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.