Impacts In The Solar System

It is known that there have been impacts from space on some of the planets, particularly in the inner Solar System. Mercury, the innermost planet, underwent an impact so severe that it distorted the surface terrain on the diametrically opposite side of the planet. The earth's moon is believed to have been formed by the impact by a Mars-sized object, known as Theia. There was a great impact at the south pole of the moon, referred to as the Aitken Basin. Mars has two small moons, Phobos and Deimos, which seem to be captured asteroids but that have not impacted the planet,

But this requires a special explanation. Planets, and composite objects, form from the gravitational agglomeration of debris in space that was ejected outward by the supernova explosion of the large star which preceded the sun, which is thus a second-generation star. But the explanation as to why planets do not collide is that, if they were going to collide, they would have not formed separately in the first place.

It does not seem to make sense that composite objects, which could be considered as small planets, would collide with other planets when all have formed from debris while under the same gravitational influence of the sun, but clearly that is what has happened. There may have also been such an impact on Venus that has not yet been discovered because the planet is shrouded in dense cloud. There can also be no doubt that many such composite objects have fallen back into the sun.

There is reason to believe that there have also been severe impacts on some of the outer planets. Uranus actually has it's poles aligned as if it was "knocked onto it's side" by such a severe impact. Recent reports indicate that Jupiter has also undergone severe impacts, which is to be expected due to it's tremendous gravitational mass.

My explanation of why the outer planets are so much more massive than the inner planets is that the star which preceded the sun underwent a nova, the blasting off of it's outer layers, before the supernova, the exploding from the center. The light molecules that formed from the outer layers, having a higher starting point on the exploding star, would have been thrown further outward than the average matter of the later supernova. These lighter molecules, such as methane and ammonia, would have added to the mass of the outer planets but not the inner planets, especially since the evaporative heat of the sun would be much less of a factor at the distances of the outer planets.

But this can be explained by my concept of information and energy, and how the two are really the same thing.

When the vast cloud of matter that was to form the new Solar System was thrown outward by the explosion of the large star that preceded the sun, there was orbital energy as well as information of position of each piece of matter. Orbital energy is based on distance from the sun, since two objects can be at different locations while at exactly the same distances from the sun, they will have different information of position but identical orbital energy and thus we can consider the two separately.

If we want to look at this orbital energy and information of position separately, even though energy and information is really the same thing, It must be remembered that there was a balance, a ratio, of orbital energy to information of position when all of the matter was thrown outward by the supernova.

The matter began consolidating by gravity into the planets of our Solar System, all while in orbit around the new sun. We know that the sun is a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. The sun would have formed much more quickly due to the proximity of the matter that would form it. But the ratio of orbital energy to information of position of matter thrown outward by the supernova cannot just be changed and it must remain constant if there is no additional information from anywhere.

Pieces of debris with orbits that crossed or came close to one another gradually coalesced by gravity into the planets and other large compound objects, that continued in orbit around the sun. This consolidation reduced the total amount of information of position since consolidated matter and debris now had the same orbit.

But this consolidation did not reduce the orbital energy because orbital energy is based on the square root of the distance of the orbit. An object in orbit that is given three times the orbital energy will then orbit at nine times the distance, but move at only one-third of the previous velocity, since orbital velocity is based on the square root of the altitude of the orbit.

So, if we look at the planetary consolidation as orbital energy as well as information of position, even though energy and information is really the same thing, that means we will have a change in the ratio of this energy to information as consolidation occurs, The trouble is that such a change would not be permissible as long as the system is constant and there was no new information from anywhere.

This then provides us with our explanation of why such impacts on the inner planets have taken place, even those impacts seem to violate the obvious rule that the reason planets do not collide is that if they were ever going to collide while being guided by the gravity of the same sun then they would not have formed separately in the first place.

If the ratio of orbital energy to information of position must remain constant, because there is no additional information in a closed system to change it, and if one side of the ratio seems to change then the other side much change in order to keep the ratio constant.

This is what causes the impacts on the planets by objects from space, the information of position has been decreased by consolidation into planets and other compound objects and so the orbital energy must decrease as well, in order to keep the ratio constant, and the only way that this can happen is for objects in higher orbits which have more orbital energy to fall to lower orbits, which may impact the inner planets in the lower orbits along the way.

This applies to several of the writings on this blog.

In the compound posting, "Orbital And Escape Velocities And Impacts From Space", we saw how a meteor approaching a planet may go into orbit permanently around the planet when the Law of Gravity seems to dictate that it should just crash into the planet. The reason is that energy can never be created out of nothing. The meteor must have come from a distance further from the sun than the planet, meaning that it was at a higher orbital energy level. But it would also be pulled by the planet's gravity and this would add to the energy of impact. But if this energy of impact turns out to be greater than the original difference between the orbital energies of the planet and the meteor, it would be creating energy out of nothing. Since that cannot be allowed to happen, the meteor will just go into orbit around the planet and will never impact the planet unless there is an additional application of energy from somewhere.

In the compound posting on this blog, "The Configuration Of The Solar System Made Really Simple" ( Part One ), in the section "Iron And The Planetary Orbits", We saw how the information in an iron atoms, and it's 56 nucleons, is what determined the distances between the planetary orbits. This is because iron is as far as the ordinary fusion process in a star goes, and when that fusion process was complete the star that preceded the sun exploded and scattered it's component matter which coalesced by gravity to form the new sun and the planets. The information in the distances between those planets came from the information in the 56 nucleons of the iron atom, as we saw.

Finally, it applies to the theory on this blog "The Lowest Information Point". This is about the many ways that the universe seeks it's component information to be a square, rather than a rectangle with unequal sides, because the square is the Lowest Information Point. The original ratio of the orbital energies of the debris thrown outward by the supernova which formed the planets, relative to the information of position of all of those pieces of debris, cannot be changed because that would be adding information, effectively making an informational square into a rectangle, so that the total orbital energies must decrease if the total information of position is reduced by gravitational consolidation. The only way for that to happen is for objects in the outer Solar System to fall inward, to a lower orbital energy position.

The Inequality Of Spiral And Antispiral

This has been added to the compound posting on this blog about the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space".

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.

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 always ultimately does, overcomes the mutual repulsion of like electric charges.

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 of my other cosmology theory, about how 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.

(Note-for further information see the compound posting, "The Flow of Information Through The Universe").

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 neat 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. Complexity itself is neither spiral nor anti-spiral.

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

In conclusion, you can see that the large-scale universe is just as we would expect if both the cosmology theory of electric charges and strings of matter and also the theory of how information flows from the lowest to highest levels of the universe are correct. We can now see that both must be correct just by the patterns that we see in the universe.

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.

Why Space is Stationary

Let me explain why I have named my cosmology theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space", as detailed in the compound posting on this blog by that name. If you are unfamiliar with this theory there is an introduction there.

There are two examples here, one involving radiation in space and the other electrical transformers.

1) WHY ARE WE STILL RECEIVING RADIATION FROM THE BIG BANG?

We know that there must be a dimension of space over which matter is active but which we cannot see. As one example, consider the radiation left over from the Big Bang. We can receive and measure this radiation but we cannot pinpoint the direction in space from which it is coming. The radiation seems to be coming at us equally from all directions in space, allowing for the movement of the earth through space.

If the universe was expanding outward in the three dimensions that we see, we should be able to pinpoint the direction from which the universe is expanding, but we can't. That is because the Big Bang took place in the direction in space that we cannot see, but we perceive this unseen dimension as time. That is why we cannot place the location of the Big Bang in space, but know that it was in the past in our time dimension.

Time, as we perceive it, is really a dimension of space. Matter is not the particles in three dimensions that we perceive, but strings in four dimensions of space. Time really only exists within us. Our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. That is why we can find no real reason for why the speed of light is what it is, instead of some other speed.

When an object seems to us to be in motion, it is just that it's bundle of strings is at an angle to ours so that, as our consciousness proceeds, the object seems to be a three-dimensional object in motion. The greater the angle relative to us, the faster it seems to be moving. A 90 degree angle would represent the speed of light, which is the speed at which our consciousnesses are really moving.

But there is another question about the Big Bang. The fact that we cannot pinpoint it's direction but receive the radiation from it equally in all directions shows that there must be another dimension of space that we cannot see, but perceive as time. The other question is why we are still receiving radiation from the Big Bang at all.

Most scientists agree that the Big Bang took place nearly fourteen billion (thousand million) years ago. The Big Bang, the great explosion that began the universe, didn't last long. It was over in a matter of minutes. So the question is why we are still receiving radiation from it nearly fourteen billion years later. This really requires some special explanation.

My cosmology theory neatly explains it, and it shows why the theory is called "The Theory Of Stationary Space". Radiation is not still emanating from the Big Bang. Everything is really still. The universe has already happened at the instant of the Big Bang. It just seems to us to be in motion because our consciousnesses are moving through it, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. The only "new motion" in the universe is that brought about by living things.

This means that the radiation that we are receiving from the Big Bang is not really coming from the Big Bang now, it has been there in space ever since the Big Bang, and our consciousnesses are only just moving through it now. The radiation is aligned at right angles to the strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains, so it seems to be coming at us from all directions at what we perceive as the speed of light.

Our violent and energetic universe is actually perfectly still. It is not that nothing is happening, it is that it has already happened when matter was thrown out in an instant from the Big Bang. It just seems so energetic because of how fast our consciousnesses are moving through it, and we do not see that it is our consciousness that is the thing that is moving.

How else is there to explain why we are still bathed in radiation from the Big Bang, which we know only lasted minutes, nearly fourteen billion years after it happened?

That actually brings about the next question. The conventional model of the Big Bang is that both space and matter emanated outward from it at the same time.

But if space itself originated with the Big Bang then why should there be radiation from the Big Bang in that space? It doesn't seem to make sense. It makes it seem as if space was already there and the Big Bang introduced matter into the pre-existing space.

That is exactly the way my theory has it. Space was already there, brought about by charge replication in multiple dimensions. The number one rule of the universe, where everything is made of near infinitesimal electric charges, is that positive and negative electric charges must always balance out. The universe began with a single electric charge, whether positive or negative, but that created an imbalance and it had to induce an opposite charge on each side of it, but that created another imbalance, and so on.

Somehow, maybe by the Will of God, a discrepancy took place and a two-dimensional sheet began to form by the same process that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. But the electric charges in the background space influenced those in the two-dimensional sheet, by opposite charge attraction and like charge repulsion, so that charge migration took place in the sheet. Positive charges migrated toward one side and negative charges to the other side.

This created a lower-energy state, which is the second priority of the universe after charge balance, but it also opened the possibility of the positive side of the sheet coming into contact with the negative side, relative to the perspective of the multi-dimensional background space. That is what happened and the resulting matter-antimatter mutual annihilation is what we perceive as the Big Bang as one dimension of this two-dimensional sheet disintegrated and the other dimension, now as one-dimensional strings, was thrown out across the multi-dimensional background and is what we have today as matter.

The way I see it, there have long been theories about what happened after the Big Bang but this is the only one that explains why it actually happened.

Except that we can only see at right angles to the dimension in which the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains are aligned so that we see in the other three dimensions and perceive the one in which the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, along which our consciousness moves at what we perceive as the speed of light, as time.

2) WHY ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS DO NOT WORK WITH DIRECT CURRENT

Have you ever wondered why an electrical transformer will work with alternating current, AC, but not with direct current, DC? It turns out that the answer involves cosmology and also shows why everything is actually stationary, as described in my theory.

The advantage of alternating current, and the reason that it is favored for household and industrial use, is that it's voltage can be transformed, either stepped up or stepped down, to provide the desired ratio of voltage and current. The current, measured in amperes, refers to the actual flow of electrons through a wire. The voltage, measured in volts, is the pressure, referred to as electromotive force or potential difference. The two are both essential components of electricity and the power, measured in watts, is equal to voltage x current.

The units involved in electricity are all related. The unit of electrical resistance is an ohm. One volt will push a current of one ampere (amp) through a resistance of one ohm. The voltage multiplied by the amperage equals the total power, in watts.

This means that we might be able to vary the amperage (current) and the voltage, relative to one another, while keeping the total power (watts) constant. But why would we want to do that if it makes no difference in the total power of an electric circuit?

The reason is that electrical circuits through wires are not 100% efficient. If we transmit electricity over long distances, there are inevitable losses of power. But these losses affect current more than voltage.

That means that, if we could transform the current, exchanging voltage for current or vice-versa, we could supply electricity from a generating station far away, step the voltage up and the current down, and then step the voltage back down prior to household or industrial use. That would offer tremendous advantages in not having to have the electricity generated nearby in order to avoid current loss in the long-distance wires.

An electrical transformer is a simple device. There is a core made of iron, which is magnetic in nature. Two coils of wire are wrapped around the core. One is the input coil and the other is the output coil. How the voltage and current will be exchanged depends on how many turns of wire there are in each coil.

If the output coil has twice as many turns of wire as the input coil, the voltage in the output coil will be doubled but the current in the output coil will be halved. But the total electrical power, voltage x current, will remain the same. We could think of it as operating in the same way as a lever and a fulcrum, exchanging force and distance. A transformer is referred to as either a step-up or a step-down transformer. But this refers to the voltage, not to the current.

So being able to manipulate the current and voltage is a great advantage. But the transformer only works with alternating current, where the current changes direction many times per second, and not with direct current, where the positive and negative terminals remain constant.

Use of alternating current can be awkward because different countries use different frequencies, or cycles per second. At the time of this writing all countries use either 50 or 60 hertz, or cycles per second. There is no such thing as frequency with direct current. But alternating current is universally used because of this tremendous advantage that it can be transformed. Direct current is used mainly for things that run on batteries.

If we run direct current through a coil of wire, it will induce an opposite current in another coil of wire, and it will form an electromagnet if there is an iron core in that coil. But direct current will not work with a transformer in the way that alternating current will.

But why won't a transformer work with direct current? The electrons in a direct current are moving, they have power and can form an electromagnet. The transformer only works if the electrons are changing direction. In a direct current, the positions of the electrons are constantly changing as they move through the circuit, but this isn't enough to make a transformer work. A transformer only works when the electrons are not only moving, but changing direction.

But then the answer becomes clear. It is a matter of cosmology. Let's remember my cosmology theory.

In my cosmology theory, what we perceive as motion is really only the strings or bundles of strings that comprise matter bent at an angle. Our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, but we can only see at right angles to the direction in which our bundles of strings are primarily aligned in four-dimensional space so that we can only see in three of these four dimensions. The other dimension is that we perceive as time so that objects at an angle appear to be moving.

What this means, of course, is that the electrons in an electrical circuit are not really moving. They are bent at an angle to the alignment of our bundle of strings so that they appear to be in motion as our consciousness rushes by. There is energy in these electrons, but the energy is in the angle at which they are aligned. It is not the electrons, but our consciousnesses, that is actually moving. So it seems to us to be energy of motion.

The only change in the electron strings of direct current is when they are first set in motion, after that they are not actually moving. They are displaced from their position at rest, but are not actually in motion. This displacement, which are electron strings bent at an angle, has two components, the number of strings that are bent and the angle at which they are bent.

The only actual change is when the current is first started, after that the electron strings are stationary as long as all factors remain constant. This is why direct current cannot be transformed. To produce current that can be transformed the current must be started over and over again, because that is the only time there is an actual change, and it is really only change that enables an opportunity for transformation. The only practical way to do this is to get a current that flows back and forth, rather than in a continuous direction, in other words alternating current.

The exchange between voltage and current that a transformer facilitates can be explained simply as the number of electron strings and the angle at which they are bent. The number of electron strings represents the current. The angle at which they are bent represents the voltage. The total displacement of the strings represents the power. A transformer enables us to choose whether we want a few strings bent at more of an angle, or more strings bent at less of an angle, as long as the total displacement is the same.

But there is the opportunity to do this only when the current actually begins, because that is the only time that change is really taking place. As explained by my cosmology theory, everything is really static except for the new movement brought about by living things.

Spheres And Cubes

Let's have a look at how the fundamental differences in the forms of space and matter show that my cosmology theory must be correct. This has been added to the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space". If you are not familiar with this theory, you can read the introduction there.

We think of something spreading out equally in all directions from a given starting point as producing the form of a circle, in two dimensions, or a sphere, in three dimensions. But imagine mutually-induced electric charges, as the ones that formed space in my cosmology theory, with no time factor at all. It would form not a sphere but a cube, in as many dimensions as it could.

In my cosmology theory, space is indeed composed of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. Electromagnetic waves are actually disturbances in this checkerboard so that the waves seem to us to be electromagnetic because they disturb the underlying balance of negative and positive charges, which ordinarily have a net charge of zero.

We notice that a right angle is the most efficient use of space, it is only squares and rectangles that can fit together with no leftover space. But if space, as well as matter, could spread outward over time, as conventional models of the Big Bang that began the universe suppose, the dimensions of space would not form the right angles that they do. The dimensions of space would only form the right angles that they do if time were not a factor.

What this must mean, as in my cosmology theory, space and matter did absolutely not form together in the Big Bang. Space formed first and then matter.

Space, as we see in the fact that right angles are the only spatial forms that can fit together with no leftover space, is cubic. But if matter collects together in space by gravity, as we can see in planets and stars, it forms a sphere rather than a cube. So the shape of space in the universe is a cube, but the default form of matter is a sphere.

The difference between the two, as we saw at the beginning, was that matter depends on time, or on a sequence, but space doesn't.

Time can be described as motion, which is the practical effect of time. Without motion or change, time is meaningless. Time can also be described as a sequence. Time does not necessarily have to be measured in units of time. This means that, with matter, something must happen before something else can happen, a kind of sequential order, but this is not the case with space.

Suppose that water overflows and emerges from a drain. Presuming that the floor is level and unobstructed, the water will spread outward in the form of a circle. Time and sequence is a factor. A spot closest to the source of water must be filled before the next spot outward can be filled. So clearly matter does not work in the same way as space, the two are completely different, as different as a sphere and a cube.

But yet space cannot have formed in this way because the shape of space is clearly right-angled. Think about this conundrum, the default form of matter by gravity is always a sphere but yet space forms right angles so that it is only squares or rectangles that can fit together with no leftover space.

If matter and space formed together in the Big Bang, as conventional models of it suppose, then shouldn't the two have the same form? Planets and stars should either be cubic or spheres should fit together in space with no space leftover. Instead, spheres assembled together are the form that leaves the maximum amount of leftover space. This apparently simple fact requires some special explanation.

Space must have formed with no time or sequence factor at all, and then matter must have formed with a definite time and sequence factor. And that is exactly the way it is in my cosmology theory.