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.