I am by nature skeptical, and some recognitions come slowly. I have not seen displayed with convincing clarity the continuity of electricity and magnetism from direct current through gamma rays. However, I have recently become persuaded of the continuity of parts of the electromagnetic spectrum as simply different frequencies of the same phenomenon. Excluding direct current (unidirectional flow of electrons) and alternating current (synchronous pulsation of electrons first in one direction and then the other), we have:
a. Broadcast frequencies from ELF to AM to FM where, once flow is established, collapse of the electric field generates a magnetic field and collapse of the magnetic field generates an electric field
b. Microwave, where propagation is similar to FM
c. Infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and
d. X-rays and gamma rays.
Different portions of this spectrum have their own peculiar means of generation and detection, and analyses must of necessity hinge on the form and accuracy of observations.

Laboratory: It will be many generations before we can hope to visit any stars; observations must of necessity be limited to emanations that reach us. Earth's atmosphere has certain windows through which various frequencies may transit; wavelengths shorter than near ultraviolet are absorbed and do not reach the ground; several ranges of infrared do transit but others are absorbed, and some ranges transit dust; microwaves are very directional but do transit the atmosphere and dust while longer wavelengths bend. Earth's atmosphere is turbulent, and transmitted light becomes distorted, but craft above the atmosphere are immune to this distortion and give much clearer pictures; a recent development in ground-based telescopes adjusts the telescope's mirror in real time to offset much of this distortion although some distortion remains.

Detection: The human eye varies somewhat from person to person in its color response, but in general we all see the short (red) of the longer wavelengths that are infrared to the long (violet) of the shorter wavelengths that are ultraviolet; if you detect anything at all beyond these extremes it appears black. Photographic emulsions have the advantage that they accumulate their response to incident energy; they differ in their color responses; for the general public much research has been expended to duplicate the response of the eye, but some emulsions are sensitive to the infrared and some well beyond the violet although their presentation to the eye may be black or a color characteristic of the emulsion. CCDs (charge-coupled detectors) extend sensitivities well beyond the limitations of the eye and allow accumulation of energy, whereas the eye perceives only on a real time basis; resolution based on CCDs is likely similar to that of digital cameras. Many color pictures have been published of the ranges beyond the human eye's ability to perceive; the colors are computer-generated to make them visible to us.

In Spectral analyses different frequencies of incident energy are dispersed through different angles to produce a spectrum of the incident energy. Various frequency ranges, such as visible light or far infrared, require different techniques to accomplish the dispersion. We are familiar with the rainbow in the sky (spectral separation by raindrops) and with dispersion of visible colors by a prism or grating; but each method of dispersion has frequency limits so other methods must be used. For instance, microwaves require resonant cavities or circuits. X-rays and gamma rays are very penetrating and thus not so readily dispersed into a spectrum.

The visible range of colors was first used in spectroscopy, although it may be extended into the infrared and ultraviolet. In the laboratory each chemical element, when excited, emits colors in wavelengths and intensities that are characteristic of that element. Breaking starlight into its constituent colors therefore allows matching patterns of colors and intensities, and the resultant identification of the chemical elements participating in generation of the light; thus chemical composition of the star can be determined. Emphasis seems to be on the lighter elements hydrogen and helium (which are by far the most plentiful), then oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, so the spectral identifications can be done with a selected set of colors; such a short cut is especially valuable when working with red-shifted starlight.

With the spectrum from a star matched to its elements, the red shift is determined by simple subtraction of a selected wavelength of the star's spectrum from the wavelength of the corresponding line produced in the laboratory. And the Doppler effect is taken as the cause of red shift. (Doppler effect: A spectral line is made up of individual wavelets of a specific frequency; as emitting and receiving stations separate there is a stretching out of the time interval between arrival of wavelets, which produces the appearance of a lower frequency -- much like the sound of a siren changing as the ambulance passes us.)

Geometry: An essential part of an expanding assortment of galaxies is spreading apart at greater distances from the initial center. From nothing more than the distribution of celestial objects from the point of the Big Bang, it should be possible to trace backward in time and space to locate the point of origin. (DK's Space Encyclopedia mentions 13 billion years since the Big Bang based on this idea, though an origin is not suggested.) (Someone has commented that from each star it appears that it is the center of the universe. So long as no edge is found, it would appear we -- or a star 10 billion light years away -- may be at the center.) The notion of 'inflation' has been offered to yield initial velocities greatly exceeding the speed of light so the edge will forever be beyond detection. Moreover, it has been postulated a repulsive force, contrary to gravity, operates between galaxies. But inflation requires that space itself is expanding so that the speed of light can be regarded as constant; but inflation from what -- a singularity? Paradox: a singularity in what -- space? The notion that the Big Bang initiated space as well as time requires a statement about what preceded it.

Continuing: There must be a distribution of velocities from the origin, else there would be a enormous spherical empty volume at the origin; lacking that, celestial objects near the origin were imparted negligible initial velocity. Red shift yields the velocity of recession from Earth but offers no suggestion of direction of motion. Since galaxies move radially outward from their origin in all directions, there must be components of galactic velocity perpendicular to a line connecting that star's apparent position to us. But, since red shift yields only velocity of recession radially from us, there is nowhere a suggestion of origin.

Our spherical coordinate system based on Earth (or our Sun), our ecliptic plane and its vernal equinox offers a starting point for a plot of celestial objects. Perhaps more fitting on a universal scale would be the plane of the Milky Way, its center, and a line from our Sun to that center. Unquestionably it is a platform moving through space and all measurements are relative to that moving platform. Perhaps over the centuries we can accumulate enough positional data on a selection of celestial objects to determine their motions relative to us and perhaps even other components of velocity. Hopefully the astronomical community can readily (or has already) establish a limited set of objects to be followed more closely for this purpose. Granting the possibility of local Bangs, it should be possible over time and with enough observations to suggest a catalog of objects produced by each Bang.

I have appreciated the Deep Field photograph from Hubble and can't help wondering if the view would be similar in all six directions from the origin of rectangular coordinate axes. I.e., what would it tell us about our position in the universe? (Apparently the view has been recorded in two essentially opposite directions and the photographs look similar in both directions. The suggestion is that Deep Field photographs would show similar kinds of objects, densities, distances and other properties in all directions.)

Mathematically, integration of emitted light versus empty space in a deep field photograph has led to the concept that, in the limit of infinite distance, the field of view would be filled in solid. That has made possible a number of interpretations that I feel are questionable. With a fixed size of photographic plate and increased magnification, a smaller solid angle is subtended in the photograph. But, no matter what magnification has been used, one aspect of the photograph is always the same: the field of view is over 90% black (empty). My suspicion is that the equation being integrated is overly simplified and, no matter how small the angle subtended, the view will always be mostly black; infinity cannot produce a solidly filled in field. So examination of some paradoxes are tainted by the difference between the mathematical concept of infinity and the reality of the enormity of space.

Astronomers and physicists alike are searching for some means of tying mathematical manipulations to observation, and whole arrays of suggestions have been made, many of them beyond the reach of what appears reasonable speculation.

Editorial comment added 1-02-06:
I awoke this morning thinking what a colossal denial of science resides in published notions of the Big Bang and "inflation." All of this from nothing in a flicker of a hydrogen electron's orbit? From nothing almost instantaneously!! Scientists are trained, in designing their experiments, to go from well-known starting conditions and add defined conditions to produce a measurable result; that is the essence of the scientific method. But the Big Bang (and the artifice called inflation) . . . no starting conditions and no energy source . . . preposterous beyond the capacity of words to convey.

Alternately, an unstable nothingness postulates that nothing is actually something but in equal and offsetting quantities, adding to zero. It might be taken as equally preposterous. I have no information on those experiments in vacuum chambers that produced virtual particles and energies with predictably measurable results, and I do not anticipate a literature search. My scientific career was dedicated to research on the vacuum environment and I recognize the difficulty of evacuating any chamber to the degree that it is actually empty of all gaseous molecules. It may be possible to evacuate a chamber, using molten lead as pump fluid -- and my research suggests such a possibility -- to 10^-20 torr or better, but that leaves molecules aplenty though not enough that they will experience each other. But at least there have been experiments reported in an archives journal suggesting the possibility of an unstable nothingness. I would hope that in time a chamber with an unobstructed interior of 200 feet or more diameter will be constructed to allow pursuit of the instability of emptiness.

So an unstable nothingness produces virtual and real energies and particles, and it has been doing so for an infinitely long past. Why is it that the universe is not filled solid by now since an infinite time certainly allows enough solid particles to result in filling the entirety of available space? Evidently it is a self-limiting process in that, with increasing density, there are increasing interactions back to nothingness, the process has an inherent exponential decay and thus a limit -- which likely has not yet been reached.

Despite the obvious variations in density (physical bodies in highly rarefied intervening space) in our solar system and in our galaxy, mathematics tells us that, extending to a large enough universe, the universe is homogeneous. (I know homogeneity stretches the imagination, but infinity has peculiar properties and mathematics extends its limits to infinity.) Actually, despite inflation, a single Big Bang could not produce a truly infinite universe, but that is nit picking; what we have seen, without an apparent edge, allows extension to near-infinity.

Ignoring the notion of homogeneity, since the real universe we have observed has tremendous local variations in density, the supposedly measured acceleration of expansion could well be the influence of aggregations of bodies to produce gravitational attractions in directions and to a degree that we don't presently recognize. My intuitive reaction is that it will take centuries of observation to measure masses and plot directions and velocities of celestial objects in spherical coordinates with enough care to distinguish influences of local variations in gravity throughout the universe. If all that we see resulted from a single Bang, it will become possible to project backward to an origin; if there were in fact multiple Bangs then various origins may become recognizable.

Thus ends the speculations that were running through my mind this morning. My waking moments have not added enough to warrant presentation. Except this: I suggested earlier that the interior of a black hole may return matter to the nothingness from which all matter sprung; that would complete the cycle from nothing back to nothing.