One of the basic laws of physics, established by Sir Isaac Newton, is that for every action there must be an equal, but opposite, reaction. This is rooted in the cosmology of the universe. The centerline of matter in the universe, which began with the fold in the two dimensional sheet described above, must be maintained as it cannot be changed by shifting within. It is line A in the diagram below. The red arrow indicates the movement of our consciousness. If there is an action, indicated by the bend in line B then, to maintain the balance, there must be an opposite bend in line C.
Einstein's famous theory of Special Relativity Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is about the speed of light being absolutely sacrosanct, and mass, time and, length revolving around it. An object moving at the speed of light would have time stop, the length of the object become infinitesimal and, it's mass become infinite.
Nuclear fission Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
The following diagram shows how the universe began with a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. But the most important rule in the universe is that the two electric charges must always balance out. So what happened is that the first electric charge induced opposite charges on either side of it. But this still left an imbalance so opposite charges were induced on opposite sides of those. The mutual induction continued in multiple dimensions. There would always be an imbalance as the mutual induction continued endlessly because there were two electric charges but there would always be an odd number of total charges. This formed a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. The following diagram shows the process, starting at the top.
Something that ordinary chemistry cannot explain is that, if we take a tough and flexible sheet of rubber and cool it to near absolute zero, it will shatter like glass at the slightest impact. But what if atoms are really bundles of strings in four dimensions, as described in my cosmology theory? Heat is perceived as atoms bumping into each other. But in four dimensions it would really be strings wrapped around each other. This would hold the sheet of rubber together, as shown at top in the following diagram. But absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature because it is where all such motion stops. There would thus be nothing to hold the sheet of rubber together, as shown at bottom in the following diagram.
The following diagram shows how a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron move toward each other by opposite charge attraction to form an atom. But the two do not continue until they crash together. What happens is that the two stop at a certain distance from each other and the electron goes into an orbital around the proton to form a hydrogen atom. But if the two have opposite charges, and opposite charges attract, then why don't they continue until they crash together? Why do they stop with a certain distance still between them?
The following diagram shows how a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron move toward each other by opposite charge attraction to form an atom. But the two do not continue until they crash together. What happens is that the two stop at a certain distance from each other and the electron goes into an orbital around the proton to form a hydrogen atom. But if the two have opposite charges, and opposite charges attract, then why don't they continue until they crash together? Why do they stop with a certain distance still between them?
The entire universe, both space and matter, consists of near-infinitesimal electric charges. There is a very short distance called "Planck's Length" that shows up in physics formulas. That is because it is the scale of electric charges. Space is a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges and the charged particles composing matter are like charges, whether positive or negative, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.
The entire universe, both space and matter, consists of near-infinitesimal electric charges. There is a very short distance called "Planck's Length" that shows up in physics formulas. That is because it is the scale of electric charges. Space is a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges and the charged particles composing matter are like charges, whether positive or negative, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
Einstein's famous theory of Special Relativity Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is about the speed of light being absolutely sacrosanct, and mass, time and, length revolving around it. An object moving at the speed of light would have time stop, the length of the object become infinitesimal and, it's mass become infinite.
The entire universe, both space and matter, consists of near-infinitesimal electric charges. There is a very short distance called "Planck's Length" that shows up in physics formulas. That is because it is the scale of electric charges. Space is a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges and the charged particles composing matter are like charges, whether positive or negative, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.
Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
The following diagram shows how the universe began with a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. But the most important rule in the universe is that the two electric charges must always balance out. So what happened is that the first electric charge induced opposite charges on either side of it. But this still left an imbalance so opposite charges were induced on opposite sides of those. The mutual induction continued in multiple dimensions. There would always be an imbalance as the mutual induction continued endlessly because there were two electric charges but there would always be an odd number of total charges. This formed a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. The following diagram shows the process, starting at the top.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
Nuclear fission Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
Nuclear fission Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
That is a reflection of 2 / 3 of the energy within matter being held in the interfaces between like electric charges. The other 1 / 3 that is held in the interfaces between opposite charges "does not count" because if the matter were not there it would be empty space. Space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, although the perfect pattern can be disturbed by the ripples of energy that we refer to as electromagnetic waves.
So, in calculating anything about the energy in matter we do not include this 1 / 3 of energy in the interfaces between opposite charges in the matter that would be there anyway if the matter were empty space.
Now remember that the critical mass described above is held together by the opposite charge attraction between the negatively-charged electrons and the positively-charged nuclei. Even though both the electrons and the protons in the nuclei are matter in that 2 / 3 of their energy in electric charge interfaces is held between like charges, that does not apply to the attraction between the two that holds the atom together and also the mass of metal because the definition of a metal is that a vast number of atoms share their outer electrons between them. The mass of metal is held together by the opposite charge attraction between those electrons and the nuclei.
Since the mass of metal, within the protons and electrons themselves and not the space between the two, 1 / 3 of the energy in that mass is held in the interfaces between opposite charges, and each atom and also the entire mass is held together by the opposite-charge attraction between electrons and protons, that means that the 2 / 3 of energy within the matter that is held in the 2 / 5 of the charge interfaces that are between like charges, that means that these 2 / 5 hold twice as much energy as that in the electron-proton attraction that holds each atom, as well as the entire mass, together. Because, again, 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That means that when 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass have been split by fission, releasing their energy, that matches the energy in the opposite-charge electrical attraction that is holding the mass of metal together. That is why in the critical mass of plutonium in the first nuclear bomb that was tested, in New Mexico, only 1 / 5 of the atoms were actually split because, at that point, the mass blasted itself apart which halted the fission process.
The total energy held in the 2 / 5 of interfaces between electric charges in matter that are between like charges was not released, remember that only a few percent of the total energy in a nucleus is released by fission. But this was the energy that would be released in the stage that was involved, that of splitting a large atom of plutonium, or the 235 isotope of uranium, into two smaller atoms, which also forces a rearrangement of the crystalline structure of the metal, held together by shared electrons. The rest of the energy in the interfaces between like charges is still held in the two smaller atoms.
But the fact that it was 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass that split before the mass blasted itself apart shows that what I have explained all along in the cosmology theory is correct.
THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND SUPERNOVA
In the initial tests of nuclear bombs, it is known that only 1 / 5 of the atoms actually underwent fission. The bomb works by firing high-speed neutrons at a critical mass of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. A neutron has a neutral electric charge and so is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons in atoms, or the positive charge of the nucleus.
The nucleus takes up only a very small space in the center of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. But eventually, a neutron will probably strike a nucleus before exiting the mass of fissile material. This splits the nucleus into two smaller atoms, typically krypton and barium, and, since these two new atoms have fewer total neutrons than the larger original atom, these excess neutrons also fly out at high speeds and (hopefully) strike and split another nucleus before exiting the critical mass.
This thus forms that is referred to as a chain reaction. The average number of neutrons released by a split uranium-235 atom is about 2.5 and by a plutonium atom about 3. This is why most uranium atoms, isotope 238, will not work as fissile material. There are too many neutrons holding the nucleus together so that it cannot be split by the neutron.
That is why the mass undergoing fission has to be at least the critical mass in size, and spherical. If the mass is smaller than the critical mass then too many neutrons will escape before striking a nucleus because the smaller mass will have a higher surface-to-volume ratio.
My cosmology theory explains why only 1 / 5 of the atoms actually undergo fusion. The reason that the fission is never anywhere near complete is simply that the mass will blast itself apart before the chain reaction can get to all of the nuclei in every atom.
The reason that it is 1 / 5 of the atoms undergo fission is that 2 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges in atoms are between like charges, which mutually repel but are held together by energy. This energy holding like charges together is, in my cosmology theory, what forms matter, and is the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. The other 3 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges are between opposite charges, which naturally attract.
Empty space is made up of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of opposite negative and positive electric charges. Like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. There is some energy in all interfaces between charges but the ones between like charges have three times as much energy in them as the ones between opposite charges.
The bonds between like charges, held together by energy, are what hold the fundamental particles together, the electrons and quarks that make up the nucleons. But it is the attraction between opposite charges that holds the whole mass together. But since 2 / 5 of the total interfaces between electric charges are between like charges, which each have three times are much energy as the 3 / 5 between the opposite charges that hold the whole mass together, that means that the energy released when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split by fission, enough energy has been released to surpass the energy in the interfaces between opposite charges that hold the mass together, and thus the mass is blasted apart.
With that review, now let's see how this applies to a supernova and our Solar System.
We know that the sun is a so-called "second-generation star". We can tell by spectroscopy that the sun contains heavy elements that are well beyond it's current stage in the nuclear fusion process. Fission, described in the review above, is the opposite of fusion. Fusion is the crunching together of atoms by gravity. A star is born when enough matter comes together by it's mutual gravity that the electron repulsion that ordinarily holds atoms apart is overcome and small atoms are crunched together into larger ones.
Large atoms contain less energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form them. This is because the nucleus of the larger atoms must contain more neutrons per protons and an electron is crunched into a proton to create a neutron, and this is a lower energy state than the proton and electron separate. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why the sun and other stars shine.
Another way that we could look at the internal energy of atoms, the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is in terms of the surface area of the atoms. Surface area represents distance, and thus energy. The new and larger atom has less overall surface area than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. This is the solar or stellar energy that gets released as radiation.
The lightest, and by far the most abundant, element in the universe is hydrogen. The sun is presently crunching four atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium. The leftover energy is released as the sun's radiation. When the hydrogen is used up, the sun will begin crunching the helium together into successively heavier atoms. The process continues until we get to iron, element number 26. The ordinary fusion process can only go as far as iron.
This ordinary stellar fusion process, up to iron, is known as the slow or S-process. Elements heavier than iron, the heaviest naturally-occurring element is uranium, number 92 meaning that it has 92 protons in a nucleus, are formed only by the release of energy as a large star explodes as a supernova. That is why iron and elements, and elements below it, are exponentially more common than elements heavier than iron. These heavier elements require a net input of energy which is not possible without the explosion.
A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward energy of it's nuclear fusion. As the star keeps crunching smaller atoms into heavier ones, and then those into still heavier ones, the energy released per time increases because larger atoms being crunched together releases more net energy than smaller ones. This upsets the equilibrium of the star and it begins growing outward. Late in it's life, the sun is expected to reach what is known as the "red giant stage".
But if the star is large enough, meaning that more atoms are undergoing fusion in it's core, the star can actually explode and scatter it's component matter across space. That is what the Solar System is today, and why the sun is a second-generation star. A large star exploded and much of it's matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. That previous star must have been much larger than the sun because the sun is not large enough to explode as a supernova.
I define a nova as the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, due to the increased energy release of fusion in the star's core, and a supernova as the explosion of the star from the center. This is why, in my view, the outer planets of the Solar System contain a preponderance of molecules formed of light atoms, such as methane and ammonia, and comets are made of ices such as water. The previous star first blasted away the lighter atoms in it's outer reaches, which went further out into space because they had a higher starting point, before exploding from the center.
We can easily see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron, before the previous star exploded in a supernova, by how abundant iron is in the earth and the inner Solar System. Mercury has been nicknamed "The Iron Planet". The earth is 64x the volume of the moon, but has 81x it's mass, because, while both are made out of rock, the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks. This lack of an iron core shows in the fact that the moon has practically no magnetic field.
Iron is the most common element in the earth by mass and close to 1 / 3 the mass of the earth consists of iron. We know that lighter elements in the inner Solar System were forced outward by the sun's heat and the solar wind, the stream of charged particles from the sun.
Now here is my hypothesis. The mass of the earth and inner planets, up to Mars, are now close to 1 / 3 iron. But originally, before lighter elements being forced toward the outer Solar System by the heat and solar wind, the mass of the inner Solar System was about 1 / 5 iron.
This means that the supernova, the explosion of the previous star that existed before the present sun, occurred when about 1 / 5 of the mass in the core of the star was in the form of iron, and the fusion process could not go any further. A supernova is not exactly a nuclear explosion, it is a change in the previous equilibrium of the star, but it is driven by the fusion process.
This is like an inverse mirror image of the fission critical mass, described above, blasting itself apart when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split. The energy released comes from the interfaces of like charges that are held together by energy, what science calls the "Mass-Energy Equivalence". 2 / 5 of all interfaces between electric charges in matter are such interfaces between like charges. These each have three times, according to my cosmology theory, as much energy as the usual interfaces of empty space between opposite charges that naturally attract.
That is why, when 1 / 5 of the atoms undergoing fusion in the core of the star have become part of an iron atom and the process can go no further, the energy released surpasses that of the 3 / 5 of the interfaces between opposite charges that holds the star together, but each has only 1 / 3 of the energy of an interface between like charges. This is what causes the star to explode as a supernova and is why, after much matter consisting of lighter atoms has been forced outward by the heat of the sun and the solar wind, close to 1 / 3 of the matter in the inner Solar System is iron.
5e) COSMOLOGY AND THE KINETIC ENERGY FORMULA
ANOTHER WAY OF PROVING THE COSMOLOGY THEORY MATHEMATICALLY IS THE DIFFERENCES IN THE FORMULA FOR ACCELERATION AND THAT OF KINETIC ENERGY
We saw how this cosmology theory is proven mathematically, in the above section, "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory". Here is another way of proving my cosmology theory mathematically.
It revolves around the standard formula for kinetic energy of a moving object: Energy = 1/2 MV squared. This means that the kinetic energy equals half the mass of the object in motion multiplied by the square of it's velocity. If we apply the interrelated units of the metric system, a joule of energy is a mass of 1 kg moving at a velocity of one meter per second.
The formula for acceleration is F = MA, Force equals Mass multiplied by Acceleration. This basically states that, if a force is applied to a heavier object, it will produce proportionally less acceleration than it would if applied to a lighter object.
But why is the formula for the actual kinetic energy of a moving object more complicated than the formula for it's acceleration? The difference between the two formulae is the 1/2 of the mass, and the squared of the velocity. Where do this half and the squared come from so that they are in the formula for the kinetic energy of a moving object, but not in the formula for it's simple acceleration? I have never seen this explained.
My cosmology theory explains the square of the velocity in the formula easily enough, as we saw in the above Section Three, "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory". Objects are really bundles of strings in four-dimensional space, one of which we perceive as time. Velocity is simply the bending of strings from the straight-line which represents an object at rest, and this is why trigonometry applies to it. All matter has a certain internal energy, known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence, and the increase in length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle over the base represents the increase in energy added to the internal mass energy of the object by the kinetic energy of the object if it is in motion.
But in trigonometry we see that the increase in length over the base for an angle at 2 degrees is actually four times that of an angle at 1 degree. This is thus based on the Inverse Square Law and means that an object at twice the velocity actually has four times the kinetic energy, and this is where the Velocity squared in the formulas for kinetic energy comes from. This explains why an object moving at twice the velocity has four times the force. In falling, if an object falls from twice the height it will impact the ground with twice the energy, while falling at the square root of two of the velocity.
Relative to the infinitesimal scale of the electric charges which comprise both space and matter applying kinetic energy to an object, such as throwing a ball, is an extremely large-scale operation that does not affect the electric charges themselves. But yet if both the object and the space in which it exists are composed of electric charges, then the nature of these charges would have to be reflected in the operation of kinetic energy.
Remember the principle of the flow of information from the lower to higher level structures in the universe. The information contained in the fundamental structures must be reused in the larger structures, simply because there is no other information with which to construct the larger structures. A clear example is orbits. The large-scale orbits of moons and planets are a reflection of the electron orbitals in the atoms of which they are composed. Another example is what we are seeing here, the ratio of energy required to hold two like charges together to form matter, in comparison with the energy in the tension between adjacent opposite charges in space is 3:1 and that information is reflected across the operation of the universe.
If an equivalent amount of energy that is within an object as internal energy, as described in the above section, "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory", is applied to the object to accelerate it as kinetic energy, it would accelerate the object to 2/3 the speed of light. This is because that is the proportion of internal energy that there is in matter in the interfaces between like charges within the particles (actually strings) which make up the matter. In trigonometry, we see this represented as the hypotenuse of a right triangle having a length of twice the base at an angle of 60 degrees, which is 2/3 of a quadrant. The speed of light in the cosmology theory is simply a bundle of strings at a right angle to the dimension of space that we perceive as time and along which the bundles of strings composing the matter in the universe are mostly aligned.
THE COSINE OF THE ANGLE REPRESENTING 2/3 THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS .5. THIS IS WHERE THE 1/2 IN THE KINETIC ENERGY FORMULA COMES FROM
But notice that the cosine of 2/3 of the speed of light, which in my cosmology theory would be represented by the bundle of strings of the object at an angle of 60 degrees, is .5. We deal with the cosine function of trigonometry because it shows the increase in length of the hypotenuse over the base in relation to the angle between the two, and we know that this represents the additional energy that is added to the internal energy of an object, thus lengthening the hypotenuse relative to the base, when kinetic energy of motion is applied to the object.
The motion of the object is, as described in my cosmology theory, is the angle between the hypotenuse and the base as a proportion of the speed of light, which is a 90 degree angle. An object apparently cannot travel faster than the speed of light simply because there is no angle greater than 90 degrees, relative to the line of the base which represents an object at rest.
The 1/2 in the formula for kinetic energy, Energy = 1/2 MV squared, comes from this .5 which is the cosine of the 60 degree angle which represents the 2/3 of the speed of light that an object would accelerate to if an equivalent amount of energy to the internal energy, of the Mass-Energy Equivalence were applied to the object as the kinetic energy of motion.
Remember that Relativity does not apply here in greatly increasing the force necessary to accelerate an object to anywhere near the speed of light because that is, as described in the above Section Three, "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory", only a reflection of our limitations of being confined to, and only able to exert force from, the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains and unable to exert force in the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
My doctrine of the electric charges composing matter, as well as space is that to force like charges together, into the concentration of electric charge that I define as matter, requires energy. There is also energy in the tension between the adjacent opposite charges which comprise space, but my reasoning is that there must be three times as much energy in the interfaces between like charges in matter as there is between adjacent opposite charges. This was also described in the above section, "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory".
It is this additional energy which is required to hold like charges together to form matter that accounts for the internal energy in the matter, according to the mass-energy equivalence. These basic rules of the interactions between energy and electric charges must revolve around low integers like 1 and 3 because the Big Bang which began the universe was a relatively simple event, and there is no other information that would make it more complicated.
The half in the kinetic energy formula, E = 1/2 MV squared, is also reflected in my concept of gravity as being the result of energy overcoming the basic rules of the electric charges which comprise the universe. Like charges must be forced and held together to create matter, against the mutual repulsion which would usually take place. Electrons, for example, would be long strings of negative charges held together by the energy that they absorbed in the Big Bang, which began the universe. Then, after the particles (actually strings) have been formed from electric charges, binding energy in the nucleus holds the like-charged protons together against their mutual repulsion.
But if matter means that the mutual repulsion between like charges is overcome by energy more than the mutual attraction of opposite charges, and if the two electric charges are equal then the basic rules governing them must also be equal, then this must leave a net attractive force associated with matter, and this is what we perceive as gravity. There is a link between kinetic energy and gravity because kinetic energy usually goes to oppose gravity.
Energy always goes to oppose one of the two basic rules that govern the negative and positive electric charges which comprise everything in the universe, matter and space. These two basic rules are that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. When energy overcomes the repulsion of like charges, it forms the concentration of charges that my cosmology theory defines as matter. When energy overcomes the attraction of opposite charges, it forms the distortion in the alternating charge checkerboard pattern in space that we perceive as electromagnetic radiation.
THE FORMULA FOR KINETIC ENERGY AND EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY FORMULA
Finally, all of this brings us to the question of another formula. What about Einstein's well-known formula for the equivalence of matter and energy, E = MC squared? This means that the energy within matter equals the mass multiplied by the constant, C, which is the speed of light squared. This is the formula for mass-energy equivalence, and is very similar to the formula for kinetic energy E = 1/2 MV squared.
Notice the differences between these two formulae. In Einstein's formula, the velocity, V, is replaced by the speed of light, C, which is itself a velocity. But when we make this replacement, the 1/2 disappears from in front of the mass. Why would replacing a velocity in the kinetic energy of a moving object formula cause the half of the mass to be replaced with the full mass if the velocity was replaced with what we perceive as the maximum possible velocity, which is the speed of light?
The answer lies in electric charge, which is what matter is composed of. Kinetic energy is what we could call a large-scale operation, which does not affect the electric charges comprising matter themselves. This is why throwing a ball does not release electromagnetic radiation. But if two like electric charges are bound together by energy, and then suddenly released, they will instantly move away from one another by the most direct possible route. In my cosmology theory, with matter being actually strings and bundles of strings in four-dimensional space one of which we perceive as time, this means the strings representing both particles bending away from one another at 90 degree angles. Remember that, in my theory, a 90 degree angle represents the speed of light because a 90 degree angle is the maximum possible angle.
Einstein's famous theory of Special Relativity Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is about the speed of light being absolutely sacrosanct, and mass, time and, length revolving around it. An object moving at the speed of light would have time stop, the length of the object become infinitesimal and, it's mass become infinite.
The line at bottom in the following diagram represents the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at rest. The red arrow represents the direction of our consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light. Acceleration of objects to ever higher speeds is represented by lines A and B. Line C represents the speed of light. It is the maximum possible speed to us because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.
The green segments are equal distances along each line, and shows what is really happening in the Special Theory of Relativity. As the segments are at an increasing angle to us their length, and thus their mass and time, are concentrated in a shorter and shorter length. At the speed of light, the right angle, the future mass and time of the line are concentrated at a single point, from the point of view of the line at bottom. Thus it's mass appears as infinite, while it's time stops and it's length becomes infinitesimal.
Nuclear fission Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
But suppose that the nucleus of a fissionable atom, A in the following diagram, is split by a high-speed neutron, at point B. The positive charges of the nucleus, no longer being held together, would try to get away from each other by the shortest possible route, C and D, since like charges repel. Since these are really bundles of strings that would be right angles in opposite directions.
Since we perceive such a right angle as the speed of light, that accounts for one of the speeds of light in Einstein's formula. The other speed of light is the movement of our consciousness, indicated by the red arrow in the diagram.
This explains the apparently nonsensical fact that the speed of light should be a factor in the internal energy of an object. Likewise, in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the mass of an object moving at the speed of light would appear infinite to us simply because we would perceive all of it's mass as concentrated at one point, as our consciousness moved past it while moving along the bundles of strings which comprise our bodies and brains, instead of having the mass of the object distributed all along the nearly infinite length of it's bundle of strings as it would if the object was, as we perceive it, at rest.
Do you notice something interesting about the difference between the formula for kinetic energy, E = 1/2 MV squared, and Einstein's formula for the energy of mass in matter, E = MC squared? The formulae are identical except that the one for kinetic energy has the 1/2 before the mass and Einstein's formula doesn't and, of course, the V in the kinetic energy formula can represent any velocity while the C (for constant) in Einstein's formula only represents the velocity of light.
The difference is explained by the cosine function of simple trigonometry, the application of an equivalent amount of energy that is within an object as the mass-energy equivalence as kinetic energy to accelerate the object will bring it to 2/3 the speed of light because this is where the hypotenuse, representing the object in motion, will be twice as long as the base, representing the object at rest. The cosine of 2/3 of a right angle, which is 60 degrees, is .5. The cosine of a 90 degrees angle which, in my cosmology theory, is what the speed of light is, is 1.
This is my explanation of why there is a 1/2 preceding the mass in the kinetic energy formula but no fraction, equivalent to a 1, preceding the mass in Einstein's formula where the velocity must be the speed of light, C. But the fact that this is explained so well by trigonometry means that my cosmological theory of velocity actually being the bundle of strings that we see as the moving object, bent at an angle, must be correct.
Remember that relativity does not apply to our acceleration of an object to 2/3 of the speed of light if an amount of energy equivalent to the internal energy of the object were applied to the object as kinetic energy here because that is, as described in the above section "Applying Mathematics To Acceleration In Cosmology Theory", only a reflection of our limitations of being confined to, and only able to exert force from, the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains and unable to exert force in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. This means that as the velocity of an object increases, we are pushing against it at an ever-lower angle due to our inability to exert force in the fourth dimension of space, which we perceive as time.
This does not apply to our acceleration of an object to 2/3 of what we perceive as the speed of light, by the application as kinetic energy of an amount of energy equivalent to the object's internal energy, because the velocity of the object is really the angle at which it's bundle of strings is bent in comparison to what it would be if the object were at rest, and our dimensional limitations are not considered. The velocity of the object would be directly proportional to the kinetic energy applied.
These three formulae are similar:
F = MA, Force = Mass times acceleration.
E = 1/2 MV squared, the formula for kinetic energy.
E = MC squared, Einstein's formula for internal energy based on the speed of light.
It is the differences between these three which shows that my cosmology theory must be correct.
5f) THE LEAST INFORMATION STATE
We are familiar with the concept of how the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. If we put a ball in the air, for example, it will fall to the ground because less energy is required of the universe to support the ball on the ground than in the air. The laws of physics lead to the lowest energy state.
My theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to something without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it. We can make life physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We cannot, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
But this means that, if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, there must be a corresponding least information state that it seeks also. The lowest energy state is also the least information state. It takes more information to describe a ball suspended in the air than it does to describe the ball on the ground.
Matter and radiation move as they do seeking the lowest energy state. They interact as they do seeking the least information state. Energy and information are really the same thing. We see energy and information as being different only because of our perspective on the universe.
Why do interactions between matter, or between matter and electromagnetic radiation, take place the way that they do? In my cosmological theory, everything is arrangements of negative and positive electric charges. Why doesn't the striking of a ball against a wall, for example, result in a rearrangement or a merging of the electric charges of the ball and the wall? Why doesn't the atoms of the two fuse together so that the ball might turn into gold for you? Instead, both the ball and the wall remain intact and the ball simply bounces off the wall and goes off in another direction.
Ultimately, the only way to express either information or energy in the universe is to change the usual alternating arrangement of negative and positive charges, in multiple dimensions, that are found in empty space. Both energy and information is defined as variations in this basic alternating pattern of electric charges. Energy always ultimately goes to overcome one or the other of the basic rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract and that like charges repel.
Remember that, in my cosmological theory, energy applied to empty space always goes to overcome the repulsive force between like charges, and create matter which is defined as a concentration of charges. This is because, until matter is brought into being, there is no definition of distance available that is necessary to create electromagnetic waves, which are an overcoming of the attractive force between opposite charges and require a definition of distance to set the wavelength of the wave.
When you throw a ball, according to my cosmology theory, the interaction actually does affect the electric charges in the ball. The bundle of strings comprising the ball increases in length. but the interaction must conform to the least information state.
The increase in length takes place in the dimension of space that we perceive as time that the bundle of strings is aligned along. The past or future dimension of the ball cannot come into the present, but yet the bundle of strings must increase in length to accommodate the energy that has been added to it. This shows up in the diagram as a bundle of strings at an angle being longer than one at rest, just as the hypotenuse of a right triangle must be longer than the base.
In the following diagram, if the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains is represented by line A, our consciousnesses is moving in the direction of the red arrow at what we perceive as the speed of light. The dashed red line represents the present, and the three dimensions that we can see in it.
If a bundle of strings, represented by line B, is aligned parallel to ours we will see it as an object at rest. But since we see in only three dimensions it will appear as an object, such as a sphere, C. A bundle of strings aligned like D will appear as an object moving toward us and E like an object moving away from us.
The greater the angle the faster it will appear to be moving, at a right angle it will appear to be moving at the speed of light. Electromagnetic radiation, F, is only transmitted or received at right angles to the strings which is why it appears to be moving at the speed of light.
We can prove this with ordinary trigonometry. It is known that an object moving with twice the velocity will impact with four times the force. In this theory an object is represented by a straight level line if it is at rest and a diagonal line if it is moving, like the base and diagonal of a right triangle. The secant, the inverse of the cosine, is the function that shows how much the length of the hypotenuse increases, relative to the base. The secant of 1 degree is 1.0001523. The secant of 2 degrees is 1.00060954. When the angle, which represents velocity, is doubled the increase in length, which represents mass or impact force, is multiplied by four. This only applies at low angles or velocities and not those approaching the speed of light.
The bundle of strings bends at an angle because that will make the hypotenuse of the triangle that is thus formed longer than the base. We will perceive this as the motion of the ball as our consciousnesses move forward in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. This represents the least information state of the ball because the increase in length is just replicating the information that is already there.
Changing the time dimension of the bundle of strings comprising the ball would require much more information. The bundle of strings lengthens without affecting the time dimension, and the only way to do this is to take on the angle that we perceive as the ball's velocity. Since we ourselves are composed of bundles of strings aligned in the same dimension, we cannot exert force at will in the time dimension. It must lengthen when energy is applied to it because of the mass-energy equivalence. It must lengthen along the dimension of space that we perceive as time because that is the dimension along which the bundle of strings is primarily aligned.
This theory was originally called "The Theory Of Stationary Space" because there is no real movement of matter. The only real movement is the "new" movement, brought about by living things. But even that is just a lengthening of the bundle of strings comprising the object that is moved, according to the mass-energy equivalence, and it must bend at the angle that we perceive as the velocity of the object because we are unable to exert any force that would make changes in the time dimension.
Accommodating the energy interaction with the ball in any other way would require more information. It seems to us that interactions with the atoms or electric charges of the ball would require more energy. But that is because energy and information is really the same thing. Dealing with the entire object as one, in the interaction, can be likened to dealing with a truck full of goods in that it requires less information to just send the entire truck to a destination then to sort all of the goods in the truck and send them to different destinations.
Interactions tend to take place according to the scale of the interaction. The different scales of an object such as the ball are, in order from largest to smallest, the entire object as one, the molecules and microscopic irregularities in the structure and surface of the object, the atoms of which the molecules of the object are composed and, the electric charges of which the atoms in the object are composed. But this comes back to the lowest energy state because keeping the interaction to only one scale requires less information. The scale at which an interaction takes place is information, and having the interaction take place at only one scale mean a lower information state.
The information of an interaction cannot exceed the information within the interaction. Information, like energy, cannot be created out of nothing. This is why an electromagnetic wave is reflected only by an object about at least as large as it's wavelength, which is why an AM (or longwave) radio station fades when you drive under an overpass, but an FM (or shortwave) station doesn't. To have it otherwise would require more information, that would violate the principle of the least information state.
5g) HOW ENERGY AND MATTER RELATES TO DISTANCE IN COSMOLOGY
ENERGY CAN BE DEFINED AS DISTANCE OVER WHICH THE TWO ELECTRIC CHARGES MUST BALANCE OUT. AS ENERGY OVERCOMES THE BASIC RULES OF ELECTRIC CHARGES, IT FIRST MUST OVERCOME THE REPULSIVE FORCE BETWEEN LIKE CHARGES TO FORM MATTER BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF DISTANCE YET, WHICH DEFINES THE WAVELENGTH OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, WHICH IS PRODUCED BY ENERGY OVERCOMING THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE BETWEEN OPPOSITE CHARGES.
We have seen, in this cosmology theory, how energy always ultimately goes to oppose one or the other of the two basic rules of the negative and positive electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed. These two rules are that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel.
Like charges can be bound together by energy, and this is what forms matter. This creates a concentration of like-charges, but the overall electric charge balance must be maintained. Energy can thus be defined as the area over which the two opposite charges must balance out. Higher energy mean that the necessary balance is spread over a greater area.
If energy overcomes the attractive force between opposite charges, it disrupts the alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges, which comprise space, to create electromagnetic radiation. If the energy overcomes the repulsive force between like charges, it creates the concentration of charges that we perceive as matter.
But why does the application of energy to the electric charges comprising space sometimes oppose one of the basic rules, and at other times the other rule? In other words, why does the application of energy to electric charges in space sometimes form matter, and at other times forms electromagnetic radiation?
I find that the answer comes down to distance. Electromagnetic radiation must have some certain wavelength because it must follow an orderly pattern of disrupting the checkerboard pattern of disrupting the checkerboard pattern of alternating electric charges in space. If there is no other definition of distance, other than the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges themselves, this cannot happen. If there is no other definition, the only thing that the energy can do is to go to opposing the repulsive force between like charges since this does not require any other definition of distance, and this is what forms matter.
To move something against the rules of electric charge, by either pulling apart or pushing together, some definition of distance to work from is necessary. Electromagnetic waves are always formed by some type of energetic interaction of matter, such as radio waves formed by electrons moving in an antenna, and this provides the definition of distance that we see as the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. This means that matter must be formed first, because it requires no additional definition of distance, before electromagnetic waves can be formed. The exception is the radiation released by the Big Bang.
To overcome the repulsive force between like charges, it means pulling like charges together and there is already an opposite charge between them since empty space is an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges. This means that the distance has already been defined, and no further definition of distance is necessary. But to pull adjacent opposite charges apart, which is how electromagnetic radiation is created, that is not the case and a definition of how far apart they will be pulled is necessary.
But if matter must form first, before there can be electromagnetic radiation, then what about the Big Bang? The conventional model of the Big Bang is that it brought both matter and space into existence, but also a tremendous amount of electromagnetic radiation that we still can detect all around us. But this means that matter must have existed first, to provide the definition of the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation.
How can this be explained, other than my cosmological theory model of the original two-dimensional sheet disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions to leave strings of matter from the one dimension, and released energy from the other?
5h) PRIMORDIAL NUCLEO-SYNTHESIS AND THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET
We know that atoms began to form within a few minutes of the Big Bang, which began the universe. It would seem to make sense that the atoms which would form would be hydrogen, which is the simplest and lightest atom with one electron and one proton. But we know that about a quarter of the fist atoms that formed were helium, rather than hydrogen. Helium is the next element, after hydrogen, with two protons and two electrons and two neutrons.
I have wondered about this. We can see how hydrogen atoms would form, but why would there be the heavier and more complex helium also? The Wikipedia article on "Primordial Nucleo-Synthesis" gives the proportion of atoms that were helium as 25%. But then I realized that my cosmological theory has a neat and simple answer. It caught my attention that the proportion of helium atoms formed during primordial nucleo-synthesis should be exactly one-quarter of the total.
The two-dimensional sheet of space, from which matter was ultimately formed, must have had a different alignment of it's alternating negative and positive electric charges from the four-dimensional background space around it. It had to be a different alignment, simply because it would be a part of the background space if it wasn't different.
So there must have been some angle at which the original two-dimensional sheet of space was aligned, relative to the background space. The most logical angle would be a 45 degree angle, relative to the dimensions of alignment of electric charges of the background space, so that it would be equidistant between two perpendicular dimensions of the background space. Since electric charges always act on each other, this 45 degree angle would be the lowest information state, as well as the lowest energy state which the universe always seeks.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
Now, what do you notice about a diagonal line imposed across a grid with an X and a Y Axis, at an angle of 45 degrees, or halfway between the axes? Whether we measure from the X or the Y Axis, exactly 25% of the grid would be between the main axis and the diagonal line.
The following diagram explains what is called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. The lightest atom is hydrogen This concept of the two dimensional sheet of space forming with it's arrangement of charges aligned at 45 degrees to that of the background space neatly explains what is called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. The lightest atoms are hydrogen and it would seem logical that these would be the first atoms. But about 25% of the original atoms were helium, the next heaviest element, with traces of the next two elements. But this figure of 25% is information, and information has to come from somewhere. Notice that, if the sheet folded in one direction as described above, it would enclose 25% of the surrounding background space.
Despite the two-dimensional sheet being aligned at 45 degrees relative to the dimensions of the electric charges of the background space being the lowest possible information state of the arrangement, it is still information and this information must somehow be manifested. Distance is information, so therefore space must be information.
The production of hydrogen atoms alone, in the Big Bang, would not be the bringing about of new information because, in the cosmological theory, one of the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated, in what we see as the Big Bang, which would seem to represent a loss of information. Until the charges coming back together as atoms restored that information.
But 25% of those atoms were helium, which is more complex meaning that it contains more information, than hydrogen. Helium contains twice as many protons and twice as many electrons as hydrogen, and has neutrons which hydrogen doesn't have.
But this theory makes the answer of why 25% of the atoms created in the Big Bang were helium easy to see. It is a reflection of the higher state of information and energy of the two-dimensional sheet of space being aligned at the midpoint 45 degree angle relative to the dimensions of the alternating negative and positive electric charges of the background space. If the background space was expressed as a grid, and the two-dimensional sheet as a line through the origin of the grid at a 45 degree angle, 25% of the grid would be between the 45 degree line and either one of the axes. This is a higher information and energy state and is why 25% of the atoms formed in the Big Bang had to be helium.
I cannot find a satisfactory answer to this anywhere, but this cosmological theory has a neat and simple answer for it. Remember the principle in science known as "Occam's Razor", that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation. That may not be true in the world of people, but it does seem to be true in the science of inanimate matter.
THE DECLINING PROPORTION OF HELIUM IN THE UNIVERSE
An interesting question is why the proportion of atoms in the universe that are helium is declining. Even though stars like the sun operate by crunching four atoms of hydrogen into one of helium, and releasing the leftover energy as radiation, the atoms that formed within minutes of the Big Bang that began the universe were 25% helium, but now less than 10% of the atoms in the universe are helium.
Helium is heavier than hydrogen, and so more likely then the majority hydrogen to get pulled into the core of a star by gravity, and then fused into heavier elements. The original helium atoms of the universe have not disappeared, they have just been fused into heavier elements. The "scattering" of the original helium atoms among all of the heavier elements represents, in terms of information, the scattering of the electric charges of the original two-dimensional sheet across the surrounding four-dimensional space by the Big Bang.
5i) THE ACCELERATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
It has long been known that the universe is expanding. In 1998 came the greatly surprising news that two separate teams investigating the rate at which the universe was expanding had both concluded that not only is the expansion of the universe not slowing down, as was then believed, it is actually speeding up.
Scientists have been searching for a mysterious "dark energy" that somehow causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, but my cosmology theory has a rather simple explanation.
Actually, there are three different ways to explain how this cosmology theory explains the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. These are the Electrical Explanation, the Radiation Explanation and, the Information Explanation. All three explanations arrive at the same answer, why the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
THE ELECTRICAL EXPLANATION OF THE ACCELERATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
In my cosmology theory, the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it took place not at a point but along a line. The Big Bang happened as one side of the original two-dimensional sheet of space, that was not contiguous with the background space, came into contact with the other side. Due to charge migration one side of the sheet had already become mostly negative while the other side was mostly positive, because this brought about a lower energy state. The contact of the two sides brought about the great matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, but it was along the line of the contact between the two sides of the sheet and not from a point.
The remaining dimension of the sheet became the strings which we see as particles such as electrons because we can only see in three of the four dimensions, the other one we perceive as time. The bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains are perpendicular to the line along which the Big Bang took place. We can detect the radiation from the Big Bang all around us but we cannot pinpoint it to any particular direction because the direction of the site of the Big bang from us is in the direction of space that we perceive as time.
The universe, both space and matter, is made up of infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. The rules by which these charges operate is simply that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. To understand the Matter Explanation of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, we have to understand that if the two electric charges are equal, then the two basic rules governing the electric charges must also be equal.
Matter comes about by energy overcoming the repulsive force between like charges, and holding like charges together. That is my definition of the difference between space and matter. Space is a pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges, matter is any concentration of like charges that are held together by energy.
But if the two rules of electric charges, like the two charges themselves, must also be equal then this overcoming of repulsive force to create matter leaves a net attractive force. This net attractive force involving matter, but not empty space, is what we refer to as gravity.
Energy can not only overcome the repulsive force between like charges to form matter, it can also overcome the attractive force between opposite charges to form electromagnetic radiation. That is my definition of the difference between the two ultimate applications of energy. Overcoming the repulsive force between like charges creates matter, overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges creates radiation. Overcoming the repulsive force between like charges brings about concentration, which is why matter is concentrated. Overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges brings about dispersion, which is why radiation is disperse.
After energy has overcome the repulsive force between like charges to form matter, those particles of matter would then have to have either a negative or a positive electric charge. That would mean that different particles of matter would attract one another in a way to balance out their electric charges. That is exactly what happens when electrons and protons are drawn together to form atoms, which then represent a kind of "zero unit" of matter as ordinary atoms have no net electric charge.
But just as the overcoming of the repulsive force between like charges that forms matter leaves a net attractive force around matter that we refer to as gravity, so the attractive force between electrons and protons that forms atoms must leave a net repulsive force somewhere. This is the way it has to be if not only the two electric charges are equal but the two basic rules of those charges are also equal.
What we could call the "center line" of the matter in the universe that was thrown outward by the Big Bang must always be conserved. That is what brings about the universal principle of equal and opposite reactions. But since electric forces really dominate the universe, we should expect that if there was a grouping of matter somewhere due to electrical attraction, as in the formation of atoms, then there must be an electrical repulsion somewhere also.
This repulsion has only one possible candidate, it is the expansion of the universe. It acts as a kind of anti-gravity to counterbalance the electrical attraction which forms atoms.
But atoms do not stay constant. Small atoms are continually being fused into larger ones by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars. This is an attractive force in that it creates larger but fewer atoms than there were before. Not only that, but the rate of atoms combining into larger ones is increasing by simple mathematics because larger atoms are being fused together than before.
First, stars combine 1s to form 2s. Then they combine 2s to form 4s. Then they combine 4s to form 8s, and so on. But this increasing combining, which is an attractive force, must somehow be balanced by the repulsive force because, if the two electric charges are equal then the two rules governing them must also be equal.
The only possible thing that this increasing repulsive force can be is the accelerating expansion of the universe.
This only makes sense if the Big Bang is actually along a line, as in my cosmology theory, rather than from a point, and the strings of matter are actually still connected at the Big Bang.
THE RADIATION EXPLANATION OF THE ACCELERATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
The matter in the universe expands outward from the Big Bang due to the energy that was applied to it. So clearly, there must be some energy driving the expansion of the universe. I find that ordinary radiation in space fits as this energy, and not some mysterious unseen "dark energy". But for ordinary radiation to work as the energy in space that is driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, we have to accept the model of matter in space as strings in four dimensions of space, one of which we perceive as time.
This theory has matter as roughly parallel strings of matter that were thrown across space by what we perceive as the Big Bang. Stellar fusion releases electromagnetic radiation in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of the strings of matter of the star. Velocity is the way we perceive any variation from parallel in strings relative to one another. What we perceive as the speed of light is simply a perpendicular right angle, and the radiation emanating at right angles to the matter that produced it is working to put the second dimension of the sheet back together.
With this strings of matter in four-dimensional space model of the universe, we see that electromagnetic radiation is actually the "dark energy" that scientists perceive must be driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Without this application of energy from somewhere, it makes sense that the universe is expanding outward from the Big Bang, but not that the expansion is accelerating. But that could not be if we live in a three-dimensional universe with the Big Bang emanating from a point.
Stellar fusion releases an increasing amount of energy per time. If we combine 1s to form 2s and then combine 2s to form 4s and then combine 4s to forms 8s, we have an arithmetical model of how successive nuclear fusion operates in stars. Lighter atoms are crunched together by the gravity in the center of a star to create successively heavier elements. But this means that more and more energy is released per time as the fusion goes on.
Distance and energy are really equivalent, as both are information. When the rate of fusion, by mass, increases, the flow of energy from matter into space as electromagnetic radiation must also increase. ( Even though less energy is released per nucleon in successive fusion). This can only mean that higher-energy space, meaning that it holds more energy and information as electromagnetic radiation, must manifest an increase in distance.
The universe is just energy or information. Like anything else, the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang is really a mathematical equation. If we change something about the equation, the other side must change also for it to remain an equation.
Plainly and simply if energy is transferred from matter to space, which is what happens when excess energy is released from the nuclear fusion process in stars, then space has to "expand". In other words, distance has to increase. The way that distance increases, due to the increasing energy released into space by the successive fusion of atoms in stars, is what we see as the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Another way that we see the increase of distance representing an increase of information by applied energy is in surface area. A sphere is the lowest energy state of all three-dimensional geometric objects, and it also has the lowest surface area per volume. Any application of energy to the sphere can only add information by increasing the surface area, and distance in space operates in the same way.
When energy is released into space by the stellar fusion process, the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang accelerates to what it would have been if the additional energy had been there at the Big Bang, which threw the matter of the universe outward. In all matter except that in the "center line" of matter from the Big Bang, there is more energy in space on one side of it, the direction toward the center line, than on the other side.
This forms an equilibrium as the matter moves outward with the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang. But if the amount of energy in space on one side increases, the side toward the "center line" of the matter in the universe, then this difference must show up somewhere just as if we had changed one side of a mathematical equation. The way it shows up is as the acceleration of the expansion of the matter in the universe.
We do not see this radiation pressure in our daily lives because it generally balances out all around and is, in any case, overwhelmed by gravity. But it is why a laser can move matter and can, in fact, fuse atoms together by pressure.
We can see how matter and electromagnetic energy, the two results of energy being applied to the alternating electric charges of empty space, act in opposite ways. The energy in matter brings about a net attractive force because the matter comes about by applied energy overcoming the repulsive force between like charges to hold them together into what we see as charged particles. If the two basic electric charges are equal then the two rules of the charges must also be equal and so that leaves an net attractive force, which we see as gravity.
Electromagnetic radiation, in contrast to matter, is an overcoming of the attractive force between opposite charges by the application of energy. So if matter leaves a net attractive force because it is held together by the overcoming of the repulsive force between like charges, then radiation must leave a net repulsive force because it is an overcoming of the attraction between opposite charges.
This is why lasers push matter, instead of pulling it like gravity, and why the expansion of the universe has to be accelerating due to this increasing push of electromagnetic radiation in space led by the increase in the emanation of radiation from matter as the fusion process in stars releases increasing amounts of radiation as successively heavier elements undergo stellar fusion.
Since electromagnetic radiation is released by the fusion in stars in a perpendicular direction to the matter that produced it, it shows how the process that created matter and energy are electrical opposites. The radiation that is being released is actually "trying" to put back together the second dimension of the original two-dimensional sheet of matter that disintegrated in what we perceive as the Big Bang. But we can only see that it is actually the energy in the electromagnetic radiation released during stellar fusion that is driving the expansion of the universe if we use the model of the universe in my cosmology theory.
THE INFORMATION EXPLANATION OF THE ACCELERATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
Empty space, which my cosmology theory has as a pattern of perfectly alternating negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, must be considered as a "zero information state". This means that empty space has no meaningful information at all.
Every place in completely empty space is exactly the same as every other place. This means that the distance from one place to another is meaningless because no place can be distinguished from another place. Put simply, it doesn't make any sense to go from any one place to another because we are essentially already there. Counting the electric charges of empty space would be meaningless because the charges are the lowest possible level of reality and are also themselves the medium in which any information must exist.
It is the existence of matter that adds information to the universe, raising the level of information above this zero information point. Without matter as a reference point, distance or any other information in space is meaningless.
Information cannot be lost. We can see that energy and information is really the same thing. We just see energy and information as different due to our perspective in the universe. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. We can make our lives physically easier by use of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.
Thus we see that energy and information is really the same thing, and since we know that energy can never be lost that means that information can never be lost.
To use a familiar example from computer technology, suppose that we have six bits and twelve empty spaces. Each bit can fill one of the empty spaces, but the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another. This gives us 4,096 possible permutations of bits in empty spaces. Each empty space would be either full or empty but, since the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another, it would not make a difference which bit was in which space.
Now suppose that we consolidate our six bits together so that they are distinguishable from one another. One bit we will leave as it is, and call it "One-Bit". We will combine two bits together and call it "Two-Bit". We will combine the other three together and call it "Three-Bit". Although we have fewer bits than before to put in the twelve empty space, three bits instead of six, the bits are now distinguishable from one another, and this adds information.
But even so, our consolidation of the bits would mean a net loss of information. Having the three distinguishable bits to go in the twelve empty spaces would give us 3,960 possible permutations, in contrast with the 4,096 with six separate but indistinguishable bits.
What this is a model of, of course, is matter in empty space. The bits are atoms and the empty spaces are space. The original six identical bits represent the original hydrogen atoms in the universe. The consolidated bits represent the heavier atoms that come from the nucleo-synthesis that takes place by fusion in stars.
But yet we know that information cannot be lost. No system can just lose information as of itself, even if that system is the entire universe. The information that is apparently lost by way of lighter atoms being fused into heavier ones in stars must go somewhere.
There is one solution. In our simple example of bits in empty spaces, one way that we can maintain the same level of information is to increase the number of empty spaces as we consolidate bits together. The same number of bits in more empty spaces represents more information because it gives us more possible permutations, and that is how information is represented.
What this means in the universe is that the only way to maintain the same level of information as lighter elements are continuously fused into fewer but heavier atoms, that are distinguishable from one another as different elements, is for the matter in space to expand outward. This would represent an expansion of the universe. Since the universe is already expanding outward from the Big Bang, this must bring about an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Whichever way we look at it, and we have seen three different ways here, it is nuclear fusion in stars that is driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
(Note- Twelve spaces and six bits that can go in one of the spaces means that each space can be either full or empty and there is an equal chance that a space will be either full or empty, two possible states for each space. 2 multiplied by itself 12 times = 4,096. For three distinguishable bits in twelve spaces, the first bit can go in one of the twelve, the second bit can go in one of the remaining eleven, the third bit can go in one of the remaining ten spaces. 12 x 11 x 10 = 1,320. Since the three bits are distinguishable, we multiply this by three to get 3,960).
5j) HOW DID ATOMS ACTUALLY FORM?
Electromagnetic radiation follows exactly the same pattern as the charge induction that, in my cosmology theory, took place at the beginning of the universe. The first electric charge induced an opposite charge, which was an inverse of itself, next to it, then that one induced another of the original charge next to it, and so on in multiple dimensions. In the same way, any electromagnetic wave has first a positive side, as the energy rises from zero to the positive peak, and then the negative side as it goes from the positive peak, past zero to the negative peak.
But the only sensible way to explain the negative and positive peaks of electromagnetic waves, so that it takes the form of a sine wave, is that space itself is made up of negative and positive electric charges.
How can a wave have a positive and then a negative amplitude if it is moving in only one direction in space? It is because, in my cosmology theory, electromagnetic waves apply energy to overcome the attractive force between opposite charges in empty space. Matter is the opposite in that it is a concentration of like electric charges, held together by energy. At the top of the positive amplitude of the wave, the positive charges of space are at their maximum displacement and the negative charges at their minimum displacement. At the peak value of the negative amplitude of the wave, it is the opposite. Halfway between the two, the displacement of each charge is equal so that space is just as it is normally, a perfectly alternating pattern of negative and positive charges, and the energy of the wave is zero.
All such electromagnetic waves in space are created by matter, with the exception of the radiation released by the Big Bang. The wavelength of the wave is thus defined by the matter. The medium of electromagnetic waves is the infinitesimal alternating electric charges that compose empty space. The energy of the wave alters the position of these electric charges, going against the rules of electric charges which hold the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space in position. These familiar rules are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
Like matter, the electromagnetic wave cycle is a balance of electric charges. The number one rule of the universe is that negative and positive electric charges must always balance out. What the application of energy does is it increases the distance over which the charges must balance out. In the lowest energy state, which is empty space, the charges balance out right next to one another as the perfectly alternating pattern of negative and positive charges of empty space. The application of energy ultimately goes against the basic rules of the electric charges, that opposites attract and likes repel, so that negative and positive still has to balance out but the distance over which it has to balance out is increased from the perfectly alternating electric charge pattern of empty space.
There is a lot of similarity between an atom and an electromagnetic wave.
Notice that, if we could seen an electron in it's orbital around a nucleus in four dimensions of space, instead of our usual three, the orbital path would look very much like a waveform. The only difference being that an electromagnetic wave is only two-dimensional.
There are three factors in an electromagnetic wave. First, the strength of the attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges in the space that acts as the medium of the wave. Then there is the amplitude, or strength, of the wave and then there is it's wavelength. (A wave is often expressed in terms of frequency but that is the velocity multiplied by the wavelength).
Like an electromagnetic wave cycle, an atom has positive and negative charges that ordinarily balance out to zero. Also like an electromagnetic wave, an atom has three factors with regard to electric charge. The size of the electron, the size of the nucleons (protons and neutrons) and the distance of the electron orbital around the nucleus.
An electron orbits the nucleus at a distance such that the opposite charge attraction between the electron and nucleus is balanced by the displacement of the positive electric charges in the space between the two that are drawn toward the opposite charge of the electron and the negative electric charges between the two that are drawn toward the nucleus. This equilibrium reflects the similar equilibrium of a wave cycle. The peak value of the wave, on either the positive or negative side, is represented by the orbital distance of the electron.
The following diagram shows how a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron move toward each other by opposite charge attraction to form an atom. But the two do not continue until they crash together. What happens is that the two stop at a certain distance from each other and the electron goes into an orbital around the proton to form a hydrogen atom. But if the two have opposite charges, and opposite charges attract, then why don't they continue until they crash together? Why do they stop with a certain distance still between them?
My cosmology theory explains it as space being composed of the checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. In the following diagram the positive proton is blue and the negative electron is green. The proton is much larger than the electron, although the charges on the two are opposite but equal. The individual charges of space are displaced, negative charges toward the proton and positive charges toward the electron. This displacement is energy and, when this reaches an equilibrium with the attraction between the proton and electron, the two stop moving toward each other and the electron goes into orbital at a distance around the proton.
This equilibrium depends on the proton being much larger so that more electric charges are between the two. If the proton were the same size as the electron, as the positron of antimatter is, the two will continue together until they mutually annihilate because there will not be enough space that is directly between them.
We see an electron as a mere point particle because we are made of atoms ourselves. We cannot see at the level of electric charges because there is no medium through which to see. We cannot see electric charges because we see by way of electromagnetic waves and the charges are the medium through which the waves travel. There is no lower-level medium through which to see the charges themselves.
In a wave cycle, as in an atom, the electric charges still have to balance out to zero. The energy involved in either simply increases the distance over which the electric charges can balance out. The distortion of charges by energy, from the perfectly alternating pattern of empty space, operates by the same principle whether it is the negative charges pulled toward the nucleus and the positive charges pulled toward the electron in an orbital around it or the alternating positive and negative sides of wave cycles.
An electron is a clump of negative charges, held together by energy against like-charge repulsion, and this energy came through space the only way it could have, by electromagnetic waves. The displacement of electric charges in space, the overcoming of the basic rules of the charges, went into to lumping a bunch of negative charges together.
The peak of the negative side of the wave cycle went toward putting an electron together, and the rest of the wave went toward putting the proton together. A neutron, the third particle of the atom, is a proton and an electron combined together. The peak of the positive side of the wave put together the positive charge that exactly balances the negative charge of an electron. That is why electrons and protons have exactly equal, but opposite charges, because that is how the two sides of a wave cycle are structured.
The reason that a proton is so much more massive than an electron, even though their charges are equal but opposite, is that the wavelength of the wave was much greater than it's amplitude The amplitude defined the mass of the electron, simply crushing a mass of negative charges that were part of empty space together, while the wavelength defined the mass of the proton.
The wavelength of the entire wave was a combination of negative and positive charges and this, other than the very peak amplitude of the negative side of the wave, went toward putting the proton together. That is why the proton is equal in charge to the electron, the amplitude of the positive side of the wave has to be equal to the amplitude of the negative side, but the mass of the proton is much greater because the energy of the entire wave, rather than just the negative peak, went into assembling it.
Put simply, the peak amplitude of the negative side of the wave puts the electron together from the negative electric charges of empty space and the rest of the wave gathers the remaining charges, which will contain a positive majority equal to but opposite from the charge of the electron, and forms them into the proton. Unlike the electron, which is a pure concentration of negative charges held together by the energy that was formerly in the wave, the proton contains a lot of opposite charge attraction within.
But how could this occur? We know that electromagnetic waves move through space, but they just keep going, they do not suddenly stop and freeze the electric charges of empty space into matter with their energy. Also if electromagnetic waves are created only by matter, where did the waves come from before there was matter? it is like debating whether the chicken or the egg came first.
This brings us to the original two-dimensional sheet of space in my cosmology theory. It could not have happened without this.
An "orphan" two-dimensional sheet of space formed amid the background space that was within, but was not contiguous, with the background space. Charge migration took place within the sheet, one side becoming more positive and the other more negative, because the charges were alongside the charges of the multi-dimensional background space and this charge migration represented a lower energy state.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
Not being contiguous with the background space, the negative side of the two-dimensional sheet eventually came into contact with the positive side. This created a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation which released an great burst of energy as one of the two dimensions of the sheet disintegrated. This fantastic release of energy, because the existence of the sheet amid the background space, but not contiguous with it, created a higher-energy state, is what we perceive as the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it.
The remaining dimension of the two-dimensional sheet absorbed the energy of the electromagnetic waves like an antenna. Waves travel through space but this remaining dimension absorbed the waves because it was of a different nature, not being contiguous with the multi-dimensional background space. The energy of this radiation went into making the remaining dimension of the two-dimensional sheet into the strings of matter, such as electrons, that we perceive as particles because we can see in only three of the four dimensions over which the matter from the sheet was scattered by the Big Bang. The fourth dimension of space is what we perceive as time.
This explains the orbitals of electrons in atoms, and why they look so much like a waveform if we could see them in four dimensions. The energy that formed them came from the electromagnetic waves from the Big Bang. I believe that the orbital distance of the electron in a hydrogen atom is related to the wavelength of the radiation released by the Big Bang.
Another way that we can still see this original two-dimensional sheet from which matter was formed is in how spheres are the dominant form of matter in the universe, from atoms to stars and planets. If we put the two dimensions, of the original two-dimensional sheet which formed space, and scatter it over four dimensions of the background space, the natural form that the resulting matter will take is a sphere.
In three dimensions, a sphere really has only one dimension because all of it's radii from the center are equal. In four dimensions, a sphere is two-dimensional because it is really shaped like a tube or pipe. We see it as a sphere, once again, because we can only see in three of the four dimensions. But a sphere is the default form of matter in which there are two dimensions in four.
5k) WHY IS THERE MORE MATTER THAN ANTIMATTER?
The universe is composed of two electric charges, negative and positive. When these electric charges form atoms, there are two possible forms that the atoms can take. If an atom has a nucleus on the inside and particles in orbitals on the outside, either the nucleus can have a positive charge and the outside particles a negative charge or, the nucleus can have a negative charge and the outside particles a positive charge.
The first structure, with the nucleus being positive and the outside particles in orbitals being negative, is the structure of our familiar matter.
The second structure, with the nucleus being negative and the outside particles being positive, is what we refer to as antimatter. There is nothing mysterious about antimatter, it is simply matter with the electric charges reversed. There is no basic law of physics that says matter has to be constructed either one way or the other.
Of course, the definition of what is matter and what is antimatter is relative. Since we are composed of matter, we refer to ourselves as matter and the opposite configuration as antimatter. But if that was different then the definition would also be different. Just as the negative and positive of electric charges is entirely a random definition. We could just as easily reverse the terms.
The two electric charges that make up the universe are equal, but opposite. With no reason why either matter or antimatter should predominate over the other, it would seem that there should be exactly equal amounts of each. The Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions seems to demand that there be equal amounts of each.
The Lowest Information State demands that matter and antimatter form in equal proportions, unless there is some outside information available to make it otherwise, which there isn't. It would be a higher information state for there to be either more matter or antimatter. Since we see that energy and information is really the same thing, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it must also seek the lowest information state, which is equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
My cosmology theory has both space and matter as made up of electric charges. Space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges while matter is any concentration of like charges, held together by energy. If we bring matter and antimatter together, they mutually annihilate and the energy that was binding the like charges together, which we refer to as the mass-energy equivalence, is released as a burst of energy.
But if space is made up of an equal number of alternating negative and positive charges, like the squares on a checkerboard, and we apply the energy that binds like charges together into the particles of matter, if we bring positive charges together then there will be leftover negative charges which must also be brought together. Half of the energy must go to binding negative charges together and half to binding positive charges together, both in the same way.
In other words, there must be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. There is no other way.
But yet, we see a universe made of matter even though we know that antimatter can exist. How can this be?
As far as I can see, if a distant galaxy was made of antimatter, instead of matter, we would not be able to tell just by looking at it because both would handle light in the same way. But the universe that we see must be made of matter because if antimatter were mixed in then we would see the spectacular bursts of energy as matter and antimatter underwent mutual annihilation upon contact. These bursts of energy would be much more powerful then a nuclear explosion involving the same mass because the entire mass turns to energy upon antimatter-matter mutual annihilation but, in a nuclear explosion, only a few percent of the mass is actually converted to energy.
We know that the universe began with the tremendous explosion that we refer to as the Big Bang. But yet we cannot pinpoint the location in space where it took place. We can detect the radiation that the Big Bang emitted, but it is not coming from a particular direction in space. Instead, the radiation from the Big Bang seems to be coming at us from all directions at once.
There is a simple explanation for this. There must be another dimension of space that we cannot access, and the location of the Big Bang is in that direction. That dimension is, of course, the one that we see as time. That is why we see the Big Bang as being long ago in time, at the beginning of the universe.
But if we cannot see the site where the Big Bang took place, that means that we are seeing what must be only one side of the universe. Presuming that the Big Bang was equal in all directions, and it would be the lowest information state if it was because it would require additional information to make it otherwise, there must be an entire side of the universe that we can never see.
If we could travel backward in the dimension of space that we see as time, it would not end at the site of the Big Bang. We could keep going to the other side of the universe. The Lowest Information State demands that the other side be the same, possibly exactly the same, as our side. But the difference would be that the other side would have to be made of antimatter, which is matter the same as ours but with the electrical charges reversed.
That simple explanation reveals where all of the antimatter, which the concept of Lowest Information State insists has got to exist, is to be found. It also shows that my cosmology theory must be true because, if it isn't, then where is all of the antimatter that must exist to balance matter? Or why is the universe made of matter and not antimatter if the two electric charges are equal?
Think of the universe as the face of a clock. The center of the face is where the Big Bang took place. The bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is aligned from the center to the 3 on the clock. Our consciousnesses are moving away from the center toward the 3 on the clock, at what we perceive as the speed of light. Our side of the universe, from 12 to 6, is made of matter. The other side, from 6 to 12, is made of antimatter.
This came to be due to the charge migration which my cosmology theory describes as having taken place in the two-dimensional sheet amidst the multi-dimensional background space. Before one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that released the energy that we refer to as the Big Bang, charge migration took place in the sheet so that one side became negative and the other side positive, the central part of the sheet was still of mixed charge.
This charge migration happened, even though it represented a higher energy level in the sheet because like charges were being brought together, because it represented a lower energy state overall because the electric charges of the sheet were in close contact with the charges of the background space. The pushing and pulling of the charges of the background space forced the charges of the sheet to migrate with one side of the sheet negative and one side positive.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
The electrons of matter were formed from the far negative side of the sheet and the corresponding positrons of antimatter were formed from the far positive side. With the central part of the sheet being of more mixed charge, the protons of matter were formed from the near positive side of the sheet, and the anti-protons of antimatter were formed from the near negative side of the sheet.
These opposite sides of the sheet are why one side of the universe has matter, and the other has antimatter.
One of the two dimensions of the sheet disintegrated when it's negative and positive sides came into contact, and the remaining dimension form the strings of matter that we see as particles, such as electrons, because we can only see in three of the four dimensions over which matter was scattered by the Big Bang, the other being the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
5l) THE FORM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES
We think of an electromagnetic wave, such as light or radio waves, as having the form of a sine wave. This means that the wave starts from zero, goes to a peak value, drops back to zero, and then goes to another peak value in the opposite direction, and then back to zero, and so on. This is what waves on the water look like, with a crest being the peak of a wave cycle in one direction and the trough being the peak in the opposite direction.
There is another form that waves can take, that of sound. There is not the crests and troughs in sound waves that there are in water waves. Rather, sound waves consist of compressions and rarefactions in the medium that convey the energy and information in the wave.
I find that waves of electromagnetic radiation actually take the form of sound waves, consisting of cycles of compressions and rarefactions, rather than the crests and troughs of water waves. The sine wave form, which looks like a water wave, describes the change in energy values over the course of a cycle of the wave, but not how the wave would appear if we could actually see it.
The reason that the form of sound waves and water waves differ is simply that air can be compressed while water can't. Since water cannot be compressed by the energy that is passing through it as a wave, the force is diverted to changing the water level alternatively upward and downward.
The alternating compressions and rarefactions in a sound wave, or the crests and troughs in a water wave, are examples of the equal and opposite reaction principle. Energy applied brings about the first part of a cycle, and the principle that every action must result in an equal and opposite reaction takes it from there. The information for this equal and opposite reaction principle comes, of course, from the original electric charges of space in my cosmology theory. A single charge, whether negative or positive, induced an opposite charge next to it, which in turn induced a copy of the original charge next to it, and so on.
Electromagnetic waves come about when energy, depending on whether it is negative or positive charge that initiates the wave, electrons moving in a radio transmitter antenna would be a negative charge, presses either the negative or positive charges of the nearby space closer together. Space, consisting of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions, does not compress itself because the opposite charges, the ones that are not compressed together by the action of the wave, move further apart.
This means that the compressions and rarefactions in an electromagnetic wave somewhat resemble those in a sound wave. The difference is that in a sound wave there is one compression and one rarefaction in each wave cycle whereas in an electromagnetic wave there are two separate compressions and rarefactions in each wave cycle. In the first half of the electromagnetic wave, the negative charges of space might be pushed closer together (compression) while the positive charges in the same space move further apart (rarefaction). In the second half of the electromagnetic wave, the process is reversed.
In the first half of the wave, the compressed charges approach, and then reach, maximum compression, depending on the energy of the wave. According to the principle of equal and opposite reaction, the compressed and rarefied charges then rearrange themselves into the opposite arrangement, passing the zero point along the way. This is the peak of the second half of the wave. The zero point refers to a state of no compression or rarefaction of charges at all, as there would be in still empty space.
Upon reaching the zero point, the change in arrangement of electric charges cannot stop but must continue until an opposite of the original arrangement of compression and rarefaction of electric charges is reached. This is the same principle that we see in what is known as simple harmonic motion. If you have a ball hanging from a rope, and swing the ball to one side, it does not simply return to the starting point, according to the law of gravity. It continues, aside from friction, to a point that is opposite of from where it was first released.
This is due to an information imbalance. The straight line of gravitational force on the ball is one-dimensional, but by holding the ball and releasing it we have added a second dimension of information. This is why the ball must continue to the other side, making a second dimension of the information that was originally added to it by holding and releasing it. The same is true with the wave and, since there is no friction, the wave continues outward to infinity.
This scenario of electromagnetic waves consisting of alternating compressions and rarefactions, analogous to sound waves, with negative charges compressed and positive charges further apart on one side of the wave, and the opposite on the other side, rather than the traditional model of an up-and-down sine wave, like a water wave, explains why many waves of different wavelengths can exist in the same space without interfering with one another.
An electromagnetic wave is created only by changes in matter and since matter, in my cosmology theory, consists of concentrations of like charge held together by energy, it makes sense that the waves created by that matter also involve concentration of electric charges, with the energy of the wave overcoming the basic rules of electric charges that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Energy transmits to space as an electromagnetic wave if a change in matter involves electric charges, rather than the "zero state" of electric charges in matter that are atoms or molecules with the component charges balancing out to zero.
We know that the first rule of the universe is that all negative and positive electric charges must balance out to zero. What energy, which is also information, does is to increase the distance over which the charges must balance out to zero. A zero information or energy state is where there is no balancing distance and every electric charge must be balanced by an opposite charge right next to it.
This model of the form of an electromagnetic wave, with the rarefaction of charges moving further away then with empty space, shows that there is thus an outward "pressure" on space by electromagnetic waves. If this pressure is not equally balanced on opposite sides, it explains how the expansion of the universe would be accelerating as more energy is released as electromagnetic radiation from matter as the increasingly heavy elements in the universe are crunched together in stars into still heavier elements.
5m) MASS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES
The Mass-Energy Equivalence is well-known. A given amount of mass, of any matter, is equivalent to a certain amount of energy. During nuclear reactions some of the mass, typically only a few percent, is converted into energy. If we bring matter in contact with an equal mass of antimatter, the entire mass will be instantly converted into it's component energy.
But if mass is equivalent to energy then an obvious question arises. What about electromagnetic waves? The heat energy of a hot sunny day comes from the sun by way of electromagnetic waves, there is no way for the energy to get to us across empty space by convection or conduction so we know that there must be energy in electromagnetic waves as there is in matter, but yet electromagnetic waves have no mass.
We can easily tell that electromagnetic waves have no mass because of the the principle that every action has to have an equal, but opposite, reaction. If electromagnetic waves, such as light, had even the slightest amount of mass then a flashlight would take off like a rocket when it was turned on.
This means that there can be no mass without energy but there can be energy without mass. But the mass-energy equivalence means that matter and energy must have some basis in common. Energy is independent of mass but mass is dependent on energy. This means that energy must have come first.
In my cosmology theory, the reason that we see matter is because space is an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions. Matter is a concentration of like electric charges that are held together by energy against the mutual repulsion rule of like electric charges. This explains why mass must contain energy.
Aside from why there is the mass-energy equivalence applies to matter, but yet electromagnetic waves can have energy without mass, there is another question that arises. An electromagnetic wave is described as a sine wave, meaning that is has the form of a sine curve in that is starts at zero, reaches a peak value, goes back to zero, reaches a corresponding peak value in the negative direction, and then goes back to zero to complete one cycle.
An electromagnetic wave has two pieces of information. The first can be expressed as either wavelength or frequency. The wavelength is the distance from the beginning of one cycle to it's end. The frequency is the number of cycles of the wave that will pass a given fixed point, such as a receiving antenna, in one second. There is clearly an inverse relationship between the frequency and wavelength, the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength. The formula for frequency is the distance that the wave travels in one second divided by the wavelength.
The second piece of information is the amplitude of the wave. This is the description of how strong the wave is. The amplitude is perpendicular to the wavelength and is defined by the height of the peak value of the wave above the zero value.
If a wave has two pieces of information that describe it, that means that it must be two-dimensional in nature. In conventional physics, we describe the electromagnetic radiation as getting weaker, decreasing in amplitude, as we move further from the source of the wave, as per the Inverse Square Law. But the wavelength remains the same at any distance.
That is a convenient way of looking at it. But my cosmological theory has electromagnetic waves as two-dimensional waves in our three-dimensional space. As we move further away from the source it isn't that the wave gets "weaker", it is just that we receive fewer of the two-dimensional waves with a given receiving area, such as an eye or an antenna. The amplitude of the waves never actually decrease.
The waves of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, are all produced by matter but by a wide variety of processes. I am going to use the example of a radio wave being produced by the motion of an electron in an antenna, driven by voltage, as an example because it is easy to understand.
The electron starts at the base of the antenna and moves upward under the pressure of the applied voltage. Since the electron is an electrically charged particle, the change in it's position affects the equilibrium of the nearby alternating negative and positive charges that compose space. That change in the equilibrium of the adjacent charges in turn affects those that are a little bit further out, which in turn affect those that are a little bit further away still. But the electric charges of space at the bottom of the antenna, where the electron began it's upward motion, are affected before those higher up.
Upon reaching the top of the antenna, the electron turns around and proceeds downward, in accordance with the radio frequency alternating current that is driving it. The process of affecting the equilibrium of adjacent charges is thus repeated, but in reverse. This is what causes an electromagnetic wave, the radio wave, to proceed outward from the antenna. When the electron reaches it's original starting point at the base of the antenna, one half of one wave cycle will have been completed.
But then how does the other half of the wave cycle, the negative half, form?
The answer is by an information mismatch. The wave is two dimensional, but the motion of the electron in the antenna that formed it is only one-dimensional. This mismatch in information of two dimensions to one is what causes all simple harmonic motion.
The wave reaches it's peak value and then goes back to zero, but the momentum of it's electric charge disturbance cannot just suddenly stop. It must continue until it reaches the negative equivalent of the peak value of the wave and then continue back to zero, before starting over with the next wave cycle.
But now here is another question. The wavelength of the wave cycle is expressed in ordinary linear units of measurement, such as meters. So why is it that we do not also express the amplitude of the wave in linear measurement? We commonly express the amplitude of an electromagnetic wave in units of energy, but not in units of length like the wavelength.
What about the principle of the Lowest Information State? If something has two dimensions, the preferred state is for those two dimensions to be equal, because that would require the least information to describe. With regard to our wave, this means that the height of the peak values of the positive and negative sides of a wave cycle must each be equal to the wavelength.
This means that if we could draw a line from the zero level to the peak value of each negative and positive half-cycle of each wave, the total length of all of those lines would be equal to the total length of the wavelength. That is the Lowest Information State at work.
But if we do that, it would mean that the amplitude of every wave would be the same if the waves were of the same wavelength, and would be in proportion to the wavelength. Obviously that is not true.
The amplitude of a radio wave, if we tried to express it in linear distance, would have to be half of the wavelength multiplied by (the speed of the voltage signal that drove the electrons in the antenna, divided by the speed of light at which the wave propagated outward from the antenna).
But since the strength of waves of the same wavelength have a very wide variation, we know that there must be another factor involved. That factor is the number of electrons that are moving in the antenna, which is determined by the strength of the voltage that is applied. The frequency of the wave will be the frequency of the alternating current that is applied to the antenna, and the amplitude will depend on the strength of that voltage. This is why we express the amplitude of a wave only in energy, and not in linear distance, even though the diagram of a sine wave makes it appear as if it should be expressible in distance.
(Note-The generation of electromagnetic waves by the movement of electrons in an antenna is slightly more complex than this. The actual electrons that produce the wave do not travel anywhere near as far as the voltage signal that drives them, and which theoretically moves at the speed of light. It is thus actually multiple electrons, at different heights in the antenna, that go into producing a single wave).
But since the wave has one component that is measured as distance and a perpendicular component that can only be measured as energy, it shows that distance and energy must be different manifestations of the same thing. This is in a similar way to the fact that a wave consists of an electric and a magnetic component that are perpendicular to one another, and we know how closely electricity and magnetism are related. Electric refers to either negative and positive charges or to the movement of electrons. Magnetic refers to the alignment of the orbitals of unpaired electrons so that they can exert a force.
The direction of an electromagnetic wave, such as the outward propagation of the radio wave from the antenna, must always be perpendicular to the matter processes that produced it, in this case the movement of an electron in the antenna. The reason for this can be explained in terms of the Lowest Information State. Releasing the energy from one dimension to a perpendicular dimension, a 90 degree angle, is a 1/1 relationship, which is the Lowest Energy State. Releasing the energy at a 45 degree angle would be a 1/2 relationship, and releasing it at a 30 degree angle would be a 1/3 relationship.
Since matter is really strings in the four-dimensional space of my cosmology theory, this means that a right angle is actually equivalent to what we perceive as the speed of light. That is why energy released as magnetic radiation always seems to move away at the speed of light, because it was released at a right angle to the strings of matter that are aligned in the dimension of the four that we perceive as time.
The reason that 1/2 and 1/3 are higher information states than 1/1 is that the complexity of a number is equivalent to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. 1/1 is the Least Information State.
The ultimate reason that matter and any electromagnetic radiation that is released from it must be at right angles to one another is that this, in my cosmology theory, was the configuration of the original two-dimensional sheet of space from which matter must have formed. One dimension disintegrated in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The remaining dimension of matter, like charges held together by the energy that was absorbed by the perpendicular dimension, is what we see today as strings of matter in four-dimensional space, which we perceive as three-dimensional particles such as electrons.
If energy is aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time then it is matter, if not then it is electromagnetic waves. The reason that the waves seem to us as electromagnetic is actually due to the nature of space. Empty space consists of a checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions which perfectly balance out. But a wave disrupts this balance so that the wave seems to us to be electromagnetic in nature but it is actually the nature of the underlying space that is electromagnetic.
So now we can see why there is the mass-energy equivalence that applies to matter but electromagnetic waves are also energy, even though they have no mass. But it requires my cosmology theory to explain.
If matter is indeed one-dimensional strings, in four-dimensional space, and the waves that can emanate from this matter are two-dimensional, that means that we have a missing dimension that we must explain.
At the Big Bang the energy of two-dimensional waves, which we saw that an electromagnetic wave must be, was absorbed by one-dimensional strings of matter, as my cosmology theory says matter is. But two dimensions is more information than one, and this information cannot just be lost. It must show up somewhere, and it shows up as mass.
This is why matter and electromagnetic waves both have energy. Matter is actually described by the well-known mass-energy equivalence. But matter has mass while the electromagnetic waves that are related to it don't. It is because matter is really one-dimensional strings while electromagnetic waves are two-dimensional. This "missing" dimension shows up in matter as mass.
Has anyone ever looked at a radio tower and wondered how the one dimensional movement of electrons up and down in the antenna can produce a two dimensional wave? We know that an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional because it can be described with two elements, wavelength and amplitude. The following diagram shows how it's impossible unless there is a dimension of space that we cannot see.
When energy leaves matter, such as during nuclear reactions or a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, it does back to being in the form of the two-dimensional waves that went into the one-dimensional strings of matter at the Big Bang. But the total displacement of electric charges, from the "zero state" of the alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space, remains the same whether it is in matter or electromagnetic waves.
According to my cosmology theory, when we deal with matter in our three-dimensional space, we are actually dealing with four dimensions because the strings of matter are aligned in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. But when we deal with electromagnetic waves, which are perpendicular to matter, we are only dealing with three dimensions of space. This difference must show up somewhere, and it shows up in the fact that, although both contain energy, matter has mass while the electromagnetic waves do not. This cannot be explained otherwise.
5n) SPHERES AND GALAXIES FROM THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHEET
A sphere is the default form of matter in the universe. When there is enough matter in space to pull together by mutual gravity, it will form a sphere, as we can see in the moon and stars and planets. This is because a sphere is said to represent the lowest energy state of any geometric form, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and that is why matter takes the form of a sphere.
In terms of information, which is really the same thing as energy because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, a sphere is also the lowest information state. My information theory associates the information in an object with it's surface area. When information is applied to something, it generally has to increase it's surface area. We see that a sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form. It has the surface area that it does because of the information in the atoms that compose it.
Another way of seeing a sphere as the lowest information state is that it takes the least information to describe a sphere of any three-dimensional geometric form. A sphere is three-dimensional, but it requires only one dimension of information to describe it. A right-angle figure in three-dimensional space requires three dimensions to describe it, it is a cube if all three dimensions are equal.
But if only one dimension of information is given to describe a form that will occupy three dimensions of space, there is nothing that it can be except a sphere. Other geometric forms have more surface area per volume than a sphere, because surface area is associated with information and these forms had to have more dimensions of information to describe them. A sphere also has no need of defining the angles between it's dimensions, as in a conic, trapezoidal or triangular figure.
If we look at my cosmology theory, it neatly explains why the sphere has to be the default form of matter in the universe. The fact that it is the default form is evidence that matter came from a two-dimensional sheet of matter, as described in that theory.
When a sphere forms by gravity, the information that has been added to the component pieces from the three dimensions cancels out and the form defaults to the original two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet from which matter came. Even though it now occupies three-dimensional space, actually four including the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
But this seems to be a loss of dimensions, which is information and which would mean the loss of energy because energy and information is really the same thing, which cannot be because we know that energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form. The pieces of rock or other debris which came together to form a planet or star could not all be perfectly spherical in shape, so they must have had more dimensional information than the planet or star which forms as a sphere from them.
So why doesn't the spherical default form show all of the dimensions that it's pieces have been exposed to force from?
The reason is that gravity is "trying" to put the two-dimensional sheet from which matter came back together again. Even though a sphere must occupy three dimensions (actually four including the one that we perceive as time) because the matter from this two-dimensional sheet was scattered by the Big Bang over four dimensions. But yet the sphere has only two dimensions of information in it, one is the radius or diameter of the sphere and the other is the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
The sphere, as we see it in our three dimensions, is one dimension of information, but occupying three dimensions of space. The second dimension of the original two-dimensional sheet is the dimension of space that we perceive as time. The rotation of the sphere is the manifestation of that time.
The fact that the multiple dimensions of information in the pieces which came together to form the sphere all cancel out as the sphere of the planet or star is formed shows that there must have been only two dimensions to begin with, the two-dimensional sheet in the cosmology theory. The only thing that is stopping it from going back to the flat form of the original two-dimensional sheet of space is the fact that atoms have formed, and have to be preserved. Matter, the star or planet which formed by gravity, takes on the spherical form of the atoms because there is no information from anywhere else.
This reveals a basic principle of the universe, as described in the theory of the universe always seeking the Lowest Information Point. When there is more than one dimension to something, it represents the lowest information state for the dimensions to be equal. Since energy and information is really the same thing, and since we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, it must also seek the lowest information state.
Matter in the universe defaults to equal dimensions, if not blocked by other information that must be manifested, because that is the lowest information state. The dimensions of space are a cube, which we can see because it is only right angles which fit together with no leftover space, matter takes the form of a sphere, if pulled together by gravity, and the arrangements of atoms in molecules tend to take the forms of triangles. Any crystal molecular structures tend to take the form of cubes or triangles.
There are only three geometric forms that can have equal dimensions. These are a square, or cube, a circle, or sphere, and an equilateral triangle. These represent the lowest information state. The reason that not everything takes these forms is that whatever information there is must be manifested, and this brings about higher informational forms, where the dimensions are greater or are not equal.
A circle or sphere is actually a polygon with an infinite number of sides. Yet it represents the lowest energy state, which is also the lowest information state because it has the least surface area per volume. Remember my principle that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. A higher number, such as 27, is not more complex then a lower number, such as 2, because 27 is really 27 / 1 and 2 is really 2 / 1.
Infinity must somehow be expressible as a ratio, and the only possible way to do it is to have a denominator of zero. Infinity is 1 / 0, because zero can go into 1 an infinite number of times. This is why a sphere is the lowest information state and the lowest energy state, because it's infinite number of sides give it a denominator of zero, when expressed as a ratio. Infinity is not really a number and is a lower information state than specifying a particular number.
A sphere is thus the Lowest Information Point because all of it's dimensions, from the center, are equal. Information can be added to the sphere, which will be manifested as increasing it's surface area to create hills and valleys. Surface area represents information because distance is information. It is also described as the geometric form with the lowest energy state, since energy and information is really the same thing. This is why the sphere is the dominant form of matter in the universe, as seen in stars and planets.
GALAXIES
Have you ever wondered why galaxies even exist? If stars are drawn together by gravity, then why don't they just all crash together into one big black hole? If the matter which formed stars was thrown outward by the Big Bang, then why isn't that matter just distributed all across space? Why does it come part of the way back together, to form galaxies, but yet does not come all the way back together so that stars are all crunched together?
We know that orbits, which hold energy, exist instead of just crashing together because the orbital energy must be manifested but also energy cannot be created out of nothing. For the same reason, some of the matter from the Big Bang falls back together, but does not fall back together overall.
When something is composed of cells, it lowers it's overall complexity. The complexity of something composed of cells is just the information of the complexity of any one cell, added to the information of the differences between the cells. The information in a group of identical stars is just the information in any one of the stars, added to the information of the arrangement of the stars.
In our universe, those cells are the galaxies. Almost all of the matter in the universe is within galaxies, there is very little matter in the vast reaches of inter-galactic space.
There would be far more information in the matter of the universe if there were just stars scattered across space, without being organized into galaxies. With galaxies, the same concept as cells applies. The information in the matter of the universe is just the information in one of each of the basic types of galaxies, and then the information of the differences between galaxies of the same type.
But if, as in conventional models of the Big Bang, matter and space originated together, then why should the information contained in the arrangement of matter in space have a limitation like this?
Matter is scattered across space but yet, due to galaxies acting as cells to reduce the information in matter, has less information than it would if it were scattered across space without galaxies. So that matter lowers the complexity of it's arrangement by organizing itself into galaxies.
There is only one way that I can see to explain this. As described in the cosmology theory, matter originated in a two-dimensional sheet of space and, after one of the two dimensions disintegrated by contact between it's negative and positive side in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, the remaining dimension of the original two-dimensional sheet was scattered across four dimensions of the background space one of which, of course, we experience as time.
This means that there is less information in the arrangement of matter across space than there could be in the space itself, two dimensions against four. That is reflected in the matter of the universe arranging itself into cells that lower the overall complexity of the arrangement of the matter in space. These "cells" of matter are what we refer to as galaxies.
So this cosmological theory of matter from a two-dimensional sheet of space being scattered across four dimensions of background space, but with the space of each block not being contiguous with the other, explains both why the default form of matter in the universe is a sphere and also why matter scattered across space must arrange itself into these "cells" to lower the complexity of it's arrangement.
The fact that the two blocks of space, both composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges, were not contiguous with each other is information also, and thus energy because energy and information is really the same thing. This is where all of the energy, and thus information, involved in the matter of the universe ultimately comes from.
5o) SQUARE ROOTS AND COSMOLOGY
The square root of a number is the number that must be multiplied by itself to get that number. For example, the square root of 9 is 3 because 3 x 3 = 9. The square of a number, the number multiplied by itself, is the opposite of the square root. The square of 3 is 9. Squares of numbers are usually used to denote surface area, if two-dimensional, or volume, if three-dimensional.
The well-known Pythagorean Theorem uses squares. If we have a right triangle, which is a triangle with one right angle, the length of the hypotenuse (diagonal) relative to the legs is A squared + B squared = C squared. With A and B being the two legs and C being the length of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse must always be longer than either of the legs but shorter than both of them together.
Using numbers 3 and below, we can easily see that the hypotenuse actually is a square root. If the two legs of the right triangle, A and B in the Pythagorean Theorem, each have a length of 1, the hypotenuse will have a length of the square root of 2, which is 1.414. If the length of one leg is twice than of the other, so that the legs have a length of 1 and 2, the length of the hypotenuse will be the square root of 5.
A hypotenuse, the diagonal in the right triangle, represents two dimensions put together. Each perpendicular leg is a dimension, and the diagonal crosses both of them. A straight line is one dimension but there cannot be a diagonal unless there are at least two dimensions.
Square roots are not found in most physics formulas, but come into use when dealing with dimensions of space. We saw in the compound posting, "A Celebration Of The Inverse Square Law", the many applications of the law that the intensity of entities like light or gravity diminish with the square of the distance. A light will appear one-quarter as bright at twice the distance because 2 x 2 = 4.
So squares and square roots have to deal with two or more dimensions of space. But the thing that really caught my attention is that the square root also shows up in formulas that deal with time. We can see that square roots give us distances in space, but also appear in formulas involving time even if only one dimension of space is involved and spatial distance is not what we are seeking with the formula.
The square root is in the formula for the period of a pendulum. We have seen that it is central to orbital period. If a satellite is given three times the orbital energy, it will go into an orbit at nine times the distance, but move at only one-third the speed, because 9 x 1 / 3 = 3.
The formula for time and velocity of a falling object involves the square root. The formula for free-fall velocity is 32 feet per second squared. The object will start at zero, be falling at 32 feet per second at the end of one second, 64 feet per second at the end of two seconds, and so on, neglecting air resistance. That means that, if we take 16 feet, the vertical distance that I refer to as a "grav" for gravity, divide an altitude by it, and get the square root of the result, it tells how many seconds it will take for a compact object to fall to the ground from that distance, once again neglecting the slowing effect of air resistance.
We can also see how closely time and space are related, and actually are the same thing, in Kepler's Law of orbits. An orbit will not be circular but will have a high point, an apogee, and a low point, a perigee. The object in orbit, such as a moon or satellite, will move faster at perigee and lower at apogee so that a line from the object to the center of gravity of the planet will move over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.
The square root tends to show up in formulas where time is a factor at all. It is in thermal formulas because heat is the energy of molecular and atomic movement in a material. This energy involves the velocity of the atoms or molecules, the faster they move the hotter the material, and so this time factor brings in the square root.
Interestingly, the square root is prominent in equations about relativity even though the object in relativistic motion may be moving in only a one-dimensional straight line. The velocity factor involves time, and time involves the square root.
We see how the Inverse Square Law of electromagnetic waves involves the square root. But the formula for the frequency of radio waves that are produced by the one-dimensional motion of electrons in a radio antenna also brings in the square root. The frequency of the waves involves time, and time involves the square root.
In alternating electric current the energy starts at zero, reaches the peak value, drops back to zero, and then repeats the process in the negative direction. The total amperage, or power, of the current is defined as .707 of the peak value. Notice that .707 is the square root of one-half. There is only one dimension of movement, along the wire, but because time is involved it brings in the square root.
Notice something else that is really interesting. The orbital velocity of the earth is defined as about 8 km (5 miles) per second. The escape velocity of the earth is about 11.3 km (7 miles) per second. This only applies to pure ballistic flight, it does not apply to rockets because the rocket has an engine. It means that if we could fire a projectile upward at a velocity of 5 miles per second, it would go into orbit, and at 7 miles per second it would continue out into space.
The 5 and 7 miles per second are, of course, rounded figures because the earth's gravity is not perfectly consistent from one place to another and it would also depend on the altitude and latitude of the launch site.
But what do you notice about these two figures? The orbital velocity is about .707 of the escape velocity, which is the square root of one-half. The escape velocity is likewise about 1.414 of the orbital velocity, which is the square root of 2.
The square root is there because velocity is about time, even though the projectile would be moving in a one-dimensional straight line upward.
When the square root is clearly about distance in two dimensions, why would it also come into play when there is only one spatial dimension but time is also involved? There is only one possible answer. As my cosmology theory explains, what we perceive as time is really a dimension of space.
5p) THE MYSTERY OF NEUTRINOS
Neutrinos are the particles that are produced in nuclear reactions. Long being a mystery, they were originally thought to be both without mass and without any electric charge, and able to pass through ordinary matter. It is now known that neutrinos actually do have some mass, if they had no mass or charge we likely would not be able to detect them at all.
The existence of neutrinos was originally conceived by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli to explain an unaccounted imbalance in momentum during nuclear reactions. Neutrinos were actually discovered in 1956.
A neutrino is not an "original" particle. It is created only during nuclear reactions. It would not exist on it's own without these nuclear reactions. Neutrinos are produced by stars and by a star exploding in a supernova. They can be generated in particle accelerators. Neutrinos are also released by radioactive processes such as beta decay, which is the breaking down of a neutron into a proton by releasing an electron and a neutrino.
Neutrinos are in the same class of particles as electrons, and are known as leptons. In fact, there are three types of neutrino and each is associated with one of the three types of electron. The three electrons and their associated neutrinos make up the class of particles that are called leptons.
So a neutrino is a particle in the same class as electrons, except that a neutrino has an extremely slight mass and no net electric charge, unlike the electron with it's negative charge. But they are still such a mystery as to why they exist and what they accomplish in the grand scheme of things.
Ordinary matter consists of atoms which have electrons in orbitals around protons and neutrons. These electrons are just ordinary what we could call first generation electrons. But there are two heavier versions of electrons that can exist, but which are both short-lived. Mau electrons, or muons, could be called second-generation electrons. Tau electrons are heavier, but shorter-lived, still and could be called third-generation electrons.
These two heavier versions of the electron, but with the same charge as an ordinary electron, are known to be produced only by cosmic rays or particle accelerators. All three have their corresponding type of neutrino, and the six particles are what makes up the lepton family.
As it turns out, my cosmology theory has a simple explanation for what neutrinos are and how they come to be. Let's use K-capture, the crunching of an electron into a proton to create a neutron, and then a later reversal of the process by beta radioactive decay as an example.
During a supernova, the explosion of a large star, the tremendous energy released creates elements that would not exist otherwise. The sun is a second-generation star that, along with the Solar System, is made of matter that fell back together by gravity after the original star exploded. The ordinary fusion process in stars only goes as far as iron. That is why iron is so abundant in the inner Solar System and why iron and lighter elements are exponentially more common than elements that are heavier than iron.
Elements that are heavier than iron have proportionally more neutrons relative to protons. This is necessary to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons. Neutrons in these heavier elements are "made" by the energy released by the supernova explosion. Electrons in low orbitals are crunched into protons to create neutrons in the process referred to as K-capture. Since the proton has a positive charge and the electron a negative charge, the two cancel out to the neutral charge of the neutron.
But many of these heavier elements, or certain isotopes of them, are not entirely stable. Isotopes are atoms with the same number of protons in the nucleus, which is what defines the element, but differing numbers of neutrons. These unstable atoms gradually break down into more stable configurations in the process known as radioactivity.
There are three types of radioactivity. Alpha is for a large atom to emit an alpha particle in order to gain more stability. An alpha particle is essentially a helium nucleus, two protons with two neutrons. Another type of radioactivity is gamma. This is releasing excess energy in the atom by electromagnetic radiation, known as gamma rays.
The third type of radioactivity is beta. That is the seeking of a more stable configuration by having a neutron emit an electron, that was originally forced into it by the energy of the supernova explosion, in order to change into a proton, which would make the atom the next highest one on the Periodic Table since the element is defined by the number of protons.
But this process of beta decay, which we are using for our example here, releases a neutrino as well as an electron. The mystery is where the neutrino comes from. Here is the explanation that my cosmology theory has to offer.
The electron has orbital energy when it is in it's orbital in the atom, before it is crunched into the proton. When the electron is pushed toward the nucleus, this orbital energy is released as radiation. That is why stars shine, because heavier atoms have many fewer electrons than the smaller atoms that they were crunched together from and, if the electrons are going to be crunched into protons to create the necessary neutrons, their orbital energy has to go somewhere.
From the altitude of it's orbital the nucleus has a positive charge, which is what holds the negatively-charged electron in it's orbital, but the charge of the nucleus is somewhat diffuse because there are many neutrally-charged neutrons among the positively-charged protons. But as the falling electron gets closer to the proton that it is going to be crunched into to form another neutron, the positive charge on it gets stronger because the neutrons of the nucleus are relatively further away, making the attractive positive charge facing the electron less diffuse than it was.
The electron thus accelerates relative to the velocity that it would be moving toward the nucleus if it's apparent diffuse positive charge had remained constant. This acceleration is energy, and energy has to be accounted for.
In my cosmology theory everything, both space and matter, is made of negative and positive electric charges. The basic rules of these charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Matter is any concentration of like charges, space is a perfect checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges.
But there is also energy and what energy ultimately does is overcome the repulsive force between like electric charges. Matter is defined as having mass and this mass is actually the energy that is holding the like charges together against their otherwise mutual repulsion. That is where the well-known mass-energy equivalence comes from, a certain amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy. This is what Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, is about, the equivalence of mass and energy.
So as the electron impacts the proton that it is joining with, what this extra energy caused by the necessary acceleration does is it goes to rearrange the alternating negative and positive electric charges of space so that it holds some like charges, both negative and positive, together. It actually creates matter from this extra energy.
Since it is created by the acceleration of the electron, before it meets the proton to form a neutron, this new matter takes the form of the electron. It is actually a replica of the electron. But it's mass is not that of the mass-energy equivalence within the electron, but only that of it's impact with the proton. This means that the new mass, although it has the form of the electron, has far less mass than the electron.
Since there is no reason for an electric charge imbalance, the new mass is sandwiched between the positively-charged proton and the negatively-charged electron, the new mass has no net electric charge. It's energy holds like charges together, but there are equal numbers of negative-to-negative and positive-to-positive bonds.
So the added energy caused by the acceleration as it nears the proton, because the positive charge that attracts it is now less diffuse then it was when the neutrons of the nucleus were at the same average distance from the electron as the protons, goes to create a new particle in the form of the electron but with far less mass and no net electric charge.
If the neutron should later break back into an electron and a proton by radioactive beta decay, there will be no reason for it to be incorporated into either the proton or the electron. It will be ejected as a particle on it's own.
If you were walking and left a footprint in the ground, the ground is the proton, your shoe is the electron, and the footprint is the neutrino.
Let's welcome the neutrino.
5q) MASS DEFECT AND COSMOLOGY
The important thing about this cosmology theory is how it makes facts that are usually difficult to understand seem simple. Another of these facts is the so-called Mass Defect.
An atomic nucleus is composed of positively-charged protons and naturally-charged neutrons. Each of these particles has a definite mass but the confusing part is that the nucleus as a whole has less mass than the sum of it's parts.
We know that some of the mass of the nucleus is converted into binding energy, to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of it's positively-charged protons, but how exactly does this happen?
First, let's review the nature of matter and space in my cosmology theory.
Everything is made of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Space is a pattern of alternating negative and positive charges, in multiple dimensions. But like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. This gives us the charged particles, such as electrons, that compose matter. The energy that holds the like charges together shows up as mass, the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
What we perceive as electromagnetic waves, such as light and radio waves, are actually disturbances in the underlying balance of negative and positive charges. This makes it seem that the waves are electromagnetic.
Yet the reduction in mass is also energy. It works against the energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence. The binding energy that holds the positively-charged protons together against their mutual repulsion actually rearranged the like charges into sets, so that there is some mixing of opposite charges, although nowhere near the perfectly mixed checkerboard of charges, in multiple dimensions, of empty space.
A simplified example is that empty space is alternating negative and positive charges, + - + - + - + -. Matter is concentrated like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by the Mass-Energy Equivalence, + + + + - - - -. Then the nuclear force, the nuclear binding energy that holds the nucleus together, somewhat rearranges the charges of matter into sets so that there is some mixing of opposite charges, although nowhere near the perfectly alternating pattern of empty space, + + - - + + - -.
This allows opposite charge attraction to hold the nucleus together. But the move towardward mixing of the two opposite charges lessens the total mass of the nucleus, as mass is defined as like charges held together by energy, hence the Mass-Energy Equivalence.
The reduction in mass, the Mass Defect, is also energy. A larger atom has more binding energy per nucleon, and this is the energy that is released when the atom is split in two by fission.
Neutrons have an equal number of negative and positive charges, hence their overall neutral charge, and this is why neutrons are so necessary for binding energy. Heavier atoms have more neutrons per proton. But the number of protons is what defines the element. During the fusion of smaller atoms into larger ones, in the centers of stars, an electron can be crunched into a proton to create a neutrons, a process known as K-capture.
It also shows that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way we see that information and energy is really the same thing is the way we can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.
Binding energy is energy, although it decreases the total mass of the nucleus which seems to defy the principle of the Mass-Energy Equivalence, because it would require more information to describe the arrangement of the electric charges than the simple concentration of like charges that comprises matter.
Since we can be sure that binding energy is, in fact, energy because it is released when a heavy atom is split by fission, this shows definitely that energy and information is really the same thing.
5r) THE HIGGS BOSON
A boson is a "messenger" particle that carries one of the basic forces, electromagnetism or the Strong or Weak Nuclear Force between fermions. Unlike bosons, fermions are particles of matter, such as electrons or quarks.
The Higgs Boson was long theorized to exist, and was finally found in 2012. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are Higgs Bosons around today, waiting to be discovered. Powerful particle accelerators recreate the high-energy conditions of the early universe, not long after the Big Bang. Particles that the accelerators bring into existence, if only very briefly, may not have otherwise existed since then.
A boson is the manifestation of some kind of "field" in space. What a field basically does is to somehow favor one direction in space over all other directions. In other words we could say that a field "indicates" somewhere.
The earth's gravitational field, for example, aims in the direction of the center of the earth. It pulls objects toward it.
An electromagnetic field points in the direction of the source of electromagnetic radiation, or away from it, such as the sun or stars. The field conveys energy and information from it.
The Higgs Boson is a manifestation of the Higgs Field. What is so puzzling about it is that, unlike every other field in space, the Higgs Field doesn't have any direction to it. It doesn't "point" in any particular direction.
Another thing that is puzzling is that like other fields, gravity or electromagnetism, the Higgs Field doesn't decrease with distance. It seems to permeate all of space equally and doesn't decrease at all with distance, according to the Inverse Square Law, as fields like gravity and electromagnetism do.
What the Higgs Field does is gives matter it's mass. But it's discovery has left as many questions as it has answered. How can a field in space not indicate any direction, as other fields do, but yet it causes matter to have mass? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
The Higgs Field doesn't aim in any direction but yet it pulls matter together, whichever direction the matter is in. What about my cosmology theory? In my theory we actually live in four spatial dimensions, one of which we perceive as time. The reason for this is that what we perceive as particles of matter, such as electrons, are actually strings aligned mostly in the same direction in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. We perceive them as particles because we can only see in three of the four dimensions. Time is our consciousness proceeding along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.
Gravity pulls matter together, no matter where it is or what direction it's in. This gravity is a function of the mass given by the Higgs Boson. It doesn't favor any particular direction but pulls matter together from all directions.
But what if my cosmology theory is true and matter is really strings aligned mostly in the direction in four-dimensional space that we perceive as time? The Higgs Field would really be a four-dimensional field trying to pull the strings of matter back together in exactly the same way that our earth's gravitational field tries to pull matter toward the center of the earth. In fact the earth's gravitational field, and all gravitational fields, are really manifestations of the Higgs Field.
So the Higgs Field does have a direction but we can only grasp it if we think in four-dimensional space. All gravity is the result of the mass being given to matter by the Higgs Field and this gravity tries to pull matter back together.
The Higgs Field's direction is actually toward what was the original two-dimensional sheet of space, within the multi-dimensional background space, that formed the matter and energy of the universe when one of it's two dimensions disintegrated in the matter-antimatter reaction that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it.
So the Higgs Field, like all fields in space, does have a direction. But we cannot see it in three-dimensional space, it just seems to be giving all matter the mass that causes the mutual gravitational attraction. We have to go to four dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, to see how the Higgs Field has a direction like any other field, and to what that field points toward, and my cosmology theory offers the ideal explanation for it.
6) THE NATURE OF STRAIGHT LINES IN SPACE
RELATIVITY AND STRAIGHT LINES
The essence of relativity is that, when we measure something, we can only measure it against something else. I find that the deepest meaning of relativity theory is that, when we reach the limits of our perception, we can only see a line as a straight line, because it contains less information than a non-straight line. This relates back to my principle that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
We depend on electromagnetic waves, particularly light, to bring us information about the universe. But we have no other way to observe light as an entity in itself. Light is observed only as the vehicle of information about matter and energy. When we see the light from a distant object we are, in effect, measuring a measurement tool with the measurement tool itself. The result is that we cannot see the path of the light as anything other than a straight line.
Light does not carry information about itself, only about the object being viewed. We can discern some information about light, particularly by comparing it with other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, but not about whether it is really a straight line. We cannot see the vehicle for the information in a subjective way, so we cannot see it's course as anything other then a straight line, even though it may not be. This is simply because a straight line is the route with the least information, and we must see it as a straight line if we cannot access the information for it to be anything else.
Where we can see a route but cannot discern any more information, we must see the route as a straight line. The path of light is thus the very definition of a straight line. But this means that there could be another definition, beyond our perception because the path of light is our definition of a straight line, where the path of light is not a straight line. This includes anything that we see moving in straight lines, such as falling objects or the mutually-repelling halves of a split nucleus.
If a straight line is, by some definition not a straight line, that means that there must be some kind of "shortcuts" across space that we could take advantage of to make travel, both on earth and in space, shorter. It could be that other electromagnetic radiation in the same space will distort the path of a beam of light, or there might be other distortions in the structure of space that we cannot yet detect simply because the path of light must, due to our nature, always appear to us as a straight line.
THE NATURE OF DISTANCE
The so-called "gravity waves" predicted to exist by Albert Einstein were recently confirmed. The titanic collision of two distant black holes produced detectable ripples in the fabric of space, which were not the same thing at all as electromagnetic radiation. I have found that this opens up an entirely new way of looking at the universe, centering around the question of what distance really is, and also opens up incredible opportunities for the future.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE AND ENERGY
Have you ever wondered how the universe could possibly be so vast? Are these apparently near-infinite distances maybe only some kind of illusion, that we see from our perspective in the universe? Could there be something making things seem so far away, when really they aren't?
We can see how distance and energy are the same thing in orbits. A higher orbit is also a higher-energy orbit. We can also see that distance and information is really the same thing in how more distance is necessary to represent the greater number of possible permutations of a greater energy state. If we have a set of five spaces, each represented by a "0", and one is replaced with a "1", this represents a lesser information state than if there were ten spaces, one of which was replaced by the "1". Because the first set would require less information to describe which space was replaced by the "1".
This concept that energy and distance, as well as information and distance, is the same thing should not surprise us because my complexity theory points out that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it.
Information can be stored as distance, because greater distance can accommodate a greater number of permutations, as we see in the example of the "1" somewhere in the set of "0"s. But remember that, in my cosmology theory, space is composed of a pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges. Energy can disrupt this usual pattern, either overcoming the rule that like charges repel to create the concentrations of charge that we perceive as matter, or disrupting the alternating pattern over a wide area by overcoming the other basic rule of electric charges, that opposite charges attract, to create what we perceive as electromagnetic radiation. Since energy and information is the same thing, this is also a storing of information.
But the fact that energy can be stored by disrupting the pattern of alternating electric charges in space also has an effect on what distance actually is. This is that exactly what a straight line really- is may be open to definition. A straight line is the shortest possible distance between two points. But our perception of a straight line is affected by our own nature. Remember my principle that, we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. The simplest example is of the sun appearing to go around the earth.
We will always see light from a distant object as coming to us along a straight line. But, if the pattern of electric charges of space that the light travels through can be disrupted by energy, the light may have actually taken a very roundabout route through space, even though we will never be able to see it's route as anything but a straight line.
When you see a faraway object, it could be that energy is distorting the structure of the space between you and the object. This means that light has to take a more roundabout way to get from the object to you, and it thus appears further away. The electromagnetic waves that we see as light are energy, and the energy in the intervening space opposes those waves. The more energy that there is in the intervening space, the more that the light from the distant object will be reduced, and the further away the object will appear.
Space seems certain to be composed of multidimensional alternating negative and positive electric charges, and we see the distance of an object across space as the number of electric charges in that space between us. But what if the fabric of that space is not perfectly even, in ways that we do not detect, that makes light from distant objects only seem to be coming from further away because it must take a roundabout route through space?
We could think of it as "thick' and "thin" space, it takes more energy for light to get through thick space, so that the object appears as further away. Instead of distance consisting of the number of electric charges in space, which is information, it could consist of the information in that space, which could be a distortion of the pattern of charges of space by energy or a variation in the energy level in the tension between adjacent negative and positive electric charges that compose space.
It is only with relatively recent technology that we can detect electromagnetic waves. Isn't it possible that there might be other types of distortion in space that we have not yet detected? Just as it is the electromagnetic waves, which we have only detected in the last 150 years or so, which make us see objects, couldn't there be other distortions in the alternating electric charges comprising space which hinder the movement of electromagnetic waves, and cause us to see the object at a distance?
THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS ACROSS DISTANCE
Since the energy in space can clearly affect the light that travels across it, what about the actual movement of objects through it? Remember that my cosmological theory was originally named "The Theory Of Stationary Space" because I perceived that all motion was really completed immediately after the Big Bang. It is only our consciousnesses moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, that causes us to perceive motion in the universe with the speed of light, which is our own velocity, as the maximum possible speed.
The only "new motion" in the universe according to this theory was that brought about by living things. But with this concept here, even that apparent motion is really brought about by changes in the energy levels of space. There is energy in the tension between the adjacent negative and positive charges of space, but the amount of that energy could be variable.
It may be that the imparting energy of motion to an object, such as throwing a ball, may not actually cause the ball to move, but distorts the space between us and the ball by applying the energy of the throw to it. This makes the ball appear as if it is moving further away, in the same way that it causes an object to appear distant by energizing the space in between. The ball does not move away from us instantly because remember that the movement of our consciousness forward, at what we perceive as the speed of light, as described in my cosmology theory, is part of the vector of throwing the ball also.
Suppose that you walk from a door to your car. Now suppose that some paving work begins in the parking lot, which you have to walk around. The distance from the door to your car will not change, only the distance that you have to walk to get there will.
This is actually an application of the underlying principle of Einstein's Relativity Theory, that of no fixed standard but of moving frames of reference. Distance is information, but that information can be conveyed as either the sheer number of electric charges in space between us and a distant object or in the energy, which is also information, in that intervening space.
This way of looking at distance as energy in space, with that energy varying in place of what we perceive as movement, has one great advantage. It explains why space does not resist movement, at least after the initial momentum.
Remember one of Newton's Laws that an object in motion will continue in motion, until acted upon by an outside force. If we give a brief thrust to an object in open space, it will continue moving in that direction indefinitely. But, if both space and the moving object are composed of electric charges then shouldn't space continuously resist motion through it?
If the fabric of space behaved like water, moving out of the way and then coming back together as an object moves through it, then why does water continuously resist movement through it while empty space, at least after the initial momentum, doesn't? The alternating pattern of electric charges comprising space should have to part to make way for the object, before coming back together, and this should consume energy, but we do not see that this happens. A rocket in space, for example, needs only a brief burst of thrust to set it in the right direction, and then will continue in that direction with no resistance at all from the fabric of space which has been proven to exist.
My theory here is that, instead of the moving object actually moving through space after the application of momentum, it is energy in space which shifts in order to regain equilibrium. There is energy in the tension between the alternating electric charges comprising space, but the amount of that energy could be variable. This is the energy version of the Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions, which governs matter.
Newton's Law states that when there is a reaction, a movement of matter, there must also be an equal and opposite reaction. The most used examples of this are the motions of jets and rockets. But if, as Einstein stated, matter and energy are merely different forms of the same thing, and there is the Equal and Opposite Reaction Principle for matter, then shouldn't there also be a corresponding principle governing energy? This would be it.
This means that, when energy of motion applies to an object, such as throwing a ball, the ball doesn't really move but energy rushes in through space, in the direction opposite to the applied energy, to counteract the applied energy, and it is this energy moving into the space between us and the ball that makes the ball appear to be moving further away from us. This can be compared to moving one's hand in a bowl of water. The water rushes to the space behind the hand to counteract the energy applied by the movement of the hand forward.
This reverse flow of energy in space, when energy is applied to move an object, occurs only when a "whole" object, which is a balance of electric charges, is moved. It does not apply to movement of electric charges themselves, because retention of the energy balance is addressed by the charge movement.
THE CREATION OF GRAVITY WAVES BY THE FRACTURING OF SPACE
When pressure on an object in space reaches a certain threshold, not enough energy can move through space to retain the energy equilibrium. This causes the actual fabric of space, the alternating electric charges in multiple dimensions, to fracture. Although it immediately comes back together in a new arrangement, this is what creates the shock waves perceived as Einstein's gravity waves in the fabric of space.
The concept is akin to a plane breaking the sound barrier. In speeds below the sound barrier, the molecules in the air can move out of the way of the plane, but above that threshold they cannot move out of the way fast enough and are "knocked" aside to create the sonic boom.
In my view of Einstein's "gravity waves", the fabric of space is torn because not enough energy can move through space to accommodate the tremendous movement in events such as the collision of the black holes. The electric charges of space then instantly rearrange themselves into a new alternating negative-positive pattern, but this sends a domino-effect shock wave throughout space, which we detect as the "gravity waves".
When an object, which is a concentrated mass of like electric charges, moves in space, which is alternating negative and positive electric charges, how can it move without affecting the arrangement of the electric charges in space? If those electric charges rearrange themselves to accommodate the movement, why is this not detectable as electromagnetic radiation, which is defined as any disturbance in the pattern of alternating electric charges of space, which appear as electromagnetic because they reveal the underlying electromagnetism.
Even the movement of a cup on a table should rend the fabric of space, if the cup were actually moving. But it is apparently only the titanic collisions, such as those between black holes or large stars, which create Einstein's gravity waves. This is because it is only for extreme collisions of this scale that the energy cannot move through space to balance the initial movement, in accordance with Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions, and so the fabric of space itself tears until the electric charges comprising space rearrange themselves in a new pattern.
This is not the same thing as electromagnetic waves which, in my cosmological theory, are disruptions in the electric charges of space that are brought about by energy, but not a change in the relative positions of the electric charges comprising that space.
I do not quite understand why these disturbances in space, predicted by Einstein, are called "gravity waves". Gravity is a steady and continuous process, why should it create waves which are formed by some cyclic or repetitive effect such as the movement of electrons in a radio antenna? Why was it the titanic collision between two distant black holes which brought about the first detectable "gravity waves"? Gravity is the result of mass, and just because two black holes collided, there would not be any more mass than there was before. Why wouldn't two trucks colliding nearby create the same kind of "gravity waves"?
OUR PERCEPTION OF THE UNIVERSE DUE TO OUR NATURE
At this point, I am not going to replace movement in my cosmological theory with this concept of movement and distance really being the effect of energy changes in the intervening space. Rather, I am going to present this as another way of looking at distance and movement.
Remember that there is actually two levels to the reality of the universe. One is the absolute reality of how reality works, regardless of whether we were here or not. The other is the way that we see things, due to our nature. The idea that distance is just the number of electric charges between us and a distant object, movement is the actual distance between objects changing and, light always moving in straight lines as we see it, cannot really be "incorrect" because that is the way it appears to us and that is what we can measure. In a similar way, for the purpose of telling time, it is not really "wrong" to say that the sun goes around the earth. Neither is it "wrong" or "incorrect" to describe the colors in the world around us, even though we know that color really only exists in our eyes and brains. It can be described as the universe "with us" or "without us".
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes not the way the universe actually is, but how it would appear to us, under special circumstances. The relativistic mass of an object moving at the speed of light being infinite, for example, must mean that it would appear to us as being infinite if it were moving at the speed of light
If an object moving at the speed of light really had infinite mass then what about cosmic rays? This is a misnomer since these are particles, and not rays or radiation. There are many particles within cosmic rays, protons, electrons and alpha particles (helium nuclei) that are moving at or near the speed of light. Yet if one of these particles really had infinite mass, as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity suggests that it should, then it should also have infinite gravity, which is based on mass, meaning that the particle should wrap the entire universe around itself with it's infinite gravity, yet clearly this does not happen.
The clear reason is that the particle only appears to us to have infinite mass, based on our perspective in space. Whether distance and motion is based on space being a fixed quantity, as it always appears to us, or whether it is a reflection of changeable energy patterns in the space, as I am describing here, follows the same patterns of the apparently infinite mass of an object moving at the speed of light, as described by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.
The line at bottom in the following diagram represents the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at rest. The red arrow represents the direction of our consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light. Acceleration of objects to ever higher speeds is represented by lines A and B. Line C represents the speed of light. It is the maximum possible speed to us because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.
The green segments are equal distances along each line, and shows what is really happening in the Special Theory of Relativity. As the segments are at an increasing angle to us their length, and thus their mass and time, are concentrated in a shorter and shorter length. At the speed of light, the right angle, the future mass and time of the line are concentrated at a single point, from the point of view of the line at bottom. Thus it's mass appears as infinite, while it's time stops and it's length becomes infinitesimal.
TECHNOLOGY BASED ON DISTANCE REALLY BEING ENERGY IN SPACE
Stop and think. If distance is really only the energy in space between ourselves and an object across that space, then why shouldn't there be ways to "go around" that energy?
In our transportation and observational technologies today, we "overcome" the energy in space between us and distant objects and destinations. But, in the future, we might look through a telescope at a distant object that works not by collecting and magnifying the light that reaches us from that object, but by "going around" the energy in the space between us and the object, so that we can see a close-up even though we apparently are far away.
The same thing goes for transportation. We will not have to expend energy in engines to "overcome" the energy in the space between us and a distant destination, we will simply "go around" that energy so that the destination will only be a short distance away.
Suppose there was a tribe of people that were very short-sighted, they could only see what was immediately in front of them. They did not realize that they were walking over mountains to get from place to place. One day, they realized that they could greatly shorten the journeys by simply going around the mountains, instead of over them.
Planes would no longer be necessary, because the energy expended by the plane's engines simply goes to counteract the energy in the space between us and our destination. We could walk into a portal in our city, and then walk out of the portal in any city that we wanted to visit. It will not work by Star Trek-style "beaming", changing the matter of our bodies into electromagnetic waves and then reassembling it at the other end. It will work by simply taking us along a route "around" the energy in the space between us and our distant destination, because distance is really just energy.
DIMENSIONS HAD TO BE SEPARATED FIRST
I would like to point out how just the fact that we can even discuss multiple dimensions shows that my cosmological theory must be correct.
If the conventional model of the Big Bang, that of the space and matter of the universe expanding outward from an infinitesimal point, were correct there would be nothing to reveal that there was any more than one dimension. We understand it as three dimensions, but going from one point to another in such a universe would not be an issue because there would only be momentum in an outward direction. There would be no such thing as momentum in lateral directions, even though those dimensions of space existed, if that was not introduced into the universe originally with the Big Bang.
If the Big Bang happened as this conventional model suggests, then the dimensions of space involved would be effectively packaged together. There would be no such thing that we could perceive as movement in a straight line, because that would involve only one dimension of the space to the exclusion of the others. Such a movement would require information which did not exist, because the Big Bang did not provide it.
More information is required to move in or consider the spatial dimensions separately, rather than packaged together, and the big Bang of this conventional model does not provide this information. Such information cannot be created out of nothing, if it is not brought into the universe at it's beginning. We could say that the lowest information state, similar in concept to the lowest energy state, is to have all dimensions of space so that movement in one, to the exclusion of the others, is impossible because the necessary information does not exist.
The example that I often use to illustrate this conservation of information is that of orbits. Electrons are positioned in orbitals around the central nucleus of an atom. Astronomical bodies, such as stars, planets and, moons, use the same kind of orbital pattern which is found in the atoms of which they are composed. The reason is simple, that is the only information available. The astronomical bodies are spherical in shape and manifest orbits, in the same way as the atoms of which they are composed.
Since we can move in a given direction, to the exclusion of the other spatial dimensions, the only conclusion that I can come to is that there must have been events in the early universe to effectively separate the dimensions, to define them individually from the others. If the Big Bang, as conventional models of it suggest, had three contiguous dimensions of space expanding outwards then there would be no information to separate those dimensions. Whatever occupied those dimensions would have to occupy all three together. The Big Bang was a relatively simple event and conventional models of it provide no information to apply the dimensions of space separately in any way. This means that everything could move in only one direction in space, away from the point of the Big Bang.
My cosmology theory, however, invokes both one and two dimensions. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
You can see how, even for you to be able to draw a straight line on paper or to have an object move from Point A to Point B, that dimension must have been somehow separated from or defined apart from the others by the patterns in the universe, and I cannot see how that could have been accomplished outside of this theory. The original two-dimensional sheet, in my theory, as well as the one-dimensional strings that it disintegrated into, effectively defined the dimensions of space as separate. If not for this, movement in any dimension apart from the others would be impossible. The only motion could be the outward expansion of the universe, as defined by the Big Bang.
This leaves us with an interesting thought. There has to be some possibility that we actually inhabit many more than the three spatial dimensions that we perceive. Our three dimensions could actually be "packages" of two or three or more dimensions that were never defined as separate by the relatively limited amount of information that was contained in the Big Bang. My theory of the Big Bang shows how our three dimensions were defined individually, but that does not mean that each of those could not actually be "packages" of dimensions that were never defined as separate by the events of the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe. It may be that we cannot access those dimensions because there is no information contained in the matter of the universe or our bodies to define them as separate.
THE QUESTION OF THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE AND STRAIGHT LINES IN SPACE
Some scientists believe that the universe is rotating. It seems that everything, from solar systems to galaxies, seems to either rotate or orbit, so why not the entire universe? But then, the question arises of what difference it makes.
Suppose that there was a sphere out in space, and nothing existed except that sphere. Then, suppose that someone asked if the sphere was rotating. It would be impossible to say, and it would make no possible difference, because there would be no outside reference point. To say that something is rotating requires some outside reference point. Otherwise, it just becomes a matter of definition.
Next, suppose that the entire universe is that sphere. But how could the universe possibly be rotating when, by it's very definition, the universe includes everything so that there can be no outside reference point by which to say that it is rotating?
However, we then have to consider that the rotational momentum of the galaxies in the universe should balance out, as a whole. The scientists who believe that the universe is rotating think that because there seems to be an imbalance in the rotational momentum of galaxies. But this is not possible, since every action must involve an equal and opposite reaction, the rotational momentum of galaxies must balance out in the universe as a whole.
There is only one possible way that there could be an imbalance in the rotational momentum within the universe, and that is if the entire universe itself was rotating. There could then be less rotational momentum of galaxies in the direction that the universe itself was rotating, because the balance in rotational momentum could then be made up by the rotation of the universe itself.
But what possible difference could it make to us whether or not the universe was rotating. We would never be able to tell that the universe was rotating, like we see the earth is by sunrise and sunset, because, by the very definition of the universe, there can be no reference points outside the universe by which to say that it is rotating.
Well, maybe it could make a difference to us. In fact, it could mean a very big difference. Remember the scenario that we saw in "The Nature Of Straight Lines In Space". We always see the path of light as being a straight line. We define a straight line as "the shortest distance between two points". But I have long wondered if these two definitions of straight lines that we have may not be exactly the same.
If light, the path of which we see as a straight line, somehow does not always travel by "the shortest distance between two points", that could mean that there might be "shortcuts" across space that we are not aware of. These are not related to the warping of space by the gravity of a black hole or "wormholes", or anything like that. These "shortcuts" to which I am referring are there simply because we may erroneously presume that the light that we see always follows a straight line through space.
The larger something is, the faster it tends to rotate. The largest planet, Jupiter, rotates the fastest. We can thus presume that, if the universe is rotating, it is rotating very fast. It could be much faster than what we perceive as the speed of light, even though we would not perceive it as such.
Suppose that you throw a ball while riding a bicycle. The ball would not follow a straight line. It would follow a curved vector because there would be more than one force acting on it. If we have no other reference point, other than a moving object, then we would perceive that object as moving in a straight line. It is only independence reference points that can tell us that something is not moving in a straight line.
We cannot perceive it because we can see, according to my cosmological theory, in only three of the four spatial dimensions over which matter from the Big Bang is scattered, and because we always perceive light as moving in a straight line. But, if the matter in the universe is rotating, there must be a considerable difference between the path of light that we perceive as a straight line and "the shortest distance between two points", which is our general definition of a straight line.
This can only mean that there must be "shortcuts" across space, that we cannot see because we see light, but there must be some way to take advantage of them. If a destination appeared to be a certain distance away from us, it would actually be much closer if we could find such a "shortcut" to it.
7) WHY THERE MUST BE MOTION OF MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE
THE INEQUALITY OF SPIRAL AND ANTI-SPIRAL
According to my cosmology theory, the universe began with the inductive reproduction of electric charges. An initial charge, whether negative or positive, induced an opposite charge next to it because it was necessary to bring about charge balance. That new charge then induced an opposite charge next to it, which was the same as the original charge, and so on in multiple dimensions.
This brings us to a multi-dimensional checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges, and this is what composes empty space. A charge is surrounded by opposite charges, in the pattern of a checkerboard, because opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
The following diagram shows how the universe began with a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. But the most important rule in the universe is that the two electric charges must always balance out. So what happened is that the first electric charge induced opposite charges on either side of it. But this still left an imbalance so opposite charges were induced on opposite sides of those. The mutual induction continued in multiple dimensions. There would always be an imbalance as the mutual induction continued endlessly because there were two electric charges but there would always be an odd number of total charges. This formed a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. The following diagram shows the process, starting at the top.
But if energy is present, it can overcome the repulsive force between like charges to hold a mass of like charges together. Such concentrations of like charge, according to the cosmology theory as opposed to the alternating charges of space, is what we would refer to as matter. This is what energy ultimately does, overcomes the mutual repulsion of like electric charges.
The following diagram shows that one dimensional strings of like charges With positive charges shifted to one side of the two-dimensional sheet, and negative charges to the other side, and with the charge pattern of the sheet not aligned with the checkerboard of the background space, the negative side of the sheet came in contact with the positive side. This produced the tremendous matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we refer to as the Big Bang.
Since the sheet was not in alignment with the checkerboard charge pattern of the background space this represented information, and information is really the same thing as energy. One dimension of the two dimensional sheet, the sides that came into contact, disintegrated. This dimension became energy, and this introduced energy into the universe. In the diagram strings of matter, whether negative or positive, are seen in red. The checkerboard pattern of the surrounding background space is seen in black.
The like charges of the matter charges are held together, against their mutual repulsion, by some of the energy that was released by the Big Bang. This internal energy in matter is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is also described by Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, which basically means that a little bit of matter contains a tremendous amount of energy. Other energy from the Big Bang went into throwing the matter out across space, and some of it we can still detect as radiation from the Big Bang.
Another mystery that it explains, and that proves it is correct, is the spin of neutrinos as they move through space. Neutrinos spin to their left, relative to the direction of travel, while antineutrinos, the antimatter version of the neutrino, spins to it's right. This is from the two dimensional sheet after charge migration had taken place, because it cannot otherwise be explained.
Face your palms toward each other and curl the fingers of both hands. The fingers of one hand curl to the left and the other to the right. That is because the two sides of the two dimensional sheet that came into contact approached each other from opposite directions.
But if the Big Bang can happen once, you may wonder why it couldn't happen again. Maybe it does. If a string, such as an electron, should break, due to some traumatic event such as a supernova or collision between massive objects, it would create a charge imbalance in space that could start a sheet of this same kind of charge replication and migration, until the negative side came in contact with the positive side. This would create the mini replication of the Big Bang that we call Gamma Ray Bursts.
The collapse of a massive star, or the collision between two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole, can cause a Gamma Ray Burst. But yet the collision between two black holes does not seem to cause a Gamma Ray Burst. This confirms my theory of both black holes and Gamma Ray Bursts. Black holes are "pure" matter where the very structures of matter, including the strings themselves, have been broken down by the extreme gravity so that there are no strings that can break.
These are by far the most powerful explosions in the universe, and occur on a regular basis across the universe, but are, as of yet, unexplained.
This explains the structure of the entire universe. First, the inductive reproduction of opposite electric charges to form the checkerboard pattern of empty space. Second, the overcoming by energy of the repulsive force between like charges to bring about the concentrations of like charges that we perceive as matter.
But this is information and, if it is correct, must be reflected in the large-scale structure of the universe. This is because information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. The large-scale structure of the universe must be based on the structure at the lowest levels, that of the fundamental electric charges, because there is no other information from anywhere on which it could be based.
A simple example of how a large-scale structure must be based on the lower-level information on which it is composed is how planets orbit stars and moons orbit planets in the same way that electrons in orbitals around the nuclei of the atoms of which the stars, planets and, moons are composed. This is the way it has to be because there is no other information from anywhere on which to construct the large-scale structures which are the moons and planets and stars.
We could say that the difference between these two factors is that the inductive reproduction of electric charges is anti-spiral in that the induction by each charge produces the opposite of itself, that is the opposite charge, rather than producing more of the same. While the overcoming of the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy, to create matter, is spiral because it tends to produce more of itself.
According to my cosmology theory, the way that the overcoming of the mutual repulsion of like electric charges, to form matter, is spiral is that this is what brings about gravity. If inductive charge reproduction is so that the number of opposite electric charges, negative and positive, must be equal, then the rules of the electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel, must also be equal. If energy then overcomes some of the mutual repulsion between like charges, then it must leave a net attractive charge. This net attractive charge is what we know as gravity.
Gravity is the basis of the spiral pattern in the universe, something that brings about more of itself, because matter has gravity that draws other matter in. This gives the mass still more gravity so that it can draw still more mass in, and so on. Thus, matter pulling in more matter by gravity is the fundamental spiral pattern, bringing about more of itself, in the universe.
So, if both my cosmological theory about the universe being based on electric charges, which compose strings of matter after some of the repulsion between like charges has been overcome by energy, and the cosmological information theory about how the structure of the highest levels of matter in the universe must be based on the information in the lowest levels, because there is no more information from anywhere on which to base the structure of the large-scale universe, are correct, then we should see both spiral and anti-spiral patterns in the universe all around us.
But since the electric charges, with the inductive reproduction of opposite charges, came first and are the more fundamental of the two, since the array of electric charges must first exist before energy can be applied to them to hold some bundles of like charges together against the mutual repulsion of like charges, which would bring about the gravity which is the primary spiral pattern, the anti-spiral pattern should dominate the universe overall.
THE INTERACTION OF SPIRAL AND ANTI-SPIRAL
There are indeed two great, and opposing, patterns which govern all change in the universe. These two patterns, encompassing all of the basic forces, are the spiral and the anti-spiral. Put simply, a spiral is a pattern of change that tends to create more of itself, resulting in a spiral, while the anti-spiral has a built-in resistance to creating more of itself. Spiral often amounts to attraction, and anti-spiral to repulsion or dispersion. These opposing patterns of change are reflected at all levels of reality in the universe. On a large scale gravity is spiral and the Big Bang, the explosion which began the universe, is anti-spiral.
The attraction usually represents the spiral, beginning with gravity, while the repulsion represents the anti-spiral. Since all the universe must ultimately operate on the principles of it's most fundamental components, this attraction and repulsion is represented in the universe as a whole as spiral and anti-spiral.
All motion and change in the universe results from the tension between spiral and anti-spiral. If there was either one, but not the other, the universe would be still. If the universe were totally spiral, there would be one concentrated black hole. If it were completely anti-spiral, there would be no coherent matter but only dispersed particles.
It was the Big Bang which defined the universe as primarily anti-spiral by scattering matter across space. Gravity, representing the spiral, attracts the matter back together but has not proven strong enough to reverse the dispersion brought about by the Big Bang. This sets the pattern that, while the universe has both the spiral and anti-spiral patterns, the anti-spiral is overall dominant.
If gravity does bring enough matter together it will form a star, but then some of those later explode in a miniature version of the Big Bang anti-spiral known as a supernova. But such an explosion of a star, which was brought together by gravity, is not enough to completely reverse the spiral concentration of gravity because the lighter elements which originally formed the star remain fused together into the heavier elements which are scattered across space by the supernova.
The two opposing patterns, rooted in the attraction and repulsion of the fundamental charges composing the universe, but with some of the repulsive force overcome by energy to form gravity, are to be seen in the smallest scale of reality just as in the largest. All of the basic forces of physics cannot be either spiral or anti-spiral, this would bring the movement and change in the universe to a halt. For the universe to be dynamic as we see it today, the basic forces must be divided between the spiral and the anti-spiral. But the ultimate reason that the universe is governed by these two opposing patterns is that it is composed of the two opposite electric charges, which we call negative and positive.
The strong nuclear force, which binds the positively-charged protons in the nucleus together against their like-charge mutual repulsion, is spiral. But the so-called weak nuclear force, related to the breaking apart of large atoms by radioactivity, and also the electromagnetic force which is based on the nature of the fundamental electric charges, are anti-spiral.
EXAMPLES OF SPIRAL AND ANTI-SPIRAL
Here is a list, and a brief explanation, of common anti-spiral patterns:
Balance-anything that maintains balance or equilibrium resists the concentration of spiraling, and is thus anti-spiral.
Induction-an electric current in a coil which induces another current in a nearby wire, will induce the current in such a way that it resists the original current by flowing in the opposite direction, thus making it anti-spiral.
Equal And Opposite Reaction-Sir Isaac Newton's Law that for every physical action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction, maintains the overall balance of matter and so is anti-spiral. You can easily see that this law of equal and opposite reactions is ultimately based on the information in the two equal and opposite electric charges that compose the universe. Simple examples of equal and opposite reactions are the thrust of a rocket in one direction sends the rocket in the opposite direction and, if two gears are meshed and one is turned then the other will rotate in the opposite direction.
Flood-when liquid spreads out over a surface, instead of concentrating, it is anti-spiral.
Enclosed Gas-an enclosed gas in a container will spread evenly throughout the container, instead of concentrating in one place, making it anti-spiral.
Big Bang-the explosion which brought about the universe by scattering matter across space is the original anti-spiral.
Explosion-any explosion, resulting in dispersion rather than concentration, is anti-spiral.
Osmosis-the dispersion of a concentration in a liquid is anti-spiral.
Centrifugal Force-the outward force of spin is the opposite of gravity, and so is anti-spiral.
Fission-the dispersion of splitting large atoms into smaller ones is anti-spiral.
Radioactivity-this involves the splitting of large atoms, and so is anti-spiral.
Opposing Ideas-the competition and balance between opposing ideas, keeping one from dominating, is anti-spiral.
Anarchy-control is spiral, the dissolution of such control is anti-spiral.
Individualism-the concentration of the group is spiral, the dissolution of this is anti-spiral.
Entropy-I find that meaningful examples of entropy are found only in regard to living things, and the things that they make, but it is very anti-spiral. It is a lot easier to spill something than it is to put it back into the container.
Here is a list, and a brief explanation, of common spiral patterns which oppose the anti-spiral patterns:
Gravity-the ultimate spiral force is gravity. When a mass, such as a star or planet gains more mass by gravity, that will strengthen it's gravitational pull so that it can attract still more mass, creating the spiral. But this ultimately comes up against the dispersion anti-spiral of a supernova or the Big Bang.
Centripetal Force-this is the spiral opposite of the outward anti-spiral centrifugal force.
Fusion-the spiral fusing of small atoms into larger ones within stars.
Hurricane-the self-sustaining nature of a hurricane makes it spiral.
Growth Pole-anything that acts as a starting point for growth is spiral.
Life-the growth and reproduction of living things makes them spiral, but this must ultimately be balanced by the anti-spiral death and decay.
Wealth And Poverty-wealth and poverty tend to exhibit a concentration spiral.
Authority-the opposite of anarchy is spiral.
Empire-one nation or authority, instead of many, is spiral.
Spread Of Idea-the triumph of one idea over others, and the resulting standardization, is spiral.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS INVOLVING BOTH SPIRAL AND ANTI-SPIRAL
What we will refer to as a complex system involves both the spiral and the anti-spiral pattern. Complex systems are so called because they require more complexity to incorporate both the spiral and anti-spiral patterns. Living things are such complex systems, with the required complexity coming from the myriad of molecules that can be constructed from carbon atoms.
There are examples within simple spirals and anti-spirals of things to do with people or living things, such as nations or authority, but this is only because the higher complexity of people on opposing sides tends to cancel each other out.
The reason that I describe the universe as anti-spiral is that, when the two relate in complex terms it is always the anti-spiral pattern which ultimately predominates. This must be true in any continuous dynamic process, including all biological processes.
Intelligent living things are capable of doing work, which means making changes which would not otherwise occur. Work is opposition to the prevailing pattern. Since the anti-spiral pattern predominates in the universe. this means that work is most often spiral. The most common anti-spiral work would be clearing a wilderness.
Here are examples, and brief explanations, of complex patterns involving a peak:
Star-a star results from a gravitational concentration of matter, and fuses lighter elements into heavier ones, which are both spiral. But in large stars, this ultimately explodes in a supernova that scatters matter across space and so is anti-spiral.
Fire-fire is spiral in that it spreads, but ultimately anti-spiral in that is scatters the component atoms of it's fuel as ash and smoke.
Growth-the concentration brought about by the growth of living things is spiral, but must end in the death and decay which is anti-spiral.
Prices-the rising of prices due to demand is spiral, but that gives incentive for more production or to find substitutes which is anti-spiral.
Settlement-the growth of a town or city brings opportunity, which draws more settlers which makes it spiral, but is balanced against the resulting land scarcity and prices which drives to other settlements and this is anti-spiral.
Recession And Wealth-both tend toward spiraling, but cannot go on indefinitely.
There is a definite pattern in what we can see as either spiral or anti-spiral. If some force consists of a balance between two entities, it will form an anti-spiral. Spirals form when a force that creates it does not consist of any kind of balance between sub-entities.
If the force for change consists of a balance, the balance must be maintained and this causes the entity to resist creating more of itself. To do otherwise would alter the fundamental balance because it would necessitate that the sub-entities be created at exactly the same rate to preserve the balance. Remember that the pattern of balance is ultimately based on the balance of negative and positive charges in the universe.
Electrical induction provides an ideal example. If a current in one coil induces a secondary current in a nearby coil, the secondary current will flow in the direction through the wires which opposes the direction of the primary current. In other words, electrical induction is anti-spiral because it resists inducing a current in the original direction. It can be said to resist itself by inducing a current in the opposite direction. This is, of course, because the behavior of electric current is closely based on the nature of the fundamental electric charges.
Electricity is the movement of electrons, which are the fundamental negative charges of matter. This matter consists of a balance between our negative and positive charges which define the universe. Since the movement of electrons in the coil affects, and is affected by, this fundamental balance then an electric current must be anti-spiral in that it resists inducing more current in the same direction as the original.
Because electricity is related to the balance of charges, it must balance itself when induction takes place by inducing a current in the opposite direction. The way we see it a current which induces more current in the same direction would be creating electrical energy out of nothing, which would be nice, but not possible.
This information in the fundamental charges also defines the anti-spiral pattern that takes place when some force for change consists of a balance between sub-entities. When something from outside, such as the second electrical coil, becomes a part of the system, the only way to maintain the required balance is to have the current in the second coil flow in the opposite direction. This replicates the balance that exists between the fundamental negative and positive charges.
The reason that gravity is spiral is simply that, unlike the electric charges, there is no opposing force to gravity. Outside of science fiction, there is no such thing as anti-gravity. There is a balance in things that are anti-spiral because there is the balance between the negative and positive electric charges.
Gravity can be opposed by the kinetic energy of moving objects, but that is based on a principle similar in concept to the opposing electrical induction in that it is based on Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions. The kinetic energy of moving atoms, which we refer to as heat, also ultimately comes down to this law that every action must be opposed by an equal and opposite reaction so that the original balance can be maintained. The equal and opposite reaction is, of course, a mirror of the equal and opposite electric charges of the mutual opposite charge induction that began the universe.
The same anti-spiral pattern can be seen in any force for change that consists of a balance. In economics, prices and goods pair up and create a balance. When there is a change in the supply or demand for the goods, prices change to restore the balance. This can only mean that, since it is based on a balance, the system must form an anti-spiral. Prices and goods remain in balance, neither just goes on increasing because it depends on the other. This is very similar to the negative and positive charges in balance.
Everything that brings about change is either spiral or anti-spiral. The Big Bang, the anti-spiral explosion which set the universe in motion, left it's imprint on the universe in that the anti-spiral must always ultimately predominate. For the two to be equal, gravity would have to be strong enough to pull the matter of the universe back together in order to reverse the Big Bang. The balance factor in the anti-spiral pattern is based on the original template of the balance between the fundamental negative and positive charges of which the universe is composed.
CONCLUSION
There are both spiral and anti-spiral patterns all across the universe, but the anti-spiral ultimately predominates. This is because the anti-spiral pattern is based on the information in the alternating negative and positive electric charges that compose space. The opposite charges alternate because opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. But the repulsion between like charges can be overcome by energy, and this brings about the concentrations of like charge that we refer to as matter and which brings about the spiral. But, since the two opposite charges came first and there is not enough energy to overcome only a very limited amount of the like-charge repulsion, the anti-spiral pattern dominates overall.
PART 3-DIMENSIONS
8) ORIGINAL GEOMETRIC FORMS AND COSMOLOGY
A point can be thought of as zero dimensions. From there, each successive dimension produces a geometric form that is inconceivable in the previous dimension. When we introduce the first dimension, we get the geometric form of a line, which is the only possible geometric form in one dimension.
When we introduce the second dimension, we get the geometric form of a circle, which is inconceivable in one dimension.
But when we introduce the third dimension, that ceases. There is no original geometric form in three dimensions that was not present in one and two dimensions. All geometric forms in the universe that we see in three dimensions can be made up of some combinations of lines and circles.
A three-dimensional cylinder is simply a circle in two dimensions, combined with a line in the remaining dimension. A sphere is just a two-dimensional circle, with another dimension added. A cube is a one-dimensional line, with two more dimensions added. There is nothing at all original about either a square in two dimensions, or a cube in three dimensions.
An ellipse is formed by taking the two perpendicular dimensions of a circle, and making one longer than the other. Any curve, in two or three dimensions, is formed by combining elements of lines and circles.
Here is one of those questions of the ages that we rarely stop to think about. If there are original geometric forms in each of the first two spatial dimensions, why wouldn't there be one in the third dimension?
In my cosmology theory, the two-dimensional sheet of space is the source of what we perceive as matter, so it must also be the source of information regarding the geometric forms that matter takes. There were only two dimensions in that sheet, even though it's matter was thrown out across more dimensions of space than this by the Big Bang. This is why there are original geometric forms in only two dimensions of space, but not the third. It is a reflection of the dimensions of this two-dimensional sheet.
Since this shows that the origins of matter had to be two-dimensional, but yet we see the particles that compose matter, such as electrons, as dimensionless points, there must be a dimension that we cannot see, and that explains what time is. And, by the way, I cannot see that there is any plausible explanation for what time actually is anywhere other than this theory. Or a reason why there is no original geometric form in the third dimension, as there is in the first two.
This original two-dimensional sheet of space had to be non-contiguous with the background space, or else there would be no reason for it to not be part of that background space. This means that each of the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet had to be in contact with two dimensions of the background space.
This means that, when one of the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, leaving the other dimension as strings that we see as the component particles of matter such as electrons, these strings of matter would be thrown out across the four dimensions of space that the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet had been in contact with. If either one of the two dimensions of the sheet was contiguous with only one dimension of the background space, it would be part of the background space, and would not have been a separate sheet. Since we inhabit three spatial dimensions, this explains the other dimension as what we perceive as time.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
Both dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet had to be in non-contiguous contact with the two dimensions of the background space. The two dimensions of the sheet could not have shared a dimension of the background space that they were in contact with because the two dimensions of the sheet were at right angles to one another. This gives us, once again, four dimensions of space and means that the one we do not experience as space is time. Since we perceive particles such as electrons as being in only three-dimensional space, this shows that there must actually be four over which matter was thrown by the Big Bang.
INTRODUCING THE TRIDIMOID
You have probably never heard of a tridimoid. It is a geometrical form, but isn't in any textbook. That is because there was not enough information in the universe for it to exist. This is the name that I have given to it, the name means "three dimensional form". We cannot imagine a tridimoid, it is not composed of any arrangement of lines and circles at all, it would be a completely original form. It would have been the original geometric form, like the line and the circle before it, that was next in line to exist if there had been a third dimension to the two-dimensional sheet of space from which matter originated.
8a) RADIATION UPON A MOVING PARTICLE BEING GIVEN PERPENDICULAR ACCELERATION
Here is one of those questions in science that does not seem to have an explanation. When a charged particle, such as an electron, is moving, and we accelerate it in a perpendicular direction to it's motion, by use of a magnetic field, the particle will emit radiation. It will not emit radiation when it first begins moving, only when it is already moving and is accelerated in a direction that is perpendicular to it's motion.
This brings us to that age-old one-word question: Why?
We know that moving charged particles emit radiation if their motion is slowed by interaction with other charged particles. This is known as bremsstrahlung, or braking radiation.
The reason for this is straightforward. There is energy in the motion of the particle and if this motion is slowed, there is excess energy that has to go somewhere, and it is released as radiation.
If we get an electron moving, and then change the direction in which it is moving, energy is released as radiation when the direction changes. But energy is not released when we get the electron moving to begin with. When a particle is moving there is energy in the motion and, if the particle is slowed or stopped, the energy is released as radiation. This is known as "braking radiation".
What happens with the electron is described in the following diagram. At point 1 we get the electron moving. At point 2 we change it's direction, where the energy is released as radiation. This is explained by the right triangle. The dimensions of space form right angles. We change the direction from A to B. But C, the diagonal of the triangle, is a shorter route than AB. So the excess energy is released as radiation.
We also know that energy is released as radiation during stellar fusion, which is why stars shine. Small atoms are crunched together by the heat and gravity in the center of the star into larger atoms. The nuclei of larger atoms have proportionally more neutrons, relative to protons and electrons, than the smaller atoms which they were crunched together from.
This means that electrons must be crunched together into protons, to form neutrons. This is exactly what happens and the process is known as K-capture. But the electron in an orbital had orbital energy before it was captured, that it wouldn't need as part of the neutron, and that energy had to go somewhere. It was released as radiation, and that is why stars shine.
We can see then that a release of radiation is to eliminate excess energy. There is the same process that makes up one of the three forms of radioactivity, alpha, beta and, gamma. Large atoms, heavier than iron, are crunched together from smaller atoms only by the release of energy when a large star is actually in the process of exploding as a supernova.
But some of these heavy atoms are less-than-stable. They gradually give off either particles or radiation in order to seek a more stable configuration. If they give off radiation, it is of very short wavelength and is known as gamma rays.
So we can see that the emission of radiation is due to excess energy. But why would a charged particle that is already moving give off radiation if it is accelerated, by a magnetic field, perpendicular to the direction in which it is already moving, but it doesn't give off any radiation when it begins moving in the first place?
This radiation is called either synchrotron or cyclotron radiation, and it actually has told us much of what we know to be going on outside of black holes. But it just doesn't seem to make sense, and actually doesn't make sense in the universe as we see it.
The answer as to why a moving charged particle would emit radiation when it is accelerated in a direction perpendicular to it's motion is actually explained by simple geometry. But it requires the model of the universe as described in my cosmology theory.
We are really in four-dimensional space, one of which we perceive as time. What we see as particles are actually strings aligned mostly in the same direction in space, the one that we perceive as time. Whenever we look out in space, we are looking in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction in which the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains is aligned.
Velocity of a particle or object is simply that it is bent or aligned at an angle in space relative to the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, which we perceive as particles. All three spatial dimensions are at right angles to our time dimension. So if we accelerate a "moving" charged particle, which is a bundle of strings that is already aligned at an angle to us, we are actually adding a right angle to it's motion.
What that forms, in four-dimensional space, is a right triangle.
If we get an electron moving, and then change the direction in which it is moving, energy is released as radiation when the direction changes. But energy is not released when we get the electron moving to begin with. When a particle is moving there is energy in the motion and, if the particle is slowed or stopped, the energy is released as radiation. This is known as "braking radiation".
What happens with the electron is described in the following diagram. At point 1 we get the electron moving. At point 2 we change it's direction, where the energy is released as radiation. This is explained by the right triangle. The dimensions of space form right angles. We change the direction from A to B. But C, the diagonal of the triangle, is a shorter route than AB. So the excess energy is released as radiation.
Side A, the base of the triangle, represents our time dimension which is the direction that the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains is primarily aligned.
Side C, the diagonal of the triangle, represents the alignment of the accelerated particle which we perceive to be in motion because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.
Side B, the height of the triangle, represents the acceleration that was given to the particle when it was already in motion.
What matters here is that the diagonal of a right triangle is shorter than the two legs put together. Since the moving charged particle is actually a "diagonal" in four dimensions of space, because it is moving, the fact that the diagonal is shorter applies to it.
The initial energy of the particle's motion and then the acceleration in a perpendicular direction forms a right triangle. But the "motion" of the particle, if it could be seen in four-dimensional space, would be a diagonal across that right triangle because, in my cosmology theory, what we see as motion is actually the string or bundle of strings aligned at an angle so that it's distance from us changes during the motion of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains in the dimension of space that we perceive as time.
Because the diagonal of a right triangle is always shorter than it's two legs combined and the legs represent energy, first to get the particle moving and then to accelerate it in a perpendicular direction, that means that there must be excess energy when the particle is accelerated in the perpendicular direction. That is why energy is released when a moving charged particle is accelerated, by a magnetic field, in a direction perpendicular to that in which it is already moving.
No radiation is released when the charged particle is set in motion to begin with because it would then just be a string at an angle to the alignment of our time dimension. There would be nothing to define a right triangle so that the alignment of the particle would be shorter than the two legs of the triangle combined and there would thus be energy of velocity to be released as radiation.
But this explanation, which makes perfect sense, is correct only if my cosmological theory is correct.
8b) ENERGY RADIATED IS FOURTH POWER OF OBJECT'S ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE
On the day that I came up with the beginning of this cosmology theory, I was wondering what time actually was but there was no real answer anywhere. The realization suddenly came to me that there must be a dimension of space that we cannot see, a fourth dimension, but that we perceive as time.
So many other unexplained things suddenly began to fall into place? We can measure the speed of light with precision but had no idea why it is the speed that it is. Of course, matter is really strings if it occupies four dimensions and this is the speed at which our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, and is why Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity revolves around the absolute invariability of the speed of light.
The next thing to fall into place was the radiation from the Big Bang. We can receive this radiation but it does not come from any one direction. It seems to be coming at us from all directions in space. But how can this be if the Big Bang took place in one location, and the universe is expanding outward from that location. We should be able to easily see in which direction in space the Big Bang occurred.
Of course, there must be four dimensions on of which we perceive as time. We see the Big Bang as being the beginning of time but it's radiation seems to be coming from us in all directions in space. That is because the direction in space to the Big Bang is really the dimension that we perceive as time. How simple.
But there was something that planted the seed of the idea that there might be four spatial dimensions in my mind. It was the question as to why an object with heat in space will radiate energy that is in proportion to the fourth power of it's absolute temperature. I didn't understand why it would be the fourth power. It should be proportional to the number of spatial dimensions. If there are three spatial dimensions then it should be to the third power.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law in physics is that an object in space at a given temperature will radiate heat and other electromagnetic energy, such as light, if it is hot enough. In an idealized black body the energy radiated will be in direct proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the object.
A black body means an object that absorbs all of the electromagnetic radiation falling on it and reflects none. Absolute temperature means measured from the coldest possible temperature, which is absolute zero. This is the temperature that is so cold that all molecular motion has stopped, since heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. Absolute zero is -459 degrees Fahrenheit or -273.16 degrees Celsius. The Kelvin scale uses Celsius degrees but starts at absolute zero so that the melting point of ice is 273.16 and the boiling point of water is 373.16 degrees Kelvin.
(Note-This means that, in terms of proportion, a scorching hot summer day is only about 15 percent warmer than a frigid winter day. The reason for our temperature comfort zone is that we are so dependent on the liquid range of water. You may notice that this proportion is about the same as the difference, relative to a complete circle, of the lean of the earth's axis 23 1 / 2 degrees toward the sun in summer and away in winter).
Let's review what the "fourth power" of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law means. A straight line is said to be one-dimensional. If we add another straight line, in a perpendicular dimension, that gives us a square. If each line were ten meters long, that would give us 10 x 10 = 100 square meters. A square is defined as being to the second power, because the number is in the equation twice, which is why it is indicated by a small "2". If we add a third straight line, perpendicular to the other two, that gives us a cube. Just as a square means to the second power, a cube means to the third power. 10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000 cubic meters.
The fourth power would just be adding another ten to this, 10 x 10 x 10 x 10. This means that if a black body object were emitting radiant energy at a temperature of 300 degrees Kelvin ( 26.84 degrees Celsius), it would emit only .687 times as much energy when it cooled to the freezing point of water at 273.16 degrees Kelvin ( 0 degrees Celsius).
But now the question here is why it would be the fourth power. We can see that the object is three-dimensional, and thus would be radiating into three-dimensional space. But three dimensions is to the third power. How could a warm object possibly be radiating energy to the fourth power?
But what if my cosmology theory is correct? We are really in four dimensions of space, the fourth being what we perceive as time? That would mean that particles, such as electrons, are really strings in four-dimensional space, that we can only see one moment at a time, and time is the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. The absoluteness of the speed of light in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is explainable simply as that is the speed at which our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
This would mean that velocity is actually an angle of a bundle of strings, relative to the directional alignment of bundles of strings that are at rest, and this direction would be the dimension at right angles to all three of our spatial dimensions. That would mean that a moving object would have a time dimension that would not be exactly the same as an object at rest, or one moving at a different velocity.
Remember that heat is defined as the kinetic energy of moving atoms and molecules, meaning that all atoms and molecules in an object are moving, unless the object is at a temperature of absolute zero. A moving charged particle emits electromagnetic radiation when it is either accelerated in a perpendicular direction to it's motion by a magnetic field or is slowed by interaction with another charged particle.
Ordinary atoms overall are not charged, their charges balance out to zero, but the electrons in orbitals are negatively-charged and they interact with electrons in other moving atoms. This is where the radiation comes from that a warm object emits. The interactions between electrons in orbitals of different atoms cause their respective atoms to slow, which means the object cooling, and radiation is emitted as a result because the energy that was formerly in the motion of atoms and molecules has to go somewhere.
But the more dimensions there are, the more interactions there will be between moving atoms and the faster the object will emit radiation. If you drive straight ahead on a flat area other cars may intersect with you from the sides, this would be two dimensional. But if you could drive in three dimensions, or fly, so that other cars could approach you both from up and down as well as from the sides, you would intersect with many more cars than you would in only two dimensions.
Atoms and molecules in an object with any heat are moving and since, in my cosmology theory, motion is actually the angle of a string or bundle of strings in the four dimensions, that means that the fourth dimension being the one in which the strings are aligned is different if it is in motion, as well as different for different velocities of motion. That means that energy is radiated into the fourth dimension as well, even though energy is always radiated at right angles from a string or bundle of strings.
This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann Law states that the energy radiated by an object is directly proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of that object. My cosmology theory is correct and there are four dimensions over which the matter of our universe is scattered.
9) COSMOLOGY AND DRIVING
When most students reach the age where they can drive a car, a police officer might visit the school to give them a lecture about safety. They are told the basic physics of a speeding vehicle, that a car moving at twice the velocity actually has four times the force. It also requires more expensive fuel to drive at a faster speed.
Put simply, the Inverse Square Law states that a light seen at three times the distance will appear as only one-ninth as bright. This applies to sound, as well as any electromagnetic waves that propagate through three-dimensional space.
Another application of the Inverse Square Law is in orbital energies. A satellite that is given three times the orbital energy will then orbit at nine times the distance, but will move at only one-third the speed. This is because the force of gravity decreases, according to the Inverse Square Law, as we move away from it's source.
But the velocity of the wave is not affected by the Inverse Square Law, and the same law applies whether it is slow-moving sound or fast-moving electromagnetic waves.
But now the question that we have here is: Why would the one-dimensional, along the straight line of a road, acceleration of a vehicle be governed by the same Inverse Square Law that applies to waves in three-dimensional space? It just doesn't make sense, unless three-dimensional space is somehow involved in the one-dimensional acceleration of a vehicle, in ways that are not readily apparent to us.
Remember that my cosmology theory is that velocity is actually an angle, the angle of a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space that comprises what we perceive in three-dimensional space as an object in motion. An object moving at twice the velocity is actually a bundle of strings bent at twice the angle with the speed of light, which we perceive as the maximum possible velocity, actually being a right angle which is the maximum possible angle.
But the energy required to bend a bundle of strings at an angle is not proportional, it adheres to the Inverse Square Law with four times the energy being necessary to bend a string or bundle of strings to twice the angle.
One validation of this concept in the cosmology theory can be seen in trigonometry. If we consider a right triangle with the other two angles being unequal, bringing the two angles closer together will also bring about a lengthening of the hypotenuse until it reaches a maximum when both angles are 45 degrees. Put another way, if a hypotenuse arises from a straight line, bringing it from 1 to 2 degrees will bring about and increase in the length of the hypotenuse that is four times the increase of bringing it from 0 to 1 degrees. This can easily be verified with a scientific calculator.
To understand why the one-dimensional straight line acceleration of a vehicle would follow exactly the same rule as waves in three-dimensional space, we have to understand not only that what we perceive as acceleration is actually the angle of a bundle of strings in four-dimensional space, but that we are also effectively moving, as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings that are our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, in a direction perpendicular to that in which we perceive the acceleration as taking place. With twice the apparent velocity of the object actually being twice the angle of the bundle of strings, relative to the dimension that we perceive as time in which the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains are actually aligned.
Acceleration and the energy of velocity adheres to the Inverse Square Law because when the velocity doubles, the angle of the bundle of strings also doubles, and it means twice the area of space between the bundle of strings at the angle and the direction which we perceive as time, which an object is at rest if it is aligned. But, with our consciousness moving at a constant rate, when the angle of the accelerating object doubles, it also means that the portion of our bundle of strings, which we perceive as our bodies and brains, is divided in half relative to a fixed point on the bundle of strings of the accelerating object, meaning a given point in time on the accelerating object.
So, with twice the velocity of the accelerating object meaning twice the area of space between it's bundle of strings and the alignment, along the time dimension, of an object at rest, and the space along the dimension that we perceive as time, in which we interface with the object relative to it's new time state, being divided in half, effectively giving us now only half the time to apply the same force necessary to accelerate the object further, we see that attaining twice the velocity of the object will require four times the force.
Due to our motion, of our consciousness, along the dimension that we perceive as time, we have to apply twice the force in order to apply the same force in half the time. To accelerate an object to what we perceive as the speed of light, which is simply a right angle, we would have the apply the force absolutely instantaneously which, due to the movement of our consciousness, is not possible. The movement of our consciousness becomes part of the vector of any force that we apply.
This Inverse Square Law of acceleration operates the same as that of the amplitude of electromagnetic radiation, except that the two affected dimensions of electromagnetic waves are the vertical and the horizontal, while the two dimensions of acceleration are the dimension in which the acceleration is taking place and the dimension in which we are moving forward in time.
How can acceleration operate like electromagnetic waves in space if it is only one-dimensional? Clearly, there must be another dimension involved, which we cannot see. What else could it be except the dimension of space that my theory has us perceiving as time? How does the one-dimensional movement of electrons in a radio antenna produce a two-dimensional wave, unless there is another dimension involved?
If the speed of light is just an angle But if the speed of light is just an angle then why is it so inaccessible to us? Why can't we build a spacecraft that could fly at the speed of light? For that matter why can't a baseball player hit the ball at the speed of light?
As illustrated in the following diagram everything we do has a time element in it. Velocity is represented by an angle, with a horizontal line being an object at rest and a vertical line being an object at the speed of light. The angle at which the baseball player can hit the ball is a vector between his own time momentum, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and the perpendicular force applied to the ball.
The direction of our consciousness is shown by the red arrow. The baseball player's time momentum is represented by the large arrow and the perpendicular force applied to the baseball is represented by the small arrow. Since the angle representing the velocity of the baseball is a vector of the two arrows, the baseball (dashed line) falls far short of the speed of light, which would be a right angle.
Any vehicles that we build are powered by chemical or physical processes that also have a time element, making the speed of light impossible. Fission or electromagnetic radiation is able to achieve the speed of light, in the above example, because there is no time element involved.
PART 4-QUANTUM PHYSICS
10) QUANTUM PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY
We could look at all of physics as three stores, side by side in a plaza, but with no doors in the walls between the stores, so that we cannot go directly from one store to another. The middle store represents conventional or "classical" physics, which represents the everyday reality that we are used to. On one side of conventional physics we have the store representing relativity. There is no door between conventional physics and relativity, because relativity shows that there are concepts that are true but which are impossible to explain by the laws of conventional physics. On the opposite side of conventional physics is quantum physics. Just as with relativity, there have been proven concepts in quantum physics that are impossible to explain by the laws of ordinary physics. Nor can we go directly between relativity and quantum physics because all of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity revolves around the absolute invariability of the speed of light, while in quantum physics the speed of light is not a factor or a limit at all.
The way that my cosmology theory fits into all of this is that it is the "basement" below the plaza that links all three stores together. The cosmology theory could aptly be referred to as a basement because, just as we cannot see down into the basement from the surface level that we inhabit in our everyday lives, so my cosmology theory involves at least one additional dimension of space that we cannot see into.
My cosmology theory has what we see as particles, such as electrons, in three-dimensional space as actually strings in four-dimensional space. The missing dimension is what we perceive as time.
QUANTUM MECHANICS
Quantum mechanics involves realms that are smaller than the sizes of atoms and involves things that neither "classical physics" nor relativity can readily explain, such as the entanglement between two particles or wave-particle duality. An important component of quantum mechanics, or quantum physics, is how the observer becomes part of the quantum system that is being observed. For example, quantum physics has a system in all possible states, but when it is observed it falls into only one state.
One thing that is completely different about the relatively new science of Quantum Physics is that the observation is a vital part of any interaction. If a quantum interaction is being observed it makes all the difference, relative to if it is not being observed. A well known example is the Two Slit Experiment.
There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon but it requires seeing electrons as one-dimensional strings, as they are in four dimensions, rather than the particles as conventionally portrayed. The only way that we can see or receive electromagnetic waves is by their interaction with electrons.
As shown in the following diagram, waves are two-dimensional while an electron is one-dimensional. We know that an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional because it has two pieces of information, the wavelength and the amplitude. We can also see how an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional in that a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) wave will push electrons with more force but will not push any more electrons. A brighter light, but at the same frequency, will push more electrons but not with any more force.
Yet another way we can see that electromagnetic waves are two dimensional is that their angle of vibration can be polarized, like the hands on a clock. We perceive light as filling three dimensional space because our eyes are so much larger than the wavelength of light.
The reason that observation is such a vital part of Quantum Physics is that it is necessary for the electron to absorb one dimension of the wave. This is the only way that we can observe the interaction. That changes the interaction. The remaining one dimension of the wave is like a particle of light, which we refer to as a photon.
That is why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature. One dimension of the wave can be absorbed by an electron, which is the only way that we can observe it. The diagram shows the two dimensional wave at top and the one dimensional electron string at bottom.
Quantum theory might seem to be reminiscent of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, in that objects moving at the speed of light brings special effects, such as alteration in mass and time and length, that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. Einstein tried, but never quite succeeded, to incorporate quantum theory into relativity. Special Relativity, as opposed to General Relativity which is about gravity, considers the speed of light as sacrosanct, but yet it has been shown that the movement of information in quantum states is not bound at all by it. Einstein referred to the concept of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance".
To someone who has studied ordinary physics, the rules in the realm of quantum physics sound even more bizarre than those of relativity. No model can describe quantum effects by conventional reasoning. Quantum states are sensitive to motion, electromagnetism, gravity, and any kind of sensors or being observed in any way. Quantum super-positioning can be described as combining quantum states together to form another quantum state. Quantum Tunneling refers to a particle tunneling through some kind of barrier, in quantum terms, that it could not get through in terms of conventional physics.
The application of quantum theory has brought all manner of breakthroughs in technology. It is generally considered that there has been two quantum revolutions, in terms of technology. The First Quantum Revolution brought semiconductors and lasers. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and LED (Light-Emitting Diode) technology are applications of quantum theory. The Second Quantum Revolution is bringing us the use in technology of such quantum principles as entanglement and superposition.
So-called quantum computing is an application of the principle of superposition. Using qubits, quantum bits instead of ordinary computer bits, to store information, quantum computing offers more than the usual two bits, of 1 and 0, to store information by permutations. It is this second quantum revolution that we will discuss here.
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT SHOWS THAT PARTICLES ARE REALLY STRINGS IN FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE
According to quantum theory, photons are the smallest quanta of electromagnetic waves, hence the name of the theory. Photons exhibit what is referred to as wave-particle duality, in that they have the properties of both waves and particles. In quantum theory, photons are considered as primary particles.
If a photon, a single quanta of light, is passed through a crystal, which acts as a prism, so that the photon splits in two which go off in different directions, if something affects one of the photons, the effect will immediately show in the other photon. This is known as entanglement. It does not matter how far apart the photons are. The speed of light does not apply because the effect on the other photon is immediate.
A photon must be a string, in my cosmology theory, that can be split in two. But the two are not really separate. When one photon is affected in some way, the entangled photon shows the counter-effect. Photons have to retain certain quantum states to remain entangled, upward or downward spin for example, The possible loss of entanglement between the two photons, due to environmental factors, is known as de-coherence.
It turns out that this entanglement property is related to the quantum state even being observed. The interaction with any measurement apparatus by a photon, or other quantum state, leads to another instance of entanglement.
Quantum entanglement If a photon is split by a crystal the two resulting photons share the same quantum state. Any change in one of the photons is immediately reflected in the other. The two photons are said to be entangled. The information moves instantaneously between the two, no matter how far apart they are, showing that there really is no speed of light.
Scientists can detect no information moving between the entangled photons, but yet somehow it must. Remember that, in my cosmology theory, time is really the fourth dimension of space. The following diagram shows how, at the present represented by the dashed red line, the two entangled photons are still linked in the past direction at point A, where they were split by the crystal. The arrow shows the direction of time.
This property of quantum entanglement offers tremendous opportunities for technologies such as radar and computing. If we generate a pair of entangled photons, splitting one photon by passing it through a crystal, one is sent to the objective and the other is retained. What happens to the one at the objective is immediately reflected in the one that is retained. In quantum communications or radar, having such an entangled pair easily enables us to pick out a sought-after photon amidst background noise. Quantum teleportation is instantly sending information from one place to another, by way of entangled photons, and is not limited by the speed of light.
Quantum Key Distribution uses one of a pair of entangled photons to make any interception of the other immediately clear. This means hack-proof communications. Since observation of a photon is an entanglement that would be reflected in the other of it's entangled pair, even that would be immediately detected. The photon that is retained will immediately reflect any tampering, or even observation, of the photon at the other end.
All of this means that we can manipulate photons in ways that would be much more difficult with other primary particles. This cosmology theory explains this as other common primary particles, such as electrons and quarks, being actually strings in four-dimensional space, that our consciousness is moving along, in the direction that the strings are primarily aligned, which is the dimension of space that we perceive as time, at what we perceive as the speed of light.
How can two photons possibly be entangled, by splitting one photon into two by a crystal, so that what happens to one is immediately reflected in the other, and the reflection is instantaneous, not bound by the speed of light, unless the photons are actually part of a string so that there is a connection between the two?
But yet we cannot detect any connection between two entangled photons. This shows that there must be at least one other dimension that we cannot see, just as my cosmology theory maintains. The two entangled photons were once connected as one photon. That original source photon is in our past dimension, the dimension of space that we perceive as time and in the past direction, and that is where the connection must be.
The signal from the affected photon of the entangled pair goes along the string into our past dimension, to the point where the two photons are connected in the crystal that split them from the original photon, and then back to our present along the string which is the other photon. This shows, without doubt, that the dimension that we perceive as time is actually space.
Photons adhere to the speed of light when moving outward, but the signal between the two, when one is affected in some way, is instantaneous, and the signal must go through our past dimension, through where the two photons were once together as one. This shows how the two photons were sent out at actually a 45 degree angle, in accordance with what we will see in the section "The Momentum Of The Speed Of Light".
The speed of light doesn't really exist outside of us, it is just the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. This can be shown in Quantum Physics, by how information moves between two entangled photons instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are, without any sign of being bound by the speed of light.
But then why are we said to be looking backward in time when we look out into space, supposedly due to the speed of light, so that, if we look at an object ten light years away, we are seeing it as it was ten years in the past and, if we can build telescopes powerful enough, we could see back toward the beginning of the universe.
Remember that the two dimensional sheet of space from which matter formed was aligned at a 45 degree angle to the alignment of charges in the background space, and that angle is still with us. Electromagnetic radiation follows the alignment of the charges in space. As shown by the blue arrow in the following diagram, when we look out into space we are actually looking at a 45 degree angle. So we are actually looking into the past. When we transmit electromagnetic radiation we are actually transmitting at 45 degrees into our future direction, as shown by the green arrow.
This 45 degree angle reception and transmission of electromagnetic radiation explains why there is a delay if, for example, we bounce a radio or radar signal off the moon. It may seem nonsensical to say that there is no speed of light because the signal takes about three seconds to get to the moon and back, which is just what we would expect with what we consider as the speed of light. But the following diagram shows what is really happening.
The bottom line is the bundles of strings comprising the earth, and our bodies and brains. The upper line is the bundles of strings comprising the moon. Both seen in four dimensions, of course. The movement of our consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light, is indicated by the red arrow.
Remember, as seen in the diagram above, that we receive electromagnetic radiation at an angle 45 degrees into our past and send it 45 degrees into our future, although in no way can we perceive this. From Point A we send the signal to the moon. It is instantaneously received back at Point B. But it takes our consciousness three seconds to get from Point A to Point B, and that is what we perceive as the speed of light.
This is because we add the momentum of the forward motion of our consciousness, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, to anything that we do, including launching the two new photons. If there was no motion of our consciousness, the photons would go perpendicular and we would be able to see the connection between the two entangled photons. When we deal with two entangled photons, we are actually in the space between the tops of a "V", with the tops being the two photons.
With the bundles of strings that compose our bodies and brains, and the matter around us, we can interact with them at only one point at a time, which we refer to as the present. But by splitting photons, as in quantum physics, we can break out of this limitation and see that the primary particles are really strings in four-dimensional space, as my cosmology theory holds. There is no other way to explain this.
ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES ARE TWO-DIMENSIONAL
Now let's have a look at how my cosmological theory explains why our observation of a quantum interaction affects it's outcome.
My conclusion is that electromagnetic waves must be two-dimensional in nature. It is the key to understanding how my cosmology theory explains why the rules of quantum theory are different from the everyday laws of physics.
Light does not "fill" three-dimensional space, it only appears that way to us because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light. Electromagnetic waves are only two-dimensional in nature. These two-dimensional electromagnetic waves can radiate from all different directions. If they radiate only along one plane, the waves are referred to as "polarized".
An ideal is example is of how an electron continuously reversing direction in the antenna of a radio transmitter, which is a one-directional motion, produces a two-dimensional radio wave by combining with the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
Has anyone ever looked at a radio tower and wondered how the one dimensional movement of electrons up and down in the antenna can produce a two dimensional wave? We know that an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional because it can be described with two elements, wavelength and amplitude. The following diagram shows how it's impossible unless there is a dimension of space that we cannot see.
This is a dimension of space although we perceive it as time, and it provides the dimensional momentum of the second dimension of the radio wave. The wave must be at least two-dimensional to manifest wavelength and amplitude. I consider this apparently one-dimensional motion of an electron resulting in a two-dimensional wave as yet another proof that we must inhabit four spatial dimensions, one of which we perceive as time.
More evidence that light is a two-dimensional wave, and not a one-dimensional photon or a three-dimensional wave like those in water, is the way that light exerts pressure on electrons, but this pressure is not necessarily applied to all of the electrons in the area exposed to the light. Light of higher frequency, which has more energy, will push each electron with more force then light of lower frequency, but will not push any more electrons than the light of lower frequency. Brighter light will push more electrons then dimmer light, but will not push the ones that it does push with any more force.
This shows that light is a limited number of two-dimensional waves, with amplitude and wavelength, each of which can apply force to an electron. Brighter light is simply more of these waves. When we move further from an object, we receive fewer of these waves so that the object appears as smaller, in accordance with the Inverse Square law. Once again, we do not readily notice this simply because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light.
OUR COSMOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS IS ONE-DIMENSIONAL
Light is a wave. But we do not see waves, we only see the photons that are individual packets of light. This is because a wave is two-dimensional and our consciousness, being dependent on electrons to receive light, is only one-dimensional. A one-dimensional electron string cannot receive both dimensions of a two-dimensional wave. Each photon represents one dimension of a two-dimensional wave, the other dimension of which we cannot see. When we undergo entanglement with light, by observing it, the second dimension drops away. We take in one dimension of the two-dimensional wave, while the other dimension remains as a one-dimensional photon.
One thing that is completely different about the relatively new science of Quantum Physics is that the observation is a vital part of any interaction. If a quantum interaction is being observed it makes all the difference, relative to if it is not being observed. A well known example is the Two Slit Experiment.
There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon but it requires seeing electrons as one-dimensional strings, as they are in four dimensions, rather than the particles as conventionally portrayed. The only way that we can see or receive electromagnetic waves is by their interaction with electrons.
As shown in the following diagram, waves are two-dimensional while an electron is one-dimensional. We know that an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional because it has two pieces of information, the wavelength and the amplitude. We can also see how an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional in that a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) wave will push electrons with more force but will not push any more electrons. A brighter light, but at the same frequency, will push more electrons but not with any more force.
Yet another way we can see that electromagnetic waves are two dimensional is that their angle of vibration can be polarized, like the hands on a clock. We perceive light as filling three dimensional space because our eyes are so much larger than the wavelength of light.
The reason that observation is such a vital part of Quantum Physics is that it is necessary for the electron to absorb one dimension of the wave. This is the only way that we can observe the interaction. That changes the interaction. The remaining one dimension of the wave is like a particle of light, which we refer to as a photon.
That is why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature. One dimension of the wave can be absorbed by an electron, which is the only way that we can observe it. The diagram shows the two dimensional wave at top and the one dimensional electron string at bottom.
A widely-known experiment, known as the Two-Slit Experiment, demonstrates what is referred to as wave-particle duality. This means that a fundamental particle, such as a photon, exhibits both wave and particle characteristics. Two parallel slits in a screen, through which a photon or a wave is passed, will demonstrate this wave-particle duality because a wave will pass through both slits, while a particle passes through only one.
Here is the mystery of the Two-Slit Experiment. If there are two parallel slits, and a photon or a wave passing through them, the observer becomes part of the quantum system. An observer, to go through the act of observing, becomes entangled with the photon or wave passing through the parallel slits. If a photon passes through one slit, and the observer does not observe it, it will appear that it has passed through both slits because there will be an interference pattern, on a solid screen beyond the screen with parallel slits, indicating that two photons have undergone mutual interference. But if the photon is observed, it appears to have passed through only one slit, and there is no interference pattern.
The so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics concerns the effect of observation on any quantum system. Unlike in any other branch of science, our observation of a quantum system or interaction causes us to entangle with it, to become a part of it, and so our observation or measurement affects the outcome.
The Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, named for the physicist Werner Heisenberg, is that our very observation interferes with a quantum system, we must have a degree of uncertainty about it. The Wave Function is the predicted amplitude of the physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, which cannot be stated for certain because of our observational limits. With our one-dimensional consciousness, in my cosmological theory, we cannot effectively measure both the position of a particle, such as an electron in an orbital, and it's momentum in the same measurement.
Electrons also display this wave-particle duality. But an electron orbital, within an atom, does have the form of a wave, if we consider it in four-dimensional space with time represented as a dimension of space. The reason for the orbital having the form of a wave is that it was energy transmitted by way of waves from the Big Bang that first gave the electrons their orbital energy.
When we observe the quantum world around us, it is actually in all possible states. But our observation results in an entanglement and it collapses into only one quantum state, or eigenstate, which is the one that we observe. (This is the widely-accepted Copenhagen Interpretation, there is also the Many Worlds Interpretation). This collapse of the wave function from all possible states to only one possible state, upon observation, is for the same reason that a two-dimensional wave collapses into a one-dimensional photon upon observation. In other words, the wave function collapse is the change from the usual superposition to a single eigenstate, due to the quantum entanglement caused by our observation. When we apply my cosmological theory, light is a two-dimensional wave, and out very act of observation removes one of those dimensions from the quantum system.
The reason for this is that our way of seeing is quantum in nature. We become part of any quantum system that we observe. Waves are two-dimensional, but our consciousness, dependent on electrons, is only one-dimensional. This is what causes us to perceive wave-particle duality, and it confirms my cosmological theory because it has our consciousness moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, which occupy one dimension of our four-dimensional space, so that we perceive that one dimension as time.
If information flows from the lowest scales of the universe to the highest, then it does not make sense that the everyday laws of physics should operate by rules that are different from those of either the quantum realm or of relativity. We do not experience quantum physics in everyday life simply because all quantum states tend to balance out. The balancing out of countless quantum states is why quantum physics does not apply to large-scale matter. This is in the same way that we are ordinarily not aware of electric charges because they balance out to zero. In keeping with how information flows from the lowest states to the highest, we can thus see that the nature of quantum states are rooted in the electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed.
The only reason that we are aware of quantum physics is that our eyes are quantum in the way that they see. When we observe something, we are entangling with it in quantum terms. This is why a primary concept of quantum physics is that the observer becomes an essential part of any quantum system. This cannot be explained by ordinary physics.
When we entangle with something, our nature must have an effect. According to my cosmology theory, we are dimensional beings. Our consciousness moves along one of the four dimensions that we inhabit, which is the one that we perceive as time, and the other three as space. The dimensions that we perceive as space are the ones in which the strings comprising our bodies and brains are not aligned, so that we can move freely in them.
This most important of our dimensions, that we perceive as time, is reflected in the way that we entangle with a quantum system whenever we observe it. Although we can move at will in three of our four dimensions, our being is based in the one that we move forward in what we perceive as time. This is why, when we observe a wave moving toward the double slit, in the Two-Slit Experiment, we entangle with only one of it's two dimensions and we see it as a photon, which occupies only one dimension. but if we do not observe it, the wave remains as a wave and goes through both slits so that it leaves an interference pattern. Just as our observations in the realm of relativity are ultimately rooted in our own nature, so is quantum physics. What it comes down to is that we are dependent on electrons to observe, which are actually one-dimensional strings.
PAIR PRODUCTION
Have you wondered how this cosmology theory might be proven in the laboratory? It actually has been proven in laboratories across the world.
My cosmological theory holds that everything, space and matter, is composed of the same negative and positive electric charges. Space is an alternating pattern of negative and positive charges, while matter is any concentration of like electric charges. Matter requires energy to hold the charges together against the mutual repulsion of like charges, and this gives us what is known as the mass-energy equivalence. Mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy.
Consider the phenomenon of pair production. If two photons, with high enough energy, are made to interact, the two actually form matter out of empty space, a particle and it's antiparticle, often an electron and a positron.
But how can this be? If photons are electromagnetic radiation, how can they possibly cause matter to appear out of empty space?
We know that photons behave as particles. But unless they have the required amount of energy, they do not interact. When they do interact, they create matter in the form of a particle and it's antiparticle. These particles only form when the interacting photons have energy matching the mass-energy equivalence of the particles. Pair production does not take place when two waves of electromagnetic waves interact, only when high-energy photons interact. This is simply because, as we have seen in my theory, waves are two-dimensional, photons are one-dimensional, and particles are actually one-dimensional strings.
My cosmological theory explains that the creation of a particle and it's anti-particle requires the interaction of two high-energy photons, not one, because each photon has a regular pattern of the distortion of the alternating electric charges of empty space in it's one dimension of a two-dimensional wave. It takes two interacting photons to disrupt each other's pattern so that the energy in the photons goes into welding like charges together into matter from there.
The interaction of the two high-energy photons has to create two opposite anti-particles because there are equal numbers of opposite electric charges in space from which the two charges are "welded" together (I can't think of a better word to describe it). The fact that a particle and it's anti-particle has to be produced shows that particles are composed of electric charges, but space has equal numbers of the two electric charges. The particles created by the interaction cannot leave an electrical imbalance between the two charges in space.
The pair of particles that are produced by the interaction of high-energy photons do not last long. Because a particle and it's anti-particle equivalent are produced, they mutually annihilate in a matter-antimatter reaction and their energy, as described in the mass-energy equivalence, is released as more photons.
If electromagnetic radiation is actually waves, rather than photons, then why is the energy not released as two-dimensional waves, rather than as one-dimensional photons? Simply because dimensions must be conserved. Photons, in my theory, are really one dimension of a two-dimensional electromagnetic wave. We create photons out of waves by our observation, because our vision is quantum in nature and occupies one of the two dimensions of the wave. Two one-dimensional photons interact to form a pair of particles which, again in my theory, are really one-dimensional strings. These two particles then mutually annihilate but they must form one-dimensional photons when they do, not two-dimensional waves, because that would require more dimensions than there are. The two photons cannot coordinate together to form a two-dimensional wave because it was their mis-coordination, in the first place, that caused them to interfere with one another enough so that their energy went into forming particles, rather than continuing as photons.
Pair production is essentially the Big Bang in reverse. The energy in interacting photons "welds" some of the electric charges of space into a particle and it's antiparticle. This is the same process as the formation of strings of matter from the remaining dimension of the original two-dimensional sheet, by energy released by the Big Bang. The reaction of the two resulting particles, to mutually annihilate and release more photons, is a repetition of the energy released by the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of one of the dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet.
There was energy to be released in the Big Bang because the first priority of the universe is a balance of the two electric charges, there cannot be more of one charge than the other. The original two-dimensional sheet of space was at an angle relative to the alignment of the alternating electric charges in the surrounding multi-dimensional background space, which is why the patterns of charges in the two blocks of space were not contiguous. But this also meant that there had to be energy between the two. The universe always seeks the lowest energy state, but this is a lower priority than charge balance. This is what allows energy to come into existence.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
All of this shows that electromagnetic waves must be composed of distortion of the pattern of alternating electric charges composing space, and the energy of the wave that causes this distortion can be transferred to creating matter out of empty space, which proves that matter is also a distortion of the pattern of electric charges in space. Matter and space are thus composed of the same electric charges, matter is a concentration of like charges while space is an alternating pattern of charges. The like charges composing matter are held together by energy, which is what the well-known mass-energy equivalence is, and this energy in matter is released, as electromagnetic radiation, if a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation takes place. Antimatter is, like matter, a concentration of like charges, but with the negative and positive charges reversed.
THE REFLECTION OF OUR OWN NATURE
When we see things that cannot be explained by the usual laws of physics, in either the quantum realm or the relativistic realm, we are actually seeing our own nature reflected back at us. This shows that, not only is my cosmology theory correct, but also that God must have created us because there must be additional information in us that could not have come about by the usual laws of physics.
If we could come to an understanding of how our own nature is being reflected back at us, the quantum and relativistic realms could become doorways through which we could "get outside" the physical limits of our own natures, and this is what I would like my cosmological theory to accomplish. There are two different ways that we see our own nature reflected back at us. One is how time is really the velocity of our consciousness, and that shows up in the Special Theory of Relativity. The other is how we can only receive two-dimensional electromagnetic waves with one-dimensional electron strings, and this shows up as quantum physics.
When there is something that cannot be explained by conventional physics, it is because of our own nature that we are not taking into account. Remember my principle that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. This applies to quantum physics, just as to relativity.
A photon behaves as a particle, even though we know that light is a wave, because entanglement causes us to see our own nature reflected back at us, and our bodies and brains are really strings, which we see as particles in three dimensions. I would like the next generation of quantum physics to be taking advantage of getting outside the limits of our own nature, which is what causes us to perceive quantum physics.
THE GEOMETRY OF THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
The well-known Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, that we cannot accurately measure both the position and the momentum of a particle such as an electron in an orbital, in one measurement, is rooted, like all of quantum physics, in our own nature.
We are made of electrons in atomic orbitals ourselves. Our vision is ultimately based on the effects of light falling on electrons in atomic orbitals. The reason for the uncertainty is that, as my cosmology theory explains, electrons are not particles but are strings in four-dimensional space, one of the spatial dimensions is what we perceive as time.
The matter that we deal with is composed of strings that are parallel to the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, as long as the matter is at rest. This means that, if matter is indeed strings and not particles, electromagnetic waves can only be transmitted outward in directions perpendicular to the strings. Whereas if matter were particles, rather than strings, the radiation would be transmitted equally in all directions.
If electromagnetic radiation, such as light, can only interact with the strings comprising our bodies and brains from a perpendicular direction, an electron in an atoms in our vision apparatus can only receive one piece of information from each wave. That one piece of information has to be one-dimensional, and is what we perceive as a photon, while light is actually a two-dimensional wave.
A photon is actually a reflection of the electrons in our vision apparatus. The wave that electromagnetic waves really are can be received at only one point, that can be identified as such, so that we see a wave of light, coming in a perpendicular direction from the electron string that is being observed, as a reflection as the strings in four dimensions, seen as particles in three dimensions, that electrons actually are. We can see that matter must actually consist as strings, as my theory holds, by the established Uncertainty Principle that we cannot accurately measure both the position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, with one measurement which would require that the electron interact with a one-dimensional photon.
We can compare it to the reception of radio waves. One radio antenna can receive a signal, but cannot pinpoint the location of the signal or even the direction from which it came. That would require an additional antenna, so that the reception would be two-dimensional rather than one-dimensional.
If we consider ourselves, and the matter that we are measuring, as parallel strings in four-dimensional space, that means that electromagnetic waves between the strings can only be radiating in a direction that is perpendicular to the strings. This is why we cannot get information about a string, such as an electron, by triangulation or parallax. This leads to the Uncertainty Principle, and would not be the case if electrons were the particles in three-dimensional space that we perceive.
This only applies to one-dimensional particles like electrons, because our vision and measurement devices are also composed of such strings. It does not apply to large-scale matter, which consists of multiple strings so that triangulation or parallax can apply.
Remember my principle that we have to understand, if we are going to understand the universe, that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are. This does not apply to the ordinary laws of physics, but does apply to understanding why the rules of quantum physics and relativity are so different from the everyday laws of physics.
If a two-dimensional wave interacts with two electrons, each will interpret it as a one-dimensional photon, simply because the electrons themselves are one-dimensional strings and the wave must be coming from a perpendicular direction. There would be no way for the electrons to "know" that it is a two-dimensional wave because like-charge repulsion prevents any "communication" between the one-dimensional electrons.
These dimensional limitations apply to measurement devices we use because they are also composed of atoms, with electrons in orbitals. We cannot make an unbiased observation of electrons because our vision itself, and the instruments that we use to measure, are based on the actions and properties of electrons which, in my cosmological theory, are one-dimensional strings. If you have a mirror of a certain shape, whatever is reflected in the mirror will take on it's shape. So it is with electrons and the photons that we perceive two-dimensional electromagnetic waves to consist of.
Moving electrons manifest the same wave-particle duality concerning measurement through a double slit that light does. It produces a diffraction pattern by mutual interference.
It is very difficult to rationalize how an electron could possibly be a wave. But suppose that an electron is a string, as it is in my cosmological theory. The atoms in the slit apparatus are also strings. This explains why a beam of electrons, which are supposedly particles, through the slit produces an interference pattern.
What the Uncertainty Principle all comes down to is that measuring both the position and momentum of a moving particle, such as an electron, must involve more than one spatial dimension, while we are composed of strings that are one-dimensional, and our consciousness moves along these strings.
DIMENSIONS AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
Let's have a look at how dimensions of space relate to and affect light and quantum physics.
The splitting of white light into it's component colors by a prism or the splitting to a photon into two entangled photons, in quantum physics, can both be explained in terms of dimensions, as a higher-dimensional optical device imposing it's dimensional nature on lower-dimensional electromagnetism. For such an optical effect to take place, the optical device must have at least one dimension more than the electromagnetic wave or photon.
We have established that electromagnetic waves must be two-dimensional in nature, a two-dimensional sine wave. This means that a two-dimensional optical device would not be able to split a two-dimensional wave. A glass window is effectively two-dimensional because both of it's sides are identical and parallel, and act as two parallel two-dimensional interfaces between the air and the glass. This is why a glass prism, which has a meaningful third dimension, splits light into it's component colors, but the window does not.
When light interacts with some material optical device, the device imposes it's dimensional nature on the light. Reflection off a flat surface does not have any effect because it is effectively two-dimensional, the same as the wave of light. A prism splits light into it's component colors because the prism is three-dimensional, while the light is only two-dimensional. The prism adds an additional dimension to the wave of light by splitting it into it's component colors, and then sending them off in different directions so that the path of the light now forms the same shape as the prism. Thus, if light were three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional, a prism could reflect but not divide it.
A lens bending light is also adding a dimension to the path of the light since a curved lens has effectively one dimension more than a flat glass window, at least from the point of view of the surrounding space. This is the basis of all optics, just as it is for quantum entanglement. Ordinary optics is not said to be quantum in nature because we are dealing with the usual three-dimensional devices and two-dimensional waves.
Another way that we can see light to be two-dimensional waves is the fact that it can be polarized, such as by passing it through a polarizing filter. This can only be possible if light is a two-dimensional wave in three-dimensional space. In the famous Double-Slit Experiment, when we observe light going through the double slit, our act of observation "takes away" one of the two dimensions of the wave so that we perceive the light going through as a one-dimensional photon that does not leave an interference pattern.
Bringing in dimensions again, a one-dimensional photon of light reflecting at an angle off a two-dimensional surface now becomes two-dimensional, like the surface, because it's path will include an angle, which requires at least two dimensions. But a two-dimensional wave reflecting off the surface would still only be two-dimensional.
TIME IS ANGLES IN SPACE
There must be some kind of "real" time, outside of the movement of human consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light, along the bundles of strings, which are our bodies and brains, in my cosmology theory. In things that are far away, such as stars, why do some stars have long lifespans, and others have short lifespans?
Time is motion. The only way that we can measure time is with some kind of motion. Where there is no change or motion, there can be no such thing as time. It is ironic that we measure time with the hands of a clock, set at different angles, because time, in my cosmology theory, is actually angles of strings of matter in four-dimensional space.
There has to be time because time is nothing but bundles of strings set at different angles in space, and there has to be angles because the original two-dimensional sheet of space in my cosmological theory, from which matter originated, was aligned at an angle to the lines of negative and positive electric charges of the dimensions of the background space. This is why the two-dimensional sheet of space in my cosmological theory was within, but not contiguous with, the dimensions of the background space. The way the universe is today is because those angles must be maintained.
Matter exchanges it's angles in space, by collisions and other interactions. If two balls, of equal mass, collide, they exchange trajectories. However, the sum of the angles of both trajectories is maintained. But the total sum of the angles of matter in the background space must also be maintained, matching that of the original two-dimensional sheet of space relative to that of the dimensions of the background space.
In matter that is not affected by living things, which bring about the only "new motion" in the universe, bundles of strings are not actually colliding as we pass their collisions in time. Rather, all of the collision that we see have already happened and we "see" the collisions as our consciousness passes the points of those collisions.
At whatever angle of alignment the two-dimensional sheet of space was against the dimensions of the background space, matter in the Big Bang would have to be thrown outward in exactly equal amounts, and at exactly equal angles, in opposite directions, to keep in accord with the Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions.
One of the basic laws of physics, established by Sir Isaac Newton, is that for every action there must be an equal, but opposite, reaction. This is rooted in the cosmology of the universe. The centerline of matter in the universe, which began with the fold in the two dimensional sheet described above, must be maintained as it cannot be changed by shifting within. It is line A in the diagram below. The red arrow indicates the movement of our consciousness. If there is an action, indicated by the bend in line B then, to maintain the balance, there must be an opposite bend in line C.
Matter keeps colliding and interacting with other matter. But these collisions and interactions exchange angles, relative to mass, but the total mass angle remains the same, and is the same as the original angle between the alignment of the two-dimensional sheet of space that became matter, relative to the alignment of the dimensions of alternating negative and positive electric charges in the background space.
All energy in the universe originated from alignment of the two-dimensional sheet of space with the dimensions of the background space. The only exception is the energy of the tension between adjacent opposite charges in empty space. Time and free energy, electromagnetic radiation, matter and the motion of that matter all began with this two-dimensional sheet of space and the angle at which it was aligned to the dimensions of the background space.
If this two-dimensional sheet of space had been perfectly aligned along the dimensions of the background space, there would be no such thing as time, free energy, matter or electromagnetic radiation, because the original two-dimensional sheet of space would not have existed as an entity separate from the background space. But then, if it had been aligned perfectly with the dimensions of the background space, it would not have been a separate sheet of space.
Black holes may seem to be the one exception to this maintenance of the original angles of the four-dimensional sheet of space. A black hole collects matter like a powerful gravitational vacuum cleaner, and holds it still. But we have seen that black holes are the doors that matter takes back into space. The electromagnetic radiation that black holes release is the energy that represents the difference between the alignment of the two-dimensional sheet and the dimensions of the background space.
This scenario explains why supernovae happen. A large star, in collecting surrounding matter, which are bundles of strings in space at an angle to the dimensions of the background space, goes too far in reducing the angles of the original two-dimensional sheet of space. The explosion of the supernova is to restore the original angles of the two-dimensional sheet by accelerating, which means an angle, matter back out into space.
The wave of an electromagnetic wave is at an angle, actually alternating positive and negative angles, from the axis which represents the direction that the wave is traveling. this angle is a model of the angle at which the original two-directional sheet of space was aligned to the dimensions of the background space. Then a wave, when applied to the straight line of a string, such as an electron, is reflected in the spiral path of the orbit of the electron, if seen in four dimensions.
But if time is really angles in space, and an angle requires two dimensions, there is no such thing as a one-dimensional angle, then this explains why information is instantaneously transmitted from one entangled photon to it's pair, which seems to be utterly contrary to the laws of Relativity. The information is not bound by the speed of light. It is because velocity is a function of time and time, as we have seen here, is really angles of strings in space which require two dimensions. A photon is really one-dimensional, because one dimension cannot be divided any further even though the photon is split by a crystal, so information passing between the two entangled photons cannot be affected at all by time.
RULES OF DIMENSIONS AND PHOTONS
Consider that a photon can be split in two by a crystal, but the two will remain entangled. This is because a photon must be only one-dimensional, as we have seen here, and one dimension cannot be further divided. There is no such thing as half of a dimension. A three-dimensional crystal sends the split photon off into three-dimensional space, but since there is no way to divide a dimension, the two halves of the split photon must remain entangled. This is a reflection of the rules of dimensions. The split photon must reflect the dimensions of the crystal, yet must also remain one-dimensional.
But yet a photon, split by a prism into two entangled photons, does not form a three-dimensional pattern in space like the light in colors from a prism. The two entangled photons, emerging from the crystal which split them, would go off in two different directions, but these two directions would effectively form a two-dimensional "V" pattern. This can only be because the photon has one less dimension than the wave of light to begin with. This shows, once again, my hypothesis that light is a two-dimensional wave while a photon, actually created by our observation taking away one dimension of the wave, is one-dimensional, and behaves as would a one-dimensional particle.
If a photon is split by a crystal the two resulting photons share the same quantum state. Any change in one of the photons is immediately reflected in the other. The two photons are said to be entangled. The information moves instantaneously between the two, no matter how far apart they are, showing that there really is no speed of light.
Scientists can detect no information moving between the entangled photons, but yet somehow it must. Remember that, in my cosmology theory, time is really the fourth dimension of space. The following diagram shows how, at the present represented by the dashed red line, the two entangled photons are still linked in the past direction at point A, where they were split by the crystal. The arrow shows the direction of time.
SOLAR PANELS
Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking about this explanation of quantum physics by my cosmology theory? It reminds us that solar panels, and indeed any kind of digital camera, must generate photons.
Solar panels and digital optical devices operate by having the energy of incoming light knock electrons out of atoms in certain materials, thus creating a flow of current that is representative of the image that is composed of the light. But remember that electrons are really one-dimensional strings while light is two-dimensional. This means that, after having it's energy transferred to knocking an electron out of it's orbital, the second dimension of the light must remain, but as one dimension of the formerly two-dimensional wave of light. In other words, according to my theory, a photon.
Since solar panels are increasing in use, and digital optical devices are everywhere, why not couple this generation of photons, which now are a forgotten by-product, with information technology to bring about all of the possible benefits of quantum communications and computing?
This will mean far greater storage capacity, communications with spacecraft will not be limited to the speed of light, and communications will be absolutely hack-proof because even an observation made of one of a pair of entangled photons will immediately show up in the other.
WHY PHOTONS EXIST
The very fact that photons exist, which are the elements of light with a particle nature that are often referenced in quantum physics, proves that my cosmological theory must be correct.
My theory explains photons as the one dimension that remains of a two-dimensional wave of light, with the other dimension having passed it's energy to some one-dimensional string, likely an electron. This is how our vision works, and it explains the mystery of the Double-Slit Experiment.
The well-known Double-Slit Experiment is that if we pass a photon through one of a parallel pair of slits in a screen, onto a background screen, and do not observe the process, another photon will also pass through the other slit, and we will be able to tell this by the interference pattern that results on the background screen. But if we do observe the process, or measure it in any way, no photon will pass through the parallel slit. This is because our vision and measurement techniques are themselves quantum in nature and so absorb the dimension of light that otherwise would have been the photon passing through the parallel slit.
But when light encounters an electron, under the right conditions, why doesn't both dimensions of the light wave get absorbed by giving their energy to the electrons? The answer lies in the spatial geometry, as defined by my cosmology theory.
Electrons are one-dimensional strings aligned, along with atoms, mostly in the same direction in four-dimensional space. It is movement and vibrations of electrons and atoms that produces the various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves produced by matter, other than those produced in the Big Bang, can only move outward in a perpendicular direction to the alignment of the strings that produce them.
This means that light encountering electrons, at least as we can observe it, can only do so at a perpendicular angle. This then means that the one-directional string that is the electron will absorb the energy of one of the two dimensions of the light wave. The remaining dimension of the light will continue as a photon, which will be observed to behave as a one-dimensional particle. A photon does not have an electric charge, and so is unaffected by the charged particles around it.
The energy that is absorbed by the electron may be enough to break it out of it's orbital around an atom altogether. This is known as the photoelectric effect.
If electrons can absorb the energy, under certain conditions, of light, why doesn't the photon, the other dimension of the light that remains, also get absorbed? The one-dimensional electrons absorb one dimension of the two-dimensional wave, and leave the other as a photon that behaves as a one-dimensional particle.
But if light is a two-dimensional wave, it must consist of two dimensions that are perpendicular to each other. If my cosmological theory is correct and electrons are really one-dimensional strings, aligned mostly in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, then the electrons will be able to absorb only one dimension of the two-dimensional wave, because it can absorb only a dimension of the wave that is perpendicular to it.
This can only be one of the two dimensions of the wave, because the wave would have been produced by the movement or vibration of electrons or atoms that are parallel in four-dimensional space to the one that is absorbing it, the other dimension will remain as a photon. The dimension of the light that is parallel to the electron that is absorbing the other dimension of the wave will remain and will seem to behave as a one-dimensional particle, like an electron, because it is aligned parallel to the strings that we perceive as electrons.
One dimension of the two-dimensional wave must be parallel to the strings of the electrons because it is movement of particles like electrons that produce electromagnetic waves, other than those produced by the Big Bang. The electron that the wave encounters can only absorb the dimension of the wave that is perpendicular to it.
If electrons are primarily particles, as our perception tells us, rather than being strings in four-dimensional space, they would be free to move in any direction in space. This would mean that they would be able to absorb the energy in both dimensions of the two-dimensional wave of light. But if electrons are really strings in four-dimensional space, as in my cosmology theory, they would be free to move only in the directions that are perpendicular to the direction in which the strings were aligned.
This is why only the energy of one dimension of the two-dimensional light wave is absorbed by the electron, and the remaining dimension of the light continues as a one-dimensional photon that acts as a particle like an electron because it is aligned in the same dimension as the electrons. The one-dimensional string of the electron couldn't absorb this dimension of the light because it was parallel to it, rather than perpendicular, and this proves that my cosmological theory must be correct.
THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
The number 137 is a very popular number in the physics community. The reason that this number is so mysterious and fascinating is that it is the Fine Structure Constant. This is the probability that an electron will absorb a photon when the two interact. It also thus governs the spacing of spectral lines. The Fine Structure Constant is basically the controlling factor in the interaction between charged particles and electromagnetic radiation.
The Fine Structure Constant is actually the reciprocal of 137, or 137 as the denominator in a fraction. The odds that an electron will absorb a photon that it encounters is 1 / 137.
The Fine Structure Constant is expressed as the Greek letter alpha, which we will write here as A. The formula for the Fine Structure Constant is: A = e squared / hc, where e is the charge on an electron, h is Planck's Constant and c is the speed of light.
Planck's Constant is the constant in the formula for the energy in an electromagnetic wave, relative to the frequency of the wave. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy in the wave, but the relationship is not entirely linear, the frequency has to be multiplied by Planck's Constant so that E = hf, where E is the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, h is Planck's Constant and, f is the frequency of the radiation.
Remember that there is also the infinitesimal distance known as Planck's Length. This is the smallest meaningful distance in the universe, and it shows up in all manner of physics formulae. I see Planck's Length as the actual size of the electric charges that compose both space and matter in my cosmological theory.
The Fine Structure Constant is dimensionless, meaning that it has no units. When the express it as the formula, as described above, the units above and below the divisor line cancel out, leaving just the dimensionless number 1 / 137.
Since it is a dimensionless number, physicists have been trying to relate it to mathematical constants, since it is just a number with no units attached. Physicists have been searching for relationships to mathematical constants like pi or e. It has been noted that 137 is a prime number. The physicist Richard Feynman thought the Fine Structure Constant might be related to pi or natural logarithms.
But no such relationship has ever been found. When photons encounter electrons, the electron will absorb the photon once out of every 137 encounters, but no one knows why.
(Note- pi is the constant of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter, which is 3.1415927... e is equivalent to (1 + 1 / x) raised to the x power, with x being any large number. When a very large number is used as x, e = 2.718... Pi and e are referred to as mathematical constants because they occur very frequently in formulae involving nature and the universe).
If we look at my cosmology theory, the solution to the mystery of the Fine Structure Constant becomes simple. Electrons are really strings wound in a spiral as they appear to orbit the nuclei of atoms, like the coil of a spring, if seen in four-dimensional space. We see them as particles in their orbitals as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since we see only in directions perpendicular to the alignment of the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains we see the electrons as particles that are moving in time which is, of course, really a dimension of space.
Since electrons are actually strings wound around the nuclei that they appear to us to be orbiting, we see why a photon will be absorbed by an electron only one out of every 137 times that there is an encounter between the two. It is a matter of geometry. To be absorbed, the photon must hit a narrow range on the string of the electron, which is perpendicular to the photon.
The photon will appear to us to be moving at the speed of light. But, that is actually only a perpendicular angle, relative to the alignment of the bundles of strings comprising us and the matter around us. the sum of angles in an interaction must be maintained, and to be absorbed by the electron, the photon must encounter the electron string in such a direction that there is no more of an angle on one side than the other. In other words, the encounter must be perpendicular.
If the encounter is at any angle other than perpendicular, the photon will reflect off the electron and will not be absorbed. The reason that the encounter is rarely perpendicular is that the electron is really a string wound around outside the nucleus, meaning that it faces all different angles outward. The odds of the encounter being perpendicular, out of all possible angles that the photon could approach the electron, is one out of 137.
This is explained simply in the following diagram. The circle is the string, in four dimensions, of an outer electron in an orbital in an atom. The photon must meet it exactly perpendicular to be absorbed, represented by the green arrow. If it meets the electron at any kind of an angle it will bounce off, represented by the red arrows. It is like bouncing a ball off a cylindrical structure so that it bounces directly back to you. But it only makes sense if electrons are really strings.
My cosmological theory has matter spread over four spatial dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, so the spatial mathematics of geometry is even more important then it is in our familiar three dimensions of space.
Imagine that there is a cylindrical structure. Now suppose that you bounce a ball off the structure so that it will bounce right back to you. To get the ball to bounce back to you, it must strike the wall of the structure within a very close range. If the ball lands to either side of this very narrow range, it will deflect at an angle to the side and will not bounce right back to you.
This is how the absorption of a photon by an electron operates. It must strike the electron at a perpendicular angle to be absorbed but, since the electron is really a string in four dimensions that is wound in a spiral pattern around a nucleus, the required perpendicular angle is actually a very narrow range. That is why the photon will be absorbed only once out of every 137 encounters.
We, limited to our three spatial dimensions, can observe a photon meeting an electron, but can only see electrons as particles and cannot understand why it is absorbed sometimes, but only one out of every 137 times.
Remember how information flows through the universe. The information behind this example, the ball bounced off only the narrow facing section of the perpendicular structure, must have come from somewhere. Information flows from the lowest to the highest levels, with actions taking place in the same way at the higher levels because there is no other information available. An obvious example is orbits, the orbitals of electrons are replicated in the higher level of moons in orbit around planets and planets around stars, because there is no other information available as to which forms the larger scale might take.
The only one in 137 times absorption of photons by electrons is actually the lower-scale source of information for the ball bouncing directly back, only if it meets the cylindrical structure at a narrow perpendicular angle. Indeed, if we measure the very narrow zone of the cylindrical structure along which the ball will bounce directly back to us, we will find that it is just about exactly 1 / 137 of the 180 degrees of the side of the structure facing us. This gives a "bounce back" zone of just over one degree of the structure, actually 180 / 137 of a degree, which seems just about right.
In the formula for the Fine Structure Constant, A = e squared / hc, we can now see why the charge on the electron, e, is squared. Light is actually a two dimensional wave, of which a photon is defined by my theory as one of those dimensions. An electron can possibly absorb a photon from that light. But it could absorb a photon from either dimension of the light. This, in effect, makes the electron multiplied by itself, or squared, in the formula.
If Planck's Constant is, as my cosmological theory supposes, related to the minimum size in the universe, because it is the size of the fundamental electric charges of which it is composed, we see why it is a divisor in the formula. The smaller the photon which, being one dimension of a two dimensional wave which means that it is the size of one of these fundamental charges, the easier it would be absorbed by the electron. In the same way, the smaller the ball that we are trying to bounce off the cylindrical structure, relative to the size of the structure, the greater the chance that it would bounce back because the cylindrical side of the structure would be closer to being a straight line for a smaller ball.
The speed of light is also a divisor in the formula because, as can be seen by the geometry of the cosmological theory, the photon must be in a perpendicular line to the alignment of the string of the electron to be absorbed, but this represents the greatest possible energy difference because the speed of light is seen by us as the maximum possible velocity but actually is, in my cosmological theory, the maximum possible angle. The photon can be absorbed by the electron if the two are at a perpendicular angle to one another, but this also means that the momentum, which we would see as velocity, between the two is completely opposite.
By the way, remember my axiom that the complexity of a number is not equal to it's direct value, but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. A circle is a simply geometric shape yet pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter, is a number of infinite complexity. That simply means that it can be calculated to an endless number of decimal places. This is because, from the point of view of a line, a circle is of infinite complexity because it is completely unknowable. In a similar way, the Fine Structure Constant is approximately 1 / 137, but can also be calculated to an endless number of decimal places.
These endless decimal places come from the relationship between a line and a circle, as we see with the example of pi. but why would the Fine Structure Constant also be calculable to endless decimal places? It is because the orbital of the electron forms the circle and the path of the photon is the straight line. We, limited to our three spatial dimensions, cannot perceive it but the photon always meets the electron from a direction perpendicular to the primary alignment of the strings of the matter that hosts the electron, and only absorbs the photon if it happens to meet it at an exactly perpendicular angle, as described above.
How else is there to explain this fascinating phenomenon? The absorption of a photon by an electron adheres to definite odds, but we cannot see why or why the ratio is what it is. Physicists have tried for decades, without success, to relate the Fine Structure Constant to some mathematical constants. But, as with so many other things that we have seen, this simple model of the universe in my cosmological theory causes it to fall right into place.
INTERPRETATIONS OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Quantum Physics, also called Quantum Mechanics, unlike Relativity or "classical" physics, has different ways to interpret a quantum interaction. These possible interpretations can be divided into two broad categories, the "collapse" or the "non-collapse" interpretations.
The most popular interpretation of quantum interactions seems to be the Copenhagen Interpretation. A quantum system will be in a superposition of all possible quantum states, referred to as eigenstates, at once. But when it is observed, it will "collapse" into only one eigenstate, or quantum state. The "collapse" may be due to observation or to other factors. This one state is the one that we will see or measure.
The leading "non-collapse" interpretation is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which used to be called the Everett Interpretation. In this interpretation of a quantum interaction, every possible outcome must exist, with each event acting as a branch. In this interpretation, it is decoherence that causes us to see only one outcome instead of all of them. It is not the same as a "collapse" of a wave function because all other outcomes must still exist somewhere. Coherence is where two quantum systems share a quantum state, decoherence is loss of coherence and a breaking into two quantum states.
Albert Einstein, the author of Relativity, was also involved with Quantum Physics. He actually won his Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, which is quantum in nature, not for Relativity. It was Einstein who developed the concept of the photon, or single particle of light. But he was convinced of the absolute invariability of the speed of light and referred to the instantaneous transmission of information as "spooky action at a distance". Of the uncertainty principle that is central to quantum physics, he is reported to have said "God does not play dice".
The place that my cosmology theory takes in all of this is simple, and it makes Quantum Physics simple. Imagine a one-dimensional string in space, which is what an electron actually is. Now imagine a two-dimensional wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. That is all that we need to know.
Waves are actually two-dimensional. They seem to us to fill three-dimensional space because our eyes are so large in comparison with the wavelengths of light. We can tell this because, if light is interacting with electrons, a higher-frequency (shorter wavelength) light, which contains more energy, will push each electron with more force but will not push any more electrons than the lower-frequency light. If we apply a brighter light, but at the same wavelength, the light will push more electrons but will not push each one with any more force.
This shows that light consists of individual two-dimensional waves that do not completely fill three-dimensional space. A wave has to be of at least two dimensions. Light seems to get dimmer as we get further from it's source because we are receiving fewer of the waves, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But each individual wave that we receive is not actually dimmer.
In contrast with other matter, when we start dealing with electrons is when things start to "get quantum" in nature. Each electron in an orbital has a four-part quantum "address" and no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum "address".
The Four Principal Quantum Numbers and energy levels of electrons in orbitals are expressed in integral numbers, or integers, showing that this is the most basic of energy levels. That is what "quanta" means, the most basic of quantities.
Ordinary nuclear physics, involving the nucleus of the atom, does not involve the rules of Quantum Physics, only the electrons do. The essential quantum interaction is a two-dimensional wave of light interacting with a one-dimensional electron which, in my theory, is a string with the wave interacting with it from a perpendicular direction. For us to measure or see anything, light must impart some of it's energy to matter. Since matter is made of atoms and electrons are on the outsides of atoms, this means interacting with electrons.
If a material has it's outer electrons only loosely attached to it's atoms, so that the energy in light can knock electrons out of their orbitals, the light will cause a chemical reaction or an electric current to flow. That means that we can see, or measure, or photograph light.
The simple basis of Quantum Physics is that when a two-dimensional wave interacts with the one-dimensional string of an electron, it must impart the energy of one of it's two dimensions to the electron. That is how we see or measure anything to do with light, and is known as the photoelectric effect. The other dimension must be left but, since the electron is a one-dimensional string, this one remaining dimension of the light will appear to us to be a particle, and that is what we refer to as a photon.
The "collapse" of a quantum wave function from all possible quantum states into only one, when it is observed or measured, that is the Copenhagen Interpretation and all other "collapse" interpretations, has a very simple explanation. The electrons in our eyes or measuring devices that the two-dimensional wave of light must interact with are really, according to my cosmology theory, one-dimensional strings in space, which we perceive as particles because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we see only a moment at a time, at right angles to the direction of our movement.
The energy of one dimension of the wave is absorbed by the electron, which is necessary for us to be able to measure of see it, and the other dimension remains. Since only one dimension of light cannot still be a wave, that is where photons come from, the one-dimensional remains of a two-dimensional wave which now resembles a particle like an electron in nature.
The many points on the wave represent all possible states of the information carried by the wave and, depending on the point on the wave that contacts the electron, always at a right angle, the wave function appears to "collapse" into only one state, which is defined by the point on the wave that contacts the electron.
Imagine a two-dimensional circle being reduced to a one-dimensional line, but the state of the "collapse" to one dimension would depend on which of the infinity of diameters on the circle we took away to leave only a line perpendicular to that remaining as the one-dimensional line.
This is all that a "wave function collapse" amounts to, our vision or observation by interaction with a one-dimensional electron, taking away one dimension of the energy of the wave so that it "collapses" into a one-dimensional photon. All possible eignestates (quantum states) are every point of the wave before the collapse. The one remaining after the collapse is a line of light, a photon, that was perpendicular to the point on the wave that encountered the electron.
That is why the observer is so important in Quantum Physics, the observation which is usually the wave function encountering an electron string that is perpendicular to it and absorbs one of it's two dimensions. A photon resembles an electron in form because both are one-dimensional strings, except that the photon has no electric charge.
THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION
Aside from the "collapse" interpretations of Quantum Physics", of which the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most popular, there is also the "non-collapse", of which the Many Worlds Interpretation is the most popular.
The Many Worlds Interpretation, as the name implies, states that, when a wave function is observed, it does not collapse because the other possible states still must exist somewhere. Rather than a "collapse", it is decoherence that causes one state to become separated from the others. Decoherence is defined as the loss of unity of a quantum state, so that it splits in two. Entangled photons, as we saw above, share a quantum state so that information is instantaneously passed from one to another. But that can be lost due to environmental factors.
The Many Worlds Interpretation considers each event as a "branch". The quantum system seems to go in one direction, but the other directions that it could have gone in must still exist somewhere, maybe in another universe. There is not a "collapse", so that the other directions or quantum states no longer exist, but only a decoherence as our observation separates the one quantum state that we see from the others.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is something that we can spend hours pondering, as I am sure many others have. But I see it as us seeing the universe in our own terms and from our own perspective. The solution to this interpretation is just as simple as for the "collapse" interpretations, and that solution is to see that everything is really information.
Suppose that we throw a ball, and it bounces off a wall. But the ball could have kept on going if the wall hadn't been there. That means that there must be another universe where the ball keeps going, and doesn't bounce off the wall.
But we can easily measure the acceleration of the ball to determine it's course if the wall hadn't been there. That information is there whether the ball bounces off the wall or not. And the ball itself is just information. According to my cosmology theory, everything is composed of infinitesimal electric charges with space being a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating charges and matter being any concentration of these charges.
If everything is really just information, then all we need to know is the original acceleration of the ball and the information of all possible courses of events that the ball could have taken are still there, all within our one universe. We see ourselves made of matter so we presume that there must be a ball made of matter like us in each possible universe but matter, like space, is just information.
The Many Worlds Interpretation is similar in nature to the pattern of information that I call "The One And The Many". The one is what is, the many are what possibly could have been but weren't. Addresses are an ideal example. Something is defined by what it is not.
OTHER UNIVERSES
There is a lot of discussion nowadays about the possibility of universes other than our own. I have not gotten into it much but my cosmology theory has other universes as not only possible, but even probable. But by their very definition we can never access these other universes. If we could they wouldn't be other universes, they would be our universe.
My cosmology theory has our universe beginning with the mutual induction of opposite electric charges in multiple dimensions. An "orphan" two-dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This means that the checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges in the two blocks were not aligned. This caused charge migration to take place in the sheet, mostly positive charges to one side and mostly negative to the other. But since the sheet wasn't aligned with the background space this caused the positive side of the sheet to contact the negative side. The result was the matter antimatter annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe. One dimension of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated into energy, the one that came into contact, and the other became the one-dimensional strings of matter. These strings were scattered over four dimensions of the background space, three of which we perceive as space and one of which we perceive as time, as described above.
But in no way does this mean there could not be more than four dimensions in the universe. A two-dimensional sheet could not be scattered over more than four dimensions. It would actually be a lower information state for there to be an infinite number of dimensions, since that avoids making a choice of a finite number. However many dimensions we have, if that many can form then why can't one more form?
As for the two-dimensional sheet of space, the same logic applies. If this happens in one four-dimensional block then why shouldn't it happen in others? Why did it happen in our block anyway? Could it have been a reaction to a similar sheet forming in an adjacent block? This brings us to Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions.
It also brings us to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics. The two-dimensional sheet that forms matter and energy in our universe can be the reaction to the corresponding event in another universe. This means that what might have happened, but didn't happen, in one universe can happen in the next universe. With universes being just blocks of space with disintegrating sheets of non-contiguous sheets of space within. This is a "Without Us" scenario that in no way is mutually exclusive with the "With Us" interpretations.
According to my cosmology theory we can see the Many Worlds Interpretation in our own universe. Atoms are composed of electrons in orbitals around a nucleus. The electrons have a negative charge and the nucleus a positive charge. But there is nothing written in stone that negative has to be on the outside, and positive on the inside. It could just have easily been reversed and no one can find any reason why the universe is composed of matter, rather than antimatter.
In my cosmology theory, since charge migration took place in the two-dimensional sheet, with one side becoming more negative and the other more positive, there must be a mirror image of our universe on the other side of the Big Bang that is made of antimatter. Although on both sides the electric charges balance out overall.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
What about the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Physics? That is simple too. Consider radio triangulation. If we receive, with a directional antenna, only a momentary signal from a radio source, we can tell what direction the source is in but cannot tell how far away it is or whether it is moving. For that, we would need more than one measurement. In time, to see if the source is moving, and from another location, to determine how far away the source was.
This is why we have two eyes, to be able to estimate how far away things are.
In the same way, since the electrons in our measuring devices can absorb only one dimension of a two-dimensional wave we can, for example, predict where a given electron might be found in an orbital, but can never say with absolute certainty because all we have is an instantaneous one-dimensional measurement.
HIDDEN VARIABLE INTERPRETATIONS
Some other interpretations of Quantum Physics can be described as "hidden variable" interpretations. This means that we can never tell for sure what is happening in a quantum interaction because we are not capable of seeing all of the variables. My theory accommodates that because what we perceive as time is actually a fourth dimension of space that we cannot access at will because the particles of our bodies are actually one-dimensional strings that are aligned primarily in this dimension. The other three we can move in at will.
The reason that two photons can remain entangled, after a single photon is split in two by passing it through a crystal, is that the crystal adds it's spatial dimensions to it so that a one-dimensional photon takes on a "V" forms with the point of the "V" being the place where it was split by the crystal and the two points of the "V" representing the two entangled photons, between which information passes instantaneously. But the point of the "V" is in the past dimension of the dimension of space that we perceive as time from the points of the "V".
Quantum entanglement If a photon is split by a crystal the two resulting photons share the same quantum state. Any change in one of the photons is immediately reflected in the other. The two photons are said to be entangled. The information moves instantaneously between the two, no matter how far apart they are, showing that there really is no speed of light.
Scientists can detect no information moving between the entangled photons, but yet somehow it must. Remember that, in my cosmology theory, time is really the fourth dimension of space. The following diagram shows how, at the present represented by the dashed red line, the two entangled photons are still linked in the past direction at point A, where they were split by the crystal. The arrow shows the direction of time.
THE CONCENTRATION OF MATTER IN SPACE
This is my interpretation of quantum physics. It is not a collapse interpretation and it is not dependent at all on human observation.
The distribution of matter in the universe, relative to space, is extremely sparse. A figure that is sometimes given is that, in the universe as a whole, there are about three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space. That is so sparse that the density of matter, relative to space in the universe as a whole, is nearly infinitesimal. It is probably not something that we could attach a meaningful number to.
With the expansion of the universe the density of matter overall is becoming even more sparse. But galaxies tend to collect in groups, we call ours the "Local Group". The groups are moving apart, but not the galaxies within a group. Although the density of matter within a galaxy is still extremely sparse, it is maybe a million times the density of the vast, empty reaches of intergalactic space. Not to mention that the interiors of atoms themselves are almost all empty space.
This theory that I have developed to explain the sparseness of matter in the universe offers another explanation of quantum physics. Even if we cannot effectively put a number on it the density of matter, relative to space, is information, and that information must have come from somewhere.
There is an interpretation of quantum physics, the "Copenhagen" Interpretation, that has a quantum system inhabiting all possible quantum states but then, when it is observed, it undergoes collapse into only one state. The observation itself is a vital part of the quantum interaction.
In the universe there were a nearly infinite number of arrangements and patterns that matter might have taken, following the Big Bang, but of all those possible patterns the matter of the universe took only one of them, the universe that we see today.
What do you notice here?
1) The density of matter in the universe, relative to space, is nearly infinitesimal.
2) The number of possible patterns and permutations that the matter in the universe might have fallen into is nearly infinite. But it fell into only one of those patterns, which is the universe that we see today.
Could there be a connection between those two things? The density of matter in the universe, relative to space, is information. This information had to come from somewhere. Where else could it have come from? Isn't this the most logical answer, that there must be room left in space for every arrangement of matter in the universe that might have been, but only one of those arrangements actually comes to be?
Let me state now that I have decided on the terminology "might have been" rather than "could have been" because "could" seems to imply that it should have been.
My theory is not that the universe we see is what happened, but the information of what didn't happen must still be out there somewhere whether in parallel universes or unrealized quantum states, but that the empty space must be maintained for the information of what might have happened but didn't happen and the matter of the universe that did happen must exist within the vastness of this empty space.
Could it be that there is a great number, we can designate it as P for "pattern" or "permutation" even if we cannot effectively determine it's value, that describes both the density of matter relative to the space of the universe, 1 / P, and the number of possible patterns or arrangements that matter in the universe could have taken, P?
Suppose that we are looking for a particular address on a street. The address that we have is information. It contains more information if there are more houses on the street that it is not.
Remember my definition of complexity. The complexity of a number, or the amount of information within it, is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. Thus 1/10 contains twice as much information as 1/5.
In a similar way the particular arrangement of all the matter in the universe is an address, one permutation among many. Having an address doesn't make any sense unless there are other addresses that it might have been. Empty space is all of the addresses that it might have been, but is not. Every bit of information that went into matter and it's arrangement in the universe might have been different. All the matter of the universe comprises one address, as opposed to multiple addresses, because it is all interrelated and has a common beginning.
If there is movement of matter in space, so that the pattern changes, it still doesn't change the basic possible number of patterns. The possible arrangements continue as lighter elements are fused into heavier ones by way of fusion in stars, but the value of P stays constant because the matter of the universe has a common origin in the Big Bang. Being other than constant would mean that information is either being lost or gained out of nowhere.
Most matter that we deal with consists of atoms. Sub-atomic particles tend to be electrically-charged, such as protons and electrons, and an ordinary atom has equal positive and negative charges so that it's overall charge is zero, although an atom can become an ion by losing or gaining an electron. The fact that the inside of the atom is almost all empty space would be a reflection of all that the atom might have been, given that atoms are the universal structure of matter that balances out positive and negative electric charges, but it became only one of these possibilities.
The vast majority of the inside of an atom is empty space. This is also one address among many empty addresses, and the empty space is information. The ratio of matter to space inside the atom is, again, a subset of P, because it involves only the inside of the atom.
Hydrogen atoms, of course, have the highest proportion of empty space, relative to matter. Heavier atoms were formed by fusion and so lost some of this information by radiation. But since the two electric charges in the universe are a given, some other structure where the two opposite charges balance out might have formed and the "empty addresses" within atoms are a reflection of this.
What I find interesting is that there is a particle that is overall neutral in electric charge and balances out the negative and positive charges. This particle is the neutron. But neutrons are not primary particles. They are formed by crunching an electron into a proton, known as K-capture.
Furthermore neutrons exist only within atoms, if a neutron is alone outside an atom it will break down into a proton and an electron in an average of about 15 minutes. This is because a compact neutron does not maintain all of the "empty addresses" representing the many forms that the primary zero charge structure might have taken while an atom, with all of it's internal empty space, does.
One obvious thing about matter that might have been different is the equal, but opposite electric charge on an electron and a proton. We describe this charge either as -1 for an electron or +1 for a proton. But, had the universe been different then this charge might have been different. If the charge was greater then atoms would likely have been more massive and less massive if the charge was lesser.
The density of matter, relative to space, within galactic groups could also be a subvalue of P, in a way similar to within the atom. The universe is expanding but the expansion is the vast galactic groups moving away from each other. The density within galactic groups is relatively constant, the Andromeda Galaxy in our Local Group and our galaxy are actually moving closer to each other. The subvalue means just the density of matter in the space inside our Local Group, and the number of possible patterns that matter could have taken of which only one became reality, of only our Local Group of galaxies once it formed.
There can only be such a subvalue of P in a unit of space that has become partially independent of the rest of the universe in how the matter in the unit is arranged. If we wanted to determine the subvalue for the earth, for example, we would have to go back to the star that preceded the sun which scattered it's matter across space in a supernova. Our determination would have to involve how that star formed, and what it's P subvalue was.
At any rate the density of matter in space is information, and this information must have come from somewhere. There is some number that describes the density of matter in space, which I am calling P, even if we cannot effectively determine what that number is.
It isn't information if there was no possibility of it being different. That which is comprises information but to be information it must be set against that which isn't, so that which isn't is also information, and information cannot just be lost. Information is what is set against the background of what might have been but isn't.
For something to be somewhere else in the universe it would have to have been something else. The empty addresses must be there to represent what might have been but wasn't.
The only thing that makes sense to me as being the source of the density of matter in space is the reciprocal of the total number of possible arrangements that matter could have taken, and that number I refer to as P. The one that it took is the arrangement of matter that we see in the universe today.
My cosmology theory has it's own explanation for the sparseness of matter in space, that matter is one dimension, of the two dimensions of the original two-dimensional sheet that was dispersed among four dimensions of the background space. The other dimension of the sheet was released as energy, in what we perceive as the Big Bang.
But these two answers are different ways of expressing the same thing. The more dimensions of space there are, relative to the one that became matter, the more "things that might have been" there will be.
Not only is there space that must be empty because it represents the "empty addresses" of "things that might have been", there must also be a universe of patterns that go unmanifested. We have geometric forms, such as squares, cubes, circles, spheres and, triangles. But there must be many others that are not manifested because the matter of the universe never fell into those patterns.
This applies not only to geometric forms but also to the basic patterns of the universe that we saw in "The Theory Of Complexity". There could also be missing numbers that might have been manifested but we cannot imagine because they never get manifested by the matter of our universe.
I am presuming here that the one thing that might not have been different is that the universe is compromised of two electric charges, negative and positive. In my cosmology theory empty space consists of a checkerboard of alternating negative and positive changes, in multiple dimensions. These two charges are why there are two opposite directions in each dimension of space. If there were three opposite charges there would have to be three opposite directions in each dimension. This theory here is about arrangements of matter in space, rather than the space itself.
There are two basic sets of quantum theories.
There is the "collapse" scenarios, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, where any quantum system exists in a multitude of quantum states until it "collapses" into only one state upon being observed. The observation is a vital part of the quantum interaction.
Then there is the "many worlds" scenarios. In this way of looking at quantum interactions there is no "collapse" into one quantum state but there must be unseen parallel universes so that what might have happened, but didn't happen, in this universe must happen in another universe. Basically there can't be anything that could have happened but didn't happen, because what didn't happen is information also and information cannot just be lost.
There is also an idea by the physicist Richard Feynman called the "Path Integral". What this says is that what happens is to take everything that could happen and add them all together.
But what none of this really takes account of is space, particularly the concentration of matter in space. The sparseness of matter in space is information, and information must have come from somewhere. The question is not only why the arrangement of matter in space is what it is but also why the concentration of matter in space, it's sparseness, is what it is.
What I am stating here is that the present arrangement of matter in space is one of many "addresses" that might have been but weren't, and matter is concentrated in space in such a way that the "empty addresses" of things and arrangements of things that might have been but weren't must be preserved, because they are part of the information of what is.
What I refer to as an "address" here is not a particular location but the particular arrangement of matter in the entire universe. The density of matter in space should be a vital part of quantum physics and neither of the sets of quantum theories takes this into account.
FAR OUTER MATHEMATICS
The patterns and mathematics that are not manifested by our universe but might have been manifested if the universe had been different are what I refer to as "Far Outer Mathematics". Here is an explanation of what I mean.
We use mathematics to describe the world around us. To be able to describe something using mathematics we must completely understand it. Once we do we can do all kinds of useful calculations because everything we know operates by the same mathematics.
But we do not have unlimited capacity to understand the world around us. Our minds have a certain complexity and we can only understand that which is less complex than our minds. Anything that is more complex than our minds we would not be able to understand enough to apply mathematics to it because we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible.
Somewhere out there is a formula that describes everything that you do. You cannot access it because it deals with your mind's own complexity and this would require you to be "smarter than yourself", which is impossible. But yet this unseen formula must operate by the usual mathematics.
This is what I refer to as "outer mathematics", mathematics which must exist but which is beyond our grasp because of our own limited complexity. All of textbook mathematics is "inner mathematics", which is within our grasp.
But aside from this set of "outer mathematics" there must be a still more distant set of outer mathematics. As stated we use mathematics because it effectively describes the world around us. But what if that world, actually the entire universe, had been different?
The matter that all except particle physicists deal with is made of atoms. We could say that atoms are "exclusive" so the mathematics that works for us uses numbers and has the basic operations; addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponents, roots, etc. What I mean by "exclusive" is that atoms, and the matter that is composed of them, does not come into existence spontaneously and stays as it is until something changes it.
The numbers that we use have no real existence until they are manifested in some way. There is no such thing as the number six that we can see but we see it whenever we have six of something. But any number must exist whether it is manifested by anything or not. Consider the number 37,683,992,651,801,384,161,079,177,209,184. Let's refer to this number as "W". It may be that nowhere in the universe is this number manifested anywhere, but it is still just as much a number nonetheless because it could potentially be manifested. Just as a parking space still exists whether or not there is a car in it.
The mathematics that we use, both inner and outer mathematics, works for us because the matter that we deal with is as it is, matter could be said to be "exclusive". This means that more than one set of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time and matter cannot come into existence out of nothing. But what if matter, or the entire universe, was completely different?
There would still be mathematics that described it although it would be completely different from the mathematics that we are using. If matter, or whatever that universe was made of, was non-exclusive then there would be no reason for the addition, subtraction and, so on that we use. If that universe was somehow immeasurable or unquantifiable mathematics might express the effect that it has on the living beings rather than what it is actually made of.
Mathematics is inevitably related to scarcity, of not having everything that we need or want and of having to labor to get what we don't have or build what doesn't yet exist or get to somewhere other than where we are. Have you ever noticed that there is no mention of mathematics in Heaven? In Heaven we will have everything we want so why would we have any need to calculate?
The universe of atoms, electric charges and, electromagnetic radiation that we have is just one of an infinite number of possibilities that the universe could have been. It is like rolling dice. The numbers that came up are our universe. The numbers that didn't come up are all of the universes that never physically existed, but yet these numbers still exist.
But the mathematics, completely different from our own, that would have described them must nonetheless still exist. Just as we saw with the number "W" above, a number still exists whether it is manifested or not and the mathematics, which we cannot begin to imagine, of every different universe that never actually existed must also still exist.
This is what I refer to as "Far Outer Mathematics". It is the mathematics of would-have-been universes and physical realms that do not even use the same basic operations as the mathematics that we use. What we could call "Near Outer Mathematics" is, as explained above, mathematics that would use the same basic operations but is beyond our reach because we could not completely understand something whose complexity is greater than our own.
THE GREAT SIMPLICITY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Can you see how simple Quantum Physics really is? In my cosmology theory, it is fully explained as being even simpler than Relativity.
All that we need to know is that when a two-dimensional wave encounters a one-dimensional electron, which is the only way we can see or measure the wave, it must necessarily absorb the energy of one dimension of the wave. The remaining dimension of the wave is what we refer to as a photon, which behaves as a one-dimensional particle. This is why light is said to have the nature of both a wave and a particle.
The wave function, representing a multitude of all quantum states, thus appears to "collapse" into only one such state when we observe it. There is always the uncertainty factor in quantum measurements because we are observing a two-dimensional wave function, light being how we receive information, in only one dimension.
Picture a one-dimensional line in space. That is an electron, but the motion of an electron in it's atomic orbital resembles a wave. The direction of the line is the dimension of four-dimensional space that we perceive as time.
Now picture a two-dimensional wave contacting the electron line at a perpendicular angle. One of the dimensions of the wave is the direction in which it is traveling and the other is perpendicular to it. Both of the dimensions of the wave are perpendicular to that of the electron. The electron absorbs the dimension of the wave that is the direction in which the wave is moving, the remaining dimension of the wave then exists as a one-dimensional photon that is perpendicular to the line of the electron.
THE MYSTERY OF PARTICLE SPIN
All particles comprising ordinary matter have spins of 1 / 2. Spin refers to the number of times that a particle must rotate to get back to the original configuration. This is the realm of quantum physics and cannot be explained by ordinary physics. A spin of 1 / 2 means that the particle must be rotated twice to get back to the original configuration.
Particles of ordinary matter consist of two families of particles, quarks and leptons. Electrons are leptons and the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei are both composed of three quarks each. Compound particles like protons and neutrons, each composed of quarks, are known as baryons.
Ordinary matter that is composed of quarks, the protons and neutrons, are made of an odd number of quarks. An up quark has a charge of + 2 / 3. A down quark has a charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and a down quark make up a proton with a net charge of + 1. Two down quarks and an up quark make up a neutron with a net charge of zero.
Leptons and baryons together, the components of ordinary matter, are known as fermions. All composite particles made up of quarks are called hadrons which, aside from baryons also include mesons, which is a pair of a quark and an antimatter quark. But mesons are not stable.
Besides fermions, with their spin of 1 / 2, there are other particles that have a spin of 1, known as integral spin because 1 is an integer. These particles only have to rotate once to get back to their original configuration. But these are not matter particles, they are known as bosons and carry forces. The best-known boson is a photon.
The major difference in properties between fermions and bosons is exclusivity. Fermions are exclusive while bosons are not. If a particle has to spin twice to get back to it's original configuration that means it is exclusive. If a particle has to spin only once to get back to it's original configuration that means it is not exclusive.
Exclusive means that the particles, or the matter of which they are composed, cannot occupy the same space at the same time. That is why ordinary matter particles have a spin of 1 / 2. Electrons in an atom follow what is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Each electron has an "address" consisting of a four-part quantum number. No two electrons in the atom can have exactly the same quantum numbers.
Particles that are not exclusive, bosons such as photons, follow the set of rules called "Bose-Einstein Statistics". Particles that are exclusive, fermions such as electrons and protons and neutrons composed of quarks, follow the set of rules called "Fermi-Dirac Statistics".
The spin is the fourth of an electron's quantum numbers. There are two possible spin directions, up and down. Electrons ordinarily exist in pairs, with the same quantum numbers but with opposite spin. Not all electrons are paired. In some materials, the orbitals of the unpaired electrons can be lined up with a magnetic field. Materials with the orbitals of unpaired electrons lined up are known as magnets.
Spin can be best seen in the following moving illustration. Or you can see it at the Wikipedia article, "Spin-1/2"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD#/media/File:Spin_One-Half_(Slow).gif
If we attach cables to each side of a rotating cube, so that the cables won't tangle, the cube must rotate twice to get back to the same configuration. That is because the cables have two possible configurations, and will alternate between the two with each rotation. We can refer to the two configurations of the attached cables as "clockwise" and "counterclockwise". We could also say that the cables alternate between an "S" and a "Reverse S".
But since the two possible configurations are equal, there must be an alternation between the two, which requires that there be two rotations to get back to the original configuration.
But notice that we need the attachment of these cables to demonstrate 1 / 2 spin. We could not tell the spin of a particle just by looking at it, if we could look at it. "Getting back to the original configuration" means the configuration of the space around a spinning particle.
But how can the empty space around the particle have a configuration, and how can the configuration be affected by the spin of the particle? Empty space seems to be just nothingness, without any kind of configuration.
Everything, both space and matter, is composed of a near-infinity of infinitesimal electric charges. Empty space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions.
This is the most logical configuration because the basic rules are that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. But there is energy in the universe and like charges can be held together by energy, and this is what matter is. Energy can also cross space as a wave displacement of the alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges, and this is what electromagnetic waves are.
An electron, for example, is, in my cosmology theory, a concentration of negative charges held together by energy. There is the well-known mass-energy equivalence, a certain amount of mass being equivalent to a certain amount of energy. The equivalence of mass and energy is what Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared is about, the inter-convertibility of mass and energy. This is why concentrations of like charges, such as the electron, have mass but empty space doesn't.
But if the electron, or any other matter particle, is composed of concentrated electric charge, and the space around it is composed of an alternating checkerboard pattern of the same charges, then shouldn't a change in the particle, such as it's spin, also have an effect on the arrangement of the electric charges in the space around it?
The following diagram shows that one dimensional strings of like charges With positive charges shifted to one side of the two-dimensional sheet, and negative charges to the other side, and with the charge pattern of the sheet not aligned with the checkerboard of the background space, the negative side of the sheet came in contact with the positive side. This produced the tremendous matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we refer to as the Big Bang.
Since the sheet was not in alignment with the checkerboard charge pattern of the background space this represented information, and information is really the same thing as energy. One dimension of the two dimensional sheet, the sides that came into contact, disintegrated. This dimension became energy, and this introduced energy into the universe. In the diagram strings of matter, whether negative or positive, are seen in red. The checkerboard pattern of the surrounding background space is seen in black.
The like charges of the matter charges are held together, against their mutual repulsion, by some of the energy that was released by the Big Bang. This internal energy in matter is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is also described by Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, which basically means that a little bit of matter contains a tremendous amount of energy. Other energy from the Big Bang went into throwing the matter out across space, and some of it we can still detect as radiation from the Big Bang.
Another mystery that it explains, and that proves it is correct, is the spin of neutrinos as they move through space. Neutrinos spin to their left, relative to the direction of travel, while antineutrinos, the antimatter version of the neutrino, spins to it's right. This is from the two dimensional sheet after charge migration had taken place, because it cannot otherwise be explained.
Face your palms toward each other and curl the fingers of both hands. The fingers of one hand curl to the left and the other to the right. That is because the two sides of the two dimensional sheet that came into contact approached each other from opposite directions.
But if the Big Bang can happen once, you may wonder why it couldn't happen again. Maybe it does. If a string, such as an electron, should break, due to some traumatic event such as a supernova or collision between massive objects, it would create a charge imbalance in space that could start a sheet of this same kind of charge replication and migration, until the negative side came in contact with the positive side. This would create the mini replication of the Big Bang that we call Gamma Ray Bursts.
The collapse of a massive star, or the collision between two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole, can cause a Gamma Ray Burst. But yet the collision between two black holes does not seem to cause a Gamma Ray Burst. This confirms my theory of both black holes and Gamma Ray Bursts. Black holes are "pure" matter where the very structures of matter, including the strings themselves, have been broken down by the extreme gravity so that there are no strings that can break.
These are by far the most powerful explosions in the universe, and occur on a regular basis across the universe, but are, as of yet, unexplained.
Imagine the electron in space. The electron is a concentration of negative charges, held together by energy against like-charge repulsion which is why the electron has mass. The space adjoining it is alternating negative and positive charges. The negatively-charged electron affects those charges in that it pulls the positive charges in space somewhat toward it, and pushes the negative charges in space somewhat away from it.
Now suppose the electron begins to spin, as it does. It's effect on the charges around it will be pulled along with the spin just like the cables attached to the spinning cube in the illustration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD#/media/File:Spin_One-Half_(Slow).gif
There has to be two possible configurations of the space around it simply because there are two electric charges of which the space is composed, negative and positive. A line of electric charges in space that adjoin the electron might be negative-positive-negative-positive... or it might be positive-negative-positive-negative... Since the two arrangements are equal, the space around the spinning electron must alternate between the two. This is why we see two opposite directions per dimension of space. We might refer to these as up and down, left and right, and backward and forward.
That means that the electron must spin twice before the original configuration of electric charges is restored, and that is why we say that the electron, and all other matter particles composed of a concentration of electric charges, have a spin of 1 / 2.
This makes sense but then how can there be other particles with a spin of 1?
The answer involves the exclusivity of a concentration of like electric charges that are held together by energy, such as electrons. If we bring two electrons close together, they will repel each other because like electric charges repel. That is what makes them exclusive, and no two electrons in the same atom can have the same four quantum numbers for the same reason.
The reason that matter doesn't just pass through other matter is electron repulsion. As the atoms of the two pieces of matter come in contact, the negative charges in the electrons of each repel each other. This is why you can stand on the floor without passing right into the floor, since the interior of an atom is by far mostly empty space.
Suppose that there was an electron of concentrated positive charges, instead of negative. What if we brought that together with the usual electron?
There actually is a positively-charged electron. It is called a positron. But it is the antimatter version of an electron. Antimatter is the same as ordinary matter except that the electric charges are reversed. If we brought the two together, both would vanish in a great burst of energy as the negative and positive charges composing each react and rearrange themselves back into the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space, and the energy that was holding the like charges of each together is released.
So if everything, space and matter, is composed of electric charges and if particles that are "exclusive" are composed of concentrated like charges, held together by the energy of the mass-energy equivalence, then the only remaining source of any other kind of particle is the electromagnetic waves that can carry energy across space. These waves are a displacement of the alternating negative and positive electric charges that make up space, but not a concentration of the charges in the same way as matter. Matter is one dimensional but has mass, electromagnetic radiation exchanges the mass for it's second dimension.
Such a wave would have to be two-dimensional because they have two specific components, wavelength and amplitude. Since we are composed of atoms, which have electrons in their orbitals, the only way that we can sense or see things must involve electrons. But, in my cosmology theory, electrons are one-dimensional strings in four-dimensional space that we perceive as particles because we can only see three of these dimensions, the other we perceive as time.
But if waves are two-dimensional, and the electrons by which we must receive the waves are one-dimensional, that means that there must be one dimension of the wave remaining after the electrons in our eyes or measuring equipment absorb the energy of one of the two dimensions of the wave, which is the only way that we can see or sense anything.
Since particles, such as electrons, are really one-dimensional strings, and since one dimension of a two-dimensional wave must remain after our electrons have absorbed the energy of the other dimension of the wave, that means there must be one-dimensional remnants of waves that would seem to us to be particles, such as photons. This explains why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature.
However, unlike particles of matter such as electrons, these "particles" of electromagnetic waves are not concentrations of either negative or positive charge. They are a displacement of the usual checkerboard pattern of alternating charges but there is no reason for them to have more negative or more positive charge.
These are just mass-less and charge-less one-dimensional packets of energy. But that would mean that they would not have the same effect on the electric charges of the surrounding space, as the electron described above. This also means that they would not be exclusive, many of them could pass through the same space with minimal effect on one another. Without this effect, there would be no reason for them to have to spin twice to get back to the same configuration of surrounding electric charges.
This is why they have a spin of 1, and this mystery of spin is explained so neatly by this cosmology theory.
SPIN IN TERMS OF DIMENSIONS
The matter from the Big Bang was thrown across four dimensions of space. We can see three of the four, the other we perceive as time. This is because what we see as particles of matter, which have the spin of 1 / 2, are actually strings in four dimensional space. We see them as particles in three-dimensional space because our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see in perpendicular directions one moment at a time.
This mystery of particle spin is all a simple matter of these four dimensions. In my cosmological theory, matter consists of one-dimensional strings of like electric charges, held together against the usual like-charge repulsion by energy. When this rotates what is happening is that the points on it's surface are moving in a perpendicular direction to the direction of alignment of the string. This means that the rotation, as we perceive it, of the one-dimensional string involves two dimensions.
But there are four dimensions of space. The rotation, or spin, of the string of matter involves only two of these dimensions. Two is half of four and that is why the string, as the particle as we perceive it, has a spin of 1 / 2. How much simpler could it be?
Everything that is spinning has a spin of 1 from it's own perspective. The only way that it could be seen differently is from the perspective of the surrounding space, and it would only be different if there were somehow a different number of dimensions involved, and there would only be a different number of dimensions involved if this cosmological theory of mine is correct.
Something cannot be seen as having a spin of 1 as seen in four dimensions if the spin only involves two dimensions. It will have to spin twice to get back to the original configuration. This is not true from it's own perspective but only from the perspective of the surrounding dimensions of space.
The particles, as we see them, that have the spin of 1 / 2 are the particles of matter, the leptons and hadrons that are collectively known as fermions. But there are other particles that have a spin of 1, these are known as bosons. The best-known boson is a photon, a "particle" of light. A spin of 1 / 2 means it has to spin twice to get back to the same configuration, relative to space. A spin of 1 means it only has to spin once.
All electromagnetic radiation is waves. Individual waves must have two dimensions because they have two components, wavelength (or frequency) and amplitude. But it is often said that light has a particle nature as well as a wave nature. What happens is that the only way we can receive light or other electromagnetic radiation is through it's interaction with electrons which, in my cosmological theory, are one-dimensional strings. This interaction means the electron, in our eyes or instruments, absorbing the energy of one of the two dimensions of the electron. This leaves the other dimension of the light wave as what we see as a one-dimensional particle, similar in form to a particle like an electron.
In this cosmological theory everything, both space and matter, is composed of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive in multiple dimensions, since the basic rules of the charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. But a concentration of like charges can be held together by energy, and that is what strings of matter are. Energy is equivalent to mass, as pointed out by Einstein, and the energy holding the like charges of matter together is the familiar Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Electromagnetic waves are caused by the opposite of mass because they are energy, not holding a concentration of like charges together like matter, but overcoming the attraction between opposite charges in space. The waves seem to be electromagnetic because they disturb the otherwise perfectly alternating pattern of electric charges in space. These charges comprising space usually balance out to zero but the underlying electromagnetism is exposed by the disturbing action of the wave.
But this means that while fundamental strings of matter are a concentration of a single electric charge, either positive or negative, the photons contain both electric charges although not in the perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space. The dimensions of space are composed of electric charges. Remember that the two dimensional sheet of space from which matter formed was out of alignment, or non-contiguous, with the surrounding background space.
So this means that a one-dimensional string of matter is one charge moving in one perpendicular dimension as it spins. While a one-dimensional remnant of an electromagnetic wave is two charges moving in one perpendicular dimension as it spins. Again, each spin thus involves two dimensions.
The math is simple. Two dimensions x one electric charge = 2. Two dimensions x two electric charges = 4. We can multiply electric charges by dimensions because dimensions of space are themselves composed of electric charges.
There are four dimensions of space involved. For matter, 4 / 2 = 2. For photons, or other bosons, 4 / 4 = 1. So particles of matter seem to have to spin twice to get back to the original configuration while bosons only have to spin once.
Consider the example of a square. We are aware that the square is two-dimensional so that we can go from one corner to the diagonally opposite corner in one movement. But suppose that there was someone who could be aware of only one dimension. They could not cross the square diagonally as we did. They would have to go along one side of the square to the corner, and then along the perpendicular side of the square from there to get to where we are. We would require only one movement to cross the square, but they would require two.
That is what particles are like with regard to rotation. The dimensions within which the particles, actually strings in four dimensions, rotate are composed of electric charges. Bosons contain both electric charges while matter particles contain only one or the other. That is why rotating bosons only have to spin once to get back to the same original configuration while particles of matter have to spin twice.
THREE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS PER DIMENSION WITHIN SUBATOMIC PARTICLES
Possibly the greatest mystery anywhere is why so much about subatomic particles revolves around threes and thirds. This is information and it must come from somewhere.
Three quarks make up a hadron, a proton or neutron, which forms the nucleus of the atom. There are three generations of quarks, although only the first generation is vitally important to the ordinary matter of the universe. Electric charges in the first generation of quarks are in thirds. 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 make up a proton, with an overall charge of +1. Two down quarks and an up quark make a neutron, with an overall charge of zero. In the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics, which describes how quarks operate, quarks come in three "colors".
The threes continue with leptons, which is the class of particles that electrons belong to. There are three generations of electrons although, as with quarks, only the first generation is important to ordinary matter. There are also three generations of neutrinos. The difference between generations in quarks and leptons is mass, but not electric charge. The first generation is the lightest, the second is heavier, and the third heavier still.
This cosmology theory has a simple explanation of this mystery of threes. In our familiar space there are two opposite directions in each of the three dimensions. We might refer to these as up and down, left and right and, back and front. But there is nothing written in stone that there has to be two opposite directions per dimension. There are two directions because space is composed of two electric charges, which act as two points of information. From any given point in space on one side is a positive charge and the other a negative, so there must be these two opposite directions per dimension.
The two rules that describes the operation of these electric charges are 1) opposite charges attract and 2) like charges repel. In this theory matter is formed by energy overcoming the mutual repulsion between like charges so that the charges can be grouped together into charged particles, such as electrons and quarks. As described above this energy is what gives the matter it's mass and is called the Mass Energy Equivalence. Upon a matter-antimatter reaction the energy is released and the charges rearrange into the checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges that comprise empty space. In a nuclear reaction only a few percent of the mass is turned into energy.
But this overcoming of one of the rules of electric charges, but not the other, creates more "freedom" of movement. It also creates a higher information state, due to the imbalance, and the information must be somehow manifested. The one remaining rule of electric charges stands out, because there is nothing to balance it.
What it does is create a third opposite direction per dimension. There are still the same number of dimensions but with three opposite directions each, rather than two. The two electric charges, and the one unbalanced rule that goes with them, means three basic points of information, and so this must be reflected in three opposite directions per dimension.
Another way to think of it is in terms of the basic forces of nature. The earth is sensitive only to gravity. Since gravity is a purely attractive force if the earth could think it would see only one direction per dimension, the direction of gravitational pull. We are sensitive to both gravity and electromagnetism so we see two directions per dimension. The nucleus of an atom is also sensitive to the strong nuclear force so it sees three directions per dimension. Each basic force is a point of information.
This only applies for actually inside subatomic particles, quarks and electrons. The inside of an atom is mostly empty space and when dealing with the orbitals of electrons, for example, we are still dealing with space and there are still only two opposite directions per dimension.
We receive all of our information about quantum physics by electromagnetic radiation, and it's effect on electrons. But if we could get actually inside subatomic particles electromagnetic radiation would cease to be a factor. There would only be the direct effect of electric charges.
Electromagnetic radiation is charge-neutral. This means that if an electromagnetic wave is formed by a moving electric charge, the wave would be the same whether the moving charge was positive or negative. But the direct effect of electric charges is not charge-neutral. We are dependent on the effect on electrons, in our eyes and equipment, for information. Electrons are negatively charged and, since the mutual repulsion between like charges has been overcome by energy, are affected more by positive charges inside the charged particles that compose matter.
We cannot actually get inside the charged particles and are dependent on space so we, and our equipment, can see only two of the three dimensions. Being dependent on negatively charged electrons, our vision will favor positive charges.
This is why there are three generations of electrons, quarks and, neutrinos, but all we usually perceive is the first generation. Although we can detect the other two generations of each.
This is why the up and down quarks are seen as having electric charges of +2/3 and -1/3. We can only ever see through two of the three directions per dimension, since we have to see through space, and positive charges are favored, since we can only "see" with negatively charged electrons.
This is why there are three "colors" of quarks in the well-established theory of Quantum Chromodynamics. The three "colors" of the quarks, and the gluons that they exchange, must balance out to zero. The three "colors" are actually three directions along which the quark and gluon can be aligned.
Since there are three directions per dimension, with regard to quarks, and we can only see two of those directions, this is why the system of Quantum Chromodynamics appears to be relatively simple but ends up being so complicated that it is very difficult to use.
The following diagram shows, on the right, from Point A there has to be two directions in the up and down dimension because one direction begins with a positive charge and the other a negative charge. On the left, if we were actually inside a subatomic particle, such as a quark or electron, there would be three opposite directions per dimension.
PART 5-NON-QUANTUM PHYSICS
11) VALENCE AND COSMOLOGY
We know that carbon is a small atom, which shares it's outer electrons when forming molecular bonds, but why is it such a very special atom for the covalent bonds which it forms? Carbon atoms use the energy of the sun to build the very complex structures of living things out of carbon atoms, along with other plentiful atoms such as hydrogen and oxygen.
Valence bonds are one of two types of molecular bond between atoms. In valence bonds, atoms combine into molecules by sharing electrons between them, whereas in ionic bonds one atom loses an electron to another so that the two are held together as a molecule because one has a net negative charge and the other a net positive charge. Living things have their biological structures based on valence bonds.
Valence bonds favor small atoms with four electrons in the outer electron orbital shell. By one account that I read, carbon is capable of forming thirty-five times as many different molecular bonds than all other elements combined. I find that this requires some really special explanation.
Another thing that is special about carbon is that, even though it is a light atom (atomic number 6), it also forms the hardest known material which is diamond. This also requires some special explanation.
What is so special about carbon is that it has four electrons in it's outer orbital shell, with the remaining two in the inner shell. There is no atom with just four electrons in it's only shell. Carbon is the lightest atom with four electrons in the outer shell.
Silicon is also capable of forming complex molecular structures, although not quite as complex as carbon. We see that silicon also has four electrons in it's outer shell, so clearly this must be an important factor in producing complex molecular structures. Rock is basically a compound of silicon and oxygen.
This brings us back to the question of why chemistry revolves so much around four electrons. My belief is that it is because the matter with which we are familiar was thrown out by the Big Bang across four dimensions of space, one of which we perceive as time. The maximum number of electrons that an atom can have in it's outermost shell is 8. Since electrons operate in pairs, each with a spin opposite that of the other, this gives us four electron pairs. This is one pair for each spatial dimension, one for each of the two directions in that dimension.
The maximum number of electrons that can exist in any shell in any atom is 32, this is because they are held in by back pressure by electron repulsion from electrons in orbitals above. 32 is a multiple of 4, 4 x 4 x 2 = 32. This is, once again, because the matter occupies four spatial dimensions. The fourth dimension we perceive as time. If we occupied only three spatial dimensions, we would see electrons revolving around the number 3.
What about the so-called "octet rule" in chemistry? The outer electrons in molecules tend to arrange themselves so that there are eight outer electrons in the molecular structure. Once again, this gives us one electron pair for each of the four dimensions.
Each of the four spatial dimensions has two opposite directions from any given point. With four dimensions and four electrons in it's outer orbital shell, carbon can contribute one electron in one direction of each dimension, and receive one from an adjacent atom from the opposite direction in that dimension. This would provide a maximum bond structure, with no space left unfilled, and this accounts for the supreme hardness of diamond. If space really consisted only of the three dimensions that we perceive, then this maximum bonding would take place with three outer electrons in an atom.
If there were really only three spatial dimensions, there would be a maximum of six outer electrons per atoms, and there would be only six columns in the Periodic Table of the Elements, instead of the eight that there are now.
The amazing valency of carbon, which is responsible for all biological structures, and the supreme hardness of diamond, is explained by the fact that the matter which composes our universe is distributed over four dimensions, rather than the three that we see, and this is one of the foundations of my cosmological theory. This shows, once again, how this cosmological theory explains so much that has not yet been explained about the nature of the universe.
12) METALS, NON-METALS AND, COSMOLOGY
There must be a considerable amount of energy stored within metals simply because of the "delocalized" outer electrons which, unlike in non-metals, are shared among many atoms of the metal instead of being confined to orbitals around only one atom. The large number of atoms in the metal which share electrons make up what is known as a crystal. It is this surface of delocalized electrons that gives metals the properties that are different from non-metals.
This crystal arrangement with the shared electrons explains the physical properties of metals. They tend to bend, rather than break, when force is applied. Metals tend to melt, rather than burn, when heat is applied. The metallic luster can be explained by the reflection of light by the mass of delocalized electrons between atoms. Metals are typically ductile, meaning that they can be shaped or drawn into wire, because the relative positions of the crystals can be changed.
Metals also tend to conduct electricity. This has been explained by potential higher energy delocalized orbitals, which ordinarily remain empty. These higher orbitals, or bands, extend throughout the entire volume of the metal. When a voltage pressure is applied to the metal, delocalized electrons gain the energy necessary to enter these higher energy orbitals and this causes the current to flow.
The first thing that becomes clear by just a glance at the periodic table is that the closer to being full is the outermost shell of electron orbitals, and the greater the number of electrons in the outer shell relative to the total number of electrons in the atom, the more likely the element will be a non-metal. In reactions, metals tend to lose outer electrons while non-metals tend to gain them. The heavier an element is, the more likely it is to be a metal.
We could say that the higher the proportion of an element’s electrons are in the outer shell, the more likely is the element to be a non-metal. This makes sense because we can see by their relative positions on the periodic table that metals tend to lose electrons in reactions, while non-metals gain them.
The vast majority of atoms in the universe are non-metallic simply because atoms like hydrogen and helium are so numerous. But the vast majority of elements in the periodic table are metals, only the upper right corner of the periodic table are non-metals. The heavier an element is, the more likely it is to be a metal because this means that there will be more electron shells in the atoms and so there will be a lower proportion of it's electrons in the outermost shell. This means that sharing these outermost electrons among other atoms in a metallic crystal will not be precluded by the local charge imbalance that will result.
Remember one of the central principles of my cosmological theory. The universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object will fall to the ground if you drop it. It requires less energy to have it resting on the ground than to maintain it's position in the air. But the lowest energy state is not the top priority of the universe. The top priority is charge balance, that all negative and positive charges balance out. Only when that is achieved will the universe seek the lowest energy state.
In non-metals, there cannot be the outer shell of delocalized electrons shared among a crystal as in non-metals because that would create too much local charge imbalance because it would represent too high of a proportion of the total electrons in the atom being much further away from the nucleus. But with larger atoms, which have a lower proportion of their electrons in the outermost shell, electrons can be shared among the large number of atoms in the crystal.
Since these shared outer electrons in the metal encompass more space than if they were in the outer orbitals of individual atoms, my reasoning is that they must hold more energy than the atoms of non-metals since, in an orbit, this is what defines the orbital energy.
We know that there is energy in the molecular bonds between atoms. In covalent bonds, as opposed to ionic bonds in which one atom simply loses an electron to another, two or more atoms share an electron so that it binds the atoms together into a molecule. It takes energy to form the bond, and then the energy is released if the bond is broken.
The requirement for energy to form the bond is because higher altitude above the nucleus means higher energy levels. An electron that orbits two atoms must be at a higher orbital than if it was in an orbital around only one of the atoms. It is the same principle with orbits around a planet, if a spacecraft in orbit is given a burst of energy then it will rise to a higher orbit.
This is why it takes an input of energy to put the electron in the higher orbital, so that it binds the atoms together, and that the excess energy is released if the molecular bond should be broken. The result is that energy is released by the burning of fossil fuels or wood, and also by the digestion of food. Energy from the sun that was absorbed by plants went to form molecular structures of carbon atoms, and those molecular bonds are broken and the energy released by burning or digestion.
This must mean that there is considerably more energy stored within the crystalline structure of metals than there would be if the atoms were separated. The energy was inputted in the center of the star which fused the atoms of the metal together from smaller atoms. The energy originated with the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star, which could ultimately be traced back to the Big Bang.
I was mystified as to where this "metallic energy" came from. The conclusion that I have since come to is the reason that there is clearly this energy in metals is that it has not been overcome by charge imbalance like it has in non-metals. More accurately, being metals are the more natural state of atoms than being non-metals. This must be true even though the lightest original atoms, which began the universe, were non-metals.
Being a metal must be the "preferred state" of atoms, because the electrons in the outermost shell get the chance to "stretch out" over a large number of atoms, instead of remaining in an orbital around only one, then that is what they will do, as long as they are not prevented by the local charge imbalance that it creates. It is only when the high proportion of electrons of non-metals are in the outer orbital that this cannot take place because having all of these electrons further away from the nucleus would create too much local charge imbalance.
Aside from electron orbitals "stretching out" in forms that are closer to straight lines in metallic crystals, the average electron also has a path that is closer to a straight line when small atoms undergo fusion into larger atoms. This is because an orbital in a larger atom is a wider circle, and thus closer to being a straight line.
This brings us to my cosmology theory.
Remember that electrons are really strings which started out as straight lines in the primordial two-dimensional sheet before the Big Bang, before being pulled into orbitals in atoms by the electric charges. When these electron strings "get the chance" they revert back, at least in a partial way, to their former state of being straight line strings. Being in an orbital around the large number of atoms in a metallic crystal is much closer to their original state of straight line strings than being in a tight orbital around a single atom.
The "energy" that I referred to as "metallic energy" is actually that which gets overcome by the local charge imbalance that it creates around the nuclei in metallic crystals, because there are more protons in the nucleus than there are electrons nearby because the outer electrons that would be in the atom are the delocalized ones, to pull the outer electrons away from their more natural state of being closer to straight lines and wrap them in orbitals around a single atom, as in non-metals.
13) ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND ORBITS
I have often pointed out how a large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's "building blocks", or components. This is because there is only a limited amount of information available with which to construct the universe. The Big Bang, which began the universe, was a relatively simple event, and all of the information in the universe, except for living things which I believe to be a creation of God, must have come from the Big Bang. This is why the universe, on a large scale, has such uniformity of arrangement and in the laws of physics. There was not enough information available to make it otherwise. It is also why every atom of a given element is exactly like every other atom of that element, with the exception of ions and isotopes.
The ideal example of how a large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's building blocks is in the spheres and orbits that are so pervasive across the universe. Electrons are in orbitals around atoms, which form spheres, and the stars, planets and, moons that are formed from these atoms are also shaped like spheres and orbit one another in much the same way that electrons orbit the nuclei of atoms. The reason is simply the limits on available information. The behavior of the large-scale astronomical objects must reflect that of the atoms of which they are composed because that is the only information available.
Spheres are the dominant form of matter in the universe because the electric charges of which the universe is composed contain a certain amount of information, and this information is used to construct spherical atoms, which then finds it's way into the astronomical bodies that are composed of those atoms.
But where did orbits come from? The pattern of one body in orbit around another, from electrons around nuclei to planets around stars, is one of the most fundamental patterns of the universe. Yet, we see nothing in the Big Bang to introduce this orbital pattern into the universe, and this is where all of the original information must have come from. The Big Bang was a throwing outward of matter across space, which only later began to form the orbital pattern. This seems to leave no explanation of where orbits came from.
Now, suppose that we could see in four dimensions instead of only three. Orbits, either of electrons around nuclei or planets around stars, would appear as waves. The only difference is that the wave would have an additional dimension, a third dimension relative to a sine wave, so that it would appear as a spiral pattern.
A wave motion is the only way for energy to travel through space. Space is composed of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges, and when energy is applied to it the result is that it distorts this checkerboard pattern by pulling opposite charges further apart. The distortion affects the charges of space further away from the source so that the distortion moves out into space according to the rules of the Inverse Square Law. Whatever charge arrangement in the checkerboard pattern of charges is producing the distortion must be reflected in the distortion, and this is what creates the wave motion. This means that the only way for energy to be transmitted across space is by a wave motion and this pattern, like that of the sphere, is from the information in the fundamental electric charges.
When the big Bang happened, the energy that was in the one dimension of the two dimensional sheet that disintegrated was released in three ways. Some was released as electromagnetic radiation across space, some went into "welding" the lines of the remaining dimension together into strings of matter, the rest went into throwing these strings of matter out across space. Some bundles of these strings of matter became our earth and ourselves.
But remember that the Big Bang was a relatively simple event, leaving only a limited amount of information with which to construct the universe. As we have seen, large-scale structures are constructed with whatever information is available. A primary element of the Big Bang is the energy that went into the strings of matter and, energy can only travel across space in the form of waves. Shouldn't we expect that the information conveyed in these waves would find it's way into the universe that we see today?
The way I see it, orbits are the manifestation of the waves of energy that went into the strings of matter at the Big Bang. We see orbits as circular because we can only see in three dimensions. If we could see in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, we would see orbits as the waves that they really are. We would see waves in everything, including the quarks of protons and neutrons entwined around one another and atoms and molecules entwined around one another, which we perceive as heat.
These waves of electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang formed matter, and so must show up in, the strings of matter which resulted. Since larger bodies, such as astronomical objects, are formed of the atoms which are composed of these strings, their nature must also show up in them because that is the only information available. This means that planetary orbits are also the result of the original electromagnetic waves.
The waves of energy from the disintegrated dimension of the original two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed matter as we know it, also provided the basic pattern information of spheres and orbits within that matter. This shows that the matter of our universe must occupy four dimensions, even though we can see only three, because the form of electromagnetic waves are imprinted on the matter in the dimension that we cannot access. This causes us to see orbits as circles or ellipses, rather than as waves. But this shows that, not only must there be another spatial dimension, matter must be strings rather than particles for waves to be imprinted on it like this, and so this must mean that we experience this fourth dimension of space as time just as explained in this theory.
14) ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND ATOMS
Let's take a close look at why you can see things and get warmth from the sun. In other words, why do we have electromagnetic radiation?
My cosmology theory is that what we now see as matter must have actually began with a two-dimensional sheet of space that formed within the multi-dimensional background space. Both the sheet and the background space began with electric charges. It started with one electrical charge, but that left a charge imbalance so that charged induced an opposite charge next to it, which then induced a copy of the first charge next to it, and so on in multiple dimensions. Thus, space is a near-infinity of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges.
The following diagram shows how the universe began with a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. But the most important rule in the universe is that the two electric charges must always balance out. So what happened is that the first electric charge induced opposite charges on either side of it. But this still left an imbalance so opposite charges were induced on opposite sides of those. The mutual induction continued in multiple dimensions. There would always be an imbalance as the mutual induction continued endlessly because there were two electric charges but there would always be an odd number of total charges. This formed a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. The following diagram shows the process, starting at the top.
The two-dimensional sheet of space, not being coordinated with the multi-dimensional background space, became folded until one side came into contact with the other. Charge migration had taken place in the two-dimensional sheet, in order to bring it to a lower energy state, so that one side was positive and the other side negative. Such charge migration could not take place in the surrounding multi-dimensional background space because there were too many dimensions to coordinate the charge migration together. There may even be an infinite number of spatial dimensions, but the matter of which we and our universe is composed was thrown across only four dimensions, one of which we experience as time, by the Big Bang, and so those are the only dimensions that we can access.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
This contact caused the sheet of space to disintegrate in the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it. But the two-dimensional sheet of space only disintegrated in only one of it's two dimensions because it was only that pair of opposite sides which came into contact. The remaining one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet became the one-dimensional strings of electric charges of which matter is composed.
The following diagram shows that one dimensional strings of like charges With positive charges shifted to one side of the two-dimensional sheet, and negative charges to the other side, and with the charge pattern of the sheet not aligned with the checkerboard of the background space, the negative side of the sheet came in contact with the positive side. This produced the tremendous matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we refer to as the Big Bang.
Since the sheet was not in alignment with the checkerboard charge pattern of the background space this represented information, and information is really the same thing as energy. One dimension of the two dimensional sheet, the sides that came into contact, disintegrated. This dimension became energy, and this introduced energy into the universe. In the diagram strings of matter, whether negative or positive, are seen in red. The checkerboard pattern of the surrounding background space is seen in black.
The like charges of the matter charges are held together, against their mutual repulsion, by some of the energy that was released by the Big Bang. This internal energy in matter is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is also described by Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, which basically means that a little bit of matter contains a tremendous amount of energy. Other energy from the Big Bang went into throwing the matter out across space, and some of it we can still detect as radiation from the Big Bang.
Another mystery that it explains, and that proves it is correct, is the spin of neutrinos as they move through space. Neutrinos spin to their left, relative to the direction of travel, while antineutrinos, the antimatter version of the neutrino, spins to it's right. This is from the two dimensional sheet after charge migration had taken place, because it cannot otherwise be explained.
Face your palms toward each other and curl the fingers of both hands. The fingers of one hand curl to the left and the other to the right. That is because the two sides of the two dimensional sheet that came into contact approached each other from opposite directions.
But if the Big Bang can happen once, you may wonder why it couldn't happen again. Maybe it does. If a string, such as an electron, should break, due to some traumatic event such as a supernova or collision between massive objects, it would create a charge imbalance in space that could start a sheet of this same kind of charge replication and migration, until the negative side came in contact with the positive side. This would create the mini replication of the Big Bang that we call Gamma Ray Bursts.
The collapse of a massive star, or the collision between two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole, can cause a Gamma Ray Burst. But yet the collision between two black holes does not seem to cause a Gamma Ray Burst. This confirms my theory of both black holes and Gamma Ray Bursts. Black holes are "pure" matter where the very structures of matter, including the strings themselves, have been broken down by the extreme gravity so that there are no strings that can break.
These are by far the most powerful explosions in the universe, and occur on a regular basis across the universe, but are, as of yet, unexplained.
These strings were hurled out across four dimensions of the multi-dimensional background space by the explosion of the Big Bang. Our consciousnesses are moving along the bundle of strings composing our bodied and brains, and we can only see perpendicular to the direction in which the strings are aligned. This is why we see and move in only three of the four dimensions, we perceive matter as composed of particles rather than strings and, we perceive the movement of our consciousness along the strings as time. Our consciousness moves at what we perceive as the speed of light so that this seems to us to be the maximum possible speed.
Remember that a basic presumption of science is that we have an unbiased view of the world around us, and we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. My theory is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We are part of the universe and see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. This may not make a difference in other sciences but it does make a difference in cosmology and Quantum Physics, which is about the very nature of the universe.
We can only see and move in three of the four spatial dimensions, the other we perceive as time. In the following diagram, if the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains is represented by line A, our consciousnesses is moving in the direction of the red arrow at what we perceive as the speed of light. The dashed red line represents the present, and the three dimensions that we can see in it.
If a bundle of strings, represented by line B, is aligned parallel to ours we will see it as an object at rest. But since we see in only three dimensions it will appear as an object, such as a sphere, C. A bundle of strings aligned like D will appear as an object moving toward us and E like an object moving away from us.
The greater the angle the faster it will appear to be moving, at a right angle it will appear to be moving at the speed of light. Electromagnetic radiation, F, is only transmitted or received at right angles to the strings which is why it appears to be moving at the speed of light.
We can prove this with ordinary trigonometry. It is known that an object moving with twice the velocity will impact with four times the force. In this theory an object is represented by a straight level line if it is at rest and a diagonal line if it is moving, like the base and diagonal of a right triangle. The secant, the inverse of the cosine, is the function that shows how much the length of the hypotenuse increases, relative to the base. The secant of 1 degree is 1.0001523. The secant of 2 degrees is 1.00060954. When the angle, which represents velocity, is doubled the increase in length, which represents mass or impact force, is multiplied by four. This only applies at low angles or velocities and not those approaching the speed of light.
But why would velocity, which is a one dimensional line, operate by the Inverse Square Law when a square requires two dimensions? It is because, as shown in the diagram above, velocity is really an angle and the square is because of the area under the line at the angle. Why should there be squares in so many physics formulas that involve only one dimensional movement or change? Because there is another dimension of space that we can't see but perceive as time.
The universe is composed of space, matter and, energy. The space is the original multi-dimensional background space. Matter is one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet, composed of one dimensional strings that we perceive as particles such as electrons. Energy is the other dimension of the two-dimensional sheet, the dimension that dissolved in the Big Bang. There is tension between the alternating opposite charges in space, and in this tension is energy. When one dimension of the two-dimensional sheet dissolved, this energy was released and it is all of the energy that is in the universe today.
If the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then where did all of this extra energy come from? The universe does seek the lowest energy state, but that is not it's first priority. The first priority of the universe is charge balance, making sure that there is always an equal number of negative and positive charges. It will bring about more charges, by opposite charge induction, if necessary to achieve charge balance. There is energy in the tension between adjacent charges that is being created as this happens, but this energy can be created because the first priority is charge balance. This is more important to the universe than seeking the lowest energy state.
This must mean that the matter and energy in the universe is equivalent, because each is one of the two dimensions of the original two-dimensional sheet. Indeed, there is the well-known equivalency of matter and energy. The more mass something has, the more energy is in it. Some of the energy of the Big Bang went into fusing the infinitesimal electric charges of space into strings of matter. Since the two-dimensional sheet of space was not coordinated with the surrounding multi-dimensional space, the energy released by the disintegration of one dimension of the sheet always goes into opposing the basic rules of negative and positive electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
If matter and energy are equivalent, and both were equal dimensions of the original two-dimensional sheet of space that formed within the multi-dimensional background space, then there must be just enough energy in the universe to hold all of the matter together. The matter of the universe was thrown out across space by the Big Bang, that means that there must be some leftover energy somewhere because the matter of the universe is no longer all together. Just as, if a large atom is split by fission, so that it is no longer all together as one, energy must be released. It is my conclusion that this leftover energy shows up as electromagnetic radiation.
Much of the matter that was thrown out as particles (actually strings) from the Big Bang has come back together again to form atoms, and structures of matter that are composed of atoms. When this happens, the energy that the component particles were originally thrown outward with must somehow be incorporated into these structures. We see this in the binding energy of the nuclei of atoms and the energy in the electron orbitals of atoms. When atoms come together to form larger-scale structures, there is also energy in the electron repulsion between adjacent atoms.
Energy opposes the rules of electric charges within matter, which is why matter can exist. My theory defines space as an alternating pattern of positive and negative charges, and matter as any concentration of these charges. There must be enough energy in the universe to hold all of the matter together, because matter and energy are both from opposite dimensions of the original two-dimensional sheet.
Energy originated with the tension between the adjacent opposite charges that comprised the two-dimensional sheet. But when the matter of the universe is not all together, as it certainly is not now, then the excess energy must go somewhere. At the level of the fundamental electric charges, all energy must go into "doing" something, there is no such thing as energy inefficiency at this level or the levels of atoms as there is in man-made machines.
What this means is simple. Energy opposes the rules of attraction and repulsion in the fundamental electric charges. If it is not opposing the rules of the charges in matter, because the matter is not all together, then it must do so in space. This is exactly what electromagnetic radiation does, it is a distortion in a wave pattern of the otherwise perfectly alternating electric charges of which space is composed..
The energy in electromagnetic radiation opposite charges further apart. It spreads out across space as a wave, and as defined as the Inverse Square Law. But charge displacement must ultimately balance out in both waves and atoms. The energy wave can be of a wide variety of wavelengths, depending on the nature of it's source. When matter and antimatter are brought together, the mass of both disappears as the electric charges composing them goes back into the alternating pattern of space and the fantastic burst of energy that is released is the energy that was holding the charges of both together. Mass can be converted into electromagnetic radiation, such as if we bring matter and antimatter together, but the displacement of electric charges remains the same. The energy would just go from overcoming the repulsive force between like charges to overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges.
But how about atoms? If matter originated with a two-dimensional sheet of space, composed of alternating electric charges with negligible thickness, then why are atoms three-dimensional?
The way to explain this is that atoms are composed of particles (actually strings) that were thrown outward by the explosion of the Big Bang, but that came back together in space. But since these particles (strings) came back together across multi-dimensional space, they also incorporated the nature of that space. This is why we perceive atoms as spheres of three equal dimensions, instead of the two-dimensional sheet of space from which the matter in atoms originated.
If particles (actually strings) composed of negative and positive electric charges are thrown outward by the Big Bang, but then fall back together to form atoms, then where does the energy that originally went into throwing them out across space go? Energy always opposes the basic rules of electric charges, so there can be no energy in the ordinary interaction of opposite charges because this would not be opposing the basic rules of the charges. The energy is in the electron orbitals of the atoms and then, when smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms in stars, in the binding energy that holds like-charged protons together in the nucleus.
But why do electron orbitals enclose as much space as they do, between the electron in orbit and the nucleus? We know that the vast majority of an atom is empty space, the nucleus occupies something like a trillionth of the total volume of the atom and the electrons in the orbitals are dimensionless pinpoints. By far, the vast majority of an atom is empty space.
The following diagram shows how a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron move toward each other by opposite charge attraction to form an atom. But the two do not continue until they crash together. What happens is that the two stop at a certain distance from each other and the electron goes into an orbital around the proton to form a hydrogen atom. But if the two have opposite charges, and opposite charges attract, then why don't they continue until they crash together? Why do they stop with a certain distance still between them?
My cosmology theory explains it as space being composed of the checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. In the following diagram the positive proton is blue and the negative electron is green. The proton is much larger than the electron, although the charges on the two are opposite but equal. The individual charges of space are displaced, negative charges toward the proton and positive charges toward the electron. This displacement is energy and, when this reaches an equilibrium with the attraction between the proton and electron, the two stop moving toward each other and the electron goes into orbital at a distance around the proton.
This equilibrium depends on the proton being much larger so that more electric charges are between the two. If the proton were the same size as the electron, as the positron of antimatter is, the two will continue together until they mutually annihilate because there will not be enough space that is directly between them.
I have already explained, in this theory, why an electron orbits at a given distance from the opposite-charged nucleus, instead of proceeding all of the way to the nucleus even though they are of opposite charges which mutually attract. The empty space between the two consists of alternating negative and positive charges. The negatively-charged electron pulls the positive charges in the space toward it, and pushes the negative charges of space away, while the positively-charged nucleus does the opposite. But this creates a charge imbalance in the space, because the alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges is being upset. Like charges are being pushed closer together while opposite charges are being pulled further apart. The approach of the electron toward the nucleus continues until the mutual opposite-charge attraction between the two equals the repulsion of the like-charged charges of space between the two that are being forced together.
Let's take a look at another way of looking at why electron orbitals in atoms enclose as much space as they do.
Both the protons and electrons in atoms are composed of like charges that were forced together by energy, which overcomes the basic rule that like charges repel. This is why an electron has a negative charge and the proton a positive charge, instead of the infinitesimal electric charges of which everything is composed balancing out to zero, as they do in the empty space within the atom.
This then shows us that an atom, with an overall net charge of zero, is the result of an energy balance. Energy always opposes the basic rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. There is energy within both electrons and protons because they were originally composed of like charges from the electric charges of space being "welded" together against the rule of like-charge repulsion by the energy from the Big Bang. Negative and positive charges still have to balance out, but energy increases the distance over which they have to balance out.
There is energy in this charge imbalance in the space within the atom because it requires energy to overcome the basic rules of electric charges. There is also energy within both the electrons and the protons in the nucleus because they could only have come about by the fundamental alternating electric charges of space being "welded" ( I can't think of a better word) together by energy in the Big Bang. It seems clear that when the energy of displaced electrical charges in the space enclosed by the electron orbitals is equal to the energy within both the electrons and protons of the nucleus themselves, the electron will halt it's approach to the nucleus and will go into an orbital there because this will give us an energy balance.
This brings us back to the two-dimensional sheet of space, in which one of the dimensions dissolved upon contact with the opposite side, within the multiple dimensions of background space. The way the atom comes together, an electron approaching an oppositely-charged proton until an equilibrium is reached with the distortion of alternating charges in the space between them, shows that the energy that went into "welding" the electron and proton together from negative and positive like-charges that were within the two-dimensional sheet of space which became matter was actually opposing the energy in the tension between alternating opposite charges in the empty space between the electron and proton.
But how can this be unless the source from which matter originated, which I claim is this two-dimensional sheet of space which existed within the background space but was not contiguous with it, was different from that of the background space so that the energy within the two could be in opposition? The energy within the component particles of atoms, protons and electrons, must be in opposition to the energy of the tension between the alternating electric charges of the space between them or else the two would not reach an equilibrium as the electron approaches the proton as the atom forms.
The following diagram shows how a two dimensional sheet of space formed that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. This lack of contiguity was information, and information is really the same thing as energy. This two dimensional sheet would be the source of matter and energy, everything in the universe except space. It would be a lower information state for it to occupy a 45 degree angle, relative to the charge alignment of the background space, so the discontinuity, relative to the checkerboard pattern of the background space, would be equal on both sides of the sheet.
Another way we can tell that there was this two-dimensional sheet of space, which was within but yet separate from the multi-dimensional background space is the two forms which the energy released from the Big Bang took. One one hand, energy from the Big Bang was released as electromagnetic waves into space. We can detect this radiation today as seeming to come at us from all directions in space.
(Remember my explanation of why we can detect the radiation from the Big Bang from all directions, but we cannot pinpoint the location of where the Big Bang took place. It is because there must be more dimensions of space then we can see, and the site of the Big Bang lies in the dimension of space that we perceive as time).
But, on the other hand, some of the energy released in the Big Bang went into the "welding" of like charges together, against the law of opposite charge repulsion, into strings of matter such as those we perceive as electrons. This shows that there must have actually been two separate types of space around the Big Bang. One was the usual multi-dimensional space into which energy went as the electromagnetic waves. The other was the remaining dimension of the two-dimensional sheet of space, which existed within the multi-dimensional background space.
The energy released by the Big Bang which encountered this remaining dimension could not continue from there into the background space, as electromagnetic waves, because this space was not contiguous to the multi-dimensional background space. But energy has to oppose the basic rules of electric charges in some way, and so it "welded" the lines of like charges together in the remaining dimension of the two-dimensional sheet into the strings of matter such as those that we perceive as particles such as electrons. Remember that charge migration had taken place in the two-dimensional sheet, to bring it to a lower energy level, so that one side was more negative and the other more positive.
However, this does not completely explain what we see in atoms. What about mass? We know that mass and energy are equivalent, the more mass something has the more energy there must be within it. A proton has an equal, but opposite, electric charge to an electron, but a proton is 1,836 times as massive as an electron. This means that a proton must contain far more energy than an electron, even though it is of equal electric charge. A proton, unlike an electron, is actually composed of quarks so that it is a mixture of electric charges which balances out to +1.
This energy that must be in the proton, due to it's mass, turns up as gravity. We can see that gravity is an attractive force, one of the basic laws of physics. But if the entire universe is composed of positive and negative electric charges, and opposite charges attract while like charges repel, then the attractive and repulsive forces should exactly balance out.
How then could there be a net attractive force, such as gravity? We have seen that gravity exists as a net attractive force, when the total of attractive and repulsive forced should appear to evenly balance out as they do in empty space, because smaller atoms are crunched together into heavier atoms in stars. Binding energy between like-charged protons in the nucleus overcomes repulsive force, which then leaves a net attractive force as gravity.
But how about when there is no binding energy between protons because there is only one proton, in a hydrogen atom? There still must be gravity or hydrogen could not be drawn together to form stars, and crunch lighter atoms together, in the first place.
Remember that protons, as well as neutrons, are composed of three quarks. There are a number of varieties of quark, but by far the most important are up and down quarks. An up quark has an electrical charge of +2/3, and a down quark has a charge of -1/3. Two up quarks and one down quark make a proton, with a net charge of +1, and two down quarks and one up quark make a neutron with a net charge of zero.
Charge migration took place across the original two-dimensional sheet of space, to achieve a lower energy state, so that one side became positively-charged and the other negative. But there could have been no sharp division of negative and positive across the center of the sheet, or this would have effectively been bringing matter and antimatter together. Remember that antimatter is like matter, except that the electrical charges are reversed.
There was a gradual zone of partial charges across most of the center of the sheet and, as the one of the two dimensional bonds of the sheet dissolved in the Big Bang, this is where quarks originated. On either side of the sheet, the charge was entirely negative or positive. The strings on one side of the sheet that are entirely negative are electrons, and those that are entirely positive are antimatter positrons. But as we move toward the center of the sheet, the charges become partial in thirds. +2/3 charges of up quarks on the positive side and -2/3 anti up quarks on the negative side, and -1/3 down quarks on the negative side and +1/3 anti down quarks on the positive side.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
This explains the reason that a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron. Notice that the charges in quarks operate by thirds, and 1,836 is a number that is very divisible by three.
Notice also that the distortion in the alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges in the space between the electron and nucleus, caused by the approach of the electron toward the nucleus, seems to be the same thing as the distortion in the alternating electric charges of open space when there is electromagnetic radiation. The reason is simple, when an electron ceases orbit around the nucleus for any reason, such as being crunched into a proton by the fusion process within a star to create a neutron, the energy that was formerly in the charge imbalance in the space within the atom between the electron and the nucleus is released into open space, in perpendicular directions, as electromagnetic radiation.
The reason, once again, is that both matter and energy originated from a two-dimensional sheet of space amid the multi-dimensional background space. One dimension became strings of matter and the perpendicular dimension became energy. When energy is within matter, such as the energy in electron orbitals or nuclear binding energy in the nucleus, it is aligned along with the strings of matter along the dimension of space that we perceive as time. But when that energy is released, so that it is no longer held within the matter, it radiates out into the dimensions of space that are perpendicular to the dimension along which the strings of matter are aligned, which we perceive as time. This is because the original sheet had the dimension that became matter and the dimension that became energy perpendicular to each other, and that pattern continues. Matter has mass because it is one-dimensional strings but received energy from the second dimension of the two-dimensional sheet.
This is why stars shine, and why we get warmth from the sun.
This theory just seems to be able to explain virtually everything about the nature of the universe. Everything just fits right into place.
15) MAGNETS AND COSMOLOGY
The amount of weight that a magnet can lift is rooted in the nature of the universe.
My observation is that the universe has two priorities. The first priority is that the total number of negative and positive electric charges in the universe, of which everything is ultimately made, must always balance out. The universe will create new electric charges, if necessary, to make sure that the numbers of negative and positive charges is equal. This is why, as described in my cosmological theory, space in the universe exists. The existence of both atoms and molecules are a seeking of an exact balance of electric charges. The second priority is that the universe seeks the lowest energy state.
But these two priorities are not absolute. The universe does not have to have an exactly equal balance of negative and positive charges, in any particular place, before it starts seeking the lowest energy state. Even though the balance of electric charges is certainly the more important of the two.
Suppose that we line up successively heavier pieces of iron or steel. We then start with the lightest one and lift it with a magnet. Proceeding along the successively heavier pieces until we come to one that the magnet cannot lift. Magnetism is a much stronger force then gravity, but gravity is cumulative. I find that the question of how much a magnet can lift, relative to it's mass, explains a lot about how the universe works.
Magnetism is based on the alignment of the unpaired electron orbitals in a material so that the charge pulls in one direction. The nucleus of the atom is so much more massive than the electrons yet the charges on the electrons, if they can be aligned by magnetism, are so much stronger than the gravity which is based on mass, which is almost all concentrated in the nucleus.
Liquid water is another example of the primacy of electric charge over gravity. Water, by molecule, is lighter than air. But the water molecule is polar, one side is more negative and the other more positive. This brings water molecules to line up, by opposite charge attraction, negative to positive. This opposite charge attraction holds the water molecules together so that water, at sea level, is 800 times heavier than air.
Another example of the primacy of electric charge over gravity is the electron repulsion between adjacent atoms, which keeps atoms from merging into one another and makes matter as we know it possible. The electrons of nearby atoms are all negatively-charged, so that they repel one another, and this keeps matter intact by overcoming the gravity that is trying to pull it all together.
Seeking the lowest energy state usually involves gravity. The classic example of the universe seeking the lowest energy state is falling. Due to the force of gravity, it requires less energy for an object to be on the ground than for it to be suspended in the air. Therefore, if unsupported, the object falls to the ground.
My theory is that gravity is also electrical in nature. Matter, particularly the binding energy which holds the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the like-charged protons, is the result of the basic rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Energy always ultimately overcomes one of the two rules of electric charges. The repulsion of like charges is what holds the nucleus together and makes matter possible.
But if the two electric charges, negative and positive, must always be equal, then the two rules of these electric charges, attraction and repulsion, must also be equal. If the repulsive force of like charges is overcome by binding energy in the nucleus, then that means that there must be a net attractive force among matter in the universe, and that is what we experience as gravity. This means that gravity is a secondary effect of the rules of electric charges, while magnetism is a primary effect. This is why magnetism is stronger than gravity, and a small magnet can lift a piece of steel against the gravity of the entire earth.
However, gravity is cumulative, across the entire universe, and can overpower the rules of electric charges if enough mass is brought within close proximity. When the point is reached when gravity can overcome the electron repulsion between atoms, to fuse lighter atoms into heavier ones, a star is born as the excess energy is released as radiation.
If enough mass is brought together, the very structures of atoms can be crushed into a pure concentration of matter. This is known as a black hole, and overcomes the rules of electric charges altogether.
In my theory of black holes it then represents a lower energy state for electric charges to "migrate" so that opposite charges, rather than like charges, are next to one another. But this effectively makes some of the matter into antimatter, and this brings about a gradual matter-antimatter mutual annihilation and this explains both why black holes gradually decay and why they release radiation. The electric charges comprising the matter of the black hole rearrange back into the alternating multidimensional checkerboard pattern of electric charges in empty space, which is the decaying of the black hole, and the energy that held the matter together is released as the radiation.
It created a lower energy state, as shown in the following diagram, due to the attraction and repulsion of the electric charges in the surrounding background space, for charge migration to take place in the two dimensional sheet of space, mostly positive charges to one side and negative to the other. Mixed charges were in the middle. Electrons formed from the far negative side and positrons from the far positive side.
The first priority of the universe is electric charge balance, the second is the seeking of the lowest energy state. We could say that a black hole is a place where these priorities reverse.
An electron and a proton have an equal, but opposite, electric charge, but the proton is much more massive, with a mass 1,836 times the mass of an electron. This means that the charge per mass of a proton is only 1/1836 that of an electron. Nucleons, protons and neutrons, are composed of particles known as quarks, and are not particles of concentrated charge like electrons. Protons and neutrons are compound particles, known as hadrons, and electrons are particles known as leptons.
It is the volume of space within atoms, which my cosmological theory has as a multidimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges, which determines how strong gravity will be. The more space within atoms, the less concentrated the mass of an atom will be and the weaker gravity will be. It seems that the opposite concept applies to the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. the less concentrated the charge of the proton, the stronger gravity will be. The proton must always equal the electron in charge, the first priority of the universe is a balance in electric charge, and the more mass required in the proton to accomplish this the stronger gravity will be because it is mass that brings about gravity.
The fact that mass is unrelated to overall electric charge shows that my concept of everything ultimately being composed of infinitesimal electric charges is correct. When a mass of such charges are together, in the form of a proton or neutron, it is the energy holding individual like charges together which forms the mass regardless of the overall net charge of the mass. This is why a proton and neutron have essentially the same mass, the neutron with no net charge is actually very slightly heavier, regardless of the overall net charge.
Since everything in the universe is ultimately composed of negative and positive electric charges, it makes sense that we can ultimately trace this flow of information down to that contained in these basic charges. Just as there are two basic rules for the electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, so there are two basic levels of energy with regard to electric charges. There is tension between adjacent opposite charges in space, and there is a lower energy level in that. There is the higher energy level required to force two like charges together, against like charge repulsion. Remember that applied energy always ultimately opposes the basic rules of the electric charges.
In the earlier sub-section of Section 5, "Energy, Quark Theory And, Cosmology", I described my concept that so much of how quarks operate in thirds to form protons and neutrons, as well as why a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron, is neatly explained if it takes three times as much energy to hold two like charges together in relation to how much energy there is in the tension between adjacent opposite charges.
The difference in these two basic energy levels, with regard to the fundamental electric charges, must be the root of the two priorities of the universe discussed above. The first priority is that negative and positive charges must ultimately balance out. The second is that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. It has to be this way because there is no other information upon which to build. Remember that energy, other than that of the tension between adjacent opposite charges in empty space, did not enter the universe until the Big Bang introduced matter and the other forms that energy can take.
An electron has 1,836 times the charge per mass as the proton. So, to have equal but opposite charge, the proton must be 1,836 times as massive. This mass brings about gravity, which represents the lower of the two priorities of the universe, while the concentrated charge of the electron represents the first.
Let's go back to magnets. We know that magnetism is based on the alignment of unpaired electron orbitals in atoms. These unpaired electrons represent the first priority of the universe, electric charge, while the mass of the nucleus represents the second, seeking the lowest energy state which usually means gravity.
Thus, it is my conclusion that a perfect magnet should be able to lift 1,836 x number of unpaired electrons / number of nucleons times it's mass against gravity.
The material that we most commonly associate with magnetism is iron. This is because it can retain magnetism after the electron-aligning force is removed. Iron has 56 nucleons, as 26 protons and 30 neutrons. An atom of iron has four unpaired electrons, which can have their orbitals aligned magnetically. 1,836 x 4/56 = about 131. This means that, at least theoretically and according to my calculations, a magnet could lift 131 times it's own weight.
Of course, the actual yield is much less. The magnet may be less than perfectly magnetized, meaning that the orbital of every unpaired electron in every atom is perfectly aligned. It is well-known that a small magnet can lift more, in proportion to it's weight, than a large magnet. This is simply because the average atom in a large magnet is further from the object being lifted. But unless every atom in the magnet was right against the object being lifted, which is impossible, the magnet could not lift it's theoretical maximum.
The form of the magnet is another factor. A horseshoe magnet can lift more than a bar magnet of the same size simply because it is shaped so that pulling in the same direction comes from both of it's poles. The final factor is the gravity of the planet on which the lift takes place. If we did the lift on the moon, where gravity is only 1/6 that of earth, the magnet would be able to lift six times as much weight.
But I think that, going by the rules of the universe in this cosmology theory, a magnet should be able to lift about 25 or so times it's weight in iron or steel, and that is just about what we see.
16) THE FORCE OF GRAVITY AND COSMOLOGY
My cosmological theory provides a neat and simple answer to the question of why the earth's gravity is what it is and why the rate of free-fall would change, as it would, if the planet were to be theoretically compressed into a smaller volume, but with the same mass.
FREE-FALL AND COSMOLOGY
Suppose that a spherical mass, such as a star or planet, is theoretically compressed by nucleo-synthesis to a quarter of it's original volume, so that the radius of the sphere decreases by one-half. The amount of time for an object to fall to the surface of the sphere from a given altitude would then be one-quarter of the original.
But how can this be? When the distance becomes shorter, the velocity of free-fall becomes greater. If we are dealing with the same amount of mass in the spherical mass of the planet then there must be some constant in the relationship between distance and velocity when the mass is compressed by the nucleo-synthesis that takes place in stars as lighter atoms are crunched together into heavier ones..
If we raise an object to twice the altitude on a given planet, it will require twice the energy to get it to that altitude. However the time that it takes to fall to the surface would not be doubled, but will be multiplied by the square root of two (1.414).
When a satellite is in an elliptical orbit, a line from the center of the satellite to the center of the planet always sweeps over equal areas of space in equal periods of time. This means that it moves faster when it is closer to the planet and slower when it is further away. The comparable energy of different orbits around the same central body is proportional to a line between the orbit and the center of gravity of the central body. If one object in orbit has three times the orbital energy of another, it will orbit at nine times the distance from the center but at only one-third the speed.
Just as the orbital energy of an object is proportional to the area of space over which the orbital radius sweeps divided by the time in which it does so, the constant in the free-fall of an object to a compressed sphere, such as a planet, is represented by the area of a triangle. If we have a right triangle and we increase the length of both sides by the square root of two (1.414), the area of the triangle will be doubled. This can represent the dropping of an object from twice the altitude. The doubled area of the triangle represents the doubled altitude, and either side of the triangle represents the time required for the free-fall from twice the altitude.
When the planet is compressed by nucleo-synthesis to a quarter of it's original volume so that the radius is one-half the distance it was before and the time of free-fall from a given altitude is a quarter of what it was before, the area of the triangle also represents the time of free-fall from a given altitude as the quarter of what it was before. Both sides of the right triangle are reduced by half so that the area is reduced to one quarter. This represents both the new volume of the sphere and the time required for a free-fall from a given altitude.
It makes sense that the energy in an orbit is proportional to the space within the orbit, but why would the two-dimensional space within a triangle represent the free-fall of an object from an altitude to the surface of a planet, which is a one-dimensional straight line?
Remember that, in my cosmological theory, the matter of which our universe is composed is actually thrown across four, rather than three, dimensions of space. Matter is actually very long strings that we perceive as particles such as electrons because one of the four dimensions of space is what we perceive as time. Velocity is actually an angle at which a string or bundle of strings is bent. The greater the angle, the greater the velocity that we perceive. This means that, when an object is moving faster as we perceive it in our three-dimensional perception, there is actually a greater area of space in the triangle that it forms with the stationary line of strings across space.
This is why the constant in velocity of a one-dimensional straight line free-fall ends up being represented by the area of a two-dimensional triangle. There is a dimension of space that we cannot see because we perceive it as a dimension of time.
This, once again, shows that this cosmological theory must be correct.
WHY THE RATE OF FREE-FALL ON EARTH IS AS MUCH AS IT IS
Let's have a look at why the rate of free-fall is what it is, and why it is so constant.
The continued acceleration of a falling object, at a precisely constant rate. This shows that objects are really bundles of strings in four-dimensional space, of which we perceive the fourth spatial dimension as time. The continuous acceleration, but at a constant rate, of a falling object occurs because the object is really a bundle of strings that is being bent at a constant rate by the gravitational attraction of a parallel bundle of strings.
Remember that my theory of gravity is that energy always goes to oppose one of the two basic rules of the electric charges of which everything in the universe, matter and energy, is composed. These rules are that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. The two electric charges must always balance out as equal, and if the charges must be equal then the rules by which they operate must also be equal. If energy opposes the mutual repulsion between like charges, so that matter can exist, then that leaves a net electrical attractive force from the matter. This net attractive force is what we refer to as gravity.
In a straight-line bundle of strings, representing an object at rest, the electric attraction and repulsion is exactly equal on all sides of the bundle of strings. But if some of the like-charge repulsion is overcome by energy on one side of the object, it will create an imbalance which leaves a net attractive force that must be reflected in the alignment of the bundle of strings. This like-charge repulsion on one side being overcome is, of course, the formation of matter on that side which then exerts it's gravity.
The bundle of strings, itself composed of electric charges, will change it's alignment accordingly. If half of the repulsive force on one side was overcome by energy, but all of the attractive force remained, the bundle of strings would then angle 30 degrees to that side, which we would perceive as one-third of the speed of light.
The reason for the 30 degrees making one-third is that we are counting the half-circle, 180 degrees, going forward, and an angle from the forward direction of 30 degrees would leave the larger side of the 180 degrees forward direction at twice the angular diameter of the side to which the bend took place. Remember that the reason an object at rest, but going forward in time, is at rest is because in the 180 degree forward direction, there is 90 degrees on each side.
The earth's acceleration of a falling object due to gravity represents 1/30,612,244 the speed of light. This means that two parts in 30,612,244 of the repulsive force between like electric charges has been overcome, leaving just the attraction between opposite charges. The reason that we saw "two parts" is, once again, that the speed of light represents an angle to our time dimension of space of 90 degrees, but the entire forward direction that we are dealing with here is 180 degrees.
We know that gravity is an extraordinarily weak force, but that it is cumulative. If two of the largest cruise ships or oil tankers were docked side-by-side, there would only be about one pound (.454 kg) of gravitational force between them. Gravity is so weak simply because atoms are mostly empty space. The analogy that is often used is the nucleus being like a strawberry or small pebble in the middle of the field of a sports stadium, which represents the entire atom. But atoms get more compact and dense as we move to heavier elements. Electrons are also composed of the infinitesimal electric charges which comprise space, but which have been forced together by energy against like-charge repulsion.
It turns out, this figure of the ratio of earth's gravitational acceleration to the speed of light of 1/30,612,244 fits with what we would expect for earth's acceleration due to gravity, relative to the speed of light, in relation to the density of atoms, relative to the volume of empty space within the atoms.
The nucleus of a hydrogen atom takes up only about a trillionth of the total volume of the atom. But that minute figure drastically increases as we move to heavier atoms, such as the silicon, oxygen and, iron common to the earth. The figure is increased from this minute fraction further by the volume of the earth and all of the atoms that it contains, although this figure gets much less per atom as we move into the earth further away from the object that is getting pulled by it's gravity.
Finally, we end up with a figure of 1/30,612,244 of the speed of light for earth's gravitational acceleration, because that is the result of the proportion of the repulsive force between like charges that has been overcome by energy to create the matter of the earth from the total number of fundamental electric charges that are within the sphere of the earth. This figure is a reflection of the nucleus, in which almost all of the mass of the atom is contained, occupying only about a trillionth of the total volume of the hydrogen atom, multiplied by a factor of 16,333, which is half of a trillion divided by the denominator.
This multiplication factor represents the great increase in the density of atoms as we move to heavier elements, including the fact that atoms across a row on the periodic table get smaller because there is more opposite charge attraction pulling inward. The figure is also reduced by the great amount of atoms comprising the earth, although nothing like proportional to the number of atoms in the earth because most of those are so far away from the object undergoing gravitational attraction.
But when all is added up the acceleration due to gravity on earth, relative to the speed of light, is a reflection of the fact that virtually all of the volume of an atom is mostly empty space. This cosmology theory explains exactly why the gravity of the earth is what it is.
17) ELECTRON DEPENDENCY
Quark Theory has been around since the mid-1960s and is widely accepted. According to the theory there are six quarks, plus the corresponding antiquarks of antimatter. But only two quarks are really important to us, the up and the down quarks. It is sometimes said that, if all quarks except the up and down quarks disappeared tomorrow, only particle physicists would notice.
Quarks are theorized to combine together to form subatomic particles called hadrons. Atomic nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons, both of which are hadrons composed of quarks. The third component particle of atoms are electrons. But electrons are a different class of particles, known as leptons, which are not composed of quarks.
Quarks may seem to be an arcane topic to you but they really aren't. Your body is made of atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and, electrons. A proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron and a neutron 1,837 times the mass. An atom, except hydrogen, contains at least twice as many protons and neutrons together as electrons. This means that virtually all of the mass of your body, except maybe one part in three thousand, is composed of quarks, all of which are combined together to form protons and neutrons.
The component particles of the atom have integral electric charges. An electron has a charge of -1. A proton has a charge of +1. A neutron has a charge of zero.
Quarks have fractional, rather than integral, electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 while a down quark has a charge of -1/3. Two up quarks combined with one down quark produces a proton with a net electric charge of +1. Two down quarks with one up quark produces a neutron with a net electric charge of zero.
In the postwar period so many new particles were discovered that it was referred to as the "Particle Zoo". It was felt by many that there couldn't really be this many fundamental particles. As it turned out, there wasn't. According to Quark Theory many of these particles were actually composed of the even more fundamental quarks.
Quark Theory has been very widely accepted. The only complication seems to be that an individual quark has never been observed. Quarks are only seen when combined together to form protons and neutrons.
Not long after Quark Theory emerged, quark stars were theorized to exist. A star is an equilibrium between the inward pull of the gravity of the star's mass and the outward push from the energy released by fusion in the star's center. A star forms when enough matter comes together by gravity to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The new larger atom contains less internal energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and that is why stars shine.
But a star eventually reaches the point where it requires more force to break atoms apart than is released by their fusion. That point is iron and it is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes. Without the outward force of the energy released by fusion the star may collapse so that the structures of the atoms themselves are crushed.
What happens at this point is that the electrons of the atoms are crunched into the protons to form neutrons, which is what happens in ordinary fusion. This forms what is known as a neutron star, although it is no longer technically a star because fusion is not taking place.
Since the structure of an atom is mostly empty space, and since the structures of it's atoms have collapsed, a neutron star is composed of extremely dense material. A spoonful of material from a neutron star is believed to weigh billions of tons.
The collapse of the star's atoms brings it's matter into extremely close quarters. This increases the force of gravity still further and brings about further collapse. The result is that the structures of the neutrons collapse into the unimaginably dense mass of a black hole. The material of a black hole is about two hundred times as dense as a neutron star.
The theory is that, since neutrons are composed of quarks, there should be a stage in the progressive collapse of matter, between neutron stars and black holes, that had the star composed of quarks and would be known as a quark star.
But like individual quarks themselves no quark stars have ever been found. Plenty of neutron stars and plenty of black holes have been found, but no quark stars.
There is, of course, the possibility that Quark Theory is wrong and there is no such thing as quarks. But the theory explains so much and is so widely accepted.
I have another explanation of why no quarks or quark stars have ever been found and cannot see that this explanation has ever been offered. The explanation was not difficult to arrive at, it just involved some thinking outside the box.
What if the reason we have never detected quarks or quark stars is not that they are not there, but that we can't detect them?
Once again it comes back to the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe. What if we don't have an unbiased view of the universe? In other sciences, like geology and chemistry and everyday physics, it may not make a difference. But in cosmology it does make a difference. My cosmology theory is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe, we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
We rely on electromagnetic radiation, which includes visible light, for our information about the universe. As the name implies electromagnetic radiation is based on electric charges. In my cosmology theory empty space consists of a perfectly alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. The basic rules of electric charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. The charged particles of matter, such as electrons, consist of like charges held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. This energy shows up as the intrinsic energy in matter known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is why Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, has mass being convertible into energy.
In contrast to matter electromagnetic waves, including light, consist of disturbances, caused by energy, in the checkerboard of alternating electric charges comprising empty space. In my cosmology theory energy always goes to overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. Matter forms when the mutual repulsion of like charges is overcome by energy, to produce charged particles such as electrons. Electromagnetic radiation is formed when energy overcomes the attraction between opposite charges in space.
When electromagnetic waves encounter matter they "bounce off", or are reflected, by the electric charge of the electrons on the outside of atoms. This is why matter reflects light and we can see things. It doesn't matter if the outside of the atom has a positive or negative electric charge, it would be reflected off antimatter in the same way as ordinary matter.
Has anyone ever thought that the reason we cannot detect quarks and quark stars is not that they are not there but due to the nature of the electromagnetic radiation upon which we depend for information?
What if the production and reflection of electromagnetic radiation as we know it depends on integral electric charges? By "integral" I mean integers or whole numbers. A proton has an electric charge of +1, an electron of -1, and a neutron of 0.
Remember that quarks, in contrast, have fractional electric charges. An up quark has a charge of +2/3 and a down quark of -1/3. What if electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, only works with integral electric charges and not with fractional charges?
Electromagnetic radiation is produced by the movement of integral electric charges. The only way that we can see or detect electromagnetic radiation is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals in atoms, this produces an electric current in our eyes or detection equipment.
Why is it that we can see or detect the electromagnetic radiation from matter as long as it is composed of integral electric charges, but it seems to "vanish" and we can detect it only by it's gravity when it breaks down into fractional electric charges? Doesn't that make it seem clear that the "invisibility" of the fractional electric charges is due more to the nature of electromagnetic radiation than to the matter itself?
There are so many optical illusions on earth, blue sky, rainbows, red sunset, etc. So why should we expect that electromagnetic radiation from space will always convey the universe just the way it is?
Electromagnetic radiation, including light, is produced by the movement of integral electric charges, which are almost always electrons with a charge of -1. They are reflected by integral electric charges which are, again, almost always electrons. The only way that we can receive electromagnetic radiation is for it's energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals, in our eyes or detection equipment.
It appears that electromagnetic radiation, as we know it, is based on integral electric charges. When the radiation encounters something that is not composed of integral electric charges, which simply means the charge on an electron or a proton whether it be negative or positive, it is as if the matter is speaking a different "language" that our familiar electromagnetic radiation doesn't "understand".
The way we see it is that the gravity of the black hole is so great that it doesn't allow even light to escape. But what that amounts to, once again, is the basic presumption in science that we have an unbiased view of the universe and that our observations and measurements are completely reliable in our gaining understanding of how the universe works. But the fact is that we are dependent on electromagnetic radiation to convey information to us and one of the things that we must take into account is the nature of that radiation.
This adds a new dimension to electromagnetic radiation. Not only is there the wavelength, from long radio waves to short gamma rays, but there is also the electric charges that produce, reflect and, receive the waves, from the integral charges on electrons and protons to the fractional charges, in thirds, on quarks.
Since we are dependent on the electromagnetic radiation involving electrons for our information let's call it "Electron Dependency". It is the reason that we cannot detect individual quarks or quark stars or black holes.
One obvious conclusion that some might come to is that this explains "Dark Matter". Matter that is gravitationally active but cannot be seen because it is not composed of integral electric charges.
We can discern nothing about the structure of electrons themselves. They seem to us to be nothing more than point particles. But, once again, that is a matter of our perspective and that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We have seen that we cannot see electrons as anything other than mere points simply because it is electrons that we depend upon to convey information.
18) INCANDESCENCE AND THE DOPPLER EFFECT
Most people are familiar with what is known as the Doppler Effect. If an emergency vehicle, or a train with it's whistle, is coming toward you, the pitch of the sound will increase as it approaches. But then, when it passes you, the pitch will suddenly drop. We cannot move, at a significant portion of the speed of sound relative to the source of sound, without changing the rate at which we receive the sound and thus adjusting the pitch of the sound.
The same effect can be seen if we imagine bouncing a ball off the back of a truck. If the truck is backing up, toward you, when the ball bounces, the momentum of the truck will be added to that of the ball and it's momentum will increase. But if the truck is pulling away, moving away from you, when the ball bounces, this will subtract from the momentum of the ball.
The Doppler Effect also applies in astronomy. If a distant galaxy is moving away from us, at a significant portion of the speed of light, the light from it will be "stretched out" by the motion and the light will appear more reddish, because red is the end of the visible spectrum with the longest wavelength. If the galaxy were moving toward us, at a significant portion of the speed of light, the light would be shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. Color is determined by the wavelength of the waves, and the relative motion can either "stretch out" or compress those waves.
In 1676, after telescopes had come into use, a Dane named Ole Romer made an interesting observation. Jupiter, about five times as far from the sun as the earth, had a moon named Io. When Io passed behind Jupiter, in it's orbit around the planet, it would go into eclipse, Jupiter's version of a lunar eclipse. The timing of such an eclipse, like that of eclipses on earth, was very predictable, or at least it should be.
But what Romer observed is that when the earth is on one side of it's orbit around the sun, and moving toward Jupiter, an anticipated eclipse of Io began about ten minutes earlier than predicted. But if the earth was on the opposite side of it's orbit, and moving away from Jupiter, an anticipated eclipse of Io began about ten minutes later than predicted.
The reason for this was, as it turns out, the speed of light. If the earth was moving toward Jupiter when the eclipse of Io began the velocity, the velocity of the earth would effectively be added to the speed of light from the beginning of the eclipse, and it would seem to occur sooner. But if the earth were moving away, that velocity would be effectively subtracted from the speed of light, and the eclipse would seem to begin later.
Now, here is what I find interesting about this. Despite the fact that the earth is moving fast enough in it's orbit, relative to the speed of light, to enable the speed of light to be measured, there is no Doppler Effect on the light from Io as a result. The conclusion that this leads to is that the Doppler Effect only applies to sources of light, such as stars or other incandescent objects, and not to reflected light. If sunlight is reflected off a moving non-incandescent object, such as Io, that light does not undergo the Doppler Shift.
With these two examples being so similar, the motion of distant galaxies or the motion of the earth, why would one show up as variation in distance (wavelength) and the other show up as variation in time, with no variation in wavelength?
My cosmology theory offers a simple solution. As the Special Theory of Relativity began with the streetcar moving away from the clock, my cosmology theory can be illustrated by bouncing a ball off a moving truck.
If someone behind the truck should bounce the ball off the truck as it is backing up, momentum will be added to the ball and will increase it's velocity. This represents blueshifting. But if the ball should be bounced off the truck as it is moving forward momentum will be subtracted from the ball and it's velocity will decrease. This represents redshifting.
What if we bounce the ball off the side of the truck while it is moving? The momentum will not change but the position will change. The ball will not, if thrown in a straight line, bounce back to the position it was thrown from. This represents the shift in time of the eclipse of Io according to whether the earth is moving toward or away from it.
The reason for this difference is that, as explained in my cosmology theory, Io is made of strings of matter which are aligned at a right angle to the three dimensions that we perceive as space. The direction in which strings of matter are aligned is what we perceive as time. The back and side of the moving truck are also at a right angle to each other.
Has anyone wondered why the change in wavelength with redshifting or blueshifting only applies to luminous objects that are moving, such as galaxies, but not to light reflected off non-luminous objects, such as Jupiter and Io?
As described in my cosmology theory, the dimensions in which electromagnetic radiation moves and the dimension that we perceive as time are perpendicular to each other. When light from the sun reflects off Io and Jupiter it picks up the momentum of this dimension that we perceive as time. So just like the ball bouncing off the side of the moving truck, because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, the shift is in time, rather than in wavelength of the light.
PART 6-INFORMATION
19) THE LINK BETWEEN THE COSMOLOGY AND PATTERNS THEORIES
As the two theories on this blog develops, that of patterns and complexity and the one about cosmology, readers may notice that the two are growing closer together and that there is a definite link between the two.
We could say that the patterns and complexity theory is a view of the universe in terms of information, and the cosmology theory is a view of the universe in terms of energy. But remember that information and energy is really the same thing. Information cannot be applied to something without applying energy to it, and energy cannot be applied to anything without also adding information to it. Let's have a look at how these two theories merge together.
It was the Big Bang which introduced all of the information contained within inanimate matter into the universe. There is a vast amount of potential complexity in all of the possible permutations of matter from the Big Bang, as the strings of matter which originated with the two-dimensional sheet in my cosmological theory was thrown out across the multi-dimensional background space. But the only information available with which to construct the structures of matter in the universe came from that two-dimensional sheet. This means that the patterns which were manifested by matter in the universe must repeat themselves because there was not enough information in the Big Bang to match all of the possible complexity which resulted.
One example of this is orbits. The orbitals of electrons within atoms are reflected in the much larger scale of astronomical objects, as moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars. This is the way it has to be simply because there is no more information available other than that which is already within the atoms.
The patterns manifested by the universe, which we see as words in the dictionary, must also necessarily be repetitive. The matter in the universe takes the forms of things such as planets, stars, rocks, galaxies and, comets. But since the universe has only the information in the two-dimensional sheet in the four dimensions of space that we inhabit, one of which we perceive as time, there is not enough information to make everything different from everything else and these patterns must be very repetitive. There are many planets, many stars, many rocks, many galaxies and, many comets.
Another way that we see this mismatch between the available information in the universe and the much-greater potential complexity is in the random distribution of matter in the universe and in how gravitational spheres, such as stars and planets, are not exactly alike. Suppose that you throw a handful of sand. There is a vast amount of potential complexity in all of the different permutations in how the grains of sand could be arranged. But there is not enough information that can be conveyed by the muscles which throw the sand. This makes it impossible for there to be the orderly or meaningful patterns that there could be if the available information was equal to, or at least closer to, the potential complexity available.
The charged particles (actually strings) thrown outward by the Big Bang came back together to form atoms, which then came together to form the structures of astronomical objects such as stars and planets. Atoms are a way for matter to hold energy. If matter comes back together after being thrust apart, it must contain the energy which thrust it apart, and remember that energy and information is really the same thing.
There was not enough information in the Big Bang, so the first atoms in the universe had to be the same as one another, as hydrogen, with the exception of the certain percentage of heavier atoms created by primordial nucleo-synthesis at the beginning of the universe.
Atoms often combine together to form molecules. There has to be information in these molecules, just as in any structure, and energy is the same thing as information. In a sphere where the surface is composed largely of molecules, we see this information manifested as unevenness of the surface. This includes mountains and uneven terrain, which contain more information that a perfectly smooth surface, regardless of how they were formed. Waves in water are included because water is molecular.
This unevenness could not form if the sphere's structure contained only atoms and not molecules. Atoms are spherically symmetrical but molecules are not, and it is this asymmetry of the molecules which shows in the unevenness of the surface. But the unevenness of a molecular surface is not very significant relative to the total size of the sphere because the strength of the nuclear bond, which bind the nucleus together, is so much greater than the molecular bonds which bind atoms together into molecules.
One way that we can see how energy and information is really the same thing is in how molecules of fuel are broken apart to release energy. But this energy can also be seen as information. A molecule in fuel contains less information within it's structure after it is broken apart then it did before. But this burning of fuel drives the car forward, and a moving vehicle is more complex than a still vehicle because it requires more information to describe. So, the information in the fuel has been transferred to the car.
Another illustration of how energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can use technology to make life physically easier, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and less complex. This shows the interchangeability of energy and information, meaning that the two must be different forms of the same thing.
There is an all-pervasive pattern which encompasses all information which occurs in any set, which I have named "The One And The Many". This means that, to understand the complexity of anything in the set, it is necessary to understand the entire set. The simplest example would be an address, the designated address is "The One", every other address is "The Many". The structure of a human foot may seem to be fairly simple. but the foot is part of a set, that of the entire body, and to really understand the foot it would be necessary to understand not only the entire body but also the environment in which humans live.
The foot would be the one, but it would be part of the entire body and environment which would be the many. The complexity of a group of objects increases if their meaningful association with other objects increases, making all of them part of a set so that it becomes necessary to understand the entire set in order to understand any of it's parts. In the patterns and complexity theory, I refer to this as "alphabet" where the complexity and meaning of something is in the set of which it is a part, rather than just in itself.
The entire universe is just such a set. A hydrogen atom, for example, seems to be very simple, one electron in an orbital around one proton. But to really understand even a hydrogen atom, why it exists and how it came to be, it would be necessary to understand the entire universe. The hydrogen atom would be the one, and the entire universe the many.
One illustration of this pattern of "The One And The Many" is in a hunter and the hunted. There are many places that the hunted may be hiding (the many), but the hunter can only look in one place at once (the one). But, seen from the opposite direction, the hunted has to succeed in evading the hunter every time (the many) while the hunter only has to succeed in catching the hunted once (the one).
Now let's consider living things, as opposed to inanimate matter. One pattern that we see only in living things is the peak, or optimum. Living things thrive when it is neither too hot nor too cold, but at a peak value between the two. This same pattern also applies to such things as food, water and sleep. In contrast, there is no such thing as this peak pattern in the universe of inanimate matter. The peak pattern, as you may see, is a manifestation of "The One And The Many", with the peak being the one out of the many. The more of the many there are, the more complex the peak because there is more that it has to be defined from.
This makes living things more complex then the surrounding inanimate environment. This higher level of complexity must be maintained, or will fall back down to the lower surrounding level. For humans, this means food and health care. Injury and disease reduces our useful higher complexity, and death effectively erases our higher level of complexity altogether, restoring the body to the lower level of complexity of inanimate matter. Breeding more of a living thing does not increase complexity because it does not introduce any new information. Repetition is not adding more information if we are only repeating the same information.
Being more complex than our surrounding inanimate environment means that we see "truth possibilities", that may or may not be true. There is not enough complexity in the surrounding environment for everything that beings of our complexity could see to be true, this brings about the prospect of truth possibilities. If we were of a complexity that was equal to, or lower than, our inanimate surroundings, we would not be able to see any possibilities which were not true.
This is why we have free will. Free will would be meaningless to a being that was not of higher complexity then the inanimate surroundings. In my complexity theory, plants are of essentially equal complexity to the surrounding environment which is why they do not have free will. Ideally, living things with free will are of far higher complexity then their surrounding environment but the differences between individuals of the same species, brought about by environmental factors even though they are of the same underlying DNA, is potentially equal to the complexity of the surrounding environment.
Many of the things that we see about the universe are actually a reflection of our own complexity. Consider color, for example. In the inanimate universe, color does not really exist. An object appears blue or red because our brains interpret certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation as blue or red. The fact that a proportionally small change in wavelength can make light appear as a completely different color is entirely a reflection of our own complexity, rather than that of the inanimate surrounding environment.
One strange fact of ordinary chemistry is how sodium is a highly-reactive silvery metal. Chlorine is a deadly poisonous gas. But combine the two together into a molecule, and we get ordinary table salt (sodium chloride). But, once again, this effect is a reflection of our complexity rather than that of the atoms and molecule of salt.
Humans sometimes have to make difficult decisions, and sometimes change their minds. This is completely alien to operation of the laws of physics, which is always simple and straightforward. The inanimate universe never undertakes some action, according to the laws of physics, and then "changes it's mind". Never does the inanimate universe "weigh the pros and cons" of some operation of the laws of physics before it is undertaken. Neither is there any case in the operations of the laws of physics in the inanimate universe where some operation appeared as logical in the short-term, but less-so over the long-term, or vice versa. This is all a reflection of our higher level of complexity.
This can also be seen in complex realms, such as philosophy, where two opposing statements may both be true. This is, once again, only seen with the complexity of humans and is completely alien to the surrounding inanimate environment and the laws of physics.
Notice also how we can derive all manner of physics and chemical formulae to describe the behavior of the inanimate universe, but cannot derive such formulae to describe ourselves. Somewhere out there is a formula that describes everything that you will ever do, at least that is under your own control, and how you would react to anything. But we cannot discern such a formula because to do so, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible. We cannot "see" above our own complexity level. We can derive formulae for the inanimate universe and the laws of physics, because that is looking down at a lower level of complexity.
We can impose our level of complexity, to some extent, on our surroundings by shaping it to our needs. We do this whenever we shape matter to make it into anything from tools to spacecraft. It is true that energy and information are really the same thing, but we can impose our higher level of complexity to convey a lot of information with only a little bit of energy. This is what we do with all telecommunications and with electronic devices.
We saw that the Big Bang, which began the universe, did not introduce enough information to make anything but a random pattern of the distribution of matter in the universe. It is somewhat like the random distribution pattern that is formed if we throw a handful of sand. When we mass-produce identical units of some produce, we are adding information by imposing our own complexity on the inanimate universe so that an orderly distribution pattern is possible.
But there is a consequence, as well as benefits, to imposing our higher level of complexity. A product of our technology, with a higher level of complexity than the inanimate universe, will exist with the possibility of "falling" back down to the surrounding lower universal level of complexity. If we build a car, for example, the removal of one essential part can make the car useless, essentially restoring it to the surrounding lower level of complexity by making it no more useful than a boulder.
The laws of physics tell us that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form". This is true of the inanimate universe in which we live. But one other consequence of our higher level of complexity involves our use of energy. Once we use energy, whether through our bodies or through technology, that energy is lost to us and cannot be reused. This would seem to violate the basic rule of energy never being created or destroyed, but is actually a manifestation of our higher level of complexity. Once we use energy, it goes back to it's natural lower level of the surrounding universe and can no longer be used at our higher level.
We are part of the universe ourselves. This means that we cannot see it from a neutral perspective as from outside, but must see it from an internal perspective of our own. When we evaluate the complexity of something, we do not necessarily need to involve the complexity of the entire universe even though it is all one set. We can just focus on the complexity of our particular concern, because the rest we "know" already. Even the entire universe is one set, with regard to the "One And The Many", our internal perspective will mean that some of that total complexity is more relevant than the rest.
Another result of our internal perspective on the universe is that we may see coincidences, apparent random reductions in apparent complexity, and reverse coincidences, apparent random increases in apparent complexity. A coincidence is an event which makes it seem as if there is less complexity than there really is, and a reverse coincidence is the opposite. but this is just a perspective illusion. In the inanimate universe, there is neither coincidences or reverse coincidences, but only cause and effect.
Even at our higher level of complexity, relative to the surrounding inanimate universe, the information introduced into the universe by the Big Bang shapes our lives. Life operates by what I define as "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs". The four sets of truth pairs that I define as guiding the operation of life are very much a reflection of the two fundamental electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed. I see this information as being repeated in the sets of truth pairs, in much the same way as the orbitals of electrons are repeated in the orbits of astronomical bodies. These four sets of truth pairs are: True and False, Negative and Positive, Good and Bad and, Right and Wrong.
The Balance Line, which guides life, is very much a reflection of the peak pattern which is unique to living things. The economic Law of Supply and Demand is a manifestation of the Balance Line. When money is borrowed, it upsets the Balance Line, but when it is repaid the Balance Line is restored. When an offense is committed the balance line is upset, but it is restored when justice is done. When the government does not reflect the will of the people, the Balance Line is upset but is restored with a new government.
The all-pervading pattern, "The One And The Many", guides the human and living worlds also. The peak pattern which is unique to living things represents the one optimum condition out of the many possible conditions. Since all human technology and tools, our imposition of our complexity on our surroundings, are part of a set, this must mean that any part is really just as complex as the whole. Some technology is much simpler than other technology, but to completely understand technology it is necessary to understand all about humans and what we are and why we made that technology.
All technology, according to my complexity theory, ends up being equal in complexity. It is just that some of the complexity is external, within the technology, and some is internal, within ourselves. But the two added together ends up with all examples of technology being equal in complexity. Any word must be equal in complexity to any other word, just as any number with any other number. The reason is simply that to understand a word or a number, it is necessary to also understand all that is not. This defining by what it is not makes it a part of a set that must be taken into account in order to understand any part of the set. What it is becomes the one, and all that it is not becomes the many.
As a simple example, a car seems to be more complex then a cup. But to fully understand the cup, it is necessary to understand human anatomy and why we need to drink water and where we get our supply of water and other drinks from, and about our tastes and customs and why we sometimes prefer other drinks to water, and the origins and traditions associated with those drinks, until the cup and car end up being equal in complexity. It is just that the car has more external complexity, while more of the complexity of the cup is internal, within us.
20) MATTER AND ANTIMATTER MUTUAL ANNIHILATION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
Here is one of those questions of the ages that we encounter periodically.
My cosmological theory has space as alternating negative and positive electric charges, and matter as concentrations of like charge held together by energy, so that there are charged particles such as negatively-charged electrons.
There are two varieties of matter, conventional matter and antimatter. The two are similar, except that the same electric charges are reversed, so that conventional matter has negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around a positively-charged nucleus. While antimatter has an atom of positively-charged positrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
If matter and antimatter are brought together, the two will mutually annihilate and release all of the energy that is holding their like charges together, against mutual repulsion, to form the matter which my cosmological theory has as concentrations of like charges. The energy holding like charges together to form matter, according to the mass-energy equivalence, is released in a great burst of energy and the electric charges that composed the matter go back to the alternating negative and positive charge pattern of empty space.
But if the space in the universe is composed of alternating opposite charges in a checkerboard pattern, then why can't oppositely-charged atoms also exist in an alternating checkerboard pattern?
It can easily be seen that the default shape for matter in the universe is a sphere. This means that if there is a significant amount of matter together, and no other factors present, the matter will shape itself by gravity into a sphere. This is why the earth, moon, sun and, other planets are all spherical in shape.
Science books will explain that the sphere is the default shape for matter because it has the lowest surface area per volume of all geometric shapes, and thus the lowest energy level. Since the universe always seeks the lowest energy level, the default shape for matter is a sphere. Put another way, the sphere is the most compact form because there is the least average distance from the center to each point in the mass, so that it requires the least energy to maintain.
A cube requires more information than does a sphere. Suppose that nuclei in atoms mutually repelled and attracted electrons, as they do now, but that electrons in adjacent atoms mutually attracted rather than repelled, while electrons within the same atom continued to mutually repel.
Atoms would have to be cubes, rather than spheres, because the mutually repelling nuclei would keep atoms intact and the nucleus would hold the electrons in orbit by mutual attraction, but the mutually attracting electrons in adjacent atoms would stay in contact as much as possible and this would mean a cube with each orbiting electron changing direction at a right angle at four points in each orbit. Atoms, as we have them, are spheres because electrons in orbit mutually repel and a sphere is the shape which has the least contact with adjacent spheres while cubes have the most contact.
Like atoms, whether matter or antimatter, have outer electrons that repel adjacent atoms because the outer electrons of both atoms have like charges. This is known as electron repulsion, and lowers the density of matter from what it would be otherwise. If atoms of matter could alternate with atoms of antimatter, adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another so we can presume that such mixed matter would be more dense than conventional matter.
Having adjacent atoms with their charges reversed, as matter and antimatter, would be a higher information state, and thus a higher energy state because energy and information is really the same thing. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state and so, even though this would reflect the pattern of alternating electric charges next to one another, it cannot be. The universe will seek a lower-energy state, and this is found by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate when brought into contact.
A sphere is the shape with the lowest energy level but another way of looking at it is the shape with the least complexity, meaning that it requires the least information to construct. A cube is more complex in that it requires more information to construct than a sphere, and the change in the behavior of the electrons, as described above, represents the difference in information required to construct a cube, in comparison with a sphere.
This is why matter and antimatter will mutually annihilate when brought into contact. The universe is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges and, since the information to construct the large-scale universe must come from the information in the most fundamental levels of the universe, there would seem to be no reason why alternating atoms with their electric charges reversed, matter and antimatter, should not exist next to one another.
But this would mean that the outer electrons of adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another, and this would mean that atoms would have to be shaped like cubes, rather than spheres. Since cubes involve more information than spheres, and energy and information is really the same thing, this means that cubic atoms would represent a higher energy state and, since the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, it cannot be.
The universe attains the lowest energy state by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another when brought into contact.
Another way to express this is as surface area. A cube has more information than a sphere, and also has a greater surface area per volume. This additional surface area represents the additional information and, since energy and information is really the same thing, the additional surface area also represents additional energy in the cube. When smaller atoms are crunched together, by the nuclear fusion in stars, into larger atoms, the larger atom has less surface area than the smaller ones that produced it. This represents extra energy that has to go somewhere, and it is released as radiation into space. This is why stars shine.
The fact that the sphere is the default shape of matter in the universe also demonstrates that my cosmological theory of matter originating from a two-dimensional sheet of space, that disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions, in what we perceive as the Big Bang, to leave the one-dimensional strings of charged particles, such as electrons, that form matter as we know it.
The dimensions of space form right angles, which is why cubes and squares are the only shapes that fit together with no leftover space. So why doesn't matter, when brought together by gravity, also form right angles, as cubes? Instead, the default shape of stars and planets is as spheres.
It is because the form of matter is trying to conserve energy, seeking the lowest energy state. Matter comes from my two-dimensional sheet, yet is now scattered across three-dimensional space, excepting the dimension of space that we perceive as time. Since surface area is a reflection of energy, the form of matter does not have enough energy to adapt the form of the space around it. Instead, it seeks to conserve energy, as well as information, by adapting the form of a sphere even though that is an alien form to the shape of the space all around it.
PART 7-THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE
21) THE MOMENTUM OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT
ACHIEVING THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Travel at the speed of light is presumed to be impossible. My cosmological theory provides some insight into just why this is so difficult to achieve.
First, let's briefly review the theory. I noticed that so much about the nature of the universe that cannot be otherwise explained falls neatly into place if we consider the fundamental particles of matter as strings in four-dimensional space, rather than particles in three-dimensional space.
The speed of light, 300 million meters or 186,282 miles per second, is such a constant in the universe and the foundation of Special Relativity theory, yet we can find no physical reason why this speed is what it is. That is because the speed of light is actually the speed at which our consciousnesses proceed along the bundle of strings which compose our bodies and brains so that we experience one of the four spatial dimensions over which the matter of which we are composed was thrown across by the explosion of the Big Bang as time.
The strings of matter which compose the universe are aligned mostly in this direction of space that we perceive as time. There is probably more than four dimensions, our matter occupies four because of the throw pattern of matter in the Big Bang, which began the universe. We can see only at right angles to the dimension in which our strings of matter are aligned so that we cannot see into the past or future and perceive the strings as particles, such as electrons.
When the bundle of strings composing an object are perfectly parallel to the strings composing our bodies, we perceive the object as being at rest. When the strings composing the object are not parallel to ours, we perceive it as being in motion. The greater the angle between the two bundles of strings, the greater the apparent relative velocity between them.
A basic presumption of science is that we have an unbiased view of the world around us, and we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. My theory is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We are part of the universe and see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. This may not make a difference in other sciences but it does make a difference in cosmology and Quantum Physics, which is about the very nature of the universe.
We can only see and move in three of the four spatial dimensions, the other we perceive as time. In the following diagram, if the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains is represented by line A, our consciousnesses is moving in the direction of the red arrow at what we perceive as the speed of light. The dashed red line represents the present, and the three dimensions that we can see in it.
If a bundle of strings, represented by line B, is aligned parallel to ours we will see it as an object at rest. But since we see in only three dimensions it will appear as an object, such as a sphere, C. A bundle of strings aligned like D will appear as an object moving toward us and E like an object moving away from us.
The greater the angle the faster it will appear to be moving, at a right angle it will appear to be moving at the speed of light. Electromagnetic radiation, F, is only transmitted or received at right angles to the strings which is why it appears to be moving at the speed of light.
We can prove this with ordinary trigonometry. It is known that an object moving with twice the velocity will impact with four times the force. In this theory an object is represented by a straight level line if it is at rest and a diagonal line if it is moving, like the base and diagonal of a right triangle. The secant, the inverse of the cosine, is the function that shows how much the length of the hypotenuse increases, relative to the base. The secant of 1 degree is 1.0001523. The secant of 2 degrees is 1.00060954. When the angle, which represents velocity, is doubled the increase in length, which represents mass or impact force, is multiplied by four. This only applies at low angles or velocities and not those approaching the speed of light.
But why would velocity, which is a one dimensional line, operate by the Inverse Square Law when a square requires two dimensions? It is because, as shown in the diagram above, velocity is really an angle and the square is because of the area under the line at the angle. Why should there be squares in so many physics formulas that involve only one dimensional movement or change? Because there is another dimension of space that we can't see but perceive as time.
It may seem illogical that there is a maximum possible speed in the universe. The reason for this speed is that there is a maximum possible angle, which is a right angle. When a string or bundle of strings is aligned in space at a right angle to our bundle of strings, we perceive it as moving at the speed of light. When we move an object, we are bending the bundle of strings of which it is composed. This means that, to accelerate an object to the speed of light, we would have to bend it's bundle of strings at a right angle to our bundles of strings.
I would like to point out how simple ballistics shows this theory to be correct. Ballistics means an object in flight that does not fly under it's own power, such as a ball that has been thrown.
When we exert a force of some kind, the force is within a certain number of dimensions and it cannot affect anything outside of those dimensions. If two forces, in perpendicular dimensions, are exerted on an object, the result will be a vector of the two forces that will determine how the object will move. You probably remember drawing vector diagrams from physics class, if two forces at an angle to one another are applied to an object this is drawn on paper with the length of the lines proportional to the forces. The two lines are considered as half of a parallelogram with the resulting force being represented by the line between opposite angles.
The reason that we cannot propel anything to the speed of light is shown by my theory to be actually within our nature. We can, at least in theory, bend a bundle of strings of matter so that the object of which they are composed moves at what we perceive as the speed of light, but to do this the force applied to it must be absolutely instantaneous and not involve any time element at all.
An object moving at the speed of light must be at a perfect right angle to the alignment of our strings with no direction at all in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. If the force on the object is a vector with any element at all in our time dimension then it cannot be at a perfect right angle to us and cannot move at what we perceive as the speed of light. If something moved at what we perceive as the speed of light, it would instantly vanish from our time dimension, and no matter how much force is applied to the object, this cannot be if it is a vector with any time dimension at all.
The trouble is that we have a forward element to everything that we do because of the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings that compose our bodies and brains, which are aligned mostly in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. We cannot do anything without a time element because our consciousnesses are always moving forward along the bundles of strings of which our bodies and brains are composed, as described in the theory, while we are doing it. For the same reason, we cannot bend the bundle of strings composing any object at greater than a right angle, so that it travels backward in time.
The force with which a hockey, baseball or, cricket player strikes a ball or puck should be enough force to propel it at the speed of light. Except that the player has a consciousness that is moving at what we perceive as the speed of light along the bundle of strings composing the body and brain, which is aligned mostly in the dimension of space that we perceive as time because of this movement. The player's muscular motions are directed by the brain, the consciousness of which is moving at what we perceive as the speed of light at the same time.
If the speed of light is just an angle But if the speed of light is just an angle then why is it so inaccessible to us? Why can't we build a spacecraft that could fly at the speed of light? For that matter why can't a baseball player hit the ball at the speed of light?
As illustrated in the following diagram everything we do has a time element in it. Velocity is represented by an angle, with a horizontal line being an object at rest and a vertical line being an object at the speed of light. The angle at which the baseball player can hit the ball is a vector between his own time momentum, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and the perpendicular force applied to the ball.
The direction of our consciousness is shown by the red arrow. The baseball player's time momentum is represented by the large arrow and the perpendicular force applied to the baseball is represented by the small arrow. Since the angle representing the velocity of the baseball is a vector of the two arrows, the baseball (dashed line) falls far short of the speed of light, which would be a right angle.
Any vehicles that we build are powered by chemical or physical processes that also have a time element, making the speed of light impossible. Fission or electromagnetic radiation is able to achieve the speed of light, in the above example, because there is no time element involved.
In the fraction of a second that the ball is in contact with the bat, the player's consciousness has moved forward in the time dimension many thousands of km. This means that, no matter how much force is put into driving the ball or puck into a lateral dimension, the vast majority of the force is forward into the dimension of space that we perceive as time. This forms a vector between the lateral and the time angle and so the resulting angle at which the bundle of strings composing the ball is bent cannot possibly be the right angle that we would see as the speed of light.
Anything that we do, including any devices that we build or equipment that we set up, will have the nature of our being in it because our consciousnesses are continuously moving forward along our bundles of strings. It is not so much about how much force it takes to propel to the speed of light, but how instantaneously it can be applied. There can be no time element at all or else it will form a vector with the propulsion force so that it cannot form the right angle that is required. For example, fuels cannot propel anything to the speed of light because they take time to burn. Gunpowder does not propel a bullet instantaneously, it only takes a fraction of a second but this still means that most of the momentum is in our time dimension of space.
But what about Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared? This relativistic formula states that the energy enclosed in matter equals the mass times the speed of light, squared. C is for constant, which is the speed of light. The speed of light appears twice in this formula so that it is squared. This is because of our speed of light and also the speed of particles from within the atomic nucleus following nuclear fission, or splitting of the atom. Like-charged particles, suddenly free from the binding energy holding them together, will mutually repel along the most direct route. In my theory, this means moving away from one another by going in diametrically opposite directions at right angles. So that particles from fission move, at least initially until slowed by impacts with other matter, at the speed of light. These impacts with adjacent matter at the speed of light is where the energy of fission comes from.
Nuclear fission Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
But suppose that the nucleus of a fissionable atom, A in the following diagram, is split by a high-speed neutron, at point B. The positive charges of the nucleus, no longer being held together, would try to get away from each other by the shortest possible route, C and D, since like charges repel. Since these are really bundles of strings that would be right angles in opposite directions.
Since we perceive such a right angle as the speed of light, that accounts for one of the speeds of light in Einstein's formula. The other speed of light is the movement of our consciousness, indicated by the red arrow in the diagram.
These particles, which are actually strings in four dimensions, achieve the speed of light because there is no time dimension involved. We are getting down to the basic fundamentals of the universe in that like charges attract and opposite charges repel and there is no propulsion process which requires time. This is why E = MC squared but we cannot propel anything else to the speed of light.
This illustrates how instantaneous perpendicular velocity, which will appear to us as the speed of light, is only possible when based upon the fundamental electric charges of which everything is composed. The product particles of nuclear fission, suddenly released from nuclear binding energy, fly apart based on like-charge repulsion because that is based on the fundamental electric charges. The reason that fission releases so much energy is that it happens instantaneously, from our perspective, and is not spread over a span of time which is actually distance, in the fourth dimension.
But a bullet from a gun can never be propelled to the speed of light. This is because the propulsion mechanism of the bullet is a chemical process, which is not based directly on the fundamental electric charges. The chemical process in gunpowder that drives the bullet is a step removed from the fundamental electric charges which are required to achieve the speed of light. This is because the gun is a tool of ours and our time momentum comes into play so that the final vector of the bullet is an angle between it's propulsion and our time momentum, and so this angle cannot be the right angle that we would perceive as the speed of light.
The throwing or hitting of a ball results in even less of a velocity than the bullet because the muscular motions of the athlete are based on chemical process, and the coordinated muscle movements involved add a physical process that makes it two steps removed from the fundamental electric charges. Even though the ball is being struck or thrown with theoretically enough force to achieve the speed of light, the fraction of a second in which the action takes place involves the movement of the athlete's consciousness many thousands of km along the bundle of strings composing his body and brain, and this must be factored into the final vector of the ball.
The reason that light, and other electromagnetic waves, appear to move at the speed of light, which is actually the speed at which our consciousness moves, is that the radiation of light directly involves the fundamental electric charges of which space is composed. Remember that the reason we perceive light as being electromagnetic in nature is that it is a disruption of the perfect multi-dimensional checkerboard of the negative and positive electric charges which comprise space.
COSMOLOGY AND THE INEFFICIENCY OF MACHINES
Now, let's go to what might seem to be a completely different topic, the inevitable inefficiency of any man-made machine with moving parts. It is a well-established principle that a machine can never be made one hundred percent efficient. It is for this reason that perpetual motion is considered to be impossible. Machines transform one type of energy into another but there is inevitably a loss of some of the input energy that cannot be accounted for in the output energy.
The truth is that the vast majority of machines are nowhere near one hundred percent efficient. It seems that the more moving parts there are in a machine, the lower the efficiency. An electrical transformer is considered as very efficient with typical losses of about eight percent. An auto engine is only about 30-40 percent efficient. This means that only that percentage of the energy in the fuel ends up being converted to actual useful motion by the machine.
Some of this inefficiency is due to air resistance and unwanted heat generation by friction. But there is still lost energy that cannot be accounted for. We can build a machine with frictionless bearings and operate it in a vacuum and there will still be an energy loss of a few percent that is difficult to explain. My conclusion is that there must be another factor in machine inefficiency, as yet undocumented. Friction, heat generation and, air resistance simply cannot account for all energy losses.
Remember that in my Theory of Stationary Space a machine is, like other apparent three-dimensional objects, actually four-dimensional, of which we only perceive three dimensions. There seems to be motion because our consciousness is actually progressing along the bundle of strings composing our brains and bodies. This is perceived by us as time.
Indeed, according to the theory, the only "new motion" in the universe is that created by living things. This would include the machines with the puzzling loss of efficiency. The more moving parts there are in a machine, the more the inefficiency, the energy loss, seems to be.
But my concept of time as the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains explains the inevitable inefficiency of the machines that we build. As we saw in the above example of the baseball, hockey puck or, cricket ball, the final velocity is not based only on the amount of force put into it, but also the time over which that force is applied. The movement of our consciousness accounts for one of the sides of the vector determining the final velocity.
Let's consider the classic example of inefficiency, that of a bouncing ball. If we drop a hard rubber ball and let it bounce, we see that each bounce propels the ball to less of an altitude than the previous bounce. Classical physics will explain this inefficiency as a progressive loss of energy to the atoms of the surface off which the ball is bouncing.
But the cosmological explanation of this involves time, which is the movement of our consciousness. Each bounce involves time, the ball being in contact with the surface for a fraction of a second as our consciousness is proceeding, that what we perceive as the speed of light, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. This time of each successive bounce is added to the time that our consciousness moved as the ball was falling to the surface, successively reducing the angle that the ball's bundle of strings is bent relative to our bundle of strings. The result is that we perceive the ball as having less velocity after each successive bounce, which means that it will reach a lower altitude because the velocity at which the ball impacts the surface is really an angle in four-dimensional space..
According to my theory, living things produce the only "new" movement in the universe. This is why this affects machine efficiency but not the orbits of moons and planets. The astronomical bodies are not really moving but are four-dimensional bundles of strings wrapped around each other in space. We, only perceiving light at right angles to us as our consciousness progresses along the four-dimensional bundles of strings that are our bodies, at what we perceive as the speed of light, see this as a three-dimensional sphere in orbit around another. This explains why apparent perpetual motion can take place in the orbits of moons, planets and, stars but not in the machines that we build.
THE RADIATION AND RECEPTION OF LIGHT DUE TO THE MOMENTUM OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS
One of the tenets of my theory is that there is really no such thing as the speed of light. This perception is the result of the movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we are really measuring the speed at which this takes place. But if I say that there is no actual speed of light and that it is only our perception, then why does a radio signal from earth to a spacecraft take time to get to the spacecraft and then back to earth?
To answer this question, let's first consider our observations of the universe. We must remember that our consciousness was designed for such tasks as building, farming, hunting and, fishing and not for making sense of the cosmos. In my view, the perception of the universe that our consciousness has given us has left far too many simple but unanswered questions.
Remember my doctrine that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. Until a few centuries ago, it was thought that the entire universe revolved around the earth because that is what our initial observation tells us. So, why should we think that we can observe the far reaches of the universe and it will be just as our senses tell us?
With the limitations our our observations in mind, let's look at why we perceive light as traveling through space at the speed our consciousness is actually traveling along our bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains.
We saw how the movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive to be the speed of light factors into our place in the world around us. We can never throw a ball or fire a bullet at the speed of light because that would require bending it's bundle of strings at a perfect right angle, which we would perceive as the object moving at the speed of light, and that would require the propulsion process to be absolutely instantaneous because the movement of our consciousness would be one of the two factors, along with the outward propulsion of the ball or bullet, in the final vector of the ball or bullet. Unless this time factor in the propulsion is zero, or instantaneous, achieving the right angle which we see as the speed of light is impossible.
But what about light itself? It is the movement of our consciousness that causes us to perceive light, which my theory has as stationary electromagnetic disturbances in space caused by energy, as moving at the "speed of light". Let's have a look at what must take place when we send and receive the light which we perceive as traveling at the speed of light. Our transmission and reception of light must involve the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, just as throwing or hitting a ball or firing a bullet does.
So, if we transmit a beam of light outward, so that it seems to us to radiate out into space at a right angle and at the "speed of light", the forward movement of our consciousness must form the other side of the vector so that the beam of light would actually proceed into space at a 45 degree angle, which is the vector between two equal sides at right angles to one another.
This explains why we see into the past even though light is essentially instantaneous and does not travel at the "speed of light" as we perceive it. We do not look at the universe straight on but at a 45 degree angle toward our past in the dimension that we perceive as time.
The speed of light doesn't really exist outside of us, it is just the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. This can be shown in Quantum Physics, by how information moves between two entangled photons instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are, without any sign of being bound by the speed of light.
But then why are we said to be looking backward in time when we look out into space, supposedly due to the speed of light, so that, if we look at an object ten light years away, we are seeing it as it was ten years in the past and, if we can build telescopes powerful enough, we could see back toward the beginning of the universe.
Remember that the two dimensional sheet of space from which matter formed was aligned at a 45 degree angle to the alignment of charges in the background space, and that angle is still with us. Electromagnetic radiation follows the alignment of the charges in space. As shown by the blue arrow in the following diagram, when we look out into space we are actually looking at a 45 degree angle. So we are actually looking into the past. When we transmit electromagnetic radiation we are actually transmitting at 45 degrees into our future direction, as shown by the green arrow.
This 45 degree angle reception and transmission of electromagnetic radiation explains why there is a delay if, for example, we bounce a radio or radar signal off the moon. It may seem nonsensical to say that there is no speed of light because the signal takes about three seconds to get to the moon and back, which is just what we would expect with what we consider as the speed of light. But the following diagram shows what is really happening.
The bottom line is the bundles of strings comprising the earth, and our bodies and brains. The upper line is the bundles of strings comprising the moon. Both seen in four dimensions, of course. The movement of our consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light, is indicated by the red arrow.
Remember, as seen in the diagram above, that we receive electromagnetic radiation at an angle 45 degrees into our past and send it 45 degrees into our future, although in no way can we perceive this. From Point A we send the signal to the moon. It is instantaneously received back at Point B. But it takes our consciousness three seconds to get from Point A to Point B, and that is what we perceive as the speed of light.
Now you understand, if there is really no speed of light, why we see a star that is 36 light-years distant, for example, as it was 36 years in the past. It is just that we are looking at it at a 45 degree angle and since a triangle with two 45 degree angles has two equal sides, we do not see light from the star until our consciousness has traveled along our strings a distance equal to that to the star.
The same concept applies to a radar signal that is bounced off the moon. The signal will travel at a 45 degree angle to the moon, bounce off and come back to the radar antenna at an angle of 45 degrees. Thus, the radar operators will not receive the signal back until their consciousnesses have traveled a distance twice that of the distance to the moon. Since they are unaware of this movement, unless they have read my theory, they will perceive that the signal takes time to get to the moon and back. The same goes for communication between earth and a spacecraft. Imagine throwing a ball at a wall, not straight-on but at a 45 degree angle so that it bounces off the wall at a 45 degree angle.
We never notice this 45 degree slant to all the light that we see because all the light we see is slanted at the same 45 degrees to the past. This is why we see distant objects in space as they were in the past, even though there is no actual speed of light. Two people facing each other are actually seeing each other at 45 degrees to the past, but at terrestrial distance the difference that this makes is negligible.
The so-called "Doppler Effect" is the red-shifting of light from astronomical bodies that appear to be moving away from us at great velocity. Red is the end of the visible spectrum with the longest wavelengths, and the shifting of the frequency of light toward red is due to the velocity "stretching out" the wavelengths of light that are emitted from the moving object. The light would be blue-shifted, toward shorter wavelengths, if the object were moving toward us at high velocity. A good illustration of the Doppler Effect is the whistle of a train that is moving toward the observer. The whistle will sound high-pitched as the train approaches, due to "compression" of the waves of sound by the train's forward movement, which will then drop to a low pitch as the train passes the observer, because the sound waves are now "stretched out" by the train's movement.
But the Doppler Effect on the light from distant objects that appear to be moving away from us at high velocities can be explained simply by the angle of the bundle of strings representing the object, in relation to our bundles of strings. Remembering that, in my cosmology theory, velocity is actually the angles of bundles of strings. The relative angle would function as a kind of a prism in that an angle away from us would appear to "stretch out" the wavelengths of the waves toward red and an angle toward us would appear to "compress" the wavelengths of the waves toward blue.
Suppose that two people are throwing a ball back and forth between them, but one of the two is on a conveyor belt or moving sidewalk. Each would have to both throw and receive the ball at an angle, rather than straight-on. The required angle would be the vector between the rate of motion of the conveyor belt and the velocity of the ball. The same principle applies when we send or receive light from space, as well as throw or hit a ball or fire a bullet, because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
We can shine a flashlight into a mirror and get the light back because the flashlight and mirror are actually four-dimensional objects, like all other matter, of which we can only see three dimensions at once. The fourth dimension is, of course, the spatial dimension that we perceive as time. The light reflected from the mirror is actually that which reaches it from the flashlight at a 45 degree angle and the light from the mirror to the observer is also that which is at a 45 degree angle.
It makes sense that light and radar signals are also sent back into our past dimension, but due to the nature of the movement of our consciousness, we can only see light in the direction from which our consciousness has come. The result is that everything you see is in the past. The further away it is, the further in the past it is. The observable universe extends back to the Big Bang from which it began but we cannot see how vast the universe is today because we only see along a 45 degree visual cone extending into our past.
If we are indeed progressing forward in the spatial dimension that we perceive as time, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and any light or electromagnetic waves that we transmit into space is moving into our future dimension at a 45 degree angle, then we should see that light as moving outward at what we perceive as the speed of light and indeed that is exactly what we see. But this brings us to a conclusion about the energy released by nuclear fission. We saw that the initial products of the fission move apart, due to the like-charge repulsion after the sudden release of the nuclear binding energy, at a direct right angle to the bundle of strings of the matter.
This is what then brings us to Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared. The formula means that energy (E) within matter is equal to the mass (M) multiplied by the constant (C) squared. The constant is the speed of light, which is absolutely invariable in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In other words, a small amount of matter contains a fantastic amount of energy.
I have pointed out previously how this reflects my cosmological theory. The right angles at which the product particles of fission move outward represents one speed of light, since matter moving at a right angle appears to us as moving at the speed of light. Our motion along the bundles of strings of which our bodies and brains are composed, at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is going on during the fusion process, is the second speed of light. This is why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in E = MC squared, there are two speeds of light involved in the vector of energy that we perceive as released by nuclear fission.
Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, means that the internal energy in matter equals the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. This internal energy, in my cosmology theory, is the energy that holds like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, to form matter. This is why matter tends to consist of electrically charged particles, such as protons and electrons. We also refer to this energy as the Mass Energy Equivalence.
But suppose that the nucleus of a fissionable atom, A in the following diagram, is split by a high-speed neutron, at point B. The positive charges of the nucleus, no longer being held together, would try to get away from each other by the shortest possible route, C and D, since like charges repel. Since these are really bundles of strings that would be right angles in opposite directions.
Since we perceive such a right angle as the speed of light, that accounts for one of the speeds of light in Einstein's formula. The other speed of light is the movement of our consciousness, indicated by the red arrow in the diagram.
Another way of looking at why the speed of light is squared in the formula involves the 45 degree angle at which we would necessarily radiate electromagnetic waves into our future spatial dimension because of the vector formed by our forward momentum in our time dimension. But the product particles of the nuclear fission move outward not at a 45 degree angle, but at a full right angle because that is the most direct route for the two suddenly released from binding energy like-charged particles to get away from one another.
This right angle is twice the angle of the 45 degrees of any light that we transmit so that there is effectively two speeds of light involved in the energy released by nuclear fission, and that is why E = MC squared.
22) THE ESSENTIAL FORMS OF TECHNOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY THEORY
All technology is actually based on this cosmology theory.
Distance is the most fundamental everyday unit of information. The universe is ultimately composed of alternating electric charges, and distance is the number of such charges within a given span. In that all-pervading pattern that I often refer to, "The One And The Many", distance represents "The Many" because it is the expression of how many possible permutations there are, which is how information must be stored.
My definition of the complexity of a number is not how high the number is, but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. 6 is not more complex than 2 because 6 is really 6 / 1 and 2 is really 2 / 1. In "The One And The Many", the one is the permutation that is and the many are all of the other possible permutations that were not. In a fraction or ratio, the numerator is the one and the denominator is the many.
The computer bits of 1s and 0s illustrates how it is permutations which hold information. If we had the bits 1100, there are six possible permutations because the bits can be arranged in six different ways. The one permutation that is would be the one and all six would be the many. This would have a complexity of six because it would be represented a a ratio or fraction by 1 / 6. If there were more than these four bits, the many or the denominator would be higher because there would be more possible permutations.
Distance would mean more complexity, which is more information, because, if the moon's diameter is 1 / 120 of it's distance from earth, it contains more information than if it's diameter were 1 / 60 of it's diameter from earth. This is because there would be more possible positions for the moon to be in, relative to it's diameter, in "The One And The Many", with the diameter being the one and the distance being the many.
One of the simplest possible forms of technology is the use of a lever to pry something loose. When we use a lever, we are exchanging distance for force. We get more force applied than we would without the lever, but we must move the handle end of the lever over a further distance.
Remember also my doctrine 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 anything without applying energy to it. We can see how energy and information is really the same thing by our use of technology. We can make our lives physically easier, by the use of technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier without making them more complex. This again shows that energy and information is really the same thing.
In the simple lever, we are exchanging the moving of the handle of the lever over more distance in exchange for greater force, but over a shorter distance. Distance is a unit of information, and energy and information is really the same thing. All technology, starting with the lever, makes our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making them more complex. The most advanced technology thus acts as a lever in saving us from exerting physical force, but requiring us to deal with more complexity.
Now, here is the question. In technology beyond the example of the simple lever, where we see the distance that is exchanged for force, where is the distance that must be exchanged for the force that saves us from heavier physical labor? There must be distance exchanged for force because distance, permutations of the electric charges comprising space, is the fundamental unit of information.
This distance that must be exchanged for force in technology actually comes from the fourth dimension of space over which matter from the Big Bang, which began the universe, is scattered. The one exception, where the distance that is exchanged is from our familiar three dimensions, is the simple lever. To better understand this, let's have a look at the forms of four broad classifications of technology. What I will refer to as "The Essential Forms Of technology" are, incredibly, not found in any meaningful way in our familiar three dimensions but are the forms of matter on which my cosmology theory is based.
All construction and storage technology revolves around right angles. It is only right angles that can make the most efficient use of space, because they can fit together with no wasted space. We do not really see meaningful right angles in the universe of inanimate matter around us. But in my cosmology theory, the dimensions are at right angles to one another, and it is for this cosmological reason that right angles become so important in construction and storage technology, even though meaningful right angles are lacking in the world and universe around us.
Mechanical technology depends on cylindrical gears and wheels. But the form of a cylinder, while very important to living things as it includes such biological forms as tree trunks and limbs, is essentially absent from the universe of inanimate matter. But in my cosmology theory the spheres of stars and planets, which are the dominant form of matter in the universe, are actually cylindrical bundles of strings in four-dimensional space. We see them as spheres because we perceive the fourth dimension as time, rather than space.
Electrical technology is based on wires. There is nothing like the forms of wires in the universe of inanimate matter. The form of wires is vital to living things, as nerves and blood vessels and capillaries. But what we perceive as sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, are actually strings in four-dimensional space which are in the form of wires.
Computer technology is based on permutations of bits, 1s and 0s, to store information. it is true that three-dimensional atoms and molecules in inanimate matter are based on permutations of sub-atomic particles, but computer technology goes directly to the model of alternating electric charges, which comprise space, and the arrangement into strings, such as electrons, by adding energy, which is the same thing as information, to them. The computer directly uses electromagnetic points of information to store pre-coded information. This is exactly the same method as the most fundamental level of the universe itself.
In technology that is more complex than the simple lever described above, there is no apparent "distance" that is being exchanged for work, but yet it must be there somewhere. This "distance" is all of the moving done by humans in setting up the technology. Since humans cannot move in an instant, this means that the setting up of the technology must have been done over time.
According to my cosmology theory, time is actually a dimension of space. This is where distance, the most fundamental unit of information, comes from because what we perceive as time is actually distance, in this fourth spatial dimension that we perceive as time.
The reason that this does not apply to a simple lever, where we exchange distance that we cannot see for force, is that any length of stick that we may find can be used as a lever, and it does not require any setting up.
But when we use space in this fourth dimension as the distance that technology exchanges to make life easier, we must also necessarily bring in the forms of matter in that dimension that we do not see in our familiar three dimensions. There is nothing alien about this fourth dimension of space, we are in it all the time. It is just that we are only in one slice or moment of it at a time, and cannot access it at will.
We create technology by imposing our higher level of complexity on the inanimate matter around us. All technology operates as a lever, the most basic of all machines, but the distance that is traded for force comes from the fourth dimension and, in doing so, it brings in the forms of matter as they are seen in this fourth dimension, as the Essential Forms Of Technology.
Whenever new information is added to some system, something must be created that did not exist before to hold that information. Humans, imposing their higher level of complexity on inanimate matter, to create technology, makes it necessary to bring in some new forms of matter. The forms that it brings in are those that would, according to my cosmology theory, be seen in four-dimensional space. The distance that must be exchanged for work comes from the additional dimension, and brings in the forms of matter that would be seen with the additional dimension.
23) THE CRAB NEBULA AND THE UNIVERSE
The Crab Nebula also has purely scientific meaning. It is actually an amazing example of how information flows between different scales in the universe. We have seen how it flows from the lowest to the highest levels but, given the right conditions, it can also flow the other way. It also demonstrates the importance of dust in the universe, because the scale of a typical grain of dust is exactly halfway between that of the electric charges that form everything in the universe, and the scale of the entire universe itself.
The compound posting on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", is all about how information flows though the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. The same information as in the lowest levels has to be reused because there is no information from anywhere else with which to build the matter structures of the higher levels.
Probably the most obvious example is the orbits of moons and planets around stars. These orbits are just like the orbitals of electrons in the atoms of which the stars, planets and, moons are composed. The information at the astronomical level has to be the same as at the sub-atomic level because there is no information from anywhere else with which to build the structures at the astronomical level.
We now know that the groups of galaxies that compose the highest level of the arrangement of matter in the universe are not spread anywhere near evenly across space. Galactic groups are structured in filaments, with vast voids between them. We cannot see this with ordinary observation, but it becomes apparent when the distances and direction of many galactic groups in the universe are plotted. The filaments are millions of light-years across and the voids between them are hundreds of millions of light-years across. Our own galaxy, so vast that we really cannot grasp it, is just a speck in all of this.
This is a chart of the distribution of large groups of galaxies in our general area of the universe. Our group of galaxies is referred to as simply the Local Group, and the wider group that it is a part of is called Laniakea. Notice how, when seen on a very large scale, the groups of galaxies form filaments with vast voids between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster#/media/File:Laniakea.gif
One thing that is really striking is how the filaments resemble the folds in a crumpled sheet of paper that is opened up again. Remember that, in my cosmology theory, the matter in the universe originated with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but was not contiguous with, the four dimensions of background space, one of which we perceive as time, over which it was scattered by what we perceive as the Big Bang.
Now, look at the Crab Nebula. This is the remnants of a supernova explosion in 1054, nearly a thousand years ago. Notice how the dust that composes the Crab Nebula, the heavy elements that were fused together in the progenitor star before it exploded and scattered it's component matter across space, is also arranged not as just a cloud of dust, but in filaments. In fact, the filaments that we can see in the Crab Nebula very much resemble the filaments, with vast gaps between them, of which the matter in the entire universe is arranged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula#/media/File:Crab_Nebula.jpg
So knowing that matter always seeks the lowest energy state, why did the matter thrown outward into space by the supernova explosion that caused the Crab Nebula form these intricate filaments? This has got to be a far higher information state than just forming a cloud of dust. Why would the matter of the Crab Nebula instead take the form of these fine and complex filaments that we see?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula#/media/File:Filaments_in_the_Crab_Nebula.jpg
But yet the matter in the Crab Nebula definitely does form those complex filaments, and the information must have come from somewhere.
In the Crab Nebula, what is happening is that the universe is literally making a model of itself. The supernova that formed the Crab Nebula is a reenactment of the Big Bang and the countless grains of dust, being able to hold a lot of information in their arrangement, copies the information of the arrangements of matter in the entire universe, but with specks of dust instead of stars. But the dust, of course, came from a star.
But why is this the only place that we see, as far as I am aware, an arrangement of matter forming a literal model of the arrangement of matter in the entire universe?
Smoke from a chimney simply forms a small cloud. The water droplets in the clouds in the air do not form any such filaments, except for the ice crystals in cirrus clouds and they usually are just straight lines. The arrangements of stars in galaxies do not form any such filaments that are a model of the universe, spiral galaxies like ours have the "arms" but are nothing like these complex filaments in the universe and the Crab Nebula. Neither do the asteroids in our Solar System's Asteroid Belt form any such filaments.
What happens is that the molecules in a gas do not take the form of filaments because the molecules are too small. The stars in a galaxy to not arrange in the form of filaments because the stars are too large. But it does happen with enough dust thrown out into space, and under the right conditions, because the grains of dust are just right.
But what does it mean for the scale of the grains of dust to be "just right"?
Remember, in the compound posting "The Lowest Energy Point", there is a section titled "The Bias Toward Dust". The reason that dust is so abundant, as well as why it is just the right scale to form a model of the structure of matter in the universe, is that the typical size of a speck of dust is exactly halfway between the nearly infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges of which the universe is composed, and the nearly infinite scale of the entire universe.
This scale of halfway between the scale of an electric charge and the entire universe must go by size, and not by mass. The gravity between enough grains of dust with the right disbursement in space has just the right amount of gravity between them to allow the dust to arrange into the filament structure that is a model of the universe. It is true that atoms are almost all empty space, but if the atoms in the dust were more dense then the atoms of the whole universe would be more dense and, with their grater gravitational pull, the universe would be more compact but, even so, the scale relationship of dust particles as halfway between the scale of electric charges and of the entire universe would still hold true.
The arrangement of dust that forms the clear filaments in the Crab Nebula is literally a model of the structure of the universe. This shows that, when conditions are right, information not only flows from the lowest to the highest levels, as from atoms to the orbits of moons and planets, but also in the other direction, from the highest levels downward. The Crab Nebula cannot be expected to be a perfect model of the universe because it's component grains of dust are subject to the tidal forces, differences in gravity, from nearby stars.
The reason that the Crab Nebula is not spherical in form, as we would expect the universe to be if the Big Bang which threw the matter outward was even, can be explained by the rotation of the progenitor star before it exploded in the supernova. The matter originating from around the equatorial plane of the star would have been thrown outward with a greater velocity than the matter from around the polar regions. That is why the nebula is shaped more like the shell of a crab, hence the name.
So if the dust of the Crab Nebula is a model of the matter structure of the universe, as it seems that it is, what else might that be able to tell us?
Notice that the dust in the Crab Nebula is more concentrated in it's outer regions than it is toward the center. This is to be expected since the matter was thrown outward by an explosion and is still moving outward today. But yet we do not see this same arrangement in the vast filaments of matter in the universe as a whole. There is no corresponding concentration of matter toward the outer limits of the universe, as compared with nearer the center.
The answer to that is actually simple. The reason that we do not see any concentration of matter toward the outer limits of the universe, as we might expect if all matter was thrown outward by the Big Bang, is that the universe is actually strings of matter in four-dimensional space, instead of the particles of matter in three-dimensional space that we perceive, with the missing dimension of space being the one that we perceive as time.
When we look out into space, we are looking at right angles to the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We cannot see the center of the universe, which is where the Big Bang was centered because that is in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, in the past direction. For this reason, there appears no large-scale difference in the distribution of matter.
24) THE UNIVERSE WITH US AND WITHOUT US
It may seem that science should be a simple realm, meaning that a statement must be either true or false and two contradictory statements cannot both be true. This is the way mathematics is. If 5 + 4 = 9 is true then 5 + 4 = 7 must be false.
But science has shown itself to be a complex realm, where two apparently contradictory statements can both be true, at least under certain circumstances.
Consider that there is "classical physics", relativity and quantum physics. All three are well-established and have precepts that are provable by experimentation. But both relativity and quantum physics have things that are impossible to explain by "classical physics".
Many have tried, with little success, to unite relativity and quantum physics. The great dividing line between the two is the speed of light. in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, everything revolves around the speed of light. Mass, time and length can all be variable, but the speed of light always remains constant and nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light.
But in quantum physics, the speed of light is not even a factor at all. Information moves between two entangled photons instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are, with no speed of light limitation.
Furthermore, in quantum physics even the act of observing or measuring something affects it's outcome. In the famous double-slit experiment, if we do not observe light passing through two parallel slits we can see by the diffraction pattern that photons of light passed through both slits. But if we do observe it, the absence of a diffraction pattern shows that photons passed through only one of the two slits. This is completely alien to both classical physics and relativity.
But if the physical sciences are so closely associated with mathematics, then how can mathematics be such a simple realm, where contradictory statements cannot be true, while science is a complex realm where contradictory statements sometimes can be true?
My cosmological theory has a simple explanation. One of the most important points of the theory is that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
There are two possible universes that we might see:
A) The universe with us.
B) The universe without us.
We could also refer to it as the "Internal Universe", which includes our perspective and our nature, and the "External Universe".
When humans first looked around them, it seemed that the earth was flat and that the astronomical bodies revolved around the earth. Later, of course, we found that the earth is spherical, rather than flat, and that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.
As science progressed still further, we ran up against the bizarre realms of relativity and quantum physics and the contradictions that they bring about. But let's see how these compare with the earlier contradictions between what we see and what we later find to be true.
We know that the earth is not flat and that the astronomical bodies do not revolve around the earth. But then why do we see it that way if we know otherwise?
The answer is that to see the earth as spherical and revolving around the sun, we have to get ourselves out of the picture. If we see with our own eyes, with ourselves in the picture, we will see the earth as flat with the astronomical bodies revolving around it.
The flat earth with all of the astronomical bodies revolving around it is the universe with us.
The spherical earth revolving around the sun is the universe without us.
The difference is in whether we collect and analyze data or whether we put our direct perspective into it. Neither is really correct or incorrect. If we look at architectural blueprints, the earth appears to be flat as there is no reason to involve it's curvature on a large scale. For the purpose of telling time, it is fine to refer to sunrise and sunset, as if the sun were going around the earth. It depends whether or not we are in the picture.
Now, let's move on to the development of relativity and quantum physics. The two are not compatible with classical physics, or with each other. But considering the above example of the apparent flat earth and earth-centered universe, wouldn't it be logical that this is another case of "The universe with us" against "The universe without us"?
We know that the classical physics of the spherical earth revolving around the sun, and not vice-versa, represents "The universe without us" that displaced the flat earth with everything apparently revolving around us of "The universe with us". Given that, wouldn't it seem that the first place to look at why relativity and quantum physics have such a contradiction with classical physics is that maybe those two represent "The universe with us"?
For another thing, none of these three branches is able to explain that time actually is. Relativity explains how time is affected as an object moves at speeds approaching the speed of light, but still doesn't tell us exactly what time is. Classical physics and quantum physics don't have much at all to say about what time is.
What about my cosmology theory? Have you ever thought that maybe what we perceive as particles of matter, such as electrons, are really strings in four-dimensional space and our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light? That is why the speed of light is so absolutely constant and everything seems to revolve around it and no one can explain what time is in terms of physics.
Relativity is "The universe with us", which is why it cannot be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us". Time is something that is within us, which is why it has never been explained by classical physics. That is why I named my cosmology theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space", because everything is really still and it is only our movements and the movement of our consciousness that is the only "new" motion in the universe.
Electrons are one-dimensional strings in space. Light is two-dimensional waves in the background matrix of alternating negative and positive electric charges that comprise empty space. The only way that we can see, or measure of receive light in any way, is to have it interact with matter. When light interacts with matter it must absorb some of the energy in the light. Electrons are in orbitals around atoms so light interacting with matter usually means with an electron. But since light is a two-dimensional wave while electrons are only one-dimensional strings, that means that matter can absorb only one of light's two-dimensions.
One thing that is completely different about the relatively new science of Quantum Physics is that the observation is a vital part of any interaction. If a quantum interaction is being observed it makes all the difference, relative to if it is not being observed. A well known example is the Two Slit Experiment.
There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon but it requires seeing electrons as one-dimensional strings, as they are in four dimensions, rather than the particles as conventionally portrayed. The only way that we can see or receive electromagnetic waves is by their interaction with electrons.
As shown in the following diagram, waves are two-dimensional while an electron is one-dimensional. We know that an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional because it has two pieces of information, the wavelength and the amplitude. We can also see how an electromagnetic wave is two dimensional in that a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) wave will push electrons with more force but will not push any more electrons. A brighter light, but at the same frequency, will push more electrons but not with any more force.
Yet another way we can see that electromagnetic waves are two dimensional is that their angle of vibration can be polarized, like the hands on a clock. We perceive light as filling three dimensional space because our eyes are so much larger than the wavelength of light.
The reason that observation is such a vital part of Quantum Physics is that it is necessary for the electron to absorb one dimension of the wave. This is the only way that we can observe the interaction. That changes the interaction. The remaining one dimension of the wave is like a particle of light, which we refer to as a photon.
That is why light is said to have both a wave and a particle nature. One dimension of the wave can be absorbed by an electron, which is the only way that we can observe it. The diagram shows the two dimensional wave at top and the one dimensional electron string at bottom.
Quantum physicists describe light as having both a wave and a particle nature, which seems contradictory and alien to classical physics. But since matter interaction, including seeing, involves contact with one-dimensional electrons, that means that one dimension of the light must be left over. Since my cosmology theory has what we see as particles as really one-dimensional strings, that explains the particle nature of light and the particles that we see as photons.
A photon is light where one of the two dimensions has been absorbed by interaction with matter. That explains the mysterious double-slit experiment. The only way that we can observe or measure light is to have it interact with matter, and this means absorbing one of it's two dimensions.
The speed of light is not a factor in quantum physics because time is really within us, the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, and while that is a factor when we are moving, it is not a factor when we are seeing. Quantum physics is also "The universe with us", which is why it can never be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us".
Relativity and quantum physics both, unlike classical physics, involve our perspective.
Special relativity is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings that compose our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Matter is really strings in four-dimensional space but we perceive them as particles in three-dimensional space because we perceive the fourth dimension of space as time.
Quantum physics is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that light, or any electromagnetic radiation, consists of two-dimensional waves, while the electrons in orbitals around the atoms in our eyes and measuring devices are one-dimensional strings. When light interacts with matter an electron absorbs energy from the light. But it can absorb only one of the two dimensions and this leaves the one-dimensional "particles" of light that we refer to and perceive as photons. This explains the wave-particle duality of light.
What we perceive as particles are really one-dimensional strings because we perceive one of the four dimensions of space as time. This is why information can move instantaneously between two entangled photons, without being bound at all by the speed of light.
I see my cosmology theory not as another branch, but as the way to link these three branches together.
This concept of two views of the universe, one with us and one without us, means that we have to be more careful about deciding that one scientific theory is correct, while another is incorrect. it might be that one is describing the universe with us while the other is the universe without us.
An ideal example is the nature of light. Prominent scientists like Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle and, Sir Isaac Newton developed a theory that light was composed of particles, which they named "corpuscles". But this could not explain the observed behaviors of light when it is passed through such optical devices as lenses, prisms and, diffraction gratings. Even though it was Sir Isaac Newton who first demonstrated that white light could be broken down into it's component colors through a prism.
The balance shifted toward the theory that light was composed of waves. This was put forth by the Dutch scientist Christaan Huygens and did explain all of the optical behaviors of light.
But then when quantum physics came along, it turned out that it's photons were just like the old "corpuscles", which were particles of light. Quantum physics described light as having both a wave and a particle nature. But what that meant is that both of the old theories could be correct. The "corpuscles" or photons represent "The universe with us" and the waves represent "The universe without us".
25) SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES
I had been reading recently about the difficulty of explaining supermassive black holes. By this I mean black holes with masses billions of times that of the sun.
We know how black holes form. A star is an equilibrium between the outward force of the radiation released by fusion in it's interior and the inward pull of gravity. The star forms in the first place when enough matter is pulled together by it's mutual gravity to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and crunch smaller atoms together into larger ones by the force of gravity. The new larger atom has less overall energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation, and that is why stars shine.
As the star proceeds with fusing lighter atoms into successively heavier ones it eventually runs out of fuel, because the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron. This upsets the equilibrium of the star by removing the outward force of the radiation, so that the inward force of gravity takes over.
The vast majority of an atom is empty space. What happens next, at least in some stars, is that the pressure of gravity completely crushes the atoms. The electrons of an atom are crunched into it's protons to form neutrons, this also happens in ordinary fusion.
The result is a "neutron star", where all atoms have been crushed into neutrons. Although it is technically not actually a star because fusion is no longer taking place. A star the size of the sun might collapse into a neutron star the size of a city. This brings about extreme density and a spoonful of neutron star material might have a mass of billions of tons. Some neutron stars do release energy because they are still shrinking.
But this collapse of atoms into closely-packed neutrons greatly increases the gravitational attraction between the mass. This may lead, in certain stars, to a further gravitational collapse. The structure of matter may collapse further, so that there is no discernible structure of matter at all. This is what we refer to as a "black hole".
Any matter that gets pulled into the black hole becomes part of it, having it's atomic structure utterly crushed. There is no possible exit. The gravity of the black hole would likely tear any nearby matter apart before inexorably pulling it in. This is due to tidal forces, the gravity on the matter on the side closest to the black hole would be greater than the force on the far side of the matter, and this would tear the matter apart.
It has long been known that this is how black holes come to be, the accretion of matter by gravity that typically begins with the gravitational collapse of a star, after the star's fusion process has ceased.
But more recently, supermassive black holes have been found that scientists agree could not possibly have been formed by this usual accretion of matter. Furthermore it has been determined that these mysterious supermassive black holes have existed since near the beginning of the universe, before much nuclear fusion in stars even had a chance to take place.
So a major question about the universe today is how these supermassive black holes, each with billions of times the mass of the sun, could possibly have formed.
My cosmological theory provides a neat and simple answer to this as yet unanswered question. Let's briefly review the theory.
My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions.
The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains.
The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang.
The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. The remainder is the radiation that we can detect as being left over from the Big Bang.
We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space.
With that background in the problem of unexplainable supermassive black holes and then my cosmology theory, let me show what a simple explanation the theory has for supermassive black holes. Remember that there is a principle in physics called "Occam's Razor", which basically says that the simplest explanation for something is usually the best explanation. That may not be true in the world of people but it does seem to be true in the world of physics.
My cosmology theory has a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous to, the multi-dimensional background space, although the sheet had formed by the same kind of opposite-charge induction. Since the sheet was not contiguous to, nor coordinated with, the multi-dimensional background space the sides of one of it's two dimensions came into contact with each other.
Since charge migration had taken place in the two-dimensional sheet, positive charge to one side and negative to the other because it brought about a lower energy state relative to the electric charges in the background space, the oppositely-charged sides in contact brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation of one of the two dimensions of the sheet that we refer to as the Big Bang.
The remaining dimension of the sheet became the one-dimensional strings that comprise the matter in the universe today. But while the two sides of one dimension of the sheet were coming in contact the other dimension of the sheet, the one that became matter, was folding too, although the two sides of this dimension never came in contact as the first dimension did.
It was these folds, in the two-dimensional sheet of space that became matter, that became the supermassive black holes that have been found to have existed since near the beginning of the universe, which we know could not have formed by the usual accretion of matter. Imagine a sheet folding by itself but one dimension of the sheet folds faster than the other. The sides of the sheet folding fastest will be the one whose sides make contact, but the other dimension will still have folds in it.
The dimension of the sheet whose sides didn't contact became the one-dimensional strings of matter, after the other dimension had disintegrated in what we perceive as the Big Bang. The dominant form of matter became atoms, after composite particles formed due to the charge migration that had taken place in the sheet before the Big Bang and those particles with a negative charge joined together with those with a positive charge to form atoms.
But the folds meant a greater concentration of matter per area. Because of the great gravitational attraction within these folds it never got the chance to form into charged particles, and certainly not into atoms that are mostly empty space, these concentrations of matter became the supermassive black holes that we see today, and cannot be explained any other way.
Look at this graphic image of the distribution of galaxies in the universe on a very large scale. My cosmology theory has matter originating from the remaining dimension of a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet folded in both of it's dimensions but the opposite sides in one dimension made contact first, resulting in the matter-antimatter disintegration that we perceive as the Big Bang:
This is the image from the Wikipedia article on "Astronomical Void":
Now look at the pattern on a crumpled sheet of paper. Doesn't it look very much like the pattern of the large-scale distribution of matter in the universe? That is because matter originated with the two-dimensional sheet of space in my cosmology theory:
It is widely believed that all large galaxies, including our own, have a supermassive black hole at their cores. This means that the distribution of matter in the universe on a large scale, as depicted in the image above, is governed by where these supermassive black holes are located.
These supermassive black holes are known to have existed since near the beginning of the universe. It was their massive gravity around which large galaxies coagulated. And their distribution in the universe, on a large scale, looks just like the crumpling of a sheet of paper. That is because, as described here, these supermassive black holes originated with the original two-dimensional sheet of space, as described in my cosmology theory.
It is sometimes quasars that are at the centers of large galaxies. An "accretion disk" of matter forms around a supermassive black hole. This is matter that is destined to be pulled in by the black hole's gravity. As matter from the accretion disk is pulled into the black hole, it loses it's orbital energy. That energy is released as radiation, which is why a quasar produces light.
Wasn't that simple?
26) THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MEMORY
This is an apple. The part of the brain that stores memory and knowledge is no bigger than this apple. Think of all the memories and knowledge that a mature person has. How does the brain store it all? For something of the scale of this apple to store all of that knowledge and memory is absolutely impossible. But if this cosmology theory is correct it means that the brain has a whole other dimension to it. We are confined to the present but can access the past electrically through memory.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
