Chemistry And Cosmology

I was looking at a periodic table of the elements, trying to find something new to write about chemistry for readers having a particular interest in that subject. Suddenly, something really jumped out at me that I had not thought of before. It was not so much about chemistry as about the underlying cosmology of the universe, but it also explained all that happens in chemistry as we know it.

Remember that the way to discovery often lies not so much in answering questions that no one has answered, but in asking questions that no one has asked. Here is one such question: Why is it that all atoms of the chemical elements have eight or fewer electrons in the outermost electron shell of the atom? No matter how large the atom is, and how many electrons it has altogether, there are always eight or fewer in the outer most shell. Within stars, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones and if the atom already has eight electrons in the outermost shell then it will start a new shell. The only exception is the element palladium.

Before going further, let's do a quick review of the electron configuration of atoms. An atom of a given element consists of a nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons. Protons are positively-charged and the atomic number of the element, by which elements are defined, it simply the number of protons in the nucleus. If we changed the number of protons, the element would no longer be the same element. Atoms can have up to several different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus, atoms of the same element but with differing numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes.

Electrons are also a part of the atom. They exist not within the nucleus but orbit the nucleus somewhat like planets in orbit around the sun. Ordinary atoms have the same number of electrons as protons, which have a negative charge equal and opposite to the proton's positive charge. This means that the net charge of the atom is zero. If there are more or fewer electrons than protons, so the atom is electrically charged, it is known as an ion.

The orbits of electrons are somewhat more complex than the orbits of planets, simply because electrons mutually repel one another and so must space themselves in orbit around the nucleus accordingly. Remember that like charges attract while opposite charges repel.

Electrons orbit the nucleus in shells, somewhat like the stories of a building. The larger the atom, the more electrons it will have as well as more electron shells. There are naturally fewer electrons in the inner shells because there is less space. The arrangement of the electrons in the atom's orbital shells is known as the electron configuration. Electron shells show a bias to being either full, empty or half full, with the exception of the outermost shell.

Here is a very good periodic table, it is an entire chemistry database. Hold the pointer over one of the elements and it will give you the electron configuration, from the nucleus outward, in the upper left. Click on an element and it will provide detailed information about it: www.ptable.com .

Ordinary chemistry does not concern the nucleus but only the interactions of the eight or fewer electrons in the outermost shell with those of other atoms. All of chemistry revolves around these eight or fewer outermost electrons. If an atom has three or fewer electrons in the outer shell, it loses those during a chemical reaction which forms a molecule, which is a group of atoms bound together to form a compound. If an atom has six or seven electrons in the outermost shell, it gains one or two during the reaction.

The migration of electrons from one atom to another during a reaction results, of course, in one gaining a net positive charge while the other gains a negative charge. This causes them to bond, forming what is known as an ionic bond.

But if an atom has four or five electrons in the outer shell, it enters an arrangement in which it neither loses or gains but rather shares these electrons with other atoms to form a bond. This is known as a covalent bond, because the electrons are co-owned with other atoms.

Not only do atoms have eight or fewer electrons in the outer shell, when the lighter and most abundant atoms combine to form molecules they tend to arrange themselves in such a way as to have eight outer electrons in the molecule. This is known as chemistry's "octet rule", and there is an article about it on www.wikipedia.org .

Just what is it about this number eight in chemistry? I cannot see that there is any real explanation for this. Even back in chemistry class, I thought that there must be some explanation for this out there somewhere.

Electrons mutually repel so that it is more "comfortable" for the atom to have a certain limit to the number of electrons in a shell, although more can "squeeze in" if repulsive pressure from the electrons above made it necessary. This is done because it is a lower energy state to crowd electrons together in inner orbitals than to have a maximum of eight electrons in all orbitals. But what might this tell us about the nature of reality?

Now, let's briefly review my cosmological theory.

The basics of my theory is that matter consists of strings in space that are aligned in mostly the same direction, but are not quite parallel to one another. These strings of matter were thrown across four dimensions of space by the Big Bang, which began the universe. The background space consists of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges. Everything falls into place around this simple model.

The greatest mystery of the universe concerns time. What exactly is time, from a physics point of view? I could not find an answer to that anywhere. I decided to find the answer for myself, and that is how I first thought of this model of the universe.

How about the speed of light? We know what it is and can measure it with great precision. But why is the speed of light what it is, and not some other speed? That is what no one could answer. Our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings, which compose our bodies and brains, at a rate which we perceive as the speed of light. That explains why we cannot find any physical explanation of what time is, it is within ourselves as the movement of our consciousness.

The direction in space along which the strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one of the four dimensions that we perceive as time, the other three we experience as space. This is why we perceive the fundamental building blocks of matter as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings. We can only see at right angles to the present position of our consciousness as it moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. To see more than this would be to see backwards or forwards in time.

This is also why the speed of light seems to us to be the maximum possible velocity in the universe. The inanimate matter that we see is really at rest, unless we move it. We perceive bundles of strings as objects in motion if the bundles of strings are not perfectly parallel to one another.

Let's now go back to chemistry.

Electrons in orbitals tend to arrange themselves in pairs, with opposite spin. There are four quantum numbers to designate electrons, and no two electrons in an atom can have identical numbers. My theory about this can be read in "The Electronic Model Of  Electron Orbitals" on the physics and astronomy blog. We know that the negatively-charged electrons mutually repel one another. Let's try to relate the arrangement of electrons to dimensions of space.

Consider one dimension, which is just a straight line. If we had a nucleus at one point on the line there would comfortably be room for two electrons, one on each side of the nucleus. An electron is considered as a dimensionless point particle. This must mean that if we had two dimensions, like a flat surface, there would comfortably be room for four electrons. With three dimensions, it would be six electrons.

But if we had four dimensions, which we do in my cosmological theory with one dimension of space being what we perceive as time, atoms and molecules would be most comfortable with eight electrons in the outer orbital, and this is the way it is.

The reason that the outer orbital is so important is that there is no "back pressure" from electrons in higher orbitals to "squeeze in" more electrons. So, my reasoning is that the nature of the outer orbital shell should reveal something about the nature of reality.

Not only that, but the maximum number of electrons in any shell of any atom is thirty-two. This must be a reflection of the nature of reality also. If we lived in only the three dimensions that we can move about in, these maximum numbers of electrons should reflect that. Electrons can be "squeezed into" orbitals, but since they mutually repel this must be done in an orderly manner that should also reflect the nature of reality. Notice that 32 is 8 x 4, or a double multiple of four as 4 x 4 x 2.

Remember the well-established principle in physics known as Occam's Razor. This states that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation. This may not be true in the world of people, and certainly is not true with natural history, but does seem to be true when dealing with physical sciences like chemistry and physics, and I think that this explanation of the basis of chemistry is about as simple as it is going to get and, once again, shows that my cosmological theory must be correct.

Temperature And Cosmology

Today, I would like to discuss the fascinating relationship between temperature and cosmology, which is the underlying structure of the universe.

First, let's briefly review the nature of temperature. Heat is the movement of atoms and molecules within matter. Some atoms or molecules may initially be moving faster than others. But collisions between them, which imparts kinetic energy to the slower moving ones, gradually evens out the energy of movement so that it creates a fairly uniform temperature.

If we were to make matter colder and colder, meaning that the component atoms or molecules are moving slower and slower, eventually we reach a point where all molecular motion has ceased and the matter cannot get any colder. This lowest possible temperature is known as absolute zero, because it is not possible to get any colder. Absolute zero is -273.16 Celsius, or -459 Fahrenheit.

The Celsius scale of temperature is based on water, which freezes or melts at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees. The Fahrenheit scale is arbitrary. A German scientist by that name chose a very cold day and designated the temperature as zero degrees, water at normal atmospheric pressure boils at 212 Fahrenheit.

You may notice that a temperature reading in Fahrenheit can easily be converted into Celsius by subtracting 32, and then multiplying by 5/9.

The science of extremely low temperatures is known as cryogenics. In discussing temperatures not far above absolute zero, we usually use what is known as the Kelvin Temperature Scale. Kelvin uses the same degrees to measure temperature as the Celsius Scale, but Kelvin begins at absolute zero rather than at the freezing point of water. This means that, in Kelvin, ice melts or water freezes at 273.16 degrees and water boils at 373.16 degrees.

At temperatures close to absolute zero, some strange things take place. If we take a tough and flexible sheet of rubber, and cool it to very low temperatures, it will easily shatter like glass. There is one experiment in which air is cooled so much that it liquifies. Then, if we dip a flower into the liquid air, the flower will shatter at the slightest impact like the most fragile glass.

This extreme brittleness as we near absolute zero cannot be explained by conventional chemistry. The rubber is so tough and flexible because it consists of very long molecules, known as polymers, which latch together to form a flexible material that is very difficult to tear or pull apart. The low temperatures do not change this structure. So, how can we explain such a drastic change in material properties due to temperature alone?

Now, let's briefly review my cosmological version of string theory.

So many otherwise unexplainable things about the universe and the nature of reality all fall neatly into place if we accept that matter consists of very long strings, originating and being thrown across space by the Big Bang, in more dimensions of space than we are able to access.

The fastest possible velocity is what we perceive as the speed of light, but that is only because this is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. This is why everything in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is a function of the speed of light, but we can find no real reason why the speed of light is what it is.

This means that there is one spatial dimension that we perceive as time. We cannot see into this dimension, but only into our usual three spatial dimensions. The result is that we perceive matter as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings because we can only see one spot on the string at a time. What we perceive as heat is explained in the theory as the bundles of strings that we see as atoms and molecules wrapped around one another, so that we see them as continuously colliding.

I find it to be extremely ironic that we measure both heat and angles in, apparently unrelated, units that we call degrees. My cosmological theory explains heat as the relative angles of the strings composing matter. When the strings are straight, relative to one another meaning no relative angles, we have the matter at a temperature of absolute zero.

A material, such as the rubber sheet, is actually held together by it's component strings being intertwined. We, in our limited dimensional state, do not see it this way. We see this intertwining of the strings composing the matter as atoms and molecules in continous collision, what we refer to as heat. The truth is, according to my cosmological theory, that it is this intertwining of strings that actually holds the material together.

At extremely low temperatures, the structure of polymers and complex molecules latched together is still there. But the fundamental bundles of strings, which we perceive as atoms, form nearly straight lines rather than being wrapped around one another. Without this intertwining of strings, the rubber sheet becomes extremely brittle, even though the latching together of complex molecules which seems to us to give the rubber it's strength, is still there.

I see this as yet more proof that the version of string theory must be correct.

We can see how this explanation of heat as actually the angular bend of the bundles of strings composing atoms and molecules in matter is reflected in what is known as the Ideal Gas Law. Basically a gas, such as oxygen or nitrogen in the air, takes up more volume when it's temperature is increased so that (pressure times volume) divided by absolute temperature remains roughly constant.

This is explained by temperature being actually the relative bend, or angle, of the strings composing the gas. A mass of strings, bent at a certain angle, will be aligned in all different directions. The strings will naturally require a minimum of space if they were all in straight lines so that they are aligned in the same direction. In this condition, we would perceive the material of which the strings are composed as being at a temperature of absolute zero.

More space is obviously required as the strings become more bent so that their directional alignment angles are increasingly different from one another, and to the direction along which they are primarily aligned. This is why we perceive a gas as requiring more volume as it's temperature increases.

Temperature of a gas requires a certain density. If a gas is too sparse, the concept of temperature is rather meaningless. It is the force of what we perceive as the collisions, rather than the what we perceive as the actual velocity of the what we perceive as the particles composing the matter, that makes up it's temperature.

The bends of individual bundles of strings, atoms, tend to even out to an average by interaction with one another, which we perceive as collisions. We experience this bending of the strings in all different directions as heat because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We know that there is a minimum temperature, absolute zero. But is there a maximum possible temperature, at least from our perception?

My conclusion as to maximum possible temperature is that temperature depends on this interweaving of strings, or the fundamental bundles of strings that we perceive as atoms, undergoing what we perceive as collisions due to heat energy. A single particle or atom or group of atoms in motion has no temperature. This must mean that there is, in fact, a maximum possible temperature and it can be described as a function of the speed of light.

A collection of the strings that we perceive as atoms or particles cannot be interweaved if their component strings are bent at an angle of more than 45 degrees, which in my string theory represents half of what we perceive as the speed of light. Therefore, the maximum possible temperature is when the rapidly colliding atoms are particles are moving with an average velocity of half the speed of light.

In other words, component particles with regard to temperature cannot be moving away from each other at more than what we perceive as the speed of light. Remember that if the matter we are dealing with is enclosed in a container of some type, the atoms of which the conatiner is composed is also a part of the average.

This cannot, unfortunately, be readily expressed in degrees of temperature because it would be different for different component particles because the heavier the particle, the more kinetic energy in their motion and thus the higher the possible temperature.

We can state that, at least theoretically, the energy required to heat a given mass to it's maximum possible temperature is equal to energy required to accelerate the mass, as a whole, to half the speed of light. I say "theoretically" because some of the energy, applied as heat, could go to breaking atoms apart into their component particles at such high temperatures, as well as being lost by radiation, instead of going toward the actual raising of the temperature.

Memory And Cosmology

Here is a question to ponder about your brain. Think of all the memories that you have about all you have ever done and seen in your life. Remember also that you probably have a whole storehouse of memories that come back to you with some type of cue, such as hearing an old song. That can only mean that the memories must have been there all along.

Now, consider that the functional part of your brain is really no bigger than an apple or an orange. Aside from memory, the brain has a great number of other tasks, from movement of involuntary muscles to processing the information received from the senses. Furthermore, the material of which our brains are composed is up to 90% water.

So, here is the question: How, in physical terms, can all of the memory that the average person has be stored in a volume the size of the brain?

Every bit of information that your senses ever receives leaves an impression on the brain. But how can it be possible to store it all? Storage cannot be accomplished in units as small as the molecular level, for example, simply because the stored information must be accessible to some read/write process, just as in a computer.

My conclusion is that there is absolutely no way our brains can even begin to store the unfathomable volume of information that we have in our memories if the brain is, in fact, the three-dimensional object as it appears to us. It is not necessary to go into brain physiology here. In memory units, such as the bits in a computer, it is utterly impossible to store even one percent of the memory of the average person in a manner that can work with the electric input/output process that the brain uses.

How can we possibly have all of the memory that we do, considering what must be the strict limitations of brain capacity? As far as I know, it has never been demonstrated that there is, in fact, any kind of limit to how much memory a person can have. Also, notice that the size of a person's brain does not seem to have much to do with the volume of memory that they have.

There has just got to be some kind of hidden memory storage somewhere. But how can that be?

Now, consider my version of string theory "The Theory of Stationary Space". In the theory our bodies and brains, as well as all matter, is not really composed of the sub-atomic particles that we perceive. All such particles are actually one-dimensional strings stretching across the universe from the site of the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it.

Our consciousness progresses along the bundles of strings, of which our brains are composed, at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is why the speed of light seems to us to be the maximum possible velocity. Motion, including heat and electricity, results from our perspective because the strings, and bundles of strings, are not perfectly straight relative to one another.

This means that our brains are actually four-dimensional, not three-dimensional as we see it. This explains why we can store such a fantastic amount of memory in such a strictly limited space. Your brain stretches backward, in the fourth dimension of space that we perceive as time, to your birth.

Whenever you remember something in the past, your consciousness actually travels back in time to that point. Time, of course, is not really time but space. Your consciousness is continuously moving along your bundle of strings, at what we perceive as the speed of light, but the places where the consciousness has already been are still accessible.

This past access is instantaneous, it is not limited to the "speed of light" as we perceive the movement of information to be. This shows that there is really no such thing as the speed of light, this illusion is produced by the movement of our consciousness and creates the present, in relation to the rest of what we perceive as time.

How could it possibly be otherwise? If this is not true then how can our brains possibly store so much memory?

The Wave Congruence Hypothesis

Water waves are often used as an analogy for electromagnetic waves, such as radio, infrared, visible light and, ultraviolet. Both types of wave have wavelength, frequency and, amplitude. The difference, of course, is that we can actually see how water waves operate. The visible light that we can see is a narrow section of the electromagnetic spectrum, but we cannot see how it operates.

There are also sound waves, which travel through various materials. Sound operates in a way similar to the waves in water, except that they involve alternating compressions and rarefactions in the medium, rather than crests and troughs (the high and low points of the wave). Sound also travels very well through water, which is why whales can communicate over great distances.

All waves are actually electromagnetic in nature. This is the only force that can create physical waves. The waves of the electromagnetic spectrum are electromagnetic in that by disturbing the perfect checkerboard alternation of negative and positive charges, as I described in the theory, they uncover the underlying electromagnetism of space itself. We do not otherwise perceive space as electromagnetic simply because it's component charges balance out to zero. The movement of charges in matter, such as electrons moving in a radio transmission antenna, disturb the charged particles of space nearby by attracting opposite charges and repelling like charges, which further disturb the charged particles further out, thus creating a wave which uncovers the underlying electromagnetism of space.

Waves in matter, such as water waves, also operate by electromagnetism. But these waves operate by repulsion only, not by opposite charge attraction. The force that creates these waves is electron repulsion. The electrons in the outer shells of atoms in a stone thrown into a pond, or in the hull of a ship moving through the sea, repel the like-charged electrons in the atoms of water, pushing the molecules of water outward, and thus creating the wave.

Both waves manifest the same three parameters; wavelength, frequency and, amplitude (the height or strength of the wave). Both are created by electromagnetism involving movement of matter. The water waves exist in matter only, the electromagnetic waves exist in space but are initiated by matter and affect matter across space. The electromagnetic waves result from both attraction of opposite charges and mutual repulsion of like charges, while the water waves result from electron repulsion only.

My Theory of Stationary Space is that space and matter are merely different arrangements of the same thing. If we had a pattern of perfectly alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges, we have space. If we have strings of such charges, with the string a single charge throughout, we have matter. If the movement of a matter charge produces waves in the sorrounding space by the attraction of opposite charges and the repulsion of like charges in the space, we have an electromagnetic wave.

I consider it as proof enough of my concept that space and matter are actually different arrangments of the same thing, that matter can create waves in the charges of space that can affect matter across that space. But as additional proof, I maintain that the close similarity of water and sound waves to electromagnetic waves, all manifest the same parameters of frequency, wavelength and, amplitude, is proof that, as my cosmological theory explains, space and matter are merely different forms of the same thing, which is a near-infinity of infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges.

Basic Physics And Cosmology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cosmic Rays And Relativity

The term "cosmic rays" is actually somewhat of a misnomer. Cosmic rays are really particles of matter, and not electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are not the same thing as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation from the Big Bang, which began the universe. Most cosmic ray particles are believed to be protons. Alpha particles, helium nuclei, are also present and there are some nuclei of heavier elements.

There is a basic conundrum with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity involving these cosmic ray particles. According to Einstein's theory, an object moving at the speed of light would have infinite mass. Then according to Newton's Laws, the gravitational pull of an object is proportional to it's mass, so that an object with infinite mass should also have infinite gravity.

Yet, there are numerous particles in cosmic rays that have mass and move at, or near, the speed of light but do not have infinite gravity. If they did, they would twist the entire universe around with their gravity. Every such particle would be, essentially, a miniature black hole.

It does not matter how small these particles are, they should still have infinite gravity if they have the infinite mass that they should have if they were moving at the speed of light. A millionth of infinity is still infinity. The muons formed in the earth's atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions display relativistic effects, such as time dilation.

But yet, these particles clearly do not have infinite gravity, or any great gravitational pull at all. This must mean that Einstein's relativistic mass describes the increasing difficulty of accelerating the mass to higher velocities, but not the gravitational pull of that mass.

Consider also that the earth's magnetic field, which is relatively weak, deflects the particles in cosmic rays. How could it possibly do so if the particles had the tremendous mass that relativity theory postulates they should? Cosmic ray particles follow the earth's magnetic lines of force, which come together at the magnetic poles, creating the northern lights at the north magnetic pole.

The reason that cosmic ray particles do not have such extreme gravity is explained by my cosmological theory. I explain how the speed of light does not really exist, it is only the apparent speed of light that we perceive. So, the infinite relativistic mass of an object moving at the apparent speed of light is not really infinite, it is only apparently infinite.

An object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light is actually only a bundle of strings at right angles to our bundle of strings so that we perceive it as moving at the speed at which our consciousness is actually moving along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains.

We also perceive the entire length of the strings at one instant, instead of only one point on the strings every instant as we would if the bundle of strings were parallel to our bundle. This causes us the perceive the bundle of strings as having infinite mass while moving at the speed of light. The infinite comes from the essentially infinite length of the strings in the bundle.

Remember that the speed of light is really an angle, a 90 degree angle, and not a speed. We experience one dimension of space as time as our consciousness moves along our bundle of strings aligned primarily in that dimension. This causes us to perceive strings as particles, because there is one dimension of space that we cannot see but experience as time.

There actually is apparently infinite mass in an object or particle moving at what we perceive as the speed of light. But, in my theory, this is balanced by the fact that it's mass is spread over an infinite distance, the theoretical length of the strings composing the object.

If this model of the universe that I have presented were not correct, the gravity produced by the relativistic mass of cosmic ray particles should be warping and twisting the universe with their near-infinite gravitational pull, yet this is clearly not the case. Relativistic mass is only apparent mass, because the speed of light is only the apparent speed of light.

The relativistic mass of Einstein's theory is entirely a matter of perception. We would perceive an object moving at the speed of light as having infinite mass, but it would not perceive itself as having infinite mass. Instead, it would perceive us as having infinite mass. So, there is no real infinite mass. If there were, it would pull the entire universe in around it.

This is because, as my theory points out, there is no real speed of light to bring about relativistic mass. It is only something that we perceive. Einstein has a remarkable record of being right, but he explained how things would appear rather than how things actually are.

The speed of light, and all of the effects associated with it, is only a right angle between two bundles of strings as our consciousness rushes by on one of the bundles. This is why cosmic ray particles moving at, or near, the speed of light do not manifest anything like the infinite gravity that they should if they truly did have infinite mass.

What about kinetic energy? A particle with infinite mass should also have infinite kinetic energy, since that is proportional to it's velocity and it's mass. Yet, this is not the case either and it shows that the relativistic effects associated with the speed of light are only apparent because, as my theory describes, the speed of light itself is only apparent. It is only something that we perceive.

How does a nuclear reaction relate to relativity?

When an atom is split, the two resulting positively-charged nuclei will seek to get away from each other as efficiently as possible, in the shortest possible distance, without the binding energy to hold them together any longer. This is because like charges repel. The way to accomplish this is for the two new nuclei to go in diametrically opposite directions. This basically means that the bundle of strings comprising the whole nuclei will bend at right angles.

Since a right angle in four (or more) dimensional space is perceived by us as an object moving at the speed of light, the two new nuclei will seem to move in opposite directions from one another at the speed of light. This is why Einstein's formula for such releases of energy from matter is E = MC squared.

As I described in the posting on this blog, "Basic Physics And Cosmology", the C in the formula is for the speed of light, or Constant, is squared meaning that there must be two speeds of light. One is for the movement of our consciousness, and the other is for the sudden right angle formed by the new nuclei. The right angle forms the square in the formula.

The tremendous energy of the reaction is from particles, moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, colliding with other matter, and transferring it's kinetic energy to it.

This all makes sense for the E = MC squared, but what about the relativistic mass and it's energy implications for the two new nuclei? The concept that no matter can ever move at the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass at that point and so would require an infinite force to propel it to higher speeds, and such an infinite force is impossible, cannot possibly be correct.

The two new nuclei, resulting from the split of the larger atom, must initially move at what we perceive as the speed of light, at least until they collide with other matter, or else it would not be squared in Einstein's formula. If it really required an infinite force to accelerate matter to the speed of light, binding energy would have to be infinite. Since the universe is finite and does not have an infinite amount of energy in it, that would mean that atoms are not even possible.

Clearly, that is not the case.

What about the relativistic mass of the two new nuclei moving at the apparent speed of light? Going back to the finite binding energy in the nucleus, there would not have been the supposedly infinite energy required to accelerate the new nuclei to the apparent speed of light.

Furthermore, if it took an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the new nuclei from the split atom to the speed of light, then the kinetic energy possessed by these nuclei should be infinite. That should mean that a single small nuclear reactor would be able to provide much more than all of the energy requirements of the entire world.

Once again, clearly this is not the case.

So, these relativistic rules of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity cannot mean that it actually takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle or nuclei to what we perceive as the speed of light, or that the particle or nuclei would possess infinite kinetic energy if it did move at the speed of light.

We can only conclude that relativistic effects are correct, but that is only the way that it appears to us and not the way that reality actually is. The reason for this discrepancy is, as my cosmological theory describes, that the speed of light, upon which relativity is based, is not real but only something that we perceive.

I would like to write some more about the connection between cosmic rays and relativity.

Has anyone ever wondered about what relationship there might be between electric charges and the speed of light? In Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, the ordinary laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. These include the rules governing mass, time and, distance. If the most fundamental aspect of the physical universe is the rules of electric charges of which everything is ultimately composed, then why shouldn't the rules of these charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, also be affected by the speed of light? Gravity is a force, but every planet or other gravitational mass has an escape velocity. Doesn't it also make sense that the rules of the positive and negative electric charges begin to change, with the other laws of physics, when the speed of light becomes involved?

Consider the phenomenon known as cosmic ray spallation. We know that heavier elements are cooked up under the extreme heat and pressure in the centers of stars as smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. If the star explodes in a supernova, these heavier atoms are scattered across space as cosmic dust. The atoms are thus exposed to the cosmic rays in space, and some of the heavier atoms may be broken back down into lighter elements as the high-speed protons and alpha particles strike the nucleus of an atom and the force splits the atom into two smaller ones.

The term "cosmic rays" is actually a misnomer from the days when it was thought to be electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic rays are actually positively-charged particles, mostly protons and alpha particles, travelling at nearly the speed of light. An alpha particle is essentially a helium nucleus.

Here is the question which immediately arises. We use neutrons as high-speed "bullets" in nuclear reactors to split atoms by striking the nucleus because the electron has a neutral electric charge and so will not be diverted from it's course by like-charge repulsion with either the positively-charged nucleus of a target atom or the negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around that atom. So how then can a positively-charged cosmic ray particle strike a nucleus, which is also positively-charged, so that it can split the nucleus in two? Wouldn't like-charge repulsion prevent that from happening?

We saw the reason why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in the most famous formula of the Twentieth Century E = MC squared. This means that energy equal mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. In other words, a small amount of matter is equivalent to a tremendous amount of energy.

My theory defines what we perceive as the speed of light as simply a right angle to the directional alignment of the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. A particle, which is actually a string, will seem to us to be a particle rushing past at the speed of light if it is at a right angle to our bundles of strings. It is actually our consciousness which is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is in E = MC squared the first time.

The second speed of light in the formula is the direction which two like-charges go, to get away from each other with maximum efficiency, when the binding energy in a nucleus is suddenly released as the nucleus is split. Each would go in a straight line, in diametrically opposite directions. Since the nucleus was actually a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, this would mean that the path of each freed positively-charged section of the nucleus would fly off at a right angle to the bundle of strings into which it had previously been bound. This would appear to us as if both were moving in directions opposite to one another at the speed of light.

The speed of light of our consciousness and that of the newly-freed like-charged sections of the nucleus which has been split are at right angles to one another because our consciousness is moving along the bundle and the two freed sections of the nucleus with like electric charge are moving away from one another with the maximum efficiency, which is opposite directions along a straight line which is at a right angle to the bundle within which they were previously bound to one another. There is no speed greater than the speed of light simply because there is no angle greater than a right angle.

The heat generated by a nuclear reaction results from the split sections of the nucleus moving outward at the speed of light, equivalent to a right angle, but then imparting momentum to the numerous other strings (perceived as particles) with which it collides. Heat is the kinetic energy of all of those particles. So, if matter and antimatter, where the electric charges are reversed from ordinary matter, are brought into contact the result is a tremendous burst of energy and mutual annihilation. If two like-charged particles, such as protons in a nucleus, are bound together by binding energy but then suddenly released, they will put distance between themselves with maximum efficiency by moving apart at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We can thus see how the behavior of electric charges, specifically like-charge repulsion, is related to the speed of light. So, it should then make sense that we can turn this around and overcome the rules of electric charges with the speed of light. Special Relativity stipulates that the fundamental laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light. Everything in the universe is ultimately based on these fundamental electric charges. So doesn't it make sense that the changing of the rules as we approach the speed of light would be based on a changing of the rules of electric charges as we approach the speed of light?

The reason that the basic rules of attraction and repulsion of electric charges must change as we approach the speed of light, and change the other laws of physics along with it, is based on simple geometry. If we consider two electric charges as two adjacent strings, the more parallel the two the greater should be the attraction or repulsion between them. If the two strings intersect at a right angle, the attraction of opposite charges or repulsion of like charges would be at a minimum.

We can see in my theory that the speed of light is actually a right angle, and that it is the greatest possible speed simply because a right angle is the greatest possible angle. The laws of physics break down as we approach the speed of light simply because all of those laws are ultimately based on the underlying electric charges which comprise everything and the rules of electric charges change at what we perceive as the speed of light due to simple geometry, showing that matter is indeed composed of strings even though we perceive them as particles.

This is why cosmic ray spallation can take place, because cosmic rays are moving at near the speed of light even though the rules of electric charges state that the positively-charged nucleus and the positively-charged particle should mutually repel. They do not repel because such repulsion mean two like-charged strings bending at right angles in opposite directions, to maximize the distance between them, and the two are already at a right angle because the speed of light is really a right angle.

The true nature of cosmic rays was not known in 1905, when Einstein introduced the Special Theory of Relativity, or he may have included this in the theory.

Gravity And Time

In my Theory Of Stationary Space, matter consists of bundles of strings in background space of at least four dimensions. One of these spatial dimensions is what we experience as time because our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This causes us to see matter as consisting of particles rather than strings, such as electrons and quarks, because we can only see in three of the (at least) four dimensions. This also explains why the speed of light seems to be the maximum possible speed, but we have no physical explanation of why this speed is what it is.

As I have described, the spatial direction of our time flow moves away from the Big Bang because we perceive this as the beginning of the universe. Even though it is space which separates us from the Big Bang, we perceive it as time because it lies in the direction along which our bundles of strings are aligned, and along which our consciousness moves.

I am certain that we are traveling in the "right" direction as far as time goes. After all, the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and it seems logical that our direction of time flow in space should be away from it.

But even so, it wouldn't be breaking any basic rules if our experience of time flowed in the opposite direction, toward the Big Bang, since time is really a dimension of space. But what would it look like to us if this opposite time direction were the case? What would the basic laws of physics be like to us?

To begin with, since what we perceive as time is actually a dimension of space, if it were reversed then the other spatial directions would have to be reversed also. North would be what was south, and east would be what was west.

The significant thing about this thought experiment of having our time flow in the opposite direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is what it reveals about gravity. As it is now, we see objects apart but waiting to be pulled together by gravity. If time were reversed, we would see objects together but waiting to fall apart.

The point of this is that gravity is actually a function of time. It is true that gravity is an attractive force as long as time moves forward. However, I think that I have shown beyond any doubt that time is anything but absolute. It is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since gravity must be a function of time, because gravity creates motion and motion is a function of time, the revelation that time does not really exist, but is only the way that we perceive a dimension of space, forces us to redefine gravity.

It is important to understand that to grasp this concept, we must eliminate from our minds all of the "new motion" that comes from living things. This includes anything constructed by, or altered by, living things. Nothing in inanimate reality is really in motion, or has been in motion since it was thrown out across space by the Big Bang. But living things came along with the ability to move things and make changes to the environment, this is referred to as "new motion".

I explained that while the principle of entropy is often cited as proof that time can never be reversed, this is really not the case because all meaningful examples of entropy involve either living things or things made by living things. One example is the bottle of ink placed in an aquarium filled with water, the ink flows out of the bottle and mixes with the water much more easily than it flows back into the bottle. But this involves items made by and altered by living things (us), it only shows that our time direction is not reversible. It does not apply to inanimate matter.

The point of this concept is that the universe is neutral with respect to gravity, whether it is an attractive or a repulsive force depends on which time direction that we move in. Living things are designed to move in one time direction only. If we were to reverse time as I am describing here, we would not have people walking backward.

Moving in our time direction away from the Big Bang, we see the gravity of a star's mass crunching together smaller atoms into larger ones. If we moved in the opposite time direction, we would see larger atoms being pulled apart by gravity into smaller ones.

If the flow of time were reversed, nuclear fusion would be replaced by fission. In the present time direction, we perceive the extreme gravity in centers of stars overpowering the electron repulsion of electromagnetism to crunch small atoms together into larger ones. If time were reversed, we would perceive the gravity in centers of stars as overpowering the strong nuclear force in pulling large atoms apart into smaller ones.

The nuclear binding energy curve, of the binding energy holding nuclei together, would be inverted. Stars would seem to generate energy by fission, rather than fusion, but the fission would result from reversed gravity, and not from neutrons colliding with the nucleus. Instead of smaller atoms being crunched together, and releasing excess binding energy when they combine to form a larger atom, it would be inverted in that the energy would appear to be released when the larger atom is pulled apart by reverse gravity. Since gravity works with the strong nuclear force to fuse atoms, if gravity were inverted the binding energy curve would also be inverted.

In the opposite time direction, gravity would work against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei against the electromagnetic repulsion of like-charged protons. The creation of elements from one another involves a competition between the basic forces of nature. In our present time direction, gravity in the center of a star works against the electromagnetic repulsion that keeps atoms separate by the like charges of the electrons in neighboring atoms.

Thus, electromagnetism dominates until the sheer mass of the star allows gravity to overwhelm it. If time were reversed, we would perceive the balance of forces as having shifted. Gravity would now be working against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei together, rather than against electromagnetism. There would still be the competition between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, concerning the formation of elements from one another, but gravity would have changed sides.

The electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces would not be changed if our time flow was in the opposite direction. Like charges would still repel, and opposite charges would still attract. Negative would still be negative, and a positive charge would still be positive. The strong nuclear force would still provide the binding energy to hold the like-charged protons together against electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus. It is only gravity that would be different.

Picture space as something like a rubber sheet, and this makes perfect sense considering the well-proven Lense-Thirring Effect described by Einstein, otherwise known as "frame-dragging". The simplest way of proving that space actually behaves like a fabric is that a satellite in orbit around the earth will have it's position gradually shifted by the rotation of the earth because this rotation pulls the sorrounding space with it, to some degree. My cosmological theory describes space as infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions, so it makes sense that it can be "pulled" to a certain extent.

My conclusion is that if the rotation of a planet can have an effect on space by "pulling" it along with the rotation, what about the expansion of the entire universe? This expansion has got to have some local effects that we can observe or measure. Whether the universe, as a whole, is expanding or contracting depends, of course, on which way our time direction is flowing.

When we move away from the Big Bang in time, as we do, we perceive the universe as expanding but gravity as an attractive force, pulling matter together, on a local scale. The local effect opposes the state of the universe as a whole. this is rather like pulling a rubber band so that it expands, and the band tries to counteract this by contracting.

If our time direction was toward the Big Bang, we would perceive just the opposite. The universe would seem to be contracting, as a whole, but gravity would be counteracting this by acting as a repulsive force. This would be like squeezing a rubber ball so that the ball tries to counteract by pushing outward.

This scenario does imply that gravity must be getting stronger, from our point of view, as we move along in our present time flow direction. Although this occurs much too slowly for us to perceive. This strengthening is because the space in the material universe is becoming more stretched by it's expansion, and it tries to resist this stretching. If we were moving in the opposite time direction, gravity would be getting weaker while the universe was contracting, until it could not hold matter together at all.

Gravity would actually be more complex than simple attraction or repulsion, because of the apparent expansion or contraction of the universe, according to our direction of time flow. In the opposite time direction, gravity would seem to be a repulsive force on a local scale, but an attractive force in the universe as a whole, because the universe would appear to be contracting.

This means that we could describe gravity in terms of osmosis. This is a chemical and biological principle that apparently has nothing to do with gravity, but provides an excellent analogy. In a simple example of osmosis, if salt is concentrated in a certain portion of a volume of water, osmosis will tend to move water into the concentration until the salt is evenly distributed in the water.

In the opposite time direction gravity would be an osmotic force, trying to even the distribution of matter in space by repulsion at the local level and attraction in the universe as a whole. In our present time direction, away from the Big Bang, gravity can be described as a clumping force, or anti-osmotic. It pulls matter together locally, even as the universe expands as a whole. The "clumps" of matter held together by gravity would be groups of galaxies.

What about the time dimension of space? I mean the dimension of space along which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains are aligned. This is the dimension going toward and away from the Big Bang. The universe is neither expanding nor contracting in that dimension. Therefore, according to this theory, there should be no gravity in that dimension.

But what about cosmic rays? These rays, which are not really rays but particles of matter, bombard us from all directions in space, and move at, or close to, the speed of light. Now according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a body moving at the speed of light should have infinite mass. Since gravity is proprtional to mass, it should also have infinite gravity. This should be true even for a sub-atomic particle. These cosmic ray particles are particles with mass, not massless neutrinos.

By the way, I discussed this in depth in the posting "Cosmic Rays And Relativity" and how it proves that my cosmological model must be correct.

Obviously, the particles comprising cosmic rays certainly do not have infinite gravity. They would pull the entire universe in around them if they did. We cannot see that such particles, moving close together in the same direction, have any gravitational effect on each other, or other matter, at all. Strings of matter do not occupy all spatial dimensions, meaning that there would be no gravity in the dimensions perpendicular to the dimension along which the strings of matter are aligned. So, an object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light, which is actually perpendicular to our time dimension, actually has no weight at all from it's own point of view.

This model also helps to explain why electromagnetic waves have no mass. My theory defines space as a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges. Space does not have mass, and it defines what masslessness is. Matter is defined as long strings of an electric charge. Since this is a disruption of the neutral space pattern, matter does have mass. Electromagnetic waves are also disruptions in the perfect checkerboard of background space charged particles. These waves affect the matter which has mass, but have no mass themselves due to the dimension of space lacking parallel strings of matter in which they exist.

This means that if the so-called "Steady-State" model of the universe, in which there was no Big Bang, no known beginning, and no apparent expansion or contraction were correct, there would also be no gravity, either attractive or repulsive.

Living beings, moving in the opposite time direction, could conceivably co-exist. They would perceive one another as moving backward. If they could communicate, they could tell each other what was in their future, but only for the speaker's own past and for inanimate matter outside of the creatures themselves and their influence, such as earthquakes, meteorite impacts and, supernovae.

Beings with a reverse time direction would perceive the universe as having been created in the past (our future), but in the process of coming apart by reverse gravity. Gravity would seem to be an osmotic force evening out the distribution of matter, with the osmotic force getting stronger as time progressed. A ball thrown into the air would still fall back down because the reverse gravity is not yet strong enough for it to be otherwise.

Just as gravity seems to get stronger to us as it pulls mass together, due to the increasing concentration of mass, reverse gravity would appear to get stronger as it pulls mass apart. They would perceive that there was attractive gravity that created the universe in their past (our future), but that gravity was in the process of evening out the matter in the universe in an osmotic way. The stronger the gravity, such as in the centers of stars, the more it is reversed.

We know that our apparent expansion of the universe is not due to gravity, but those with the opposite time direction would have no Big Bang in their past as a reference point, and it would appear that gravity is an osmotic force.

Instead of perceiving matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when the two are brought into contact, those in the opposite time direction would perceive spontaneous creation out of empty space, equal amounts of matter and antimatter along with the burst of energy. There would be many such "Big Bangs" instad of the single one that we, in our time direction, perceive. They would have our Big Bang far in their future. But if beings in the reverse time direction put matter and antimatter together, they would get the mutual annihilation and burst of energy.

By the way, I find that this time perspective on the relationship between matter and antimatter strongly indicates that the Big Bang was such a mutual annihilation, as I speculated in the cosmological theory.

We see at 45 degrees into the past dimension, as I described in "Why We Perceive The Speed of Light". This means that, if our direction of time flow were reversed, the groups of galaxies in the wider universe would seem to be much further apart then they do to us, although they would appear to be gradually moving closer.

In summary, gravity as we see it now is a function of time. That means that, if time turns out to only be something that we perceive and not a part of inanimate reality, gravity must also be something other than it seems to us. We are designed to move in one time direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, but it would not be breaking any fundamental rules if our time flow was in the opposite direction so that the Big Bang appeared in the future, rather than in the past. But since gravity is a function of time, because it creates motion which is a function of time, it would have to be reversed if our time direction was reversed.

But how can a basic force of nature be reversed if time, which we only perceive, was reversed? None of the other forces of nature, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei, would be reversed.

There is one very simple, clear and, obvious explanation. If time were reversed, the apparent expansion of the universe would also be reversed. If space can be shown to behave like a fabric by the Lense-Thirring Effect (frame dragging), then the expansion of the universe on a large scale must also have some type of local effects.

Indeed it does. But whether the universe, as a whole, is contracting or expanding, the local effect is of space resisting by either being an attractive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as expanding, or being a repulsive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as contracting.

Black Holes And Antimatter

There was recently an article in the news about black holes. A black hole is an extremely concentrated mass, bound by it's tremendous gravity. The gravity of a black hole is so intense that nothing can ever escape it, supposedly not even light. Hence the name.

There is believed to be a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In recent years, black holes have become a staple of space science.

But yet, it has been found that black holes actually do decay over time, and also emit radiation. This decay can only mean that matter is somehow leaving the black hole. How can we account for this?

As it turns out, my cosmological theory offers a relatively simple explanation for why black holes decay over time. In the posting, "The Beginning Of The Universe", I explained how charge migration took place in the original two-dimensional sheet of space, before the bonds disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions leaving us with the one-dimensional strings thrown out across the universe that we today know as matter.

In this primeval charge migration, one side of the sheet became the negative side, and the other the positive side. The negative side formed electrons when one of the two dimensional bonds disintegrated, and the positive side formed positrons which are the antimatter equivalent of electrons.

This charge migration took place because the universe seeks the condition of lowest tension, since this is also the lowest energy state. This seeking of the lowest energy state is the reason that a ball will fall to the ground when you drop it, it takes less energy for it to fall that it does to oppose gravity to keep it in the air.

There is tension in space between the checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges that compose space. But charge migration, to bring about a state of lower tension, does not take place because there are so many dimensions of space. It was much easier for it to take place in the original sheet of space because there were only two dimensions.

Black holes are unlike anything else in the universe. The movement of matter is governed by electromagnetism. The electron repulsion of the negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of atoms is what causes matter to move when force is exerted on it by other matter. This same electron repulsion is what prevents objects on the surface of the earth from falling to the earth's center of gravity. Atoms are almost entirely empty space, but the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms composing the earth and the atoms in the outer shells of objects on the earth's surface repel one another, this is because like charges repel and all electrons are negatively-charged.

When matter is brought together, the electric charges do not move at all. Negative remain negative, and positive remains positive. It is matter which moves to accommodate these electromagnetic forces.

But the inside of a black hole is completely different from anything else in the universe. Not even the centers of stars, where smaller atoms are crushed together into larger atoms, are remotely like the gravitational stress that matter undergoes in a black hole. At least atoms can move in the centers of stars, so that they can be combined together.

If matter is subject to extreme stresses, unlike anything else in the universe, meaning that like charges are being forced together by the unfathomable gravity. And if it is possible for charges to actually migrate within matter in a way similar to the original sheet of space, which became what we know as matter, as described in "The Beginning Of The Universe", why couldn't charges within black holes simply migrate to relieve the extreme stresses?

My cosmological theory explains how the nature of the universe first seeks charge balance, and secondly seeks the lowest energy level. This is explained in the posting "Gamma Ray Bursts". The universe could drastically lower it's energy level by minimizing the forces working against each other inside a black hole by simply having negative and positive charges rearrange themselves.

Since the matter itself cannot possibly move, this would involve the negative and positive charges trading places. As long as the overall charge balance of the universe remains zero, this would not be breaking any fundamental rules.

But then, if we have charges moving within matter, this means that matter will sometimes be changing into antimatter. We know that when matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Both space and matter, as well as antimatter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. When matter and antimatter are brought together, they mutually annihilate as they rearrange their charge arrangement back into that of space. The energy that was holding their bonds together is released.

So, there we have it. This simple scenario explains both why black holes eventually decay, and why they release energy. Decay would seem impossible with the gravity so extreme that no matter can possibly escape. But the matter isn't actually escaping the black hole into space, it is mutually annihilating as matter and antimatter.

One complication that is pointed out about the decay of Black Holes, and the corresponding release of radiation, is the so-called "information paradox". If a star condensed by gravity to ultimately form a black hole, and there must have been information in that star concerning it's structure and the structures of it's atoms, then what happened to that information when the black hole decays? We know that information can never disappear altogether.

But my way of explaining it here leaves no such missing information. The black hole contained all of the information that was in the star. The decay of a black hole, until nothing remains but empty space, is a kind of a long and slow matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of matter. But just as all of the information that was in the matter and antimatter is not lost, but is contained in the burst of energy that is released by the reaction, so the radiation that is released by the slow decay of the black hole also contains all of the information that was in the matter of the black hole, and the star before it. This radiation released by a decaying black hole is sometimes referred to as "Hawking Radiation".

My theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it. Not only is all of the information that was in the black hole and the star before it included in the radiation that escapes a black hole, all of the energy that was in the atoms of the matter of the star and black hole escapes too.

Remember that space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Energy ultimately opposes the rules of the basic charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Energy makes it possible to overcome the repulsion between like charges so that matter can be brought into being. The original infinitesimal electric charges still exist but negative charges can be cobbled together to form electrons and positive charges to form protons. But this joining together of like charges involves both energy and information, which is actually the same thing.

By the way, this also neatly explains what gravity is. Not only are the sum of negative and positive charges in the universe equal, the two basic rules about the attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges is also equal. Energy overcomes the repulsion of opposite charges, so that matter which is a concentration of charges can exist. But this leaves an imbalance between the two basic rules of electric charges, so that the attractive force is more prevalent than the repulsive force. This leaves us with the net attractive force between matter that we refer to as gravity.

When a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation takes place, or when a black hole decays, the radiation that is released contains all of the energy and information that the matter had contained. The energy and information radiates away into space, and no information is lost.

Remember that, in this cosmological theory, electromagnetic radiation is a displacement in the pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges that composes space. This pattern of displacement radiates out across space as a wave which reflects the nature of the information which produced it. This is what energy does in matter, it displaces the usual alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges so that charged particles (actually strings) such as nucleons and electrons can be cobbled together from like charges.

After the mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter, or as a black hole decays, the displacement of electric charges due to energy remains exactly the same, except that now it is dispersed across a wide area of space instead of concentrated in matter. The matter, antimatter and, black hole seem to disappear, but no energy or information at all is lost.

I can think of no better, or indeed any other, explanation of how a black hole could decay.

Remember that in physics, there is an age-old principle known as "Occam's Razor" which stipulates that the simplest explanation for something us usually the best explanation. This may not be true when dealing with people, but it does seem to be the case with physics. This shows from yet another perspective how this model of the universe must be correct.

THE MATTER CYCLE

There is a close relationship between the quantum level and the astronomical levels of reality that I have never before seen pointed out, and which provides more proof of my cosmological theory that both space and matter are composed of infinitesimal electric charges, that space is an alternating checkerboard of these charges and that matter is a concentration of the charges other than the checkerboard pattern of space.

I also have a physics and astronomy blog. The difference between cosmology and ordinary physics and astronomy is that if a concept can be explained without involving the additional dimensions of space in my cosmology theory that we cannot see or the composition of space and matter as the fundamental negative and positive electric charges, then it gets classified as ordinary physics or astronomy.

Have you ever questioned why books tend to depict neutrons and protons, in the nucleus of atoms, as neat little spheres? Planets and stars are spherical in form, but that is due to gravity creating a form with the lowest energy state. There is no such force at the level of the atomic nucleus that would dictate that protons and neutrons had to be spherical.

I find that, if we can get away from thinking of nucleons, as protons and neutrons are referred to, as spherical in form, it helps to explain the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. Nucleons are actually made of mixed charges, composed of smaller particles called quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2/3, and a down quark has a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks and a down quark have a net charge of + 1, and forms a proton. Two down quarks and one up quark has a neutral charge, and forms a neutron.

In my theory of binding energy, when smaller atoms in stars are crunched together in the center of the star to form larger atoms, the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star applies pressure on the nucleons so that the mixed negative and positive charges are displaced so that they face off, and so the nucleus can hold together. I described this in "The Nature Of Binding Energy", on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .

Remember that at the nuclear scale, there is really no such thing as energy inefficiency. All energy has to be applied in some way so that it makes changes. An engine has a degree of inefficiency because force and heat is dissipated into the surrounding atoms. But at the nuclear level, there is nowhere to dissipate it to.

There is a force within each nucleon which holds it's component quarks together, the force is sometimes referred to as gluons. In the nucleus, the nucleons remain intact and do not merge together. This is because the force holding the quarks of the nucleons together is stronger than that holding the nucleus together.

If we compare the astronomical and quantum levels, we see that each change in quantum structure due to gravity corresponds to a different astronomical body, which is the venue for changes due to gravitational pressure.

Remember that, in my cosmological theory, matter originates from a sheet of space that was not joined by it's structure of alternating electric charges to the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet was thus folded relative to the background space and the negative side came in contact with the positive side, causing one dimension of it to disintegrate in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, that we perceive as the Big Bang. The remaining one-dimensional strings form what we perceive as matter.

We could depict what we might call the Matter Cycle as three steps in each direction, first the formation of matter and then atoms from empty space and then it's destruction back into space. I have never before seen this pointed out. The Matter Cycle could be illustrated as follows:

SPACE > QUARKS > NUCLEONS > ATOMS        .....GRAVITY

SPACE < BLACK HOLES < NEUTRON STARS < STARS

We could say that gravity came into being at the Big Bang to oppose the Big Bang. It does this not only by trying to pull matter back together, but also by trying to break matter back down into space. Gravity is a property of matter in space and if enough matter is brought together, gravity will break it back down into the space from whence it came.

After the Big Bang, quarks joined together to form nucleons and then electrons, with an opposite electric charge, were added to form an atom with an overall neutral charge. My description of the Big Bang, involving this sheet of space, is based on there being equal numbers of negative and positive charges. Yet it also seems to indicate that quarks overall have more of a positive than a negative charge, since up quarks have a charge of + 2/3 and down quarks of - 1/3. But we must remember that the Big Bang produced both matter and antimatter, where the charges are reversed so that it all balances out.

(Note- One thing that caught my attention when formulating this theory is how the structure of matter seems to revolve around thirds. Quarks forming protons and neutrons are based on thirds and a proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron, which is a number that is divisible by 3 multiple times).

After atoms have formed, and enough are brought together by gravity, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by the pressure in the centers of stars. The formation of atoms by the nuclear binding energy force and by electromagnetism is the peak of the creation part of the cycle. The crunching together into larger atoms by the gravity of stars is the beginning of the destruction part of the cycle.

The life cycle of stars eventually end, with many of the atoms thrown out across space by the explosions of a nova or supernova. If the mass of a star is less then what is known as the Chandrasekhar Limit, for the Indian physicist of that name, it will end up as what is known as a white dwarf star. This limit is 1.4 times the mass of our sun. In such a star, the structure of the component atoms are still intact. The white dwarf does not have enough gravitational pressure to break down the very structures of atoms.

But if the mass of the former star was above the Chandrasekhar Limit, it will form what is known as a neutron star. In a neutron star, the structures of the atoms are broken down by the tremendous pressure of gravity. Electrons in atomic orbitals are crunched into protons, by what is known as electron capture, to form neutrons. This means that, in a neutron star, the structures of atoms are broken down but the structures of the component nucleons are not. A neutron star, although technically not a star, is a mass of neutrons held together by their tremendous gravity into a compact and extremely dense body.

Just as atoms correspond to stars on opposite sides of the matter cycle, with atoms on the quantum or creation side and stars on the gravitational or destruction side, nucleons correspond to neutron stars.

The most massive stars collapse into black holes. In a black hole, unlike a neutron star, even the structure of the nucleons has been broken down by the tremendous gravity. If this is the case, and neutrons are composed of quarks, then black holes must correspond to quarks and must be composed of the quarks which had earlier composed the nucleons which had been broken down. This is one step away from empty space on the gravitational-destruction side of the matter cycle, just as quarks are one step away from empty space on the quantum-creation side of the matter cycle.

A black hole must break down the structure of nucleons into quarks or else there would be no difference between a neutron star and a black hole. It has been postulated that there might be "quark stars" which exist, and which are a step beyond neutron stars in that the nucleons have been broken down into quarks. No such stars have yet been found, but this model indicates that black holes actually are quark stars.

A black hole is the densest possible concentration of matter yet it is also the final step in the matter cycle, of matter returning back to empty space. The very definition of a black hole is that nothing can ever escape it's gravity, not even light or other radiation. But yet black holes do give off radiation, the so-called "Hawking Radiation". This radiation is a return of the energy of the Big Bang that went into fusing matter together from the alternating negative and positive electric charges of empty space in the first place.

This neat three-step process in each direction indicates that black holes are the transition step between quarks and the alternating electric charges of empty space. The tremendous pressure within black holes brings about charge migration to relieve the pressure of like charges being forced together. But this, in effect, creates antimatter out of matter and causes the mutual annihilation of a matter-antimatter reaction. This is what causes black holes to gradually decay and give off radiation as they do.

This happens because the quarks of which matter has been broken down into in black holes are of mixed electric charge that are in very close proximity. The gradual decay of a black hole is the component electric charges of the quarks being rearranged back into the alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges in empty space. It is well known that black holes eventually decay, but why would the densest concentration of matter in the universe decay unless a process like this was taking place? Unlike a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation as the two are brought into contact, the decay and emitting of radiation of a black hole is slow because the process is very gradual.

In summary, all of this matter cycle takes place because a two-dimensional sheet of space formed in which the alternating pattern of infinitesimal negative and positive charges was not aligned with the pattern in the surrounding background space and this is what is required to get the two aligned. Unlike the quantum-creation side of the cycle, the gravitational-destruction side is scalar rather than sequential. A black hole only comes into being if there is enough gravitational mass brought together. A neutron star does not automatically develop into a black hole, without more mass somehow being added.

For another perspective on the relationship between the atomic and astronomical levels of reality, see "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com .