We usually define a straight line as "the shortest possible distance between two points. But is it really? Since we always define a straight line as the path of light, and other electromagnetic radiation, through space, and are utterly dependent on this electromagnetic radiation for our information about the universe, how can we be certain that there are not "shortcuts" across space that we are unable to see?
This is about my concept of straight lines being a matter of definition, particularly with regard to what I refer to as "Electron Dependency". Rather than "the shortest possible distance between two points" a straight line might better be defined as "the route of lowest energy between two points". The question then becomes whether these two definitions are identical.
Along the way we will look at optical illusions and the two newer branches of physics that do not adhere to the rules of conventional physics, Relativity and Quantum Physics, not necessarily because these branches of physics hold the answer to the mystery of whether straight lines are open to definition but just as a reminder that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
Obviously there will be more than one possible definition of a straight line if we are in a dimensional set that is within a background of a greater number of dimensions, if our dimensional set is bent or twisted relative to the background dimensions, but I think there are possibilities of straight lines being open to definition even within our dimensional set.
CONTENTS:
1) THE SPECTRUM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUMS
2) OPTICAL ILLUSIONS
3) THE DECEPTION OF RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
4) STRAIGHT LINES ARE REALLY THE LOWEST ENERGY ROUTE OF TRANSITION
5) DIMENSIONS AND STRAIGHT LINES
6) THE QUESTION OF STRAIGHT LINES OTHER THAN WITH DIMENSIONS
1) THE SPECTRUM OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUMS
Two of the great mysteries of the universe involve what we can't see.
According to the amount of matter that we can see in our galaxy, and the rate that our galaxy is spinning, it should fly apart by centrifugal force, but yet clearly it doesn't. The conclusion scientists came to is that there must be some kind of "dark matter" that we can't see but exerts gravitational force. The trouble is that a search has been going on for about a century and not the slightest trace of this "dark matter" has been found.
Another thing we cannot see are quarks. Quark Theory explains so much and is widely accepted, but no individual quark has ever been seen or detected. Quarks come in six types, plus the corresponding six antiquarks of antimatter, but the only two that really matter to us are the "up" and "down" quarks.
Quarks have partial electric charges, relative to the -1 charge on electrons and the +1 charge on protons. An "up" quark has an electric charge of + 2/3 and a "down" quark has an electric charge of - 1/3. So that two up quarks and one down quark together gives us a proton, with an overall charge of + 1, and two down quarks with one up quark gives us a neutron with an overall charge of zero. Electrons are a different class of particles, called leptons, and are not composed of quarks.
But no isolated quarks, outside of protons and neutrons, has ever been detected.
Stars composed of quarks, actually collapsed former stars, are theorized to exist. Stars are an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy released by fusion in the center of the star because the mutual gravity of the star's mass is enough to crunch small atoms together into larger ones, which contain less overall energy than the smaller atoms which were crunched together. The excess energy is released as radiation, which is why stars shine.
But the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron. Unless the star explodes in a supernova, which only happens to the largest stars, without the energy released by the fusion process gravity will take over and the very atoms, which are mostly empty space, of the star will be crushed. Electrons will be crunched into protons, the process known as K-capture, to produce neutrons. The result is a star, composed only of neutrons, and known as a "neutron star", although it is no longer technically a star because fusion is no longer taking place.
Plenty of neutron stars have been detected. The material of a neutron star is incredibly dense and, if neutrons are indeed composed of quarks, further gravitational collapse should take place so that a quark star, a star composed of quarks, should form. Further collapse should then take place to form a black hole. Like neutron stars plenty of black holes have been found, but no quark stars.
If quarks really exist, and quark theory explains so much and is very widely accepted, then why can't we see or detect any quark stars?
Since we cannot see dark matter, but it has a powerful gravitational effect, and we can't see or detect quarks, but they make up the vast majority of the mass of atoms, has anyone ever thought that maybe dark matter is quarks that never became part of atoms?
Could it be that the answer to these baffling mysteries is right in front of us? Maybe it only requires a little bit of thinking outside the box.
A basic presumption of science has always been that we have an unbiased view of the universe, that we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. But what if we don't? What if we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are? Maybe that is why there is so much about the universe that we just can't explain, that doesn't make sense to us.
What I refer to as "Electron Dependency" means that what we can see, measure and, detect all depends on electrons. The electromagnetic waves that we depend on are all generated, in some way, by the movement of electrons.
The only way that we can see or detect electromagnetic waves is the photoelectric effect, the energy of the waves knock electrons out of their orbitals in atoms, creating an electric current. Light is reflected by objects, so that we can see the objects, by electrons in orbitals of atoms without knocking the electrons out of their orbitals.
Of course since we are completely dependent on electrons to receive or detect electromagnetic waves this affects our perception of the electrons themselves. Electrons seem like just point particles, with no internal structure at all. It is impossible for us to detect what is inside electrons if we are dependent on the electrons themselves for information.
My concept of Electron Dependency is that we can only see or detect electromagnetic waves that are produced or reflected by electrons, or another particle with a whole electric charge. This means an electric charge of 1, whether the -1 of electrons or the +1 of antimatter positrons. As far as I know antimatter, which is like ordinary matter but with the electric charges reversed, would handle electromagnetic waves in the same way as ordinary matter and we could not tell matter and antimatter apart just by looking at it.
We think in terms of whole electric charge. What I mean by that is the charge of -1 on an electron or +1 on a proton. That is to be expected since all of the matter we deal with is composed of atoms which are composed of the subatomic particles that have whole electric charges.
Again we come back to the issue of us thinking that we have an unbiased view of the universe. Just because the matter that we are composed of and that we deal with are made of whole electric charges, either +1 or -1, we presume that to be the way it always is.
But what if a whole electric charge is really an arbitrary amount? We measure distance in the fixed units of meters. However a meter is an arbitrary length. It could just as easily been decided that some other length would be defined as a meter. The same could be true of electric charge.
In my cosmology theory a particle like an electron is a bundle of the fundamental electric charges that the universe is made of. An electron is all negative charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy, and this energy is what gives matter it's mass and shows up as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. The formula for Mass-Energy Equivalence is Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared.
But a certain number of these charges are held together as an electron, it seems that the charge on all electrons are equal to one another, the -1. But the number of fundamental electric charges that are held together to form an electron, with the charge that we refer to as -1, is the way it is just because of the way the universe came together in the Big Bang. It could just as well have been different, which would have made the -1 and +1 different.
So why don't we start thinking of the charge on protons and electrons as an amount of charge that could have been different, rather than the absolutely ironclad +1 and -1?
This is difficult to do because not only are we dealing with electric charge defined by the number of electrons in things like electricity and chemistry, we are dealing with the equal but opposite charge of protons in things like nuclear science and fusion in stars. At this point it seems that we are incapable of breaking protons or electrons apart so we always deal with whole charges, +1 or -1, and this is what we are used to.
We know that quarks do not have what we define as "whole" electric charges. An up quark has a fractional charge of + 2/3 and a down quark - 1/3. Hadrons, particles like protons and neutrons, are composed of three quarks. 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 a neutron, with a net charge of zero.
But if the electromagnetic waves that we can see and receive are always based on "whole" electric charges, that explains why we cannot observe either quarks or quark stars, which have been theorized to exist. It also explains the great mystery of dark matter, the apparently great amount of matter in the universe that has a powerful gravitational effect, but which we cannot see or detect.
This also explains black holes, which actually sound like a large collection of dark matter. If we depend on electrons to see or detect matter, other than by gravity, then the matter should be invisible once the structure of atoms has collapsed.
All of the electromagnetic spectrum that we detect, from gamma rays to radio waves, are based on whole electric charges, -1 or +1. Matter that is not based on whole electric charges, namely quarks, will not be detectable in our electromagnetic spectrum.
Yet quarks are based on electric charges too, the fractional electric charges of 2/3 and 1/3. Quarks should have their own electromagnetic spectrum, based on their electric charges which are different from what we define as our "whole" charges.
This means that the electromagnetic spectrum, the waves produced by processes involving charged particles, must be two-dimensional. Not only is there the electromagnetic spectrum that we are familiar with, there is also a "spectrum of spectrums" based on the amount of charge involved in producing the wave.
Our familiar spectrum is, of course, based on the whole electric charges. Quarks must have their own spectrum and, like different radio stations, the two are not "tuned in" to each other.
If quarks could think, and were speculating about other spectrums as I am doing here, down quarks, which we see as having a fractional charge of - 1/3, would see up quarks, which we see as having a fractional charge of + 2/3, as having a multiple charge of 2. Down quarks would see our familiar spectrum as having a multiple charge of 3.
If up quarks could think they would see down quarks as having a fractional charge of 1/2 and our familiar spectrum as having a fractional charge of 3/2.
What this idea if Electron Dependency is really all about is not charges or particles but about the nature of electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves, other than those echoing from the Big Bang, are produced by matter and are defined by their interaction with matter. There are not different types of electric charges but there are different amounts of charge in the matter that produces the waves.
Just as different radio stations are not "tuned in" to one another so waves from matter of one amount of charge will not be detectable by matter composed of a different charge, although there would still be gravity between the matter.
This is why we have never detected individual quarks or quark stars and cannot see dark matter or black holes. Noticing this was not really difficult. It just required some "thinking outside the box", and the realization 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.
2) OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (formerly part of VISION AND STRAIGHT LINES)
I am really fascinating by the concept of straight lines. Straight lines are very important to us. We depend on light, which travels in straight lines, to give us information about the world around us. We define a straight line as the shortest distance between two points.
The trouble with that is the point that our very definition of straight lines is the path that light takes across space. The reasoning goes around in a circle. We say that light travels in straight lines, but our very definition of a straight line is the route that light takes.
One of the basic principles of science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe. But what if we don't? Maybe it's time to question that.
Let's begin with our vision, upon which we are so dependent for information.
First, we do not actually see objects. We see the light that is reflected or radiated by those objects. Light does not always give us a completely accurate picture of our surroundings.
There are what we call optical illusions, meaning that we do not see things as they really are due to the interaction of light with the intervening environment. Rainbows and sun dogs, where white light is broken down into it's component colors through refraction by water droplets, and the shimmering water mirage, on a hot road or surface some distance ahead, are the best-known optical illusions.
The "twinkling" of stars is another optical illusion. Stars do not really twinkle. It is the effect of the earth's atmosphere, which the light passes through, that causes the apparent twinkling, in contrast with the steady light from planets.
Stars also do not have the "points" that we often portray them with. The sun is a star, and we can see that it is spherical. The "points" that stars may appear to have is a trick of our vision.
An ideal example of how we see the light, rather than the objects themselves, is the blue of the sky. Light is reflected by objects that are around the same size as the wavelength of the light. Wavelength is the inverse of frequency, a higher frequency means a shorter wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength of visible light, and blue the shortest.
The sky is blue because it's short wavelength is closest to the typical scale of the dust particles in the air, so that only the blue light is reflected to our eyes. When there is a large-scale fire, the sky may appear orange instead of blue. That is because it puts larger dust particles in the air and, until they settle to earth, reflect the longer wavelengths of light.
Longer wavelengths are scattered, by either reflection or refraction, less than shorter wavelengths. This is why sunsets or sunrises appear red or orange. The shorter wavelengths of blue light are scattered away altogether and only the longer wavelengths get through for us to see. It is also the reason that streetlights in Britain are orange, the longer wavelengths are refracted less by droplets of fog.
The same principle applies to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. If you drive under an overpass with the radio on longer wavelengths, such as AM in North America, will fade but shorter wavelengths, such as FM in North America, won't. That is because the longer wavelengths are close to the size of the overpass, and are reflected away, while the shorter wavelengths can be reflected around and received under the overpass.
Another optical illusion is how deep water appears blue. While the sky is blue because of reflection, from dust particles in the air, the sea is blue because the shortest wavelength, which is blue, is refracted the most. Water eventually absorbs light, but absorbs the longest wavelengths first. If you look at underwater photographs, you may notice that you never see anything red below a depth of about 9 meters, or 30 feet. Only blue lasts long enough before being absorbed, and is refracted enough, to be refracted back to the surface. That is why deep water appears blue, but it is yet another optical illusion.
Another way that the light from objects does not show us those objects as they really are is transparency. If the atoms or molecules of a material are lined up in a regular pattern, that material will appear transparent to us if light can pass right between the atoms.
Also, if we magnify light by the use of lenses, an optical microscope cannot magnify more than about 1400x due to the wavelength of light.
After optical illusions the next issue concerning vision that we come to is color.
The colors of visible light that we see, from lowest frequency and longest wavelength to highest frequency and shortest wavelength, is red, orange, yellow, green and, blue. But color does not actually exist, outside of ourselves. We see something as red or blue because of how our eyes and brains interpret different wavelengths of light. Other than that, there is really no such thing as color.
We could thus say that color itself, the most basic element of vision, is an optical illusion.
An interesting thought about color is that we cannot describe it with words. Have you ever tried to describe your favorite color to someone who has always been totally blind? You can't, it's impossible. The words do not exist.
But if we cannot describe color with words, then how can we be sure that we all see the same color in the same way? For all we know, you might see red as I see blue and I might see orange as you see red.
Another issue in how we do not see objects, but the light from the objects and there is a difference, is the so-called "forbidden colors". There are two known forbidden colors, which are color combinations that our eyes are unable to process because both colors are sensed with the same part of the eye, although in different ways. We cannot see both colors from the same place at the same time.
The two forbidden color combinations are red-green and blue-yellow. The eyes cannot process these colors, so we will see something that looks like mud.
That brings us to the color brown. No color is actually real, outside of our vision, but I see brown as being even less real than the others. Brown is really what we see if we look at a combination of colors that our eyes are unable to process.
Not only is color a matter of our definition, we actually define what light itself is. The spectrum of visible light that we see, from red to blue, is only a very limited part of the total electromagnetic spectrum. That spectrum, from longest wavelength to shortest, is radio waves, microwaves, infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and, gamma rays.
The reason that electromagnetic radiation falls into these different categories has nothing to do with the radiation itself, which is simply different wavelengths. Just as the colors of the visible part of the spectrum are categorized by how our eyes and brains interpret the different wavelengths, so the entire electromagnetic spectrum is categorized not by anything to do with the waves themselves, but in how they interact with matter.
Outside of living things, the concept of the visible spectrum would be meaningless. We define what the visible spectrum is going to be by the scale of our eyes. This means that we actually define the light that we depend on for information about the world and universe around us.
Can you see how we have anything but an unbiased view of the universe? We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
Quite a bit about the universe is simply a matter of definition, of how we see things. Consider the question of whether the universe, as a whole, is rotating. If galaxies rotate then why shouldn't the whole universe, which is a "galaxy of galaxies", rotate?
But for us to define rotation there must be an external reference point that either isn't rotating, or is rotating at a different rate. Since our very definition of the universe is that it encompasses everything there is, there can be no external reference points by which to gauge whether the universe is rotating.
This means that the question of whether the universe is rotating is a matter of definition. Put simply, the universe is rotating if you would like it to be rotating.
Now that you can see how we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are, and however useful our sense of sight is it definitely does not show us the world and the universe as it really is, let's get back to the question of straight lines.
The most likely definition of a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. But we depend on our visual sense for this definition. We will always define a straight line as the path of light.
But considering how light does not necessarily show us things as they really are, and how so much is open to definition, isn't it possible, or even probable, that there might be another definition of a straight line that we, due to our nature, cannot see? Maybe what we see as straight lines are somehow curved, and there is a shorter route across space that we cannot see.
Can we be sure that electromagnetic radiation doesn't somehow travel by both direct and indirect routes and that we are only able to sense an indirect route, which we incorrectly perceive as the direct route, a straight line?
I find that the basic fault of conventional science is it's presumption that we have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
3) THE DECEPTION OF RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
We have seen, in my cosmology theory, the explanation of why there are three branches of physics. First, there is the ordinary physics of a textbook. This encompasses mass, forces, acceleration, gravity, electric charges, electromagnetic radiation, and so on.
But then there are two new branches of physics, Relativity and Quantum Physics (or Quantum Mechanics). The strange thing about these two new branches is that they are based on things that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. To make things even more mysterious, the two new branches are completely incompatible with each other.
There are actually two separate theories of Relativity, both by Albert Einstein. The one that I am referring to here is the Special Theory of Relativity, from 1905. This is about how the speed of light is absolutely sacrosanct and everything else is relative at speeds anywhere near the speed of light. Mass becomes greater and greater at speeds approaching the speed of light, until it becomes infinite at the speed of light. Time, meanwhile, slows down until it stops at the speed of light.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which was published ten years later in 1915, is about how gravity curves space.
The great divide between Relativity and Quantum Physics is the speed of light. In Special Relativity, the speed of light is absolutely invariable, with time and mass and distance revolving around it. But in Quantum Physics, the speed of light is not even a factor at all. It can be shown that, with two entangled photons, information passes instantaneously between them without being bound at all by the speed of light.
How can this possibly be? Einstein spent much of his later years trying to reconcile the two, but without much success. To compound the mystery, once again, none of this can be explained in terms of ordinary physics.
But my cosmology theory has a solution, and it's rather simple. The solution involves what we are. We presume that we have an unbiased view of the universe, but we don't. we are a part of the universe ourselves. The fundamental principle of the cosmology theory is that to really understand the universe, we have to understand that we see it the way we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
Once we understand that, everything seems to fall into place that cannot be explained otherwise. Following is the two-paragraph abstract that I use to explain the theory.
We could think of science as being either "with us" or "without us". The ordinary physics of a textbook is "without us" science. What I mean by that is simply that the laws of this physics would be the same whether humans were here or not.
But the two "new" branches of physics, Relativity and Quantum Physics, are, as I see it, "with us" sciences. We see the universe as we do through these branches of physics because of what we are. The truth is that neither Relativity, at least Special Relativity, nor Quantum Physics really exists outside of humans.
Matter is really composed of strings aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space. We see matter as composed of particles in three-dimensional space because we can only see, and move at will, in three of the four dimensions. The fourth dimension over which matter is scattered is what we perceive as time, as our consciousnesses proceed 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 seems so sacrosanct in the Special Theory of Relativity, it is because of what we are. other than within us, the speed of light doesn't really exist.
In my cosmology theory, empty space consists of a checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. Matter consists of one-dimensional strings, aligned mostly in the dimension of space that we perceive as time, of either negative or positive charge such as negatively-charged electrons. Electromagnetic waves are two-dimensional energetic disturbances in this perfectly alternating checkerboard of charges, in multiple dimensions. The waves are not really electromagnetic but seem so to us because they disturb the underlying checkerboard balance of negative and positive charges.
The way that we receive electromagnetic radiation, light, by sight is that the energy of the wave knocks electrons out of their orbitals in atoms within the sensors of our eyes of photosensitive equipment. But the wave is two-dimensional, it must be because it has the two components of amplitude and wavelength, while the electrons in our eyes are one-dimensional strings. The electron absorbs the energy of one dimension of the wave, knocking it out of it's orbital to create a flow of current that goes to our brains, but that leaves the remaining dimension of the wave.
This one remaining dimension of the electromagnetic wave thus acts like a one-dimensional string of matter, which we perceive as particles because we can only see in three of the four dimensions. This is why Quantum Physics has electromagnetic radiation with both a wave and a particle nature. This is one of the many mysteries of these two new sciences that cannot be explained by ordinary physics.
So there are these two new sciences that are based on principles that cannot be explained by ordinary physics, and are also incompatible with each other. But then why couldn't there be a third new science, based on what we are and how it affects the way we see the universe? If there was, what could it be? That is what I want to address today.
4) STRAIGHT LINES ARE REALLY THE LOWEST ENERGY ROUTE OF TRANSITION
One thing that really fascinates me is straight lines. But notice that we define straight lines by the path of light. A definition of a straight line is the shortest path across space between two points.
Could there be a possibility that we see straight lines as we do not because of what the universe actually is, as with Relativity and Quantum Physics, but because of what we are? Are the straight lines that we see because of something in our nature that is of yet undefined?
Basing our definition of straight lines on the path of electromagnetic radiation could be a matter of our scale and perspective on the universe. As with Special Relativity and Quantum Physics, we might be seeing the universe as we do not only because of what it is but because of what we are.
A "straight line" is actually the transition route of lowest energy. This makes sense because we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, which is why objects in the air tend to fall to the ground.
The universe is just information. We have to see it as "real", as we do, because we are made of the same information. At some level, the entire universe is actually a formula.
Distance is information, and information is the same thing as energy. This is why it requires energy for an object to traverse a distance. We could say that a short distance could be represented by 0000, and a long distance could be represented by 000000000. The zeroes are because, in empty space, there is nothing there but there could potentially be something there.
Once again, we know that energy and information is the same thing because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it and cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way that we can see energy and information as the same thing is that we can make our lives physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life physically easier and also less complex.
But we can see that a "straight line" is simply the route of lowest energy transition, and is based on what we are and how we receive information about the universe. Consider an electron. If there were two wires, a longer wire but with less resistance then the shorter wire the electron, not basing it's understanding on electromagnetic radiation as we do, would see the longer wire as the shorter distance. This is because it is simply the route of lowest energy transition.
5) DIMENSIONS AND STRAIGHT LINES
An electron in a flow of electricity would always "see" the wire through which it flows as a straight line. It would not matter at all if we saw the wire as actually zig-zagging across the floor. That is because the electron's definition of a "straight line" is not the same as ours. We can "see" in more dimensions of space than the electron can.
The next question is that if an electron sees what we see as a longer route as a shorter route because of what it is, meaning that there is definitely different ways of defining what a "straight line" is, then why couldn't we see a longer route as the shortest route, according to another definition, according to what we are?
Suppose that we have a two-dimensional sheet of plastic. There would have to be a short third dimension to the plastic, but we can ignore that for our purposes here. Now suppose that there was a two-dimensional being that lived within the two-dimensional sheet.
If we were to bend the sheet, the two-dimensional being within the sheet would be utterly unaware of the bend. This is because the bend would involve a third dimension of space and the being, since it is two-dimensional, would only be able to be aware of two dimensions, the two of the sheet. No matter how much we bent the sheet, the two-dimensional being would invariably see the route from one side of the sheet to the other as a perfectly straight line.
We also have our dimensional limits three of space and the fourth that, according to my cosmology theory, we perceive as time. There could be many more dimensions of space than the four that we live in. if I had to guess how many dimensions there were, my guess would be infinity. An infinite number of dimensions is actually a lower information state, which the universe favors, than any finite number of dimensions.
So if the block of dimensions that we inhabit was somehow bent or curved, relative to the outer dimensions, we would be no more able to distinguish it than the two-dimensional being that lived within the sheet. My cosmology theory has matter beginning with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not having it's component electric charges aligned with, the surrounding background space.
This means that we could be taking "the long way around" when we go from one place to another because the shortest route between two points in the limited block of dimensions that we inhabit is not necessarily the same as it would be if we could access more dimensions. We would not be able to see the "shortcuts", in the same way as the two-dimensional being in the bent sheet of plastic.
Since the definition of a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, that can only mean that the definition of a straight line is relative. The route of lowest energy transition will always be seen as a straight line but, as we see from the examples of the electron in the wire and the imaginary being in the two-dimensional sheet, that definition may change when the perspective changes.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, from 1915, actually does show an example of how straight lines are a matter of perspective. The gravity of a massive object bends light, and the effect is called gravitational lensing. According to Einstein's theory, the massive object bends light by "curving" the space around it.
But since we define a straight line by the path of light itself, that shows that our definition can be relative and a matter of perspective. This also shows that, as stated in my cosmology theory, that light consists of two-dimensional waves. This is shown by the fact that light, and other electromagnetic waves, have the two components of amplitude and wavelength (frequency is the inverse of wavelength). Just the fact that we can tell that gravity bends light is because we see in three-dimensions of space but the waves of light occupy onto two dimensions. if not for this, we would not be able to tell that gravity bends light.
6) THE QUESTION OF STRAIGHT LINES OTHER THAN WITH DIMENSIONS
Obviously, in an inner dimensional set that exists within an outer dimensional set, straight lines may be open to definition, since the inner dimensional set would be utterly unaware if it were bent or curved with regard to the outer set. But what about straight lines possibly being open to definition in a fixed dimensional set?
Since we are utterly dependent on the waves associated with electrons for information about the universe around us, as we saw in "Electron Dependency", and since we will always define a straight line as the route taken by these waves, there is a possibility that this defines one possibility as a straight line. We have no way of knowing if, for example, waves produced by other than "whole" electric charges, such as quarks with fractional charges, might present another definition of what a straight line is.
Electromagnetic waves distort the checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges that makes up empty space. The charges usually completely balance out and we perceive the waves as electromagnetic because they disturb this underlying balance. It takes energy to bring about this disruption and so electromagnetic waves are patterns of energy in space.
The directions and amplitudes of waves in space are very uneven. This means that their distortion of the electric charges of space must also be uneven. Since a "straight line" is actually the route of lowest energy, then shouldn't waves affect the routes of each other from what they would be if space were completely empty? But we can never detect this because we will always perceive electromagnetic radiation as taking the route of a straight line.
This is not the same thing as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, where gravity bends light. We can detect that because light from only one direction is affected as the light coming to us from the other side of a massive astronomical object.
We can only detect this bending of light by gravity when there is a suitable source of light on the other side of a massive astronomical object. But any mass bends the path of light. Although the bending by a mass like that of the earth is slight how can we know whether there might be gravitational patterns that change the definition of a straight line that we are unaware of, since we always perceive the path of light as a straight line?
We have our definition of a straight line, the shortest possible distance between two points. But my conclusion is that there are other definitions of a straight line that, due to our nature, we are not able to detect. A basic presumption in science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe, we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. My conclusion is that we actually see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment