The term "cosmic rays" is actually somewhat of a misnomer. Cosmic rays are really particles of matter, and not electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are not the same thing as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation from the Big Bang, which began the universe. Most cosmic ray particles are believed to be protons. Alpha particles, helium nuclei, are also present and there are some nuclei of heavier elements.
There is a basic conundrum with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity involving these cosmic ray particles. According to Einstein's theory, an object moving at the speed of light would have infinite mass. Then according to Newton's Laws, the gravitational pull of an object is proportional to it's mass, so that an object with infinite mass should also have infinite gravity.
Yet, there are numerous particles in cosmic rays that have mass and move at, or near, the speed of light but do not have infinite gravity. If they did, they would twist the entire universe around with their gravity. Every such particle would be, essentially, a miniature black hole.
It does not matter how small these particles are, they should still have infinite gravity if they have the infinite mass that they should have if they were moving at the speed of light. A millionth of infinity is still infinity. The muons formed in the earth's atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions display relativistic effects, such as time dilation.
But yet, these particles clearly do not have infinite gravity, or any great gravitational pull at all. This must mean that Einstein's relativistic mass describes the increasing difficulty of accelerating the mass to higher velocities, but not the gravitational pull of that mass.
Consider also that the earth's magnetic field, which is relatively weak, deflects the particles in cosmic rays. How could it possibly do so if the particles had the tremendous mass that relativity theory postulates they should? Cosmic ray particles follow the earth's magnetic lines of force, which come together at the magnetic poles, creating the northern lights at the north magnetic pole.
The reason that cosmic ray particles do not have such extreme gravity is explained by my cosmological theory. I explain how the speed of light does not really exist, it is only the apparent speed of light that we perceive. So, the infinite relativistic mass of an object moving at the apparent speed of light is not really infinite, it is only apparently infinite.
An object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light is actually only a bundle of strings at right angles to our bundle of strings so that we perceive it as moving at the speed at which our consciousness is actually moving along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains.
We also perceive the entire length of the strings at one instant, instead of only one point on the strings every instant as we would if the bundle of strings were parallel to our bundle. This causes us the perceive the bundle of strings as having infinite mass while moving at the speed of light. The infinite comes from the essentially infinite length of the strings in the bundle.
Remember that the speed of light is really an angle, a 90 degree angle, and not a speed. We experience one dimension of space as time as our consciousness moves along our bundle of strings aligned primarily in that dimension. This causes us to perceive strings as particles, because there is one dimension of space that we cannot see but experience as time.
There actually is apparently infinite mass in an object or particle moving at what we perceive as the speed of light. But, in my theory, this is balanced by the fact that it's mass is spread over an infinite distance, the theoretical length of the strings composing the object.
If this model of the universe that I have presented were not correct, the gravity produced by the relativistic mass of cosmic ray particles should be warping and twisting the universe with their near-infinite gravitational pull, yet this is clearly not the case. Relativistic mass is only apparent mass, because the speed of light is only the apparent speed of light.
The relativistic mass of Einstein's theory is entirely a matter of perception. We would perceive an object moving at the speed of light as having infinite mass, but it would not perceive itself as having infinite mass. Instead, it would perceive us as having infinite mass. So, there is no real infinite mass. If there were, it would pull the entire universe in around it.
This is because, as my theory points out, there is no real speed of light to bring about relativistic mass. It is only something that we perceive. Einstein has a remarkable record of being right, but he explained how things would appear rather than how things actually are.
The speed of light, and all of the effects associated with it, is only a right angle between two bundles of strings as our consciousness rushes by on one of the bundles. This is why cosmic ray particles moving at, or near, the speed of light do not manifest anything like the infinite gravity that they should if they truly did have infinite mass.
What about kinetic energy? A particle with infinite mass should also have infinite kinetic energy, since that is proportional to it's velocity and it's mass. Yet, this is not the case either and it shows that the relativistic effects associated with the speed of light are only apparent because, as my theory describes, the speed of light itself is only apparent. It is only something that we perceive.
How does a nuclear reaction relate to relativity?
When an atom is split, the two resulting positively-charged nuclei will seek to get away from each other as efficiently as possible, in the shortest possible distance, without the binding energy to hold them together any longer. This is because like charges repel. The way to accomplish this is for the two new nuclei to go in diametrically opposite directions. This basically means that the bundle of strings comprising the whole nuclei will bend at right angles.
Since a right angle in four (or more) dimensional space is perceived by us as an object moving at the speed of light, the two new nuclei will seem to move in opposite directions from one another at the speed of light. This is why Einstein's formula for such releases of energy from matter is E = MC squared.
As I described in the posting on this blog, "Basic Physics And Cosmology", the C in the formula is for the speed of light, or Constant, is squared meaning that there must be two speeds of light. One is for the movement of our consciousness, and the other is for the sudden right angle formed by the new nuclei. The right angle forms the square in the formula.
The tremendous energy of the reaction is from particles, moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, colliding with other matter, and transferring it's kinetic energy to it.
This all makes sense for the E = MC squared, but what about the relativistic mass and it's energy implications for the two new nuclei? The concept that no matter can ever move at the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass at that point and so would require an infinite force to propel it to higher speeds, and such an infinite force is impossible, cannot possibly be correct.
The two new nuclei, resulting from the split of the larger atom, must initially move at what we perceive as the speed of light, at least until they collide with other matter, or else it would not be squared in Einstein's formula. If it really required an infinite force to accelerate matter to the speed of light, binding energy would have to be infinite. Since the universe is finite and does not have an infinite amount of energy in it, that would mean that atoms are not even possible.
Clearly, that is not the case.
What about the relativistic mass of the two new nuclei moving at the apparent speed of light? Going back to the finite binding energy in the nucleus, there would not have been the supposedly infinite energy required to accelerate the new nuclei to the apparent speed of light.
Furthermore, if it took an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the new nuclei from the split atom to the speed of light, then the kinetic energy possessed by these nuclei should be infinite. That should mean that a single small nuclear reactor would be able to provide much more than all of the energy requirements of the entire world.
Once again, clearly this is not the case.
So, these relativistic rules of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity cannot mean that it actually takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle or nuclei to what we perceive as the speed of light, or that the particle or nuclei would possess infinite kinetic energy if it did move at the speed of light.
We can only conclude that relativistic effects are correct, but that is only the way that it appears to us and not the way that reality actually is. The reason for this discrepancy is, as my cosmological theory describes, that the speed of light, upon which relativity is based, is not real but only something that we perceive.
I would like to write some more about the connection between cosmic rays and relativity.
Has anyone ever wondered about what relationship there might be between electric charges and the speed of light? In Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, the ordinary laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. These include the rules governing mass, time and, distance. If the most fundamental aspect of the physical universe is the rules of electric charges of which everything is ultimately composed, then why shouldn't the rules of these charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, also be affected by the speed of light? Gravity is a force, but every planet or other gravitational mass has an escape velocity. Doesn't it also make sense that the rules of the positive and negative electric charges begin to change, with the other laws of physics, when the speed of light becomes involved?
Consider the phenomenon known as cosmic ray spallation. We know that heavier elements are cooked up under the extreme heat and pressure in the centers of stars as smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. If the star explodes in a supernova, these heavier atoms are scattered across space as cosmic dust. The atoms are thus exposed to the cosmic rays in space, and some of the heavier atoms may be broken back down into lighter elements as the high-speed protons and alpha particles strike the nucleus of an atom and the force splits the atom into two smaller ones.
The term "cosmic rays" is actually a misnomer from the days when it was thought to be electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are actually positively-charged particles, mostly protons and alpha particles, travelling at nearly the speed of light. An alpha particle is essentially a helium nucleus.
Here is the question which immediately arises. We use neutrons as high-speed "bullets" in nuclear reactors to split atoms by striking the nucleus because the electron has a neutral electric charge and so will not be diverted from it's course by like-charge repulsion with either the positively-charged nucleus of a target atom or the negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around that atom. So how then can a positively-charged cosmic ray particle strike a nucleus, which is also positively-charged, so that it can split the nucleus in two? Wouldn't like-charge repulsion prevent that from happening?
We saw the reason why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in the most famous formula of the Twentieth Century E = MC squared. This means that energy equal mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. In other words, a small amount of matter is equivalent to a tremendous amount of energy.
My theory defines what we perceive as the speed of light as simply a right angle to the directional alignment of the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. A particle, which is actually a string, will seem to us to be a particle rushing past at the speed of light if it is at a right angle to our bundles of strings. It is actually our consciousness which is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is in E = MC squared the first time.
The second speed of light in the formula is the direction which two like-charges go, to get away from each other with maximum efficiency, when the binding energy in a nucleus is suddenly released as the nucleus is split. Each would go in a straight line, in diametrically opposite directions. Since the nucleus was actually a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, this would mean that the path of each freed positively-charged section of the nucleus would fly off at a right angle to the bundle of strings into which it had previously been bound. This would appear to us as if both were moving in directions opposite to one another at the speed of light.
The speed of light of our consciousness and that of the newly-freed like-charged sections of the nucleus which has been split are at right angles to one another because our consciousness is moving along the bundle and the two freed sections of the nucleus with like electric charge are moving away from one another with the maximum efficiency, which is opposite directions along a straight line which is at a right angle to the bundle within which they were previously bound to one another. There is no speed greater than the speed of light simply because there is no angle greater than a right angle.
The heat generated by a nuclear reaction results from the split sections of the nucleus moving outward at the speed of light, equivalent to a right angle, but then imparting momentum to the numerous other strings (perceived as particles) with which it collides. Heat is the kinetic energy of all of those particles. So, if matter and antimatter, where the electric charges are reversed from ordinary matter, are brought into contact the result is a tremendous burst of energy and mutual annihilation. If two like-charged particles, such as protons in a nucleus, are bound together by binding energy but then suddenly released, they will put distance between themselves with maximum efficiency by moving apart at what we perceive as the speed of light.
We can thus see how the behavior of electric charges, specifically like-charge repulsion, is related to the speed of light. So, it should then make sense that we can turn this around and overcome the rules of electric charges with the speed of light. Special Relativity stipulates that the fundamental laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. Everything in the universe is ultimately based on these fundamental electric charges. So doesn't it make sense that the changing of the rules as we approach the speed of light would be based on a changing of the rules of electric charges as we approach the speed of light?
The reason that the basic rules of attraction and repulsion of electric charges must change as we approach the speed of light, and change the other laws of physics along with it, is based on simple geometry. If we consider two electric charges as two adjacent strings, the more parallel the two the greater should be the attraction or repulsion between them. If the two strings intersect at a right angle, the attraction of opposite charges or repulsion of like charges would be at a minimum.
We can see in my theory that the speed of light is actually a right angle, and that it is the greatest possible speed simply because a right angle is the greatest possible angle. The laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light simply because all of those laws are ultimately based on the underlying electric charges which comprise everything and the rules of electric charges change at what we perceive as the speed of light due to simple geometry, showing that matter is indeed composed of strings even though we perceive them as particles.
This is why cosmic ray spallation can take place, because cosmic rays are moving at near the speed of light even though the rules of electric charges state that the positively-charged nucleus and the positively-charged particle should mutually repel. They do not repel because such repulsion mean two like-charged strings bending at right angles in opposite directions, to maximize the distance between them, and the two are already at a right angle because the speed of light is really a right angle.
The true nature of cosmic rays was not known in 1905, when Einstein introduced the Special Theory of Relativity, or he may have included this in the theory.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Gravity And Time
In my Theory Of Stationary Space, matter consists of bundles of strings in background space of at least four dimensions. One of these spatial dimensions is what we experience as time because our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This causes us to see matter as consisting of particles rather than strings, such as electrons and quarks, because we can only see in three of the (at least) four dimensions. This also explains why the speed of light seems to be the maximum possible speed, but we have no physical explanation of why this speed is what it is.
As I have described, the spatial direction of our time flow moves away from the Big Bang because we perceive this as the beginning of the universe. Even though it is space which separates us from the Big Bang, we perceive it as time because it lies in the direction along which our bundles of strings are aligned, and along which our consciousness moves.
I am certain that we are traveling in the "right" direction as far as time goes. After all, the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and it seems logical that our direction of time flow in space should be away from it.
But even so, it wouldn't be breaking any basic rules if our experience of time flowed in the opposite direction, toward the Big Bang, since time is really a dimension of space. But what would it look like to us if this opposite time direction were the case? What would the basic laws of physics be like to us?
To begin with, since what we perceive as time is actually a dimension of space, if it were reversed then the other spatial directions would have to be reversed also. North would be what was south, and east would be what was west.
The significant thing about this thought experiment of having our time flow in the opposite direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is what it reveals about gravity. As it is now, we see objects apart but waiting to be pulled together by gravity. If time were reversed, we would see objects together but waiting to fall apart.
The point of this is that gravity is actually a function of time. It is true that gravity is an attractive force as long as time moves forward. However, I think that I have shown beyond any doubt that time is anything but absolute. It is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since gravity must be a function of time, because gravity creates motion and motion is a function of time, the revelation that time does not really exist, but is only the way that we perceive a dimension of space, forces us to redefine gravity.
It is important to understand that to grasp this concept, we must eliminate from our minds all of the "new motion" that comes from living things. This includes anything constructed by, or altered by, living things. Nothing in inanimate reality is really in motion, or has been in motion since it was thrown out across space by the Big Bang. But living things came along with the ability to move things and make changes to the environment, this is referred to as "new motion".
I explained that while the principle of entropy is often cited as proof that time can never be reversed, this is really not the case because all meaningful examples of entropy involve either living things or things made by living things. One example is the bottle of ink placed in an aquarium filled with water, the ink flows out of the bottle and mixes with the water much more easily than it flows back into the bottle. But this involves items made by and altered by living things (us), it only shows that our time direction is not reversible. It does not apply to inanimate matter.
The point of this concept is that the universe is neutral with respect to gravity, whether it is an attractive or a repulsive force depends on which time direction that we move in. Living things are designed to move in one time direction only. If we were to reverse time as I am describing here, we would not have people walking backward.
Moving in our time direction away from the Big Bang, we see the gravity of a star's mass crunching together smaller atoms into larger ones. If we moved in the opposite time direction, we would see larger atoms being pulled apart by gravity into smaller ones.
If the flow of time were reversed, nuclear fusion would be replaced by fission. In the present time direction, we perceive the extreme gravity in centers of stars overpowering the electron repulsion of electromagnetism to crunch small atoms together into larger ones. If time were reversed, we would perceive the gravity in centers of stars as overpowering the strong nuclear force in pulling large atoms apart into smaller ones.
The nuclear binding energy curve, of the binding energy holding nuclei together, would be inverted. Stars would seem to generate energy by fission, rather than fusion, but the fission would result from reversed gravity, and not from neutrons colliding with the nucleus. Instead of smaller atoms being crunched together, and releasing excess binding energy when they combine to form a larger atom, it would be inverted in that the energy would appear to be released when the larger atom is pulled apart by reverse gravity. Since gravity works with the strong nuclear force to fuse atoms, if gravity were inverted the binding energy curve would also be inverted.
In the opposite time direction, gravity would work against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei against the electromagnetic repulsion of like-charged protons. The creation of elements from one another involves a competition between the basic forces of nature. In our present time direction, gravity in the center of a star works against the electromagnetic repulsion that keeps atoms separate by the like charges of the electrons in neighboring atoms.
Thus, electromagnetism dominates until the sheer mass of the star allows gravity to overwhelm it. If time were reversed, we would perceive the balance of forces as having shifted. Gravity would now be working against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei together, rather than against electromagnetism. There would still be the competition between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, concerning the formation of elements from one another, but gravity would have changed sides.
The electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces would not be changed if our time flow was in the opposite direction. Like charges would still repel, and opposite charges would still attract. Negative would still be negative, and a positive charge would still be positive. The strong nuclear force would still provide the binding energy to hold the like-charged protons together against electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus. It is only gravity that would be different.
Picture space as something like a rubber sheet, and this makes perfect sense considering the well-proven Lense-Thirring Effect described by Einstein, otherwise known as "frame-dragging". The simplest way of proving that space actually behaves like a fabric is that a satellite in orbit around the earth will have it's position gradually shifted by the rotation of the earth because this rotation pulls the sorrounding space with it, to some degree. My cosmological theory describes space as infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions, so it makes sense that it can be "pulled" to a certain extent.
My conclusion is that if the rotation of a planet can have an effect on space by "pulling" it along with the rotation, what about the expansion of the entire universe? This expansion has got to have some local effects that we can observe or measure. Whether the universe, as a whole, is expanding or contracting depends, of course, on which way our time direction is flowing.
When we move away from the Big Bang in time, as we do, we perceive the universe as expanding but gravity as an attractive force, pulling matter together, on a local scale. The local effect opposes the state of the universe as a whole. this is rather like pulling a rubber band so that it expands, and the band tries to counteract this by contracting.
If our time direction was toward the Big Bang, we would perceive just the opposite. The universe would seem to be contracting, as a whole, but gravity would be counteracting this by acting as a repulsive force. This would be like squeezing a rubber ball so that the ball tries to counteract by pushing outward.
This scenario does imply that gravity must be getting stronger, from our point of view, as we move along in our present time flow direction. Although this occurs much too slowly for us to perceive. This strengthening is because the space in the material universe is becoming more stretched by it's expansion, and it tries to resist this stretching. If we were moving in the opposite time direction, gravity would be getting weaker while the universe was contracting, until it could not hold matter together at all.
Gravity would actually be more complex than simple attraction or repulsion, because of the apparent expansion or contraction of the universe, according to our direction of time flow. In the opposite time direction, gravity would seem to be a repulsive force on a local scale, but an attractive force in the universe as a whole, because the universe would appear to be contracting.
This means that we could describe gravity in terms of osmosis. This is a chemical and biological principle that apparently has nothing to do with gravity, but provides an excellent analogy. In a simple example of osmosis, if salt is concentrated in a certain portion of a volume of water, osmosis will tend to move water into the concentration until the salt is evenly distributed in the water.
In the opposite time direction gravity would be an osmotic force, trying to even the distribution of matter in space by repulsion at the local level and attraction in the universe as a whole. In our present time direction, away from the Big Bang, gravity can be described as a clumping force, or anti-osmotic. It pulls matter together locally, even as the universe expands as a whole. The "clumps" of matter held together by gravity would be groups of galaxies.
What about the time dimension of space? I mean the dimension of space along which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains are aligned. This is the dimension going toward and away from the Big Bang. The universe is neither expanding nor contracting in that dimension. Therefore, according to this theory, there should be no gravity in that dimension.
But what about cosmic rays? These rays, which are not really rays but particles of matter, bombard us from all directions in space, and move at, or close to, the speed of light. Now according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a body moving at the speed of light should have infinite mass. Since gravity is proprtional to mass, it should also have infinite gravity. This should be true even for a sub-atomic particle. These cosmic ray particles are particles with mass, not massless neutrinos.
By the way, I discussed this in depth in the posting "Cosmic Rays And Relativity" and how it proves that my cosmological model must be correct.
Obviously, the particles comprising cosmic rays certainly do not have infinite gravity. They would pull the entire universe in around them if they did. We cannot see that such particles, moving close together in the same direction, have any gravitational effect on each other, or other matter, at all. Strings of matter do not occupy all spatial dimensions, meaning that there would be no gravity in the dimensions perpendicular to the dimension along which the strings of matter are aligned. So, an object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light, which is actually perpendicular to our time dimension, actually has no weight at all from it's own point of view.
This model also helps to explain why electromagnetic waves have no mass. My theory defines space as a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges. Space does not have mass, and it defines what masslessness is. Matter is defined as long strings of an electric charge. Since this is a disruption of the neutral space pattern, matter does have mass. Electromagnetic waves are also disruptions in the perfect checkerboard of background space charged particles. These waves affect the matter which has mass, but have no mass themselves due to the dimension of space lacking parallel strings of matter in which they exist.
This means that if the so-called "Steady-State" model of the universe, in which there was no Big Bang, no known beginning, and no apparent expansion or contraction were correct, there would also be no gravity, either attractive or repulsive.
Living beings, moving in the opposite time direction, could conceivably co-exist. They would perceive one another as moving backward. If they could communicate, they could tell each other what was in their future, but only for the speaker's own past and for inanimate matter outside of the creatures themselves and their influence, such as earthquakes, meteorite impacts and, supernovae.
Beings with a reverse time direction would perceive the universe as having been created in the past (our future), but in the process of coming apart by reverse gravity. Gravity would seem to be an osmotic force evening out the distribution of matter, with the osmotic force getting stronger as time progressed. A ball thrown into the air would still fall back down because the reverse gravity is not yet strong enough for it to be otherwise.
Just as gravity seems to get stronger to us as it pulls mass together, due to the increasing concentration of mass, reverse gravity would appear to get stronger as it pulls mass apart. They would perceive that there was attractive gravity that created the universe in their past (our future), but that gravity was in the process of evening out the matter in the universe in an osmotic way. The stronger the gravity, such as in the centers of stars, the more it is reversed.
We know that our apparent expansion of the universe is not due to gravity, but those with the opposite time direction would have no Big Bang in their past as a reference point, and it would appear that gravity is an osmotic force.
Instead of perceiving matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when the two are brought into contact, those in the opposite time direction would perceive spontaneous creation out of empty space, equal amounts of matter and antimatter along with the burst of energy. There would be many such "Big Bangs" instad of the single one that we, in our time direction, perceive. They would have our Big Bang far in their future. But if beings in the reverse time direction put matter and antimatter together, they would get the mutual annihilation and burst of energy.
By the way, I find that this time perspective on the relationship between matter and antimatter strongly indicates that the Big Bang was such a mutual annihilation, as I speculated in the cosmological theory.
We see at 45 degrees into the past dimension, as I described in "Why We Perceive The Speed of Light". This means that, if our direction of time flow were reversed, the groups of galaxies in the wider universe would seem to be much further apart then they do to us, although they would appear to be gradually moving closer.
In summary, gravity as we see it now is a function of time. That means that, if time turns out to only be something that we perceive and not a part of inanimate reality, gravity must also be something other than it seems to us. We are designed to move in one time direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, but it would not be breaking any fundamental rules if our time flow was in the opposite direction so that the Big Bang appeared in the future, rather than in the past. But since gravity is a function of time, because it creates motion which is a function of time, it would have to be reversed if our time direction was reversed.
But how can a basic force of nature be reversed if time, which we only perceive, was reversed? None of the other forces of nature, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei, would be reversed.
There is one very simple, clear and, obvious explanation. If time were reversed, the apparent expansion of the universe would also be reversed. If space can be shown to behave like a fabric by the Lense-Thirring Effect (frame dragging), then the expansion of the universe on a large scale must also have some type of local effects.
Indeed it does. But whether the universe, as a whole, is contracting or expanding, the local effect is of space resisting by either being an attractive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as expanding, or being a repulsive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as contracting.
As I have described, the spatial direction of our time flow moves away from the Big Bang because we perceive this as the beginning of the universe. Even though it is space which separates us from the Big Bang, we perceive it as time because it lies in the direction along which our bundles of strings are aligned, and along which our consciousness moves.
I am certain that we are traveling in the "right" direction as far as time goes. After all, the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and it seems logical that our direction of time flow in space should be away from it.
But even so, it wouldn't be breaking any basic rules if our experience of time flowed in the opposite direction, toward the Big Bang, since time is really a dimension of space. But what would it look like to us if this opposite time direction were the case? What would the basic laws of physics be like to us?
To begin with, since what we perceive as time is actually a dimension of space, if it were reversed then the other spatial directions would have to be reversed also. North would be what was south, and east would be what was west.
The significant thing about this thought experiment of having our time flow in the opposite direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is what it reveals about gravity. As it is now, we see objects apart but waiting to be pulled together by gravity. If time were reversed, we would see objects together but waiting to fall apart.
The point of this is that gravity is actually a function of time. It is true that gravity is an attractive force as long as time moves forward. However, I think that I have shown beyond any doubt that time is anything but absolute. It is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since gravity must be a function of time, because gravity creates motion and motion is a function of time, the revelation that time does not really exist, but is only the way that we perceive a dimension of space, forces us to redefine gravity.
It is important to understand that to grasp this concept, we must eliminate from our minds all of the "new motion" that comes from living things. This includes anything constructed by, or altered by, living things. Nothing in inanimate reality is really in motion, or has been in motion since it was thrown out across space by the Big Bang. But living things came along with the ability to move things and make changes to the environment, this is referred to as "new motion".
I explained that while the principle of entropy is often cited as proof that time can never be reversed, this is really not the case because all meaningful examples of entropy involve either living things or things made by living things. One example is the bottle of ink placed in an aquarium filled with water, the ink flows out of the bottle and mixes with the water much more easily than it flows back into the bottle. But this involves items made by and altered by living things (us), it only shows that our time direction is not reversible. It does not apply to inanimate matter.
The point of this concept is that the universe is neutral with respect to gravity, whether it is an attractive or a repulsive force depends on which time direction that we move in. Living things are designed to move in one time direction only. If we were to reverse time as I am describing here, we would not have people walking backward.
Moving in our time direction away from the Big Bang, we see the gravity of a star's mass crunching together smaller atoms into larger ones. If we moved in the opposite time direction, we would see larger atoms being pulled apart by gravity into smaller ones.
If the flow of time were reversed, nuclear fusion would be replaced by fission. In the present time direction, we perceive the extreme gravity in centers of stars overpowering the electron repulsion of electromagnetism to crunch small atoms together into larger ones. If time were reversed, we would perceive the gravity in centers of stars as overpowering the strong nuclear force in pulling large atoms apart into smaller ones.
The nuclear binding energy curve, of the binding energy holding nuclei together, would be inverted. Stars would seem to generate energy by fission, rather than fusion, but the fission would result from reversed gravity, and not from neutrons colliding with the nucleus. Instead of smaller atoms being crunched together, and releasing excess binding energy when they combine to form a larger atom, it would be inverted in that the energy would appear to be released when the larger atom is pulled apart by reverse gravity. Since gravity works with the strong nuclear force to fuse atoms, if gravity were inverted the binding energy curve would also be inverted.
In the opposite time direction, gravity would work against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei against the electromagnetic repulsion of like-charged protons. The creation of elements from one another involves a competition between the basic forces of nature. In our present time direction, gravity in the center of a star works against the electromagnetic repulsion that keeps atoms separate by the like charges of the electrons in neighboring atoms.
Thus, electromagnetism dominates until the sheer mass of the star allows gravity to overwhelm it. If time were reversed, we would perceive the balance of forces as having shifted. Gravity would now be working against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei together, rather than against electromagnetism. There would still be the competition between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, concerning the formation of elements from one another, but gravity would have changed sides.
The electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces would not be changed if our time flow was in the opposite direction. Like charges would still repel, and opposite charges would still attract. Negative would still be negative, and a positive charge would still be positive. The strong nuclear force would still provide the binding energy to hold the like-charged protons together against electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus. It is only gravity that would be different.
Picture space as something like a rubber sheet, and this makes perfect sense considering the well-proven Lense-Thirring Effect described by Einstein, otherwise known as "frame-dragging". The simplest way of proving that space actually behaves like a fabric is that a satellite in orbit around the earth will have it's position gradually shifted by the rotation of the earth because this rotation pulls the sorrounding space with it, to some degree. My cosmological theory describes space as infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions, so it makes sense that it can be "pulled" to a certain extent.
My conclusion is that if the rotation of a planet can have an effect on space by "pulling" it along with the rotation, what about the expansion of the entire universe? This expansion has got to have some local effects that we can observe or measure. Whether the universe, as a whole, is expanding or contracting depends, of course, on which way our time direction is flowing.
When we move away from the Big Bang in time, as we do, we perceive the universe as expanding but gravity as an attractive force, pulling matter together, on a local scale. The local effect opposes the state of the universe as a whole. this is rather like pulling a rubber band so that it expands, and the band tries to counteract this by contracting.
If our time direction was toward the Big Bang, we would perceive just the opposite. The universe would seem to be contracting, as a whole, but gravity would be counteracting this by acting as a repulsive force. This would be like squeezing a rubber ball so that the ball tries to counteract by pushing outward.
This scenario does imply that gravity must be getting stronger, from our point of view, as we move along in our present time flow direction. Although this occurs much too slowly for us to perceive. This strengthening is because the space in the material universe is becoming more stretched by it's expansion, and it tries to resist this stretching. If we were moving in the opposite time direction, gravity would be getting weaker while the universe was contracting, until it could not hold matter together at all.
Gravity would actually be more complex than simple attraction or repulsion, because of the apparent expansion or contraction of the universe, according to our direction of time flow. In the opposite time direction, gravity would seem to be a repulsive force on a local scale, but an attractive force in the universe as a whole, because the universe would appear to be contracting.
This means that we could describe gravity in terms of osmosis. This is a chemical and biological principle that apparently has nothing to do with gravity, but provides an excellent analogy. In a simple example of osmosis, if salt is concentrated in a certain portion of a volume of water, osmosis will tend to move water into the concentration until the salt is evenly distributed in the water.
In the opposite time direction gravity would be an osmotic force, trying to even the distribution of matter in space by repulsion at the local level and attraction in the universe as a whole. In our present time direction, away from the Big Bang, gravity can be described as a clumping force, or anti-osmotic. It pulls matter together locally, even as the universe expands as a whole. The "clumps" of matter held together by gravity would be groups of galaxies.
What about the time dimension of space? I mean the dimension of space along which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains are aligned. This is the dimension going toward and away from the Big Bang. The universe is neither expanding nor contracting in that dimension. Therefore, according to this theory, there should be no gravity in that dimension.
But what about cosmic rays? These rays, which are not really rays but particles of matter, bombard us from all directions in space, and move at, or close to, the speed of light. Now according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a body moving at the speed of light should have infinite mass. Since gravity is proprtional to mass, it should also have infinite gravity. This should be true even for a sub-atomic particle. These cosmic ray particles are particles with mass, not massless neutrinos.
By the way, I discussed this in depth in the posting "Cosmic Rays And Relativity" and how it proves that my cosmological model must be correct.
Obviously, the particles comprising cosmic rays certainly do not have infinite gravity. They would pull the entire universe in around them if they did. We cannot see that such particles, moving close together in the same direction, have any gravitational effect on each other, or other matter, at all. Strings of matter do not occupy all spatial dimensions, meaning that there would be no gravity in the dimensions perpendicular to the dimension along which the strings of matter are aligned. So, an object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light, which is actually perpendicular to our time dimension, actually has no weight at all from it's own point of view.
This model also helps to explain why electromagnetic waves have no mass. My theory defines space as a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges. Space does not have mass, and it defines what masslessness is. Matter is defined as long strings of an electric charge. Since this is a disruption of the neutral space pattern, matter does have mass. Electromagnetic waves are also disruptions in the perfect checkerboard of background space charged particles. These waves affect the matter which has mass, but have no mass themselves due to the dimension of space lacking parallel strings of matter in which they exist.
This means that if the so-called "Steady-State" model of the universe, in which there was no Big Bang, no known beginning, and no apparent expansion or contraction were correct, there would also be no gravity, either attractive or repulsive.
Living beings, moving in the opposite time direction, could conceivably co-exist. They would perceive one another as moving backward. If they could communicate, they could tell each other what was in their future, but only for the speaker's own past and for inanimate matter outside of the creatures themselves and their influence, such as earthquakes, meteorite impacts and, supernovae.
Beings with a reverse time direction would perceive the universe as having been created in the past (our future), but in the process of coming apart by reverse gravity. Gravity would seem to be an osmotic force evening out the distribution of matter, with the osmotic force getting stronger as time progressed. A ball thrown into the air would still fall back down because the reverse gravity is not yet strong enough for it to be otherwise.
Just as gravity seems to get stronger to us as it pulls mass together, due to the increasing concentration of mass, reverse gravity would appear to get stronger as it pulls mass apart. They would perceive that there was attractive gravity that created the universe in their past (our future), but that gravity was in the process of evening out the matter in the universe in an osmotic way. The stronger the gravity, such as in the centers of stars, the more it is reversed.
We know that our apparent expansion of the universe is not due to gravity, but those with the opposite time direction would have no Big Bang in their past as a reference point, and it would appear that gravity is an osmotic force.
Instead of perceiving matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when the two are brought into contact, those in the opposite time direction would perceive spontaneous creation out of empty space, equal amounts of matter and antimatter along with the burst of energy. There would be many such "Big Bangs" instad of the single one that we, in our time direction, perceive. They would have our Big Bang far in their future. But if beings in the reverse time direction put matter and antimatter together, they would get the mutual annihilation and burst of energy.
By the way, I find that this time perspective on the relationship between matter and antimatter strongly indicates that the Big Bang was such a mutual annihilation, as I speculated in the cosmological theory.
We see at 45 degrees into the past dimension, as I described in "Why We Perceive The Speed of Light". This means that, if our direction of time flow were reversed, the groups of galaxies in the wider universe would seem to be much further apart then they do to us, although they would appear to be gradually moving closer.
In summary, gravity as we see it now is a function of time. That means that, if time turns out to only be something that we perceive and not a part of inanimate reality, gravity must also be something other than it seems to us. We are designed to move in one time direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, but it would not be breaking any fundamental rules if our time flow was in the opposite direction so that the Big Bang appeared in the future, rather than in the past. But since gravity is a function of time, because it creates motion which is a function of time, it would have to be reversed if our time direction was reversed.
But how can a basic force of nature be reversed if time, which we only perceive, was reversed? None of the other forces of nature, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei, would be reversed.
There is one very simple, clear and, obvious explanation. If time were reversed, the apparent expansion of the universe would also be reversed. If space can be shown to behave like a fabric by the Lense-Thirring Effect (frame dragging), then the expansion of the universe on a large scale must also have some type of local effects.
Indeed it does. But whether the universe, as a whole, is contracting or expanding, the local effect is of space resisting by either being an attractive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as expanding, or being a repulsive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as contracting.
Black Holes And Antimatter
There was recently an article in the news about black holes. A black hole is an extremely concentrated mass, bound by it's tremendous gravity. The gravity of a black hole is so intense that nothing can ever escape it, supposedly not even light. Hence the name.
There is believed to be a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In recent years, black holes have become a staple of space science.
But yet, it has been found that black holes actually do decay over time, and also emit radiation. This decay can only mean that matter is somehow leaving the black hole. How can we account for this?
As it turns out, my cosmological theory offers a relatively simple explanation for why black holes decay over time. In the posting, "The Beginning Of The Universe", I explained how charge migration took place in the original two-dimensional sheet of space, before the bonds disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions leaving us with the one-dimensional strings thrown out across the universe that we today know as matter.
In this primeval charge migration, one side of the sheet became the negative side, and the other the positive side. The negative side formed electrons when one of the two dimensional bonds disintegrated, and the positive side formed positrons which are the antimatter equivalent of electrons.
This charge migration took place because the universe seeks the condition of lowest tension, since this is also the lowest energy state. This seeking of the lowest energy state is the reason that a ball will fall to the ground when you drop it, it takes less energy for it to fall that it does to oppose gravity to keep it in the air.
There is tension in space between the checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges that compose space. But charge migration, to bring about a state of lower tension, does not take place because there are so many dimensions of space. It was much easier for it to take place in the original sheet of space because there were only two dimensions.
Black holes are unlike anything else in the universe. The movement of matter is governed by electromagnetism. The electron repulsion of the negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of atoms is what causes matter to move when force is exerted on it by other matter. This same electron repulsion is what prevents objects on the surface of the earth from falling to the earth's center of gravity. Atoms are almost entirely empty space, but the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms composing the earth and the atoms in the outer shells of objects on the earth's surface repel one another, this is because like charges repel and all electrons are negatively-charged.
When matter is brought together, the electric charges do not move at all. Negative remain negative, and positive remains positive. It is matter which moves to accommodate these electromagnetic forces.
But the inside of a black hole is completely different from anything else in the universe. Not even the centers of stars, where smaller atoms are crushed together into larger atoms, are remotely like the gravitational stress that matter undergoes in a black hole. At least atoms can move in the centers of stars, so that they can be combined together.
If matter is subject to extreme stresses, unlike anything else in the universe, meaning that like charges are being forced together by the unfathomable gravity. And if it is possible for charges to actually migrate within matter in a way similar to the original sheet of space, which became what we know as matter, as described in "The Beginning Of The Universe", why couldn't charges within black holes simply migrate to relieve the extreme stresses?
My cosmological theory explains how the nature of the universe first seeks charge balance, and secondly seeks the lowest energy level. This is explained in the posting "Gamma Ray Bursts". The universe could drastically lower it's energy level by minimizing the forces working against each other inside a black hole by simply having negative and positive charges rearrange themselves.
Since the matter itself cannot possibly move, this would involve the negative and positive charges trading places. As long as the overall charge balance of the universe remains zero, this would not be breaking any fundamental rules.
But then, if we have charges moving within matter, this means that matter will sometimes be changing into antimatter. We know that when matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Both space and matter, as well as antimatter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. When matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate as they rearrange their charge arrangement back into that of space. The energy that was holding their bonds together is released.
So, there we have it. This simple scenario explains both why black holes eventually decay, and why they release energy. Decay would seem impossible with the gravity so extreme that no matter can possibly escape. But the matter isn't actually escaping the black hole into space, it is mutually annihilating as matter and antimatter.
One complication that is pointed out about the decay of Black Holes, and the corresponding release of radiation, is the so-called "information paradox". If a star condensed by gravity to ultimately form a black hole, and there must have been information in that star concerning it's structure and the structures of it's atoms, then what happened to that information when the black hole decays? We know that information can never disappear altogether.
But my way of explaining it here leaves no such missing information. The black hole contained all of the information that was in the star. The decay of a black hole, until nothing remains but empty space, is a kind of a long and slow matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of matter. But just as all of the information that was in the matter and antimatter is not lost, but is contained in the burst of energy that is released by the reaction, so the radiation that is released by the slow decay of the black hole also contains all of the information that was in the matter of the black hole, and the star before it. This radiation released by a decaying black hole is sometimes referred to as "Hawking Radiation".
My theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it. Not only is all of the information that was in the black hole and the star before it included in the radiation that escapes a black hole, all of the energy that was in the atoms of the matter of the star and black hole escapes too.
Remember that space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Energy ultimately opposes the rules of the basic charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Energy makes it possible to overcome the repulsion between like charges so that matter can be brought into being. The original infinitesimal electric charges still exist but negative charges can be cobbled together to form electrons and positive charges to form protons. But this joining together of like charges involves both energy and information, which is actually the same thing.
By the way, this also neatly explains what gravity is. Not only are the sum of negative and positive charges in the universe equal, the two basic rules about the attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges is also equal. Energy overcomes the repulsion of opposite charges, so that matter which is a concentration of charges can exist. But this leaves an imbalance between the two basic rules of electric charges, so that the attractive force is more prevalent than the repulsive force. This leaves us with the net attractive force between matter that we refer to as gravity.
When a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation takes place, or when a black hole decays, the radiation that is released contains all of the energy and information that the matter had contained. The energy and information radiates away into space, and no information is lost.
Remember that, in this cosmological theory, electromagnetic radiation is a displacement in the pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges that composes space. This pattern of displacement radiates out across space as a wave which reflects the nature of the information which produced it. This is what energy does in matter, it displaces the usual alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges so that charged particles (actually strings) such as nucleons and electrons can be cobbled together from like charges.
After the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter, or as a black hole decays, the displacement of electric charges due to energy remains exactly the same, except that now it is dispersed across a wide area of space instead of concentrated in matter. The matter, antimatter and, black hole seem to disappear, but no energy or information at all is lost.
I can think of no better, or indeed any other, explanation of how a black hole could decay.
Remember that in physics, there is an age-old principle known as "Occam's Razor" which stipulates that the simplest explanation for something us usually the best explanation. This may not be true when dealing with people, but it does seem to be the case with physics. This shows from yet another perspective how this model of the universe must be correct.
THE MATTER CYCLE
There is a close relationship between the quantum level and the astronomical levels of reality that I have never before seen pointed out, and which provides more proof of my cosmological theory that both space and matter are composed of infinitesimal electric charges, that space is an alternating checkerboard of these charges and that matter is a concentration of the charges other than the checkerboard pattern of space.
I also have a physics and astronomy blog. The difference between cosmology and ordinary physics and astronomy is that if a concept can be explained without involving the additional dimensions of space in my cosmology theory that we cannot see or the composition of space and matter as the fundamental negative and positive electric charges, then it gets classified as ordinary physics or astronomy.
Have you ever questioned why books tend to depict neutrons and protons, in the nucleus of atoms, as neat little spheres? Planets and stars are spherical in form, but that is due to gravity creating a form with the lowest energy state. There is no such force at the level of the atomic nucleus that would dictate that protons and neutrons had to be spherical.
I find that, if we can get away from thinking of nucleons, as protons and neutrons are referred to, as spherical in form, it helps to explain the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. Nucleons are actually made of mixed charges, composed of smaller particles called quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2/3, and a down quark has a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks and a down quark have a net charge of + 1, and forms a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark has a neutral charge, and forms a neutron.
In my theory of binding energy, when smaller atoms in stars are crunched together in the center of the star to form larger atoms, the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star applies pressure on the nucleons so that the mixed negative and positive charges are displaced so that they face off, and so the nucleus can hold together. I described this in "The Nature Of Binding Energy", on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .
Remember that at the nuclear scale, there is really no such thing as energy inefficiency. All energy has to be applied in some way so that it makes changes. An engine has a degree of inefficiency because force and heat is dissipated into the surrounding atoms. But at the nuclear level, there is nowhere to dissipate it to.
There is a force within each nucleon which holds it's component quarks together, the force is sometimes referred to as gluons. In the nucleus, the nucleons remain intact and do not merge together. This is because the force holding the quarks of the nucleons together is stronger than that holding the nucleus together.
If we compare the astronomical and quantum levels, we see that each change in quantum structure due to gravity corresponds to a different astronomical body, which is the venue for changes due to gravitational pressure.
Remember that, in my cosmological theory, matter originates from a sheet of space that was not joined by it's structure of alternating electric charges to the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet was thus folded relative to the background space and the negative side came in contact with the positive side, causing one dimension of it to disintegrate in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, that we perceive as the Big Bang. The remaining one-dimensional strings form what we perceive as matter.
We could depict what we might call the Matter Cycle as three steps in each direction, first the formation of matter and then atoms from empty space and then it's destruction back into space. I have never before seen this pointed out. The Matter Cycle could be illustrated as follows:
SPACE > QUARKS > NUCLEONS > ATOMS .....GRAVITY
SPACE < BLACK HOLES < NEUTRON STARS < STARS
We could say that gravity came into being at the Big Bang to oppose the Big Bang. It does this not only by trying to pull matter back together, but also by trying to break matter back down into space. Gravity is a property of matter in space and if enough matter is brought together, gravity will break it back down into the space from whence it came.
After the Big Bang, quarks joined together to form nucleons and then electrons, with an opposite electric charge, were added to form an atom with an overall neutral charge. My description of the Big Bang, involving this sheet of space, is based on there being equal numbers of negative and positive charges. Yet it also seems to indicate that quarks overall have more of a positive than a negative charge, since up quarks have a charge of + 2/3 and down quarks of - 1/3. But we must remember that the Big Bang produced both matter and antimatter, where the charges are reversed so that it all balances out.
(Note- One thing that caught my attention when formulating this theory is how the structure of matter seems to revolve around thirds. Quarks forming protons and neutrons are based on thirds and a proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron, which is a number that is divisible by 3 multiple times).
After atoms have formed, and enough are brought together by gravity, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by the pressure in the centers of stars. The formation of atoms by the nuclear binding energy force and by electromagnetism is the peak of the creation part of the cycle. The crunching together into larger atoms by the gravity of stars is the beginning of the destruction part of the cycle.
The life cycle of stars eventually end, with many of the atoms thrown out across space by the explosions of a nova or supernova. If the mass of a star is less then what is known as the Chandrasekhar Limit, for the Indian physicist of that name, it will end up as what is known as a white dwarf star. This limit is 1.4 times the mass of our sun. In such a star, the structure of the component atoms are still intact. The white dwarf does not have enough gravitational pressure to break down the very structures of atoms.
But if the mass of the former star was above the Chandrasekhar Limit, it will form what is known as a neutron star. In a neutron star, the structures of the atoms are broken down by the tremendous pressure of gravity. Electrons in atomic orbitals are crunched into protons, by what is known as electron capture, to form neutrons. This means that, in a neutron star, the structures of atoms are broken down but the structures of the component nucleons are not. A neutron star, although technically not a star, is a mass of neutrons held together by their tremendous gravity into a compact and extremely dense body.
Just as atoms correspond to stars on opposite sides of the matter cycle, with atoms on the quantum or creation side and stars on the gravitational or destruction side, nucleons correspond to neutron stars.
The most massive stars collapse into black holes. In a black hole, unlike a neutron star, even the structure of the nucleons has been broken down by the tremendous gravity. If this is the case, and neutrons are composed of quarks, then black holes must correspond to quarks and must be composed of the quarks which had earlier composed the nucleons which had been broken down. This is one step away from empty space on the gravitational-destruction side of the matter cycle, just as quarks are one step away from empty space on the quantum-creation side of the matter cycle.
A black hole must break down the structure of nucleons into quarks or else there would be no difference between a neutron star and a black hole. It has been postulated that there might be "quark stars" which exist, and which are a step beyond neutron stars in that the nucleons have been broken down into quarks. No such stars have yet been found, but this model indicates that black holes actually are quark stars.
A black hole is the densest possible concentration of matter yet it is also the final step in the matter cycle, of matter returning back to empty space. The very definition of a black hole is that nothing can ever escape it's gravity, not even light or other radiation. But yet black holes do give off radiation, the so-called "Hawking Radiation". This radiation is a return of the energy of the Big Bang that went into fusing matter together from the alternating negative and positive electric charges of empty space in the first place.
This neat three-step process in each direction indicates that black holes are the transition step between quarks and the alternating electric charges of empty space. The tremendous pressure within black holes brings about charge migration to relieve the pressure of like charges being forced together. But this, in effect, creates antimatter out of matter and causes the mutual annihilation of a matter-antimatter reaction. This is what causes black holes to gradually decay and give off radiation as they do.
This happens because the quarks of which matter has been broken down into in black holes are of mixed electric charge that are in very close proximity. The gradual decay of a black hole is the component electric charges of the quarks being rearranged back into the alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges in empty space. It is well known that black holes eventually decay, but why would the densest concentration of matter in the universe decay unless a process like this was taking place? Unlike a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation as the two are brought into contact, the decay and emitting of radiation of a black hole is slow because the process is very gradual.
In summary, all of this matter cycle takes place because a two-dimensional sheet of space formed in which the alternating pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges was not aligned with the pattern in the surrounding background space and this is what is required to get the two aligned. Unlike the quantum-creation side of the cycle, the gravitational-destruction side is scalar rather than sequential. A black hole only comes into being if there is enough gravitational mass brought together. A neutron star does not automatically develop into a black hole, without more mass somehow being added.
For another perspective on the relationship between the atomic and astronomical levels of reality, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .
There is believed to be a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In recent years, black holes have become a staple of space science.
But yet, it has been found that black holes actually do decay over time, and also emit radiation. This decay can only mean that matter is somehow leaving the black hole. How can we account for this?
As it turns out, my cosmological theory offers a relatively simple explanation for why black holes decay over time. In the posting, "The Beginning Of The Universe", I explained how charge migration took place in the original two-dimensional sheet of space, before the bonds disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions leaving us with the one-dimensional strings thrown out across the universe that we today know as matter.
In this primeval charge migration, one side of the sheet became the negative side, and the other the positive side. The negative side formed electrons when one of the two dimensional bonds disintegrated, and the positive side formed positrons which are the antimatter equivalent of electrons.
This charge migration took place because the universe seeks the condition of lowest tension, since this is also the lowest energy state. This seeking of the lowest energy state is the reason that a ball will fall to the ground when you drop it, it takes less energy for it to fall that it does to oppose gravity to keep it in the air.
There is tension in space between the checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges that compose space. But charge migration, to bring about a state of lower tension, does not take place because there are so many dimensions of space. It was much easier for it to take place in the original sheet of space because there were only two dimensions.
Black holes are unlike anything else in the universe. The movement of matter is governed by electromagnetism. The electron repulsion of the negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of atoms is what causes matter to move when force is exerted on it by other matter. This same electron repulsion is what prevents objects on the surface of the earth from falling to the earth's center of gravity. Atoms are almost entirely empty space, but the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms composing the earth and the atoms in the outer shells of objects on the earth's surface repel one another, this is because like charges repel and all electrons are negatively-charged.
When matter is brought together, the electric charges do not move at all. Negative remain negative, and positive remains positive. It is matter which moves to accommodate these electromagnetic forces.
But the inside of a black hole is completely different from anything else in the universe. Not even the centers of stars, where smaller atoms are crushed together into larger atoms, are remotely like the gravitational stress that matter undergoes in a black hole. At least atoms can move in the centers of stars, so that they can be combined together.
If matter is subject to extreme stresses, unlike anything else in the universe, meaning that like charges are being forced together by the unfathomable gravity. And if it is possible for charges to actually migrate within matter in a way similar to the original sheet of space, which became what we know as matter, as described in "The Beginning Of The Universe", why couldn't charges within black holes simply migrate to relieve the extreme stresses?
My cosmological theory explains how the nature of the universe first seeks charge balance, and secondly seeks the lowest energy level. This is explained in the posting "Gamma Ray Bursts". The universe could drastically lower it's energy level by minimizing the forces working against each other inside a black hole by simply having negative and positive charges rearrange themselves.
Since the matter itself cannot possibly move, this would involve the negative and positive charges trading places. As long as the overall charge balance of the universe remains zero, this would not be breaking any fundamental rules.
But then, if we have charges moving within matter, this means that matter will sometimes be changing into antimatter. We know that when matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Both space and matter, as well as antimatter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. When matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate as they rearrange their charge arrangement back into that of space. The energy that was holding their bonds together is released.
So, there we have it. This simple scenario explains both why black holes eventually decay, and why they release energy. Decay would seem impossible with the gravity so extreme that no matter can possibly escape. But the matter isn't actually escaping the black hole into space, it is mutually annihilating as matter and antimatter.
One complication that is pointed out about the decay of Black Holes, and the corresponding release of radiation, is the so-called "information paradox". If a star condensed by gravity to ultimately form a black hole, and there must have been information in that star concerning it's structure and the structures of it's atoms, then what happened to that information when the black hole decays? We know that information can never disappear altogether.
But my way of explaining it here leaves no such missing information. The black hole contained all of the information that was in the star. The decay of a black hole, until nothing remains but empty space, is a kind of a long and slow matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of matter. But just as all of the information that was in the matter and antimatter is not lost, but is contained in the burst of energy that is released by the reaction, so the radiation that is released by the slow decay of the black hole also contains all of the information that was in the matter of the black hole, and the star before it. This radiation released by a decaying black hole is sometimes referred to as "Hawking Radiation".
My theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it. Not only is all of the information that was in the black hole and the star before it included in the radiation that escapes a black hole, all of the energy that was in the atoms of the matter of the star and black hole escapes too.
Remember that space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Energy ultimately opposes the rules of the basic charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Energy makes it possible to overcome the repulsion between like charges so that matter can be brought into being. The original infinitesimal electric charges still exist but negative charges can be cobbled together to form electrons and positive charges to form protons. But this joining together of like charges involves both energy and information, which is actually the same thing.
By the way, this also neatly explains what gravity is. Not only are the sum of negative and positive charges in the universe equal, the two basic rules about the attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges is also equal. Energy overcomes the repulsion of opposite charges, so that matter which is a concentration of charges can exist. But this leaves an imbalance between the two basic rules of electric charges, so that the attractive force is more prevalent than the repulsive force. This leaves us with the net attractive force between matter that we refer to as gravity.
When a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation takes place, or when a black hole decays, the radiation that is released contains all of the energy and information that the matter had contained. The energy and information radiates away into space, and no information is lost.
Remember that, in this cosmological theory, electromagnetic radiation is a displacement in the pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges that composes space. This pattern of displacement radiates out across space as a wave which reflects the nature of the information which produced it. This is what energy does in matter, it displaces the usual alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges so that charged particles (actually strings) such as nucleons and electrons can be cobbled together from like charges.
After the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter, or as a black hole decays, the displacement of electric charges due to energy remains exactly the same, except that now it is dispersed across a wide area of space instead of concentrated in matter. The matter, antimatter and, black hole seem to disappear, but no energy or information at all is lost.
I can think of no better, or indeed any other, explanation of how a black hole could decay.
Remember that in physics, there is an age-old principle known as "Occam's Razor" which stipulates that the simplest explanation for something us usually the best explanation. This may not be true when dealing with people, but it does seem to be the case with physics. This shows from yet another perspective how this model of the universe must be correct.
THE MATTER CYCLE
There is a close relationship between the quantum level and the astronomical levels of reality that I have never before seen pointed out, and which provides more proof of my cosmological theory that both space and matter are composed of infinitesimal electric charges, that space is an alternating checkerboard of these charges and that matter is a concentration of the charges other than the checkerboard pattern of space.
I also have a physics and astronomy blog. The difference between cosmology and ordinary physics and astronomy is that if a concept can be explained without involving the additional dimensions of space in my cosmology theory that we cannot see or the composition of space and matter as the fundamental negative and positive electric charges, then it gets classified as ordinary physics or astronomy.
Have you ever questioned why books tend to depict neutrons and protons, in the nucleus of atoms, as neat little spheres? Planets and stars are spherical in form, but that is due to gravity creating a form with the lowest energy state. There is no such force at the level of the atomic nucleus that would dictate that protons and neutrons had to be spherical.
I find that, if we can get away from thinking of nucleons, as protons and neutrons are referred to, as spherical in form, it helps to explain the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. Nucleons are actually made of mixed charges, composed of smaller particles called quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2/3, and a down quark has a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks and a down quark have a net charge of + 1, and forms a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark has a neutral charge, and forms a neutron.
In my theory of binding energy, when smaller atoms in stars are crunched together in the center of the star to form larger atoms, the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star applies pressure on the nucleons so that the mixed negative and positive charges are displaced so that they face off, and so the nucleus can hold together. I described this in "The Nature Of Binding Energy", on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .
Remember that at the nuclear scale, there is really no such thing as energy inefficiency. All energy has to be applied in some way so that it makes changes. An engine has a degree of inefficiency because force and heat is dissipated into the surrounding atoms. But at the nuclear level, there is nowhere to dissipate it to.
There is a force within each nucleon which holds it's component quarks together, the force is sometimes referred to as gluons. In the nucleus, the nucleons remain intact and do not merge together. This is because the force holding the quarks of the nucleons together is stronger than that holding the nucleus together.
If we compare the astronomical and quantum levels, we see that each change in quantum structure due to gravity corresponds to a different astronomical body, which is the venue for changes due to gravitational pressure.
Remember that, in my cosmological theory, matter originates from a sheet of space that was not joined by it's structure of alternating electric charges to the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet was thus folded relative to the background space and the negative side came in contact with the positive side, causing one dimension of it to disintegrate in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, that we perceive as the Big Bang. The remaining one-dimensional strings form what we perceive as matter.
We could depict what we might call the Matter Cycle as three steps in each direction, first the formation of matter and then atoms from empty space and then it's destruction back into space. I have never before seen this pointed out. The Matter Cycle could be illustrated as follows:
SPACE > QUARKS > NUCLEONS > ATOMS .....GRAVITY
SPACE < BLACK HOLES < NEUTRON STARS < STARS
We could say that gravity came into being at the Big Bang to oppose the Big Bang. It does this not only by trying to pull matter back together, but also by trying to break matter back down into space. Gravity is a property of matter in space and if enough matter is brought together, gravity will break it back down into the space from whence it came.
After the Big Bang, quarks joined together to form nucleons and then electrons, with an opposite electric charge, were added to form an atom with an overall neutral charge. My description of the Big Bang, involving this sheet of space, is based on there being equal numbers of negative and positive charges. Yet it also seems to indicate that quarks overall have more of a positive than a negative charge, since up quarks have a charge of + 2/3 and down quarks of - 1/3. But we must remember that the Big Bang produced both matter and antimatter, where the charges are reversed so that it all balances out.
(Note- One thing that caught my attention when formulating this theory is how the structure of matter seems to revolve around thirds. Quarks forming protons and neutrons are based on thirds and a proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron, which is a number that is divisible by 3 multiple times).
After atoms have formed, and enough are brought together by gravity, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by the pressure in the centers of stars. The formation of atoms by the nuclear binding energy force and by electromagnetism is the peak of the creation part of the cycle. The crunching together into larger atoms by the gravity of stars is the beginning of the destruction part of the cycle.
The life cycle of stars eventually end, with many of the atoms thrown out across space by the explosions of a nova or supernova. If the mass of a star is less then what is known as the Chandrasekhar Limit, for the Indian physicist of that name, it will end up as what is known as a white dwarf star. This limit is 1.4 times the mass of our sun. In such a star, the structure of the component atoms are still intact. The white dwarf does not have enough gravitational pressure to break down the very structures of atoms.
But if the mass of the former star was above the Chandrasekhar Limit, it will form what is known as a neutron star. In a neutron star, the structures of the atoms are broken down by the tremendous pressure of gravity. Electrons in atomic orbitals are crunched into protons, by what is known as electron capture, to form neutrons. This means that, in a neutron star, the structures of atoms are broken down but the structures of the component nucleons are not. A neutron star, although technically not a star, is a mass of neutrons held together by their tremendous gravity into a compact and extremely dense body.
Just as atoms correspond to stars on opposite sides of the matter cycle, with atoms on the quantum or creation side and stars on the gravitational or destruction side, nucleons correspond to neutron stars.
The most massive stars collapse into black holes. In a black hole, unlike a neutron star, even the structure of the nucleons has been broken down by the tremendous gravity. If this is the case, and neutrons are composed of quarks, then black holes must correspond to quarks and must be composed of the quarks which had earlier composed the nucleons which had been broken down. This is one step away from empty space on the gravitational-destruction side of the matter cycle, just as quarks are one step away from empty space on the quantum-creation side of the matter cycle.
A black hole must break down the structure of nucleons into quarks or else there would be no difference between a neutron star and a black hole. It has been postulated that there might be "quark stars" which exist, and which are a step beyond neutron stars in that the nucleons have been broken down into quarks. No such stars have yet been found, but this model indicates that black holes actually are quark stars.
A black hole is the densest possible concentration of matter yet it is also the final step in the matter cycle, of matter returning back to empty space. The very definition of a black hole is that nothing can ever escape it's gravity, not even light or other radiation. But yet black holes do give off radiation, the so-called "Hawking Radiation". This radiation is a return of the energy of the Big Bang that went into fusing matter together from the alternating negative and positive electric charges of empty space in the first place.
This neat three-step process in each direction indicates that black holes are the transition step between quarks and the alternating electric charges of empty space. The tremendous pressure within black holes brings about charge migration to relieve the pressure of like charges being forced together. But this, in effect, creates antimatter out of matter and causes the mutual annihilation of a matter-antimatter reaction. This is what causes black holes to gradually decay and give off radiation as they do.
This happens because the quarks of which matter has been broken down into in black holes are of mixed electric charge that are in very close proximity. The gradual decay of a black hole is the component electric charges of the quarks being rearranged back into the alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges in empty space. It is well known that black holes eventually decay, but why would the densest concentration of matter in the universe decay unless a process like this was taking place? Unlike a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation as the two are brought into contact, the decay and emitting of radiation of a black hole is slow because the process is very gradual.
In summary, all of this matter cycle takes place because a two-dimensional sheet of space formed in which the alternating pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges was not aligned with the pattern in the surrounding background space and this is what is required to get the two aligned. Unlike the quantum-creation side of the cycle, the gravitational-destruction side is scalar rather than sequential. A black hole only comes into being if there is enough gravitational mass brought together. A neutron star does not automatically develop into a black hole, without more mass somehow being added.
For another perspective on the relationship between the atomic and astronomical levels of reality, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .
Momentum And Strings
Today, I would like to develop momentum as proof that matter actually consists of strings in four-dimensional space instead of particles in three-dimensional space as we perceive. As I described in the theory, our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings that compose our bodies and brains at the speed we perceive as the speed of light.
Light and other electromagnetic radiation actually consists of stationary ripples in space caused by bends in strings. These strings and bundles of strings are aligned in space along that dimension of space that we cannot see but perceive as time so that we experience other bundles as strings as three-dimensional objects because we can only see in the plane perpendicular to the spatial dimension that we perceive as time.
Have you ever thought about how strange it is that if there is an object in outer space free of gravity and we apply a force to the object, the object will continue in the same direction even after the force is removed from it? The logic that governs all other aspects of physics seems to demand that the object would move as long as the force is applied to it but would stop when the force is removed. It is as if the force is "still with" the object regardless of when the force is removed.
What about falling objects? Suppose we drop a compact object from a high place, even though the force of gravity on it is constant, the speed of the object will increase until it hits the ground. Just as with the object in space, it is as if the force of gravity from earlier in the object's fall is "still with" the object throughout it's fall.
When an object is moved by a force, whether it is gravity or another force away from gravity, time makes no difference. When a force is applied to an object, that force is always with the object regardless of the passage of time after the removal of the force. As for the object in space, conventional newtonian physics tells us that if an object is in motion, it must always remain in motion until acted on by an outside force.
This is fine for everyday physics. But space itself must act upon a motionless object to keep it in place. If it were not, then objects in open space would spontanously move or relocate.
In my theory, I established that space must consist of infinitesimal alternating electric charges. This means that it is charge attraction and repulsion on the boundaries of an object in space that holds it in place until it is moved. But this means that, once again, while an object in open space could be moved by a force applied to it, the motion should cease when the force is discontinued.
Yet it does not, if there was a chunk of rock in space and a force is applied to it for five seconds, it will continue on forever in the same direction until acted on by another force. But yet if space clearly acts to hold a stationary object in place, why does it not resist the movement of the chunk of rock now that the force has been removed from it?
The answer is very simple but it requires a rearrangement of our understanding of reality. It requires acceptance of the Theory Of Stationary Space that I have presented. If the force, whether gravity on the falling object or the force on the rock in open space, is not acting on a three-dimensional object in three-dimensional space as we perceive it but bending a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, then everything falls right into place.
As we move forward in what we perceive as time, the bend in the bundle remains after the force appears to us to have been discontinued. The reason that time is not a factor in momentum, whether in the falling object or the rock in free space is, of course, that it does not really exist, it is only something that we perceive. The bend caused by the force in what we perceive as the bundle's past is still with it and has affected it's directional orientation in space.
The reason that we perceive the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity anything can travel is that in terms of bending a bundle of strings, it is represented by a right angle bend and that is the maximum possible bend. I do not hesitate to state that if objects were composed of particles rather than strings as conventional science supposes, falling objects would fall at a constant rate and an object in open space moved by a force would remain still after the force was removed.
Light and other electromagnetic radiation actually consists of stationary ripples in space caused by bends in strings. These strings and bundles of strings are aligned in space along that dimension of space that we cannot see but perceive as time so that we experience other bundles as strings as three-dimensional objects because we can only see in the plane perpendicular to the spatial dimension that we perceive as time.
Have you ever thought about how strange it is that if there is an object in outer space free of gravity and we apply a force to the object, the object will continue in the same direction even after the force is removed from it? The logic that governs all other aspects of physics seems to demand that the object would move as long as the force is applied to it but would stop when the force is removed. It is as if the force is "still with" the object regardless of when the force is removed.
What about falling objects? Suppose we drop a compact object from a high place, even though the force of gravity on it is constant, the speed of the object will increase until it hits the ground. Just as with the object in space, it is as if the force of gravity from earlier in the object's fall is "still with" the object throughout it's fall.
When an object is moved by a force, whether it is gravity or another force away from gravity, time makes no difference. When a force is applied to an object, that force is always with the object regardless of the passage of time after the removal of the force. As for the object in space, conventional newtonian physics tells us that if an object is in motion, it must always remain in motion until acted on by an outside force.
This is fine for everyday physics. But space itself must act upon a motionless object to keep it in place. If it were not, then objects in open space would spontanously move or relocate.
In my theory, I established that space must consist of infinitesimal alternating electric charges. This means that it is charge attraction and repulsion on the boundaries of an object in space that holds it in place until it is moved. But this means that, once again, while an object in open space could be moved by a force applied to it, the motion should cease when the force is discontinued.
Yet it does not, if there was a chunk of rock in space and a force is applied to it for five seconds, it will continue on forever in the same direction until acted on by another force. But yet if space clearly acts to hold a stationary object in place, why does it not resist the movement of the chunk of rock now that the force has been removed from it?
The answer is very simple but it requires a rearrangement of our understanding of reality. It requires acceptance of the Theory Of Stationary Space that I have presented. If the force, whether gravity on the falling object or the force on the rock in open space, is not acting on a three-dimensional object in three-dimensional space as we perceive it but bending a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, then everything falls right into place.
As we move forward in what we perceive as time, the bend in the bundle remains after the force appears to us to have been discontinued. The reason that time is not a factor in momentum, whether in the falling object or the rock in free space is, of course, that it does not really exist, it is only something that we perceive. The bend caused by the force in what we perceive as the bundle's past is still with it and has affected it's directional orientation in space.
The reason that we perceive the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity anything can travel is that in terms of bending a bundle of strings, it is represented by a right angle bend and that is the maximum possible bend. I do not hesitate to state that if objects were composed of particles rather than strings as conventional science supposes, falling objects would fall at a constant rate and an object in open space moved by a force would remain still after the force was removed.
The Possibility Of Seeing In Time
I do not have much enthusiasm for the possibility of practical time travel. However, capturing light from the past or future to make an image may be a different story.
As we know, electromagnetic waves such as light radiate into space at right angles from the body of matter which produces or reflects the waves. As I described on my cosmology blog, there must be at least four dimensions of space, three of which we experience as space and one as time. But this arrangement is simply due to the configuration resulting from the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it.
There is no set rule concerning which one of the dimensions must function as the time dimension. It all depends upon the direction in which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is aligned. We actually occupy all four dimensions of space, but matter which includes our bodies and brains is aligned mostly along one of the dimensions and we can only see at right angles to the present position of our consciousnesses so that we perceive this dimension as time and the other three as space.
It is when an object is in apparent motion that it extends, but usually only at a very slight angle, into the dimension of space that we perceive as time. It is only when an object is moving at what we perceive as the speed of light that it's time dimension becomes one of our spatial dimensions, depending on the direction in which it is moving, and our time dimension becomes one of it's spatial dimensions.
This means, as I described in detail on the cosmology blog, that the reason any object appears to us to be in motion is that we do not occupy the same dimensional set as our consciousness proceeds at what we perceive as the speed of light along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, which are aligned along the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
There must be light, and other electromagnetic radiation, along the fourth spatial dimension, which is the one that we perceive as time. If everything in the universe remained perfectly still, then this would not be the case. But nearly everything in the universe is in constant motion in one way or another, even if we do not perceive it. We know that our earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Our galaxy also undergoes rotation at a significant portion of the speed of light and at the same time, the universe is expanding at a high rate of speed.
When an object is at rest, from our perspective, the light that it radiates is entirely in our three dimensions of space. But when the object is in apparent motion, relative to us, it's dimensional set is different from ours so that some of the light that it radiates goes into the dimension of space that we are experiencing as time.
The principle is the same as that of a sign that is facing you until it is turned partially away from you. The exposure can be expressed as the cosine of the angle of the sign relative to your perspective. The remainder of the light from the sign moves in a direction parallel to you so that you do not see it.
All objects can radiate or reflect light and other radiation. But because they do not share exactly the same space-time configuration due to relative motion, there must be light moving along the dimension of space that we perceive as time that we cannot see.
Light radiates at right angles to strings of matter, of which the predominant alignment is in one direction due to the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang. but since virtually all matter is in some type of motion, plenty of light gets into the time dimension. This light runs parallel to the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains so that we do not see it. If we only could see this light, we would be seeing backwards or forwards in time.
This means that if we could find a way to travel at what we perceive as the speed of light, meaning that the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains was bent at a right angle, what had been the time dimension when we were at rest would now be one of the spatial dimensions and we would see into the past in one direction and the future in the opposite direction. But attaining the speed of light, or anything close to it, is simply not practical with existing technology.
But I got to thinking about what would happen if we could get a beam of light, travelling at the speed of light from our perspective, to somehow take a photograph.
We cannot practically travel anywhere near what we perceive as the speed of light so that we can see into time. We are only capable of bending the bundles of strings composing matter at a slight angle, which we perceive as low speed. But light, by it's very definition, moves at what we perceive as the speed of light.
When we send out a beam of light into space, it must interact with light that we cannot see because our beam's space-time configuration is different from ours by one dimension. Due to the fact that just about all matter is in some type of relative motion, it will radiate or reflect light into our time dimension that we cannot see.
When we send out the beam of light, it will not be perfectly perpendicular to virtually all light in our time dimension due to this universal relative motion. This opens the possibility that we could send out very finely-controlled beams of light and then form an image from the time dimension from the subtle modulations in the beam's frequency and amplitude caused by the otherwise undetectable light in our time dimension. It is, of course, vital that the beam not be modulated by any light parallel to it, or that we learn to cancel out any such modulations.
Electromagnetic waves, such as light and radio waves, can modulate one another. If it is desirable to beam a radio signal, rather than broadcasting it, dual antennas can be set up so that the waves undergo constructive and destructive interference. The signal is cancelled out in one direction and reinforced in a perpendicular direction. Two signals relatively close in frequency can also modulate one another to a median common frequency, this is the principle used in superheterodyne radio receivers.
I established that while our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, we see toward the past direction at an angle of 45 degrees.
Light is two-dimensional, as we can see in the sine wave on an oscilloscope, and it requires two equal dimensions, or else we would see in one dimension of space more than another. The only way that we can see in two equal dimensions is to see at a 45 degree angle.
This is why we are looking 36 years into the past when we look at a star that is 36 light years distant. It is not that other light is not there, it is just that we cannot see it. For an explanation of why light must be two-dimensional, you can read "The Nature Of Electromagnetic Waves", also on this blog.
When we deal with time, we must remember that it does not exist in absolute reality but is only something that we perceive. This is why physics has gotten essentially nowhere in explaining the nature of time. Since it is something in our nature, it cannot be explained by the laws of physics alone.
The movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains is somewhat like an hourglass built with 45 degree angles. We see into the past at 45 degrees, which is why we see stars in time according to how far away they are in light-years. But when we undergo an action, we act at 45 degrees into the future because that is where the momentum of our consciousness is taking us.
When we shine a beam of light into space, we are actually shining it at 45 degrees into our future. This is why we can shine a beam of light into a mirror and have it reflected back to us. It actually reflects back essentially instantaneously but we do not see it until our consciousness, moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, reaches the point where the beam intersects back to our bundle of strings.
So, if we see at 45 degrees into the past, and a beam of light that we send into space is aligned at 90 degrees from that, at 45 degrees into our future, that means that light in space parallel to us, from the past dimension that we can only see at 45 degrees, will be aligned so that it intersects our outward beam of light at 45 degrees. If we could only capture that light, by having it modulate the beam of light that we have sent out, we could look directly into the past dimension instead of at the 45 degree angle.
Just think of a pulse of laser light as a spacecraft that will travel at what we perceive as the speed of light and get a view of the space-time configuration that differs from ours. There is, of course, really no speed of light. Our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light and an object seen as moving at the speed of light is actually a string or bundle of strings bent or aligned at right angles to our bundle of strings.
The operation of the time camera is similar in principle to the amplitude modulation (AM) or frequency modulation (FM) of a carrier wave that is used in ordinary radio broadcasting. Upon reception, the carrier wave is removed so that only the signal which modulated that wave remains. Except that the time camera will use lasers. Lasers are already used extensively for communication, so that this is mostly existing technology.
A multitude of fine lasers of all visible colors (colours) will be beamed out into space to a reflector and then received back. Until the light reaches the reflector, unseen light from the past dimension will meet it at 45 degrees so that it will be modulated by the light that is of the same frequency.
With very finely-controlled laser light, we could separate out the minute variations in wavelength and amplitude induced by the light from the past dimension and actually glean a phtotograph of light from the past that we could not otherwise see. It is vital to use weak, low-amplitude lasers which can be noticably modulated by faint light.
On the return journey from the reflector, the laser light will be modulated by light from the future in the same way. To separate the past from the future, we could possibly have a copy of the signal sent back from the reflector by cable so that it is only modulated by light from the past, and not by the future. A fresh pulse of light, free of any modulation, could be sent back from the reflector so that it is only modulated by light from the future direction, and not from the past.
Remember that if we look into the future, we will see only inanimate matter because life, moving along in the frontier that we call the present, has not yet arrived there. For a further explanation see "The Consciousness Barrier" on the cosmology blog, with some parts still on the main blog.
Also remember that most of what we will see in a time photograph is space. Since the earth orbits the sun, we could see a series of earths, each one light-year behind the other. For practical use, the time camera will have to be coupled with an extremely powerful telescope. The photo should also be taken from space because otherwise, the earth itself may block our view. But whatever the practical value of the time camera turns out to be, it will certainly reveal new facts about the universe.
As we know, electromagnetic waves such as light radiate into space at right angles from the body of matter which produces or reflects the waves. As I described on my cosmology blog, there must be at least four dimensions of space, three of which we experience as space and one as time. But this arrangement is simply due to the configuration resulting from the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang, which was the beginning of the universe as we know it.
There is no set rule concerning which one of the dimensions must function as the time dimension. It all depends upon the direction in which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is aligned. We actually occupy all four dimensions of space, but matter which includes our bodies and brains is aligned mostly along one of the dimensions and we can only see at right angles to the present position of our consciousnesses so that we perceive this dimension as time and the other three as space.
It is when an object is in apparent motion that it extends, but usually only at a very slight angle, into the dimension of space that we perceive as time. It is only when an object is moving at what we perceive as the speed of light that it's time dimension becomes one of our spatial dimensions, depending on the direction in which it is moving, and our time dimension becomes one of it's spatial dimensions.
This means, as I described in detail on the cosmology blog, that the reason any object appears to us to be in motion is that we do not occupy the same dimensional set as our consciousness proceeds at what we perceive as the speed of light along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, which are aligned along the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
There must be light, and other electromagnetic radiation, along the fourth spatial dimension, which is the one that we perceive as time. If everything in the universe remained perfectly still, then this would not be the case. But nearly everything in the universe is in constant motion in one way or another, even if we do not perceive it. We know that our earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Our galaxy also undergoes rotation at a significant portion of the speed of light and at the same time, the universe is expanding at a high rate of speed.
When an object is at rest, from our perspective, the light that it radiates is entirely in our three dimensions of space. But when the object is in apparent motion, relative to us, it's dimensional set is different from ours so that some of the light that it radiates goes into the dimension of space that we are experiencing as time.
The principle is the same as that of a sign that is facing you until it is turned partially away from you. The exposure can be expressed as the cosine of the angle of the sign relative to your perspective. The remainder of the light from the sign moves in a direction parallel to you so that you do not see it.
All objects can radiate or reflect light and other radiation. But because they do not share exactly the same space-time configuration due to relative motion, there must be light moving along the dimension of space that we perceive as time that we cannot see.
Light radiates at right angles to strings of matter, of which the predominant alignment is in one direction due to the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang. but since virtually all matter is in some type of motion, plenty of light gets into the time dimension. This light runs parallel to the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains so that we do not see it. If we only could see this light, we would be seeing backwards or forwards in time.
This means that if we could find a way to travel at what we perceive as the speed of light, meaning that the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains was bent at a right angle, what had been the time dimension when we were at rest would now be one of the spatial dimensions and we would see into the past in one direction and the future in the opposite direction. But attaining the speed of light, or anything close to it, is simply not practical with existing technology.
But I got to thinking about what would happen if we could get a beam of light, travelling at the speed of light from our perspective, to somehow take a photograph.
We cannot practically travel anywhere near what we perceive as the speed of light so that we can see into time. We are only capable of bending the bundles of strings composing matter at a slight angle, which we perceive as low speed. But light, by it's very definition, moves at what we perceive as the speed of light.
When we send out a beam of light into space, it must interact with light that we cannot see because our beam's space-time configuration is different from ours by one dimension. Due to the fact that just about all matter is in some type of relative motion, it will radiate or reflect light into our time dimension that we cannot see.
When we send out the beam of light, it will not be perfectly perpendicular to virtually all light in our time dimension due to this universal relative motion. This opens the possibility that we could send out very finely-controlled beams of light and then form an image from the time dimension from the subtle modulations in the beam's frequency and amplitude caused by the otherwise undetectable light in our time dimension. It is, of course, vital that the beam not be modulated by any light parallel to it, or that we learn to cancel out any such modulations.
Electromagnetic waves, such as light and radio waves, can modulate one another. If it is desirable to beam a radio signal, rather than broadcasting it, dual antennas can be set up so that the waves undergo constructive and destructive interference. The signal is cancelled out in one direction and reinforced in a perpendicular direction. Two signals relatively close in frequency can also modulate one another to a median common frequency, this is the principle used in superheterodyne radio receivers.
I established that while our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, we see toward the past direction at an angle of 45 degrees.
Light is two-dimensional, as we can see in the sine wave on an oscilloscope, and it requires two equal dimensions, or else we would see in one dimension of space more than another. The only way that we can see in two equal dimensions is to see at a 45 degree angle.
This is why we are looking 36 years into the past when we look at a star that is 36 light years distant. It is not that other light is not there, it is just that we cannot see it. For an explanation of why light must be two-dimensional, you can read "The Nature Of Electromagnetic Waves", also on this blog.
When we deal with time, we must remember that it does not exist in absolute reality but is only something that we perceive. This is why physics has gotten essentially nowhere in explaining the nature of time. Since it is something in our nature, it cannot be explained by the laws of physics alone.
The movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains is somewhat like an hourglass built with 45 degree angles. We see into the past at 45 degrees, which is why we see stars in time according to how far away they are in light-years. But when we undergo an action, we act at 45 degrees into the future because that is where the momentum of our consciousness is taking us.
When we shine a beam of light into space, we are actually shining it at 45 degrees into our future. This is why we can shine a beam of light into a mirror and have it reflected back to us. It actually reflects back essentially instantaneously but we do not see it until our consciousness, moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, reaches the point where the beam intersects back to our bundle of strings.
So, if we see at 45 degrees into the past, and a beam of light that we send into space is aligned at 90 degrees from that, at 45 degrees into our future, that means that light in space parallel to us, from the past dimension that we can only see at 45 degrees, will be aligned so that it intersects our outward beam of light at 45 degrees. If we could only capture that light, by having it modulate the beam of light that we have sent out, we could look directly into the past dimension instead of at the 45 degree angle.
Just think of a pulse of laser light as a spacecraft that will travel at what we perceive as the speed of light and get a view of the space-time configuration that differs from ours. There is, of course, really no speed of light. Our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light and an object seen as moving at the speed of light is actually a string or bundle of strings bent or aligned at right angles to our bundle of strings.
The operation of the time camera is similar in principle to the amplitude modulation (AM) or frequency modulation (FM) of a carrier wave that is used in ordinary radio broadcasting. Upon reception, the carrier wave is removed so that only the signal which modulated that wave remains. Except that the time camera will use lasers. Lasers are already used extensively for communication, so that this is mostly existing technology.
A multitude of fine lasers of all visible colors (colours) will be beamed out into space to a reflector and then received back. Until the light reaches the reflector, unseen light from the past dimension will meet it at 45 degrees so that it will be modulated by the light that is of the same frequency.
With very finely-controlled laser light, we could separate out the minute variations in wavelength and amplitude induced by the light from the past dimension and actually glean a phtotograph of light from the past that we could not otherwise see. It is vital to use weak, low-amplitude lasers which can be noticably modulated by faint light.
On the return journey from the reflector, the laser light will be modulated by light from the future in the same way. To separate the past from the future, we could possibly have a copy of the signal sent back from the reflector by cable so that it is only modulated by light from the past, and not by the future. A fresh pulse of light, free of any modulation, could be sent back from the reflector so that it is only modulated by light from the future direction, and not from the past.
Remember that if we look into the future, we will see only inanimate matter because life, moving along in the frontier that we call the present, has not yet arrived there. For a further explanation see "The Consciousness Barrier" on the cosmology blog, with some parts still on the main blog.
Also remember that most of what we will see in a time photograph is space. Since the earth orbits the sun, we could see a series of earths, each one light-year behind the other. For practical use, the time camera will have to be coupled with an extremely powerful telescope. The photo should also be taken from space because otherwise, the earth itself may block our view. But whatever the practical value of the time camera turns out to be, it will certainly reveal new facts about the universe.
The Nature Of Equality And The Displacement Principle
Possibly the single most important symbol that people use is the equal sign, "=". Let's have a look at the nature of equality, when things are not exactly the same but are considered as equal. All of mathematics and physics revolves around equal signs, what is equal to what. Yet, how rarely we ponder what equality really means.
There is a geometric theorem which is the basis of euclidean geometry, but which cannot actually be proven. However, this theorem is considered to be so self-evident that it really does not need to actually be proven, especially since our system of euclidean geometry has been working just fine for about 3,000 years. The reason that there must be at least one basic theorem that cannot be proven is that we prove theorems by referring to other previously established theorems, so that must leave at least one with no others to refer to.
The theorem is that when there is a straight line, and a point outside the line, there is one, and only one, line that can be drawn through the point which will be parallel to the given line.
Similarly, I have developed a principle that, while I cannot conclusively prove it, seems to me to also be so self-evident that it really does not require proof. Here it is: "Whenever we have an equation or a formula of any kind, the two sides of the equation must, at some level, be merely different manifestations of the same thing".
If A = B, then clearly A and B cannot be the same thing. If they were, then it would make no sense to assign them different names. But yet, stop and think, how can two things be equivalent unless they are somehow the same thing? This also shines a light on how we see things, we must have an incomplete view of reality.
My conclusion is that two things cannot possibly be equal unless they are somehow the same thing and the reason that we see them as equal, but not the same thing, is our incomplete view of reality.
Years ago, there used to be puppet theaters. Of course everyone, except young children, knew that the puppets were not real. There were people behind the curtain operating the puppets. Whenever we see two entities as equal, but not the same thing, we can be sure that if we could somehow "peek behind the curtain" of reality, we could see how they were just different manifestations of the same thing.
Let's consider some formulae involving very basic physics. Anyone who has ever studied physics is familiar with the relationships between velocity, distance and, time when we have a moving object.
velocity = distance/time
distance = velocity x time
time = distance/velocity.
Even though there is a relationship between them, from our point of view time, distance and, velocity are quite different things. Velocity is a function of distance and time. But yet, how can things like distance and time be on opposite sides of a formula unless they are somehow different manifestations of the same thing? The only conclusion that I can come to is that there must be a level of reality somewhere, that we cannot see, where distance and time are the same thing.
How about my version of string theory? In my Theory Of Stationary Space, time is only something that we perceive. In actual reality there are four dimensions of space, one of which we experience as time rather than space. So, time and space really are the same thing. That is why the two end up on opposite sides of formulae and equations, even though they do not appear to us, in our everyday reality, to be the same thing.
Our nature changes one of the dimensions of space into time. This causes us to see things as different which are, in fact, the same. A = B, the two must be different things or we would not assign them different names. But yet, our observations of reality tell us that they are equal and the equal sign is a manifestation of our distorted view.
Mathematical equations are obvious to us as joining merely different manifestations of the same thing. 6 = 2 x 3 is such an equation. One group of six is equivalent to two groups of three. But this is because mathematics is a system created by us and built around how we perceive reality, while physics is our observations of the actual workings of reality.
Equality is really only an illusion of our perspective on reality. We perceive equality when we see two branches of the same tree, without seeing the rest of the tree. The equal sign that we use is our substitute foe the rest of the tree, joining the two branches that we cannot see.
I have developed what I will call "The Displacement Principle". This is to show that, as I claimed in the theory, matter is just a different permutation of the infinitesimal alternating electric charges that make up space. The Displacement Principle is simply that when something displaces something else, it must mean that that which displaces and that which is displaced must both be of the same nature. This must be one of the fundamental self-evident principles of reality.
Suppose you fill a pail with water. Now suppose you place a brick in the pail of water. Some of the water, equal in volume to the brick, will be displaced. In other words, it will spill over the sides of the pail. This simple example actually proves that matter is only a different permutation of space.
Let's look at a few more examples of the displacement principle. If you can only live in one home at once and you move from one home to another, the new home must displace the old one. If your home has a driveway that can only hold one car, if you put a new car in the driveway it must displace the old one. If you can only have one pet and you get a new pet, the new one must displace the old one. The same applies to religion and political beliefs, a new one must necessarily displace the old one. The future means that a new permutation of reality has displaced the present one.
But notice that the displacement principle only applies to that which is of the same nature, which means that both operate by the same rules. Getting a new home does not affect the car. Getting a new pet has no effect on religion or political beliefs. Indeed, The Displacement Principle only applies to that which is of the same nature and has no effect on that which is not and must be considered as a fundamental and self-evident principle.
Now let's go back to space and matter and the Theory of Stationary Space. What do you notice about matter and space? They mutually displace. If we have vacant space and we put matter in it, the space is no longer vacant. But if we move the matter, then the space again becomes vacant. All matter mutually displaces, as seen by the brick in the pail of water, but space behaves in terms of displacement as if it is just another arrangement of matter.
I rest my case that matter is just a different arrangement of space, as described in the theory.
There is a geometric theorem which is the basis of euclidean geometry, but which cannot actually be proven. However, this theorem is considered to be so self-evident that it really does not need to actually be proven, especially since our system of euclidean geometry has been working just fine for about 3,000 years. The reason that there must be at least one basic theorem that cannot be proven is that we prove theorems by referring to other previously established theorems, so that must leave at least one with no others to refer to.
The theorem is that when there is a straight line, and a point outside the line, there is one, and only one, line that can be drawn through the point which will be parallel to the given line.
Similarly, I have developed a principle that, while I cannot conclusively prove it, seems to me to also be so self-evident that it really does not require proof. Here it is: "Whenever we have an equation or a formula of any kind, the two sides of the equation must, at some level, be merely different manifestations of the same thing".
If A = B, then clearly A and B cannot be the same thing. If they were, then it would make no sense to assign them different names. But yet, stop and think, how can two things be equivalent unless they are somehow the same thing? This also shines a light on how we see things, we must have an incomplete view of reality.
My conclusion is that two things cannot possibly be equal unless they are somehow the same thing and the reason that we see them as equal, but not the same thing, is our incomplete view of reality.
Years ago, there used to be puppet theaters. Of course everyone, except young children, knew that the puppets were not real. There were people behind the curtain operating the puppets. Whenever we see two entities as equal, but not the same thing, we can be sure that if we could somehow "peek behind the curtain" of reality, we could see how they were just different manifestations of the same thing.
Let's consider some formulae involving very basic physics. Anyone who has ever studied physics is familiar with the relationships between velocity, distance and, time when we have a moving object.
velocity = distance/time
distance = velocity x time
time = distance/velocity.
Even though there is a relationship between them, from our point of view time, distance and, velocity are quite different things. Velocity is a function of distance and time. But yet, how can things like distance and time be on opposite sides of a formula unless they are somehow different manifestations of the same thing? The only conclusion that I can come to is that there must be a level of reality somewhere, that we cannot see, where distance and time are the same thing.
How about my version of string theory? In my Theory Of Stationary Space, time is only something that we perceive. In actual reality there are four dimensions of space, one of which we experience as time rather than space. So, time and space really are the same thing. That is why the two end up on opposite sides of formulae and equations, even though they do not appear to us, in our everyday reality, to be the same thing.
Our nature changes one of the dimensions of space into time. This causes us to see things as different which are, in fact, the same. A = B, the two must be different things or we would not assign them different names. But yet, our observations of reality tell us that they are equal and the equal sign is a manifestation of our distorted view.
Mathematical equations are obvious to us as joining merely different manifestations of the same thing. 6 = 2 x 3 is such an equation. One group of six is equivalent to two groups of three. But this is because mathematics is a system created by us and built around how we perceive reality, while physics is our observations of the actual workings of reality.
Equality is really only an illusion of our perspective on reality. We perceive equality when we see two branches of the same tree, without seeing the rest of the tree. The equal sign that we use is our substitute foe the rest of the tree, joining the two branches that we cannot see.
I have developed what I will call "The Displacement Principle". This is to show that, as I claimed in the theory, matter is just a different permutation of the infinitesimal alternating electric charges that make up space. The Displacement Principle is simply that when something displaces something else, it must mean that that which displaces and that which is displaced must both be of the same nature. This must be one of the fundamental self-evident principles of reality.
Suppose you fill a pail with water. Now suppose you place a brick in the pail of water. Some of the water, equal in volume to the brick, will be displaced. In other words, it will spill over the sides of the pail. This simple example actually proves that matter is only a different permutation of space.
Let's look at a few more examples of the displacement principle. If you can only live in one home at once and you move from one home to another, the new home must displace the old one. If your home has a driveway that can only hold one car, if you put a new car in the driveway it must displace the old one. If you can only have one pet and you get a new pet, the new one must displace the old one. The same applies to religion and political beliefs, a new one must necessarily displace the old one. The future means that a new permutation of reality has displaced the present one.
But notice that the displacement principle only applies to that which is of the same nature, which means that both operate by the same rules. Getting a new home does not affect the car. Getting a new pet has no effect on religion or political beliefs. Indeed, The Displacement Principle only applies to that which is of the same nature and has no effect on that which is not and must be considered as a fundamental and self-evident principle.
Now let's go back to space and matter and the Theory of Stationary Space. What do you notice about matter and space? They mutually displace. If we have vacant space and we put matter in it, the space is no longer vacant. But if we move the matter, then the space again becomes vacant. All matter mutually displaces, as seen by the brick in the pail of water, but space behaves in terms of displacement as if it is just another arrangement of matter.
I rest my case that matter is just a different arrangement of space, as described in the theory.
Orbits And Dimensional Sets
Here is a simple question to illustrate why we need to reevaluate our model of the universe. Einstein's model of gravity supposes that the orbit of one body around another, such as the moon around the earth, operates in a way similar to a bowling ball in the middle of a mattress. The mass of the bowling ball will warp the mattress and a marble rolling by will follow the warp in the mattress and go into "orbit" around the bowling ball.
The theory is that objects invariably move in straight lines through space but will do so in a curved line if the space is curved. It sounds all well and good and I believe Einstein was close to the truth in a way remarkable for his time.
But what about atoms? The orbits of electrons around nuclei in atoms is very similar to that of the moon around the earth or the earth around the sun. I believe that the two must be connected by a common cause. But gravity, the warping of space in general relativity theory, cannot explain why electrons orbit atoms. Inside an atom, gravity is so weak as to be insignificant.
My claim in the Theory of Stationary Space is that orbits result from bundles of strings, planets and moons, wrapping around each other when mutually attracted by gravity. Thus, the orbit is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves forward in time at what we perceive as the speed of light.
However, my model can explain both the orbit of the moon around the earth and the orbits of electrons around nuclei. The idea of warped space associated with the General Theory of Relativity seems to explain the moon's orbit but cannot possibly explain the atomic orbitals.
My logic is that the two types of orbit, atomic and astronomical, are so similar in form that they must share a common cause. The new universal law of motion that I have introduced, "A dimensional set must be conserved", explains both types of orbit. When strings or bundles of strings meet in space and undergo mutual attraction, either by gravity in space or electromagnetically at atomic levels, their respective dimensional sets must still be conserved. When circumstances are right, this results in an orbit that accomodates both the conservation of each dimensional set and the mutual attraction of the two.
I would also like to point out in this posting that the very existence of atoms as we know them supports my model of the Big Bang that created the universe. Matter originated when an "orphan" sheet of space crumpled under it's own gravity and one of it's two dimensional bonds disintegrated. This means that the quarks that form the protons and neutrons in atoms would have been strings thrown out from somewhat different directions from the disintegrating sheet. Thus, they would be different dimensional sets.
When the negatively-charged and positively-charged strings crossed paths, they were mutually attracted and in order to maintain the different dimensional sets, the negatively-charged strings wrapped around the positive bundles of strings. So today, we have atoms consisting of electrons orbitting the positively-charged nucleus.
The governing factor when two strings or bundles of strings are attracted to each other is the distance between the two multiplied by the dimensional set difference. If the product of the two is not great relative to the product of the mass of the two bodies, the two become one and their dimensional sets are combined. This happens when a meteor strikes the earth and becomes part of the earth.
But if the first product, the distance between the two multiplied by the dimensional set difference (which would be an angle in either 3D or 4D) is high enough in relation to the product of the two masses, the two do not merge into one body. Instead, an orbit forms with the two bundles of strings wrapped around each other in space but not actually merging. This is the case with the earth and moon.
My conclusion is that an orbit, whether an atomic orbital or an orbit in space, follows the same pattern. An orbit forms to accomodate differences in dimensional sets when two strings or bundles of strings are attracted to each other by gravity or electromagnetics. A bundle of strings forms when strings are close enough to have gravity or other bonds merge their dimensional sets into one. An orbit forms when there is an attraction between dimensional sets but where the dimensional sets are too different to be merged into one by the attracting force.
THE BIG BANG COULD NOT BE FROM ONE POINT
Another fact that we need to face is that the idea we have about the Big Bang origination at one point in space is a fallacy. The "Point Big Bang", as I will term it, could not possibly have happened. It must have been the "Sheet Big Bang" that I have introduced. For one thing, no one can explain what would cause all the space, matter and, energy in the universe to suddenly explode from one point.
If there was the conventional Point Big Bang, I find the explanations of what caused matter to come into existence to be somewhat shaky. The explosion must have consisted of energy but no one can document energy condensing into matter since then. All the energy in the most powerful nuclear explosion that we can produce does not condense into an iota of new matter. So if the conventional Point Big Bang was an explosion of energy, as it must have been, where did all the matter in the universe come from?
But my sheet version of the Big Bang requires no such explanation, the sheet of space that would form matter existed before the explosion. If matter did result from the conventional Point Big Bang, it would have been hurled in all directions of space at tremendous speeds. Since gravity is such a very weak force, how could any of these particles possibly come together to form the universe that we see today?
The answer is that it couldn't but the disintegrating sheet in my model threw strings of matter in one direction in space, and three lateral dimensions, of space. This caused positive and negative particles to cross paths and merge and left matter close enough to combine by gravity. It also explains why orbits result from different dimensional set.
My sheet model of the Big Bang requires no theory of "inflation", where the universe supposedly expanded for a while actually faster than the speed of light to explain the overall sameness of the universe as a whole. To me, this is explained because the sheet of space from which matter in the universe formed was homogenous. My theory also easily explains what time is and why what we perceive as the speed of light is what it is. This existing point model of the Big Bang is causing great deception in our understanding of the universe because it did not happen this way.
The theory is that objects invariably move in straight lines through space but will do so in a curved line if the space is curved. It sounds all well and good and I believe Einstein was close to the truth in a way remarkable for his time.
But what about atoms? The orbits of electrons around nuclei in atoms is very similar to that of the moon around the earth or the earth around the sun. I believe that the two must be connected by a common cause. But gravity, the warping of space in general relativity theory, cannot explain why electrons orbit atoms. Inside an atom, gravity is so weak as to be insignificant.
My claim in the Theory of Stationary Space is that orbits result from bundles of strings, planets and moons, wrapping around each other when mutually attracted by gravity. Thus, the orbit is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves forward in time at what we perceive as the speed of light.
However, my model can explain both the orbit of the moon around the earth and the orbits of electrons around nuclei. The idea of warped space associated with the General Theory of Relativity seems to explain the moon's orbit but cannot possibly explain the atomic orbitals.
My logic is that the two types of orbit, atomic and astronomical, are so similar in form that they must share a common cause. The new universal law of motion that I have introduced, "A dimensional set must be conserved", explains both types of orbit. When strings or bundles of strings meet in space and undergo mutual attraction, either by gravity in space or electromagnetically at atomic levels, their respective dimensional sets must still be conserved. When circumstances are right, this results in an orbit that accomodates both the conservation of each dimensional set and the mutual attraction of the two.
I would also like to point out in this posting that the very existence of atoms as we know them supports my model of the Big Bang that created the universe. Matter originated when an "orphan" sheet of space crumpled under it's own gravity and one of it's two dimensional bonds disintegrated. This means that the quarks that form the protons and neutrons in atoms would have been strings thrown out from somewhat different directions from the disintegrating sheet. Thus, they would be different dimensional sets.
When the negatively-charged and positively-charged strings crossed paths, they were mutually attracted and in order to maintain the different dimensional sets, the negatively-charged strings wrapped around the positive bundles of strings. So today, we have atoms consisting of electrons orbitting the positively-charged nucleus.
The governing factor when two strings or bundles of strings are attracted to each other is the distance between the two multiplied by the dimensional set difference. If the product of the two is not great relative to the product of the mass of the two bodies, the two become one and their dimensional sets are combined. This happens when a meteor strikes the earth and becomes part of the earth.
But if the first product, the distance between the two multiplied by the dimensional set difference (which would be an angle in either 3D or 4D) is high enough in relation to the product of the two masses, the two do not merge into one body. Instead, an orbit forms with the two bundles of strings wrapped around each other in space but not actually merging. This is the case with the earth and moon.
My conclusion is that an orbit, whether an atomic orbital or an orbit in space, follows the same pattern. An orbit forms to accomodate differences in dimensional sets when two strings or bundles of strings are attracted to each other by gravity or electromagnetics. A bundle of strings forms when strings are close enough to have gravity or other bonds merge their dimensional sets into one. An orbit forms when there is an attraction between dimensional sets but where the dimensional sets are too different to be merged into one by the attracting force.
THE BIG BANG COULD NOT BE FROM ONE POINT
Another fact that we need to face is that the idea we have about the Big Bang origination at one point in space is a fallacy. The "Point Big Bang", as I will term it, could not possibly have happened. It must have been the "Sheet Big Bang" that I have introduced. For one thing, no one can explain what would cause all the space, matter and, energy in the universe to suddenly explode from one point.
If there was the conventional Point Big Bang, I find the explanations of what caused matter to come into existence to be somewhat shaky. The explosion must have consisted of energy but no one can document energy condensing into matter since then. All the energy in the most powerful nuclear explosion that we can produce does not condense into an iota of new matter. So if the conventional Point Big Bang was an explosion of energy, as it must have been, where did all the matter in the universe come from?
But my sheet version of the Big Bang requires no such explanation, the sheet of space that would form matter existed before the explosion. If matter did result from the conventional Point Big Bang, it would have been hurled in all directions of space at tremendous speeds. Since gravity is such a very weak force, how could any of these particles possibly come together to form the universe that we see today?
The answer is that it couldn't but the disintegrating sheet in my model threw strings of matter in one direction in space, and three lateral dimensions, of space. This caused positive and negative particles to cross paths and merge and left matter close enough to combine by gravity. It also explains why orbits result from different dimensional set.
My sheet model of the Big Bang requires no theory of "inflation", where the universe supposedly expanded for a while actually faster than the speed of light to explain the overall sameness of the universe as a whole. To me, this is explained because the sheet of space from which matter in the universe formed was homogenous. My theory also easily explains what time is and why what we perceive as the speed of light is what it is. This existing point model of the Big Bang is causing great deception in our understanding of the universe because it did not happen this way.
The Far Reach Of The Big Bang
It seems to me that so much of the nature of the everyday reality around us can be traced back to the throw pattern of strings of matter in the Big Bang that we perceive as the beginning of the universe. We happen to be three-dimensional beings simply because the matter composing our bodies encompassed three lateral dimensions of space as it was thrown in one direction, which we perceive as time, in the Big Bang.
The reason for Newton's law that "for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction" is simply that the center line of the throw pattern of strings of matter in the Big Bang must be conserved. If matter could move around, an action, the center line would change. But if for every action, there had to be an equal and opposite reaction, no matter how matter was shifted around, the center line of it's distribution would be maintained and this is the way it is.
ENTROPY AND THE BIG BANG
But my finding is that this primal throw pattern of matter out into space in the Big Bang affects daily reality in even more ways. For example, it is well-known that nature prefers simplicity over complexity. Upon death, the body of a living thing will decay. It will go from being complex to being simple when the forces holding it together are removed.
But why is this so? Why is there such a thing as entropy that tends to break the complex down into the simple unless work is done to maintain the complexity? This is another factor of nature that we tend to just take for a given without asking why. I trace entropy, the tendency of nature to prefer simplicity over complexity back to the throw pattern of strings of matter in the Big Bang.
The truth is that the complexity in the bodies of living things violates the lack of complexity in the original throw pattern of matter. The original throw pattern contained no complexity at all. It was entirely random.
Work can be done to create complexity, such as living things. But the matter naturally "tries" to go back to it's original pattern and if the forces holding together a complex domain of matter are removed, the component matter reverts back to the original throw pattern, which is randomness. If a degree of complexity had somehow been incorporated into the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang, nature would now be different.
HEAT AND THE LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTIONS
I find that any warm object is a model of the universe as a whole with regard to conservation of the center line of the throw pattern in the Big Bang. This is what we perceive in our everyday reality as Newton's "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" law.
The heat in an object, such as a metal plate, is caused by movement of it's atoms. The atoms move in all different directions within the plate. The plate itself does not move when it is hot because the atoms moving in different directions cancel each other out.
I got to thinking that it would be great if we could harness this heat in an object for transportation. Suppose we could arrange it so that the atoms moving by heat in an object could be made to all move in the same direction at once. This would mean that the object itself would move.
In other words, we could use this for transportation by having the object itself move instead of it's atoms moving in random directions. When heat, such as sunlight, was applied to the object, it would move in a given direction instead of becoming warmer.
Magnetism operates by the same principle. In a magnet, the poles of each atom are lined up with all the others instead of being random and thus cancelling each other out. Lasers also operate on a similar concept, lining up waves of light of identical wavelength so that their force is exerted at the same time instead of being random and thus dissipated.
The reason that this cannot be done with a warm object, transforming some of it's heat energy into kinetic energy for use in transportation, is that it would violate Newton's law of equal and opposite reactions and change the center line of the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang.
This means that any warm or hot object is a model of the universe as a whole with regard to the distribution of matter by the law of equal and opposite reactions. Whenever an atom moves in one direction within the object, another atom inevitably moves with equal force in the opposite direction. Thus no matter how hot the object gets and how fast it's atoms move, the object itself does not move.
In the same way in the universe as a whole, regardless of what happens to matter, the center line of the throw pattern from the Big Bang never changes. In my view of the universe, the forces of nature such as electromagnetism and gravity operate in tension with the throw pattern of matter from the Big Bang. The center line of the throw pattern cannot be changed and when matter is not acted on by a force, it reverts to the random, non-complex primal throw pattern.
ENERGY, INFORMATION AND, THE BIG BANG
There was a recent section, "Shapes And Electric Charges" within the posting on this blog, "Electric Charges And Cosmology". This posting described how there is information within the two fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed, negative and positive, in that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. We saw how that information results in the construction of spheres and orbits, which is the dominant shape and pattern across the universe. The fact that there is no other set of information available means that this pattern of sphere and orbit is found on the largest scale, the orbits of moons around planets and planets around stars and stars around the centers of galaxies, as well as on the smallest scale of electrons around nuclei.
I would like to now demonstrate how this concept that there is only a certain amount of information in the physics of the universe to define how it operates can be used to prove that my model of the nature of the universe must be correct. To accomplish this, we will discuss how energy is stored within matter.
We know that energy is stored within atomic nuclei, as what we refer to as binding energy. This energy can possibly be released by either fusion or fission. Fusion is the process that drives stars, including the sun. Smaller atoms are crunched together by the tremendous heat and pressure at the center of the star to form larger atoms. Energy is released if the total binding energy, combined with the energy in the electron orbitals, within the nuclei of the smaller atoms is greater than that of the larger atom, which is usually the case.
There are two known exceptions to this, the element plutonium and the 235 isotope of uranium. Atoms are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, isotopes are versions of the same atom but with different numbers of neutrons. An element might have two or three stable isotopes. When these two atoms have their nucleus split by a very fast-moving neutron, the two smaller resulting nuclei have less total binding energy than the original atom.
This excess energy is released by the reaction, primarily as heat. The extra energy to hold such large atoms together can be put into nuclei during the explosion of a star, known as a supernova, which releases a tremendous amount of energy and also scatters the matter across space where it can regroup by gravity to form planets and second-generation stars. Our sun is such a second-generation star, because it already contains heavy elements even though it has not yet gotten that far along in the fusion process.
Just as energy can be stored within the nuclei of atoms, by binding the like-charged protons together, it can also be stored in the bonds between atoms as they combine to form molecules. This is known as chemical energy, although the scale of the energy storage per unit of matter is far less than that with nuclear. When you drive a car, the energy from the sun which fell on plants millions of years ago before the plants became buried and formed oil is being transformed into the kinetic energy of the moving car. The molecular bonds of carbon atoms, which were put together by the ancient solar energy, are being broken to release their energy by the heat in the engine cylinders.
By far, the greatest amount of energy per unit of matter is released by the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter. Antimatter is similar to ordinary matter, except that the electric charges of which it is composed are reversed. In antimatter a positively-charged version of an electron, known as a positron, orbits a nucleus composed of negatively-charged antiprotons. A neutron has the same zero charge whether it is matter or antimatter, but the arrangement of quarks which balance out to zero is different.
As far as I know, we could not tell if a distant galaxy was composed of antimatter simply by observation since both would generate and reflect light in the same way. When matter and antimatter are brought into contact, they mutually annihilate while releasing an extreme amount of energy.
But just as with nuclear and chemical energy, there must be something in the matter which holds the energy released upon matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when brought into contact, and it must have been put in there somehow. We can see how chemical energy is really based on nuclear energy, because it is actually the energy of the sun that is being released when we burn such fuels as wood or oil products.
In the same way, nuclear energy must ultimately be based on the fundamental electric charges. The further removed from the original source we get, the lesser the energy becomes per unit of matter. Nuclear energy is much greater than chemical energy, and the energy released by matter-antimatter mutual annihilation is much greater than nuclear energy.
(For a intriguing relationship between different forms of energy, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com ) .
We also see, in the examples of chemical and nuclear energy, that energy held within matter is released in the same way that it was put in. Remember that there is only a certain amount of information available on which to operate the universe so these three forms of energy storage and release must be based on the same pattern, just as we see orbits around spheres at both the atomic and planetary scales because that is the only information available.
The only difference between matter and antimatter is the arrangement of their electrical charges. This must mean that the electrical charges hold energy while they are part of a structure, and that energy is released when the structure is dissolved. This is the same pattern seen in nuclear and chemical energy, as it must be.
But how can matter, and antimatter, just vanish when they are brought into contact and release their energy? The only explanation is that the matter and antimatter literally become space. Since the only difference between matter and antimatter is the arrangement of electric charges, and these come apart upon mutual annihilation, space must also be composed of the fundamental charges. If not, there would be some kind of gap left in space upon matter-antimatter dissolution and there is not.
This, then, brings us back to my cosmological theory. Matter (or antimatter) consists of a concentration of electric charge. If charges are in an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative to positive, with no concentrations, we have space. The energy that is released upon matter-antimatter dissolution must be the same as that which put it together, confirming my hypothesis that the Big Bang which began the universe was a matter-antimatter explosion.
But what could cause such a vast explosion that could put the electric charges composing space together so that they formed matter, as well as antimatter, and would have to be a matter-antimatter explosion itself? And if the Big Bang happened once, why has it not recurred?
The answer, as explained in the cosmological theory, is simple if we consider space as being originally formed by mutually inducting infinitesimal electric charges. One charge would appear, which would induce an opposite charge next to it, which would then induce an opposite charge next to that, and so on. This would result in an essentially infinite multidimensional checkerboard pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges.
But if this pattern should be somehow disrupted, an "orphan" block of space could begin forming by the same mutual induction of opposite charges that would not be integrated with the original block. This orphan block could grow back around upon itself, relative to the background block of space, or possibly be pulled by it's own attracting changes at opposite ends because it would unbalance the charge structure of the background space, so that it underwent a degree of mutual annihilation in the same way as matter-antimatter.
If the "orphan" block of space was a two-dimensional sheet within the background block, and this caused it's bonds to disintegrate in one of it's two dimensions, the energy of that disintegration would create the Big Bang and would hurtle the one-dimensional strings of charge out into space where they would form the matter that we see today, as described in my string theory.
As to why the Big Bang does not recur, my theory explains that it does, although on a much more limited scale, as the extremely powerful gamma ray bursts that occur across the universe at an average of about one per day. There is a posting about such otherwise unexplained bursts of energy by that name on the cosmology blog, "Gamma Ray Bursts". The typical gamma ray burst involves hundreds of times as much energy as the most powerful supernova.
If you wonder where the energy for the Big Bang came from in the first place, it is because of the priorities of the universe. Matter, as we know, will naturally seek the lowest energy state. But that is not the first priority of the universe. Charge balance is the top priority, where there is a negative charge there must be a positive charge to balance it. All of the energy in the universe today originated with the Big Bang, and we know that energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form.
That is more important than energy expenditure and is what creates gamma ray bursts when the string of a particle such as an electron snaps, creating a charge unbalance in the adjacent space. New charges will begin forming, as they did in the beginning of the universe, until the negative and positive sides curve around on each other and mutually annihilate to form the mini Big Bang that we call a gamma ray burst.
The reason for Newton's law that "for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction" is simply that the center line of the throw pattern of strings of matter in the Big Bang must be conserved. If matter could move around, an action, the center line would change. But if for every action, there had to be an equal and opposite reaction, no matter how matter was shifted around, the center line of it's distribution would be maintained and this is the way it is.
ENTROPY AND THE BIG BANG
But my finding is that this primal throw pattern of matter out into space in the Big Bang affects daily reality in even more ways. For example, it is well-known that nature prefers simplicity over complexity. Upon death, the body of a living thing will decay. It will go from being complex to being simple when the forces holding it together are removed.
But why is this so? Why is there such a thing as entropy that tends to break the complex down into the simple unless work is done to maintain the complexity? This is another factor of nature that we tend to just take for a given without asking why. I trace entropy, the tendency of nature to prefer simplicity over complexity back to the throw pattern of strings of matter in the Big Bang.
The truth is that the complexity in the bodies of living things violates the lack of complexity in the original throw pattern of matter. The original throw pattern contained no complexity at all. It was entirely random.
Work can be done to create complexity, such as living things. But the matter naturally "tries" to go back to it's original pattern and if the forces holding together a complex domain of matter are removed, the component matter reverts back to the original throw pattern, which is randomness. If a degree of complexity had somehow been incorporated into the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang, nature would now be different.
HEAT AND THE LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTIONS
I find that any warm object is a model of the universe as a whole with regard to conservation of the center line of the throw pattern in the Big Bang. This is what we perceive in our everyday reality as Newton's "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" law.
The heat in an object, such as a metal plate, is caused by movement of it's atoms. The atoms move in all different directions within the plate. The plate itself does not move when it is hot because the atoms moving in different directions cancel each other out.
I got to thinking that it would be great if we could harness this heat in an object for transportation. Suppose we could arrange it so that the atoms moving by heat in an object could be made to all move in the same direction at once. This would mean that the object itself would move.
In other words, we could use this for transportation by having the object itself move instead of it's atoms moving in random directions. When heat, such as sunlight, was applied to the object, it would move in a given direction instead of becoming warmer.
Magnetism operates by the same principle. In a magnet, the poles of each atom are lined up with all the others instead of being random and thus cancelling each other out. Lasers also operate on a similar concept, lining up waves of light of identical wavelength so that their force is exerted at the same time instead of being random and thus dissipated.
The reason that this cannot be done with a warm object, transforming some of it's heat energy into kinetic energy for use in transportation, is that it would violate Newton's law of equal and opposite reactions and change the center line of the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang.
This means that any warm or hot object is a model of the universe as a whole with regard to the distribution of matter by the law of equal and opposite reactions. Whenever an atom moves in one direction within the object, another atom inevitably moves with equal force in the opposite direction. Thus no matter how hot the object gets and how fast it's atoms move, the object itself does not move.
In the same way in the universe as a whole, regardless of what happens to matter, the center line of the throw pattern from the Big Bang never changes. In my view of the universe, the forces of nature such as electromagnetism and gravity operate in tension with the throw pattern of matter from the Big Bang. The center line of the throw pattern cannot be changed and when matter is not acted on by a force, it reverts to the random, non-complex primal throw pattern.
ENERGY, INFORMATION AND, THE BIG BANG
There was a recent section, "Shapes And Electric Charges" within the posting on this blog, "Electric Charges And Cosmology". This posting described how there is information within the two fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed, negative and positive, in that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. We saw how that information results in the construction of spheres and orbits, which is the dominant shape and pattern across the universe. The fact that there is no other set of information available means that this pattern of sphere and orbit is found on the largest scale, the orbits of moons around planets and planets around stars and stars around the centers of galaxies, as well as on the smallest scale of electrons around nuclei.
I would like to now demonstrate how this concept that there is only a certain amount of information in the physics of the universe to define how it operates can be used to prove that my model of the nature of the universe must be correct. To accomplish this, we will discuss how energy is stored within matter.
We know that energy is stored within atomic nuclei, as what we refer to as binding energy. This energy can possibly be released by either fusion or fission. Fusion is the process that drives stars, including the sun. Smaller atoms are crunched together by the tremendous heat and pressure at the center of the star to form larger atoms. Energy is released if the total binding energy, combined with the energy in the electron orbitals, within the nuclei of the smaller atoms is greater than that of the larger atom, which is usually the case.
There are two known exceptions to this, the element plutonium and the 235 isotope of uranium. Atoms are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, isotopes are versions of the same atom but with different numbers of neutrons. An element might have two or three stable isotopes. When these two atoms have their nucleus split by a very fast-moving neutron, the two smaller resulting nuclei have less total binding energy than the original atom.
This excess energy is released by the reaction, primarily as heat. The extra energy to hold such large atoms together can be put into nuclei during the explosion of a star, known as a supernova, which releases a tremendous amount of energy and also scatters the matter across space where it can regroup by gravity to form planets and second-generation stars. Our sun is such a second-generation star, because it already contains heavy elements even though it has not yet gotten that far along in the fusion process.
Just as energy can be stored within the nuclei of atoms, by binding the like-charged protons together, it can also be stored in the bonds between atoms as they combine to form molecules. This is known as chemical energy, although the scale of the energy storage per unit of matter is far less than that with nuclear. When you drive a car, the energy from the sun which fell on plants millions of years ago before the plants became buried and formed oil is being transformed into the kinetic energy of the moving car. The molecular bonds of carbon atoms, which were put together by the ancient solar energy, are being broken to release their energy by the heat in the engine cylinders.
By far, the greatest amount of energy per unit of matter is released by the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter. Antimatter is similar to ordinary matter, except that the electric charges of which it is composed are reversed. In antimatter a positively-charged version of an electron, known as a positron, orbits a nucleus composed of negatively-charged antiprotons. A neutron has the same zero charge whether it is matter or antimatter, but the arrangement of quarks which balance out to zero is different.
As far as I know, we could not tell if a distant galaxy was composed of antimatter simply by observation since both would generate and reflect light in the same way. When matter and antimatter are brought into contact, they mutually annihilate while releasing an extreme amount of energy.
But just as with nuclear and chemical energy, there must be something in the matter which holds the energy released upon matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when brought into contact, and it must have been put in there somehow. We can see how chemical energy is really based on nuclear energy, because it is actually the energy of the sun that is being released when we burn such fuels as wood or oil products.
In the same way, nuclear energy must ultimately be based on the fundamental electric charges. The further removed from the original source we get, the lesser the energy becomes per unit of matter. Nuclear energy is much greater than chemical energy, and the energy released by matter-antimatter mutual annihilation is much greater than nuclear energy.
(For a intriguing relationship between different forms of energy, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com ) .
We also see, in the examples of chemical and nuclear energy, that energy held within matter is released in the same way that it was put in. Remember that there is only a certain amount of information available on which to operate the universe so these three forms of energy storage and release must be based on the same pattern, just as we see orbits around spheres at both the atomic and planetary scales because that is the only information available.
The only difference between matter and antimatter is the arrangement of their electrical charges. This must mean that the electrical charges hold energy while they are part of a structure, and that energy is released when the structure is dissolved. This is the same pattern seen in nuclear and chemical energy, as it must be.
But how can matter, and antimatter, just vanish when they are brought into contact and release their energy? The only explanation is that the matter and antimatter literally become space. Since the only difference between matter and antimatter is the arrangement of electric charges, and these come apart upon mutual annihilation, space must also be composed of the fundamental charges. If not, there would be some kind of gap left in space upon matter-antimatter dissolution and there is not.
This, then, brings us back to my cosmological theory. Matter (or antimatter) consists of a concentration of electric charge. If charges are in an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative to positive, with no concentrations, we have space. The energy that is released upon matter-antimatter dissolution must be the same as that which put it together, confirming my hypothesis that the Big Bang which began the universe was a matter-antimatter explosion.
But what could cause such a vast explosion that could put the electric charges composing space together so that they formed matter, as well as antimatter, and would have to be a matter-antimatter explosion itself? And if the Big Bang happened once, why has it not recurred?
The answer, as explained in the cosmological theory, is simple if we consider space as being originally formed by mutually inducting infinitesimal electric charges. One charge would appear, which would induce an opposite charge next to it, which would then induce an opposite charge next to that, and so on. This would result in an essentially infinite multidimensional checkerboard pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges.
But if this pattern should be somehow disrupted, an "orphan" block of space could begin forming by the same mutual induction of opposite charges that would not be integrated with the original block. This orphan block could grow back around upon itself, relative to the background block of space, or possibly be pulled by it's own attracting changes at opposite ends because it would unbalance the charge structure of the background space, so that it underwent a degree of mutual annihilation in the same way as matter-antimatter.
If the "orphan" block of space was a two-dimensional sheet within the background block, and this caused it's bonds to disintegrate in one of it's two dimensions, the energy of that disintegration would create the Big Bang and would hurtle the one-dimensional strings of charge out into space where they would form the matter that we see today, as described in my string theory.
As to why the Big Bang does not recur, my theory explains that it does, although on a much more limited scale, as the extremely powerful gamma ray bursts that occur across the universe at an average of about one per day. There is a posting about such otherwise unexplained bursts of energy by that name on the cosmology blog, "Gamma Ray Bursts". The typical gamma ray burst involves hundreds of times as much energy as the most powerful supernova.
If you wonder where the energy for the Big Bang came from in the first place, it is because of the priorities of the universe. Matter, as we know, will naturally seek the lowest energy state. But that is not the first priority of the universe. Charge balance is the top priority, where there is a negative charge there must be a positive charge to balance it. All of the energy in the universe today originated with the Big Bang, and we know that energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form.
That is more important than energy expenditure and is what creates gamma ray bursts when the string of a particle such as an electron snaps, creating a charge unbalance in the adjacent space. New charges will begin forming, as they did in the beginning of the universe, until the negative and positive sides curve around on each other and mutually annihilate to form the mini Big Bang that we call a gamma ray burst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)