linear mechanics or Newtonian mechanic, and the speed of light "C", which belongs to a non-linear sinusoidal transverse wave motion, exactly the same? Are they really compatible for transformation into the same mathematical equation? Is the speed of light really the fastest speed in the entire universe? Because these are the sources of confusion that have turned Newton's world and modern science upside down for a whole century. It is also important to the future of science. 

Since it is so important, we should look deeper into it! So, let me quote from a highly authoritative and famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" 1962 -1996, ISBN 0-226-45808-3 by Thomas S. Kuhn :-

".... Einstein's theory can be accepted only with recognition that Newton's was wrong. Today this remains a minority view. We must therefore examine the most prevalent objections to it. The gist of these objections can be developed as follows. Relativistic dynamics cannot have shown Newtonian dynamics to be wrong, for Newtonian dynamics is still used with great success by most engineers and, in selected applications, by many physicists.... Einstein's theory can be used to show that predictions from Newton's equations will be as good as our measuring instruments in all applications that satisfy a small number of restrictive conditions. For example, if Newtonian theory is to provide a good approximate solution, the relative velocities of the bodies considered must be small compared with the velocity of light..... In so far as Newtonian theory was ever a truly scientific theory supported by valid evidence, it still is. Only extravagant claims for the theory - claims that were never properly parts of science - can have been shown by Einstein to be wrong. Purged of these merely human extravagances, Newtonian theory has never been challenged and cannot be.... "   

Well, if Newtonian theory is still "a truly scientific theory supported by valid evidence" after more than 300 years and "Newtonian theory has never been challenged and cannot be", then it's about time to turn to examine if there is something wrong, and confusing, with Einstein's theory. The root of problems must lie in Einstein's theories, which treat nature's transmission of waves (C the speed of light in vacuum) to be comparable with the linear motion of any real object (V the velocity of clocks and measuring rods). If the two phenomena of nature are the same, or comparable, then of course, relativism can claim its triumph, if not, then the confusion of two entirely different phenomena of nature has unnecessarily turned the scientific world upside down for a whole century!      

Modern science, as summarized by Thomas Kuhn, regards Newtonian laws of motion as valid and compatible with relativity at low velocities, but incompatible at cosmological speeds, or extreme high speeds, such as the speed of light. The fact that Newtonian laws are considered partially valid is because in the 17th century the cosmological wave phenomenon was not yet discovered, therefore Newton could neither mix, nor separate, the speed of light with the linear velocity, say the flight of a bullet. Newton cannot be blamed for he had no way of knowing the speed of light was a wave motion, which is entirely different to linear velocity and should be treated separately. 

Note :-  Between 1998 and 2001 various scientists from US and Europe had confirmed that the remotest galaxies at the edge of observable universe are about 13 billion light years away. This coincides with the Hubble Radius, which means according to the known rate of Red Shift, if the galaxy recedes to the length or distance of Hubble Radius, then its speed has become equivalent to the speed of light. Further more, up to 1998 scientists around the world were expecting that the expansion of universe should be slowing down, but these scientists were surprised to find that the galaxies are in fact receding away faster than before. So the expansion of universe is in fact accelerating! This recent observations therefore show that galaxies are receding faster than light and still increasing speed. But of course they are! It should have been expected long before. Let me explain:- 

We know that light or electromagnetic radiation has energy (Sun's emission of radiation is often seen to push a comet tail in the direction of emission). Each galaxies produces and emits its own electromagnetic radiations (Please read details in page # 6) Where and how are cosmic waves (electromagnetic) created?), which push the neighbouring galaxy away. This causes the galaxies to recede from each other. This is the observed Expansion of Universe. As each galaxy continues to emit light waves or electromagnetic radiations, the distance between galaxies continues to widen and gravitation between them continues to decrease exponentially. The addition of radiation plus the decrease of gravitation causes the speed of separation between galaxies to accelerate. Meanwhile, the speed of light is constant and can only reach the Hubble Radius. So as far as earth is concerned, the lights from the remote galaxy (now seen to be nearly 13 billion light years away, or nearly the distance of Hubble Radius ) very soon will not be able reach us, which means no more pushing can continue between the remote galaxy and us. But between that remote galaxy and us there are numerous other galaxies, which are still pushing each other, especially those galaxies nearest to the remote galaxy. This means the remote galaxy must continue to move away from us in greater speed than before. And since its run away speed from us is already near or at the speed of light, it must continue to accelerate beyond the speed of light. There is absolutely nothing in the cosmic space to stop or retard it from going over the speed of light. Hence the relative velocity of receding galaxy V can easily be faster than the speed of light C.          

The speed of light is a motion of waves, while the motion of a real object is a linear velocity. Waves transmit energy by continuous propagation, while linear velocities of any real object are caused by non-continuous propulsion or by impact and cannot accelerate by itself.  Wave phenomena have a top energy or wavelength limit, which occurs when the wavelength approach theoretically zero, any other motions have no maximum energy limit. The speed of light is the product of wavelength multiplied by the frequency ( C = F x L ) that's why it becomes constant, because in the light or electromagnetic spectrum the wavelength decreases correspondingly as the frequency increases, i.e., wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. The two are always locked in giving the constant speed. Therefore the sped of light is fixed and limited, but other velocities in the universe are free and unlimited. The former obeys the transverse wave functions mathematically, i.e. C is expressed and calculated mathematically by calculus for sinusoidal transverse waves, which contains sine and/or cosine components, while the later V  follows only Newton's laws. They obey two different mathematical laws. Wave motions contain frequencies, wavelengths and spread or transmit energy side-ways, or in transverse directions, while linear velocities are strictly linear and directional. Even when the light wave is passed through a orifice, it is cut up into streams of light particles, but it still retains its frequencies. If the energy of wave transmission is measured only in linear direction, the rest of energies in transverse directions are lost. The speed of light is unlike a ruler or a clock, which have large weights, the light particle, photon, is weightless. It is merely a transmission of signals. 

Apart from what I have just described, the speed of light C in vacuum is constant, not because it is intrinsically always the same because every motion loses energy in transit, and the light wave is no exception. The constant speed C is to due the capacity of electromagnetic waves to interfere constructively. For instance when light enters a denser medium, such as water or glass, it bends direction and loses some energy, but when it reemerge from that medium, it regains its original direction and speed, because its waveform and energy has been restored or constructively interfered by similar adjacent waves in motion. This makes the nature of light motion extremely complicated, not only because it is a wave motion whose nature and origin are totally different from linear motion, but also because indefinite amount of energy has been added continuously while in motion. In fact, every single wave in the continuous chain of waves within the spectrum is being energized or re-energized due to the action of interference. Therefore, mathematically it cannot be treated in the same category as any other linear motion. Above all, it cannot be calculated or equated together with linear velocity V in the same mathematical expression, as shown in Special Relativity and in Einstein's "Energy-Mass Equation"...   

The electromagnetic wave radiations are primarily generated continuously by the galactic dynamic symmetry, then relayed and amplified through out entire cosmic space, while linear velocities of objects are driven by non-continuous propulsion or impact.  The speed of light is constant in spatial transit, while the velocity of a real object is not constant.  Therefore, in different aspects, such as the nature of photon wave transmission, the magnitude of total energy and the direction of motions, are all different between the two motions, hence the mathematics are different and cannot be legally treated as the same, i.e. V/C , as in the equations of relativity [Note: the Lorentz Factor 1/Ö(1-V²/C²) is the essence of  H. A. Lorentz Transformation, which Einstein used to postulate his Special Relativity. In this expression V is the linear velocity of real heavy objects (receding galaxies are real objects) and C  is the speed of weightless sinusoidal photon waves (light), thus two different motions are equated together in the same mathematical expression and treated as same in one mathematical equation to postulate Special Relativity.    

The expansion of universe can only be caused by energies emitted from the galaxies, since mere cosmic space, with no visible or any apparent means, cannot generate such colossal energy to shift the entire universe. Such cosmological movement can only be made possible by the galaxies converting continuously mass into energy and emitted them as transmissible electromagnetic radiations. So, as long as there are still mass to be converted into energy, or as long as galaxies continue to emit energy between them, the speed of galactic recession is already destined to exceed the speed of light. Any real object that can move faster than the speed of light ( i.e. V> C ) would render the mathematics of Lorentz Transformation 1/Ö(1-V²/C²) and the entire postulate of special relativity into imaginary territories... see Contents page #  3) On Mass and Energy where there is a more detailed illustration...       

Newton's laws of motion were developed purely from theory and experiments relating to mechanical or chemical propulsions, which are all linear phenomena in nature. It is this part of Newtonian physics that remains true till today. In other words, Newton's laws of motion were developed under the conditions of linear motions and will remain true under those conditions. In the17th century the cosmological phenomena of waves were unknown, because the wave theory and electricity was not invented yet. The invention of electricity then brought about electric and inductive magnetic propulsions, which are wave phenomena, different to mechanical and chemical propulsions. Therefore what bisects the line phenomenon and the wave phenomenon lies not in the velocity of motion but in the nature of motion. In other words, the conflict is in the incompatible natures of the two phenomena, which do not co-exist in nature as the same motion and therefore cannot be compared as one, even when they both appear as motions. To emphasize it again, wave motions are entirely different to linear motions, and vice versa. Newton is still right today because he never compared linear velocity with the propagation of waves or the speed of light. The true nature of light was not known for another 200 years. There was no way for Newton to experiment and understand cosmological wave phenomena until the invention of electricity. Consequently, Newton's laws of motion are still not intended to include wave motions. This is different from certain misconception that Newton's laws are wrong.... Even at low speeds the physical properties and mathematical calculations of the two phenomena are theoretically different...        

Despite the fact that Newton's Laws of Motion are regarded as true at low speeds but not compatible at extremely high speeds (or cosmological waves) such as light speed, yet at the time of developing the equations for relativities, both Einstein and H. Lorentz did not realize the difference. They did not realize that their own mathematics were based on purely Newtonian mathematics and had contained the incompatible nature between the low linear velocity of real objects (clocks and rods) and the speed of light (waves). Consequently, like Newton, Einstein also treated all motions in the universe as one same phenomenon mathematically as in the Lorentz factor (1/Ö(1-V²/C²).  But then, unlike Newton, Einstein, knowing the existence of light waves, yet still mixed the linear velocity and wave propagation into one and treated them as entirely identical or transformable, which he then incorporated into all his theories and mathematics, i.e., his Special and General Relativity, his Energy-Mass equation, where he compared the velocity of real objects V (clocks, rods, planetary orbits, etc.,) with the criterion of light speed C. It's exactly like comparing the flight of a tennis ball (any real body) to the wireless transmission of TV signals or sun's radiation. 

I am not surprised that Einstein had noticed the relative motion between a moving train and a stationary platform (relative motion), or changing food into energies to play football, or using sun's energy to produce foods (E = MC²), which I am sure many young curious mind also do. What's interesting is that Einstein did not develop his own mathematics for his historic discoveries, which most inventors would do, instead, he chose to fit his brand new inventions with someone else's established equations. In the end, both mathematical models for relativities turn out to be imaginary... because if V>C then Lorentz factor becomes imaginary. And Minkowski's 4th dimensional space is imaginary in the first place.  

O.K. If Newton's laws are good only at low speeds and not good at light speed, then there are two kinds of speeds incompatible to each other.. In other words, the velocity of real objects V should not be mixed mathematically with the propagating sinusoidal speed of light C. Yet this is exactly what happens in the equations of Special Relativity. All Lorenz Transformations (1/Ö(1-V²/C²) are equated with such incompatible speeds in the same formula. In other words the term V²/C² is in fact (classic linear equation)/(Differential Calculus involving sine/cosine components). We may also say that linear motion is a local motion caused by impact, which has a limited range, but wave motion is a universal motion, which has an unlimited range due to its capacity to propagate and interfere. The property of interference allows the wave motion to reach and unify the entire universe, while linear motion cannot reach very far. The energies that cause the two motion are different, hence their causes are different. The modes of the two motions are different, or the methods of motion are different. The mathematics or calculations of the two motions are different too. Then the effects or the consequences of the two motions are different as well. In fact, the two motions have no relationship between each other, and there is no physical connection between them, therefore, there is no "Relativity" at all!   

Therefore, we may sum up by saying " If two phenomena of nature are of intrinsically the same properties and nature, such as two linear velocities V₁ and V_2, then there is no reason to develop a relativity formula between them, because they are the same. But if the two are of intrinsically different nature, origin and consequence, then all the more there is no ground to develop a relativity between them, because they are not related and are different" or to treat them as compatible and then equate them together in the same mathematical equation. For instance, linear velocity of heavy objects like a clock or a ruler, propelled to move by non-continuous force, such as impact, obeys Newton's laws perfectly well for more than 300 years, then why not continue to use them to calculate all linear motions? If a wave motion, propelled by continuous propagation of wave energy, works well with calculus, then use calculus only for wave motion. Since each of them has its own separate nature and way of calculation, why not use it as it is. Normally I would have thought that sound waves move more like a linear motion, and more down to earth. I wonder why Einstein did not think they are related, and develop a theory for them. Electromagnetic wave phenomena C was a discovery more than 200 year after Newton. So if it was new, then why not treat it as new? Why mix it with the old? Similarly, if religion and science are to exist for long, they can only exist each in their own special domain obeying their own rules, mixing them together could only expose their conflict and expedite their end. (Note"-- This is getting serious, because Einstein's use of Lorentz's existing equation and Minkowski's time as 4h dimension of space to postulate his unique theories of nature is hailed as the work of genius, yet I dare to question its legality. I should be shot! And yet, as the space tourism is about to boom, I do believe time is right to debate and clear up some of the muddy waters and self denials in cosmology, at least those theories involving imaginary quantities, before everybody enters the proper space age.)     

Of course, without Einstein's Relativity there would be no curved space, nor ripples of curved space (relativistic gravity), nor Big Bang Singularity, then many out-of-world experiences and fantastic phenomena in cosmology would have been missed. Science would then be clearly distinguishable and disentangled between many practical earthly experiences and relativistic cosmological calculations... Actually, as far as gravity goes, which according to General Relativity, it is the not a force but the curvature of space (see graph on the left, which is the popular demonstration of how curved space act as the gravity of the ball), well, this can be experimented too. How about replacing the ball with yourself to get the most intimate experience? Just go to nearest gymnasium and clime onto the trampoline bed (or onto your bad). You can see for yourself whether the sacking of trampoline (or gravity) is caused by the stretching of the trampoline fabric, or by Einstein's gravity. If you are not quite sure, just imagine the fabric is a rubber sheet instead, which would probably sag even more. Actually, according to General Relativity every time you lift your foot walking, you would be making or treading on a curved space at your foot. I think you ought to notice it.     

But as it is, Einstein's general relativity plays a big part in the development of big bang theory. All this, I think timing of history also has a role in it. Before light was proved to be an electromagnetic wave, it was included and regarded as a linear phenomenon. By habit we are today still thinking of light as a beam rather than a wave. Light was discovered to be a wave in 1817 by Thomas Young with his two-slits experiment. The existence of electromagnetic waves were first postulated by Maxwell in 1865 but it was only detected in laboratory by Heinrich Hertz in 1888, a few short years before the publication of the Lorentz-Einstein Special Relativity. Between 1888 and 1927 when Heisenberg discovered the Principle of Uncertainty (which Einstein never agreed as he remarked that "God does not play dies"), followed by Edwin Hubble's discovery of Red-Shift in 1929, it was the time great developments of modern wave physics were taking shape, and at times ideas were changing. Einstein himself changed mind about aether and added General Relativity to Special Relativity. He also discarded his Cosmological Constant. There were other differences of opinions between Einstein and some scientists. Some even mistaken Einstein for a practical joker. It appears that in the early parts of the 20th century, there were not only great developments in science, but there were confusions too.  

Historic records show that the theory and mathematics of relativity for dynamic Time and Space were first developed by German scientist Woldemar Voigt in 1887. Therefore, the mathematics (later named Lorentz Transformation) was published one year before Hertz proved in laboratory (1888) the property and nature of electromagnetic waves.  In 1904 Dutch scientist H. A. Lorentz used Voigt's mathematics in the publication of his own version of relativity theory. But 1905 French mathematician Henri Poincare, not knowing the origin from Voigt, used the Lorentz equations for his own version of relativity and credited the origin of mathematics to Lorentz, which he called "Lorentz Transformations". Since then the name "Lorentz Transformations" got stuck. In 1905 Einstein published his own special relativity theory using Lorentz Transformation equations. There are various documents fully verifying that the theory and mathematics of special relativity stem originally from Voigt's publication in 1887.  Later H. A. Lorentz confirmed the priority of W. Voigt's work and suggested that the name of the equations should be called "The Transformations of Relativity".  Einstein's teacher Minkowski also confirmed the priority of Voigt. But it was only a year later in 1888 when Heinrich Hertz detected for the first time in laboratory the radio frequency of electromagnetic waves, for which his name was honoured. 

It was Hertz's important discovery that truly established beyond doubt the properties of electromagnetic waves, including light. Meanwhile, there was also the debate about the hypothetical cosmic media, called "aether", that was thought to conduct electricity. This debate went on for couple of decades further into early 20th century.  All this means is that the mathematics of relativity were developed by Voigt in 1887, it was well before the nature of light and electromagnet waves were fully understood, in fact, even well before quantum physics (1920s), the Quantum ElectroDynamic (QED) theory (mid 20thh century), the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interactions between elementary particles (1980s) were born (all about nature of light).  Amidst the confusion of priority for authorship of the relativity theory there were also obvious confusion of works published in different languages.    

However, the important question is not who was the stem author of relativity, nor whether one can or cannot mathematically transform different systems of motion, i.e. linear motion versus wave motion, into one equation, but rather one should or should not mix two different phenomena of nature and treat them as one only, even if there is a way to do it mathematically. For instance, Minkowski found a format to use an "Imaginary Time" to create the pseudo-reality of 4th dimension mathematically. It is not quite real because it starts with an imaginary time coordinate. 

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ).  So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x_1, x_2, x_3, x₄ ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x_1, x_2, x_3, t ) or rather ( x_1, x_2, x_3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x₄ is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as "world". Einstein called it "Spacetime Continuum". In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for "curved" or "None Euclidean" measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how "Time" became "Space" or "4th dimensional space" for mathematical purpose, which was then used in "Spacetime Curvature", "Ripples of Spacetime" and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ... 

 

Late 19th and the very early 20th century Europe was a time when all interesting impressionistic, even unreal ideas were quickly seized upon as evidenced by many new breeds of art (such van Gogh, or Manet, etc., latr Picasso) and music (such as Liszt and Wagner, etc.,). It came to a point when almost any ideas that could defy or break out of the bondage, control and doctrine of past many centuries had suddenly become refreshing and welcome, even whole heartedly accepted, even in science (such 4th dimension time, Spacetime Continuum, Ripples of Spacetime, etc., etc..). The subsequent 2 world wars seemed to have stopped the momentum and diverted those explosive energies. ....  Nowadays, paid space travel has already become a fact of life. But I do think it might be wise for the space passengers to check the design calculations of space-crafts before they embark on their journey. That is to say, any space passengers would be wise to check if the space crafts are designed with the postulates of 4th dimension, or spacetime consortium, etc.. .. 

 

I believe the future of science will always depend on established facts or proven theories, and of course repeated experience or performance, without a trace of doubt, certainly not impressionism. Unfortunately science, unlike arts, has such a lasting influence on engineering and education..... In fact, in the world such as ours today, filled and motivated by politics, medias and commercialism, everybody is trying to sell you something.  Fortunately, there is still such a thing, called logics or rationality, which prevails. If Newton's laws are true, they will remain true after 300 years, in fact, even after 300 million years. If what I have described in this pages are true, then time will prove that they are too. Otherwise, they will be proven otherwise.  Logics in science are the only truth that is naked! No amount of disguise or propaganda can hide the truth of logics and rationality, because they are timeless...      

In modern cosmology there are no shortage of impressive mathematics in support of entirely hypothetical theories. There are many versions of universes, all claim to be supported by mathematics. There are also black hole in the middle of galaxies, singularity, big bang, baby universes and more.... some are serious, some are meant to be fun....  in fact, just like relativity, 4th dimension, spacetime continuum, space curvature, ripples of spacetime, time dilation, energy-mass equation without specifications, and above all, even static universe, cosmological constant, etc., etc., ...  all of them are based and supported by mathematics, some of them purely by mathematics..... Of course, mathematics based strictly on reality and rationality will always be real and true, but if mathematics were developed or motivated from visions of imagination, then in the long run and at best the consequence could only be relatively real, but not absolutely real. For instance, now one hundred years has passed, and still no one has ever personally encountered curved space, nor dilated time in real life.... Modern telescopes are seeing things some 13 billion light years away, but still no curved space...   

As far as "C" the speed of light in vacuum is concerned, well, even today, modern science is still learning about the phenomenon of light. Because no other theory, has ever explained the origin of light, and how and why light becomes the same waveform energy across the entire universe, and why it cannot be the limiting speed, also why it is constant, as well as why and how light can travel through 13 billion light year distance in every direction and still be seen. At least, the theory here attempts to give a plain and simple logical explanation... Besides, impressionistic science has enjoyed fame and success for a whole century already, it's time to confront the reality and necessity of space travel and return some traditional values to cosmology. 

Boiling everything down, and for the interests of students of science and engineering, I think we may conclude that there are at least two interesting anomalies in Einstein's theories of  Relativities. Firstly, Einstein assumed all by himself without giving any theoretical background that the speed of light is top limiting speed of all motions in the universe. Now it is proven that the universe is expanding with galaxies racing away faster than light, and I have added my explanations. This renders Lorentz Factor, i.e., 1/Ö(1-V²/C²), in Einstein's Special Relativity an imaginary quantity. Secondly, the fact that Einstein used his teacher Minkowski's imaginary 4th dimensional time, ( x_1, x_2, x_3,√-1.ct ), to postulate General Relativity and took the whole thing seriously is an incomprehensible act in science. But thanks to his postulate the theories such as Space Curvature, Spacetime, Time Dilation, Ripples of Spacetime, Black Hole Singularity, Black Hole, Big Bang and Baby Universe... etc., etc., had kept many scientists busy digging and others entertained for decades, while it has also made many publishers rich. It's a pity that Einstein had withdrawn his theory of Cosmological Constant, because together with all his other historical contributions to science and to the education of the new generation of space scientists, he should indeed be remembered and talked about for a long time to come.. I sincerely welcome criticisms about my writing and will be truly grateful..