This volume is a continuation of a series which undertakes to determine the characteristics that the physical universe must necessarily have if it is composed entirely of discrete units of motion, and to show that the universe thus defined is identical, item by item, with the observed physical universe. The specific objective of this present volume is to extend the physical relations and principles developed in the earlier volumes to a description of the large-scale features of the universe of motion. This is the field of astronomy, and the pages that follow will resemble an astronomical treatise. In order to avoid misunderstanding, therefore, we will begin by emphasizing that this is not an astronomical work, in the usual sense.
Astronomy and astrophysics are based on facts determined by observation. Their objective is to interpret these facts and relate them to each other in a systematic manner. The primary criterion by which the results of these interpretive activities are judged is how well they account for, and agree with, the relevant observational data. But astronomical data are relatively scarce, and often conflicting. Opinion and judgment therefore play a very large part in the decisions that are made between conflicting theories and interpretations. The question to be answered, as it is usually viewed, is which is the best explanation? In practice this means which fits best with current interpretations in related astronomical areas.
The conclusions that are expressed in this work, on the other hand, are derived from the postulated properties of space and time in a universe of motion, and they are independent of the astronomical observations. These conclusions must, of course, be consistent with all that is definitely known from observation, but whatever observational information may exist, or may not exist, plays no part in the development of thought that arrives at the conclusions that are stated. Observed astronomical objects and phenomena are not being described and discussed in this work as a foundation on which to Construct theory. They are introduced only for the purpose of showing that these observations are consistent with the conclusions derived from theory. Thus the present volume is not an astronomical work, which interprets and systematizes the information derived from astronomical observation; it is a physical work, which extends the development of physical theory in the two preceding volumes into the astronomical field, confirming the previously derived laws and principles by showing that they still apply under extreme conditions.
The availability of this accurate new physical theory, developed and verified in other fields where the facts are more readily accessible, now gives us a source of information about astronomical matters that is not subject to the limitations that are inherent in the procedures that the astronomers must necessarily employ. It gives us a unique opportunity to examine the subject matter of astronomy from an outside viewpoint completely independent of any conclusions that have been reached from the results of astronomical observation.
The record of advancement of astronomical knowledge has been largely a story of the invention and utilization of new and more powerful instruments. The optical telescope, the spectroscope, the photographic plate, the radio telescope, the x-ray telescope, the photoelectric cell—these and the major improvements that have been made in their power and accuracy are the principal landmarks of astronomical progress. It is a matter of considerable significance, therefore, that in application to astronomical phenomena, the theory of the universe of motion, the Reciprocal System of theory, as we are calling it, has the characteristics of a new instrument of exceptional power and versatility, rather than those of an ordinary theory.
Astronomy has many theories, of course, but the products of those theories are quite different from the results obtained from an instrument, inasmuch as they are determined primarily by what is already known or is believed to be known, about astronomical phenomena. This existing knowledge, or presumed knowledge, is the raw material from which the theory is constructed, and conformity with the data already accumulated, and the prevailing pattern of scientific thought, is the criterion by which the conclusions derived from the theory are tested. The results obtained from an instrument, on the other hand, are not influenced by the current state of knowledge or opinion in the area involved. (The interpretation of these results may be so influenced, but that is another matter,) If those results conflict with accepted ideas, it is the ideas that must be changed, not the information that the instrument contributes. The point now being emphasized is that the Reciprocal System, like the instrument and unlike the ordinary theory, is wholly independent of what is known or believed about the phenomena under consideration,
Stars and galaxies are found in the existing astronomical theories because they are put into these theories. They are aggregates of matter, they exert gravitational forces, and they emit radiation, and so on, in the theoretical picture, because this information was put into the theories. They theoretically generate the energy that is required to maintain the radiation by converting matter to energy, because this, too, was put into the astronomical theories. They conform to the basic laws of physics and chemistry; they follow the principles laid down by Faraday, by Maxwell, by Newton, and by Einstein, because these laws and principles were put into the theories. To this vast amount of knowledge and pseudo-knowledge drawn from the common store, the theorist adds a few assumptions of his own that bear directly on the point at issue and, after subjecting the entire mass of material to his reasoning processes, he arrives at certain conclusions. Such a theory, therefore, does not see things as they are; it sees them in the context of existing observational information and existing patterns of thought. We cannot get a quasar, for instance, out of such a theory until we put a quasar, or something from which, within the context of existing thought, a quasar can be derived, into the theory.
On the other hand, the existing concepts of the nature of astronomical objects cannot be put into an instrument. One cannot tell an instrument what it should see or what it should record, other than by limiting the scope of its application, and it therefore sees things as they are, not as the scientific community thinks that they ought to be. If there are quasars, the appropriate instrument, appropriately utilized, sees quasars. Every new instrument uncovers many errors in accepted thinking about known phenomena, while at the same time it reveals the existence of other phenomena that were not only unknown, but in many instances wholly unsuspected.
The Reciprocal System of theory is like an instrument in that it, too, is independent of existing scientific thought. Stars and galaxies composed of matter appear in this theory, but neither these objects nor the matter itself are put into the theory; they are consequences of the theory: results that necessarily follow from the only things that are put into the theory, the postulated properties of space and time. The astronomical objects that appear in the theory are subject to the basic physical laws, they exert gravitational forces, they emit radiation, and so on, not because these things were put into the theory, but because they are products of the development of the theory itself. All of the entities and relations that constitute the theoretical universe of motion are consequences of the fundamental postulates of the system.
While we can hardly say, a priori, that this system of theory sees things as they are, we can say that it sees things, as they must be if the physical universe is a universe of motion. If there are quasars, then this theory, like an appropriate instrument, and independently of any previous theoretical or observational information, sees quasars. Indeed, it did see quasars, somewhat indistinctly, to be sure, but definitely, long before the astronomers recognized them. As will be brought out in detail in Chapter 20, this pre-discovery development of theory identified the quasars, together with some related phenomena that were not distinguished from them at this stage of the theoretical study, as high-speed products of galactic explosions (not yet discovered observationally), defined their principal properties, and described their ultimate fate.
Like the invention of the telescope, the development of this new and powerful theoretical instrument now gives the astronomer an opportunity to widen his horizons, to get a clear view of phenomena that have hitherto been hazy and indistinct, and to extend his investigations into areas that are totally inaccessible to the instruments previously available. The picture obtained from this new instrument differs in many respects from present-day astronomical ideas—very radically in some instances—but the existence of such differences is clearly inevitable in view of the limited amount of observational information that has been available to the astronomers, and the consequent highly tentative nature of much of the astronomical theory currently in vogue. As has been demonstrated in the preceding volumes, the correct explanation of a physical situation often differs from the prevailing ideas to a surprising degree even where the current theories have been successful enough in practice to win general acceptance. In astronomy, where comparatively few issues have been definitely settled, and differences of opinion are rampant, it can hardly be expected that the correct explanations will leave the previous theoretical structure intact.
This work does not attempt to cover the entire astronomical field. Much of the attention of the astronomers is centered on individual objects. They determine the distance to Sirius, the atmospheric pressure on Mars, the temperature of the sun’s photosphere, the density of the moon, and so on, none of which is relevant to the objectives of this present work, except to the extent that some individual fact or quantity may serve to illustrate a general proposition. Furthermore, the scope of the work, both in the number of subjects covered, and in the extent to which the examination of each subject has been carried, has been severely limited by the amount of time that could be allocated to the astronomical portion of a project equally concerned with many other fields of science. The omissions from the field of coverage, in addition to those having relevance only to individual objects, include (1) items that are not significantly affected by the new findings and are adequately covered in existing astronomical literature, and (2) subjects that the author simply has not thus far gotten around to considering. Attention is centered principally on the evolutionary patterns, and on those phenomena, such as the white dwarfs, quasars, and related objects, with which conventional theory is having serious difficulties.
One of the recalcitrant problems of major significance is the question as to the origin of the galaxies.
There are great many things that the cosmologist not only does not know, but also finds severe difficulty in envisaging a path towards finding out… In particular, how did the galaxies form? The encyclopedias and popular astronomical books are full of plausible tales of condensations from vortices, turbulent gas clouds and the like, but the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into being.1 (Laurie John)
With what perspective will someone fifty years from now read our astronomical journals and books?… I feel that in the area of understanding galaxies we might well leave present ideas farther behind than in any other area of astronomy.2
Most astronomers apparently believe that the question as to the origin of the stars is closer to a solution, but when the issue is squarely faced they are forced to admit that no tenable theory of star formation has yet been devised. For example, I. S. Shklovsky (or Shklovskii), a prominent Russian astronomer whose views will be quoted frequently in these pages, concedes that the star formation process is still in “the realm of pure speculation.” He describes the situation in this manner:
It is natural to suppose that the connection between O and B stars and dust clouds] should be a genetic one, with the stars in the associations being formed from condensing clouds of gas and dust. Nevertheless… the problem [of proof] has not yet been definitively solved… the situation has turned out to be all too complicated. New technological developments… may ultimately lift the star formation problem from the realm of pure speculation and make it an exact science.3
Our first concern in this present work will be with these two basic problems. As we saw in Volume I, the large-scale action of the universe is cyclic. The contents of the sector of the universe in which we live, the material sector, originate in a primitive, widely dispersed form, and undergo a process of aggregation into large units. Ultimately the aggregates of maximum size are explosively ejected into an inverse sector of the universe, the cosmic sector. A similar process takes place in that sector, culminating in an explosive ejection of the major aggregates of cosmic matter back into the material sector.
The two preceding volumes have described the aggregation process in the material sector insofar as it applies to the primary units: atoms and sub-atomic particles. The incoming matter from the cosmic sector arrives in the form of cosmic atoms. The structure of these atoms is incompatible with existence in the material sector (that is, at speeds less than that of light), and they decay into sub-atomic particles that are able to accommodate themselves to the material environment Over a long period of time these particles combine to form simple atoms, after which the atoms absorb additional particles to form more complex atoms (heavier elements) Meanwhile the atoms are subject to a continual increase in ionization, the ultimate result of which is to bring each atom to a destructive limit At this point all, or part, of the rotational motion (mass) of the atom is converted to linear motion (kinetic energy).
This atomic aggregation process, previously described in detail, thus terminates in destruction of the atom, or a portion thereof, rather than in ejection into the cosmic sector. In order to understand how the ejection takes place we will have to examine matter from a different standpoint. Heretofore we have been looking at the behavior of the individual units, the atoms. Now we will need to turn our attention to the behavior of material aggregates. This is the principal subject of the present volume.
Let us begin our consideration of these aggregates with a pre-aggregate situation, a volume of extension space (the space of the conventional reference system) in which there is a nearly uniform distribution of widely separated hydrogen atoms and sub-atomic particles, the initial products derived from the incoming cosmic matter: the cosmic rays. Coexisting with this primitive material there is usually a small admixture of matter that has been scattered into space by explosive processes, mainly gas and dust, but including some larger aggregates up to stellar size. There may even be a few small groups of stars. All this material is subject to the two general forces of the universe, gravitation and the force due to the outward progression of the natural reference system. The nature of the aggregates that are formed is determined by the properties of these two forces. Three general types of aggregates can be distinguished: (1) dust particles, (2) stars and related aggregates, (3) galaxies and related aggregates.
In the diffuse matter under consideration, the progression of the natural reference system is the dominant force except at very great distances. As we saw in Volume I, the direction of this progression is outward, but the natural outward direction, to which this progression conforms, is away from unity, because the natural datum level is unity, not zero. Inside unit space, “away from unity” is inward as seen in the reference system. Inasmuch as the sizes of the atoms and sub-atomic particles put them into what we have called the time region, the region inside unit space, there is nothing to prevent random motion of one from bringing it within unit distance of another. When this occurs, the progression of the reference system moves these objects inward toward each other until they reach equilibrium positions where the gravitational motion and the progression are balanced. Such contacts are infrequent because of the very low densities and temperatures, but over a long period of time these infrequent contacts are sufficient to build up molecules and dust particles.
Nothing larger than a dust particle can be formed by this contact process, because as soon as the diameter of the aggregate reaches unit distance, 4.56×106 cm, the direction of the progression of the natural reference system, relative to the conventional spatial coordinate system, is reversed. Outward from unity becomes outward from each other, and the particles move apart. Inter-atomic forces of cohesion operate against this outward progression, and permit the maximum size of relatively complex particles such as the silicates to exceed the natural unit of distance to a limited extent. The maximum attainable diameter is something less than one micron (10-4 cm). This is the explanation of the “surprising” fact noted by Otto Struve:
It is surprising that the particles of all clouds are of about the same size… There must be a mechanism that prevents the particles from growing larger than one micron.4
Average grain sizes are closer to the unit of distance, which is equivalent to about 0.05 micron. Simon Mitton reports average values ranging from 0.02 microns for iron to 0.15 microns for silicates.5
Each of the individual entities with diameters greater than unity existing in the primitive diffuse volume of matter—molecules, dust particles, and bits of debris from disintegrated larger aggregates—is far outside the gravitational limits of its neighbors, and the progression of the natural reference system therefore tends to move them apart, but this outward motion is opposed, not only by the gravitational forces of the neighbors, but also by the inward motion due to the combined gravitational effect of all masses within the effective distance.
If we start from a given point in the region of diffuse matter, and consider spheres of successively larger radius, the progression of the natural reference system is much greater than the gravitational effect originally, but the total gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass—that is, to the cube of the radius, where the density is uniform—whereas the effect of distance is a decrease proportional to the square of the radius. The net gravitational force that the mass included within the concentric spheres exerts against a particle at the outer boundary in each case therefore increases in direct proportion to the radius of the sphere. Hence, although the gravitational motion (or force) at the shorter distances is almost negligible compared to the progression of the natural reference system, equilibrium is eventually reached at some very great distance.
Beyond the point of equilibrium the particles of matter are being pulled inward toward the center of the spherical aggregate. But coincidentally, the gravitational forces acting from other similar centers are being exerted on the particles in the same region of space, and the net result is that there is a movement in both directions that leaves a relatively clear space between adjacent aggregates. The original immense volume of very diffuse matter thus separates into a number of large autonomous gravitationally bound aggregates.
Current astronomical thought regards the condensation of a cloud of dust or gas as a matter of the relative strength of the gravitational force and the opposing thermal forces. On this basis, it is difficult to account for any large-scale condensation. As expressed by Gold and Hoyle:
Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be very largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.6
In the universe of motion the inward and outward forces arrive at an equilibrium, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. No condensation would take place if this equilibrium persisted, but the continued introduction of new matter from the cosmic sector alters the situation. The added mass strengthens the gravitational force, and initiates a contraction. The decrease in the distance between particles increases the gravitational force still further. The contraction is thus a self-reinforcing process, and once it is started it accelerates.
The two processes that have been described, the gradual contraction of the very large diffuse aggregate and the consolidation of the individual atoms and sub-atomic particles into molecules and dust particles, take place coincidentally. The drastic reduction in the number of separate units in the aggregate resulting from the consolidation results in an excess of empty space within the contracting volume, and causes the contracting sphere of matter to break up into a large number of smaller aggregates separated by nearly empty space. The product is a globular cluster, in which a large number of sub-masses—up to a million or more—are contained within the overall gravitational limit of a large spherical aggregate. Each of the sub-masses is outside the gravitational limits of its neighbors, and is therefore moving away from them, but it is being pulled inward by the gravitational force of the entire aggregate.
Many of the internal condensations take place around the remnants of disintegrated galaxies that are scattered through the contracting material. In that case, the relatively massive core thus provided makes the mass a self-contracting unit. Where no such nuclei are available, the forces of the globular cluster as a whole confine the sub-masses, and the contraction continues under the influence of these external forces until the density is adequate to continue the process.
This is where the astronomers current theories of star formation are stopped cold. They envision the formation as taking place in the galaxies, but there are no gas or dust clouds in our galaxy or in any other—so far as we know—that have anywhere near the critical density, or have any way of increasing their density to the critical level.
Basically there does not appear to be enough matter in any of the hydrogen clouds in the Milky Way that would allow them to contract and be stable. Apparently our attempt to explain the first stages in star evolution has failed.7 (G. Verschuur)
If the contraction of the sub-masses contained within the globular cluster is permitted to continue without interference from outside agencies, the gravitational energy of position (the potential energy) of their constituent units—atoms, particles, etc.—is gradually transformed into kinetic energy, and the temperature of the aggregate consequently rises. At some point, the mass becomes self-luminous, and it is then recognized as a star. The globular cluster, as we observe it, consists of an immense number of stars, separated by great distances, and forming a nearly spherical aggregate. As the foregoing discussion brings out, however, the star cluster stage is preceded by a stage in which the constituent units, or sub-masses, of the globular cluster are pre-stellar gas clouds rather than stars. The existence of such structures has some important consequences that will be explored as we proceed.
No new assumptions or concepts have had to be introduced in order to derive this picture of the stellar condensation process in the depths of space. We have simply taken the physical principles and relations previously obtained from a development of the consequences of the basic postulates as to the nature of space and time, as described in the previous volumes of this work, and have applied them to the problems at hand. The results of this study not only give us a clear picture of how the formation of stars takes place, but also show that the formation occurs under conditions that necessarily exist throughout immense regions of space. The production of sufficient star clusters of the globular type to meet the requirements of the later phases of evolutionary development is thus shown to be a natural and inevitable consequence of the premises of the theory.
The globular clusters are actually small aggregates of the same general nature as the galaxies. “There is no absolutely sharp cutoff distinguishing galaxies from globular clusters,”8 says Martin Harwit. The process just described thus provides the answers for both of the major astronomical problems identified earlier: the formation of stars and the formation of galaxies. As noted earlier, present-day astronomy has no tenable theory of galaxy formation. In the words of W. H. McCrea, “We do not yet know how to tackle the problem.”9 The situation with respect to the formation of stars is somewhat different, in that, although it is evident that the mechanism of star formation is not yet understood, there is a general impression that the dust clouds in the galaxies must be the locations in which this mechanism is operating.
In such cases as this, where the general trend of thought in any field is on the wrong track, the reason almost invariably is the uncritical acceptance of some erroneous conclusion or conclusions. As will be brought out in detail in the pages that follow, astronomy has unfortunately been the victim of two particularly far-reaching errors. The latter portion of this volume will examine a wide variety of phenomena in which the true relations have not heretofore been recognized because the general submission to Einstein’s dictum that speeds in excess of that of light are impossible has diverted inquiry into unproductive channels. The theories applicable to the more familiar astronomical objects that will be discussed in the earlier chapters have been led astray by another erroneous conclusion also imported from the physicists. This costly mistake is the conclusion that the energy production process in the stars is the conversion of hydrogen to helium and successively heavier elements.
As brought out in Volume II, the development of the consequences of the postulates that define the universe of motion arrives at a totally different conclusion as to the nature of the process by which the stellar energy is produced. Inasmuch as there is no direct way of determining just what is happening in the interiors of the stars, all conclusions with respect to this energy generation process have to be based on considerations of an indirect nature. Thus far, the thinking about this subject has been dominated by the physicists“ insistence that the most energetic process known to them must necessarily be the process whereby the stars generate their energy, regardless of any evidence to the contrary that may exist in other scientific areas. The fact that they have had to change their conclusions as to the nature of this process twice already has not altered this attitude. The most recent change, from the gravitational contraction hypothesis to the hydrogen conversion hypothesis was preceded by a long and acrimonious dispute with the geologists, whose evidence showed that geological history required a great deal more time than was allowed by the gravitational contraction process. Ultimately the physicists had to concede defeat.
It might be assumed that the embarrassing outcome of this controversy would have engendered a certain amount of caution in the claims made for the newest hypothesis, but there is no indication of it. Today there is ample astronomical evidence that the physicists current hypothesis is wrong, just as there was ample geological evidence in the nineteenth century that their then current hypothesis was wrong. But they are no more willing to listen to the astronomical evidence today than they were to the geological evidence of the earlier era. The astronomers are less combative than the geologists, and are not inclined to challenge the physicists dicta. So they are ignoring the evidence from their own field, and accommodating their theories to the hydrogen conversion hypothesis. Curiously enough, the only real challenge to that hypothesis at the present time comes from a rather unlikely source, an experiment whose execution is difficult, and whose interpretation is open to question. This is an experiment designed to measure the rate of emission of neutrinos by the sun. The number of neutrinos observed is far less than that predicted on the basis of the prevailing theories. “This is a terrible puzzle,”10 says Hans Bethel
The neutrino experiment is one of the most interesting to be carried out in astronomy in recent years, and seems to be giving the most profound and unexpected results. The least that we can conclude is that until the matter is settled, we must treat all the theoretical predictions about stellar interiors with a bit of caution.11 (Jay M. Pasachoff)
The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. The hypothesis of energy generation by ordinary combustion processes held sway in its day on the strength of the same argument. Then gravitational contraction was recognized as more potent, and became the physicists orthodoxy, defended furiously against attacks by the geologists and others. Now the hydrogen conversion process is the canonical view, resting on exactly the same grounds that crumbled in the two previous instances. In each case the contention was that there is no other tenable alternative. But in both of these earlier cases it turned out that there was such an alternative. Even without the contribution of the theory of the universe of motion, which shows that, in fact, there is a logical and rational alternative, it should be evident from past experience that the assertion that “there is no other way” is wholly unwarranted. Without this crutch, the hydrogen conversion process is no more than a questionable hypothesis, a very provisional conclusion that must stand or fall on the basis of the way that its consequences agree with physical observations.
Unfortunately the astronomers, whose observations are the ones against which the hypothesis can be tested, have taken it as an established fact, and have accorded it a status superior to their own findings, adjusting their interpretations of their own observations to agree with the physicists hypothesis. We need go no farther than the first deduction that is made from the assumed existence of the hydrogen conversion process to encounter a glaring example of the way in which this pure assumption is allowed to override the astronomical evidence. In application to the question of stellar ages, this hypothetical process leads to the conclusion that the hot, massive stars of the O and B classes are very young, as their output of energy is so enormous that, on the basis of this hypothesis, their supply of fuel cannot last for more than a relatively short time. It then follows that these stars must have been formed relatively recently, and somewhere near their present locations.
No theory that calls for the formation of stars within the galaxies is plausible so long as the theorists are unable to explain how stars can be formed in this kind of an environment. One that, in addition, requires the most massive and most energetic of all stars to be very young, astronomically speaking, converts the implausibility into an absurdity. Even some of the astronomers find this conclusion hard to swallow. For instance, Bart J. Bok once observed that
It is no small matter to accept as proven the conclusion that some of our most conspicuous supergiants, like Rigel, were formed so very recently on the cosmic scale of time measurements12
In the context of the theory of the universe of motion, the formation of single stars, or small groups of stars, by condensation from galactic dust or gas clouds is not possible. In addition to all of the other problems that have baffled those who have attempted to devise a mechanism for this purpose, the new theory discloses that there is a hitherto unrecognized force operating against such a condensation, the force due to the outward progression of the natural reference system, which makes condensation still more difficult. No known force other than gravitation is capable of condensing diffuse material into a star, and gravitation can accomplish this result only on a wholesale scale, under conditions in which an immense number of stars are formed jointly from a gas and dust medium of vast proportions.
On this basis, the globular clusters are the youngest aggregates of matter, and the stars of these clusters are the youngest of all stars. Thus the astronomers have their age sequence upside down. It may be hard to believe that the present structure of astronomical theory could contain such a major error in its basic framework. But, as we will see when we examine the various astronomical phenomena in the pages that follow, even the astronomers themselves admit that the theoretical conclusions based on the currently accepted age sequence are inconsistent with the observations all along the line. Of course they are reluctant to make any blanket statement to this effect, but if we add up their comments concerning the individual items, this is what they amount to. In the quotations from astronomical sources that will be introduced in connection with the discussion of these various subjects we will find that the individual inconsistencies and contradictions are characterized as “puzzling,” “curious,” “confusing,” “difficult to explain,” “not yet understood,” and so on. Some of the more candid writers concede that the theoretical understanding is unsatisfactory, referring to a particular inconsistency as “an impressive challenge to theoreticians,” admitting that it “imperils” currently accepted theory, or “conflicts with current models,” reporting that “severe problems remain” in arriving at understanding, or even that the observations constitute an “apparent defiance” of modern theory.
The existence of this multitude of commonly recognized contradictions and inconsistencies is a clear indication that there is something radically wrong with the foundations of present-day astronomical theory. What the development of the theory of a universe of motion has done is to identify the mistake that has been made. Uncritical acceptance of an assumption made by the physicists has led to a conclusion regarding the ages and evolution of stars that is upside down.