Response by Sam Cox to "Curvature Pressure in a Cosmology with a Tired Light Redshift" by David Crawford; University of Sydney, (Australia)

Hello!

Before I review Dave Crawford's interesting paper, I would like to express my appreciation to the more than 10,000 people who have visited the "Cosmology Review" site in the last three months. It is becoming clear that the site will have more than 40,000 visitors this coming year, and it was a privilege to be asked to contribute. The 7-Dimensional (and up) Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is a fascinating topic, and very current. I have spatially considered this model for a long time, and it has been exciting to sit down and describe it in plain, if a bit esoteric English.

I think and rethink each concept and write a minimum of four drafts for each paper. If I see something important I believe I have expressed improperly, or developed insufficiently, I either send a new draft to be inserted or include the additional information in a future response. Using the responses to your interesting concepts to further develop the EHU model has proven to be a good idea. I can tell by the gracious letters I have received from our contributors that they understand the project, and have enjoyed reading the responses themselves.

What you are reading on this web site is a first. I have checked carefully, and found only tidbits of descriptive information, plus some pure mathematical material on the 7-D (and up) universe. By 7-Dimensional I mean two sets of three dimensional curved space tied to a single circular flowing time dimension...a dual universe. This is a General Relativity concept, space, again is curved, returning to the time and place of origin and each frame of reference is independent. The "hemispheres" of this universe are respectively matter and antimatter based, with energy too, flowing in a circular manner. If any reader knows of other descriptive material of this type, I and the editor would appreciate hearing about it, so we can study it and learn by comparing. On this site, you have available close to 15,000 words of descriptive material on what may be the prime cosmological model of the 21st century.

Since not every visitor reads everything on the site, I must do a certain amount of repeating. I thank our scientific research readers for their indulgence, and to reward them, I have deliberately made my responses an "editors nightmare". These responses, while they may be entertaining are also descriptive scientific writing, intended as a source of ideas for research projects. Concepts must be carefully developed and I need to be explicit. I must not assume people "know what I mean". I have to express any and all meaning.

The editor of this "think tank" site, myself and many of the faculty, staff and students of the University of North Carolina suggest our readers, especially American Citizens contact their congressmen and women, and urge that the United States of America immediately begin the 50 mile collider- our bridge to the antiverse. I would like to see the new collider named for Carl Sagan.

Pure science has incalculable value to the peoples of the world. Imagine walking through a door and appearing at another place in the universe! Crazy? Too much energy required? One scientist calculated the amount of energy required to create a wormhole about the size of an electron. It was positively huge! With my waistline, I would never be able to make the trip!

Yet, if you had told a person who lived exactly 100 years ago, in 1900, that in 100 years the common people of the world would be able to step into a machine which would transport them at near the speed of sound, 40,000 feet up in the atmosphere, halfway around the world in 14 hours, how would they have reacted? What if you had described the Internet- a revolution in human communication? Laws restricting the cloning of human beings? Or even television?

We live in an age of mankind where the revolutionary quickly becomes commonplace. We likewise live in a universe so filled with high technology, and the miracles high technology can produce, it too seems commonplace. But a baby is not commonplace. Neither is a coconut tree, or a whale. Time travel (what we call "death") may already be a carefully conceived and engineered fact of life in the universe. The universe has not been demystified by science; rather science in its search for rational explanations has come head to head with Ocam's Razor; "On the average, when confronted with a host of possible explanations, the simplest answer is the most likely to be correct".

My participation in the "Cosmology Review" research project of the University of North Carolina began with a letter to a faithful reader and contributor who himself has an excellent instinct for relativistic concepts. In that letter, I illustrated how the 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe model implies an answer to a profound metaphysical and religious problem- the existence of evil. If the reader is interested in my conclusion about a reason evil is permitted to exist, find any translation of the Christian Bible and read the parable of Jesus (about the wheat and the tares) recorded in Matthew 13:24-30.

This is only a starter. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures, the Sanskrit and religious writings around the world are filled with intuitive insights into the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe. Check my comments on the paper by Dr. Nanduri! We are told in the Christian scriptures "the mountains will melt and the Earth and all the works therein will be burned up" (II Peter 3:10) - but we are also told that "the Earth endures forever" (Eccl. 1:4) ?! In the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe BOTH statements are absolutely TRUE! Yes the Earth, like us, will die, but it- and we- will be reborn, over and over- forever. Could it be that Einstein got the conceptual idea for relativity in Hebrew school, as he read the Psalms (see Psalm 139 for example)?

I told a gentleman who runs a web site which emphasizes classical, Newtonian logic that the counterintuitive has a logic all its own. He was not happy when I told him that SR, GR and QM are logical, but they absolutely are the most logical system I have ever encountered- and so far as can be observationally and experimentally verified, fit reality like a glove! Yet, I can understand why this gentleman could NOT see relativity as logical! Even the creator of relativity, Albert Einstein himself could never understand how Quantum Mechanics could logically fit into the framework of his theories- but of course it does, and very neatly at that (as I comment elsewhere)!

Personally, I have never viewed the concept of God as a way of explaining the unknown, although I know that ancient (and some not so ancient) people have and do. As a scientist, I note that the more we learn, the more we find out that our universe is a fantastically complex and mystical place in which incredible intelligence, defined by design is the only plausible solution in our search for truth.

I received a very complementary letter from a publisher stating that while profound, the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe was (to use the word again) a bit "esoteric". The funny thing about the 7-D and up universe, is that it is so SIMPLE. Like Ocam's razor, it charms us with profound, yet simple answers to the great questions of existence. I have to admit, and you the reader may have noticed, that I have become enamored with the concept.

Dr. Dave Crawford has a characteristic I really like, and the scientific world appreciates. Dave can take a cosmological concept which "doesn't stand a chance" and stick with it in a methodical, and very scientific way, until he has gleaned every possible thing of value- and learned something even more profound about "The Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe".

One of the most counterintuitive concepts of GR is the "everywhere/nowhere" parameters of existence. The "Big Bang" started everywhere. It started in the atoms of my watch. It started in the atoms of your soup. It started in M-31, the spiral galaxy of Andromeda. It started in the farthest quasar. If we could go to the most distant galaxies, we would not see "beyond". We would see the same universe, however vast, that we see from here. Euclidean geometry over great distances, is completely out of place in an Einsteinian Universe. The Milky Way from the other edge of the observed universe would be just another, greatly red shifted smudge of light on a photographic plate exposed for two weeks, every night. Even (especially) in a universe where we know the "Big Bang" really happened, we need to remember what I just said.

In the 7-D and up universe, each hemisphere of the "7-Sphere" comes into existence- from the compressed photons of the old hemisphere, and over perhaps 50 billion years flies (accelerates) into the arms of its sister hemisphere .(total cycle; 100 BY) It is internally evolving (I know Dave Crawford is reading this), yet the most profound result of Dave's Work is that our universe, in General Relativity, can be correctly conceived as completely static, for it is ETERNAL.

Dave says in his manuscript that any evidence that the universe is evolving immediately discredits his model, and it is clear he "sees the handwriting on the wall" from recent observations. Yet in a sense, I don't agree that his work will be totally discredited, for the eternal nature of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical universe guarantees that there will always be a stable, mathematical and observational frame of reference from which the universe is fixed and unchanging. To me, Dave's work is a kind of proof that the universe according to relativity is complete, and able to describe almost every possible reference frame. It is profound that even from a dynamic, evolving frame of reference like ours, we can infer the true nature of light and see the shadow of eternity.

Remember what I said about how space is observed in GR? We don't feel (or observe) ourselves to be on the surface of the hypersphere, though we are. OBSERVATIONALLY WE FEEL LIKE WE ARE IN THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING, and in General Relativity- WE ARE. Space, time and energy seem to flow in a linear fashion as they are observed, when in reality, every ingredient of our reality moves in a circular, eternal manner, while the momentum of the ages, like a cosmic railroad track, keeps everything on its eternal course.

Dave has some very insightful comments on this idea. Listen to what he says: (in discussing curvature pressure on page 5) "The nature of this pressure can be understood by analyzing this reduced model with Newtonian Physics in three dimensional space. In this case, the curvature pressure acts within the two dimensional space (the surface), and is another way of describing the effects of the centripetal accelerations of the particles. By symmetry, THE GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION ON ONE PARTICLE DUE TO THE REST IS THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING THE TOTAL MASS AT THE CENTER OF THE SPHERE."

Now, I hope we can all understand why our seeing ourselves at the center of everything is a VERY REAL frame of reference! In an Einsteinan Hyperspherical Universe, and in GR we are NOT only on the surface of the earth, where our presence is demanded by the mass of the earth. We are in eternal, curved free fall which follows a geodesic in the universe. We ARE in the middle.

Free fall is an interesting experience when one does not have to immediately worry about hitting the ground! An instructor of General Relativity talks about coffee grounds in orbit around the Earth (in free fall). In our Aerostar, we enjoyed barrel rolls, wing overs and zero-gravity exercises. It was fun to float in the cabin, along with spherical gobs of water from my cup, my attaché case, the newspaper and if we forgot to vacuum the plane, particles of dirt off the floor! When I saw Jodie Fosters "space flight" in free fall along the axis and by the center of the hypersphere in the movie "Contact", it really "rang a bell"!

Those readers who have read "The Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe" posted on this web site, know that I used many analogies from the 4-D Sphere of the Earth we presently inhabit to make it possible for readers to visualize conditions in the 7-D and up model. These are called "projections". Depending on their dimensional configuration, and the nature of universal reality, these projections may be excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor. Drawing a three dimensional cube on a piece of paper by using perspective is a good example of an excellent projection, for we can really picture what a cube looks like, and study the angles and other geometric characteristics resulting from our reducing the three dimensional to two.

Dr. Crawford says the following, also on page 5: "For the (this) cosmological model, consider the plasma to occupy the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere". Dr. Crawford is using the atmosphere of the Earth as a 4-D projection of his relativistic model! How good is the analogy? I said just a minute ago that our geodesic travel through the universe is interrupted by the surface of the Earth. Right now, the Earth is diverting us! As Dr. Crawford says so well, this "diversion" is an acceleration, not a force. I also said that our observational frame of reference puts us NOT only on the surface but at the CENTER, and I used Dr. Crawfords text to stress how real our frame of reference is.

Dr. Crawford asserts that his model rests on the existence of a hot plasma in intergalactic space, diverted on the surface of the 4-D Hyperspherical universe by curvature pressure centripetal forces, analogous to those on the surface of the Earth. The electromagnetic forces in this plasma affect light reaching our eyes, and red shift it. The red shift of galaxies in this model is not caused by distance, (though dim galaxies are obviously distant, and additional Red Shift results from additional focusing over distance by the plasma) speed of recession, or gravitational forces caused by varying proximity to the "Big Bang". The Red Shift is caused by the effects of this plasma. Light passing through this plasma becomes "tired", loses energy and eventually degenerates from single high energy photons to pairs of low energy photons.

When I went to school we learned that there were four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Colloidal substances such as our own bodies, are considered by many to be a fifth state of matter. Webster defines plasma this way: "a high-temperature, ionized gas, composed of Electrons and positive ions in such relative numbers that the gaseous medium is essentially electrically NEUTRAL: confinement of plasma for thermonuclear reactions is achieved by magnetic fields."

Electrons are negative. Positive ions are positive. Electrically neutral is electrically neutral. While a plasma can be very rarefied, and hot plasma could by definition be said to include space which contains 150 (and less) atoms per cubic meter, I am pretty skeptical about this concept. Magnetic fields in space "play tennis" with atomic nuclei stripped of their electrons by cosmic violence, forming very high energy cosmic rays. The most powerful recorded cosmic ray had the force of a baseball thrown at 60 miles per hour- a lot of energy for an atomic nucleus! However, the nature and discontinuity of magnetic fields, and space itself- with 150 million light year wide "voids" would not seem to have the ability to "contain" any plasma.

This un-homogeneous universal condition is discussed at length by Dr. Crawford. The universe is so vast that light coming from any distant location is likely to pass through some plasma for at least part of its journey, but I'm inclined to feel this issue is not completely resolved in the paper. Dr. Crawford does make it clear that the success of this model does depend on a fairly continuous plasma- especially in intergalactic space. However, since the universe is as discontinuous as it is, it would seem that some red shifts of distant galaxies in this scenario would vary considerably from others with the same average intrinsic brightness- and other key characteristics which reveal similar size and thus absolute distance.

I communicated with Dr. Crawford and he made it clear that: "the crucial aspect of my tired light theory is that the geodesic bundle is focused by the matter through which it passes." In my opinion, the universe would have to be much more homogeneous for this focusing to be significant enough to account for red shifts in the way we detect them.

Nevertheless, an important reason this paper was accepted for publication is because of the conformity of its predicted specifications with most observations! Dr. Crawfords excellent mastery of Physics, and well known ability to reconceptualize ideas also has the respect of the scientific community. This is NOT an Aether theory, though it might seem that way, but I personally am inclined to feel the overall density of plasma in space, even over billions of light years, is unlikely to account for red shifts. It is not lost on me- or Dr. Crawford, that the Hubble relationship is roughly linear (scientists are still refining this constant)...a certain additional red shift for an additional and equal distance from the selected frame of reference, in fact that clue may have spurred Dr. Crawfords interest in this model.

When we are not inclined to agree with a model in science, the ball comes back to our side of the Tennis Court...I am obliged, myself, to suggest an alternative which also fits the observations! I suggested one possible candidate to Dr. Crawford, but he, for the time being anyway is standing his ground behind his model. He assured me that: "In my cosmological model, the space time metric is the same (assuming homogeneity) everywhere. There is no change as we go to distant objects".

This statement seems pretty straightforward, but it isn't very Einsteinian- unless he is using the all-encompassing frame of reference of every point in space time in the universe! Newtonian and

Euclidean ideas work quite well at what we refer to as "non-relativistic (relative) velocities" and in nearby space. Extending these concepts to the far reaches of the universe makes for an interesting but fundamentally non-Einsteinan model of the universe. Still Dave has his reasons for doing what his does, and I'll look at some of these reasons later in this review.

How metaphysical can a geodesic be, anyway? Very. From my frame of reference, the geodesic of every photon, other than the ones which make up the pattern of my own consciousness and being, is slightly to extremely different. I look at the leaf of a tree. It is green. The leaf absorbs most wavelengths of light, except green. Those altered photons, and the altered photons of everything I perceive in my life become a part of what I am as they enter my senses and their impressions are stored by my memory. The electromagnetic patterns which comprise my being leave the present and the Earth and travel on geodesics which are my fingerprints. They lead back to me- forever. I am an eternal stone in the cathedral of the sky, encoded in patterns of free and compressed electromagnetic energy which never came into existence, or cease to exist. At death, I traverse the universe between hemispheres, at the speed of light, and time for me briefly ceases to pass. Since my existence ceases in the universe, my only "place" is in the antiverse. Whether I have conscious existence in the antiverse is conjectural, though religious insight tells me I do. I grow young and am reborn into the world of conscious existence...at the precise intersection of the photon geodesics which mark "my time" coordinates in the universe.

The geodesic photon bundles of other beings are all around me. Some touch my life forever and directly- my wife, my parents, my teachers, my children and my friends. Others, through writing and communication give me understanding of where I came from and what I am.

The photon geodesics within my local area, about 50 million light years, are still quite similar because they represent a part of the universe which is so relatively small. These photon geodesics can be described in Newtonian and Euclidean terms.

Beyond 50 million light years out, I begin to look at a universe of a different size than the one I "now" inhabit. I am looking back in time, to a younger- and "smaller" universe. If I could look out far enough, 360 Degrees, I would see the inside OF A SINGLE POINT- the "Big Bang"...a "Black Hole" turned inside out. Notice, this fact FORCIBLY tells us the importance of Topology in the understanding of the cosmos- and the need of additional dimensions if we wish to describe reality adequately!

Imagine a basketball. Sitting next to it is a soccer ball, and next to it a soft ball, a hard ball and a golf ball. This has nothing whatever to do with Doppler effects or recessional velocity. Those places, so far away, are just there, but the size of space time in "their" location in the universe, relative to me is different. Geodesics on the surface of a smaller sized universe are very different, because the size of their space/time relative to me is different. Yes, light can be Doppler shifted blue and red. However red shifts can also occur gravitationally near a black hole, and light can red shift if it arrives in my world from a world in which the size of space/time relative to me, is different from my own. Each photon has the geodesic of its origin stamped on it-because it is destined to return.

I said that the Hubble Constant is a roughly linear relationship...unit of red shift per unit distance.

Gravitational red shift near a black hole is not a linear relationship- or is it? To US it SEEMS that most of the red shift occurs relatively near the Black Hole, but in a GR universe it is not that way!

Near a "Black Hole" spheres of space shrink (scale diminishes) and time is extended to billions of years relative to outsiders. Observers near the "Black Hole" notice little change, except that "our, outside" light Red Shifts, and "fictitious" forces appear. Such accelerations eventually become so powerful, the continued existence of the inside observer, from an engineering standpoint, becomes impossible. Space is displaced by singularity, polarity reverses and whatever goes in emerges on the other side of time where observers see a "Big Bang".

Hubble can do marvelous things. I would like (and perhaps they are) Astronomers to pull intrinsic brightness figures on a set of similarly red shifted galaxies which were done when Hubble was first launched, almost 10 years ago, and compare these measurements with current ones. The drop in brightness would be no more than one part in 100 million, but the results if even near Hubbles capabilities, would be of interest. Just as important, we need to determine if the Hubble "Constant" stays constant out near the "Big Bang". Even at .9C space time contraction would not be enough to seem to affect the Hubble Constant much...though photon geodesics would be affected.

I propose that we live in an internally dynamic and evolving universe, and that the "Big Bang" is real. Further, because of relativistic considerations, the Bang happened everywhere. Each frame of reference, massed or mass less, is king. Every photon, every "byte" of information carries a geodesic fingerprint. As we look out and back in time, from any frame of reference, we see a universe in which red shifted light can equally, and correctly, depending on reference frame, be interpreted as implying recession, reflecting a varying but static spatial orientation- or gravitational proximity to the "Big Bang". However, to make Einstein (and Dr. Crawford) happy, I think the universe is best holistically described as static. Also to keep Einstein happy, we may need a little Cosmological Constant!

Neutrino deficiency is an interesting study. Our understanding of the dynamics of supernovas depends on accurate neutrino science. The Sun, so far as we can tell, produces only about 1/3 of the Neutrinos we would expect from the best models of nuclear fusion we have available. This problem is being approached in many ways, by different research teams. Dr. Crawford gives figures, based on curvature pressure, which account for a good part of the neutrino deficiency- but not all. He suggests more accurate measurements. I would like to suggest that because of the Suns gravity, geodesics of photons inside the Sun are relativistically curved. I assumed this relativistic effect had been calculated, and included, but perhaps not. I'll discuss this at more length later.

The behavior of Astrophysical jets is likewise influenced by photon geodesic curvature, and this behavior should be directly related to the predictions of relativity.

Nuclear abundance is an interesting subject which I briefly touched on in my response to Mr. Fido. Dr. Crawford says; "In this cosmology, the universe IS (note caps and tense) DOMINATED (note caps) by a high temperature plasma. Galaxies condense from this plasma, evolve and die." At one point in time, early in the formation of the universe, OR in the other hemisphere of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, what Dr. Crawford says was (or perhaps is) undoubtedly true. There are coordinates in this hemisphere of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe where the process of galaxy formation is still going on. Today, in the here and now, from our reference frame, I cannot agree. All we have is enough intergalactic gas circulation to produce at most two solar masses per galaxy per year, (this is disputed) and undoubtedly this rate is decreasing, not increasing. The Cosmic Background Radiation is 2.73 degrees above ABSOLUTE ZERO K. That would hardly seem to indicate violent ionic activity in the nether regions of the universe!

Dr. Crawford also alerts us to probably the most serious problem of his static universe- no mechanism is available in his cosmology to create Hydrogen and Helium, only the heavier elements! This, in my opinion is very serious! It took real diligence for Dr. Crawford to persist in pursuing this cosmology in the face of such a major flaw...but I think his work was well worth it, for reasons I discussed earlier in this review.

Dr. Crawford's cosmology is STABLE! This is an achievement with important implications, and it is of no small significance. This stability surely makes anyone familiar with General Relativity breathe a sigh of relief, yet I suspect that at least a portion of this stability is purchased at the cost of extending some very classical ideas pretty far out in his universe! By using a space-time metric everywhere which is "assumed to be homogeneous, without change as we go to distant objects", Dave is using classical, non-einsteinian concepts. Interestingly, he constructs a model which closely matches observed reality. The question is...WHY?

The word "focus" is used many times in Dave's paper. Dave puts great emphasis on the focusing of photon bundles by the intergalactic plasma. However it occurs, this focusing of photon bundles is the key to the correlation with observed reality of his concept.

In an Einsteinian Hyperspherical universe, this key focusing of photons (which red shifts them) is not based on the mechanism Dave describes, but the ones I describe, recessional Doppler red shift, distance and changing space red shift, and gravitational red shift. All of these are linked to the nature of light- and its relationships with other forms of energy, the curvature of space, and the observed passage of local time in a multitude of individualized frames of reference. Dave's results imply that the Einsteinan effects, (if GR is correct) are slightly greater than those of light passing through a plasma on the average, and would account for most of the neutrino deficiency in the Sun, for example. Finally, it is clear that Dave is ignoring known photon relativistic effects in his model so he can test this alternative theory.

Dr. Crawford understands General Relativity! Why doesn't he just use the GR model all the way, and get that perfect correlation? We live in a universe with 10⁸⁰ power atoms! Assuming the Planck horizon at 10^-33 Centimeter, there are more, many more than 10¹⁰⁰ power frames of reference in the universe. Every one of these frames must be taken into consideration in computing correct answers! Dave is staying clear of the complexity of GR by assuming our space-time metric is "average". I think his assumption is probably not correct for I don't believe we are on the equator of the EHU yet.

Interestingly, in this light, Dave's calculation for the radius of the universe is considerably less than the one I feel comfortable with...10⁴³ Centimeters, but I think he used the same envelope I used for his Universal mass calculations! Dr. Crawford, for those interested, offers 6.9x10⁵³ Kilograms as the absolute mass of the universe, a solid figure. Interested readers can check my remarks on Dr. Vankov's fine paper from the University of Missouri. My classroom calculation for the mass of the OBSERVED universe was 6.9x10 to the 53 GRAMS (50th power kilograms). In Dr. Crawfords model, neither dark matter, nor a cosmological constant are necessary.

Within the next few years computers will be able to model the EHU, first using frames of one cubic meter, and then perhaps one cubic centimeter. As the power of our computers improve, so will our "focus" on the universe.

The technological achievement which resolution to 10¹⁰⁰ power frames of reference, down to 10^-33 CM, represents, sends a "chill" down my back, and makes the small hair stand up on the back of my head. We talk about high definition television, Imax and 3-D motion pictures! Such things are analogous to a universe where the frames of reference are measured by cubic meters! This ultra high definition quality of the EHU (which permits almost any dimensional combination) IS a technological achievement too. Incredible, all pervading intelligence, which can only be described as "God" is a matter of definition in a universe where intelligent observation is the prerequisite for the existence of reality itself...the 7-D and up Einsteinain Hyperspherical Universe.

Dr. Crawford's discussion of entropy is brief, but he makes the point that curvature pressure results in work, and an entropy loss (an increase in the order) of the universal system- which is significant. This reflects and relates to the stability of Dr. Crawford's model. In the Einsteinain Hyperspherical Universe, the sum total of all the order in the universe is a constant...order is a TOTALLY conserved item. This total conservation of order is what stabilizes the pure, non-classical, Einsteinian cosmology! An important reason General Relativity gives scientists stability problems, is that they insist on conceiving models in only 4 dimensions.

A four dimensional universe in General Relativity is like a motorcycle on the two way road of eternity. It is a sound enough idea that it works, but it can fall over easily if we change only a few dynamic conditions. The seven dimensional universe is like a four wheeled sports car, very stable and dynamically light years improved over the four dimensional model. There are other important reasons why the 7-D model makes more sense too. If the reader is curious, he or she can read "The Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe" posted on this web site, but briefly a 4-D universe in GR explains nothing about where the universe comes from, it completely violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, it has no mechanism to prevent the collapse of the universe from an engineering standpoint, and the symmetry problems are awful!

Since this paper reviews a static universe, lets see how the "motorcycle universe" and the "sports car universe" compare in a static frame of reference! As the motorcycle (4-D universe) slows up it becomes increasingly unstable. When it stops, it falls over...it is unstable. To support it, we need a kick-stand...the kick-stand of classical Euclidean space. When we "park" our 7-D universe and view it from a static perspective, it is perfectly stable, we can wash it and wax it. It has inherent dimensional stability, stability built in. The only problem with a parked car, is that we can't use it! It does not and cannot perform the function for which it was designed - take us somewhere! The 4-D universe is ridiculous, but the 7-D universe is stupid too, if we see it as only static.

People who ignore the symmetry problems of a 4-D universe are on thin ice...really thin ice. Mirror images are an unsound concept, just as circular orbits, or a perfectly spherical Earth are unsound concepts. In fact the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe in reality may be more like the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Ladyfinger Banana! Yet, who can visualize a living 1/2 of a person in traumatic hemisection, or half a Sun, or for that matter, half a universe? When rounding a curve in your car, would you dare assert that everything on the other side of that curve doesn't exist, just because you can't see it right now?

Topological concepts are NOT that hard! If we look at a piece of paper from the side, we see little or nothing. The same piece of paper turned towards us looks like the broad side of a barn! A basic understanding of what happens at singularity is no farther away than a simple Moebus Strip! Look at a videotape or a CD-ROM and the basic concept of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe is before us.

Yet the Einsteinain Hperspherical Universe is NOT JUST A CONCEPT. IT IS THE MOST EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED MODEL OF REALITY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD! Why was Einstein named the most influential person of the 20th Century?

Why do I say 7-D AND UP? Do I think I am the "Oracle at Delphi"? No. Increasing dimensions give increasing degrees of freedom in construction of new realities, and, as important they give ever increasing stability to the universe. A huge (though not infinite) number of dimensions gives "Rock of Gibraltar" stability and IS A REFLECTION OF THE ETERNAL NATURE OF "The Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe!

A good question for perceptive people who read this material is: "OK , it's vast, but not infinite. We wouldn't and couldn't exist as we are if the universe was infinite. I know, and I can understand that fact! Yet, somewhere isn't this universe lacking something in the Entropy department? Not much, but eternity makes a big difference! This is the catch 22 of any finite universe, however vast and perfectly engineered- and it does open the door to the idea of an umbilical cord to infinity. The fact that light in the antiversal hemisphere can create in the universe, and influence events, however slightly by what we call "coincidence", is another subtle clue to the fact that control is indeed being exercised over events- however slowly, and that even the EHU has a need for entropy adjustments.

However, for all intents and purposes, since I am eternal, as well as everything else in the EHU, my order, my actions and the decisions of my life are rigidly conserved. I remember this fact every Christmas when our family views the traditional story; "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens and I hear Old Marley tell Scrooge: "These are the chains I forged in life!"

One hemisphere of the EHU is more orderly than the other, and entropy "flows" via light, between the two hemispheres, the universe and antiverse, seeking its level. Time "moves" in a single direction, but from the same space/energy frame of reference, its direction is observed to seem to "reverse". The 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe answers many of the problems of any 4-D universe model, including Dr. Crawfords.

As Dr. Crawford lists the evidence for evolution in the universe, as I previously mentioned, I think he can see "the handwriting on the wall". The jury is still out, but evidence for evolution in the universe is getting difficult to explain in any other way. From any frame of reference below light speed, in fact, a non-evolving universe, so far as I am concerned, is a fairy tale...fun to listen to and fun to evaluate, but a fairy tale none the less! Yet, sometime in the future as we view our almost complete universe from castles in the sky, we will understand that in a 7-D and up Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, even fairy tales can come true!

Dave did a really thorough job on this paper! I wish him, and all my friends in the field well. They are the finest minds in the world and are, for the most part, poorly compensated. Even Stephen Hawking half jests about this problem! Most researchers do scientific work because of a profound dedication, not only to the scientific method, but the education of the young. Scientists are widely admired. A scientist, Albert Einstein, was named, not as the most important scientist, but the most important and influential PERSON of the 20th century by Time Magazine.

As scientists, we seek the truth for truths sake. Yet we share the same curiosity, fear and respect for the power and size of this mysterious cosmos which turned ancient man toward religion and faith in an eternal future. As it turns out, science is confirming many ancient insights, yet the scientific method has added a universe of additional understanding and created the technology of today.

Truth becomes knowledge, and knowledge is power. The United States government for one, has long understood that the product of pure science, knowledge, and a full understanding of the universe is an ultimate weapon, not to be placed in irresponsible hands. Advanced science is a guarantee of national survival. I personally believe the preservation of freedom and human rights depends on science. Look at what the Internet has done for free speech!

When Albert Einstein sent President Roosevelt a letter warning him that atomic weapons were feasible, the response was immediate. I would hope the American government would appreciate the urgency of the new 50 mile collider. Millions of Americans will benefit directly and indirectly from its construction. The dollars spent will be immediately reinvested in the economy, and the knowledge of the sub-microscopic world we gain will change everything. How it changes everything is the responsibility of humanity- OUR responsibility.

Samuel A Cox; College of Micronesia, April 3, 2000 Dimensional Aspects added