Orbitals In Atoms And Orbits In Space

The orbitals of electrons around nuclei in atoms is very similar to the much-larger scale orbits of moons around planets and planets around stars. But there is one crucial difference that I think should get more attention because it reveals a lot about the underlying electrical nature of the universe.

The difference between the two confirms the principle seen in my cosmology theory, described in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", that both space and matter is composed of nearly-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Empty space is a perfectly alternating pattern of the negative and positive charges. Matter is any concentration of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.

This energy that holds the like charges of matter together against their mutual repulsion is why matter has mass. It also explains why a certain mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy, the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.

Antimatter is like matter except that the electric charges are reversed from ordinary matter. Positively-charged positrons are in atomic orbitals around negatively-charged anti-protons. When matter and antimatter are reacted together, the electric charges composing both realign back into the alternating pattern of empty space and the fantastic burst of energy that is released is the energy that had been holding like charges of each together against their mutual repulsion.

Matter, as opposed to space, is where there is energy holding together like electric charges against their mutual repulsion. But if the two electric charges, negative and positive, are equal then the two rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, must also be equal. If matter is where energy overcomes the rule that like charges repel, that means there must be a net attractive force involving matter.

There is indeed an attractive force involving matter. It is what we call gravity, and this explains what it is.

If energy can overcome the repulsive force between like charges to create matter, then energy should also be able to overcome the attractive force between opposite charges. That is what creates electromagnetic radiation and is why using energy to move electrons along a radio antenna, overcoming the bonds that the electrons had to the nuclei of their native atoms, creates radio waves.

When matter and antimatter are reacted together, the energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence that was holding the like charges of both together against their mutual repulsion is released. The electric charges that comprised the matter and antimatter rearranges themselves into the alternating negative and positive charge pattern of empty space. The energy that once held the like charges of both together, against their mutual repulsion, is released. What energy always ultimately does is to overcome the basic rules of the electric charges. The released energy now goes to overcoming the attractive forces between opposite charges in space. That is why the energy that once held the masses of matter and antimatter together is released as a burst of electromagnetic radiation.

The difference between the electron orbitals in atoms and the orbits of moons and planets involves the space between the two.

There is one obvious difference between the orbits of a Solar System and the electron orbitals inside atoms. The gravity that governs orbits in the Solar System is solely an attractive force. But the electrical forces within atoms include both the attraction of the negatively-charged electrons to the positively-charged nucleus, and the electrons' mutual repulsion of each other.

The mutual repulsion of electrons in an atom bring about rules of their orbitals, nothing like of which applies to the orbits of a Solar System. Electrons orbit in shells that are governed by their mutual repulsion. The shells are numbered 1,2,3... The maximum number of electrons in a shell is given by the formula 2 (N squared). N is the number of the orbital.

The maximum number of electrons in the first orbital is thus 2 x 1 squared. Since 1 squared = 1, that means the maximum number of electrons in the first orbital is 2.

The maximum number of electrons in the second orbital is 2 x 2 squared, which equals 8.

The maximum number of electrons in the third shell of any atom is 2 x 3 squared, which equals 18.

The maximum number of electrons in the fourth orbital of any atom is 2 x 4 squared, which equals 32.

The formula for the maximum number of electrons in an electron orbital shell stops here. There can be more than four electron shells but the maximum number of electrons in any shell of any atom is 32.

The reason that the formula is 2N is that the 2 is because electrons exist in pairs, each with a spin that is opposite to the other. There are two possible spins for an electron, "up" and "down". There may be unpaired electrons and in some materials the orbitals of unpaired electrons can be aligned so that the material exerts an electromotive force. Materials with the orbitals of their unpaired electrons aligned are known as magnets. The square in the formula of 2N squared is because energy in space is governed by the Inverse Square Law.

That is one major difference between the orbitals of electrons in atoms and the orbits of planets and moons in a Solar System, the organization of electrons into orbital shells, but it is not the difference that I am referring to today.

In astronomical orbits, distance is always equivalent to energy. If we give a satellite in orbit more orbital energy, it will not move faster in the orbit it is in. Rather, it will climb to a higher orbit.

The formula is squared. If we give an object in orbit three times the orbital energy, it will climb to 9 times the altitude but will move at one-third the speed.

But the difference that I find so significant is that, with the orbitals of electrons inside the atom, it is the opposite.

The Periodic Table of the Elements is arranged according to the number of electron shells of each element, and the number of electrons in the outermost shell. The table is arranged like a calendar, with the same number of electron shells in all elements in the same row, and the same number of electrons in the outermost shell in each column.

As we go rightward across a row on the table the elements get successively heavier, with one additional proton and electron with each space in the table. This means that there is more electrical force between nucleus and electrons, because with each successively heavier element there is one more negatively-charged electron in an orbital and one more positively-charged proton in the nucleus.

Since negative and positive charges mutually attract, this means more orbital energy. If the same rules applied as in astronomical orbits, the atoms should get larger as we move rightward across a row on the Periodic Table, but instead the atoms actually get smaller in diameter, more massive and compact but smaller in diameter.

I can remember when this used to really puzzle me. It makes sense that atoms should get more compact as we move rightward across a row of the Periodic Table, because there is one additional proton and electron with each successive atom and thus the atom gets more compact, and smaller in diameter, at least until we add another electron shell.

But yet it also makes sense the way additional orbital energy in an astronomical orbit results in a higher, rather than a more compact, orbit. We can see that, if two objects fall to earth, the one that was higher will impact the ground with more energy. This shows that orbital energy is stored as distance in space, the altitude of the orbit.

The question is why, when the orbitals of electrons in atoms are so similar to the orbits of moons and planets in space, the way that additional orbital energy is stored is opposite. Atoms get smaller in diameter, more compact at least until an additional electron shell is added, while astronomical orbits get higher when additional energy is added.

There is actually a simple answer but it requires accepting the premise of my cosmology theory that empty space is composed of an alternating checkerboard of nearly-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. An alternating pattern of negative and positive charges is the lowest energy state, because of the basic rules that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.

Energy can rearrange this alternating arrangement of negative and positive charges. In fact, energy ultimately always overcomes the basic rules of the electric charges.

We saw how the particles comprising matter, such as electrons, are concentrations of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. This energy is why matter has mass and is referred to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This energy is totally released during a matter-antimatter reaction and partially released during a nuclear reaction.

If energy is thus released from matter it will go from overcoming the mutual repulsion of the like charges comprising the matter to overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges in empty space. This is how electromagnetic waves are produced.

This explains why the addition of orbital energy in atoms and at an astronomical level obeys opposite rules.

Space, as described in my cosmology theory, is composed of an alternating checkerboard of opposite electric charges, in multiple dimensions. Energy is stored by overcoming the basic rules of these charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. It is the presence of charged particles that so distorts the usual alternating checkerboard of opposite charges in space.

The electric charges in atoms, other than ions that have gained or lost electrons, ordinarily balance out to zero. This means that, in our scenario of astronomical orbits, net electric charge is not a factor. The electric charges in the earth, the moon and, the planets, all balance out to zero.

But within the atom, that is not the case. The electrons in orbitals have a negative charge, and the protons in the nucleus a positive charge. The space between them is composed of alternating negative and positive charges.

The difference between the astronomical orbits and the electron orbitals is that, within the atom, the charged particles distort the alternating pattern of the charges in the space between the nucleus and the electrons in orbitals. The electrons pull positive charges of space toward them, pushing negative charges away, while the protons in the nucleus do the opposite.

Adding another proton and electron, in successively heavier atoms, distorts the checkerboard structure of charges in the atom until an equilibrium is reached, the repulsion between like charges now dominating the electric charges of the space within the atom, until it balances the electrical attraction between the electrons and protons within the atom.

With astronomical orbits, because the electric charges balance out to zero, this is not possible and the only way to store orbital energy is the altitude of the orbit.

This proves, as stipulated in my cosmology theory, that space must be composed of alternating electric charges.

The cosmology theory is more briefly described in the posting on this blog,"In Cosmology, Everything Just Fell Right Into Place", May 2019.

Recent News

COMET NEOWISE

If you are awake before sunrise there is a brilliant light in the eastern sky. I saw it but thought it was Venus. It is actually a comet, called Neowise. It will not pass close to the earth again for more than six thousand years. I remember seeing the comet Hale-Bopp in 1997.

"The Configuration Of The Solar System Made Really Simple", March 2017, explains the mystery of why the orbits of comets are so extremely eccentric.

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 and Solar System originated with a large star that exploded as a supernova, and some of it's component matter fell back together by gravity to form the Solar System.

A supernova is a star exploding from it's center, due to changes in the equilibrium of the star as it moves through the successive stages of the fusion process. But it can also undergo a lesser explosion in an effort to regain it's equilibrium as the energy released by the fusion process increases as successively heavier elements are fused together in the star's core. This is a nova that blasts off the star's outer layers, as opposed to the star exploding from the center as a supernova.

I am certain that the massive star that preceded the sun underwent at least one nova before exploding as a supernova. More likely it underwent three. A nova would have blasted into space the lighter elements in the outer layers of the star. It was from these lighter atoms that comets formed.

The comets thus formed would have been in orbit around the still-massive star. The energy of an orbit is the area of space enclosed by it. When the star exploded as a supernova the much-smaller sun formed from some of the matter which fell back together by gravity.

But the comets couldn't have had the same orbital energy as before, simply because the sun was much smaller than the star it had replaced. The orbits of those comets would have to somehow "shrink", but yet the original information of their orbits around the star that had preceded the sun couldn't just be lost.

That explains why the orbits of comets are so eccentric and elongated today.

DONALD TRUMP AS KING

Don't forget why Donald Trump, and U.S. Republic presidents in general, do not think it necessary to adhere to rules that the president of a democracy would usually have to follow.

The compound posting on this blog, "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", December 2015, was written well before Donald Trump took office. It explains how America's Republicans are actually the continuation of the Bourbon Dynasty of France.

This dynasty was America's first ally, helped it gain independence, and was the first to give America diplomatic recognition. But then the Bourbon Dynasty was overthrown and guillotined in the French Revolution, although it was temporarily restored after the time of Napoleon.

America's Republicans became the heirs of this dynasty. This is why Donald Trump acts like a king, rather than a president. That confirms what we saw in the posting.

A king doesn't have to answer to ordinary mortals if he wants to pardon his friend from justice. The critical book by Donald Trump's niece fits this royal scenario also. She would represent a cadet, and possibly rival, branch of the royal family.

GREETINGS TO TORONTO READERS

I would really like to spend a nice day having a look around Toronto. But, of course, I can't. That does not change that neither the border nor this ridiculous virus can stop my thoughts from being with my Toronto readers.

The Number Of Stars In The Universe

Here is something to think about. There are a certain number of stars in the universe. Although we do not know the exact number that number is information, and information must come from somewhere. Why are there as many stars in the universe as there are?

My theory of "The Lowest Information Point", December 2017, offers an answer. Although we cannot tell the actual number of stars, we can see where the number comes from.

The theory is based on the idea 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.

Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how 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.

We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. An object will fall to the ground because that requires less energy than holding it in the air. Matter collecting by gravity in space will form a sphere because a sphere is the three- dimensional geometric form with the lowest energy.

So then if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and energy and information is really the same thing, then the universe should also seek the "Lowest Information State", hence the name of the theory.

The lowest information state would mean reusing numbers. It would also mean preferring a square over a rectangle, a square requiring less information because it's two dimensions are equal. This can mean a square in pattern, and not necessarily an actual geometric square.

Another example of the Lowest Information Point is related ratios.

Suppose that we have two sets of related ratios as follows,

A / B = B / C and

A/ B = C/ D

The universe should prefer the first set of related ratios. It contains only three pieces of information whereas the second set contains four. The first set only contains three pieces of information because the numerator of one ratio, B, is also the denominator of the other ratio. Such reuse of numbers makes it possible for the universe to reach the lowest information point.

There is a section of "The Lowest Information Point", December 2017, titled 1) THE BIAS TOWARD DUST. According to my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", everything in the universe, both space and matter, is composed of nearly-infinitesimal electric charges. Planck's Length is a nearly-infinitesimal distance that shows up in all manner of physics formulas, and the reason is that it is the size of one of these electric charges.

Then we have an idea of the scale of the entire universe.

The reason that so much of the matter in the universe is in the form of dust, at least the heavier elements that have been through the fusion process in stars, that there is a "bias toward dust", is explained by "The Lowest Information Point". It is that the typical scale of a speck of dust is exactly halfway between the nearly-infinite scale of the entire universe and the nearly-infinitesimal scale of it's component electric charges.

Such reuse of information is how the universe achieves the "Lowest Information Point".

So we see this clear relationship between the entire universe, the electric charges composing it, and the dust that is the form of so much of it's heavier matter. But what else might we be able to discern from it? There is a finite number of stars in that universe, but whatever that number is it is information, and information must come from somewhere, and the universe always seeks the "Lowest Information Point".

Googling the number of stars in the universe gives us a figure of a billion trillion. This number would be written as a 1 followed by 21 zeros. There are higher estimates that I have seen but this is the generally accepted figure, not counting red and brown dwarfs as stars.

Students of chemistry may notice how close this is, relatively speaking, to Avogadro's Number, which is 6.02 followed by 23 zeros. In fact, our figure for the approximate number of stars is just about a six hundredth of Avogadro's Number.

Avogadro's Number is the number of atoms or molecules in an object, relative to it's mass in grams.

The atomic mass of iron is 56, meaning that there are 56 nucleons, protons and neutrons, in an atom of iron.

So, if we get a piece of iron with a mass of 56 grams, it will contain Avogadro's Number of atoms.

The atomic mass, sometimes called the atomic weight, of an element is always the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Electrons have an equal, but opposite, electric charge to the proton but have so little mass that they don't count. We can also use molecular mass, meaning the total number of nucleons in a molecule.

A gram is about the mass of a paper clip. Avogadro's Number is an arbitrary unit based on a gram. If the gram was different then Avogadro's Number would be different.

The dust of which so much of the matter in the universe is composed, because of "The Bias Toward Dust", consists of many different elements which have different masses. We know that the component elements of dust must be heavier than the two lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, which were the original atoms of the universe before fusion in stars. We also know that, as a rule, lighter elements tend to be more abundant than heavier elements.

Suppose that the average mass of an atom in the dust of the universe is that of oxygen, with an atomic mass of 16. Remember that we should expect a mote of dust in the universe as a whole to be heavier than one on earth because dust in the universe, mostly debris from exploding stars that hasn't yet condensed by gravity into new stars, will tend to contain much more metal than dust on earth.

If Avogadro's Number is six hundred times the number of stars in the universe, and we divide that by sixteen, that means that if the average bit of dust in the universe had a mass of about 2/75 gram, it would mean that there is about the same number of stars in the universe as there is atoms in a typical speck of dust toward which the matter of the universe is biased and of which so much of the heavier matter of the universe is composed.

This would make perfect sense and would be an ideal example of the principle of "The Lowest Information Point". There is a bias toward dust because the scale of a typical mote of dust is exactly halfway between the scale of the universe itself and the scale of the nearly-infinitesimal electric charges of which the universe is composed. Then there is about the same number of atoms in one of these specks of dust as there is stars in the universe.

Energy And Information In Water And Planetary Impacts

There have been a lot of investigations on this blog recently but science is what I really enjoy writing about.

A fundamental principle of my information theory, detailed in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Complexity", August 2017, is that energy and information is really the same thing. We can see all around us how energy and information always end up being equivalent.

Let's look at two examples today, water and planetary impacts.

We can immediately see that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it.

Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how 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.

ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN WATER

Distance in space is information. Since energy and information is really the same thing then distance must also be energy. This is why it requires energy to move an object from one place to another.

If distance is energy then the surface area of an object must also be energy. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. That is why the sphere is the default gravitational form of matter in the universe, such as for planets and stars. A sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form. Since distance, and thus surface area, is energy, this makes the sphere the lowest energy state.

If we heat water, the heat is energy. The water will expand in volume, increasing it's surface area because surface area is equivalent to energy and information.

If the heated water is within colder water, the heated water will rise. This is because altitude is also energy, which shouldn't be surprising because altitude is distance. We can easily see how altitude is energy in that an object falls with greater force when it falls from a higher altitude. Also, if we give more orbital energy to a satellite then it will orbit at a higher altitude.

If we heat water to the boiling point it will expand in volume by a few percent. But more of the water will evaporate as it is heated. These water molecules in the air have the effect of greatly increasing the surface area of the water, because surface area is equivalent to energy.

Water evaporates from it's surface. But when the water reaches a certain temperature, related to the atmospheric pressure on the water, evaporation begins to take place throughout the volume of the water. This condition is known as boiling.

The bubbling within the water as it is boiling effectively increases the surface area of the water, because the heat that brings about boiling is energy and surface area is equivalent to energy. The surface of the water loses it's smoothness as the boiling point is approached and that also increases the surface area of the water.

The water molecules leaving the water because of the heat energy increases the surface area of the water, because surface area is equivalent to energy. But the molecules rise into the air, and altitude is also energy. This represents too much energy. But when water molecules condense together to form steam, this has the effect of decreasing the overall surface area of the water, bringing it back into line with the actual heat energy, even though the total surface area, including the steam droplets, is more than the surface area of the water before it was heated.

The formation of steam thus serves to maintain the equivalence of surface area and energy, because the altitude of the water molecules that left by evaporation is energy too.

Wind contains energy. Wind across water produces waves. The waves increase the surface area of the water to reflect the energy of the wind, because surface area represents energy.

Water evaporates because water is actually lighter than air by molecule, although it takes energy to break the hydrogen bonds in water. But upon reaching a certain altitude, with thinner and cooler air, water molecules condense together, upon a suitable condensation nuclei such as dust. When these droplets, which form clouds, condense together it means a loss of surface area.

Since surface area is energy, this must mean a loss of energy. But energy cannot just be lost, it shows up in the altitude energy of the now- much heavier than air large water droplets, and then the energy of their impact on the ground when they fall as rain.

ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN PLANETARY IMPACTS

The reason that impacts are still going on in the Solar System is explained by my information theory.

The Solar System formed, maybe four and a half billion years ago, when a massive star that preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. Only the largest stars can explode as a supernova. Much of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process.

Each planet has it's own orbit. The planets do not collide for the simple reason that, if they were going to collide they wouldn't have formed separately in the first place.

But while planets themselves do not collide, there is still plenty of consolidation going on in the Solar System by gravity.

For each object in orbit around the sun, such as a planet or asteroid, there is it's orbital energy and the information of it's position. To understand why impacts take place during the ongoing consolidation of the Solar System, we must understand that we cannot keep the same orbital energy when the information of position in the Solar System is reduced by consolidation.

The reason for that, of course, is that energy and information is really the same thing.

Orbital energy is based on distance from the sun. The higher the orbit the higher the energy. If a meteor or asteroid, from a higher orbit, collides with the earth, so that it becomes part of the earth, the difference in the energy of it's former higher orbit shows up as the energy of the impact.

Another way of looking at it is that if the meteor or asteroid joins the earth so that the two now share information of position, that means less total information. Since energy and information is really the same thing then it must also mean less energy. But neither energy nor information can just disappear, it must go somewhere. The energy of the impact of the meteor or asteroid with the earth is where the excess energy went. The change to the earth's surface by the asteroid impact is where the latent information went.

This is, of course, because energy and information is really the same thing.  Distance is information and we know that a higher orbit is a higher energy orbit. This means that orbital energy and information of position is really the same thing. My information theory explains why distance is information. A higher number is no more complex, holds no more information, than a lower number. The complexity of a number, it's information level, is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio.

9 is no more complex than 4 because 9 is really 9 / 1 and 4 is really 4 / 1.

But a ratio like 1 / 5 means that there are five possibilities and there must be information as to why one or more are included but the others are not.

Thus there is a complexity level of 5.

Distance is thus information because there are more possibilities of where something of a given size could be located within the distance, and the information of the entire distance would be necessary to specify where that location was.

A heavier impact by the meteor or asteroid on earth would involve more energy, but that means more information because energy and information is really the same thing. The greater information of the impact lies in the greater number of atoms and molecules that were displaced over a greater distance from their original positions.

This can only mean that energy and information is the same thing.

The Latest Developments

NAVIGATION BY TELEPHONE POLES AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS

We have gotten really dependent on GPS. But remember that it can be vulnerable to something like a solar storm. Satellites can also be shot down.

There is a low-tech potential complement to the GPS system right in front of us.

Wherever people settle there will be telephone poles, spaced roughly evenly. We often express driving directions in terms of traffic lights.

Why not just attach a visible number to every traffic light and telephone pole? Location can then be easily expressed or determined by the nearest number. The information for the entire world could easily be stored on an app or added to Google Maps.

This would be so simple and convenient. There are distance markers on highways, why couldn't we do this?

Remember that one reason for the awkwardness of the GPS system is that we count by tens but the angular measurement is done by a base twelve system. We saw this in "The Queen Of Numbers", on the Progress Blog, www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com .

SPACE JUNK AND RADIO RECEPTION

One thing that should get more attention is the connection between space junk and radio reception.

Much has been written about "space junk", the mostly metallic debris that is leftover since the beginning of the Space Age. The fragments orbit the earth at high speed and endanger space vehicles and satellites.

Trying to clean up space junk risks making it worse because it would be better to have one large piece, that can be more easily tracked and avoided, than to have it break into smaller pieces.

But there is a plus side to space junk. It should improve radio reception over long distances.

The earth's ionosphere reflects waves of longer wavelength. The longest waves, meaning the lowest frequency, can use the ionosphere as a waveguide. But shorter waves, particularly television and higher-fidelity radio waves, pass right through the ionosphere, which are layers of charged particles in earth's upper atmosphere.

That is where communication and broadcast satellites come in, receiving and retransmitting signals that would otherwise not be received because of the curvature of the earth.

But each bit of space junk is, in effect, a micro-satellite. The average altitude of space junk is about twice as high as the ionosphere. Space junk should shorten the wavelength threshold of the signals that are reflected back to earth and possibly lengthen the surface distance that waves that are not reflected can be received.

In fact, the increase in radio reception can be used as an index of the dangers of space junk, as more smaller pieces, as opposed to fewer larger pieces, will not only improve radio reception at a distance more but will also be more perilous to satellites and spacecraft.

WORD DEVELOPMENT

A quick look at an old book or document shows how words change over time. We can see how modern technology and signage is accelerating the changes in our time.

Aside from abbreviations,

Night is becoming Nite.

Through is becoming Thru.

You is becoming U.

Want To Be is becoming Wannabe.

For is also being expressed as 4.

THE RETURN OF HIEROGLYPHICS

We saw in "The Center Of The World", on the World And Economics Blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com how important Egypt has been to human history. The ancient Egyptians used a system of writing based on pictures, known as hieroglyphics.

But the development of alphabets, first by the Phoenicians and then the Greeks, and Oriental writing with characters, hieroglyphics fell out of favor.

But then along came modern technology, and with it global travel and communications, and now hieroglyphics is making a major comeback.

On highway signs across the world, a knife and fork with a plate is the symbol for dining and food. A person sleeping is the symbol for accommodation. A fuel pump is the symbol of a filling station. Male and female figures are the symbols of washrooms.

The use of hieroglyphics will only increase. Other methods of writing have the advantage of being easier when writing is difficult and time-consuming. But that ceases to be the case with modern graphics technology.

The great advantage of hieroglyphics is that it requires little or no translation for people speaking different languages, and in our globalised world that makes all the difference.

Remember that we saw the real meaning of Egypt's pyramids in "The Underground Orion Correlation Theory", March 2016 on this blog.