"Is the Universe Much, Much Older Than 15 Billion Years Old?"
("Maps Keep Getting Bigger")
("Does the Age of the Universe Depend on the Size of the Telescope?")

by Ted Huntington

Can you imagine a time when life of earth receives images of the most distant galaxies from cameras sent to the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy? From the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy, we would see more of the most distant galaxies in that direction than we do from here. We would have to make our maps of the known universe bigger to include those newly found galaxies.

This process of making maps bigger is not new for people that enjoy learning about history. Even during the time of Christopher Columbus, many people thought that at the end of the map was the "end of the world", and they would fall off the earth if they sailed that far. For many years people thought that the Milky Way galaxy was the only galaxy, and the other blobs that appeared in the largest telescopes were "nebuli" that were close and orbited the Milky Way.

Some people think that the farthest galaxies we see represent the early universe at a time shortly after the creation of the universe, or the "big bang". Many people think that those distant galaxies and quasars represent the start of the universe, and that no galaxies or matter exist beyond those quasars we see. But I argue differently. I think that there are many, many galaxies beyond those most distant galaxies we see. To prove that point, we would need to bring a telescope as powerful as our most powerful telescope to a different part of the universe. From a different point we could see farther in that direction than we can from earth. Two other possibilities exists. If we continue observations in the direction the Milky Way galaxy is moving relative to all the other galaxies for enough time, we probably will see new "most distant" galaxies because we are moving in the universe even from earth. The other possibility is if we can make larger telescopes to receive more particles of light from galaxies farther than the most distant galaxies we currently see with telescopes like the Hubble.

There is an imaginary sphere around the planet earth that defines how far we can see out into the universe and depends on the size of the light detector (telescope) we are using. Another way of looking at this sphere is to ask, "how far away do we have to be for particles of light from a galaxy to never reach us?". These particles will have been intercepted by matter in other galaxies, or be going in a different direction from our very distant location. The farther a person moves from a point in space the more possible directions a particle from that point can go.

Even in two dimensions you can see how this is true. A larger circle has many more points on the edge than a smaller circle. The larger the circle, the more lines a person can draw from the center to the outside edge. If a person can only draw 10 lines from the center to the circle edge (each line can be thought of as the path of a photon), more of the points on the edge of the bigger circle will never see those photons.

Even when robots arrive at the three-star Alpha Centauri system, the star system closest to our star system, I do not doubt that the images received from powerful telescopes there will show at least 1 more "most distant" galaxy, a galaxy that no particles of light reach the earth, but do reach Alpha Centauri.

I think most people can not deny that eventually our descendents will have to enlarge the unlimited map of the known universe to include newly detected galaxies that can only be seen from more distant locations.

So is the universe only 15 to 20 billion years old? To find the velocity of a galaxy the equation is v=zc, (v=velocity, z=amount spectrum line shifted/wavelength of original line, c=speed of light). The Hubble constant is used in the equation Hubble created, d=v/H (d=distance, v=velocity of galaxy, H=Hubble constant). This constant is used to determine the rate the universe is thought to be expanding at. People use the Hubble constant, theorizing that all the galaxies eventually started at the same point and are expanding, to determine the time in the past when all the galaxies were at the same point in space (0,0,0,0). These numbers of 10 to 20 billion years are based on the rate of expansion taken from observed galaxies. Recently the most distant galaxy was seen (13 billion light years away, the light we detect from this galaxy has been moving for at least 13 billion years), one Internet news article claims that this galaxy is "being viewed 750 million years after the big bang" (their estimate must be a universe of only 14 billion years in age).

So the most distant galaxies we can receive light from must represent the beginning of the expanding universe. But if we had a bigger detector (a bigger telescope) would we be able to collect light from more distant galaxies? According to this theory, the bigger the telescope, the older the universe! If the theory that the farthest galaxies we see are the beginning of the universe was applied during the time of Herschel, people may have thought that what we now know are nearby galaxies (the only galaxies that could be seen with the telescopes of that time) represented the "beginning of the universe".

The "Big Bang" theory explains that all the galaxies that clearly are moving away from us, the most distant, the faster, all can be traced back to a single point, but clearly that point is not where we are. The Milky Way could not be in that special a location. But that point must be some where in the universe, we are still in a universe of 3 dimensions of space. One theory I want to put forward is that galaxies are moving to where there is more matter, because the part of the universe we see with our tiny detectors is probably only a very tiny part of the universe that is. The rest of the universe contains much more matter, the influence of that matter must be much greater than the influence of the matter we can see.

That the galaxies are moving away from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving must be shown and explained visually to as many people as possible, and verified for all galaxies using as many methods as possible, as should all of science. I am surprised that there are no galaxies with a Z dimension component that are moving toward us. According to every thing I have read, there are blue shifted galaxies, but they form a very small minority. Maybe there are some very large galaxies beyond what we can see that are pulling those (and our) galaxy. What people fail to mention is that our own galaxy has a direction, a vector relative to all the other galaxies. We are moving in some direction relative to all the other stars and galaxies that we can see. What is our vector? Is it (0.1,-0.7,0.7)? What are the vectors of the other galaxies? Are they moving away from us in a perfect sphere, or away from us in random x and y directions? After some searching on the Internet I find that "The Great Attractor" is the name given to the location the cluster of galaxies that include the Milky Way are moving toward. So I think looking in that direction for the most distant galaxies would be a productive long term experiment (and perhaps other directions, in particular the opposite direction to see what the rate of new galaxies detected or lost is).

When we measure the Doppler shift of stars and galaxies, our location compared to the light source we are measuring effects how much of the Doppler shift we receive. If we are directly behind the direction the galaxy is moving, we will get the largest part of the shift, but if we are not directly in line with the direction the galaxy is moving, we measure only a percentage of the actual velocity of the galaxy. We recognize that a galaxy (or star) has a z dimension velocity away from us, but unless we measure the Doppler shift from more than one location we can not determine the direction of the galaxy.

So I conclude that there may be an infinite number of galaxies beyond those we can see from here, that more distant galaxies will be detected as we continue to move with the Milky Way in some direction relative to the other galaxies, when we start to move to other stars, and when we start building larger photon detecting devices. If there are millions and millions of galaxies that we have yet to see, then the universe may be very, very old, if not infinitely old, making a figure like 15 billion years look very small, similar to the once popular biblical estimate of a few thousand years for the age of the earth.

Submitted to "Science": 11/22/04, "Nature": 11/23/04

I am battling for the opinions of a tiny minority of 30% of those that science plays an actual part in their lives. I only need to win over 16% of people on earth for a new scientific theory to take root.

Nature wasted no time in rejecting this story:
26th November 2004

Dear Mr Huntington

The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.

Nature Administration

This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
"Nature" and "Science" both have good submission systems, but "Nature" (and I am sure to a certain extent "Science", contains people that care little for actual truth, everything is about money, they are mainly a printing press. When things go fully free information and electronic, most people will hear these ideas as they do now in secret camera networks, not from magazines, although perhaps people at "Nature" will still be a source for new ideas in science, at the present time, they are a bore with articles no regular human could possibly relate to, or maintain attention span long enough to understand.

I received a message from "Science", that was different from the normal, this had the name of an editor and did not appear to be the typical autoprocessing form, so I am kind of excited for that.

update: later that same day 11/30/04:

> 30 November 2004
> Dr. Ted Huntington > independent > Irvine CA 92612 >

> Ref: 1107852 >

> Dear Dr. Huntington: >

> Thank you for sending your paper entitled "Is the Universe Much, Much > Older Than 15 Billion Years Old?"." I regret to say that it is not > the sort of work we publish.
> We appreciate your interest in Science.
> Sincerely,
> Phillip D. Szuromi, Ph.D.
> Supervisory Senior Editor
Thanks Phil,

That's ok, but is that not interesting? I don't think most people care about actual truth (which I view as being identical to science), but it is important to me that I tell the truth. Perhaps they care, but not officially, or to tell other people what they know. Plus p.u. on the idea that truth can only come from a person with a phd.


Perhaps they like science, when it is dull and enforces the party line, but then, that is not science unless the party line is accurate, which here, it is clearly not.

I want to add that I think that the red shift of the most distant galaxies may be the result of their distance only. If that is true than there is a constant that can be used to measure exactly how much light from distant objects will be shifted that relates to their true distance from us. I think that the magnitude of the star can be used to check that the doppler shift is not related to distance only, but related to distance and velocity of an object. Are there two stars or galaxies with the same magnitude but different doppler shift? Are there two stars or galaxies with different magnitudes but the same red shift? That would prove that red shift has more to do with velocity than distance. Can we red shift light here on earth? Perhaps by using gas or some other matter to slow the photons in the light it can be done.

As an update, I want to call attention to the work of Bragg and Raman. Raman in the early 1900s red shifted visible light on earth using crystals and other objects. This shows that light can indeed be red shifted from reasons other than Doppler effect and as usual mainstream people in science are refusing to amplify or echo this truth. Here is my latest belief on the reason the most distant galaxies are red shifted: the light we see from the most distant galaxies, at some distance, can only be bent around other objects. At some distance, there is no way for a direct path for beams of light to reach us, there are simply too many galaxies in between here and there. When beams of light are bent around objects of large matter, like galaxies and stars, perhaps they experience some amount of stretching out, in other words some amount of red shifting. One thing to think about is that there are blue shifted galaxies around us, and clearly on the other side of the visible universe, life around stars of those galaxies must see the same thing, nearby galaxies also relatively equally blue or red shifted. Ofcourse the laws of physics, the law of gravity is no different here than it is there. So, there would need to be some other force to explain this added red shift that only works over great distances. More likely, there is no new force that only works over great distances, and the universe everywhere is defined by a force of gravity, different from but similar to gravity as defined by Newton, that only operates between photons by changing each other's direction without changing their velocity. And the most distant galaxies are all red shifted, because photons are being stretched apart, bent by galaxies, other stars, or even atoms in the long journey from there to here. Thus, in my view, there is no expanding universe. This was a mistaken belief, based strictly on the observed red-shift of the distant galaxies and backed by abstract mathematics to confuse the average person. The expanding universe, and the big-bang are not easy theories to unseat, mainly because of their wide spread and unbending following. Clearly the shift of lines in the spectrum of light does represent the relative velocity of two objects, but at great distances in the universe, an extra added shift is probably due to the spreading apart of photons in beams of light when they change direction around massive objects.