The following article was precipitated by a letter, dated January 27, 1994, which was sent by Harald Heinze to your editor challenging the latter's views on the firmament and the size of the universe. Mr. Heinze has proposed that parallaxes are due to the oblateness of the earth's orbit about the sun (or sun's orbit about the earth). This would make Alpha Centauri, our nearest star, about 26 light-days distant from the earth. The entire universe fits into about 50 light-days, although Heinze will allow about 6,000 light years. He has also championed the ballistic theory of light and he believes that he can thus account for the cosmic redshift without it actually being an expansion of the universe or a stretching of space itself. In this article we examine these claims in detail.

After some introductory comments I will present the entire text of Mr. Heinze's letter. Interspersed throughout that text, set off in square brackets and in italics, is my commentary on Mr. Heinze's previous point or points. Over the past decade, I've offered to print his views if he could ever present them in a form he was happy with. He has always responded that he is not yet up to the task. Lately, though, he has taken to lamenting, in correspondence to third parties, that I, as editor of this publication, have an unfair platform for presenting the model the Lord has allowed me to derive for the firmament and, by extension, the large universe.

In order to set the stage for this debate (I'll print any response Mr. Heinze cares to make to this article up to 30 Biblical Astronomer pages), we need to look at the physics involved on the most fundamental level. We need to distinguish, at that level, the boundary between the laws of physics and miracles, and finally, the role of Jesus Christ as the sustainer of the universe.

The role of the firmament

The firmament (also called the Planck medium, massive superstrings, etc.) is a medium created on the second day, after the creation of light. The Bible defines the firmament as heaven. Over the last 20 years scientific evidence has been mounting to show that the firmament is a super dense medium which dictates the basic laws of physics (of motion). I need to make it clear from the outset that the firmament's physical properties, (it's density, resonant frequency, speed of “sound,” etc.) do not depend on the size of the universe. The small-universe firmament would have the same (zeroeth-order) properties as I've listed elsewhere.¹ Bear in mind that it is the properties of the firmament which dictate the laws of physics. Those properties determine the speed of light, the strength of a gravitational pull, the charges of the electron and proton, the behavior of entropy (that is, the second law of thermodynamics), and, among other things, the amount of energy a body has for a given rate of spin. All these will behave the same way in either a large-scale or a small-scale universe.

Now, although the properties of the firmament determine the laws of physics, the presence of elementary particles (protons, electrons, and the ”particle zoo”) adds some additional constraints. One of those constraints is that the firmament, carrying the universe of atoms along with it, must rotate as a solid body. Since the scriptural model is that of a universe rotating about the earth with a period of one day, it might seem reasonable that a small universe would better fit into the Bible's view, but such is not the case. It turns out that, if the universe is small, and if it is to rotate with a period of 24 hours, then either a totally unknown physics holds it together as it spins, or else it is a miracle, or else one needs to invoke the theory of relativity to hold the universe together. In contrast, the current large-scale cosmology “naturally” gives a rotation period of one day.

The small universe and the nature of miracles

Consider the three possibilities for the small-scale universe. First, Harald Heinze denies the validity of relativity and so cannot invoke it to keep a daily-rotating small universe together. Second, invoking an unknown physics to hold it together is rank speculation and has no place in this discussion unless a specific model is presented. So far, we have only vague references to something called “plasma physics” which Mr. Heinze has invoked without any specific references, beyond the invocation of the name of physicist Hannes Alfven. Unfortunately, nothing I've read by Alfven suggests a new physics of the type required. Indeed, I've seen nothing which suggests that Alfven believes in anything but a large universe. If Mr. Heinze wants to pursue this point he must at least give complete references into the literature or, best of all, be willing to send (or loan) copies of the articles to his critics. This is not to suggest that Mr. Heinze has never sent such copies, he has, but every time it's been either just an abstract or a page or two excerpted from an article. Half of it is material with which I have no great controversy. However, about his main theory, Mr. Heinze has sent me neither copy nor reference to anything about plasma physics. Unsubstantiated claims and charges I won't and can't work with.

This brings up the third possibility and one not claimed by Mr. Heinze: suppose the small universe is held together by a miracle. Since a miracle is a phenomenon which runs contrary to natural “laws,” it follows that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation for the small universe if it is miraculously maintained. Now, since Jesus Christ is the underlying foundation of the universe, — that is, he is its sustainer — and since the physics of the universe is dictated by the properties of the created firmament which, in turn, is the foundation of the universe, it is reasonable to conclude that the supernatural miracle, the “sustainment,” occurs “below” that created foundation, not above it as would be the case for the miraculous model. In other words, the miracle lies between the omnipresent God (in the person of Jesus Christ) and the created firmament. This is consistent with Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is proclaimed to be ”the beginning of the creation of God.” (This does not mean that Jesus was, himself, created.)

And so we find the place of the miraculous foundation of the universe. We start with the Word of God, Jesus Christ, who miraculously created heaven and earth. After that, light is created and then the firmament which, in turn, specifies how the created material things move and physically interact. At the beginning of creation lies a miracle which needs to be sustained. For example, if God were not omnipresent, the firmament, indeed the entire universe, would cease their existence in the tiniest fraction of a second. There lies the sustaining power. The things created after that obey the laws endued them. That is why the natural man cannot obey God's laws, because these are supernatural. That is why our salvation is from the foundation of the earth, from the dawn of creation, and why it is by grace (by miracle) and not of works (of the creature).

Finally, the point is this. If the universe is small, and if the Bible is to be believed when it says that the universe rotates once a day about the earth, then either one has to invoke the theory of relativity to hold the universe together as it spins, or something holds it together about which mankind knows nothing, in which case we may as well call it a miracle. If this is the case, there is no point in continuing to discuss the matter since we'd only debate ignorance.

Evidently, Mr. Heinze does not accept that rotation, apparently holding the view that the earth does the rotation. (Indeed, it's not clear whether or not he believes that the earth revolves around the sun. His entire thrust is directed at the matter of the size of the universe.) As a result he is not bothered by the constraint that the universe must rotate once per day and so he is free to dismiss that as irrelevant. But for biblicists, this issue is the most relevant. Unlike some other small-universe advocates such as Walter van der Kamp, Marshall Hall, and Amnon Goldberg, Harald Heinze makes no theological arguments for the necessity of a small universe. It seems that his entire thrust is that because there are uncertainties in the measurements and disagreement among astronomers, that the large-universe model is thus disproven and the small universe model is proven. Clearly, this is a non-sequitur.

The letter:

I received back my letter with remarks. You asked for ”formulae” and the “Math”. Okay. Here you have it.

Figure 1: Harald Heinze's exposition of his theory.

But let me point out, that mathematics has deceived almost the whole physicist community, otherwise they could not have followed such crazy philosophies as relativity and quantum mechanics. [In what follows, note how the math of the small universe is declared as proven and trustworthy while the math of the large universe is declared as deceptive and untrustworthy. Understand, dear reader, that there is nothing wrong with the math of relativity and quantum mechanics. Their problems stem from certain erroneous assumptions and interpretations, not from mathematical errors.] Now, first of all, your theory of the big-size universe stands and falls beside other considerations with the correct understanding of the nature of light. It seems to me, that you favor the wave theory and ether- concepts (of Aspden, f.i.). Now I have irrefutable evidence, [no reference and no evidence presented] that the wave theory is untenable. Look at the enclosed copies, describing the fault of Michelson's experi ment in 1913. There you see, that Michelson made a very serious mistake, he OVERLOOKED the fact, that the mirror turns itself. If that is corrected, you get EXACTLY the ballistic theory of light! [The point of that paper is that both the ballistic theory and the wave theory can account for Michelson's observation. Michelson had erroneously claimed that his observation disproved the ballistic theory. Since both theories can account for the observation, if this is the aforementioned “irrefutable evidence,” mentioned by Harald, then he has totally deluded himself here in presenting this as a “proof” for the ballistic theory. An observation explainable by two competing theories cannot be held as proof of one over the other. Besides, this is totally unrelated to why I, personally, believe the wave model is correct and the ballistic model is in error. Much on that shortly.] In the meantime, other investigations have been performed showing and confirming the same: the velocity of light is c+v, resp. c-v, with respect to the velocity of the source, as measured from the observer. [No references given and I've never seen any observational support. I have seen experiments (e.g., by Marinov) which purport to show that the observer's velocity must be added to or subtracted from the speed of light, but none involving the source's velocity.] You cannot refute enclosed calculation, but it shows, that with one single stroke most of your arguments are nullified concerning the rejection of the small universe.

[How so? The calculation is shown as figure 1. To avoid any chance of misrepresenting the “calculation,” this is the exact page scanned into this document. Actually, Harald's formula there is the very one used to derive the Doppler shift for orbiting stars, and the formula has nothing to do with whether the ballistic theory is used or the wave theory.

The problem with the ballistic theory in a small universe is that in close-binary star systems, with orbital periods of a few hours, one expects to see multiple images of the stars in their orbits. (For a large universe the problem expands to include stars with periods of months or even years.) Consider a star at point 2 in Harald's figure. His ballistic theory requires that the light be thrown off at the speed of light plus the orbital speed of the star. For close, rapidly orbiting stars the Doppler shift shows an orbital speed which may be as high as 200 km/sec or more. (For most stars the orbital speed is of the order of some tens of km/sec.) It's the close, rapid binary stars which yield the most problematic results for the ballistic theory.

Imagine a star located 30 light days from earth and which is not moving relative to the earth. Then the time it takes a light ray to reach the earth from the star is 2,592,000 seconds. Now suppose that the star is a rapidly revolving binary star (some with periods of minutes have now been detected, but we'll assume 2 hours). In Harald's universe, as in the large universe, the stars would almost be touching, but in Harald's universe each would be a bit larger than the earth and would be roughly 20,000, say 30,000 km apart. (We'll give Harald a break by using the larger value, besides the numbers are easier to work with.) It will take light 0.1 second to travel from the center of the orbit to its circumference (the distance indicated by the lengths of the two lines separated by angle a in Figure 1). Recall that the observed Doppler shift of such close stars is several hundred kilometers per second. In Harald's universe their gravitational orbital speed is actually 26 (say 30) km/sec. Any larger, and the two stars would part company. So Harald then has to explain the remaining 170 km/sec of the observed Doppler shift. He thinks he can do so with reference to figure 1, but we'll consider that later, for his explanation is closely tied to the problem we are about to discover.

Let's now compute how long it will take the ballistic light from the 30 light-day star to reach the earth from different points in its orbit. From point 1 it will take the aforementioned 2,592,000 seconds plus the time it takes light to cross the orbit (twice 0.1 second). That is, the time is 2,592,000.2 seconds. At point 2, instead of the photon hurtling to earth at 300,000 km/sec, in the ballistic model it's speed is 300,200 km/sec. At that rate it will reach the earth in 2,590,273 seconds. As far as the stars are concerned, a half hour elapsed between points 1 and 2 (1/4 of the two-hour orbital period), but as seen from earth, the light's travel time from point 2 is 1,727 seconds (28.8 minutes) less than the time it takes from point 1. Now the photons from point 1 left 30 minutes before the photons from point 2, but because the photons from point 2 travel 200 km/sec faster than those from point 1, they catch up to them, closing the distance between them to the point that they reach the earth only 1.2 minutes later than the light from point 1. In other words, as seen from earth the companion star will appear to trace a quarter of its orbit in 1.2 minutes. The stars will seem to move from behind one another to the maximum leftmost separation in 1.2 minutes.

An hour from point 1, the star reaches point 3 and from there the light takes 2,592,000 seconds (forget the 0.1 second orbital traversal time, it's not needed to make the point). On earth, the star will appear to zoom to the right from point 2 for a while and then slow down as it approaches point 3. Total time to go from points 2 to 3, as seen from earth, is 31.2 minutes. Past point 3 it appears to slow down even more until at point 4, the photons take 2,593,726 seconds to reach the earth. On earth it will take 58.8 minutes for the star to go from points 3 to 4, from the companion being in front the main star to a maximum right-most displacement of the companion star. The half hour it takes the star to go from point 4 back to point 1 is seen to happen in 1.2 minutes on earth.

And there's the rub with Harald's model. If we were to take this star out another couple of light days, a distance still well within Harald's model, then the light from point 2 will reach earth before the light from point 1, and somewhere, while we see the star during the half-hour it takes to apparently travel from points 2 to 3, the light from point 1 will also arrive. Thus we would see three stars. The main star in the center of the orbit, the companion at point 1, and the same companion in orbit between points 2 and 3. In such cases the stars would disappear and reappear as they go through their orbits. This is emphatically, absolutely, positively, NOT observed.

”Ah,” you say, “but you said that the true orbital speed was only 30 km/sec, not 200 km/sec.” Ok, so instead of it seeming to take 1.2 minutes to go from points 4 to 1 it takes 8 minutes, and it then takes 38 minutes to reach point 3, 52 minutes to reach point 4, and 8 more minutes to return to point 1. This is still a noticeable irregularity which would be shared by all stars with inclined orbits. The only stars which would appear to orbit regularly would be those whose orbits lie in the plane of the sky.

And so we see that the evidence from binary stars is against the ballistic theory of light since it requires that stars appear to orbit each other in an irregular, jerky motion instead of the observed, smoothly regular motion and, in some cases at least, stars should appear and disappear as part of their orbital motions.]

Namely:

1)all red/blue-shifts measured from either binary star systems and/or galaxy clusters (at their rim) must be greatly corrected (lowered) if light from a rotating or orbiting body comes to us. It is easy to show, that the beginning of the “wave” front and the end of it comes to us with different velocities (with the ballistic theory of light). Make a sketch for yourself, and you see it. With the passage of time the light is under way to us, the observer, the difference of arrival time of the head and end of that “wave” will INCREASE! The different velocities of head and end result in larger distance between both with the passage of time, on their way to us. That simply means: bigger red-and/or-blue-shifts are shown in our spectra, than are really at the sender produced! So it can be, that the red/blue- shift may be hundreds-yes thousands of times bigger, than really they are at the spinning or orbiting star. That would give the impression of the huge distances which you support, erroneously!

[This point relates to the text at the bottom of Figure 1 which begins “You see, that the beginning and the end of the single wave train….” First of all, an important semantic point: waves require a transmission medium to undulate (wave) in; no such medium can have any effect in the ballistic theory of light, anymore than a bullet needs air to travel through. Mr. Heinze at once decries the adherence to the dual nature of light while here using the dual nature to account for the Doppler shifts of stars.

Second, we examine Harald's claim that “the beginning and the end of the single 'wave train' has DIFFERENT velocity, resulting in INCREASING red and blue-shift, with increasing DISTANCE.” This is his basis for denying the validity of the red shift as an expansion of the universe. But, as he freely admits, his explanation rises and falls with the validity of the ballistic theory which is severely damaged by the evidence from binary stars. Indeed, it should be noted that in a ballistic theory the beginning and ending of a single photon cannot have different speeds and so the photon's wavelength is not changed in the interval, anymore than the point of a bullet can go faster or slower than the end. The reason that the ballistic theory is not held today is because the “variable-number-of- stars” apparitions (which should ballistically appear in a large universe) and the jerky motions of the small universe do not appear in any way shape or form. But even if a photon could be stretched out in the way Harald suggests, in half the cases, the tail of the photon would catch up with the head, pass it, and reach the earth before the head. In the other half, the photon would stretch itself longer and longer. This means that there is a time when the photon is of length zero and has an infinite energy density. Even at the temperatures in a light bulb, this catch-up time is only 1,000 seconds. From the surface of the sun it's about 300 seconds, but 8 minutes, the time it takes light from the sun to travel to earth, is 480 seconds. One may expect the photon to swallow itself into a black hole, since it would need infinite energy to expand from zero size, in which case we should see only about half the light from the sun. But even if the light did expand beyond zero size, according to the numbers of Heinze's theory, the light from the sun should have a Doppler shift of (480- 300)/300 or 0.60 which means that the sun would be redshifted to 60% the speed of light. (For the non-overtaking photon the redshift is 480/300 = 1.60 times the speed of light (ignoring relativity, mind you). The sun should show no spectral lines as the photons would smear our over a range of 2.2 times its wavelength.

Third, sorry, but the huge distances I “support” are not at all based on redshift. They're based on the experimentally determined values for the gravitational constant (which relates mass, force and distance), the speed of light (which relates the permeability and permitivity of space), Planck's constant (which relates energy and light), the amount of charge of an electron or proton, and, finally, Boltzmann's constant (which relates energy to temperature.)]

2)The rotation values, inferred by you in the seventies for the Coma Cluster is wrong, if the above is correct. [Which, as I've demonstrated above, it isn't.] The speed values according to “redshifts” at the rim of these clusters are so wrong also. So the evidence REQUIRES a MUCH closer system! [Actually, the “speed values” of the rim were much lower than those a third of the way out from the center. None of these objections, even if true, “REQUIRES a MUCH closer system!”]

3)It is NOT true, as you wrote, that if those small systems would rotate many times within the Biblical time frame, we would sense it, resp. see it (the rotation) over some bigger time intervals in our telescopes or interferometers. A simple calculation can show you, that, if SUCH a SMALL system would turn once in a thousand years (6 wound-ups in 6000 years, f.i. of Biblical times), we would NOT see it! [Assuming, of course, that there is no Doppler shift.] We just started to make SUCH comparisons only about 100 years ago, and only about 70 years it is ago, that astronomers started to conceive the “nebulae” as galaxies. They also did not start immediately to make such comparisons (see your first calculations in CRSQ in the seventies!) but, by the way, van Maanen claimed to have measured star movements in “galaxies” already in the twenties! [Here Harald is talking about rotations of galaxies which have rotational speeds (Doppler) of the order of a couple of hundred km/sec. My point was that if these are close, and the speeds correct, then we should have observed the rotation by now (over the last 100 years). As for van Maanen, he was subsequently shown that those movements he ”saw” were actually measurement errors on his part. Interestingly, when astronomers claimed recently to show that there were star movements in the Magellanic clouds, Mr. Heinze vehemently denied the reality of the measurements precisely because they supported the large universe.]

4)Your argument on eclipsing binaries confirming big diameters of stars is therefore wrong also. First of all, most of them are ”spectroscopic” binaries, complicating the situation by surrounding nebulosities, lens effects, refraction in the atmospheres of the star etc. But if the ballistic theory of light is correct (and it is, see above [How's that?]), then the “velocities” claimed for the orbiting companion is greatly mis-calculated! (far too high) and so the diameters, derived from that fact! [To repeat, there is no end-of-a-wave-catches-up-with-and- passes-its-beginning effect in either the ballistic or wave theories. For example, the center of the Milky Way is no more redshifted than are the nearby stars. But even if the catch-up theory did work, then in the 200 km/sec star case, the speed difference between the start and end of a wave of Harald's star is 5.2 x 10^-13 cm/sec.² Since the gravitational, orbiting force is central, the maximum acceleration is perpendicular to the orbit, towards its center, and this brings up another major problem with Harald's theory: the maximum radial velocities — redshift or blue shift — will be seen at points 1 and 3 in Figure 2 (V₁), not at 2 and 4 (V₂) where the shifts are observed to be at a maximum. In the time it takes to travel to earth (30 days) the wavelength will change by 2,592,000 sec x 5.2 x 10^-13 cm/sec = 1.3 x 10^-6 cm. This is about a tenth of a wavelength and would indicate a “Doppler shift” of 30,000 km/sec, way above the 200 km/sec observed. If the true Doppler shift is due to the 30 km/sec orbital speed then that would still give a shift of 2,000 km/sec. Mr. Heinze's model does not survive the math.

Of course, one may claim that the stars are much smaller, but I'm using the best data we have, observed measurements of stars, and that claim does not change the situation that in Harald's theory, the maximum Doppler shift occurs at points 1 and 3 instead of the observed points 2 and 4.]

Figure 2: At point 1, the change in Doppler shift is designated by the distance labeled V₁. This is the speed added to the speed of light by a photon released a fraction of a second after the one emitted from point 1. At point 2, the ballistic photon speed is c+V, but an instant later, the resulting photon speed is c+V-V₂.

5)You write, velocities perpendicular to the line of sight should be comparable in their size with radial velocities, and if that would be so, we should see much bigger angles transposed by stars, if the universe is so small, as I see it. Not so: First of all, if the universe is really expanding, there should be a center (although relativists deny that by their tricky space-geometry applied). However, as shown above, the radial velocities are greatly in error, far to high. [In the letter to which Harald is responding, I assumed that the stars are not fixed in stationary positions in the sky but that the Doppler shifts might reflect a true motion and that motion can be perpendicular to the line of sight just as likely as along the line of sight. I fail to see what Harald's response has to do with my original question. He consistently assumes that Doppler shift = cosmological redshift, which is absolutely not the case. Indeed, it follows from my derivation of Harald's Doppler shift in question 4 that in Harald's universe there should be as many blue shifts as redshifts; something which is not observed except for the stars in the Milky Way: all of which is consistent with a large universe.]

Figure 3

6)Question: please let me know the reference, where by VLBI it HAS been shown what concerns parallaxes of stars, that the small universe is wrong. It does not suffice to point to the precisions of the VLBI method. You must show me REAL measurements done! But even if it would have been measured, it would come out completely different, if the earth does not orbit the sun! [I know that very-long-baseline- interferometry (VLBI) has not shown parallaxes. That is my point. There are no references to any such parallaxes which, according to information supplied by Thomas van Flandern, should be detectable if the stars are only light months from earth. In other words, my original point was that if the universe is 25 to 50 light days across, VLBI would show parallaxes. Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone's specifically looked for them, but they are well within the resolution of the equipment. That parallax would have nothing to do with whether or not the earth orbits the sun or whether the stars accompany the sun in a yearly motion about the earth. Any parallaxes detected by VLBI, whether in the large or small universe models, would be an earth-based absolute parallax. Such parallax measurements would be taken instantaneously, not six months apart (Figure 3).]

7)You would like to see, how the stars can produce the spectra observed. AGAIN: todays spectra analysis FIRST of all has to show me, that its claims to describe the real surface of a star is correct! [Argument by transference. It's up to the challenger to prove his point, not the reverse, and Harald is the challenger. Evidence for the current “spectral analysis” includes not only the sun's surface but any spectroscopy lab anywhere in earth (see the iron lines on the front cover photo whose caption starts on page 3).] As far as I see (and you see), there comes out each year a new volumes of “better” interpretation of star spectra. [Again, no references offered. As a result, I don't “see that,” but I doubt if the fundamental issues are at stake. What usually transpires is talk about how to group stars into spectral (temperature) and luminosity (intrinsic brightness) categories. Most problems involve emission lines which may come from the star's atmosphere or a shell surrounding the star and being blown out from the star, or due to gas between us and the star. Thus the arguments and uncertainties are about details, not the fundamentals.] Please go to your next university library and check that out. They only CLAIM to give an appropriate picture of the real situation. [They make an honest admission, don't they. By contrast, Heinze claims proof when he has none. “They” use words like “model” and ”theory.” Of course, “they've” never gone to the surface of a star, but, then, neither has Harald Heinze.] I do not see, how smaller stars could not be interpreted just as well! But also once again: Alfven's and his school's finding on plasma physics has NOT been taken into consideration. Please take up ANY text book on astrophysics and show me, how many pages (if one single at all!) is devoted to the findings of Plasma physics! [What findings are you talking about? Harald proffers no references. Before Alfven's “discoveries” of the sixties and beyond astrophysicists already acknowledged that stars are plasmas.] Also you in your new book on geocentricity did not mention it WITH ONE SINGLE WORD! [My book did not deal with stars except in the context of geocentricity. Stellar structure was not an issue, though the distribution of stars about the earth (or sun, if you prefer) was an issue. Why make a long book longer with topical irrelevancies? Or are you suggesting that I ignored the topic as part of a cover-up?] Although you know, that you describe only 1% of astrophysical reality and leave out 99% of applied plasma physics!, 99% and more is in the plasma state! [Even if correct, that neither proves nor disproves either of us. So what's the point? Astrophysicists talk about “stellar atmospheres” and “stellar interiors.” What are they supposed to call these states of plasma? ”Outer plasmas” and “inner plasmas?” Or how about “rarefied plasmas” and “dense plasmas?” Why change one's vocabulary when one loses precision in the process?]

8)Again: star spectra. Small stars can have comparable temperatures, density of the photosphere, collisions etc. (on big and small star surfaces). I do not see, why you make such a point of that. There are claimed “giant” stars with a very thin atmosphere and “smaller” ones of claimed “only” about 1 to 3 million km. diameter, and both have comparable parameters (in the spectra). But now take into account, what I have written above about the ballistic theory of light and you see, that you can forget todays spectral analysis of stars. Show me an interpretation of the analysis of one single star — and I can show you in many cases several competing interpretations of the same star! [Spectral analysis has to do with associating lines in the spectrum with the elements which produce those lines (see page 3 of this issue). It deals with the Doppler effect in only a superficial way. As we've seen, what Heinze has proposed runs contrary to observation. What I've been asking for is some way that Harald's plasma model can give the observed spectra instead of continuous, featureless spectra or purely emission line spectra. Plasma confined by a magnetic field (small universe stars are too small to be held together in any other known way) would not hold neutral, atomic hydrogen or any other neutral molecules for very long. My question is, how does Harald account for the presence of these neutral elements? His response reveals that he does not understand my question. How can a small star produce the spectra reproduced on the cover of this issue?]

No, I do not have a check of the spectra of small stars, simply, because they are so many! [By “check” he means confirming model. I wonder if Heinze would let me claim that I need not have a model of a large star because there are so many of them?] And I do not know the individual diameters and many other parameters of the small stars. [Why not, they've been published in magazines like “Sky and Telescope” as well as occasionally in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society and the Biblical Astronomer. So I can give you sizes based on observation. For a small universe stars are going to be about the size of planets.] But I can show you, that they do not contradict physical laws. [If Heinze doesn't know the diameters and other physical “parameters” of small stars, as he admits in the previous sentence, how can he show anything of the kind?] I mentioned in my last letter, that the GASEOUS outer planets, Saturn and Jupiter, EMIT more energy than they receive from the sun. See? Is there fusion going on in these planets' interior? Not according to todays astrophysicists. But fusion can go on in their atmospheres or electromagnetic radiation due to differential rotation. [Reference, please. See Biblical Astronomer No. 70, 1994, p. 22 for an analysis of the overabundant energy. It's shown there that even the gravitational energy of the planet can maintain its power for millions of years.] Do you really think, it is by chance, that there is a trend, that faster spinning stars are hotter? [No. Indeed, it was that very observation which finally led me to the discovery of the firmament. The stars obey a mass/spin- energy (angular momentum) relationship which led me directly to the firmament.]

Enclosed copies from Varshni speak for themselves. Alone with those findings, the universe would be about 1000 to 1 Million times smaller.

[Two abstracts from two papers by Varshni were included.3 One speculated that quasars are supermassive stars and that the nebulosities about quasars are due to mass loss from the stars mistaken for quasars. Recent photographs from the corrected Hubble Space Telescope fail to confirm the nebulosities about quasars, however. Most, if not all, appear to be due to exposure artifacts or the earth's atmosphere.

The second paper points out several nebulosities which may have had misidentified emission lines and may actually be clouds of gas (nebulosities) within the Milky Way. I have no problem with that, having wondered about that myself from time-to-time. Varshni's paper does not deny the existence of galaxies external to the Milky Way. Varshni's theory still requires a large universe so the papers are scant help for Harald. Harald's concluding sentence follows about as much from the abstracts as does the claim that the moon is made of green cheese.]

A model of a small star?

As part of the response to Harald's technical brief, I started work on developing the theory for the structure of a small star. However, since I'm completely in the dark as to which of the many Alfven papers Mr. Heinze sees as his key support, it makes no sense to pursue the models any further. So far, all the stars fly apart catastrophically, but that is not conclusive without adding the correct “magnetic bottling” parameters. Should the proper parameters be provided, I'll publish the results, perhaps as a technical brief to members.