(This document was written several years ago, so some things are slightly out of date, such as the time since the last BBE, which is now considered to be 13 billion years ago.)

As a professional in the computer community for 18 years, I have learned how important assumptions are when solving logical problems. If one doesn't have a solid foundation of assumptions, then any house built on those assumptions is bound to crumble. Current cosmologist have made the assumption that the entire cosmos was created by a single big bang which supposedly contained all the material of the cosmos. Current cosmologist have also made the assumption that the cosmos is finite. Evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope contradicts these assumptions, so all logical thought based on these assumptions should be questioned. I propose a model of Cosmology in which the Cosmos is infinite and, therefore, all of the material of the Cosmos could not have been contained in a single Big Bang.

The current model of cosmology is in a state of crisis. Evidence from the Hubble has been interpreted to indicate the universe is only 16 billion years old, yet we have stars in the Milky Way which are older, probably 20 billion years. The Milky Way and associated galaxies are moving in a manner which is inconsistent with the movement of matter ejected from a single Big Bang. Other evidence which is a problem for the current model, includes observations of "clumpiness" at all levels within the Cosmos and of distant Quasars which have consumed entire galaxies and galaxies which are too far away and too old to have been included in a single big bang only 16 billion years ago. Each of these is a problem for the current model.

The current model of Cosmology states there was a single big bang which contained all the material of the cosmos and occurred about 16 billion years ago. No mention is made of what existed before The Big Bang, where the material originated, or how the event occurred. This is a serious flaw since it essentially relies on faith and not science as the answer to the ultimate question of creation and where the material originated for that event. Any scientific theory designed to describe the beginning should have a valid scientific mechanism to describe what happened before the beginning and where the energy came from that makes up the Event. Current theory basically says that everything just appeared out of nowhere and I find that explanation unacceptable and unscientific.

Since all material supposedly was created from the energy of this single big bang, all the material of the Cosmos should have a common origin and thus most of the material should be approximately the same age and this material should be expanding outward from that single spot where the event occurred. This is not the picture we see when we look at the heavens.

Current theory makes no statement of what eventually happens to black holes except a prediction that some of the material of the black holes "evaporates" due to Hawking's Radiation. Current theory states that black holes will eventually "evaporate" due to this radiation, yet doesn’t consider the fact that material is being drawn into these black holes at a rate which is far greater than any "evaporation." The current view talks of black holes lasting 100 billion years into the future, but states the past only goes back 16 billion years. Current theory makes little mention of the interaction of black holes, how large black holes can become, or what might be their eventual end, except suggesting they "evaporate" back into space. In addition, many traditionally held measurements have been "adjusted" just to fit the current model. An example is the age of the stars at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Only two years ago, many of the these stars were considered at least 20 billion years old by very reliable techniques. Now the age is constantly adjusted down so as to fit within the 16 billion year old "age limit" imposed by the current model of cosmology.

I propose we view the Cosmos as infinite in size and age. One of the implications of this assumption is that we can never see all of the Cosmos. Another is that all of the material of the Cosmos could not have been contained in a single big bang so there must have been more than one. Additionally, if we don’t assume that a single big bang started everything, then we need a mechanism to explain how big bangs occur and an explanation of the motions of celestial objects which appear to be expanding from our Earthly viewpoint. Also we need to redefine the definition of the words "universe" and "cosmos" so as to fit better the new model of cosmology proposed here.

A Universe under my model is defined as all the material which is associated with any particular big bang. The Cosmos would contain all the combined Universes. The Milky Way and all associated galaxies which are moving in concert with the Milky Way should be considered as the universe of our origin, while all galaxies outside this group should be considered as other universes.

Edwin Hubble first observed that the Universe was expanding and concluded that a single big bang was responsible for producing all the material we can see both near and far. If we consider the cosmos as infinite, there arises several problems associated with the assumption that a single big bang created everything. First, we have not measured the distance and motion of all the objects that we have observed so we don’t know that all material in the cosmos is expanding or moving away from us. All we know is that the wave length of light is shifted more by objects which appear further away than objects which are closer to us. Other explanations could account for this shift. Second, we can not even see most of the material of the cosmos, so how can we claim to know its motion? A third problem is that all of our observations eventually will prove to be "local" observations of the cosmos, since we can never see it all. A fourth problem is that an infinite amount of material can never be included in a single Event (See Corollary 6 of Principle 1 in the Philosophy of Space and Time). And a fifth problem is that the limitations of space and time make it impossible for all the material we can now see to have been included in a single Big Bang Event.

I propose that the Cosmos is much larger than any one big bang and that the movements we see are the results of ALL the big bangs which have come before. If you imagine multiple big bangs occurring throughout time and understand that they are distributing their material in every direction throughout the Cosmos, I think you will find that most objects will appear to be moving away from you, no matter what your position within the Cosmos. We may be traveling through the remnants of the last big bang, but the motions of all objects in the cosmos are a result of the energies of their creation and the energies obtained through interaction with other objects encountered in space and time. All matter of the Cosmos could not have been in "The Big Bang" as stated in current models. In fact, the Cosmos is home to many such Events separated by time and space.

As we look at the physical world around us, we see that everything in nature has cycles. To think of the Cosmos as having only a single big bang with nothing existing before that event just doesn't seem to fit with the observations we make daily of the world we see around us. "What existed before the beginning?" is a valid scientific question that deserves an answer because all events we see in nature are cyclic. I propose Big Bang Events (BBEs) are also cyclic and occur when black holes become so large they can no longer hold the energy stored within. BBEs (pronounced bee bees) are initiated when gravity becomes so strong that its bond with matter is broken and the energy contained within the system is released. Think of a BBE as the release of all the energy which has been stored within the black hole for billions of years.

Current theory says that a single BBE started everything. Current cosmologist must consider the questions posed by an infinite cosmos. It is not logically consistent to believe in an infinite Cosmos and a single big bang since the rules of space and time limit the amount of material which can be involved in any one event. An infinite amount of material could not be involved in a single Event. The amount of material we can currently see with the Hubble could not have been involved in a single Event.

Cosmologist have changed the numbers a great deal lately, but if the furthest thing we can see is 15 billion light years away, then we must assume we can also see material which is 15 billion light years away, in the opposite direction. That would mean that we currently "know" about a cosmos that is at least 30 billion light years across, from the viewpoint of each "edge." Unless our present position is exactly at the center of the last Event, then one would have to conclude that one of the edges we now see was farther from the Event than the other edge. Thus, part of the material that we see was nearer the center, say 10 billion light years away and part would be farther away from the center, say 20 billion light years. Thus, we can conclude the furthest material would not have had enough time in 16 billion years to get where it is, if it originated in the big bang in question. Every time the Hubble views on object which is farther away, the logic of this argument only becomes stronger. All we can see with the Hubble could not have been contained in a single Event.

Cosmologist and astronomers are currently trying to measure the amount of mass in the universe to see if the universe is open or closed. In a closed universe, there is enough matter for gravity to stop the "expansion" of the universe, eventually causing it to come back together. An open universe would be one in which there is not enough material to cause the universe to come back together, so the universe would just keep expanding. The very nature of this theory speaks against an infinite cosmos. If there is a value which represents the amount of matter required to close the universe, by definition the universe would have to be finite. Any defined amount of material would be finite, not infinite. One of anything can never be infinite. One of anything is not the way of nature, either.

It has been argued that it is not the amount of material, but the density that is being measured to decide the open or closed universe question. But that argument doesn’t make logical sense either. Since the cosmos is infinite, we can never measure the density of the entire cosmos because we cannot "see" everything which exists. This theory could only work for a defined space and the material contained within it. As an example, we could measure the amount of material we could see with the Hubble Telescope, but to accomplish that task accurately, the Hubble would have to look in every direction as far as it can see and account for all matter within that "box."

But what if we build a larger telescope and look further? Again, we can only arrive at a conclusion as to the status of that particular "box" and only after an exhaustive search of that region of space. We can not know what the status is of any larger "box" we might draw in our imaginations because we don’t know what exists outside the "box" we have measured. As our telescopes get larger and larger, the problem remains the same, only the dimensions of the "box" change.

And what about material that is far away and still within our "box," but hidden from our view by nearby bright objects? To accurately decide the question, we would have to measure the density of the entire cosmos. Because we can’t see the entire cosmos, how can we ever measure its density? We can only measure the density of a finite and known region of space. The entire concept seems to be an exercise in futility, since it has no meaning when we consider the cosmos as infinite.

Current observations of the Hubble clearly show that all the material of the Cosmos was NOT in a single BBE. The Hubble observations support a value of perhaps 16 billion years since the last and nearest big bang. Why do we assume that the event contained everything? Surely there was a lot of material in that explosion, but not all the material of the cosmos nor even a significant part. The fact that the Milky Way contains stars which are older than the last BBE is proof that not all the material of the Cosmos was created by that Event.

The motion of our galaxy is further proof that it could not have been involved in the last big bang. The Milky Way and associated galaxies are flying across the explosion. We are not expanding outward from the center of that event. To imagine this situation, think of an explosion which throws a lot of dirt into the air. Now think of a bird flying through the dust of the explosion. If we were to see the bird flying through the explosion, would we conclude that the bird was created in the explosion? Probably not. Because the bird is flying through the explosion doesn’t mean he is connected or associated with that explosion. Similarly, just because our galaxy is flying through the debris of the last big bang doesn’t mean the Milky Way was created in that Event. We could never have gained our current velocity and direction if the material which makes up our galaxy had come from that big bang.

The latest observations of the Hubble are more proof. The Hubble was pointed to an "empty" part of the heavens and left looking at a single spot for 10 days. At the end of this time the results showed hundreds of fully formed galaxies which are too far away and too old to have been included in any big bang in our vicinity. Scientist have claimed some of these galaxies are 15 billion light years away. Now if we performed the same experiment in the opposite direction, what would we see? More galaxies of the same distance is what I would propose. If we examine time from the viewpoint of these distant galaxies, we see that we would then have represented before us 30 billion years of time as judged by the speed of light from one "edge" to the other. But I suggest the cosmos is infinite. What exists on past the furthest galaxy we can see? More galaxies, I think. We can never claim to see the edge of the cosmos, since there is no edge. It is just as naïve to say that the Earth is flat (and therefore has an edge) as to say that the cosmos is finite and therefore must have an "edge." Since observations of the Hubble show us that material goes on as far as we can see, we must conclude that the cosmos is infinite.

What eventually triggers a BBE is known in theory only. From the Philosophy of Space and Time, we see that a BBE occurs when gravity eventually "robs" mass of all its energy and the effective value of mass becomes zero in the unified field equation (E=gmc²) and the equation basically "comes apart at the seams." At the beginning of a new universe, most of the energy of any new system is contained within the mass. As time passes, gravity slowly organizes the universe and "pulls" the energy from the mass. At the end of time in the depths of a black hole, eventually gravity becomes so strong that mass has no energy left and another BBE occurs.

Now let us examine the conditions surrounding these Events. Single black holes could becomes so large they convert by themselves to energy. But for the Event to occur, gravity must be increasing, so as to pass the threshold. If a black hole was just "sitting" in space and accumulating no new material, there would be no catalyst to cause the Event to occur. However, I suggest that BBEs are always precipitated by the accumulation of new material which finally pushes the mass/gravity relationship past its breaking point. The Event could occur during the process of drawing in new material or could occur by the collision of two or more super black holes with the mass/gravity equivalent of galaxy super clusters. When the Event occurs, the resulting explosion recycles the material which had been contained within and sends this material outward as pure energy.

The fact that material for a BBE is concentrated in black holes before the event explains why the energy tends to leaves the event as a package, giving rise to the "clumpiness" we see within the Cosmos. If we examine the event closely, we see that there must be an event horizon. In other words, not all the material of the cosmos is included so there must be a boundary which exists between the material which is a part of the Event and the material which is not directly involved in the event. The energy of the event probably leaves the event as a "clump" and then later cools to form mass and gravity in the same general region of space. But nearby material outside the Event horizon must also be given motion and direction by the force of the Event and may actually act as "seeds" which would "help" the energy of the event cool and return to real space. All of these factors would contribute to material leaving the event in "clumps," thus resulting in the "clumpiness" we see within the cosmos.

After each event, as time passes and this material travels through space, it becomes available to be used in additional events at a new point in space and time. Each BBE is the beginning of a new Universe. A new Universe starts as all energy, then slowly winds down over time converting its energy to mass and gravity. The energy first appears as mostly mass with a small portion of gravity which then converts over time to mostly gravity with a small amount of mass. When gravity finally gets too large again, another Event occurs. Entropy is reversed for that region of space. Material for each event is never the same and is mixed with material from other events as time progresses.

The mathematical models scientist have developed for The Big Bang are models of the ideal situation. The models show energy exploding outward from a single point. In nature, the ideal model never happens. BBEs occur before the material arrives at a single point. (Actually, from the Philosophy of Space and Time, we see that mass represents identity within the cosmos and no two masses could ever occupy the same space or they wouldn’t have separate identities, as each mass that exists within the real world has a unique set of gravionic connections to the rest of its universe, making each particle unique.) With two or more super black holes coming together (or even if a single black hole explodes), the event occurs when the gravitational bond with matter is broken. This means the material ejected from an actual BBE is not distributed equally as in a perfect mathematical model. While mathematical models show symmetry, actual BBEs would not be symmetrical and therefore would be the primary cause of clumpiness within the Cosmos. The Great Attractor probably represents the location of the next BBE which will occur in our region of space.

Since I first read estimates that the universe was 20 or less billion years old, I have never been comfortable with that estimate. Our solar system is 5 billion years old, yet is rich in all natural elements, organic molecules, and possibly even life. The material of our solar system has obviously been around a long time. Energy from a BBE would first be elementary particles, then hydrogen and would have to make passage through one or more stars before it could be converted to helium, carbon, oxygen, etc. It just doesn't seem possible for a universe to be only16 billion years old, yet have enough time to complete all the necessary cycles. Nature would need time to create higher elements (10 to 20+ billion years), disperse them (? Billion years), create organic molecules (? Billion years) and then have them all come back together and form our solar system (5 billion years), all in only 16 billion years or less. This doesn’t even include all the time that the material was just "sitting alone" in space waiting to be involved in the next star system.

This short time span is especially hard to imagine since we live on the edge of our galaxy where material is not particularly abundant. If there are stars in the Milky Way which are 20 billion years old, then the beginning of our galaxy must have been long before that. Recently I sat and looked at granite rock which is said to be about 3 ½ billion years old. I can’t believe that the material I saw represented one fourth the total age of everything that has ever existed. The Milky Way has surely been rotating a very long time for its material to have undergone the long process of being converted from pure energy with no organization to the state we now see where there are many objects and much order.

As we look into space we see Quasars that are many billions of light years away (the numbers keep changing as cosmologist try to keep everything within their perceived limit of 16 billion years). This means we are looking at them as they were those many billions of years ago. Now the Hubble has shown us that these Quasars are large black holes which have consumed entire galaxies. It would probably take tens or hundreds of billions of years for gravity to accumulate that much material. We are looking at something that existed many billions of years ago and was probably at least 50 billion years old at the time. How can we say that "everything" is only16 billion years old when there is so much evidence the Cosmos is much older?

As we view the heavens, we see where galaxies have collided. It is not logical to think there could be so many collisions if everything came from a single point and expanded outward. It makes more sense to think of these collisions as being the result of material being tossed in every direction by BBEs at different places in space and time. We should expect to see things moving in every direction, although all space "nearby" the last big bang would be expanding. I think we are currently making that observation, but the assumption of a single big bang has clouded most thought as it pertains to cosmological patterns and how to interpret those patterns.

In philosophy, we are always faced with a cone of knowledge which divides what we can know from the ultimately unknowable because of the limitations of the speed of light. There will always be parts of the cosmos that can not be seen As an example, we can never see the Quasars as they exist today. Our knowledge is limited by the speed of light, since that is the medium we use to discern information about the world around us. Any time we look through our telescopes at the heavens, we must remember to place things in a Cosmic perspective. We can not see it all. If the Cosmos is infinite, then it continues in all directions further than we can see.

As a thought experiment, take the Hubble telescope and instantly transport yourself to the farthest galaxy that we can see. Now look further in the same direction. What would you see? You would see more stars and more galaxies that are just too far away for us to see from Earth, at least with the Hubble. In addition, what if you turned the telescope around and looked back towards Earth. I imagine you would be able to see the Milky Way, but what about the other 15 billion light years of material on past the Earth? Could you see it? Probably not, even though, in this thought experiment, you know that the material exists because you could see it from Earth before you started the journey. The point is that there is some limit to what we can see from Earth. We can build larger telescopes and see further, but we will never be able to see everything, so we must assume the cosmos is infinite since its limits will always be beyond our reach.

My model projects a Cosmos which is infinitely large and infinitely old. Although Universes come and go, the Cosmos appears to go on forever. The question of an open or closed universe, has no meaning. The question of dark matter also seems unimportant. Both questions arose from assuming a single big bang. The second question arose from our intense desire as human beings to "want" the "universe" to continue forever or to be a "closed" universe. No one wants to think that we live in an "open" universe that would apparently eventually come to an end. It seems to me that humanity has an inherent desire to see "things" continue forever. My model of an infinite cosmos embraces that desire.

If one assumes an infinite cosmos, then the questions of dark matter and an open or closed universe are not the proper questions to be asking. In reality, material from a BBE will continue moving through the Cosmos and collecting in black holes until gravity robs mass of all its energy, and then that energy will be recycled in another BBE. It doesn't make any difference if that material is dark or light. What is important is to view the Cosmos with an open mind so that we can accurately interpret what we see. After all, any model of science is merely a tool which we use to help us better understand the world around us. Viewing the cosmos as infinite is more beneficial to humanity and science than viewing the cosmos as finite.

We have direct evidence that the cosmos is at least several hundred billion years old. For all practical purposes, we can assume the Cosmos goes on forever since no event can stop the accumulation of matter into black holes. Hawking's Radiation may account for some material escaping, but could never account for the mass and gravity of entire galaxies, especially since black holes only get hungrier as they get older and larger. No event can stop those same black holes from eventually becoming so large that they revert back to energy as a BBE. In essence, God recycles.