I write this letter because society enjoys conflicts and I believe that I have a conflict of the highest order concerning Texas Tech and some of the "theories" that are being taught. In the early 1970's I attended Texas Tech, and shortly before I graduated I wrote a philosophy paper entitled "The Philosophy of Space and Time." In that paper, I made two claims which were contrary to the theories of the time and now the Hubble Space Telescope has confirmed my suspicions. The first concept was that philosophically and logically Einstein could not be correct in his equation E=mc² and that E=gmc² must be correct. Additionally, I argued that the current model of cosmology proposed a finite cosmos while the empirical evidence suggests an infinite cosmos. Even though theologians, mathematicians, and lay people alike talk of infinity every day, apparently physicist, and surprisingly cosmologist, are so used to working with finite problems that they tend to assume all of nature is finite. I think this is a bad assumption.

As to Einstein's equation, E=mc² may be fine for theory, but it describes no real system or event. It has been calculated that according to this formula, 4 1/2 lbs. of sunlight falls on the Earth every day. This equation shows that sunlight hitting our planet actually increases the planets mass each day. My question is "Doesn't this mass have gravity too?" Everyone agrees that a 4-and 1/2 lb. rock would have gravity. And everyone agrees that adding this rock to our planet would increase the Earth's gravity because one of the rules of the cosmos is that mass and gravity are proportional. This means they are intimately tied together and a change to one always causes a change to the other. Einstein's equation calculated mass without the proportionality of gravity and this cannot represent any real system. The correct equation must be E=gmc² which allows the gravity to increase as the mass increases.

A logical argument would look as follows.

If increasing the mass of the Earth increase its gravity (law of proportionality),

And sunlight hitting the Earth causes its mass to increase (E=mc²),

Then sunlight hitting the Earth must also increase its gravity (E=gmc²).

As far as infinity goes (pun intended), the current view of cosmology logically requires a finite cosmos. This model proposes that everything that ever existed was created from nothing in a single Big Bang 12 billion years ago. Any theory that claims something from nothing seems more like a religion than a science. My logic of why a single Big Bang must be a finite situation is as follows: Since there was only a single Event, and there was a finite time since the Event, and the Event had a finite rate of expansion, and the velocities of mass and energy are limited to the finite speed of light, then the Event must be finite. If any physical system has a boundary, either fixed or moving, then it defines a closed set and all closed sets are finite. All the astronomers who talk of their latest telescopes being able to "see to the edge of the universe" uphold my logic.

I have proposed the Infinite Cosmos/Multiple Big Bang model that suggests that Big Bang Events are caused when black holes become too large to hold the energy contained within. If you listen to scientist talk of "the" Big Bang, they always say that a Big Bang must come from an area of extreme density. What is a black hole, but an area of extreme density? The current theory states that everything we see has expanded from a single Event, but as we look at the heavens we don't see everything expanding from a single point, we see things moving in every which way. My model shows that universes don't expand. They each move in their own direction and actually contract over time due to the influence of gravity. The current theory begs several important questions that many lay people have pondered including "What was before the Big Bang?" "What is past the edge of the universe?" and "Where did the material come from for this single Event?" All of these questions have simple answers under an infinite cosmos model.

If we look at this situation philosophically, it is possible that there were zero, or one, or two, or even an infinite number of Events. All of cosmology has looked at only the one case of a single Big Bang Event. All of their logic and conclusions fall apart if one considers any other possibility but the single Event. Einstein's equations have shown that every particle must have a beginning and this is one thing that led scientist to accept the single Event model. But because every particle has a beginning, doesn't mean that every particle has the same beginning. Most people who believe in God, believe that God is infinite and therefore His creation would also be infinite. Also the empirical evidence is overwhelming that the cosmos goes on forever in every direction. As evidence, witness the recent experiment conducted by NASA using the Hubble Space Telescope. The telescope was pointed at a portion of the "sky" that was thought to be devoid of material and left "looking" at that direction for ten days. At the end of the period, the telescope was able to see numerous fully formed, mature galaxies that are too old and too far away to have been included in any Big Bang near us. An infinite cosmos goes on forever.

To me, the most important assumption every scientist must make is the assumption of an infinite or finite cosmos. Infinity implies openness including an open mind, which is one of the prime requirements of science. Surely any scientist who assumes a finite cosmos is, in some way, limiting himself and his experiments. We must assume the cosmos is infinite and realize that we are not at the center of the cosmos, since an infinite cosmos has no center. Mankind originally thought that the heavens revolved around the Earth and the single Big Bang model is merely the latest continuation of that myth.

I have written numerous times to the philosophy department at Tech. They tell me that they don't "do" the philosophy of physical systems any more. I would only ask how could anyone profess to be a philosopher and expound the "truth" and look for the "essence of nature" when they don't understand the most primitive workings of nature? I believe an understanding of physical systems is the most important starting place for any philosopher, since philosophy is the study of knowledge itself. And besides, the arguments I have proposed are pure philosophy and pure logic. One doesn't have to have a Ph.D. from MIT to ponder the philosophical questions of "Does mass made from energy have gravity?" or "Is the cosmos infinite?"

I am not upset with John Montford or the philosophy department. I think John is the best thing that has happened to Texas Tech in a long time and I feel that the university will prosper under his guidance. I do understand why no one wants to give an opinion on these subjects because no one wants to say that Einstein was wrong and most human beings desperately fight anything that offers to change the way they look at things. I don't want to hurt John or anyone else at the university, but I think the pursuit of excellence requires that these ideas be discussed openly and honestly in an effort to find the truth.

I have thought long and hard about the ultimate goals of any institution of higher learning, and it seems to me that many things the university does are very important for our society. But of all the things that a university accomplishes, the highest purpose a university can obtain is to raise mankind's awareness of his place in the cosmos. Surely a model of cosmology that allows the cosmos to be infinite and a model of physical systems that shows how all events in the real world are related, would each qualify as concepts that expand mankind's awareness of himself and his place in the cosmos.

For almost three years, I have written to every major department at Texas Tech requesting an interview. I have been ignored or turned down. I have spoken several times to Chancellor Montford and he has promised me on more than one occasion that he would help me get a hearing, but he has yet to be successful. When I handed in "The Philosophy of Space and Time" I was in my last semester at Texas Tech and was working at three part time jobs while graduating with honors in 3 years. One of my jobs was grading papers for the Philosophy Department. It wasn't the case that the instructors didn't grade their own papers, because they did. They employed students so that they could be assured of a more objective view of the student's work. You see, when you are reading the 59^th of 60 papers at three in the morning, sometimes you "fall a sleep." So many instructors had student graders to act as a check against the possibility that a student would be judged less than his actual performance. I thought this was an admirable concept and will forever endear me to that department. Maybe that concept applies to this situation.

I am requesting that these issues be discussed openly and completely. All of these issues are issues of pure philosophy, and I believe, some of the most important issues of our time. If my basic principles can not be disproved, then the logical consequences must be accepted. I therefore challenge Texas Tech University to prove that the cosmos is finite as they are currently teaching. If they can't prove it is finite, then they should accept an infinite model, because the proof exists for an infinite cosmos model. I also seek proof that E=mc² represents any real event or system, since my arguments show otherwise.

Additional arguments and details of the Infinite Cosmos Model and the Gravionic Model of Physical Systems can be viewed at my web site at www.micromike.com.

For almost three years I have tried to resolve this issue within the structure of the university, but with no success. The only thing I know to do at this point is to take my arguments to the public in the hopes that someone will recognize how important it is for humanity to view the cosmos as infinite and their opportunities as unlimited.

Respectfully,