Basic Physics And Cosmology

I have noticed that the most fundamental formulae of physics shows that The Theory Of Stationary Space, my version of string theory as described on the cosmology blog, must be correct.

A brief review of this theory is that matter in the universe consists not of particles, as we perceive them, but as very long strings of very slight cross-section stretching across the universe, and aligned mostly in one direction in space after having been thrown outward in the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it.

These strings, and the bundles of strings that we perceive as objects, exist in at least four dimensions of space. We experience one of these dimensions as time, the dimension along which the strings are mostly aligned, which is why we see matter as being composed of particles, rather than strings. When two bundles of strings are not in perfect dimensional alignment, we perceive it as relative motion between two objects.

What we perceive as the speed of light is actually the rate of progression of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our brains and bodies. This explains why we can measure the speed of light with great precision, but can find no apparent physical reason of why it is what it is.

Today, let's have a look at more such evidence of the truth of this theory contained in simple formulae of basic physics.

The formulae that are familiar to all beginning physics students are D = VT, which is distance = velocity multiplied by time. F = MA, force = mass multiplied by acceleration. KE = 1/2 MV squared, kinetic energy = one-half mass multiplied by the velocity squared.

Einstein's well-known E = MC squared, means that energy = mass times the speed of light squared. Ohm's Law of I = E/R, electric current = voltage divided by resistance. The Planck Postulate that E = hv, the energy in a quantum of electromagnetic radiation where h is Planck's Constant and v is the frequency of the radiation.

Now, do you notice a pattern here in these most basic of physics formulae? All are three-part formulae, with the form of A = BC. All describe how some type of resistance can be overcome, or something that requires work can be accomplished, by a product of two variables. It is my conclusion that this must tell us something about the underlying nature of the universe. These are the most basic formulae of physics, the more complex formulae can be described as compound formulae.

Remember that, according to my cosmological theory, it is bent strings and bundles of strings that we perceive as objects having motion and momentum. When this bending of strings takes place, there are only two possible variables: the number of strings that are bent and the angle, or amount, that the strings are bent. This is why these most fundamental pf physics formulae all take the form A = BC. B is the number of strings that are bent by some force, C is the amount that they are bent and A is the result of the bending.

This simple three-part formula takes different forms as we apply it to different scales. When we are looking at a large scale, with matter in motion, the formula appears to us as the D = VT of distance covered, the F = MA for force exerted by a moving object or, the KE = 1/2 MV squared for ther kinetic energy of a potentially falling object.

When we move downward in scale to the movement of electrons, the formula takes the form of Ohm's Law for electric current in amperes, I = E/R. The current is equal to the voltage pressure in volts divided by the resistance in ohms. This law is familiar to any electric shop class.

When we move on to a still smaller scale, within atomic nuclei, the formula appears as Einstein's E = MC squared. This means that the energy contained in a given amount of nuclear matter is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. When we deal with the production of electromagnetic waves by the bending of strings, the formula appears as Planck's E = hv.

The point that I am making here is that it is the same three-part formula that appears to us in different forms, according to the scale to which it is applied. But it is all the same formula involving the simple bending of the strings of which matter is composed.

At the most fundamental levels of reality, inside the atomic nuclei and in the production of electromagnetic waves, one of the variables is replaced by a constant. This is because, in the Planck formula, we are down to a single quanta of energy, or the bending of only one string. In Einstein's E = MC squared, there is a constant only because there is only one angle at which the strings comprising the nucleus can be bent, a right angle which we perceive as being the speed of light. So that the only variable in E = MC squared is the mass, and the only variable with Planck is the frequency. Planck's Constant is related to Planck's Length, which is the size of one of the infinitesimal alternately-charged particles of space, as I described in my theory.

As it turns out, we have a real bonus here today. If Einstein's E = MC squared is just one manifestation of this universal formula involving the bending of strings of matter, and the M in the formula represents mass, then the C squared must represent the bending of the strings comprising the atomic nucleus, since these are the only two possible variables here. This can only mean that when the binding energy in the nucleus is removed by splitting, the like-charged protons, which are as close as can be to one another, will fly off in oposite directions by mutual repulsion at what we perceive as the speed of light.

By the way, there are two types of nuclear reaction, fission and fusion. Both release binding energy that is no longer needed following the reaction. Fission, the splitting of a large nucleus such as by the firing into it of a high-speed neutron "bullet", actually releases the two smaller resulting nuclei. Fission binds smaller atoms, such as hydrogen, into larger nuclei by tremendous pressure. This releases the energy which was holding back the particles from speeding away at the speed of light by mutual repulsion, instead of the particles themselves.

Remember that since our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light a string, or bundle of strings, bent at a right angle relative to the usual alignment of strings across the universe, will be perceived by us as moving at the speed of light. We experience this as the maximum possible speed simply because a right angle bend is the maximum possible bend.

These right-angle strings suddenly bent by the dissolution of the nucleus, then collide with and impart their energy to other matter. This is what gives us the tremendous nuclear energy, and it is how the speed of light relates to matter. It also shows, once again, that my model of cosmology must be correct.

But why is the speed of light squared in E = MC squared? This must mean that there must somehow be two speeds of light involved in a nuclear reaction. If the reaction causes particles to fly off by mutual repulsion initially at the speed of light, that only gives us one speed of light. So, why is it squared?

Remember my explanation in the theory of the electromagnetic energy that we perceive as travelling at the speed of light. This radiation is actually only stationary ripples in space, we perceive it as electromagnetic because it disturbs the equilibrium of the space, which consists of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges. It is our consciousness that is moving past the ripples at the speed of light, causing it to seem to us that it is moving at the speed of light.

But now, the nuclear reaction actually does release matter at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is a right angle bend by the mutual repulsion of like-charged protons. So, unlike with the stationary ripples of electromagnetic radiation, there actually is two speeds of light. One is the particles, or the released energy which held the particles back from mutually repelling at the speed of light, and the other is the speed of our consciousness along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains.

Thus, we have two speeds of light perpendicular to one another or, the speed of light squared. We perceive the radiation as moving at the speed of light because there is only one speed of light involved, that of our consciousness. This ejection of protons from a nucleus at what we perceive as the speed of light also explains why such protons are found in cosmic rays.

So here we have a simple explanation of this most simple of formulae, why E = MC squared. But this can only be the case if my Theory Of Stationary Space is correct, and the speed of light is really the rate at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.

Today, let's have a look at how another staple of basic physics proves that the cosmology scenario that I have presented must be correct.

We know that to accelerate an object to twice the velocity requires four times the force that it took to get the object to the original velocity. But why would this be so? Why wouldn't it only require twice the force to achieve twice the velocity, since it only requires twice the force to move the object twice the distance with a constant velocity?

The answer to this question requires that we delve into the cosmological structure which underlies the universe.

First this simple formula that, based on squares, that it requires four times the force to attain twice the acceleration, cannot be entirely correct. In Albert Einstein's well-proven Theories of Relativity, further acceleration as we approach the speed of light requires ever-greater applications of force until the moving object reaches the speed of light, at which point it would require an infinite force to accelerate it further which is, of course, impossible.

Since the speed of light is finite, the force necessary to accelerate at that point would also be finite if acceleration was based on such simple squares. This concept of four times the force being necessary to achieve twice the acceleration is fine for everyday non-relativistic applications, but it would actually require more than four times the force and so there must be other factors involved.

Now, let's have a look at some basic trigonometry. The tangent is one of the three fundamental functions of an angle. If we have a right angle with a horizontal axis, X, a vertical axis, Y, and a line from the same point of origin but between the two so that it forms a given angle with the X-axis, R, the three functions describe the relationship between the lines.

The sine function is the ratio of the lengths of the lines Y/R. The sine starts at zero at 0 degrees, because R would be the same as the X-axis at 0 degrees, and goes to 1 at 90 degrees because at that point it would be one and the same with the Y-axis.

The cosine function, the ratio of the lines X/R, is the opposite of the sine. The cosine starts at 1 at zero degrees, and goes to 0 at 90 degrees. As you may notice, the sine plus the cosine of any given angle always add up to 1.

The tangent function is the ratio of the two axes, Y/X, at any given angle between the two. The tangent starts at zero at 0 degrees, goes to 1 at 45 degrees because this is the halfway point to 90 degrees where the two axes would be equal, and goes to infinity at 90 degrees because at that point the Y-axis would be unlimited in length and the X-axis would not exist.

Now, do you notice how perfectly the tangent function of trigonometry matches the nature of acceleration? As the angle increases from zero, it's tangent also increases. But the increase in the tangent is out of proportion to the increase in the angle itself.

At very low angles, the tangent of the angle increases at approximately the same rate as the angle itself. But as the angle increases, the rate of the tangent increase exceeds the rate of increase in the angle itself. If the rate were proportional, the tangent of 45 degrees would be only 0.5, instead of 1, and the tangent of 90 degrees would be 1 instead of infinity.

Acceleration, particularly the force required to accelerate an object to higher velocities, can be seen to operate by the trigonometric tangent function. If low angles represent low velocities, the force required to attain higher velocities is a function of the tangents of the angles representing those velocities.

When we get close to the greatest possible velocity, what we perceive as the speed of light, the force required to get to higher velocities gets ever-greater, just as the tangents of angles approaching 90 degrees get ever-higher. Finally, if we can get the object to the speed of light, represented by a right angle of 90 degrees, the force required to get to higher velocities becomes infinite, just as the tangent of 90 degrees is infinite.

Now, let's go back to my cosmological theory. Remember that it explains matter as actually bundles of strings aligned mostly in one direction in space. That dimension is the dimension of space that we perceive as time. We experience only three of the spatial dimensions so we see these strings as the fundamental particles, such as electrons.

Time, at least as we know it, does not exist in absolute reality. We perceive time because our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains. We perceive the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity because that is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings.

As I explained in detail in the cosmological theory, when we move an object we are actually bending it's bundle of strings so that it is at an angle to our bundle of strings. That way, we perceive it as moving further away as time passes.

This means that velocity is actually an angle of the bundle of strings composing the moving object. It then becomes clear why it requires ever-greater force to accelerate a moving object further, and the force required is a function of the tangent of the angle of the bending bundle of strings that we perceive as the moving object.

The actual reason why it takes an ever-increasing force to accelerate to higher velocities can be explained in terms of dimensions. An object at rest is ideally aligned in parallel to the force accelerating it. But as the object accelerates, it's dimensional set involves more and more the dimension of space that we perceive as time, into which we have no ability to project force. As the velocity of the object increases, the proportion of this inaccessible dimension in it's dimensional set also increases. This is why it requires ever more force to continue acceleration, until at what we perceive as the speed of light, it's entire dimensional set is out of our reach and further acceleration is impossible.

Suppose that you are trying to open a heavy door by pushing against it, but you can only push forward in a straight line. The swing of the door will occupy two dimensions, while your push will be over only one of those dimensions. At first, it will not take much force to open the door. But as the door opens wider, you will have to push with more and more force to get it to open the same angular amount. This is because the dimensional ratio of the door's opening gets more and more into the perpendicular dimension, into which you cannot exert force, at the expense of the dimension into which you can exert force. Exactly the same principles apply to the acceleration of any object.

How can this cosmological theory possible be wrong? It explains so many things from Newton to Einstein to this perfectly. In my cosmological theory matter as we know it consists not of particles in three dimensions of space, as we perceive it, but as bundles of strings in four dimensions of space. The fourth dimension of space is what we experience as time, as our consciousness proceeds along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what seems to us to be the speed of light. There is no motion any more, other than that created by living things, after matter was thrown across the universe by the Big Bang. What we see as moving objects is actually bundles of strings that are not perfectly parallel to ours. As our consciousnesses progress along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, the out-of-parallel bundles appears as an object in motion. The greater the angle between our bundle of strings and the other, the greater it's velocity will appear. The maximum possible velocity appears to us to be the speed of light, but that is because a right angle is the maximum possible angle and a bundle of strings aligned at a right angle to ours would appear as an object moving at the speed of light and that is because this is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains.

Everything about the universe just seems to fall neatly into place around this scenario. The laws of Newton and the Theories of Relativity of Einstein were thus easily explained, not just as to the how that was already known but also as to why this was the way the universe is.

Today, I want to add more to this all-encompassing theory concerning how it also neatly explains the why of Kepler's Laws of Orbits.

Johannes (pronounced Yo-Han) Kepler was the 17th Century German astronomer and mathematician who surmised that orbits in space, of a moon around a planet or a planet around a star, were not circles but ellipses with the central planet or star at one foci of the ellipse. An ellipse is a flattened circle with two foci, instead of one. This was his First Law. Kepler's Second Law is that a line from the center of the planet to the center of the star sweeps over equal areas of space in equal periods of time, in other words it moves faster when it is closer to the star and slower when it is furthest away. The Third Law is that the cube of the planet's average distance to the star is proportional to the square of the time of the orbital period.

I have described how the sphere, or circle in two dimensions, is the default shape of the universe. If we put a significant amount of matter together, with no external forces present, it will form a sphere by gravity. The atoms of which matter is composed also forms spheres, as the electron orbitals within form circles. This default shape of the universe is described in the posting "Straight Lines And The Nature Of Space", on the cosmology blog.

So why do orbits form ellipses, as described by Kepler, instead of circles? It seemed very logical that an orbit should form a circle, with a constant distance, between the planet and star so where could these ellipses have come from? I suspected that the answer was to be found in this cosmological theory and, sure enough, that proved to be correct.

It is perfectly logical that orbits should be circles, since that is the default shape of the universe. But remember that there are actually four dimensions of space. We see orbits as tilted at various angles around the central body in three dimensions, but the orbits are actually tilted in four dimensions. Since we perceive one of those dimensions as time, rather than space, this causes us to see elliptical orbits in space but with the orbiting body moving faster when it is closer so that it ends up balancing mathematically with, according to Kepler's Second Law, a line from the center of the planet to the center of the star sweeping over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.

The orbiting moon or planet appears to us as three-dimensional, but it's orbital plane is only two dimensions. So, we see the orbiting body continuously and it does not shrink in size or disappear when it is more in the fourth dimension that we perceive as time, at least not at velocities well below the speed of light. But it's orbit is tilted somewhat into the dimension that we cannot see. The result is that, as our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, we see more velocity but less space when the orbital plane is tilted more into the fourth dimension and less velocity and more space when the orbital path is tilted less into the fourth dimension that we experience as time.

Picture holding a plate and tilting it upward, with one end higher than the other. A point on one side of the plate will be the lowest or closest to the floor, and the diametrically opposite point will be the highest or furthest from the floor. The other two dimensions, across the plate and through the center of it, will remain unchanged.

The plate is always circular but if you could see it in only the other two dimensions, it would look like an ellipse due to the tilt in the other dimension. In the same way, one side of an orbit it tilted toward the dimension that we perceive as time and the other side is tilted away from it. This is why aphelion, the highest but slowest point of the orbit, and perihelion, the lowest but fastest point of the orbit, are always on diametrically opposite sides of the orbit.

This example of the tilted plate is somewhat simpler than the reality of one body in orbit around another because, from our perspective, none of the orbital plane is outside the fourth dimension altogether. If it were, there would be a point in the orbital path where the orbiting body becomes stationary and that is not seen to occur in reality. The orbital plane is actually tilted with regard to the fourth dimension of space that we perceive as time so that one side of the orbit, which we see as the highest point of the orbit where the orbiting body is moving the slowest, is the least within the fourth dimension and the most within our familiar three spatial dimensions. The opposite side of the orbital path, the lowest point of the orbit where the orbiting body moves the fastest, is the most within the fourth dimension and the least within our familiar three spatial dimensions.

As for Kepler's Third Law, that the cube of the average distance between the planet and the sun is always proportional to the square of the orbital time period, why should one side be squared while the other is cubed?

To answer this, lets review the familiar Pythagorean Theorem. This is the rule that in a right triangle, which is a triangle with one right angle, the sum of the squares of the length of the two legs equals the square of the hypotenuse (the diagonal line, which is the longest of the three). In other words, C squared = A squared + B squared.

The reason that each element of both sides has to be squared is that, even though the lines that we are dealing with are one-dimensional, the triangle itself is two-dimensional. We will not get a correct answer by stating that C = A + B, because it does not take the second dimension into account. A line is one-dimensional, but the sheet of paper or computer screen on which the triangle is represented is two-dimensional.

But, back to Kepler's Third Law, why is one side of the equation squared while the other is cubed? It can only mean that there is another dimension involved, which we do not see. An orbital path is two-dimensional in the space that it encloses, yet it has to be cubed in the equation.

The only way that an orbit could appear circular to us is if were not tilted at all in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. But if that were the case, the orbiting planet or moon would seem to be traveling at the speed of light in it's orbit because, while it's bundle of strings might be close to parallel to ours, it's orbital path would be at a right angle to our bundle of strings. There would appear to be no time dimension at all, and it would go around it's orbit in the briefest instant.

This, in fact, brings us to quantum physics. We cannot really discern electrons in their orbitals around the atomic nucleus. There seems to be a "cloud" of electrons that is everywhere at once, even though the orbitals can be described mathematically.

This can be explained by the size scale of atoms and our movement along our bundles of strings at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can thus discern no time element in electron orbitals and we are looking edgewise at the string of the electron wrapped around the central nucleus.

To make this more mind-bending, if we could travel ourselves at the speed of light we would see the tilt of the orbits of moons around planets and planets around stars reversed in relation to what we see now. The earth is closest to the sun in January, and furthest away in June. But to a spacecraft passing by at near the speed of light, it would be the other way around. Einstein didn't notice this but in all fairness to him, he came up with his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and was not around when the idea of strings became popular.

What about the relativistic shortening that Einstein did notice? This stipulates that, when an object approaches the speed of light, it will appear to be shortening in length. There must be the same number and arrangement of atoms in an object, as it approaches the speed of light, yet it must grow shorter in length. This theory explains it perfectly.

The electron orbitals in atoms become increasingly tilted into the dimension that we perceive as time so that, as there is increasing velocity, the object appears to shorten. As the bundle of strings of the object approaches a right angle alignment to us, that we perceive as the speed of light, it will appear to become shorter in length, it is a matter of simple trigonometric functions. The shortening takes place when the cotangent of the angle of the bundle of strings of the object to us reaches the size scale of atoms. There is no shortening at slower speeds because only the plane of the orbital path is tilted away from us, the atoms are spherical and still facing us.

What about man-made satellites, in orbit around the earth? These also tend to have an elliptical orbit with an apogee and perigee. But if we can move only in our three spatial dimensions, and an elliptical orbit means it must be tilted into the dimension of space that we perceive as time, how can a man-made object get any momentum in the fourth dimension?

The answer is explained in the posting on this blog, "Why We Perceive The Speed Of Light" in the section "Achieving The Speed Of Light". Our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains along the dimension that we experience as time. Whenever we do anything, unless we can do it instantly, involving no time at all, we inevitably and involuntarily impart some of that momentum into whatever we do.

In closing, elliptical orbits of moons around planets and of planets around stars show that this theory is correct in that matter consists of strings aligned mostly in our three dimensions of space, but also in another dimension of space that we perceive as time. If orbits can be ellipses, of various tilts and eccentricities as long as Kepler's Laws hold, this can only mean that time and space are actually interchangeable. The default shape of the universe is a sphere or circle and, as Galileo pointed out, this would be the logical form of any orbit. This appears incorrect in our usual three dimensions, but falls into place when we consider the fourth dimension that we perceive as time.