Other Blogs And Books

Here is a quick list of my other blogs before you begin this one.

My main blog, where the most recent postings on all topics are to be found, is http://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/

If you like this blog on cosmology, you will also like my blog on physics and astronomy, http://www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com/ and my blog on the underlying patterns and complexity in everything, http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/

http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/ is about economics, history and, general human issues.

http://www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/ concerns progress in technology and ideas.

http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. http://www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com/ is my global natural history blog concerning glaciers.

http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.

http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.

http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/ is my religion blog.

http://www.markmeekcreation.blogspot.com/ is proof that there must be a god.

http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography

http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America. http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.

My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek"

The Solution To The Great Mysteries Of The Universe

So you think we understand the universe pretty well? Let me ask a few questions and see if you, or anyone for that matter, can answer them.

First of all, what is time, I mean from a physics point of view? Time is literally what life is made of and yet the truth is that all we really know about it is that it is a dimension as are those of space. If time is a dimension, as Einstein told us, why can we not travel in it at will as we can in space?

We know how fast light travels, in fact we can measure it very precisely, 186,282 miles per second or 300,000,000 meters per second. But why does it travel at this speed? Why does it not travel at some other speed? There is no apparent physical reason for why light in a vacuum always travels at the speed it does.

Einstein told us that no moving object can ever travel faster than light because it's mass will increase as it approaches that speed and will be infinity by the time it reaches the speed of light and time will slow down until it stops for an object at this velocity. We know that this is true, but the question is why is it true? Why should the speed of light have anything to do with how fast an object can travel or how much mass it has or how fast time progresses?

Easily the most famous formula of the past hundred years is Einstein's E=MC squared. That means that the energy in matter, E is equal to the mass of the matter times the constant, C, squared, or multiplied by itself. C, the constant in the formula, is the speed of light. In other words, a small amount of matter is equivalent to a vast amount of energy. Which is why atomic bombs do so much destruction.

But why is E=MC squared? Why on earth does the speed of light have anything to do with the conversion of matter and energy? And why is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself in the formula?

Isaac Newton's Law of Inertia tells us that an object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. The question, once again, is why?

We know that the structure of matter in the universe as well as electromagnetic waves is governed by the two ever-present electric charges in the universe, negative and positive. But why are there two and only two charges and from where do they originate?

Why is there matter at all in the universe, why is there not just empty space?

No one, as far as I can tell, knows the answers to these questions. It is as if we know the what of the universe but not enough to know the why.

Most cosmologists today are advocates of string theory, sometimes called "Superstrings". The basis of this theory is that particles, such as electrons, are not really particles but very long strings of which we can see only one bit at a time. This means that there must be more dimensions than we can perceive. Not only do we have the great unsolved mysteries listed above but scientists cannot seem to agree on the fine points of Superstrings such as exactly how many dimensions are required.

THE THEORY OF STATIONARY SPACE

As it turns out, there is a very simple model of the universe that requires no new science or leaps of faith and that answers all of these questions. It just required some thinking outside the box. I developed The Theory of Stationary Space, which I am certain solves all of these riddles. Here is a brief explanation of the solution.

There are at least four, rather than three spatial dimensions in our everyday world. The atoms in our bodies, according to string theory, consists of strings rather than point particles as we perceive. The strings composing our bodies and the universe around us are aligned mostly in one direction in the surrounding four-dimensional space.

Our consciousness must only exist at one point along the very long bundle of strings composing our bodies or else we would see our whole lives at once. Consciousness is very complex and requires great intricacy of the strings to produce and maintain. Once we have had consciousness at one point on the bundle of strings composing our bodies, that bit of consciousness is used up and cannot be had again. Our consciousness moves along to the next point on the bundle of strings composing our bodies and so on.

Consciousness moving along the strings can be compared to a burning fuse. This explains what time is. Time does not exist in physical reality, it is only something that we perceive caused by the motion of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies. Consciousness requires such complexity of strings to maintain that it must move 186,282 miles along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains to give us what we perceive as one second of consciousness. This explains why light seems to us to travel at this speed but we simply cannot find any physical reason why it does.

However, simple logic tells us that if time does not really exist then motion, which is a function of time, cannot really exist either. Thus light, and other electromagnetic radiation, consists of stationary ripples in space rather than as moving waves. It is only the movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains that makes light seem to be in motion at the speed of light, which is really the speed at which our consciousness is moving. If our consciousness moved slower, then light as well as time in general, would appear to move slower.

The sun does not really shine, it just causes stationary ripples to exist in space. The sun seems so bright to us because our consciousness is moving through these stationary ripples at what seems to us to be the speed of light. If our consciousness moved more slowly, not only would time appear to move slowly, light would seem to be dimmer as well as redder, since red is the visible light of lowest frequency. Of course, if our consciousness moved faster along the bundle of strings composing your body, time would seem to move faster and light would be brighter as well as bluer.

Now the pieces of the puzzle are all falling together. The fact that light really consists of stationary ripples in space explains why we can see in only three dimensions, rather than four. We can no longer see what we saw in the past because our consciousness has moved on past the stationary ripples of light that we saw back there. We cannot yet see what we will see in the future because our moving consciousness has not yet reached the stationary ripples of light down the road in our future. All we can see at any one point is the stationary ripples of light that are at right angles to the location of our moving consciousness on the bundle of strings composing our bodies.

We therefore see the infinitesimal slice of four dimensional space that is between past and future, meaning that we see in three dimensions. The other dimension that we cannot see is what we perceive as time because that is the direction our consciousness is moving because that is the direction, out of the four dimensions, in which the bundle of strings composing our bodies is primarily aligned.

Now it becomes obvious why we cannot travel in time, it is because time itself is defined by the direction in which the bundle of strings composing our bodies is aligned in the four-dimensional space. Traveling in time would be somewhat like having an out of body experience. Time is actually space and the direction that we move in what we perceive as time along the bundles of strings composing our bodies is at right angles to all three of our spatial dimensions. Since we are, by nature, three dimensional creatures in terms of space, we simply cannot perceive this fourth spatial dimension but we experience it as time.

A jumble of strings is perceived by us as a hot object and a bundle of relatively straight strings as a cold object. Every time a string changes direction in any way, it causes a stationary ripple in space that we perceive as light or other electromagnetic radiation. This is why a hot enough object seems to glow but a cold object does not, although it would reflect ripples that met it.

Look at any box-shaped object. You will see three dimensions; height, width and, length. There is another spatial dimension that is at right angles to all three of these dimensions. We cannot possibly perceive it because the space in which we exist is only three dimensional. But we do experience this hidden spatial dimension as time because our consciousness moves along the strings composing our bodies at what seems to us to be the speed of light. Seeing it spatially would mean seeing into the past or future. It is also the direction in which the strings composing our bodies is aligned.

This does not mean that there could not be many more dimensions of space, other than these four, only that the matter of which we are composed only occupies four dimensions.

The reason that light seems to be travelling at the "speed of light" while everything else moves at lesser speeds now becomes obvious. The answer lies in simple high school trigonometry. Light is stationary ripples in space at right angles to the direction of movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies. Therefore, it appears to us to be moving at the speed at which our consciousness is actually moving.

Just as if you are driving down a highway, trees at right angles to your direction of movement appear to be moving at the same speed the car is actually moving, if you could perceive the car as being at rest. Other bundles of strings outside your body, if they are aligned in a slightly different direction in the four-dimensional space will also appear as moving objects in our familiar three dimensions but, not being at right angles, will appear to be moving at much less than the "speed of light".

Actually, the sine of the angle between the bundle of strings composing the moving object and the direction that strings appearing at rest are aligned multiplied by the apparent speed of light. The speed of light appears to us to be the maximum possible speed simply because a right angle is as perpendicular as you can get.

So far, we have the mysteries of time and the speed of light solved.

Newton's Law of Inertia can be easily explained by the fact that strings are straight unless acted on when it pushes up against another bundle of strings. This is why, to us in our three dimensional home, objects seem to remain either at rest, if originally at rest, or in motion until acted on by an outside force.

Why does light display electromagnetic properties if it is merely stationary ripples in space? And where do these two charges, negative and positive, that govern the existence of matter, originate?

It is really simple. Any kind of space has to have one or more dimensions. Our familiar space has at least four dimensions. Space consists of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges That is why light, ripples in space, appear to be electromagnetic in nature. The ripples are actually only exposing the electromagnetism of the space in which they are existing.

So then why, you may be asking, is the structure of matter, as well as space, dominated by these two electric charges. The answer is that matter in the universe is also space. There is a four-dimensional block of space as we have seen. There is also a two-dimensional block of space that is not contiguous to the four-dimensional block. This two-dimensional block, however, exists congruently within the four-dimensional block. This two-dimensional block is what we perceive as matter. The four-dimensional block is, of course, what we perceive as space.

The fact that matter is really space is made obvious by the fact that it's structure is governed by the same two electric charges that are revealed in space by ripples of light. The four-dimensional "space block" allows the two-dimensional "matter block" to exist within it much as water displaces to permit a ship to exist within it.

The two-dimensional block of space must have been "folded" relative to the at least four-dimensional block of background space. That is why it was not contiguous with it, or else there would be no matter, just at least six dimensions of space. This misalignment prevented the two from becoming contiguous with each other.

We could compare the two-dimensional sheet of space to a sheet of paper. Suppose that one edge of the folded paper had a positive charge and the opposite parallel edge a negative charge. This was the case after charge migration took place in the sheet, negative charge to one side and positive to the other to attain a lower energy state because there is tension between adjacent opposite charges, and would make possible all of the apparent charged particles of matter and antimatter. A fold parallel to the negative side would represent an electron. A fold parallel to the positive side would represent a positron.

Quarks and antiquarks, with charges such as +2/3 for an up quark and -1/3 for a down quark, would be represented by broad sections of strings across the center of the sheet. The negative and positive charge concentration would have to be less across the center of the sheet because having a sharp boundary between the two would be, in effect, bringing matter and antimatter together. This is why it would take such a broad section to make a single charge, unlike the electrons or positron strings on either edge of the sheet, and the result is the heavier particles known as quarks.

This also explains why matter exists in the form of strings, as in the superstrings of string theory, the strings were the lines of like charges that were in the two-dimensional block of space. We know that matter must have consisted of a two-dimensional block of space because it could not manifest these charged strings (which we, of course, perceive as particles in our three dimensions) if it was only one dimension. Matter could not consist of three dimensions of space because then matter could exist within other matter without requiring space from the four-dimensional block and we see no evidence of this.

What actually happened is that a two-dimensional "sheet" of space formed within the background space. Charge migration took place within the sheet, positive to one side and negative to the other, because this would provide a lower energy state. The sheet folded upon itself by it's own gravity until one side came in contact with the other. This resulted in a matter-antimatter annihilation which released a vast amount of energy, that we perceive as the Big Bang.

But only one pair of the sheet's two pairs of sides had come into contact so that the two-dimensional bonds of the sheet disintegrated in only one of the two dimensions. This threw the remaining one-dimensional strings out across space, and this is what forms the matter in the universe today. Positively-charged strings were from one side of the sheet, and negatively charged strings from the other. Because we perceive one of the four dimensions into which this matter was thrown as time, rather than as space, we also perceive the strings as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings.

So there we have it. This simple model with no new science or leaps of faith solves all of the great unsolved mysteries of the universe listed at the beginning of this article. Once we solved one mystery, such as time, the solution to the next mystery just fell into place. How can this Theory of Stationary Space be wrong? If you do not accept this theory, can you think of a better solution to these mysteries, particularly time?

The reason that scientists had not come up with this yet must be their inability to see themselves as anything but three-dimensional beings or to see time as anything but a central part of absolute reality, rather than as a perception of living things.

This theory also provides a chance to reexamine some issues that many cosmologists have difficulty accepting. The red-shift caused by the Doppler Effect of supposedly receding galaxies is questioned by some who think that there could be another explanation for it.

Inflation is another one, the concept that the universe, just after the Big Bang, must have briefly expanded faster than light to account for the uniformity in the universe observed today.

This theory leaves room for the realm of religion. If we added another dimension to our four-dimensional block of space or, better yet, a five-dimensional block of space encompassing the four-dimensional block that we experience as space, it would open the possibility that our universe, or a portion thereof, existed as a kind of a "carpet" or painting in heaven. That is, it would be one dimension below the "space" of heaven. Somewhat like a two-dimensional carpet in a three-dimensional room.

We may be actually "in heaven" now but of a lower dimensional order so that we cannot perceive heaven outside our four-dimensional "carpet". The supernatural can be explained by the simple concept that our spirits can access the full heavenly (or hellish) dimensions but our bodies are created for this four-dimensional universe and thus cannot.

If this view is correct, it would mean that there is, as we have seen, a fourth dimension that is at right angles to all three of the spatial dimensions that we perceive. This dimension is what we experience as time. There is yet another dimension at right angles to all four of these dimensions. That is the direction in which God is to be found. Our flesh, confined to four dimensions, cannot possibly reach God, but our spirits, which are not confined to these dimensions, can.

There is a principal in physics known as Occam's Razor. This principle is that the simplest explanation for something is usually the best explanation. This principle may not apply well with people but it has long been believed to have a lot of merit for the realm of physics. This Theory of Stationary Space is about the simplest explanation that I can imagine for the great unsolved mysteries of the universe as listed above.

Therefore, I maintain, it must be correct. The theory is basically a geometrical model of reality that can explain the unsolved mysteries. But, since it has a high degree of congruence to physical reality as we know it, it must also have a high degree of truth in it.

The Beginning Of The Universe

In the beginning there was absolutely nothing as far as our universe goes. No space, no time, no matter. Somehow, something happened in the nothingness. An infinitesimal electric charge came into being. I cannot explain how this charge came into existence. I believe it to have been an act of God. But I can explain how the universe that we see today originated with this primal electric charge.

In the nothingness, there was nothing to stop this first electric charge from inducing opposite charges on either side of it. Just as during an electrical storm, a positive charge in a cloud will induce a negative charge in the ground below, resulting in a lightning strike. Those induced charges would, in turn, induce opposite charges next to them, and so on. We will introduce postulates periodically.

POSTULATE 1-A PRIMAL ELECTRIC CHARGE ABLE TO CREATE AN OPPOSITE CHARGE NEXT TO IT BY INDUCTION, WHICH COULD THEN INDUCE ANOTHER OPPOSITE CHARGE, WOULD BE ALL THAT IS REQUIRED TO START A UNIVERSE.

At first, the creation of new charges continued in a straight line. This means that our ever-increasing set of alternating negative and positive charges was one-dimensional. The charges themselves were infinitesimal points with no dimensions. But as enough of them built up, they formed a line. This caused lines of charges to come into existence by induction in a perpendicular direction.

So, now we have a two-dimensional sheet of charges, rather than a one-dimensional line. These new perpendicular lines of charges then began creating new charges by induction in yet another direction which was perpendicular to both it and the original line of charges. New charges could not form where charges already existed because the two would interfere with each other. Our collection of charges were continuously expanding by induction.

These charges were not expanding in space, as we know it, because space did not exist. They were expanding in nothingness and, in fact, were creating space as they expanded. The only possible place for a new line of charges to form by induction was where none existed already.

This meant that a new line would have to be in a completely separate plane from all existing lines. The only way for that to happen was for the new line to form at a right angle to the existing line.

That is why the dimensions of space comprising our universe today are at right angles to each other. Space, as we experience it, has no electric charge. That is because the infinity of negative and positive charges of which it is composed cancel each other out.

POSTULATE 2-DIMENSIONS OF SPACE ARE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO EACH OTHER AND FORM STRAIGHT LINES BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY ARRANGEMENT THE ORIGINAL LINES OF ELECTRIC CHARGES COULD HAVE FORMED WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH EACH OTHER.

LIMIT OF OUR MATTER TO FOUR DIMENSIONS

I believe that we, in our universe, have four dimensions of space. One is what we perceive as time, as I described in my Theory of Stationary Space. An interesting question is: Why do we have four dimensions of space? It is entirely possible that there is more dimensions that we cannot perceive.

Suppose you drew a figure on the inside of a three-dimensional box. The figure would be in three-dimensional space inside the box. Yet, it would be only a two-dimensional figure and, if it had consciousness, would be completely oblivious to the third dimension.

Theoretically, with charges reproducing in nothingness, there should be no limit to the number of dimensions of space that could form. But the matter of which our familiar universe is formed was thrown out across only four of those dimensions.because it resulted from the bending of a two-dimensional sheet of space..

Consider a two-dimensional sheet of plastic. Now, suppose that you bend the sheet. Now, how many dimensions is the sheet of plastic? From it's own point of view, it is still two dimensions. A two-dimensional creature within the sheet would be unaware of the curvature. But from the point of view of the surrounding space, it now occupies three dimensions. We are unable to bend it into four dimensions because we can access only three dimensions of space, the other is time.

When the dimensions of space were forming from the induced charges, the lines of charges had to form right angles to each other to avoid interfering with each other. This is because when a charge formed and thus created a little "bit" of space, another charge could not occupy that space because the very definition of space was that it was occupied by a charge.

Indeed, the primal charges could not occupy space at all because they would be interfering with the existing charges that had created and comprised that space. Each charge would create it's own space and this is what created our universe.

POSTULATE 3-THERE MAY BE MANY MORE, OR EVEN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS OF CONTIGUOUS SPACE. BUT THE MATTER COMPOSING OUR BODIES AND OUR UNIVERSE WAS THROWN OUT ACROSS ONLY FOUR DIMENSIONS OF SPACE BY THE BIG BANG.

FABRIC

Space must be something for it to hold matter in place, it cannot be "nothing" or there would be zero energy difference between two points for an object and it could suddenly move far away spontaneously. Everything is really charged but since the charges are alternating in position and cancel out, we only perceive an electric charge when the charges are concentrated in some way.

The fact that space is actually a "fabric" is shown by Einstein's Lense-Thirring Effect, otherwise known as "frame dragging", the rotation of the earth pulls on the space around it and has an observable effect on the position of an orbiting satellite. This proves that space is not "nothing".

POSTULATE 4-SPACE BEHAVES AS A FABRIC.

Matter does not actually move as we perceive it. This is because it is prevented from doing so by the checkerboard of charges in the dimensions of space resisting the movement of it's own charges, since matter actually consists of strings of space in four dimensions. This may be seen as a form of fate, that everything has already happened.

I described how living things create the only "new motion" in the universe. The only time that we usually see evidence of the infinity of charges that compose space, but cancel out overall, is when space is disturbed by waves. We refer to these waves, such as light, as electromagnetic. But the apparent electromagnetism of such waves is just the underlying electric charges of space itself that normally cancel each other out.

I say that common sense tells us that waves cannot travel through "nothing". I find it much more logical to conclude that "electromagnetic" waves are similar in principle to water or sound waves, an oscillating disturbance in a medium, and the electromagnetism is the underlying electric charges that compose space and are disturbed by the wave.

The only way that dimensions can join to each other to form multi-dimensional space is when they do not occupy the same territory. That is only when they are straight lines at right angles to each other. Charges prevent overlap of the same territory. This is why contiguous dimensions must always be at right angles to each other.

So, space must be "something" rather than "nothing".

THE SHEET

Now that we know how space formed from primal electric charges, what about matter? The existence of space is easier to explain than that of matter.

We saw that matter is really composed of strings of two contiguous dimensions of space that were not contiguous to the four dimensions of space that we perceive as actual space. The model of a two-dimensional block of space within an at least four-dimensional block of space and the parallel charge lines of electrons and quarks that I described was all right for getting a general picture of how the universe operates but now, we will go into more detail.

The reason that this two-dimensional sheet of separate space came to be is that as it formed by induction as the other dimensions did, it was prevented by the curvature of space, from the point of view of the two new dimensions from joining in and becoming contiguous with the four that had already formed. If it had, today we would have six dimensions of space and no matter.

This "orphan" sheet of space was incorporated into but was not contiguous with the established four-dimensional block of space because, due to this curvature, it was oriented incorrectly to fit in with the existing space. Thus, curvature explains the limits to the dimensions as well when the sheet folded and crumpled in the background at least four-dimensional space. Due to the positions of the charges on the sides of the sheet that came into contact, the negative-positive bonds in one dimension of the sheet were dissolved in the explosion of the Big Bang, the massive matter-antimatter explosion that took place when the two sides came into contact due to the folding of the sheet, but those in the other dimension of the sheet remained intact to form the strings of matter that we have today.

This dissolution is what we perceive as the Big Bang that started the universe. The result of this dissolution is what we know as either matter or antimatter according to which side of the sheet it was on and the energy released in the explosion threw the strings out across the at least four-dimensional block of space, forming the universe that we see today.

The reason for the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when the two are brought into contact is that it causes both strings to dissolve into individual charged particles of space, which are indistinguishable from the background space. If we saw a galaxy of antimatter, we most likely would not be able to tell the difference between it and a galaxy composed of matter. The difference is that atoms of antimatter consist of negatively-charged nuclei orbitted by positrons, rather than the electrons in matter.

Space cannot tell the difference between matter and antimatter. We could say that matter brought into contact with antimatter disappears because it becomes space. The energy that was holding the component electric charges together is released and the component electric charges fit back into the alternating electric charges of the background space.

POSTULATE 5-THE MATTER THAT WE HAVE IN THE UNIVERSE TODAY IS ACTUALLY SPACE THAT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH THE BACKGROUND SPACE AND FORMED FROM THE DISSOLUTION IN ONE DIMENSION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET OF MATTER THAT FORMED WITHIN BUT DID NOT INCORPORATE WITH THE BACKGROUND SPACE.

The result of this dissolution in one dimension of the sheet of space is the strings that today compose what we perceive as matter in the universe. The universe did not expand, as is popularly believed, the sheet crumpled and dissolved into one-dimensional strings instead of a two-dimensional sheet.

This explains what appears to us as the "expanding" universe. This apparent expansion is due to the radial pattern of the strings which compose matter being thrown out across the background four-dimensional space. It is easy to picture that a folding two-dimensional sheet in which one of two bonds dissolves will form a radial pattern as seen in the surrounding three-dimensional space, with the strings getting further apart as we move away from the site of the Big Bang.

The sheet does not have to be together to retain the original charges and this is why we have the charged strings that compose matter today. Individual charges in a dimension merge to form a negative and a positive end in the same manner as a magnet with it's north and south poles. Shredded strings retain the negative and positive ends of the dimensional block and do not revert to individual charges.

In the universe today, quarks outnumber electrons by about five or six to one. This is easily explained by the crumpling of the sheet and the fact that which of the two dimensional bonds dissolved varied across the sheet. Many more of the strings that resulted when one of the two dimensional bonds dissolved were of necessity diagonal rather than straight in one of the two original dimensions of the sheet.

POSTULATE 6-ONE OF THE TWO DIMENSIONAL BONDS IN THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET OF MATTER DISSOLVED THROUGHOUT THE SHEET, CREATING THE STRINGS WE PERCEIVE AS ELECTRONS, POSITRONS, QUARKS OR, ANTIQUARKS AS THE STRINGS WERE THROWN OUT ACROSS THE SURROUNDING SPACE BY THE EXPLOSION THAT WE PERCEIVE AS THE BIG BANG.

The curving surfaces in the crumpling sheet caused two main varieties of quark to form, the up quarks with a charge of +2/3 and, the down quarks with a charge of -1/3. There are other particles and quarks besides these, but these are by far the most important.

We know today that a proton has a mass 1,836 times that of an electron. According to the well-established Standard Model, a proton is composed of three quarks, two up quarks of +2/3 charge and one down quark with a charge of -1/3. This cancels out to an overall charge of +1, the opposite of an electron.

My theory that quarks are composed of strings with a cross-section of many individual charges, while an electron, or an antimatter positron, is a string with a cross-section of only one particle is supported by the fact that 1,836 is a number that, I notice, is very evenly divisible by three.

A proton is composed of three quarks, meaning that each quark has a mass of 612 electrons. The structure of the two most important quarks, up and down, revolve around the number six. That is, a quark with a charge of +2/3 would be composed of six subsections, five of which had a positive charge and the other a negative charge. This would cancel out to the +2/3 charge that we detect today. And sure enough, we see that 612 is evenly divisible by 6 to 102.

Thus, the down quark, with a charge of -1/3, would have two positively charged subsections with four that are negatively charged. I believe that just the fact that a proton is composed of three quarks and is known to be 1,836 times the mass of an electron, a number that is so related to the number three as a multiple, should give us a clue as to how matter operates.

POSTULATE 7-A PRIMARY GOVERNING FACTOR IN HOW MATTER OPERATES IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE FACT THAT A PROTON, COMPOSED OF THREE QUARKS, IS 1,836 TIMES AS HEAVY AS AN ELECTRON, A BASIC POINT PARTICLE THAT IS NOT COMPOSED OF QUARKS.

The sheet folded and the dissolution, which we perceive as the Big Bang, took place before the growing sheet became infinite in size. This is why there is a finite amount of matter in the universe today. The universe is so empty of matter, relatively speaking, because it is formed of a two-dimensional sheet of space that dissolved in a four-dimensional block of space to which it was incorporated but was not contiguous.

The dissolution of a two-dimensional sheet in four dimensions of space is definitely supported by the density of matter that we observe in the universe today. This density is about three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter in the universe as a whole.

Keep in mind that a galaxy is about a million times as dense in matter as the sorrounding inter-galactic space. Even an atom, except for the nucleus, is mostly empty space. If an atom could be compared to a football stadium, the solid nucleus would be like a strawberry in the middle of the field.

So, the Big Bang converted a vast sheet of space into strings with either a negative or a positive charge or partial charge (positrons, electrons, quarks, antiquarks) but with negative and positive charges cancelling out in the universe as a whole. We could say that this is the fulfillment of another theory called M-theory, which is related to string theory but revolves around two-dimensional membranes or sheets instead of strings.

The charge reproduction in the beginning of the universe that created space cannot be considered as the Big Bang because it would still leave us without any matter. Matter thus consists of a two-dimensional sheet of space in which the space remains but the dimensional bonds in one direction have dissolved. The dissolution also occurred along diagonal folds in the sheet.

This left us with extremely long strings of space of negligible cross-section and with electrical charges of either negative, positive or, a mix of the two. There is no overall charge attraction between what we know as space and matter because of the mutual cancellation of the charges in the space sorrounding the matter holds the matter in place. These two blocks of discontiguous space also explains the behavior of radiation with matter.

POSTULATE 8-MATTER IS HELD IN PLACE BY ELECTRIC CHARGES IN SPACE.

The observed scatter pattern of matter in space indicates that the sheet must have been of two dimensions. It could not have been of three dimensions. A two-dimensional sheet that warps and dissolves will scatter strings of matter that will appear to be going in all directions in sorrounding three-dimensional space but will be aligned mostly in one direction if it is seen in sorrounding four-dimensional space. This fits perfectly with, and explains, the model of the universe that I set forth in my Theory of Stationary Space.

Another factor that we observe today and which confirms my theory that the matter in the universe formed from the dissolution of a crumpling and then dissolving sheet of space is the view of the observable universe on a very large scale. Maps have been made of the distribution of thousands of galaxies in the universe as a whole. We see vast gaps, spurs and, filaments. This is the opposite effect that gravitational coalescing would produce.

The reason for this can be illustrated by crumpling a sheet of paper. While looking at one side of the crumpling sheet, the areas bulging inward become spurs and filaments and those bulging outward became gaps. The charts of the microwave background radiation from the Big Bang show a similar pattern, some areas are cooler in radiation and are sorrounded by areas hotter in radiation. Both are relics of the crumpling two-dimensional sheet of space that dissolved and formed matter as we know it.

POSTULATE 9-THE UNIVERSE TODAY DISPLAYS JUST THE DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF MATTER WE WOULD EXPECT IF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET OF SPACE DISSOLVED IN ONE DIRECTION AND THREW IT'S RESULTING COMPONENT STRINGS OUT INTO THE SORROUNDING FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE.

The Big Bang must have been a dissolution of one or the other dimensional bond in the sheet rather than a tearing. If the sheet was torn in pieces, we would today see two-dimensional shreds of matter rather than particles and this is not what we see. If the sheet had shredded into particles instead of strings, it could not explain why both matter and antimatter exist. If the sheet had shredded into single charged particles, those particles could have just blended into the background space instead of the one-dimensional strings that resulted from the dissolution of the sheet.

POSTULATE 10-THE ONE-DIMENSIONAL STRINGS THAT RESULTED FROM THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET OF SPACE IN ONE DIMENSION ARE STABLE AND NOT LIKELY TO UNDERGO THE SAME TYPE OF DISSOLUTION OF THE SHEET UNLESS MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ARE BROUGHT INTO CONTACT.

There is an obvious bias in space against incomplete charges. When the sheet dissolved, the charged nature of space favors particles with an integral charge. So, quarks combined to form protons and neutrons. This assumes, of course, that the quark model is correct but there seems to be few scientists who doubt it.

The Big Bang can be compared to the throwing of a bunch of yarn in one direction. You can think of it as an electric sheet where the warp and woof dissolve but leave the thread intact and aligned mostly in one direction. Newton's Laws keep the median direction of the strings thrown out by what we perceive as the Big Bang aligned, on average, in the same direction which must have been perpendicular to the two dimensions of the sheet.

The fact that the sheet was two-dimensional explains why the strings are aligned in one direction in the background four-dimensional space. However, the collision and interaction of the strings with one another upon the dissolution explains why the strings are not exactly in one direction. The two-dimensional sheet dissolving in four-dimensional space causes the apparent expansion of the universe that we observe in three-dimensional space and the other plane that explains what time is in four-dimensional space.

It has been observed by some particle physicists that electrons sometimes "jump" from one orbit in an atom to another without going across the intervening space. These observations, if correct, can quite easily be explained by broken strings held in the same place by the background space. One end of the broken string is at one orbital level and the opposite end at another orbital level.

This explosion of space and matter must be independent of each other. Dimensions of space do not necessarily fit together. Bonds can dissolve in one dimension, leaving strings of space remaining. This is what forms electrons, positrons, quarks and, antiquarks.

Strings have a specific charge while space does not, due to mutual cancellation, so the two are not contiguous although both are actually space. This means that space must have existed before the Big Bang and could still be expanding.

A perfectly symmetrical universe cannot exist. First, the fold in the sheet must have been more in one of the two dimensions than the other relative to the background space to cause it's dimensional bonds to dissolve.

Thus, we have a broken symmetry in the folding of the sheet of space that were necessary to create the universe as we have it today. Add to this the fact that the original space must have been asymmetric to cause the "orphan" sheet of space to form in the first place, and in the very beginning it was an unbalanced electric charge that brought the multiple dimensions of space into being by opposite charge induction.

Like a vacuum, nature abhors asymmetry. In fact, a vacuum is a form of asymmetry. We could say that the whole reason for existence is to balance asymmetry. This goes back to the primal charge inducing an opposing charge to balance assymetry. In the universe of today, Newton's Law that every reaction causes an equal and opposite reaction is to balance asymmetries.

POSTULATE 11-THE UNDERLYING REASON FOR EXISTENCE IS TO BALANCE ASYMMETRY.

THE MOTION PARADOX

This model solves what I have termed "the motion paradox". We see the universe as an incredibly active and energetic place. But is it really? The universe, in our apparent time, is supposedly 15,000,000,000 years old. Why is there still all of this energy and motion after all of this time?

When you throw a stone into a pond, there is a splash. The water from the splash hits the surface of the pond on it's way back down, causing what we might call a "secondary splash" Since energy has been lost, this splash will be much smaller than the original splash. This splash water falling back down makes a tertiary splash and so on. Of course, what happens is that the water quickly runs out of energy and all that is left is waves, which do not last long either.

So why has our universe not run out of energy and settled down after the initial "splash" of the Big Bang, as it is believed today? It is difficult to explain. But since, in my Theory of Stationary Space, there is really no such thing as motion or time in non-living matter, there is no motion paradox to explain.

Matter and energy is somewhat more complex than our splash example, but the universe still should have settled down by now under existing models of the universe. Even if the universe was still in motion on a large scale, it should have settled down locally by now. But now my theory has solved the Big Bang and the Motion Paradox, since everything is already settled down and motion is only what we perceive.

I believe that obeying Newton's Laws tells us that the universe is not really in motion. Basically, the center line of the dissolution of the sheet, which is a straight line from the center of the dissolving sheet perpendicular to the sheet in the direction that the strings of matter were thrown out is conserved, that it must always remain the center line of all matter simply because, as Newton said, every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. We would perceive the center line as the center point of all matter in the universe because the line runs parallel to the time dimension.

Newton's Reaction Law also explains heat. The collisions of strings thrown out by the dissolution of the sheet are perceived by us, in our three-dimensional world as quickly moving particles.

The strings were attracted to each other by gravity upon the dissolution. A body, such as a planet, formed by gravity if it is strong enough to pull all of the strings together. If not, one body might go into orbit around another. The consolidating force of gravity balances the outward force of the dissolution of the sheet.

But why would one body go on orbiting another for a very long time? Doesn't this violate the Law of Perpetual Motion? I am certain that it does. Is it not more likely that two bundles of string intertwined upon the dissolution of the sheet and we only perceive it as one body orbiting another in out familiar three-dimensional view of things?

POSTULATE 12-THE CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE, PARTICULARLY ORBITS, VIOLATES THE LAW FORBIDDING PERPETUAL MOTION. THIS IS THE MOTION PARADOX AND IT REQUIRES US TO REVIEW OUR MODELS OF THE UNIVERSE.

My theory is that everything has already happened. It is just that we, seeing in only three dimensions, have not arrived yet. Everything happened when the sheet dissolved. Strings from the dissolution, colliding and interacting, created the universe that we see today. The only "new motion" in the universe is from living things.

WAVES

I argue that space cannot be "nothing", it must be "something". Light cannot really travel through "nothing". There must be something there for the waves to transverse, just as sound waves cannot exist without air or some other medium. Yet, if space is "something", why can we easily see through it?

The answer is that space is something, rather than nothing, but is of extremely fine structure so that wave patterns of extreme intricacy can exist in it. This fine structure is explained by this theory.

There is a growing belief in the scientific community that space is not perfectly smooth in structure, that there is some kind of "particle" of space. Sometimes these particles are referred to as "mattercules". One such theory is "Loop Quantum Gravity".

This belief in "particles" of space also explains the reason for the existence of Planck's Constant, which is extremely important to all manner of formulae, especially those concerning the radiation of electromagnetic waves through space.

Planck's length is defined as 1.6 x 10 -33 power centimeters. It is thus, an extremely short length. This constant is the central part of the well-known Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which defines how well we can predict the location of an electron in orbit around an atom.

I maintain that Planck's length is actually the size of one of the primary electric charges that I am describing. This is why it shows up in all manner of physics formulae.

POSTULATE 13-PLANCK'S LENGTH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL MANNER OF PHYSICS FORMULAE BECAUSE IT IS THE LENGTH OF ONE OF THE PRIMAL ELECTRIC CHARGES THAT COMPRISE THE UNIVERSE.

Space can hold such intricate ripples, which we perceive as electromagnetic waves, due to the fineness of it's structure. Think of space as a mosaic with infinitesimal tiles. The stationary charged particles composing space tilt slightly to form the stationary ripples that we perceive as waves.

A coarser space would not yield so much information. Space is not exactly transparent but it's particles act as pixels to our visual sense and it's structure is so extremely fine that we perceive it as transparent.

The key to understanding that space is endlessly replicating electric charges is that electromagnetism in waves is actually a property of space itself. The "tilting" of the particles in the ripples that we perceive as waves slightly unbalances the particle structure of space so that it reveals it's underlying electromagnetism. Remember that space is a checkerboard of infinitesimal charged particles.

Is there a better way to explain space and electromagnetism? The negative charge of electrons in matter tilts the negative and positive charges of space to hold ripples. The resulting constructive and destructive interference forms what we perceive as waves.

Space can hold such intricate ripples due to the fineness of it's structure. It is not that space is transparent, just that we perceive ripples in it. If the grains of space were electrically neutral, we could not see anything or listen to the radio.

These ripples are caused by any bending of the strings. The bending of multiple strings create ripples of a given wavelength by constructive and destructive interference. The more a string is bent, the greater the amplitude of the ripple it creates.

POSTULATE 14-ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IS STATIONARY RIPPLES CAUSED BY THE BENDING OF STRINGS AND HELD IN THE FINE STRUCTURE OF SPACE.

As a wave moved outward, upon the dissolution of the sheet, it engaged ever more space particles and so it's amplitude decreased. Electromagnetism other than waves only shows up when charges are concentrated in such a way so as not to cancel. If there were other universes, we could not see each other because the space is not contiguous.

If there were at least two dimensions of space within another block of space, it would appear to us as a mirror. Like a funhouse mirror if it was curved. We see light more when it is scattered or distorted than when it is reflected. In a universe of straight strings, there would be no electromagnetic radiation until one bent.

GRAVITY

Electromagnetism is the fundamental force of the universe. All forces are manifestations of the electromagnetic force simply because we live in an electromagnetic universe. The tiny electric charges that I have described are what the universe is made of and thus define how the universe operates. The so-called strong nuclear force is the ability of quarks in protons to stretch the quarks in neutrons to hold the protons together by facing opposite charges.

POSTULATE 15-THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE IS THE ABILITY OF QUARKS IN PROTONS TO STRETCH THE QUARKS IN NEUTRONS TO HOLD THE PROTONS TOGETHER BY FACING OPPOSITE CHARGES, SINCE QUARKS ARE MADE UP OF MULTIPLE CHARGES.

There are two electric charges in the universe, negative and positive, and these two charges must ultimately balance out to zero. There are two rules governing these charges in the universe, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. If the two charges themselves must balance out, it makes sense that the two rules governing the charges would be manifested equally.

Energy was introduced to the universe by the explosion of the Big Bang. We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, so that all energy can be traced back to the Big Bang, which began the universe. What all energy ultimately does is to oppose the basic rules of electric charges, either the one about like charges repelling or the one about opposite charges attracting. This makes sense because everything in the universe is ultimately based on these electric charges.

The binding energy in the nucleus of an atom overcomes the repulsion of like charged protons to hold the nucleus together. In my theory, this creates an imbalance in the manifestation of energy overcoming both rules governing electric charges equally. The rule of repulsion between like charges is being overcome a lot more then the rule of attraction between opposite charges.

This creates an imbalance in the overcoming of the basic rules of electric charges by energy creates a net attractive charge in the universe, and this is manifested as gravity. The universe is electrical in nature, and it makes sense that gravity has an electrical explanation.

POSTULATE 16-GRAVITY OPERATES AS A BALANCE TO THE BINDING ENERGY THAT HOLDS A NUCLEUS TOGETHER AS AN OVERCOMING BY ENERGY OF THE BASIC RULE THAT LIKE ELECTRIC CHARGES REPEL. SINCE BOTH RULES EXIST EQUALLY, THAT LEAVES A NET ATTRACTIVE CHARGE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS MANIFESTED AS GRAVITY.

Space attracts matter due to electric charge. This explains gravity and why it holds matter in place. Gravity is thus electromagnetic in origin. The universe formed from alternating electric charges so, everything is electromagnetic.

Space also prevents matter from "growing" by charge induction like the charges in the beginning of the universe because the matter is sorrounded by other charges. Like charges repel, unlike charges attract but, any charge will prevent another charge from growing by repeated induction of opposite charges or else any charge would grow into an entire universe just like in the beginning.

Pre-Existing Reality

In my Theory Of Stationary Space, I explained how the universe must have begun. But after careful thinking, I have realized that the explanation could be taken back further.

There must have been a reality that preceded the initial electric charge from which our universe sprang. The charge reproduction that I described in the theory operated according to well-defined rules, that an electric charge will induce an opposite charge in order to acheive balance or symmetry.

The very existence of such a rule at the very beginning of our universe strongly suggests that there must have been a pre-existing reality. Any reality manifests rules of some kind. In fact, reality can well be defined by the rules that it manifests. Something had to exist before to set down the rule that an electric charge will induce an opposite charge to achieve symmetry.

To get our universe started by charge reproduction as I have described, a "chip" must have been somehow knocked out of a pre-existing structure. We could describe this structure as the foundation of the universe. This structure had a force holding it together and the chip that was removed from it was probably not from the center of the structure. Maybe it was a chip out of an edge of the structure. But the tiny chip was still a part of the structure in terms of force.

There was a balance in the structure and the chip was now unbalanced in terms of the energy holding the structure together. The unbalanced chip was actually what we could call an electric charge and it induced an opposite charge in an attempt to regain symmetry. The charge that it induced must have been similar to conditions in the opposite part of the structure from where the first chip was taken out. Perhaps the first chip actually pulled an opposite piece of material, an opposite charge, from the structure to try to acheive symmetry.

I have shown in other postings on this blog that there is a lot of energy in empty space holding the opposite charge particles together. This energy could have been pulled from the structure since there was a force holding it together. The reason that electric charges are the size they are today is simply that this is the size of the original chip taken out of the pre-existing structure.

The size of this chip could probably have been either lesser or greater and if it was, the volume of an electric charge would be different today. The two-dimensional sheet of space, with it's charge migration resulting in a negative and positive side, which resulted in the Big Bang may well have been a recreation in some way of the original structure, the foundation of the universe.

OUR SYMMETRY-ENERGY UNIVERSE

The reason this universe was formed was to restore symmetry. That is the most important principle in the universe, that of symmetry. When symmetry is broken, in the original chip, the universe will do whatever has to be done to regain that symmetry. It took the creation of our universe to regain the symmetry broken by that displaced chip.

We know that the behavior (behaviour) of matter in space revolves around the seeking of the lowest energy state, notably the formation of spheres for stars and planets. But the universe as a whole considers energy as a lower priority than symmetry. The lowest energy state is simply non-existence.

But the universe will seek symmetry with no regard for energy expenditure, such as the vast amount of energy holding the charge particles of space and matter together. It is only when the universe has regained symmetry that it will begin seeking the lowest energy state. Thus we could say that we live in a symmetry-energy universe, meaning that symmetry is the first priority and energy the second.

The Sheet Model Of The Big Bang

MATTER AND ENERGY AND THE SHEET MODEL OF THE BIG BANG

Have you ever wondered why it requires energy to move matter, and that energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form? Like so much else that cannot be readily explained by ordinary physics, it goes back to the cosmology of the universe and, in particular, the nature of the Big Bang which began the universe.

In my theory, the Big Bang which began the universe takes the form of a sheet, rather than emanating outward from a point as believed by some. Space came first, before matter, and began with a single electric charge, whether a negative or positive charge. The first charge then induced an opposite charge next to it, which then induced a copy of the original charge next to it on the other side, and so on in multiple dimensions.

The resulting multitude of infinitesimal alternating electric charges, in multiple dimensions, is what comprises space. This is why electromagnetic waves are so, they disturb the underlying charge balance of space and so reveal it's electric charge nature.

It is true that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, which is why planets and stars are shaped as spheres and an object placed in the air will fall to the ground. But the top priority of the universe is not energy conservation but charge balance. Since electric charges are the most fundamental entity in existence, and partial charges cannot exist, the only way to correct the original imbalance of only one charge in existence is to bring an opposite charge into existence, even though this represents a higher energy state.

But the creation of multi-dimensional space by mutual induction as a checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges did not proceed completely smoothly. A two-dimensional sheet of space formed, by the same mutual induction, that was within but was not coordinated with the checkerboard pattern of the negative and positive charges of the background space.

This sheet of space, having only two dimensions of the alternating electric charges was able to seek a lower energy state by charge migration, having one side of the sheet hold the negative charges and the other hold the positive charges. It is not possible for such charge migration to take place within the multi-dimensional background space because there are too many dimensions to coordinate the charge migrations together.

This two-dimensional sheet of space, not being coordinated with the checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive charges in the multi-dimensional background space, became curved relative to the pattern of the background space until the positive side of the sheet came into contact with the negative side. The two sides would also have attracted one another by the rule that opposite charges attract. But only one set of the two parallel sides of the sheet came into contact, the other two sides did not contact.

When the negative and positive sides of the sheet came into contact, they underwent mutual annihilation as happens when matter and antimatter is brought into contact. But the bonds of only one dimension of the two dimensions of the sheet disintegrated because only one set of parallel sides of the sheets had come into contact. The mutual annihilation which takes place when matter and antimatter is the most powerful source of energy in the universe, the release of energy when two sides of the sheet were brought into contact explains the vast explosion which we refer to as the Big Bang. The sheet of space, losing the bonds in one of it's two dimensions, was shredded into one dimensional strings, and these were thrown out across space by the force of the explosive release of energy.

Since charge migration had taken place within the sheet before the Big Bang, some of the strings had a negative charge and others a positive charge. These strings are what we perceive today as electrons and the positrons of antimatter. Remember that antimatter is like matter except that the charges are reversed so that, in an antimatter atom, a positively-charged positron is in orbit around a negatively-charged nucleus.

When charge migration took place in the sheet of space, there could not be a sharp boundary between the negative and positive sides because that would, in effect, be bringing matter and antimatter into contact. Rather, there was a gradual change in electric charge between the two sides. This explains why quarks exist, as well as the corresponding anti-quarks of antimatter. An up quark has a charge of + 2/3, while a down quark has a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks combined with one down quark gives us a proton with a charge of + 1. Two down quarks combined with one up quark gives us a neutron with a neutral charge. These wide central bands of strings would have to be wider then the one-dimensional lines such as electrons, and this explains why quarks are much larger than electrons.

Since the sheet of space was "folded" before the Big Bang, this explains how negatively and positively-charged strings, which we perceive as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, managed to get paired up to form atoms. The conventional physics model of the Big Bang suddenly emanating from a single point not only does not explain why the Big Bang would happen or why it would cause matter to exist in space, it also does not explain why oppositely-charged particles, thrown out in different directions in space, later managed to get paired up to form atoms. But if they were thrown outward from a folded sheet, that would send opposite into the same area of space from opposite directions so that they could pair up to form atoms.

When an artillery shell or hand grenade explodes, the pieces of shrapnel do not collide with each other because each goes off in a different direction. This model of a sheet folding, before disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions due to the contact of it's negative and positive sides as in a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, does explain it because this would have caused the strings that we perceive as electrons, and those we perceive of as the quarks which comprise nuclei, to cross paths. I see the idea of a "point" Big Bang as completely against the laws of physics. This sheet model, in contrast, shows how it was actually brought about by the laws of physics.

Another thing that conventional models of the Big Bang do not explain well is why there is so much more matter than antimatter that we see in the universe. Theoretically, there should be about the same amount of both.

But if the fold in the sheet, prior to the opposite and oppositely-charged coming in contact to bring about the Big Bang, was somewhat diagonal to the checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges which comprised the sheet, then that would explain not only the quarks with mixed charge forming as diagonal bands across the middle of the sheet, but also why we see so little antimatter in the universe even though we know that it exists. The strings on the far opposite sides of the sheet, which would have a "pure" electric charge, either negatively-charged electrons or positively-charged protons, would be thrown out into space in completely different directions so that there would be little contact between matter and antimatter.

To understand the relationship today between matter and energy today, we have to understand that the sheet of space, which disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions in the Big Bang, is still with us. It is why there is both matter and energy in the universe. The dimension of the sheet which remained intact have given us the one-dimensional strings which form matter. The dimension of the sheet which disintegrated and released the energy of opposite-charge attraction which had held the sheet together has given us energy.

There is energy in space itself, in the tension between the checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges, if you wonder where this energy came from remember, once again, that the universe does seek the lowest energy state but the top priority of the universe is not energy but charge balance. The numbers of negative and positive charges must always be equal, and the universe will expend all of the energy necessary to make sure of that. Creating more charges, by mutual induction of existing charges, means more energy, but is the only way to achieve the priority of charge balance.

Energy, in the universe today, acts perpendicular to the strings of matter. This means that we can move objects in the lateral dimensions, which we perceive as our three spatial dimensions, but energy does not act along the lengths of these strings of matter, which we perceive as our time dimension, so that there is never any input of energy or movement from past to future, as we perceive it. This is because the dimension of the sheet of space which disintegrated in the Big Bang to bring about energy, was perpendicular to the dimension which remained intact to give us the strings of matter.

Space is alternating electric charges. Matter is a concentration of these charges. Energy is ultimately a resistance to the rules of these charges, which dictate that opposite charges attract and like charges repel and so overrule any concentration of the charges. This reflects the formation of the two-dimensional sheet within the background multi-dimensional space.

We could say that matter = space + energy. It requires energy to overcome the basic rules of electric charges which prevent any concentration of those charges, only an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive. This means that it requires energy to create matter, so that there must be energy within matter, because matter is any concentration of the electric charges other than the alternating checkerboard pattern.

The bonds of one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet of space dissolved by matter-antimatter contact of it's opposite sides, so that one dimension of the two became energy and was applied to the shredded one-dimensional strings of the other dimension to fuse them into matter. If we bring matter and antimatter into contact today, this energy is released again and the individual electric charges comprising the matter arrange themselves, by attraction and repulsion with the existing charges comprising space, so that they turn back into space.

Both matter and energy each came from one of the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet of space. When the bonds of one dimension disintegrated in the matter-antimatter explosion which we refer to as the Big Bang, it released the energy which had been in the bonds of the sheet. This energy, from the tension between adjacent opposite charges in the sheet, was there because the universe had to continuously create more of the infinitesimal negative and positive charges of which space is composed because that was the only way to try to achieve charge balance in the universe, exact equality in the numbers of negative and positive charges, and remember that charge balance is a higher priority than energy in the universe.

The Big Bang, by the way, is continuously being replicated in miniature across the universe in the form of gamma ray bursts, as described in the posting by that name. The reason that we cannot access the innate energy in space, between the opposite charges, is that these charges are the most fundamental entity that there is and there is thus no way to access it or to project it onto anything.

The sheet of space behaves as if it is still together when it comes to the laws of physics and the relationship between matter and energy. To move matter, which is from one dimension of the sheet, requires the involvement of energy, which is from the other side of the sheet, thus maintaining the integrity of the sheet. Newton's Law that every action must result in an equal and opposite reaction, which involves both matter and energy, also maintains the integrity of the sheet of space because it means that the center of mass of the sheet will always remain constant.

One dimension of the two-dimensional sheet of space brought matter into the universe of background space, and the other dimension brought energy. Both matter and energy is really still a part of the sheet, it has just been rearranged. Energy is one dimension of the sheet and matter is the other. This is why there cannot be changes in matter, moving from one place to another, without there also being changes in energy, from one form to another. Matter could not even exist without energy because there could be no overcoming of the alternating checkerboard of electric charges of space, to form a concentration of charges which is the definition of matter.

The close relationship between space, matter and, energy is seen in another of Newton's laws that Energy = Mass x Acceleration, with the acceleration being done through space.

Finally, we come to what turned out to be the most famous formula of the Twentieth Century, Einstein's E = MC squared. This formula involves cosmology and is that there is energy in matter that is the equivalent of the mass of the matter multiplied by the speed of light squared. In other words, a small amount of matter actually contains a tremendous amount of energy.

My theory explains why, to find the amount of energy in matter, we multiply the mass by the speed of light squared. Squared means multiplied by itself, so that there are two speeds of light in the formula. In my theory, our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light.

This is why, although the matter with which we are composed was thrown out by the Big Bang over four dimensions of space, we can only move at will in three of those dimensions because the fourth is the one along which our strings of matter are aligned and which we experience as time. Objects that seem to be moving together or apart are bundles of strings which are not exactly parallel to one another. This means that a bundle of strings which was perpendicular to ours would be perceived by us as an object moving at the speed of light.

This explains why the speed of light is squared in Einstein's formula. The speed of light appears twice, so that it must be multiplied by itself. The first speed of light is the rate of movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light. The second is perpendicular to this direction.

If the positively-charged protons in a nucleus are suddenly unbound by having their binding energy released, they will logically seek to repel each other with the greatest possible efficiency. This will mean, as we saw in the theory, moving apart in diametrically opposite directions. This means a perpendicular direction to the usual direction in which the bundles of strings of matter are aligned. Remember that if the bundle of strings comprising an object is perpendicular to our bundle of strings, we will perceive it as an object moving at the speed of light, and we see the speed of light as the maximum possible speed because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.

Put simply, the reason that the speed of light is squared, multiplied by itself, in Einstein's formula concerning the conversion of matter and energy is that the sheet of space that my theory describes as being the origin of matter and energy was also a square, with two dimensions.

There is energy in empty space, because there is tension between the adjacent opposite charges in the checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive charges. If there were no energy in space, then there would have been no energy to have been released to form the Big Bang, at the disintegration of the bonds of one of the two dimensions of the sheet of space. But there is more energy in matter than in space because there is a concentration of charges, which is the very definition of matter, and to bring this about requires an overcoming of the basic rules of attraction and repulsion that do not need to be overcome in space because space is just an alternating pattern of opposite charges with no concentration of charges, as there is in matter.

Energy can be released from matter by nuclear processes such as fusion, or the fission described in the example above. But to release all of the energy in matter, above that of space, requires a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation. When this occurs and the energy that was holding the concentration of the charges in the matter is released, the negative and positive charges that comprised the matter simply fit back into the alternating pattern of the background space so that the matter seems to disappear, or to become space.

Can you see how neatly everything fits together around this sheet model of the Big Bang?

THE EQUIVALENCE OF MATTER AND ENERGY FROM THE BIG BANG

One of the mysteries of the universe is the equivalence between matter and energy. I would like to explain how it fits simply into my cosmological theory.

Energy and matter are obviously very closely related. There could be no such thing as energy if there was only empty space, but no matter. There could be no matter as we know it without energy because matter is ultimately composed of the infinitesimal electric charges, which also make up space. The two fundamental charges are negative and positive, where opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Matter, as we know it, can only exist if there is energy which can overcome like-charge repulsion to hold the nuclei of atoms together.

My theory is that everything in the universe is composed of infinitesimal negative and positive charges. These charges will naturally form an alternating pattern of negative and positive, like a multi-dimensional checkerboard, following the rules of opposite charge attraction and like charge repulsion. This alternating pattern will form space and any concentration of the charges, other than the alternating pattern, will form matter. But to concentrate the electric charges in any way requires energy because it must overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. In fact, this is ultimately the only way to store energy, overcoming the rules of electric charges to concentrate the fundamental electric charges in a pattern other than alternation.

There is always energy involved with any arrangement of the electric charges. In the checkerboard alternation of space, there is a natural tension between the charges that holds them in place. The universe always seeks the lowest energy state, but that is not the first priority. The first priority is that there must be an exact balance in the universe between the numbers of negative and positive charges.

The Big Bang, which brought about the universe, could have only come about by the formation of a two-dimensional "sheet" of space within the multi-dimensional background space, which began with a single infinitesimal electric charge, and grew by continuous mutual induction of opposite charges next to one another. A single negative charge, in the middle of nothingness, would be a charge imbalance and so would have to induce a positive charge next to it. But then that would also create a charge imbalance and so would have to induce a negative charge next to it, and so on.

The charges which were continuously growing by mutual induction were not coming to being in space, they actually were forming space itself. We do not detect any electromagnetism in empty space because the multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating charges completely balances out. Electromagnetic waves, such as light, are electromagnetic because they upset the charge balance of empty space. There is tension between the charges, which means energy, but the universe does not seek the lowest energy state in empty space because charge balance is a higher priority and there are too many dimensions for charge migration to take place to lower the energy state.

But by some distortion, a two-dimensional sheet must have formed that grew by charge induction independent of the multi-dimensional background space. Charge migration could take place in this sheet of only two dimensions to lower the energy state as negative and positive charges traded places so that one side of the sheet came to be positive, and the other side negative. This charge migration, where negative and positive charges "trade places" to lower the energy state, but not upset the charge balance, can be seen in black holes as described in the posting "Black Holes And Antimatter".

The two-dimensional sheet of space folded under it's own gravity until one side came into contact with the other. Since charge migration had taken place within the sheet, this brought the negative and positive sides together so that they mutually annihilated in a matter-antimatter explosion. This is what we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe. But only one of the two pairs of parallel sides had come into contact, which meant that the electrical bonds of the sheet disintegrated in only one of it's two dimensions.

This left one-dimensional strings to be thrown out across space by the force of the explosion. The energy seared like charges together into strings in a way similar to the formation of heavy nuclei within stars during the supernova which blasts the star apart, because the input of energy of the supernova is necessary to fuse together nuclei heavier than iron and nickel from lighter nuclei.

Antimatter is the same as matter, except with the electrical charges reversed so that positively-charged positrons orbit a negatively-charged nucleus composed of anti-protons. When matter and antimatter are brought into contact, they mutually annihilate in an extreme burst of energy that is far greater than an equivalent nuclear explosion. This is simply the fusing of the strings composing each disintegrating so that the fundamental charges go back to the alternating pattern of space and the energy that bound them together is released.

The fundamental particles of matter that we perceive, such as electrons, are actually some of these one-dimensional strings. We perceive them as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and one of the four dimensions of background space in which these strings of matter are dispersed is what we experience as time.

Now, back to matter and energy. All energy in the universe must ultimately be traced back to the Big Bang, since energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form, and the Big Bang is also the beginning of matter.

Is it becoming clear how this theory explains the close relationship between matter and energy, and why the two are so equivalent?

The most famous formula of the Twentieth Century is E = MC squared. This means that energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. The C is for constant, and means the speed of light. As explained previously the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself, in the formula because 1) that is the speed at which our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains and 2) energy is ultimately based on the fundamental charges of which the universe is composed and if two like charges are bound together, and then suddenly released, they will move apart with the greatest possible efficiency, which is both in a perpendicular direction in space, and we know from my theory that movement is represented by strings which are not quite parallel and the greatest possible angle, a right angle, represents the greatest possible speed that we perceive, which is the speed of light.

The reason that matter and energy are so inter-related, and that there is an equivalence between them, is proof of my sheet model of the Big Bang. The bonds of the sheet disintegrated in only one of the two dimensions of the sheet, and the result was the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation known as the Big Bang. The Big Bang must ultimately be the source of all energy in the universe since we know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. This means that one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrated into the energy in the universe today, and the other dimension remained intact and is the one-dimensional strings which compose the matter of the universe today.

Finally, for something which I have not yet pointed out in this theory. Have you noticed something about E = MC squared and this theory of the sheet of space bringing about the Big Bang? The sheet is also a square, and this is the underlying reason that there is also a square in the formula.

How can this theory not be true? There is a well-established principle in physics called "Occam's Razor". This principle is that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation. The basis of this theory is just so simple, and everything seems to fall neatly into place around it.

I have never seen another theory that really explains what time actually is. We agree that the Big Bang was a fantastic explosion of energy and that all energy in the universe today ultimately originates with the Big Bang because energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.

But if that is true, then where did the energy in the Big Bang come from? What actually caused the Big Bang? I have never seen a theory that answered any of this, which is what led me to develop this theory. There are theories of what happened after the Big Bang, but not of what caused it or where it's fantastic amount of energy came from.

THE NATURE OF MATTER

We have seen how a structure which is composed of some "building blocks" must bear a resemblance to the blocks of which it is built. A house made of brick can most easily be built in the same shape as it's component bricks. Electrons are in orbitals around the central nucleus in atoms just as the planets which are composed of those atoms are in orbits around the sun. Atoms are spherical in form and if a large amount of matter coalesces together by gravity, it will also form a spherical star or planet.

Let's consider that some chemical reaction are endothermic. This means that these reactions require an input of energy to take place. Other reactions are exothermic, meaning that they give off energy.

This endothermic principle, the requirement of an input of energy, is also seen in nuclear reactions. The tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars crunch smaller atoms, starting with hydrogen, together into the larger atoms of heavier elements. But this so-called fusion of atoms only occurs up to a point. The creation of the heavier elements, heavier than iron and nickel, require an input of energy and are formed only as a star explodes as a supernova and scatters it's component matter across space. This is why, in the universe as a whole, these heavier elements are far less common than the lighter ones.

But this can only mean that matter in the universe must have had an endothermic nature from the beginning.

Remember that, in my cosmology theory, space is a fabric composed of a near-infinity of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges. If there is this alternation of negative and positive charges, we have space. But if there is any concentration of electric charges other than this alternation, either negative or positive charges together, we have matter.

My theory stipulates that, in the Big Bang which began the universe, a sheet of space of at least two dimensions which was not integrated into the alternating electric charges of the background space, folded together under it's own gravity after charge migration had taken place in the sheet so that one side of the sheet was negative and the other positive. When the two sides came into contact, the negative and positive concentrations of matter mutually annihilated in a matter-antimatter explosion and scattered the remainder of the sheet across space as one-dimensional strings as the bonds of the sheet disintegrated in one dimension because the sides of the sheet came into contact on only one pair of opposite sides. This means that there was only a partial matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, in one dimension of the sheet but not two, so that we got the one-dimensional strings of matter.

The result is the strings of matter across space which are the basis of string theory and which we perceive as particles, rather than as strings, because we can only see at right angles as our consciousness proceeds along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. The reason that the charge migration which took place in the sheet of space does not take place in space as a whole is simply that there are too many dimensions in space. The matter with which we are familiar is thrown across four dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, but there may be many more dimensions of space and quite possibly even an infinite number of dimensions.

We know that when antimatter is brought together with ordinary matter, the two mutually disintegrate and disappear while releasing a fantastic burst of energy. Remember that antimatter is like ordinary matter except that the charges are reversed so that positively-charged positrons are in orbit around a nucleus with negatively-charged anti-protons. According to my theory strings that we perceive as particles, such as electrons, are actually a very long line of the infinitesimal negative charges which compose space joined together. The same applies to all of the fundamental particles. But if opposite charges attract, and like charges repel, then how can such a string of like-charged particles exist?

Another question is where the fantastic amount of energy comes from that is released upon a matter-antimatter reaction. We know that energy must come from somewhere because it can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. Chemical energy is released when molecular bonds between molecules are broken so that the energy which bound the molecules together is released. The much greater nuclear energy is released when some of the energy binding the nucleus of an atom together is released. So much energy is required to bind a nucleus together because it is necessary to overcome the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons because like charges repel. Nuclear energy is the release of this energy.

But how can we explain the energy that is released by a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation? It is far greater than either nuclear or chemical energy. There are no apparent bonds that are being broken to release their energy, the matter and antimatter itself simply disintegrates and disappears as the energy of the reaction is released.

But this energy is explained by my theory. There actually are bonds binding like-charged particles together against their mutual like-charge repulsion. Electrons, for example, are actually strings of the negative particles of the infinitesimal negative and positive charges which alternate in many dimensions to make up space. There must be some extremely powerful force binding these like-charged particles together into a string, and the bonds along the length of the string between the negatively-charged particles must contain a tremendous amount of energy to hold the string together. Also, since energy can never be created or destroyed, this energy must have come from somewhere.

The energy could only have come from the Big Bang, the tremendous explosion of energy which began the universe as we know it. The energy of that explosion seared like-charged infinitesimal particles of space into one long string. When antimatter is brought together with ordinary matter, such as an electron string of negatively-charged particles and a positron string of positively-charged particles, the tremendous energy within both is released and the particles of both negative and positive attract together so that they return to the alternating negative and positive pattern of empty space, and both the matter and antimatter appears to disappear. It simply goes back to being space as the bonds binding it into matter disintegrate, and the energy in those bonds is released.

But if energy always has to come from somewhere because it can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? No cosmological theory that I have ever seen tries to answer what actually caused the Big Bang. All energy in the universe today is a re-circulation of the original energy in the Big Bang. The universe always seeks the lowest energy state, which is why the earth is spherical and a ball will fall when you drop it. It requires less energy for it to fall than to maintain it in it's present position in the air.

But the most fundamental basis of the universe is not energy. It is the rules of the underlying electric charges of which everything is composed, both space and matter. In the universe, opposite charges attract and like charges repel and all else is mere details. Energy conservation, the seeking of the lowest energy state, is important in the universe but the first priority is charge balance. We could say that the universe is willing to "waste" a tremendous amount of energy if it is necessary to correct a charge imbalance.

The at least two-dimensional sheet of space which formed within the multi-dimensional background space as the space in the universe was forming by one electric charge inducing an opposite charge next to it, and repeating over and over in multiple dimensions, would account for such a charge imbalance which had to be re-balanced by the Big Bang as the two sides of the sheet came into contact after charge migration had taken place. The charge migration in the sheet of space, positive to one side and negative to the other, was itself a seeking of a lower energy state. A given electric charge on it's own is a charge imbalance until it induces one next to it to restore the balance, even though that means that energy must come into being as the opposite-charge bond between the two.

Put simply, when matter and antimatter are brought into contact so that they mutually annihilate, the like-charged particles which were fused together into strings to form what we perceive as particles such as electrons have their bonds broken and released as energy so that they combine with the opposite charged particles that are also released to go back to the alternating multi-dimensional checkerboard that is empty space and both the matter and antimatter seems to vanish. The energy that is released is the energy of the Big Bang which went into fusing the like-charged particles together in the first place. It requires no energy to fuse opposite charges together because they naturally attract.

In a nuclear reaction, we know that some of the mass is converted to a tremendous amount of energy up to a few percent of the mass. But a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation releases far more energy because the entire mass seems to us to be converted back into energy.

By far the most powerful explosions in the universe today are the mysterious gamma ray bursts. An average of about one per day takes place across the universe. They seem to be associated with supernovae, the exploding of large stars, but a gamma ray burst can release several hundred times as much energy as the largest supernova.

The posting on the cosmology blog, "Gamma Ray Bursts" provides a simple explanation. The tremendous pressure within a supernova can snap strings of matter so that it creates a charge imbalance. Remember that charge balance is a higher priority in the universe than energy conservation. The broken string, most likely an electron, induces new and opposite electric charges next to it in an effort to regain charge balance.

But then these have to also induce an opposite charge next to them. This creates a new sheet of space, just like at the beginning of the universe, and the resistance of the background space causes the two sides of this sheet of new space to curl around and come in contact with the other side. When this takes place, we get what amounts to a miniature version of the Big Bang as a gamma ray burst.

THE GEOMETRY OF THE UNIVERSE

As described on this blog, in the posting "The Beginning Of The Universe", our universe seems to have begun with the introduction into nothingness of a single electric charge, either negative or positive. That primal charge induced an opposite charge next to it, which induced a copy of the original charge next to it. The process continued in multiple dimensions, and so on.

This explains space as we know it, a near-infinity of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges. These charges balance out to zero. The reason that waves in space, such as light and radio waves, are perceived as electromagnetic is that the waves disturb the underlying balance of electric charges that make up space.

Matter began when, according to my theory, an "orphan" two-dimensional sheet of space formed and began growing in the same way by mutual induction. This sheet existed in the midst of, but was not joined, to the background space.

Charge migration took place in this two-dimensional sheet of space, so that one side became negative while the other became positive. This charge migration took place because a certain amount of energy is required to maintain a checkerboard pattern of alternating charges, and this charge migration lessened the contact between charges.

Charge migration does not take place in the background space because there are too many dimensions, maybe an infinite number of dimensions. It is not that the energy to maintain space "comes out of nowhere", it is just that the first priority of the universe is charge balance and conservation of energy is a secondary priority.

(By the way, remember that this idea of charge migration explains why black holes decay over time and emit radiation, see "Black Holes And Antimatter" on this blog).

The two-dimensional sheet of space, not being integrated with the background multi-dimensional space, became curved relative to the background space. As charge migration took place within the two-dimensional sheet, the negative and positive sides underwent an opposite-charge mutual attraction. When the two sides came into contact, it brought about a fantastic matter-antimatter explosion with the burst of energy and mutual annihilation of charges. This is what we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it.

But the two-dimensional sheet of space, which would have had four edges just like a sheet of paper, only had one set of opposite edges come into contact. The other two edges did not come into contact. We could say that the contact of opposite edges was one-dimensional, not two-dimensional.

So, in the mutual annihilation that took place in the matter-antimatter reaction, one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated while the other was left intact. This left one-dimensional "strings" of charge that were thrown out across space by the force of the energy release. It is bundles of these strings that compose matter as we know it today. A pure negative string would be perceived by us as an electron particle because the nature of our consciousness cause us to experience one direction of space as time.

The reason that I refer to the Big Bang as a matter-antimatter explosion, when in fact the sheet was only space, is that concentrations of opposite electric charges ordinarily only come into contact when matter meets antimatter. When this takes place, a fantastic burst of energy is released and the electric charges that compose both the matter and the antimatter rearrange themselves back into the checkerboard of charges of empty space.

Antimatter is the same as matter, except that the charges in atoms are reversed. Around the negatively-charged nucleus of antimatter orbit positively-charged positrons, instead of the negatively-charged electrons of conventional matter. If there was a galaxy composed of antimatter, instead of regular matter, I don't think that we could tell just by looking at it since both would handle light in the same way.

Today, I would like to add more to the scenario of the beginning of the universe concerning it's geometry.

First, we know that higher level processes must resemble the lower level processes of which they are composed. This is simply because there is only a limited amount of information in the universe and the higher-level processes must utilize the information available from the lower level processes. An example of this that we find orbits both at the atomic level, with electrons in orbit around the nucleus, and at the astronomical level with planets in orbit around stars. A brick house is most easily constructed if it is of the same shape as the bricks of which it is built. This was discussed on the complexity blog.

Larger atoms are formed from smaller atoms that are crunched together in the centers of stars by the tremendous heat and pressure. There are two ways that this is usually done, known as the s-process and the r-process for slow and rapid. This is fully explained in articles such as "Nucleosynthesis" on www.wikipedia.org .

The s-process (slow) is the ordinary crunching of smaller atoms together in the center of the star. The leftover binding energy is radiated as heat and light. The r-process (rapid) is a special process that takes place only when the star explodes in a supernova. There are some larger atoms that require more binding energy to hold the nucleus together than is contained within the nuclei of the smaller atoms which are crunched together to form them. To form such atoms requires an input of extra energy than is converted into binding energy. It is some of the tremendous energy released within a few seconds as the star explodes that goes to form the extra binding energy.

But this means that we might expect to find some reflection of the r-process in the lower level processes at the foundation of the universe. What about the leftover strings of electric charge from the Big Bang, that we perceive as the matter of the universe today? A string of negative charges that forms an electron is still like charges that must be held together. The burst of energy upon a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation shows that there is a lot of energy within matter, meaning that this energy must have come from somewhere. We know that binding energy in the nucleus is released in a nuclear reaction, but a matter-antimatter reaction releases far more energy and this explains it.

Some of the energy of the Big Bang went to cement the like charges together into strings of matter, such as electrons. Fundamental electric charges can overcome the rule that like charges repel if there is an input of energy, just as binding energy can hold together a nucleus of like-charged positive protons at a higher process level.

Second, this model of the Big Bang sheds some light on the geometry of the universe involving what we perceive as time. Remember that, in this theory, we exist in four-dimensional space with one of those dimensions being what we perceive as time. Our consciousness progresses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. We see what are actually strings of matter as particles because we only see three of the four dimensions as space, the other is our time dimension.

If it was two opposite edges of the two-dimensional sheet of space that came into contact to bring about the Big Bang as a matter-antimatter burst of energy, but the other set of opposite edges did not come into contact, that means that the Big Bang which thrust the strings of matter out across space must have been in the form of a line. If we can then consider the Big Bang as having the form of a line, rather than a point, this explains why matter is aligned in all directions in space, except one. That one dimension is the one that we perceive as time, and is the dimension across the sheet that was perpendicular to the line described here, along which the two opposite sides of the sheet came into contact.

This enables us to see how we can look out across the universe, in what we could call the lateral dimensions, but not backward toward the Big Bang. We can detect the residual radiation from the Big Bang coming at us from all directions in space, but we cannot pinpoint it's location in space. From our perspective, the Big Bang exists in time but we cannot find it's location in our present space. When we detect it's radiation, the Big Bang seems to be all around us rather than coming from one point. This is because we can only see in the lateral dimensions of space.

The only way that I can see to explain the geometry of the universe, as we see it, is this model here that begins with a two-dimensional sheet of space amidst, but not integrated within, the multi-dimensional background space all around. Charge migration takes place within the two-dimensional sheet, so that one side is positively-charged and the other negative. One of the two opposite edges meets and results in the massive matter-antimatter mutual annihilation and burst of energy that we perceive as the Big Bang.

The electrical bonds holding the sheet together disintegrate in one dimension, but not the other. The result is the strings that we perceive today as the fundamental particles of matter, such as electrons. Our consciousnesses, moving outward along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains, is why we experience the dimension toward the Big Bang as time and the others as space so that we cannot pinpoint the location of the Big Bang but it's radiation seems to be coming from all directions in space.

PROOF OF THE SHEET BIG BANG

My scenario described above of the Big Bang occurring from a folding two-dimensional sheet of space may sound unconventional but there is plenty more evidence of it's truth even besides that which I have already presented.

Have you ever stopped to think how phenomenal it is that all the electric charges in the universe composing matter are exactly the same? As far as we can tell, every electron in the universe has exactly the same negative electric charge as every other electron in the universe. Likewise for all the other charged particles. This is truly amazing and what makes it even more amazing is that all electric charges in the universe balance out to zero.

The alternative to my sheet model of the Big Bang is the conventional point model, which supposes that the explosion that began the universe began at one point in space. This point model has no explanation of what caused it or how the energy released by it condensed into matter.

As far as I am aware, no one has ever seen energy condense into matter at all. But even if energy could somehow condense into matter, no one has explained why it condensed into charged matter of which each and every charge in the universe is precisely equal and why the charges balance out to zero.

When water vapor (vapour) condenses into cloud droplets, rain drops and, snowflakes, they vary widely in size. The energy of an explosion is not symmetrical, so why should the matter into which this energy supposedly condensed by so perfectly symmetrical?

My position is that the matter in the universe is not the condensate of the energy produced by a great explosion. I have showed that it could not possibly be. Our universe of matter, with it's perfectly identical charges that balance out to zero, are a unified whole, the two-dimensional sheet of matter, that has disintegrated into one-dimensional strings.

This explains why the electric charges in the universe are exactly equal and sum to zero. If you noticed fragments of rock on the ground and saw that the pieces fit together, you would logically assume that the pieces were of a whole rock that had been shattered. The matter in the universe is the same way.