The V-Bang Theory
Should It Replace The Big Bang?

I'd like to present my new big bang theory, which will solve most, if not all, of the outstanding cosmological mysteries, and perhaps even some not mentioned here.

First, let's give my new big bang theory a name so we can differentiate it from the current big bang. Let's call it the V-Bang (or V-Bang) theory.

As an introduction to the V-Bang Theory, it would help to go over several scientific concepts, in case the reader is not familiar with them. They are: atoms and subatomic particles, particle accelerators, empty space and virtual particles, Hawking Radiation, and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Some of these can get complicated, but I'll try to address them in a simple enough manner so that the average reader can pick up the gist of it. As mentioned earlier, it would be a good idea to read this next to a computer so you can look up some points that may not have been made that clear.

Atoms are the smallest component of an element and consist of electrons, protons and usually neutrons. Everything you see around you is made up of atoms. When you break apart an atom, you get subatomic particles. You can also break apart sub-atomic particles to get more subatomic particles.

To break apart subatomic particles, scientists use "particle accelerators," which are huge contraptions that can consist of miles of tubes. When subatomic particles are hurled through these long tubes at extremely high speeds and smashed into one another, they break up into various other subatomic particles and release energy. Sometimes these powerful collisions can create micro black holes. These micro black holes usually evaporate quickly.

"Virtual particles," on the other hand, are subatomic particles that are constantly popping into existence from "empty" space, and disappearing in very short periods of time -- usually in micro seconds. Apparently, "empty" space is not empty at all. It's seething with an energy that's constantly producing (in what's referred to as "vacuum fluctuations") virtual particles from seemingly nothing. These particles generally pop into existence in pairs which consist of particles and anti-particles.

Since particles have a positive electrical charge and anti-particles have a negative electrical charge, when these two particles bump into each other, which usually happens shortly after they come into existence, they annihilate each other and release a (micro) flash of energy. That's right, they come from "nothing" and disappear when they make contact with each other. And this is not just theory. Experiments show these virtual particles really do exist and are constantly coming into and going out of existence throughout space.

They're called "virtual particles" because, although they do have an effect on real matter, they do not interact with real matter in a normal way. (This is a huge topic in itself, as are some other topics in this chapter, the intimate details of which would be more confusing than relevant. So I'll limit my explanations.)

Sometimes virtual particles -- which can be electrons, neutrons, protons, photons, etc. -- do not disappear. Sometimes, they become "real" particles. How? If some strong force is able to tear the pair of virtual particles far enough away from each other to keep them from making contact again, they can turn into real particles. Strange stuff. Welcome to quantum physics.

According to the renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, black holes are one of the forces that can turn a virtual particle into a real particle. If a black hole pulls in a virtual anti-particle, its companion (positive) particle can escape and turn into a real particle. This companion particle's escape gives off a micro flash of energy, called "Hawking Radiation."

While black holes normally become more powerful as they consume normal (positive) matter, they become weaker when they consume negative particles. If a black hole consumes enough negative particles, the black hole can eventually evaporate.

Despite their usual short life spans, virtual particles are believed to mediate particle decay and the exchange of the fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the strong force, and gravitational forces. (Again, the details of these forces are not relevant here.)

By now you must be asking yourself, how the heck can things just pop in and out of existence? Aside from being counter intuitive, there is the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. Particles, even if only virtual, popping in and out of existence certainly qualify as energy being created and destroyed.

This is explained by the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." This principal says that both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, like an electron, for example, cannot be measured precisely. In other words, if you measure its position, its momentum becomes uncertain, and if you measure its momentum, its position becomes uncertain. (Don't try to figure out how this works. This is quantum mechanics.)

Here are two explanations for how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows for the creation of virtual particles:

The free online dictionary,

Definition of a virtual particle: "A short-lived subatomic particle whose existence briefly defies the principle of conservation of energy. The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics allows violations of conservation of energy for short periods, meaning that even a physical system with zero energy [the vacuum of space is considered to have zero energy] can spontaneously produce energetic particles."

The science encyclopedia,

"The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that 'something' can arise from 'nothing' if the 'something' returns to the 'nothing' after a very short time, an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so 'empty' space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval."

These explanations are basically the accepted view within the scientific community. The underlying question, however, still remains: where do these virtual particles actually come from? There are only two possibilities: they either come from "nothing" or they come from an energy source that exists but we can't detect.

If virtual particles come from a source we simply can't detect, then they're not violating the law of energy conservation even for a moment. If they come from "nothing," the moment they come into existence, no matter how quickly they disappear, they've already violated the law of conservation of energy. In other words, they do not violate the law of conservation of energy for only a "short" period of time – they violate the law of energy conservation, period. That they disappear soon does not negate the fact that they've already violated the law of conservation of energy.

Saying that "something" can come from "nothing," if it's for only a short period of time, is like saying you can't borrow money from a bank that doesn't exist, but if it's for a short period of time then it's okay. How? The bank doesn't exist. Similarly, if you're not certain you have a toaster, can a toaster suddenly pop up in your kitchen as long as you eat your breakfast fast?

Okay, this may be a little tongue-in-cheek, but the point is -- if it ain't there, it ain't there.

The whole point of the law of conservation of energy is that the Universe has a finite amount of energy and you can't just create "existence" from "none existence." As I wrote a couple of decades ago, "nothing" -- true "nothing" -- implies complete non-existence, without even the potential to create anything. True "nothing," therefore, can never create anything. So if you see "something" coming from "nothing," that is the biggest proof that there is something there where you think there is nothing. If "vacuum fluctuations" can create new energy, there is an energy source in "empty" space. What is it?

The same lack of understanding of this energy source also presents one of the biggest mysteries of cosmology. Since matter and antimatter come in pairs that shortly annihilate each other, all matter and antimatter produced by the big bang should have annihilated each other. But since we're here, that obviously didn't happen. So if it didn't happen, and most of the cosmos is currently made of regular matter, where is all the antimatter? Scientists have been searching for years, without success, for massive amounts of antimatter that should have existed.

My V-Bang theory will describe how the creation and destruction of virtual particles have nothing to do with "uncertainties" or violations of the law of conservation of energy. It will also describe how what seems like "vacuum fluctuations" is actually a fine-tuned mechanism that regulates the quantity of particles, and the ratio of particles versus antiparticles, released into space, depending on conditions at a particular time and place in the Universe.

The V-Bang Unfolds

We're now ready to describe the V-Bang theory.

The V-Bang theory has very little resemblance to the big bang theory. What little resemblance it might have would probably be in the expansion of the Universe. And even that's not similar.

Here are the fundamental differences between the two theories in a few words:

The big bang starts as a very simple concept. As new discoveries are made, the big bang becomes increasingly complicated as scientists attempt to explain these new discoveries. Currently, the big bang is at an unwieldy stage where some discoveries can no longer be explained, while others can only be explained by resorting to "contortionist" theories, some of which employ concepts which can themselves not be explained. (For example, you often hear certain cosmological mysteries explained with dark energy and dark matter, yet we do not yet know what dark energy and dark matter are.)

The V-Bang theory, on the other hand, starts as a considerably more complex theory. Once the concept is laid out, however, it explains many, if not all, current major cosmological mysteries, including dark energy and dark matter. And it does much of this as part of the core theory, without resorting to a list of "contortionist" theories. Further, most of the V-Bang theory is based on observable phenomena or extrapolations of contemporary science.

So, without further ado, here's the V-Bang theory:

In the beginning, the Universe expanded.

This, already, requires an explanation, since this expansion was nothing like the big bang. The only thing that expanded was space. There was nothing "inside;" no compressed energy, no compressed matter, and it did not produce a "soup," as in the big bang.

The Universe expanded in an instant to the full length and breadth it would ever expand to -- whether that's 50 billion light-years in diameter, 100 billion light-years, infinity, or whatever. After that one moment of expansion, the Universe stopped expanding and never expanded again.

Although the expansion itself contained no compressed energy (as we know it) or matter, the creation of space opened up the floodgates of virtual particles. Massive amounts of particles flooded empty space in quantities that would make today's "vacuum fluctuations" look like a "light drizzle." This influx of particles did not violate the law of energy conservation, which I'll address later.

These particles "hit the ground running." In other words, they were all swept outward at terrific speeds by the instant expansion of the Universe and continued shooting outward at great speeds even after the expansion ceased.

Neither did the cessation of the expansion put an end to the frenzy of virtual fluctuations; virtual particles kept pouring into space. Unlike the initial wave of particles, which made their debuts at terrific speeds, these new, post-expansion particles entered the universe in relatively stationary positions. This set off a cataclysmic event of monumental proportions -- the entire universe turned into one giant "particle accelerator" (an apparatus scientists use to smash subatomic particles into one another at terrific speeds),

As the high-speed particles collided with enormous impact with the relatively stationary particles, they created tremendous heat, radiation, and massive black holes throughout the cosmos. This event is probably the source of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation we detect to this very day.

These massive black holes continued moving outward at great speeds, away from the center of the V-Bang, forming an ever-growing massive circle with a "wall" of black holes billions of light-years thick. We'll call this the "black wall."

The black wall's traversal through thick layers of new particles continually pouring into the Universe, set the stage for galaxy development. A simple analogy might be, swimming through a pool sends the water around you into somewhat of a swirl.

In other words, as the circle grew larger, the black wall became more "porous," allowing newly created virtual particles to come between the individual black holes. The gravitational tug of the speeding black wall would set those virtual particles near its path into a swirl.

(I'll be using variations of the word "enlarge" rather than "expand" so it doesn't get confused with the big bang's concept of an "expanding" Universe.)

The effect the speeding black holes' gravitational fields had on the surrounding particles varied depending on the particles' positions and distances from these individual black holes; particles directly in front of or relatively close to any side of the black hole would be consumed by the black hole, and particles too far away would experience little to no disturbance. It's the "borderline" particles, too close to remain undisturbed and too far to get pulled in, that would play the most important role in quick, early galaxy development. As the black holes gobbled up matter and cut swaths of empty space throughout the cosmos, the remaining space dust would start to coalesce, since their gravitational pull would no longer be equal on all sides.

(Please note that cutting "swathes of empty space" in this description is a relative term akin to shoveling snow in a heavy snow storm. Any portion you shovel gets quickly covered with snow again, but it's still covered with less snow than the unshoveled portions. Similarly, any swath of empty space would quickly get filled in with new particles pouring into space, but that area would still contain much less particles than areas not touched by the black holes.)

Then, the "borderline" particles would get pulled along with a speeding black hole until the black hole was far enough so that its gravitational pull was weaker than that of the surrounding particles. Upon the black hole's loosing its gravitational grip on the borderline particles, the borderline particle would change course and slam into the surrounding stationary particles.

These high speed collisions would give the stationary particles, which were already starting to coalesce, a circular thrust, setting in motion a whirl somewhat similar to weather patterns stirring up a storm or hurricane. And, thus, the initial stages of galaxy development were set in motion.
As the black wall continued on its high-speed trek outward, it would leave an inner circle of massive numbers of galaxies, stars and black holes in various stages of development; space dust closest to the black holes (comprising the black wall) would get the strongest "push," dust farther away would be affected on a weaker level, and dust considerably far away would be affected the least and undergo a far slower development process.

Additionally, the black wall's mighty gravitational pull would drag all matter in the Universe outward in every direction, as if all matter had come from the point of the V-Bang. And it is this inner circle, or perhaps a small portion of it, that we now call the "visible Universe."

And there you have it; the V-Bang theory.

At this point the V-Bang already explains most of the major mysteries of the Universe that the big bang cannot. Some may be obvious, some not. But I'll go over all of them. The only mystery it does not yet explain is dark matter. I'll leave that toward the end because it indirectly ties in with the issue of why the infusion of all these virtual particles in the early Universe did not defy the law of conservation of energy, the explanation of which I will also leave for later.
Horizon problem

"[The "horizon problem" is something] scientists have had many problems with, to say the least. The truth is despite the fact that there are some solutions that would partially (or even totally) explain the issue, there is no satisfactory explanation to this Big Bang related topic.

"Basically, our universe appears to be uniform; look in one part of the universe [one horizon], you'll find microwave background radiation filling it, at mostly the same temperature. Look in the opposite direction [another horizon], you'll find the same thing ... You have to keep in mind that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and this is not about just matter, it's about physical properties and information too.

"The two edges of the Universe are 28 billion light years apart, and the universe is just 14 billion years old, so according to our understanding there is no way that heat radiation could have traveled between these horizons to even out the temperature difference. So the hot and cold spots that resulted after the Big Bang couldn't have been evened out; but they have. [How?] This has given scientists huge headaches, and solutions are just wishful thinking.

"The solution that seems to somewhat satisfy scientists is called 'inflation.' Inflationary theory relies on the idea that just after the Big Bang, the universe expanded by a factor of [many times] in [a small fraction of a] second. So this just solves [one] mystery to give another one [about inflation]."

With the V-Bang, a "contortion" like inflation theory is totally unnecessary, for the "horizon problem" does not even begin to be a problem. The Universe looks so uniform, and the microwave background radiation (MBR) is roughly the same temperature, in all directions because both matter and the MBR were created evenly throughout the Universe; they were not created in one location and propelled billions of light-years through space.

The small variations in the MBR temperature can be accounted for by a couple of processes. First, random particle collisions would not have been precisely, evenly distributed on the micro level. Then, an influx of massive new particles into space, immediately after the initial particle collisions that created the MBR, would have had a cooling effect at various locations on the micro level (in addition to an overall cooling effect on the macro level).

Neither are "lumpiness" and "large-scale structures" problems with the V-Bang.

The lumpiness problem, as described in more detail earlier, is basically this: "The Universe that we see today is very lumpy. There are planets, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Yet when we look at the afterglow [of the Microwave Background Radiation] from the Big Bang, we see an incredibly smooth glow across the sky. So how did the matter in the Universe get to be so lumpy after starting out so smooth?"

The large-scale structure problem is: "Enormous cosmic voids and giant concentrations of matter have been observed ... One of the voids is so large that it is difficult to explain where it came from ... In fact the newly found void is so large that it is difficult to fit into our present understanding of the universe ... the finite time [of 14 billion years] available since the big bang makes it difficult to explain a void as large as the one found ... "

The lumpiness in the Universe is due to the fierce and violent coalescing of matter into stars, galaxies and black holes brought on by the black wall. Yet, on a macro level, the Universe looks the same in all directions because matter was created everywhere, in even distribution.

Large-scale structures and huge galaxies were made possible by black holes carving out large voids in a particle-cluttered Universe. The remaining mass then coalesced, giving the appearance of large structures.

Furthermore, a subsequent stage of the V-Bang may have produced even greater voids and structures. As the black wall continued to speed outward, and its circumference grew, the empty spaces between the black holes would have increased greatly. This would have resulted in a secondary, but weaker, phase of star, galaxy and black hole creation.

In other words, the structures that were created near the swaths of empty spaces (left behind by the black wall) would have had a similar, but somewhat weaker, effect on the space dust adjacent to them. This would have started a cascading process of star, black hole and galaxy creation until the outermost bodies would no longer have the energy to reproduce this effect.

The black wall would thus leave behind a plethora of rapidly developing stars, galaxies and black holes. Space dust in regions less effected by the black wall's gravitational pull would proceed at a slower development pace. And regions of space too far to be effected to any significant degree would remain dust-strewn voids.

In some cases, these voids may also have become devoid of all matter, as positive and negative particles annihilated each other.

(I've avoided the connotations of "positive" and "negative" with respect to particles up to this point because this is a separate issue, to be covered later. The ratio of negative to positive particles produced by "empty" space, I believe, varies, depending on cosmological conditions. But more on that later.)

The V-Bang, therefore, predicts that the farther out you look into space, the more cluttered with matter space should get. On the other hand, looking toward the center of the Universe, we should find more voids. That's because the smaller circumferences closer to ground zero of the V-Bang had less space and space dust with which to produce stellar bodies; therefore, the relatively few bodies that developed and then spread out over larger areas, as the Universe enlarged, created considerable voids.

Another prediction of the V-Bang would be that at the center of the Universe (ground zero of the V-Bang) there should be the biggest and "voidest" void of them all.


The infinitesimal moment after the Universe stopped expanding should have been enough time for the particles speeding outward to clear the vicinity of ground zero before a new wave of particles was born. These new particles would have had no speeding particles coming in from behind them to collide with, thereby creating an area at the center of the Universe with little or no matter or microwave background radiation.

Scientists have recently found a "hole" in space which is unexplainable with the big bang, but resembles the above prediction:

"Physics and Astronomy Online" website,

"University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen 'dark matter.' While earlier studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the Universe, this new discovery dwarfs them all.

"'Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size,' said Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota astronomy professor. Rudnick, along with grad student Shea Brown and associate professor Liliya Williams, also of the University of Minnesota, reported their findings in a paper accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal.

"Astronomers have known for years that, on large scales, the Universe has voids largely empty of matter. However, most of these voids are much smaller than the one found by Rudnick and his colleagues. In addition, the number of discovered voids decreases as the size increases.

"'What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the Universe,' Williams said.

"'Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly lower temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6-10 billion light-years from Earth,' Rudnick said.

"How does a lack of matter cause a lower temperature in the Big Bang's remnant [MBR] radiation as seen from Earth?"

With the V-Bang, two ways.

One, if at the center of the Universe, it would have started out with no MBR at all and then the subsequent trickling in of radiation from nearby space.

Two, a massive influx of particles, in the early universe, into an empty void. The greater the void at the time, the cooler the MBR.

The above website goes on to explain, "The answer lies in dark energy ... " We still haven't got the faintest idea what dark energy is, how can you explain one mystery with another one of equal confusion?

Second Microwave Background

A January 2009 article in Scientific American, entitled "Background Radiation: Glow in the Dark - A second cosmic background radiation permeates the sky," stated " ... astronomers say they have found a second, younger [MBR] background. It is thought to be the first look at a previously unseen period of the universe -- between the release of the [first] microwave background and the formation of the earliest known galaxies ... "

What's interesting about this second MBR is that there's nothing in the big bang to account for its source. Apparently, scientists have discovered not only an event in the V-Bang, but precisely when it occurred: The black wall that tore through the particle-cluttered early Universe, initiating stellar evolution, would have created massive amounts of radiation, from Hawking Radiation to particle collision radiation -- and this happened "between the release of the [first] microwave background and the formation of the earliest known galaxies."

Dark Energy and the Universe's expansion

And now, the mystery of dark energy.

As mentioned earlier, "In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it."

Theorists have decided that there must be some unknown repulsive force in the Universe counteracting gravity and causing the Universe to expand faster. They've given this force a name: Dark Energy.

The problem with an expanding Universe, in the first place, is that our observations of heavenly bodies flying outward are more consistent with objects flying toward a strong gravitational field than with an expanding Universe. A gravitational field would explain why only space seems to be "expanding" and nothing else -- not stars, not planets, not atoms, not glass bottles, not paper bags, etc.

The enlarging ("expanding") Universe is, I'm convinced, due to the powerful tug of the black wall, which probably still contains the vast majority of the mass in the Universe. Objects "falling" toward a gravitational field will increase in speed as they fall (although never reaching the speed of light). As they get closer to the source of gravity, the light emitted by these objects (in the opposite direction of the source of gravity) becomes increasingly redshifted with the increase of the gravitational force. Thus, if you attribute the entire redshift to recessional speed, when in fact only a small portion of it is due to that, an object may appear to be travelling faster than the speed of light.

The rapid dimming of highly luminous objects in the sky, the notion on which a Universe expanding at an increasing rate is based, is due to an entirely different phenomenon and has nothing to do with dark energy. This phenomenon, which I will describe here, will also explain a number of other puzzles, namely, how the incredible "coincidence" of "Omega" equalling one (also described soon) is not a coincidence at all, and how vacuum fluctuations do not violate the law of conservation of energy.
Omega and "Critical Mass"

What is Omega?

Scientists have long struggled with the question of whether the Universe has enough mass for its gravitational pull to halt its expansion and cause it to recollapse. If it does, it will eventually recollapse into a "big crunch." If it does not have enough to halt its expansion, it will continue to expand forever. If it has just enough mass to halt its expansion but not enough to cause it to recollapse (called "critical mass"), the Universe will expand just enough to avoid collapsing and remain in a steady state (neither expanding nor collapsing) or perhaps keep expanding very slowly.

Scientists have given this relationship between "critical mass" and the amount of matter in the Universe a name: Omega. If the universe has critical mass, omega is equal to 1. If omega is less than 1, the Universe will expand forever. If omega is greater than 1, the expansion will reverse itself and collapse into a Big Crunch.

Omega today is believed to be between 0.1 and 2. For it to be so incredibly close to one today, it would have to have been (if we assume the Universe started as the big bang theory describes) between 0.999999999999999 and 1.000000000000001 one second after the big bang; for if omega had been off by slightly more than that, it would today be off by far more than it is.

The big bang can't explain why omega began so close to one. And the notion that omega remained so close to one after all these years, after so much evolution and activity in the Universe, seems like an incredible coincidence.

One analogy I've seen about the phenomenal coincidence of omega today being so close to one is: It's like walking into a busy office and seeing a pencil on a desk balanced in an upright position. You come back five years later to that same busy office and see the same pencil on the same desk still balanced in that same position. What are the odds of that?

Even some of those who swear by the big bang acknowledge that the odds against omega equalling 1 today is too incredible. The CalTech website (which draws on research from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA) puts it this way:

"Omega is very difficult to determine, but it is safe to say that its present value lies somewhere in the range of 0.1 to 2. That seems like a broad range, but consideration of the time development of the Universe leads to a spectacularly different point of view. Omega = 1 is an unstable 'equilibrium point' of cosmological evolution, which means that it resembles the situation of a pencil balancing on its sharpened tip. The phrase equilibrium point implies that if omega is ever exactly equal to one, it will remain exactly equal to one forever -- just as a pencil balanced precisely on end will, according to the laws of classical physics, remain forever vertical. The word unstable means that any deviation from the equilibrium point, in either direction, will rapidly grow. If the value of omega in the early Universe was just a little above one, it would have rapidly risen toward infinity; if it was just a smidgen below one, it would have rapidly fallen toward zero. For omega to be anywhere near one today, it must have been extraordinarily close to one at early times ... For omega to be anywhere in the allowed range today, at that time omega must have equaled one to an accuracy of 15 decimal places!

"A simple explosion gives no explanation for this razor-sharp finetuning, and indeed no explanation can be found in the traditional version of the Big Bang theory."

Virtual Particles

The omega problem and the problem of virtual particles violating the law of conservation of energy beg for new theories and explanations. The new theories I'm about to present should put both of these puzzles, and probably others, to rest.

The question of how something can come from nothing, when the Universe has a finite amount of energy, is only part of the problem. (It should be noted that there is no difference between positive and negative particles except for their electrical charges. It's not like negative particles don't really exist because they're negative. Both particles actually do exist, they just have different electrical charges, and they annihilate each other when they meet.) An equally pressing issue is, why are virtual particles popping in and out of existence altogether, regardless of whether they're violating the laws of physics?

I understand, there's an uncertainty about space energy. But that's the whole point: Why? Other forces of nature don't seem to be subject to "uncertainties:" gravity doesn't disappear and reappear, neither does light, neither does the weak force, neither does the strong force, etc. Why are subatomic particles, which mediate the above forces, doing a "dance" that has nothing to do with their function? To do their job, they could just as well remain in existence.

To add a new twist to an old Einstein phrase ("God doesn't play dice with the universe"): God doesn't do useless things.

I'm convinced that for virtual particles to be popping in and out of existence today, the process itself (not just their existence) must have as critical a function today as it had when it brought primordial matter into existence.

Space, I believe, does not create new energy and it never violates the law of energy conservation, not even for one moment. At the instant of the creation of the universe all the energy that will ever exist appeared. None of it has disappeared and no new energy has appeared since. Instead, space, it seems, is sort of an "energy distribution system;" it merely moves energy from one place to another.

How, and why?

Let's start again from the beginning of the V-Bang.

The V-Bang brought two things into existence; space and energy ("Time," I believe, is not a separate entity; it's an illusion resulting from the progression of events. But that's another matter.) Space came in the form of the expansion, and its underlying energy then produced virtual particles.

(As an aside, this already has one strong advantage over the big bang. Although virtual fluctuations are sometimes mentioned in discussions of the big bang, the bulk of matter in the big bang supposedly came from that microscopic point that expanded into our universe. Not only is there no explanation for where the matter of the big bang came from, but there is no parallel to that sudden appearance and expansion of such a massive amount of mass today to test or verify the theory against. In the V-Bang, however, it's only after space itself was created (which in itself, admittedly, is not verifiable under any theory) that virtual fluctuations, a verifiable process that goes on to this day, brought matter into existence.)

In the infinitesimal moment that the Universe was roughly the size of one virtual particle, one virtual particle came into existence. It contained all the energy the universe will ever contain. You might call it a virtual particle "on steroids." The gravitational force of that one particle would have been equal to that of all the matter in the universe today combined. What kept it from collapsing under its own gravity was the phenomenal outward thrust of the universe's expansion, which would have to have been the most powerful force ever to exist.

As the Universe reached the size of, say, one hundred particles, another 99 particles came into existence. But they did not violate the law of energy conservation; because the energy of the first particle now spread to the other ninety-nine. That is, each one of the 100 particles now had 100th the energy of the first particle.

By the time the Universe contained a billion particles, each particle had one billionth the energy of the first one. And so on. And by the time the expansion stopped, which took about a fraction of a second, the energy of the original particle was spread out over, or in the process of spreading to, a considerable amount of mass then in existence. Space, I believe, has barometric properties. A severely imbalanced distribution of matter activates a regulated influx of particles to voids that are disproportionately vacuous. The energy for new particles is taken from neighboring masses, which weaken in the process. This weakening is not perceptible because the energy "siphoned" off is spread out over large masses. In other words, if for every new particle created, ten billion nearby particles, for example, get slightly weaker, it's hardly perceptible. ("Nearby," by astronomical standards, could still mean many light-years away.)

When new particles annihilate each other, their energy is returned to the nearby masses, leaving no trace that the nearby masses ever suffered a temporary loss of energy. If new particles do not annihilate each other, but remain as real particles, the energy loss of the surrounding masses is propagated throughout the cosmos.

This energy propagation might be similar in some respects to heat transfer; as a heated object is placed next to a cooler object, the cooler object gets warmer and the warmer object gets cooler. Eventually, a mass that was once the source of energy for new particles, will regain much of its energy by "sharing" its loss with the rest of the universe.

So, in a universe as populated as ours is today, the slight fluctuations of energy levels within matter in various parts of the cosmos, most of it temporary, that results from the constant creation and annihilation of virtual particles, is hardly perceptible. To sense this energy ebb and flow today you'd probably have to look at huge cosmic regions. If we could peer into the first moments of the universe we could probably detect sudden transfers of huge amounts of energies more easily.

So, space and virtual particles today do more or less what they've been doing since the V-Bang; distributing matter. What has changed is the needs of the Universe. Whereas moments after the V-Bang much matter was needed in every corner of the cosmos, in today's Universe this need is on a far smaller scale, and perhaps more localized. And it is these changes in conditions that alter the ratio of positive vs. negative particles from one region of space to another and from one point in time to another.

So when scientists find that there is a greater tendency for a certain ratio of negative vs. positive particles, what they're seeing is the requirements for a particular time and place, which may have nothing to do with what's going on billions of light-years away or what has happened in the past.

This may also resolve the "missing negative particles" mystery. Scientists have long wondered where all the negative particles, that mysteriously did not annihilate the Universe at its inception, have gone. Maybe they never existed; in the great void that existed in the beginning of the universe there was little or no need for negative particles. So, mostly, or perhaps, only, positive particles were created.

What function do virtual particles have today?

One, to keep omega in check.

As the Universe enlarges and matter becomes more spread out, virtual fluctuations fill in newly formed large voids. The energy for the new matter, as explained earlier, can come from the annihilation of matter in just about any part of the Universe; from galaxies, intergalactic gas clouds or space dust, black holes, the Black Wall, etc.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't find large voids. What we consider "large" may not be so by astronomical standards, in the sense that it throws the distribution of matter in the Universe out of kilter. If, let's say, regions adjacent to a large void are more densely packed with matter than average, they may offset the emptiness of the void, thereby eliminating the need for a massive influx of virtual particles.

And this, I believe, is what keeps the Universe in a state of equilibrium, and also resolves the omega problem. Omega equalling one is not at all a coincidence. It's a result of the never ending finetuning properties of space and virtual fluctuations.

Another way in which virtual particles may maintain the equilibrium of the cosmos is by keeping black holes in check. Black holes weaken or evaporate, according to Stephen Hawking, as a result of absorbing negative particles. The more massive the black hole, the greater its gravitational pull, the greater its "event horizon," and the more negative particles it will attract. (The event horizon is the point-of-no-return from which no energy or matter is, at this writing, believed to be able to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole.) The energy subsequently released by the black hole's absorption of negative particles is thus transported to other parts of the Universe in the form of Hawking Radiation. And the more massive the black hole, the more energy is distributed.

Virtual particles also keep humans from destroying themselves. By absorbing negative particles, micro black holes created with particle accelerators are kept from growing large enough to destroy earth.

Areas of the cosmos, on the other hand, where "corrections" are not necessary, positive and negative particles trickle in at a more even ratio, allowing for annihilations that result in no appreciable net effect.

This finetuning process that keeps omega close to one predicts that we will see objects in the sky, especially distant ones, that may be here today and gone, or less luminous, tomorrow. That is, we may have a clear line of sight to a galaxy or another object in the sky, but the next time we look it may display a fraction of its original brightness, or disappear altogether, as a result of an obstruction in our line of sight due to the formation of new matter; gas clouds, space dust, etc.

A reduction in brightness of heavenly bodies is, therefore, not necessarily an indication of increased velocity, especially not when the implied velocity is greater than the speed of light. And if it's not going that fast, it's not necessarily that far away.

Therefore, the comparison between a Cepheid variable star's reduced luminosity and its known luminosity cannot be used as an
indicator of its distance from us or its velocity, as scientists have been doing for years. And it certainly cannot be used as evidence that the Universe's "expansion" rate is increasing.

Then, when you consider that the extreme redshifts of distant objects are due to the exponentially increasing gravitational pull of the black wall, there is no evidence at all to support the existence of the repulsive force called dark energy.

Faster Than Light Communication

One question that arises here is, if the loss of energy in one part of the Universe shows up instantly in another part, isn't this faster-than-light communication, and doesn't this defy Einstein's special theory of relativity?

Well, although scientists have accepted for years that communication faster than the speed of light was not possible, some strange things seem to happen at the quantum level. Something called "quantum entanglement" has proven that at the quantum level instant communication does happen. No, this is not a theory -- it's a proven fact. And, yes, it is believed it just might defy Einstein's special theory of relativity.

What is quantum entanglement? Here's a very simplified description:

Certain subatomic particle pairs seem to have a very strange relationship to each other -- they always spin in opposite directions. Even if you change the spin of one, the other one instantly changes
its spin in the opposite direction. And this happens instantly no matter how far apart we separate the particles. How does this instant communication happen? Nobody knows, but it happens.

In his book, "The God Effect: Quantum Entanglement, Science's Strangest Phenomenon," physicist Brian Clegg states: "Entanglement is a strange feature of quantum physics, the science of the very small. It's possible to link together two quantum particles -- photons of light or atoms, for example -- in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, faster than light link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science. Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with the name 'entanglement' called it 'the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.'"

A March 2009 article in Scientific American, entitled "Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity," states, "Quantum mechanics ... embraces action at a distance with a property called entanglement, in which two particles behave synchronously with no intermediary; it is nonlocal. This nonlocal effect is not merely counter-intuitive: it presents a serious problem to Einstein's special theory of relativity, thus shaking the foundations of physics."

The Internet Encyclopedia of Science,, puts it this way: " ... it's said [identical twins] can sometimes sense when one of the pair is in danger, even if they're oceans apart ... Scientists cast a skeptical eye over such claims, largely because it isn't clear how these weird connections could possibly work. Yet they've had to come to terms with something that's no less strange in the world of physics: an instantaneous link between particles that remains strong, secure, and undiluted no matter how far apart the particles may be -- even if they're on opposite sides of the universe. It's a link that Einstein went to his grave denying, yet its existence is now beyond dispute. This quantum equivalent of telepathy is demonstrated daily in laboratories around the world. It holds the key to future hyperspeed computing ... Its name is entanglement."

Are the same mechanics responsible for entanglement and the instant redistribution of energy? That's hard to tell; we have no idea what's behind entanglement. But what we do know for sure is that instant communication at the quantum level is real, and the condition of a particle in one part of the Universe can affect the condition of a particle in another part of the Universe. And it's this ability that adds a profound dimension to the already extraordinary phenomenon of instant communication.

That the energy of annihilated particles in one part of the Universe can instantly become the source of energy for the creation of new particles in another part of the Universe, and eventually get distributed to all matter in the Universe, seems well within quantum possibilities.

And for "space-energy" (which may perhaps be that same medium that acts as a conduit for instant quantum communication) to sense vacuous areas in space that are tugging omega out of kilter and

trigger an increase in virtual fluctuations, or a higher ratio of positive vs. negative virtual particle production, in those depleted regions, is not at all out of the question.

What seems less likely is the notion that an "uncertainty" in space-energy can somehow spawn the creation of particles out of energy that does not exist; this defies common sense, logic and the laws of nature. The only uncertainty about space energy is perhaps its ebb and flow; where and when particles will appear. Their creation, however, must have a source.

Thus, when we observe particles in some region of space popping into existence, it's a good bet that some other part of the cosmos, perhaps billions of light-years away, just lost energy of equivalent proportions. However, since we are not aware of where that energy was just lost, either because that region of space too far away or we've just never made the connection, it appears as if virtual particles violate the laws of nature by popping out of a non-existing source.

A Universe With Greater Energy In The Past

Is there any evidence today of our universe having started out with energy levels far greater than those of today and continually decreasing in potency? Absolutely. The evidence is all around us.

As pointed out earlier: Scientists have observed, " ... there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible."

In other words, the amount of gravity produced by galaxy clusters is not enough to keep them together; at the fast rate that they're spinning, they should disintegrate. But since they're not disintegrating, scientists have concluded that galaxy clusters must contain much more mass (since, the more mass, the more gravity), and have called this invisible mass "dark matter."

Early observations suggested that there was a 6 to 1 ratio between dark matter and regular matter. But after examining 100 galaxies, astronomer Stacy McGaugh (of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Maryland) found they all had less regular matter

than predicted. Our own galaxy, the Milky Way, had only a quarter of the predicted amount of regular matter, and many small galaxies had a mere 0.05 percent of the predicted amount of regular matter.

According to an article, "Galaxy Without Dark Matter Puzzles Astronomers," in February 2008 on, a team of astronomers from the Polish Academy of Science in Krakow have even discovered what seems to be a galaxy (named NGC 4736) with little or no dark matter.

It's one thing to have no explanation for what dark matter is, it's quite another thing for its ratio of distribution to be so inconsistent. Perhaps this inconsistency is the biggest clue we've had yet into the dark matter dilemma -- maybe dark matter doesn't exist, and what we're observing is an entirely different phenomenon.

More than 70 years after the discovery in the 1930s that the visible matter of stars, galaxies and clouds of cosmic dust account for less than 5 per cent of the total mass of the Universe, we've found no direct, hard evidence of dark matter. And not out of lack trying.

An article in, as late as Jun 2, 2010, stated:

It's "Hardly surprising ... that so much attention was given to a paper written last year by the members of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II) detailing their evidence for dark matter (arxiv:0912.3592v1). The CDMS-II collaboration is looking for evidence of collisions between Weakly Interacting Massive neutral Particles (or WIMPs) -- a leading candidate for dark matter -- and nuclei of germanium in a detector in a mine in Soudan, Minnesota. The detector is located 700 m underground to minimize background noise from neutrons produced in cosmic-ray collisions, which can mimic real WIMP signals.

"CDMS-II spokesperson Jodi Cooley revealed that the researchers had found only two events, compared with 0.5 expected from background, yielding a confidence level of about 21%. Physicists normally expect more -- at least 99.73%. 'The results cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions,' Cooley admitted in her talk, 'but we cannot reject the possibility that either event is signal.'

In a universe that's supposed to be brimming -- at least 25% -- with dark matter, to find only two dark-matter-candidate events in 70 years, and for even those two to be questionable, would seem to suggest there may not be dark matter out there.

That's not to say there can't be some form of hitherto unknown, mysterious matter lurking in some corner of the universe. But in amounts that can account for the plethora of dark-matter-related observations, that doesn't seem very likely.

The V-Bang, fortunately, does not need dark matter to explain most dark-matter-related observations. It's important to remember one of the major differences between the big bang and the V-Bang. A basic overview of the big bang is easy to describe: something or other expanded or exploded, and things have been expanding or flying apart ever since. The complexities come in when you attempt to reconcile theory with observation. And the more observations, the more "contortionist" the theory gets.

The V-Bang, on the other hand, is almost the precise opposite. The theory of how the V-Bang universe began can get complicated. But once the theory is laid out in detail, most observations can be astonishingly easy to explain.

Most, if not all, dark-matter-related observations, and a few other unrelated observations, can be explained with the V-Bang's concept of an early universe that contained the same amount of energy as it does today packed into far less matter, enhancing many features of the basic building blocks of matter.

Being that mass produces gravity, gravitational forces in the early universe would have been more powerful in direct proportion to the enhanced properties of matter. Over time, as the universe filled with more matter, matter and gravity would decrease in potency.

Gravity in the first few moments of the V-Bang could have been powerful enough that a chunk of matter the size of earth, for example, could conceivably have exerted greater gravitational pull than an average black hole today.

Fast-spinning galaxies that formed in the early V-Bang universe, therefore, would not have disintegrated because they had far greater gravitational pull than galaxies of the same size that formed later on.

In most of our celestial observations, we're seeing galaxies as they appeared in the past. So if you take a reading of these galaxies' gravitational fields using the gravity strength of today's matter as a model, they give the impression of containing dark matter. That is, today's gravity couldn't hold some of these galaxies together, while past gravitational strengths could.

Furthermore, even if we were to observe two equal-sized galaxies as they appeared in the same period in the past, they could still exert different gravitational strengths. That's because matter that coalesced earlier would have done so with greater impact and therefore in more compact form due to greater gravity. As a result,
the galaxy that formed earlier would have greater gravity, even though we now see both as they appeared in the same time period.

This, then, explains not only our observations of "dark matter," but also the different ratios of "dark matter" to regular matter; celestial bodies exert gravitational forces consistent with the time periods in which we're observing them and the time periods in which they were formed. This opens up the heavens to a host of bodies of the same size with a wide range of gravitational strengths.

Now, if the V-Bang's theory of declining natural forces explained only dark matter, as if that were not enough, you might be tempted to wait for a less drastic theory. But it explains a host of other unresolved cosmological mysteries, some of which defy our current understanding of galaxy formation.

One anomaly relates to the structure of galaxies, the center of which generally contain a black hole. An article in the May 2010 issue of Discover magazine describes research done by an international team of scientists using the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and the Plateau de Bure Interferometer in France to probe deep space, examining the black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratio. That is, they probed what percentage of a galaxy's total mass lies in its central black hole.

What they found was a very peculiar difference between younger and older galaxies. "Although the astronomers admit their error

bars are large, they find that black holes in the early universe are much heavier relative to their host galaxies than they are today -- a ratio of about 1/3o as opposed to the current 1/7oo."

A few theories were thrown around to explain this finding. But one member of the team, Dominik Riechers of the California Institute of Technology, conceded, "it's so new that there's not yet a good theory to account for it."

The article goes on, "As if things weren't confusing enough, even the masses of giant black holes now seem to be up for grabs. In 2009, [a team from] the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and University of Texas analyzed the masses of the central black holes in M87 and M60, two large galaxies in the Virgo cluster. The team found that astronomers may have underestimated the masses by a factor of two and suggests that similar revisions may be necessary for most, if not all, supermassive black holes in large galaxies."

These findings seriously challenge the currently accepted fundamentals of galaxy formation. And that these findings are "new," probably has little to do with the lack of viable explanations. The standard big bang, I don't believe will ever explain them.

The V-Bang, on the other hand, explains these findings quite readily; no waiting for new theories necessary. In fact, the explanations are so simple, if you're a seasoned scientist you might be tempted, out of sheer habit, to look for something more complicated. But, as I mentioned earlier, the basic description of the V-Bang theory may be more complicated than the big bang, but reconciling between theory and observation, sometimes not even possible with the big bang, is generally relatively simple with the V-Bang.

The theories of galaxy formation are described on NASA's website this way:

"Scientists have proposed two main kinds of theories of the origin of galaxies: (1) bottom-up theories and (2) top-down theories. The starting point for both kinds of theories is the big bang, the explosion with which the universe began 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. Shortly after the big bang, masses of gas began to gather together or collapse. Gravity then slowly compressed these masses into galaxies.

"The two kinds of theories differ concerning how the galaxies evolved. Bottom-up theories state that much smaller objects such as globular clusters [collections of stars] formed first. These objects then merged to form galaxies. According to top-down theories, large objects such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed first.

The smaller groups of stars then formed within them. But all big bang theories of galaxy formation agree that no new galaxies -- or very few -- have formed since the earliest times."

An article entitled "Galaxies Appear Simpler Than Expected," in the October 2008 issue of Nature, puts a damper on the above two theories:

"Galaxies are complex systems the evolution of which apparently results from the interplay of dynamics, star formation, chemical enrichment and feedback from supernova explosions and supermassive black holes. The hierarchical theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies are assembled from smaller pieces, through numerous mergers of cold dark matter. The properties of an individual galaxy should be controlled by six independent parameters including mass, angular momentum, baryon fraction, age and size, as well as by the accidents of its recent haphazard merger history.

"Here we report that a sample of galaxies that were first detected through their neutral hydrogen radio-frequency emission, and are thus free from optical selection effects, shows five independent correlations among six independent observables, despite having a wide range of properties.

"This implies that the structure of these galaxies must be controlled by a single parameter, although we cannot identify this parameter from our data set. Such a degree of organization appears to be at odds with hierarchical galaxy formation, a central tenet of the cold dark matter model in cosmology.

Another article in the same month of Nature reads:

"A study of galaxies indicates that galaxy formation may be regulated by a single parameter. This unexpected finding shows that prevailing views on the process could need revision.

"The current theory of galaxy formation holds that galaxies were assembled through the chaotic hierarchical merging of massive haloes of dark matter, in which star-forming matter was later embedded. One would therefore expect the properties of individual galaxies to be determined by numerous independent factors, such as star-forming history, merger history, mass, angular momentum, size and environment.

"It is thus surprising that galaxies seem to form an (almost) one-parameter family in which their mass is the dominant factor, as an investigation by Disney [of the Geography Department at University College London] et al suggests."

With the V-Bang, however, this finding is not surprising at all. The powerful thrust of the instant expansion of the universe, and the subsequent formation and catapulting of massive black holes ("the black wall") throughout the cosmos, is what kicked off the earliest, most powerful and massive galaxy formations.

Additionally, galaxy formation in the V-Bang did not need anywhere near the enormous amount of time required with the big bang. The greatest burst of galaxy formation would have been initiated very early on, close to the inception of the universe.

(Incidentally, in the V-Bang "old" doesn't necessarily mean "far away," as it generally means in the big bang. In the V-Bang, a galaxy can be almost as old as the universe itself, yet be very close to us in space, or it can be twenty billion light-years away and be relatively young.

This said, "distance from us," even in the V-Bang, does have some bearing on how far in the past we're seeing an object relative to another object. That is, if we see a galaxy 2 millon light-years away, we're seeing it as it appeared farther back in the past compared to a galaxy that's only 1 million light-years away. But it does not tell us how old these galaxies are. In fact, the galaxy closer to us may be much older than the one farther away.

And just as matter and gravity were of a more robust nature in the past, so was light. This will be discussed later.)

The dominant factor in galaxy formation in the V-Bang would have been it's mass, as the evidence suggests. Although some accretion would have occurred, the many stages of accretion essential to the big bang would not have been necessary in the V-Bang.

Before getting to the point of why the black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratios vary so greatly between some galaxies, it's interesting to note that the above NASA article states, "But all big bang theories of galaxy formation agree that no new galaxies -- or very few -- have formed since the earliest times." This in itself is quite perplexing. With the big bang model, it had to take an enormous amount of time for gravity to cause space dust and fragments to coalesce into the super structures we see today. How could such structures form in the early universe?

An articles on on January, 19, 2004, entitled "Ancient Cosmic Superstructure Defies Theory," described the problem this way:

"A string of ancient galaxies has thrown astronomers for a loop by defying standard predictions for the evolution of the universe. The colossal structure hints at possible misunderstandings of how the universe, or maybe mysterious dark matter, behaved shortly after the universe was born.

"The arc of galaxies [observed] is arranged in an easily defined, gravitationally bound superstructure. But it's so old -- forming just 2.8 billion years after the Big Bang -- that astronomers aren't sure how it had enough time to develop.

"While the modern universe is full of galaxy clusters, it should not have been that way so long ago.

"'This is the earliest and largest structure of galaxies that we have ever seen,' said Povilas Palunas, an astronomer with the University of Texas and lead author of a report on the study. 'And we find its a discrepancy with what all models predict for the early universe.'"

Some even question as to whether the currently accepted age of the universe of 10 to 20 billion years was enough time for super structures to form at all. That super structures formed in the early universe, totally defies explanation, according to the big bang.

With the V-Bang, of course, all this is not a problem. The initiation of galaxy formation, a process that would have taken billions of years under the big bang, was set in motion within the first few moments of the inception of the universe.

As an aside, although the powerful particle collisions of the initial moments of the universe would have created extreme heat and radiation, a state that may not have been conducive to the formation of matter as we know it today, the unrelenting massive influx of new particles during that period would have cooled all matter down relatively quickly, sort of like a fire extinguisher cooling smoldering wood. This, again, is a process that would have taken many years under the big bang, but almost no time under the V-Bang.

Now, here's what's behind black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratios, according to the V-Bang.

In the initial stages of the V-Bang, matter's enormous gravity would have collapsed much of the swirling space particles (that had been set in motion by the powerful outward thrust of the "black wall" traversing the cosmos) into extremely compact and massive black holes, which would later form the core of many galaxies. As time went on and gravity decreased, newly formed stars, whether they formed within the galaxy or were pulled in after formation, would

have been composed of lesser compacted matter. As a galaxy grew larger over the years, each successive layer of new stars would be less compact.

As a result, the core of a galaxy should generally have a greater mass density than the outer layers. The difference in core-to-galaxy mass ratio from one galaxy to another therefore depends on how long it took for the galaxy to form and in what period in the universe's history it formed. The longer the formation process, the less mass density the outer layers will have, making for a greater black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratio.

And since the decline in energy and therefore the decrease in gravity would likely have been more rapid in the earliest stages of the universe, when the most massive amounts of particles were created, two galaxies taking the same amount of time to form but formed in different periods of the universe's history would also have different core-to-galaxy mass ratios.

So, the size of a galaxy has less to do with its overall weight and black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratio than the circumstances surrounding its formation. Which leaves the door open for a host of "anomalies" and "contradictions" under the big bang model, but easily explainable phenomena under the V-Bang.

The evidence for an early universe with strong gravity goes far beyond black-hole-to-galaxy mass ratio. There are galaxies that show signs of having been formed in their entirety under extremely strong gravitational fields, as described in a, April 29, 2008, article entitled "Compact Galaxies in Early Universe Pack a Big Punch:"

"Imagine receiving an announcement touting the birth of a baby 50 centimeters long and weighing 80 kilograms. After reading this puzzling message, you would immediately think the baby's weight was a misprint.

"Astronomers looking at galaxies in the Universe's distant past received a similar perplexing announcement when they found nine young, compact galaxies, each weighing in at 200 billion times the mass of the Sun. The galaxies, each only 5,000 light-years across, are a fraction of the size of today's grownup galaxies but contain approximately the same number of stars."

A, August 19, 2008, article entitled "Bloating Galaxies Confound Astronomers" describes scientists' bewilderment about the origin of compact galaxies:

"Astronomers continue to puzzle over the recent discovery of a strange population of dense, compact galaxies that existed in the early universe but are nowhere to be seen today. They suspect the galaxies somehow puffed up into the bloated behemoths we see around us, but new research shortens the timescale during which this mysterious swelling could have happened.

"In April, astronomers reported finding extremely compact galaxies as far back as 10 billion years ago, or 3.7 billion years after the big bang. The galaxies contained the same number of stars as modern, blob-shaped galaxies known as ellipticals -- but were two to three times smaller on average.

"Now, observations have turned up compact galaxies roughly a billion years later, when the universe was almost 5 billion years old. Some, dubbed 'red nuggets', are extremely compact -- weighing as much as modern ellipticals, but measuring as little as a tenth their size.

"'There's nothing like this in the nearby universe,' says astronomer Roberto Abraham of the University of Toronto in Canada. 'These things are a complete, out-of-left-field surprise.'"

An article on, June 09, 2010, "Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think?", takes it a step further. How can fully matured galaxies, it questions, exist alongside these compact galaxies -- the two should've existed in different time periods? It also questions how fully-matured galaxies can exist so early in the universe's history altogether:

"Early in its life it appears that our Universe was a place of puzzling extremes and seeming contradictions. That's the conclusion scientists are drawing from new infrared observations of a very distant, unusually bright and massive elliptical galaxy.

"This galaxy was spotted 10 billion light years away [which, according the big bang, means it's 10 billion years old] ...

"Measurements show that the galaxy is as large and equally dense as elliptical galaxies that can be found much closer to us. Coupled with recent observations by a different research team -- which found a very compact and extremely dense elliptical galaxy in the early Universe -- the findings deepen the puzzle over how 'fully grown' galaxies can exist alongside seemingly 'immature' compact galaxies in the young Universe.

"'What our observations show is that alongside these compact galaxies were other ellipticals that were anything up to 100 times less dense and between two and five times larger -- essentially 'fully grown' -- and much more like the ellipticals we see in the local Universe around us,' explains Michele Cappellari of Oxford University's Department of Physics, an author of a report of the research in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 'The mystery is how these two different extremes, 'grown up' and seemingly 'immature' ellipticals, co-existed so early on in the evolution of the Universe.'”

The confusion comes from the fact that according to the big bang heavenly bodies farther away from us are supposedly older than bodies closer to us. A galaxy ten billion light-years away, for example, is supposedly ten billion years old, a galaxy 5 thousand light-years away is only 5 thousand years old, etc. So if the universe is roughly 15 billion years old, then a fully developed galaxy 10 billion light-years away would have reached maturity pretty close to the beginning of the universe.

But given the big bang's scenario of galaxy development, where space particles had to wait for gravity to pull massive amounts of matter together, it's questionable whether this process could have happened so early in the universe's history. And if it did happen so quickly, why haven't those "immature," compact galaxies developed as well?

With the V-Bang, not only is all this not a problem, but these observations fit in so well that they go a long way in corroborating the V-Bang.

To begin with, how far away a body in the sky is from us has little to do with its age. With the V-Bang, a galaxy 10 billion light-years away can be the same age as a galaxy 5 thousand light-years away. That's because in the V-Bang galaxy development was initiated throughout the entire universe at the same moment by the powerful outward thrust of the "black wall" (the massive black holes created in the first moments of the universe).

Once these "first round" galaxies were set in motion, they, in turn, set other matter around them in motion (matter that was not close enough to become part of these galaxies, yet close enough to be impacted by their gravitational fields), producing a second round of galaxy development. The second round then set in motion a third round, and so on.
With each successive cycle of galaxy development less energetic than the previous, these cycles continued until there was either not enough punch left to initiate another cycle or there was not enough matter in the vicinity to create more galaxies.

So, with the V-Bang, young and old galaxies can coexist alongside each other. Galaxy-age has to do with which cycle the galaxy was born in rather than how far away it is. In fact, it's the powerful gyrations of an older galaxy that initiated the formation of a newer one; so you would expect "old" and "young" to be in proximity to each other.

Furthermore, age differences in the V-Bang are nowhere near as great as they are in the big bang. Many "young" and "old" galaxies in the big bang would have differences in the millions or billions of years because of the enormous amount of time required for gravity to set in motion the massive amounts of matter needed to form galaxies. The appearance of the first galaxies, according to the big bang timeline, is estimated to be at least 300 million years.

This enormous amount of time alone was completely circumvented by the V-Bang by the tremendous push matter received from the immediate after-effects of the universe's expansion, namely, the outward thrust of the black wall. Thus, the initiation of galaxy development in the V-Bang happened almost immediately upon the creation of the universe.

Even that "cooling period" of the first 300,000 years of the big bang universe never happened in the V-Bang. The big bang model says that matter in the first 300,000 years of the universe's existence, having just gone through a tremendous explosion/expansion, was a "soup" of some sort, too hot for atoms that dominate today's universe to have formed.

In the V-Bang, however, the initial particles to enter the universe were not part of the expansion itself, but only appeared as the expansion created the space for virtual fluctuation to occur. And, rather than "expanding" with the universe, these particles were merely propelled outward by the instant expansion of the universe to extremely high speeds. Further, these relatively few initial particles, which contained all the energy the universe will ever contain, were, aside from being far more energetic than today's particles, not much different from today's particles in terms of structure and function, and not necessarily even hotter.

It's only after these extremely high-speed particles collided with new stationary particles that appeared the moment the universe ceased expanding that tremendous heat and radiation were generated (which is likely the source of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that's still detectable to this day). But, unlike the long cooling period needed in the big bang, this heat would have cooled relatively quickly due to the continual influx of massive new "cold" particles, much like a fire extinguisher dousing a fire. How long would the V-Bang's cooling period have taken? That's anybody's guess. Hours or days are probably good guesses; certainly not millions of years.

In short, the V-Bang did not start with a "hot soup," it did not need millions of years to cool, galaxy formation happened at an incomparably swifter pace than in the big bang, and, with a galaxy's distance from us having little to do with its age, there's no reason why "young" and "old" galaxies cannot be in close proximity to each other.

Now, getting back to compact galaxies. Although young and old bodies can appear next to each in space, compact galaxies are not necessarily "immature." They generally do not appear to be underdeveloped in any way other than being compact, and often contain the same total mass and number of stars as galaxies several times their size. Compact galaxies are therefore exactly the kind of fully matured galaxies you'd expect to find in a universe with stronger gravity.

Some scientists have speculated that a universe with stronger gravity might have crushed even bodies the size of earth into black holes. That may be so, if everything else in the universe -- all other forces and constants -- were the same as they are today, and only gravity increased. But in a universe where everything -- including the basic building blocks of matter -- had a more potent and dynamic makeup, the atomic force would be powerful enough to withstand stronger gravity in the same way that today's nuclear force prevents earth-sized and larger bodies from collapsing into black holes.
The Illusion of Dark Matter

In our current universe, any galaxy will appear to have far greater gravity than it should if it's old enough. Both its stronger gravity in the past and its greater mass density will be contributing factors. Which means, even if we see a galaxy as it appeared more recently, when gravity had already decreased to levels closer to today's, the galaxy's great mass may, if it's old enough, make it appear to exert far greater gravity than it should for a body that size.

(Remember, in the V-Bang you can see a galaxy as it appeared, let's say, a thousand years ago although it may be much older. In other words, even if we assume light in the past traveled the same speed as today, which is not necessarily the case, light from a galaxy a thousand light-years away would have taken a thousand years to get here. But the light that left it two thousand years ago is long gone. So we'd see a galaxy that could be five thousand years old, but we're seeing it as it appeared only one thousand years ago.)

In some cases, the impression of having an extraordinarily great ratio of "dark matter" to regular matter is given by a galaxy that has lost most of its stars. A galaxy's core, in general, is known to contain the greatest density of matter relative to the rest of the galaxy. So, if a galaxy were to lose its stars and be left with little else but its core, the illusion of having a great ratio of dark to regular matter would become greatly exaggerated.

Can a galaxy lose its stars? Yes. Galaxies keep their stars in orbit the same way our Sun keeps the planets in our solar system in orbit; through gravity. If the Sun's gravity were to weaken, some of the planets would move out into more distant orbits, while those farthest from the sun, which were being held in orbit by weaker gravitational forces to begin with, might fly out of our solar system altogether.

In the same way, in a universe with declining gravity, galaxies should eventually go through a stage of de-evolution. That is, as gravity weakens, galaxies should lose their grip on many of their stars and fling them out into intergalactic space. What's more, if the gravity reduction is great enough and the stars' orbital speeds are fast enough, a galaxy could conceivably lose a majority, or perhaps even all, of its stars. What you wind up then is with a "dwarf galaxy."

Dwarf Galaxies and Galaxy Formation

"A good example of a dwarf galaxy is the 'Large Magellanic Cloud,' located about 160,000 light-years from Earth. It contains about 1/10th the mass of the Milky Way, and has about 10% of its stars. Two other dwarf galaxies are even closer to the Milky Way, and have been captured by our galaxy's gravity. Other dwarf galaxies are just remnants that have been torn apart by the Milky Way's gravity, and are currently being incorporated into the structure of our galaxy."

This article from, entitled, "Dwarf Galaxies," goes on:

"The smallest dwarf galaxies in the Universe are known as ultra compact dwarf galaxies. ... [They] can be as small as 200 light-years across [as compared to our Milky Way's 100,000 light-year diameter] and contain about a hundred million stars [as compared to our Milky Way's estimated 200 billion stars]. It's thought that ultra compact dwarf galaxies are just the cores of dwarf elliptical galaxies that were stripped of gas and outlying stars."

Dwarf galaxies are believed to be by far the most numerous galaxies in the Universe. There are at least 30 of them just around our own Milky Way.

Current theory holds that dwarf galaxies were formed in collisions with larger galaxies, with the larger galaxies stripping away the smaller galaxy's stars. But this theory has some problems, as articulated by the following excerpt of the above article:

"The research team [in this study of dwarf galaxies] has ... been able to show that most of these ... [dwarf] galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way, like the planets revolve around the Sun ... The physicists believe that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies.

"'The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies,' Manuel Metz [an astrophysicist at the German Aero-space Center] said. But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, 'theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter.' This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. 'The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds, this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter.'

"Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. 'The only solution would be to reject Newton's classical theory of gravitation,' adds Pavel Kroupa [an astronomer at Bonn University]. 'We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter.' Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too."

In other words, these dwarf galaxies seem to contain too much matter. That is, they exert too much gravity to have formed in compliance with current theory. And the problem with the collision theory doesn't stop there. An article entitled, "Milky Way's Neighbouring Galaxies Have Different History," on in November of 2006, goes even further:

"A large survey, made with ESO's VLT [European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope], has shed light on our Galaxy's ancestry. After determining the chemical composition of over 2000 stars in four of the nearest dwarf galaxies to our own, astronomers have demonstrated fundamental differences in their make-up, casting doubt on the theory that these diminutive galaxies could ever have formed the building blocks of our Milky Way Galaxy [through collisions].

"'The chemistry we see in the stars in these dwarf galaxies is just not consistent with current cosmological models,' said Amina Helmi of the Kapteyn Astronomical Institute in Groningen, The Netherlands, and lead author of the paper presenting the results. 'It shows that there is plenty of astronomy to learn in our backyard.'"

The same problem is raised in, "Are Ancient Dwarf Galaxies Orbiting the Milky Way Clues to Dark Matter Mystery?" July 29, 2010:

"If dwarf galaxies are indeed the building blocks of larger galaxies, then the same kinds of stars should be found in both kinds of galaxies, especially in the case of old, 'metal-poor' stars ... Surveys over the past decade have failed to turn up any such extremely metal-poor stars in dwarf galaxies, however.

"'The Milky Way seemed to have stars that were much more primitive than any of the stars in any of the dwarf galaxies,' says co-author Josh Simon of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution. 'If dwarf galaxies were the original components of the Milky Way, then it's hard to understand why they wouldn't have similar stars.'"

European Southern Observatory's website, February 17, 2010:

"Cosmologists think that larger galaxies like the Milky Way formed from the merger of smaller galaxies. Our Milky Way's population of extremely metal-poor or 'primitive' stars should already have been present in the dwarf galaxies from which it formed, and similar populations should be present in other dwarf galaxies. 'So far, evidence for them has been scarce,' says Giuseppina Battaglia, co-author of a report on the study of over 2,000 giant stars in four nearby galaxies. 'Large surveys conducted in the last few years kept showing that the most ancient populations of stars in the Milky Way and dwarf galaxies did not match, which was not at all expected from cosmological models.'"

What this means is, given our understanding of galaxy formation, we can't explain why some galaxies are big and others are small. One explanation touches on the subject, but doesn't quite explain it. In 2002, astronomers, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, discovered that a nearby dwarf galaxy is spewing oxygen and other heavy elements into intergalactic space, supporting the idea that dwarf galaxies might be responsible for most of the heavy elements between galaxies.

Then, in January 2010, scientists described computer simulations that showed winds generated by supernovas (the explosion of huge stars) can push stars and gas clouds out from the center of dwarf galaxies. The ejection of mass from dwarf galaxies, astronomers believe, is made possible by the fact that dwarf galaxies have less gravity than big galaxies.

This may explain why dwarf galaxies are emptier -- less stars crammed into their centers -- than large galaxies. But it doesn't explain how they became dwarfs in the first place.

If dwarf galaxies were ever the size of our Milky Way, for example, their gravity would have prevented them from shooting all that mass into outer space. So how did dwarf galaxies become so diminutive?

The V-Bang explains all this very nicely. What's more, it does so within the framework of the basic theory already laid out, without the need for new, entangled, theoretical appendages. To show how, a quick recap of the V-Bang is in order.

In the V-Bang, the most powerful force ever to exist in the universe was the expansion of the universe itself. The fastest particles ever to fly across the universe would have been the virtual particles -- electrons, neutrons, protons, photons, etc. -- that came into existence during the expansion, travelling outward at the speed of the expansion.

Probably the most massive and compressed chunks of mass ever to exist were the black holes (the black wall) created when the universe stopped expanding and the particles flying outward collided with new virtual particles making their first appearance in the universe. The impact of these collisions also sent these black holes flying outward at terrific speeds in every direction, probably resembling a spectacular fireworks display.

The particle collisions that created these black holes would have released tremendous heat and radiation across the cosmos. This is likely the source of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also known as CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation).

Under these extremely hot conditions, sub-atomic particles would probably not have functioned as they do today. But the universe was quickly cooled by the constant, massive influx of new, "cold" particles, allowing particles to then interact with each other in much the same way that they do today.

These particles combined to make up the simplest of elements: hydrogen, which has one proton and one electron, and is believed to make up 75% of the universe. Also likely to have been created was the "light" element Helium, which has 2 protons, 2 electrons and 2 neutrons, and is believed to make up most of the rest of the 25% of the universe.

It is widely believed that nucleosynthesis, the process that creates heavier elements by fusing lighter elements together, requires either the extreme heat of the thermonuclear furnace of a star or the powerful shockwaves of a supernova (exploding star). Both of these conditions were met in the next phase of the V-Bang.

As the black wall grew in diameter, the gaps between its constituent black holes widened, allowing space particles to "fall through the cracks." Particles that were too close to the powerful gravitational fields of the speeding black holes would get sucked into the black holes, those particles too far away would not be effected much, while those particles in the middle (not too close to get sucked in and not too far to escape strong gravitational tugs) would be most instrumental in forming new elements -- oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, magnesium, iron and the rest of the periodic table -- and the first generation of stars, as follows:

The powerful gravitation pull of the speeding black holes would pull massive amounts of virtual particles along with them. This might be analogous to a powerful magnet flung at high speed through a mist consisting of magnetized filings. Many filings pulled along with the magnet would collide with other filings. As the filings would fail to keep up with the magnet's great speed, their attraction to the magnet would be broken and they'd fall back upon themselves, under their own magnetic pull.

In a similar manner, the powerful particle collisions triggered by the massive black holes speeding through a universe filled with enormous amounts of virtual particles would likely have created the extreme heat and great shockwaves necessary to produce probably every naturally occurring element, secondary black holes and the initial conditions that set star and galaxy formation into motion.

These secondary black holes would have been created from the particles closest to, but not close enough to get sucked into, the (black wall's) speeding black holes. Although not as powerful as the originals, these secondary black holes would still be powerful enough to become the centers of massive galaxies.

Particles farther away from the speeding black holes would receive enough of a jolt to form the heaviest elements, while particles a little farther away would receive a lesser jolt and form lighter elements, on so on, until the farthest particles (still close enough to be impacted) would form the lightest elements.

Scientists have detected the telltale signs of a secondary CMBR that can't be explained by the big bang. The powerful impacts just described, of the black wall initiating star formation, could very well account for it.

Then, the gyrations of these first generation stars and galaxies would have set in motion more mass that would initiate the formation of second generation stars and galaxies, but with less energy. The second generation would then initiate the third generation, with even less energy. And this chain of events would continue, with each generation of stars and galaxies having less energy and impact than the previous. Eventually, this process would run out of "steam." And that's basically the universe we live in today.

Yes, perhaps there are still some stars and galaxies being formed here and there today, and there are probably many stars still churning out heavy elements. But, for the most part, the formation of new stars and galaxies has trickled down to a small fraction of its original pace, and most of the heavy elements in the universe were created in the first few moments of the V-Bang.

Thus, lighter elements account for about 99% of the matter in the universe for two reasons. First, With the enlargement of the black wall, more particles would be "lightly" impacted by its gravitational tugs, and less particles would be "heavily" impacted. Secondly, and probably a more important factor, lighter elements have continued to form from secondary and subsequent generation of stars long after the strongest forces subsided.

As a result, the V-Bang's description of star and galaxy formation fits in very nicely with the hierarchy of elements and mass densities observed in many galaxies. At the center of almost every galaxy is a massive black hole; this would have been created by the powerful forces of the speeding black wall. The area immediately surrounding the centers of galaxies (but still far enough that its matter does not get sucked into its black hole), contain some of the most massive stars, which also contain the heaviest elements. These stars would have been formed by the gravitational forces still strong enough to create powerful shockwaves but not strong enough to create black holes.

Farther away from the centers of galaxies are stars generally containing lighter elements. At these distances, the gravitational tug of the black wall would have been too weak to create many heavy elements.

Then, most galaxies are surrounded by a halo of extremely light-element stars. These stars likely formed later on, after the strongest forces of the universe subsided and the creation of the heaviest elements dwindled significantly.

That galaxy halos came later and were not part of the initial galaxy formation process, is evidenced by the fact that some halos have several streams or layers of stars with different properties and revolve around their host galaxy in different directions. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, for example, has two distinct halos. While we travel around the center of the Milky Way at 500,000 miles per hour, the first halo above us revolves at 50,000 miles per hour in the same direction as we do, but the outer halo spins in the opposite direction at 100,000 miles per hour.

With the big bang, this is all very difficult to explain. Light-element stars, according to the big bang, are the oldest stellar objects. The lighter the elements in the star, the big bang goes, the older the star.

Thus, a star consisting largely of the light elements hydrogen and helium supposedly dates back to the first generation stars created shortly after the big bang, which purportedly happened 13 to 14 billion years ago.

But how did light-element --old -- stars, after surviving billion years without getting pulled into forming galaxies, neatly wrap themselves around galaxies to form halos?

And the notion that halos may already have been in place while their host galaxies were forming, as some have pondered, makes even less sense. Most galaxies have a variety of stars with different elements and densities, yet they do not form such distinct layers as halos do. Why are halos so different?

The big bang's depiction of galaxy evolution has been a challenge for scientists for some time now, as described by a New York Times article, "Old Galaxy in Early Universe Jolts Theory," on June 13, 1996:

"As astronomers peer deeper into the universe, measuring distances and time and glimpsing early conditions, the more perplexing the problems they are posing for theorists trying to understand cosmic origins and evolution. Now they have observed an apparently old galaxy out where there should be nothing but emerging galaxies of young stars, if current theories are correct.

"The new findings, being reported today in the journal Nature, raise yet another serious challenge to what has been the standard [big bang] model of cosmology.

"The galaxy is being seen as it appeared about 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang [an age that is assumed based on its distance] ... The problem, astronomers pointed out, is that the stars making up the galaxy appear to be at least 3.5 billion years old. This would mean that constituents of the galaxy are older than the universe itself -- a paradox, experts say, that must now be explained away.

"... if the observations are correct, the standard [big bang] theory must be flawed.

"In their journal report, Dr. Dunlop and his colleagues said that this was 'the first time that such an unambiguously old object has been discovered at such large look-back times.' Its existence, the scientists said, 'sets strong constraints both on the first epoch of galaxy formation and on cosmological models.'"

Twelve years later very little had changed with respect to our understanding of the big bang's depiction of galaxy evolution.

August 6, 2008,, "The Gemini Paradox: Why are Galaxies in the Early Universe Old?"

"Some of the faintest spectra in the universe raise a glaring question: Why do Galaxies in the early universe appear so old? ... these galaxies appear to be more fully formed and mature than expected at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe.

"'Theory tells us that this epoch should be dominated by little galaxies crashing together,' said Dr. Roberto Abraham (University of Toronto) who is a Co-Principal Investigator of the team conducting the observations at Gemini. 'We are seeing that a large fraction of the stars in the Universe are already in place when the Universe was quite young, which should not be the case. This glimpse back in time shows pretty clearly that we need to re-think what happened during this early epoch in galactic evolution. The theoreticians will definitely have something to gnaw on!'

"'The Gemini data is the most comprehensive survey ever done covering the bulk of the galaxies that represent conditions in the early Universe ... These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn't be there, but are,' said Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University).

As late as May 2010, a article, "New Hubble pictures suggest Milky Way fell together," further accentuated how observations contradict big bang theories of galaxy evolution;

"A preliminary analysis of elderly stars in the Milky Way appears to strike a blow against the prevailing theory of galaxy formation. The study suggests that several large and seemingly disparate chunks of the Milky Way galaxy formed at the same time from the collapse of a single blob of gas and dust [precisely what the V-Bang predicts].

"That's in direct contrast to the leading [big bang] galaxy-formation scenario, which holds that the Milky Way and other galaxies began small and grew bit by bit for the most part, gravitationally acquiring intergalactic gas and dust and merging with galaxies in their immediate neighborhood."

To add to this predicament, scientists have discovered enormous clouds of gas in space that, according to big bang predictions that galaxies initially form out of huge gas clouds that collapse under their own gravity, should have collapsed to form stars and galaxies. But they haven't; they're just sitting there as gas clouds.

The V-Bang explains all this logically and systematically.

To begin with, how far away a galaxy is from us has, according to the V-Bang, little to do with its age. When scientists say they see an "old" galaxy they're talking about one that's very far away. Whereas in the big bang everything started at one single point and travelled outward to their present locations, in the V-Bang star and galaxy formation happened simultaneously throughout the universe in more or less their current relative positions.

Therefore, according to the V-Bang, a galaxy 13 billion light-years away can be the same age as a galaxy only 5 thousand light-years away. (And although the light from the more distant a galaxy may have taken longer to get here, it did not have to take 13 billion years to do so, for light in the early universe did not necessarily travel at the same speed as today, as will be explained soon.)

In the V-Bang, the formation of the first galaxies were initiated by some of the most powerful forces ever to exist; massive black holes (the black wall) speeding through a universe super-saturated with virtual particles. As described earlier, this is the sources of most (secondary) black holes, galaxies, and the wide range of heavy as well as light elements we see today. The gyrations of this period created a ripple effect that initiated a new phase of stellar and other formations. but with less energy then the previous phase. This loss of energy was due in part to the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says systems that perform work lose energy in the process. Also, in part, due to the universe's finite energy becoming dispersed to so much more matter.

With the lock step decrease in matter's gravitational strength, the kind of gravitational tugs that whipped gas clouds into a star- and galaxy-forming frenzy in the first phase were now, in the second phase, far less energetic, and gravitational collapses now had far less impact.

Compact galaxies are practically a testament to the V-Bang. They are as massive as big galaxies but take up much less space. They were formed in the first phase when gravity was stronger, was able to greatly compact massive objects and was able to hold together large galaxies in smaller spaces. Galaxies of the same mass that formed later on, in phase two or later, when gravity had already decreased, were less compacted and spread out over larger areas.

The light-element stars of dwarf galaxies, and the halos that surround most galaxies, likely formed in a third phase, in which cosmic energy levels had been so depleted that heavy-element stars
could no longer be produced consistently. (That's not to say stars today cannot produce heavy elements. Perhaps they can. But back then the process would have been far more prevalent.)

Dwarf galaxies were probably born in a third phase. In that period, developing galaxies did not have the gravitational strength to attract the massive clouds and form the kind of heavy stars they once did, and so they formed with fewer stars and lighter elements.
In addition to shedding light on galaxy formation, the V-Bang also clears up a recent observation that the smaller a galaxy is, the greater its ratio of "dark matter" to visible matter is. That is, the smaller a galaxy is, the more gravity it seems to have relative to its visible mass.

The illusion of dark matter (in most cases), to begin with, is created by our assumption that gravity in the past was the same as it is today. That not being the case, most galaxies, even those that formed in the latter stages of galaxy formation, will appear to exert more gravity than they should because they did have more gravity.

Furthermore, the illusion of dark matter is further heightened as energy and gravity in the universe diminishes and galaxies fling gas and stars from their outer regions into intergalactic space because their current gravity can't hold on to the same mass as before. Now, since the centers of galaxies are known to contain the most massive black holes and stars, losing their lighter, outer components leaves them with a greater gravity to visible-mass ratio. And this illusion is sometimes enhanced even further because the centers of galaxies are often obscured from view by intervening space dust and clouds.

Dwarf galaxies in particular are more susceptible to this effect because they never accumulated much visible mass in the first place. So, as they lose chunks of the relatively little visible mass they had, they're pretty much left with little else but their dense innermost portions,

So, if galaxies lose stars, many if which are not ingested by other galaxies, where do these lost stars go? They become intergalactic "lone stars."

There's been plenty of evidence of lone stars, or "tramp stars," going as far back as January of 1997, as described by a news release on

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has found a long sought population of 'stellar outcasts' -- stars tossed out of their home galaxy into the dark emptiness of intergalactic space. This is the first time stars have been found more than 300,000 light-years (three Milky Way diameters) from the nearest big galaxy.

"The isolated stars dwell in the Virgo cluster of galaxies, about 60 million light-years away. The results suggest this population of 'lone stars' accounts for 10 percent of the Virgo cluster's mass, or 1 trillion Sun-like stars adrift among the 2,500 galaxies in Virgo."
With the current theory that these intergalactic stars have all been ejected during galaxy collisions falling short, the V-Bang's explanation that declining gravity causes galaxies to lose their grip on some stars fills in the gap.

Another discovery that seems to lend much support to the V-Bang theory is the finding by Xiang-Ping Wu, a scientists at the Beijing Astronomical Observatory. Wu and several colleagues found that the density of matter in the Universe increases the farther out you look. At about 30 million light years, the density is only 10 per cent of the critical value (needed to reverse the universe's "expansion"), while at about 300 million light years it may be as much as 90 per cent of the critical value.

A similar conclusion was reached by the Royal Astronomical Society, as recorded in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database: "... Our results highlight that distant clusters were much denser environments than today's [closer] clusters, both in galaxy number and mass ..."

The Institute of Physics' ('s) Astrophysical Journal puts it this way: "Astrophysical observations indicate that the 'local universe' [space in our immediate vicinity] has a relatively lower matter density than the predictions of the standard [big bang] inflation cosmology ... "

As inexplicable as a variable density universe is with the big bang, it is quite explainable with the V-Bang. To illustrate this point, I'll start with an analogy.

Imagine a conveyer belt with free-spinning rollers leading from a parked truck to the basement of a grocery store. A crate is placed on the conveyer belt and pushed from the truck into the basement. For simplicity sake, let's assume the length of the crate is the same length as the conveyer belt.

Once the crate completes its trip into the basement, which rollers on the conveyer belt will have gotten the most spin out of the moving crate? The ones closest to the basement, toward the end of the belt.

The reason, of course, is that they were spun for just about the entire time that the crate went from the truck into the basement. The first couple of inches, in contrast, were spun for only the amount of time it took the tail end of the crate to move over them.

Now, let's go over this analogy and add something to it. Let's say the moment the crate started to move it began to snow. By the time the crate completed its trip into the basement, which part of the conveyer belt will have accumulated the most snow? The part closest to the truck.

Of course, that's because the portion closest to the truck was covered by the crate for a very short amount of time. The last portion of the belt, on the other hand, was covered for just about the entire trip of the crate into the basement and would have accumulated the least amount of snow.

Then, once the crate completes its trip into the basement, it will have more snow on its tail end than on its front end. That's because the tail end, being the last portion to enter the basement, was in contact with falling snow for a longer period of time than the front end.

Now, back to the V-Bang.

Try to picture the moment the Black Wall, the billions of massive black holes spanning the entire universe, was created and was about to start moving outward. The black wall is the "crate" in the analogy. The virtual particles that will soon be tugged by massive gravitational fields are the "rollers" in the analogy. The virtual particles that will be left behind once the black wall passes are the

"snow" in the analogy. (To simplify this explanation, we'll not concern ourselves with the particles that get "swallowed" by the black holes and those that are too far to be effected.)

As the black wall speeds through a universe awash with virtual particles, which particles will get the most "spin" (gravitational tug)? Of course, the particles in the outermost reaches of the universe, because almost every inch of the black wall will tug on them. The particles closest to ground zero of the V-Bang will get much less tug because the black wall will pass them quickly.

Now, keep in mind that the powerful gravitational tugs and high-speed collisions are what set galaxy formation in motion and also created most of the elements in the universe. This process, then, would have produced more matter, greater density matter and more galaxies the farther out in the universe it went, just as in the crate analogy the rollers at the far end got the most spin. And this order of variable density is exactly what we're seeing.

Furthermore, this process would have worked even if primordial virtual particles consisted of both particles and anti-particles, which annihilate each other upon contact.

As suggested by Stephen Hawking, black holes can pull in anti-particles and leave behind their companion (positive) particles to remain as real particles. As the farthest reaches of the universe would have had the longest contact with the black wall's powerful gravitational tugs, more negative particles would have gotten ripped from their companion particles, creating the most mass in the outer regions.

If, on the other hand, primordial particles consisted mostly of positive particles, which I believe was the case, due to space's barometric properties that produce particles in proportion to the degree of space vacuum, all the better.

And how would this have effected the inner portions close to ground zero of the V-Bang, considering these inner areas got little "spin" from the black wall? Particles and anti particles would, for the most part, have annihilated each other, leaving behind great voids. Areas populated with more particles than anti-particles would have been left with massive gas clouds. We see both of these.

The V-Bang's prediction of a variable density universe is also evidenced by the phenomenon of quasars -- the most luminous, massive, energetic bodies in the cosmos. Which, "coincidentally," also happen to be the most distant objects.

"Quasars are peculiar objects that radiate as much energy per second as a thousand or more galaxies, from a region that has a diameter about one millionth that of the host galaxy. It is as if a powerhouse the size of a small flashlight produced as much light as all the houses and businesses in the entire L.A. basin!" describes NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory's website, "Quasars are intense sources of X-rays as well as visible light. They are the most powerful type of X-ray source yet discovered. Some quasars are so bright that they can be seen at a distance of 12 billion light years." "Quasars are active galaxies which are all very, very, very far away from us." Quasars "are billions of light-years away and several hundred billion times brighter than normal stars." "Quasars are the brightest and most distant objects in the known universe."

The point that almost every description of quasars makes is that quasars are very distant objects. Why are they all so far away? Far away from where? Is there a special place in the universe? Not according to the big bang. In a universe where matter was distributed more or less evenly, as the big bang supposes, there should be quasars close to us as well as far away. The big bang has no way to account for anything so different "far away."

The V-Bang, on the other hand, says that regions far away from the V-Bang's epicenter were subjected to the most prolonged gyrations and shockwaves in the early universe and therefore became the most saturated with mass. As a result, these outer regions were able to accumulate and compact the most massive and brightest objects in the sky.

The Constants of Nature

The V-Bang theory would not be complete without a discussion of the "constants of nature."

"The constants of nature are the fundamental laws of physics that apply throughout the universe: gravity, velocity of light, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. They encode the deepest secrets of the universe, and express at once our greatest knowledge and our greatest ignorance about the cosmos. Their existence has taught us the profound truth that nature abounds with unseen regularities. Yet while we have become skilled at measuring the values of these constants, our frustrating inability to explain or predict their values shows how much we have still to learn about inner workings of the universe" ... by John D. Barrow, from "The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega"

Constants of nature are forces of nature represented in science by numbers that supposedly do not change. For example, the speed of light, which is approximately 186 thousand miles per second (mps) in a vacuum, is a constant of nature.

The "Newtonian constant of gravitation," another constant of nature, is used to determine the gravitational attraction between two objects. This involves a calculation that includes the mass of each object and their distance from each other. You then multiply this result by the Newtonian constant of gravitation, which is 0.00000000006674.

Why is the speed of light 186,000 mps and why is the Newtonian constant 0.00000000006674? Nobody knows; they just are what they are.

There are many more constants of nature. Examples: Planck's constant, the charge of the electron, the atomic mass unit, the magnetic constant, the electric constant, the Coulomb's constant, the Josephson constant, the von Klitzing constant, and the list goes on.

Then there is "alpha," also known as the "fine structure constant." This is sort of the mother of all constants. Rather than describe a single feature of nature, this constant is based on a calculation of other constants, specifically, Planck's constant, the speed of light, and the charge of the electron. It governs the strength of the electromagnetic force and affects just about everything in the universe.

What all these constants have in common is that no one knows how or why nature sets them to their specific values. It's generally been believed that they've had the same values throughout history and throughout the universe. Scientists have speculated that if any of these constants were to deviate only slightly, our universe would take on very different properties and, depending in which constants changed, possibly be destroyed.

If alpha, for example, which has the value of 0.007299, were greater than 0.1, stellar fusion would not be possible; there would be no sun and no stars. If alpha were large enough, you couldn't tell the difference between energy and matter. If it were too small, matter would disintegrate.

Changing a few constants here and there is like replacing a few random beams or pipes in your house with ones that are bigger or smaller than the originals. Without adjusting the rest of the house to accommodate these changes, your house would be out of kilter or collapse altogether.

How so many constants could have gotten so precisely tuned to support the quantum world, the cosmos and life on earth is one big scientific mystery. So much so that some scientists have entertained
the thought that there are, or were, many universes with constants set to different values and we happen to live in the one which the values are just right for our existence.

A relatively recent discovery, however, shows that we don't need to resort to other universes to find constants with different values. They may actually change in our own universe. - September 2010:

"New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is 'just right' for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

"At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

"A decade ago, John Webb [of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia] used observations from the Keck telescope in Hawaii to analyse the light from distant galaxies called quasars. The data suggested that the value of alpha was very slightly smaller when the quasar light was emitted 12 billion years ago than it appears in laboratories on Earth today.

"Now Webb's colleague Julian King, also of the University of New South Wales, has analysed data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which looks at a different region of the sky. The VLT data suggests that the value of alpha elsewhere in the universe is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

"Moreover, the team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet. The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other ... Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha."

One of the authors of this paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, reported New Scientist, said, " ... the evidence for changing constants is piling up. We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying ... The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it.'"

With this said, I'd like to present that the constants of nature do in fact change right before our eyes, in our part of the universe, in our time, and on a regular basis. And it's not just one, two or several constants, but all the constants. They apparently are capable of changing so uniformly, proportionally and seamlessly that nature continues to function without the slightest degradation or distortion.

This is demonstrated by atomic clocks as they show signs of the "time dilation" predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. His theories consist of the general theory of relativity, which deals with gravity, and the special theory of relativity, which deals with motion and the speed of light. Without going into the technical details of each, to keep things simple, I'll just refer to both as the Theory of Relativity, or TOR, wherever possible.

One amazing prediction of TOR is time dilation -- time can actually go slower or faster. TOR predicts that everything -- trees, objects, rocks, life forms, computers, everything -- ages slower in a stronger gravitational field. Despite that the word "theory" is usually associated with "Relativity," time dilation is a proven fact; time does not pass at the same speed under all circumstances. If earth's gravity were to increase, for example, everyone and everything on it would age slower.

But that doesn't mean you could take six months to make your monthly mortgage payments. Because if time went slower for everyone and everything, things would look normal to everyone; no one would even know time has slowed down. You'd eat slower, your digestive system would work slower, you'd talk slower, your clock would run slower, and Department of Motor Vehicle employees would work even slower than they do (can you imagine that?). But it would all look and feel normal because everything has slowed down in the same proportion.

One way you could tell time was going slower would be if you compared earth's "time" with the "time" of, let's say, another planet where gravity is of a different strength and its time is therefore passing at a different rate.

A good example of how this works comes from, "Why Does Gravity Slow Time?"

"Imagine a pair of twins, Alice and Bob, who will live to exactly the same age. Rather than giving this age in years, which might be confusing in what follows, let's say each will live for one billion heart beats, and their hearts beat at 60 beats per minute. Alice, a hurricane hunter by trade, has become bored with Earth's puny storms and has moved to Jupiter to chase its Great Red Spot, a ... cyclone of truly mammoth proportions.

"Now, gravity is stronger on Jupiter than on the Earth, one consequence being that Alice weighs more. But more interestingly, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity ... says that, due to the

[greater gravity] on Jupiter than on Earth, time as experienced by Alice is moving more slowly relative to time experienced by Bob back on the Earth.

"What does this mean? First, the word 'relative' is crucial here: it means that as far as Alice is concerned, nothing in her own experience indicates to her that time is moving more slowly ... Alice herself feels nothing out of the ordinary. For instance, her heart still beats at 60 beats per minute, according to her wristwatch. It's only when Alice and Bob compare their experiences ... that they notice something very strange.

"For example, when they speak with each other over the satellite link, Bob notices that Alice's voice is a bit deeper and she is speaking more slowly -- exactly like a [CD or movie] played at a slightly slower speed. But Alice does not feel that she is speaking slowly, or thinking slowly, or anything else for her is happening more slowly.

"And from Alice's point of view, she notices that Bob's voice is higher pitched [than normal] and he is talking (and thinking, and doing everything else) a bit faster -- exactly like a [movie] played at a faster speed. More to the point, when Bob puts the phone next to his heart, Alice hears it beating at faster than 60 beats per minute according to her wristwatch; conversely, Bob hears Alice's heart beating more slowly."

As a result, Alice could return to Earth before her billion heart beats are up, and Bob could already be dead because his heart already beat a billion times.

What this demonstrates is that the difference in the speed of time isn't just "relative" or an illusion. It's real -- time actually moves at different speeds under different gravitational fields.

But you don't have to go as far as Jupiter to see how the difference in gravity effects time. You could see the same affect if you lived on top of a mountain. Gravity on top of a mountain is a bit less than it is at sea level because it's a little farther from earth's center of gravity. So your time on the mountain, compared to your friends' at sea level, would go faster. (Your pizza deliveries may take a little longer, though.) The difference in time in this case would be so small that it would have no practical effect; but time does run slightly slower on top of a mountain.

According to TOR, there's another event that changes how fast time goes -- acceleration. The faster you accelerate, the slower time goes. At the relatively slow speeds that we travel -- even on a plane -- the slowing of time is not noticeable. But if you were to travel in a spaceship at close to the speed of light, you could age, say, only one year for every ten years your friends on earth aged. (Think of how much you could save on face creams.)

There are some well-known experiments that prove time dilation actually occurs.

From the Physics & Astronomy Online website,

"In October 1971, Hafele and Keating flew cesium-beam atomic clocks, initially synchronized with the atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., around the world both eastward and westward. After each flight, they compared the time on the clocks in the aircraft to the time on the clock at the Observatory. Their experimental data agreed within error to the predicted effects of time dilation. Of course, the effects were quite small since the planes were flying nowhere near the speed of light."

"In nature, subatomic particles called muons are created by cosmic ray interaction with the upper atmosphere. At rest, [muons] disintegrate in about 2 x 10E-6 seconds and should not have time to reach the Earth's surface. Because they travel close to the speed of light, however, time dilation extends their life span, as seen from Earth, so they can be observed reaching [Earth's] surface before they disintegrate."

Most of us are effected by time dilation on a daily basis without even realizing it. GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites that make it possible for you to get directions in your car have to take small time dilation effects into account. They're programmed to adjust for the difference in the faster speed of time on a satellite in orbit and the slower speed of time on earth. Time on GPS satellites runs about 30 nanoseconds fast per minute. Uncorrected, distance errors would grow by about 9.5 meters per minute.

A question arises now. If you're on a satellite, can you test whether time is going faster or slower, without comparing your time to someone else's? The answer is no.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you're in a spaceship about to be launched from earth. With you, you have a baseball pitching machine. From the moment it pitches a ball, it takes exactly one second for the ball to hit the wall across the room.

Your spaceship takes off and approaches a speed where time on board is now running at half the speed it ran on earth. You decide to test your time by having your machine pitch a ball. To your surprise, the ball hits the wall in exactly one second on your clock, not in the half second you expected.

What's happening here?

What's happening is that not only is your clock running slower, but you are moving slower, your machine is pitching slower, the ball is flying slower, and everything in your ship is moving slower in the exact same proportion so that it's impossible for you to tell time has slowed unless you compare it to someone else's frame of reference.

Suppose you happen to pass by an astronaut in space who is stationary relative to your ship (let's say he missed his flight back to earth and is waiting for a cab) and he looked into your window. He would see the ball take two seconds on his clock to hit the wall, and he'd see your clock running at half the speed of his clock.

But what if you tested some of the constants of nature, wouldn't they tell you time on your ship is running slower? No. Because everything in your ship is in the same frame of reference and all natural forces have adjusted accordingly. There isn't an experiment in the world you could perform on your ship (without comparing your time to someone else's) that would tell you your time is running slower. Yet, when you come back to earth, you'd find that
your clock lags behind everyone else's, and you're younger than other earthlings by the precise amount predicted by TOR -- it wasn't all an illusion.

The question now is, what is time anyway? Is time a separate entity or is it just an illusion given by the progression of events?

To address this, it might help to look at what makes atomic clocks so accurate. Shouldn't a good bedroom clock tell time as accurately as an atomic clock? The answer is no. A bedroom clock compared to an atomic clock is roughly analogous to a printed train schedule compared to standing at the train station and watching the trains go by. The former tells you when it's supposed to happen, the latter tells you when it's actually happening (although, admittedly, it's a strange thing to do).

The accuracy of atomic clocks depends on the oscillation frequencies of atomic elements. The most accurate atomic clocks in the world are at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado. Their accuracy is based on measuring oscillation frequencies of sub-atomic components; electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom have characteristic oscillation frequencies (they "jump" up and down at certain speeds under

certain conditions). To greatly simplify a complex topic, it's the speed of these "jumps" that are measured and are at the root of the time-telling aspect of atomic clocks.

A commonly used atomic clock uses the metallic element cesium, which produces a frequency of over 9 billion vibrations per second. It would take one and a half million years for this clock to be off by one second. Short of the clock itself breaking down, only if the energies and frequencies at the atomic level were to change would this clock's time-telling feature be significantly impacted. And, in this case, the clock wouldn't be wrong. It would mean that time itself was running at a different speed.

What this means is that time has no independent existence. Time merely reflects how fast things are happening at the atomic level. If everything in the universe were to disappear except Michelin Tires, for example, you'd still have Michelin Tires. If everything in the universe were to disappear except helium atoms, you'd still have helium atoms. But if everything in the universe were to disappear except time, you wouldn't even have time -- there'd be nothing left to "time."

Time therefore has a direct relation to the existence of matter and, more importantly, the pace of the quantum world. Time "standing still" would not mean, as depicted by science fiction writers, that everything in the universe stopped moving; that would mean the universe turned into a frozen custard. (Actually, if everything, including the quantum world, stopped moving, the entire universe as we know it would disintegrate.) Time standing still would mean that the universe's structure, organization and vigor never changed.

When we say that time came into existence with the inception of the universe, it means that the inception of the universe brought with it the concept, or perception, of time, not a separate entity called time. Time is basically entropy; all systems in the universe that do not receive energy or organizational input from an outside source, will eventually become less energetic, more random and more chaotic. (This type of system is referred to as a "closed systems.")

As energies in the universe shift, some systems degenerate while others ("open systems") rejuvenate. The entire universe as a whole, which must be a closed system since there is no outside system to influence it, becomes less energetic and moves toward a state of greater randomness in what is perceived as the progression of time. The universe may not suffer a loss in total energy (which is the principal of energy conservation), but it does go through energy transformations that reduces it vigor.

The point is, if time -- which runs at a speed directly proportional to the speed at which the quantum world resonates -- can be made

to speed up or slow down, it stands to reason that increased energy levels of the basic building blocks of matter, which would accelerate the quantum world, would also accelerate time.

Thus, with the energy of the entire universe packed into relatively small amounts of matter, the early V-Bang universe would have resembled something akin to a high-speed time-lapse photography movie. If your great uncle lived in that period, he would see nothing unusual as far as time is concerned, just as you can't see time moving slower or faster today without comparing your time to that of another frame of reference. But if you could peek into that early period from today, you'd see your great uncle's clock zipping around twenty-four-hour periods while your wristwatch only registered seconds.

The V-Bang star and galaxy formation process would have taken much less time than required by the big bang for several reasons. First, star and galaxy formation was initiated immediately after the inception of the universe, whereas in the big bang this alone took millions of years.

Second, the formation process was much faster, since it was set in motion as a chain reaction of the most powerful force ever to exist -- the expansion of the universe. In the big bang the formation process

was the result of billions of years of gravitational compaction, a process some scientists even question whether it could have created everything that exists, especially super structures.

Third, time ran much faster.

The difference in the speed and force of the star and galaxy formation process between the big bang and the V-Bang might be roughly analogous to the difference between dropping a bullet from a building and shooting the bullet down with a rifle.

If you dropped a bullet (regardless of caliber) 100 feet, it would hit the ground at a speed of about one million feet per second (in a vacuum). If you shot a 50 caliber bullet, for example, downward with a rifle from 100 feet in the same environment, it would hit the ground at a speed of about two and a half billion feet per second.

Similarly, the force of the V-Bang's expansion gave star and galaxy formation a head start that put it far ahead of a formation process that would have relied solely on gravity, as the big bang supposes. How much quicker was this formation process than the big bang's? It's hard to give a precise figure, but it almost certainly would not have taken billions or even millions of years. It's even conceivable that the formation of the first stars and galaxies did not even take hundreds of years (in our time).

There actually is evidence of a speedier star and galaxy formation process, as pointed out by, December 17, 2010, in an article entitled, "Herschel Finds Stars Formed Faster In The Past:"

"A UK-led international team of astronomers have presented the first conclusive evidence for a dramatic surge in star birth in a newly discovered population of massive galaxies in the early [far away] Universe. Their measurements confirm the idea that stars formed most rapidly about 11 billion years ago ... and that the rate of star formation is much faster than was thought.

"The scientists used the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory, an infrared telescope with a mirror 3.5 m in diameter, launched in 2009. They studied the distant objects in detail with the Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver (SPIRE) camera, obtaining solid evidence that the galaxies are forming stars at a tremendous rate and have large reservoirs of gas that will power the star formation for hundreds of millions of years.

"The new galaxies have prodigious rates of star formation, far higher than anything seen in the present day [nearby] Universe.", March 22, 2010, "Early Galaxy Went Through 'Teenage Growth Spurt,' Scientists Say:"

"Scientists have found a massive galaxy in the early [distant] Universe creating stars like our sun up to 100 times faster than the modern-day Milky Way

"They found four discrete star-forming regions ... Each region was more than 100 times brighter than star-forming regions in the Milky Way, such as the Orion Nebula.

"Lead author Dr Mark Swinbank, in the Institute for Computational Cosmology, at Durham University, said: 'This galaxy is like a teenager going through a growth spurt ... We don't fully understand why the stars are forming so rapidly ... '

"The scientists estimate that the observed galaxy is producing stars at a rate equivalent to 250 suns per year."

Please note that although the big bang refers to anything far away as "early" or "old," in the V-Bang "far away" can be "old," "recent" or just about any time period. In this case, the fact that these objects are far away do have some meaning, as will be explained soon, but being "old" is not necessarily it. The point is we have found high-speed star formations that cannot be explained by big bang theories but is very explainable with the V-Bang.

Actually, the V-Bang would have produced stars at an even greater pace, but we can't see very early periods because their light would have passed us long ago.

That is, as the early V-Bang universe's clock ran much faster, light would have zipped across the cosmos at super speeds without violating the law of physics that says light travels at the constant speed of 186 thousand miles per second. Because a second in that early period went by so much faster, light would have covered much greater distances in what we call a second.

Thus, light from 11 billion light years away did not take 11 billion (of our) years to get here. The light that would have shown us galaxies forming at extraordinarily super speeds, therefore, would have passed our region of space long before we arrived at the scene.

But we're still seeing faster star formation in distant regions because light from distant stars do come from a slightly more distant past, when energy levels were still somewhat stronger. Light from closer stars, on the other hand, reach us relatively quickly, so we see these stars evolve more slowly, in a more recent time period when energy levels were closer to what we are familiar with.

On a time-scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the V-Bang period, 10 being today, almost the complete evolution of the universe, I believe, happened during period 1. After that, there might still be a relative trickle of cosmic evolution, but the major star and galaxy formation heydays are long over.

The V-Bang may even explain a vexing quasar anomaly. "Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh searched for, and did not find evidence for, so-called time dilation in distant quasars. Time dilation is a counter-intuitive, yet actual, feature of Einstein's special relativity in which time slows down for an object that is in motion relative to another," posted, on April 16, 2010, in an article entitled, "No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars?"

"Since the universe is expanding -- and the distant quasars are racing away from us -- a clock placed in one of these distant galaxies should be running more slowly than a clock we have on Earth. Therefore, the effects of time dilation for distant objects can be measured if we can observe the ticking clock in the distant galaxy.

"Hawkins took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking ... can be viewed as [a] 'ticking clock.' He used data from quasar monitoring programs ... to measure the timescale of the blinking. Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same.

"This could mean several things. It could be a sign that the universe is not expanding. Or, it could indicate that quasars are not really what we think they are ... "

True. But it could also mean that we need the V-Bang to explain it.

The fact that quasars are so much farther than most other objects in the sky means we're seeing them in a more distant past (not that they're necessarily older) than closer objects. The acceleration-related time dilation difference that scientists have been looking for may be so minute compared to the quasars' far greater clock-speeds that it's imperceptible.

In other words, to pick some arbitrary numbers for the purpose of a simplified explanation, suppose that one quasar is flying a million miles per hour faster then the other one. The fact that these quasars are so far away means we're seeing them in a past when time ran considerably faster. Time on these quasars could be going so fast that what we see as one hour on our clock is actually one year, for example, on the quasars' clocks. This would mean that the

difference in their speeds is actually one million miles per year, an extremely small difference, by astronomical standards, and therefore imperceptible.

There is even evidence of light going faster than 186,000 mps within its own frame of reference, as described by an article entitled, "Speed of light slowing down?" by Chris Bennett,, July 31, 2004:

"Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years.

"The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when the planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available.

"Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers per second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.

"What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:

"* In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
* In 1983: 299,792.4586
* In 1877: 299,921
* In 1861: 300,050
* In 1738: 303,320
* In 1657: 307,600

"Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.

"Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI [Stanford Research Institute] in July 1987 after extensive peer review.

"It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.

"Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher -- as much as 10 to the 10th power [10 billion times] faster -- in the early stages of the 'Big Bang' than it is today.

"Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past.

"Dr. Magueijo recently stated that the debate should not be why and how the speed of light could vary, but what combination of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.
"Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:

"1. Quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies
2. Measured changes in atomic masses over time
3. Measured changes in Planck's Constant over time
4. Differences between time as measured by the atomic clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets in our solar system"

The above article practically describes the V-Bang's declining energy principle. And, although it speaks in terms of the big bang, it also seems to corroborate my 1 to 10 time scale of how the greatest energy levels existed immediately after the inception of the universe (in period "1"). What's more, in conjunction with the following discovery, it also suggests that energy levels do not necessarily change uniformly throughout the universe.

An article entitled, "Laws of Physics May Change Across the Universe," in (September 2010), describes a baffling discovery that seems to fly in the face of the widely accepted theories of Einstein:

"New evidence supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is 'just right' for our existence. The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

"If correct, this result stands against Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. 'This finding was a real surprise to everyone,' says John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Webb is lead author on the new paper, which has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.

"Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a 'preferred direction', or axis, across the cosmos. That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

"At the centre of the new study is the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.", September 7, 2010, "Fundamental Constant Might Change Across Space:"

"New research suggests that the supposedly invariant fine-structure constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic force, varies from place to place throughout the universe. The finding could mean rethinking the fundaments of our current knowledge of physics. These results were presented September 7 during the Joint European and National Astronomy Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, and the scientific article has been submitted to the Physical Review Letters Journal.", same date, same article title:

"[John] Webb's results imply that the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic force, might have different values depending on which direction we are looking in the sky, thus being not so 'constant' after all.

"'The precision of astrophysical measurements of the fine-structure constant, or alpha, dramatically increased about a decade ago when Victor Flambaum and I introduced the 'Many-Multiplet Method', and since then evidence started mounting, suggesting this crucial physical quantity might not be the same everywhere in the Universe,' says Webb.

" ... If correct, the new data indicates that new physics will be required to explain something so fundamental."

This "new physics" is looking more and more like the V-Bang. The pattern formed by the varying alpha, one part of the sky with a slightly higher alpha than the opposite part of the sky, seems to be an uncanny demonstration of the V-Bang's energy redistribution principal.

In the V-Bang, as new matter enters the universe, the energy that gives it life comes from nearby matter, in an osmosis-like pattern. This nearby matter then replenishes its lost energy from other nearby matter of higher energy levels, and the process continues in an effort to reach a state of equilibrium.

But in the ever-changing universe we live in, a state of equilibrium is seldom, if ever, reached on a cosmic scale. So we always have high- and low-energy regions in space with varying constants. Thus, the varying-alpha pattern we're seeing is the V-Bang's energy redistribution principal in action.

The Dark Flow

The V-Bang may even explain the "dark flow" mystery.

The "dark flow" refers to a large group of galaxy clusters scientists have noticed that are being pulled by some unknown force from outside the visible universe.

The description of this mystery from, "New Proof Unknown 'Structures' Tug at Our Universe," March 22, 2010, goes like this (inside brackets are, of course, my comments):

"In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour.

"This mysterious motion can't be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe [the 'black wall'].

"Now the same team has found that the dark flow extends even deeper into the universe than previously reported: out to at least 2.5 billion light-years from Earth.

"'We clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction,' said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

"The find adds to the case that chunks of matter [massive black holes comprising the black wall] got pushed outside the known universe shortly after the big bang [V-Bang].

"The new study is based on the collective motion of about 1,400 galaxy clusters... [that's "galaxy clusters," not just galaxies; that's an enormous amount of mass)

"Kashlinsky speculates that the dark flow extends 'all the way across the visible universe,' or about 47 billion light-years, which would fit with the notion that the clusters are being pulled by matter [the black wall] that lies beyond known horizons."

Once again, the big bang has absolutely no way to explain the dark flow. With the V-Bang, on the other hand, why heavenly bodies are being pulled outward does not, at this point in the description of the V-Bang, even need an explanation. What does need some explanation is why these clusters are being pulled more than others?

The outward motion of the black wall, if you'll recall, initiated galaxy formation evenly throughout the cosmos, solving the "horizon problem." The black wall was also responsible for creating huge voids and super structures, solving the "lumpiness problem." The solution to the dark flow lies in what happened after that.

Let's say a thousand people shot powerful rifles out of various windows of one wall of a building, some next to each other, some on top of each other, but all parallel to one another and parallel to the ground. What would the bullets' trajectory be?

Initially, the bullets would fly parallel to each other. Once their power began to wane, gravity would exert a greater influence on their trajectory and they'd begin veering downward. At this point, some bullets would probably crash into each other. Additionally, bullets that weren't perfectly parallel to the others to begin with might even crash into neighboring bullets before gravity took over.

This is what happened to the massive black holes that make up the black wall. The initial thrust of the expansion kept them on target, for the most part, to create both the even horizon and the lumpiness. Eventually, perhaps billions of light-years outside of
what we call the visible universe, their gravitational pull on one another would have taken over to some degree, causing many of them to clump together into super massive black holes.

It's then conceivable, perhaps even likely, that one or several cases of clumpiness produced black holes or chunks of mass far greater than any of the other individual components of the black wall, creating spotty gravitational fields with far greater pull than the rest. So much for the Dark flow.

In Conclusion

Our universe does not seem to be a collection of disparate entities and components haphazardly flying apart and evolving with autonomous forces or random destinations. It seems to be an enormous cosmic organism working as a whole to maintain its own viability, not unlike life forms on earth.

There is little doubt in my mind that our laws of nature have an underlying "sub level" set of "laws of nature" which set our physical constants and other parameters. Our world is like the dashboard of a car; it's the sub level, the "wiring" underneath the "dashboard," that makes it all function.

This may explain such phenomena as the instant communication properties of quantum entanglement, which appear to defy the laws of physics. Instant communication, I believe, happens on the sub level, while the effect manifests itself on our level. So none of our laws are broken, and there's no reason to believe that instant communication defies any laws on the sub level?

Lest you think this business of a sub level of laws of nature is some ludicrous invention of mine, please remember that the "bang" -- regardless big bang or the V-Bang -- that brought our universe into existence must have been, by all accounts, a force not of our current universe. There is no known force in our universe that expands space or creates a universe. Yet, our universe exists.

The general assumption is that the "bang" was some sort of "transformation" of a previous force into our universe, and that this previous force no longer exists. I believe that the force responsible for the creation of our universe still exists and is currently maintaining our laws of nature. Unlike the popular concepts of other universes or other dimensions, this "previous" force is an integral part of our universe, and its relation to our universe is similar to roots' relationship to trees.

The thought that our universe is the source behind its own power, and is capable of regulating its own constants, is a preposterous notion. The force that gives the quantum world, which makes up everything that exists, its properties and vitality must have an independent source outside itself. Neither the subatomic particles that result from breaking up larger particles nor the particles that are responsible for facilitating the functionality of other particles, can be the source of their own energy. In the final analysis, there must be a source of power outside our own universe.

Being that scientists do occasionally entertain the thought of "what came before our universe," the previous force, or sub level, that I'm suggesting is therefore not a new concept. What may be new here is the notion that this force did not disappear when our universe came into existence, and, rather than being another universe or dimension, this force is still part of our universe and is the "wiring" underneath our "dashboard."