"Heliocentrism" means that the earth, and the other planets, revolve around the sun.
Since ancient times people have studied the night sky and made detailed records of the stars, which varied widely in brightness. Five objects were visible that moved among the stars. These came to be known as "planets", for the ancient Greek word for "wanderer".
All kinds of interpretations were given for the movement of the planets against the many immovable stars. These interpretations are collectively known as astrology. The stars are randomly scattered across the night sky but groups of stars that reminded people of things were given names. These patterns of stars are called constellations. Astrology was the interpretation of the planets moving against the backdrop of the constellations.
The most obvious objects in the sky were the sun and moon. Day and night were clearly caused by the presence or absence of the sun. It was observed that days and nights vary in length, relative to each other, but always add up even over the course of a year.
It was known that the daily path of the sun across the sky gradually shifted northward and southward throughout the course of a year. Days were longest, and shadows were shortest, when the sun was highest in the sky. Shafts facing skyward could be constructed so that the sun would shine directly down the shaft on only one day out of the year.
Eclipses were well-known. By making observations over long periods of time the cycles of both lunar and solar eclipses was charted. Some ancient civilizations were able to predict eclipses.
The sun, throughout the course of the year, and the planets did not move at all at random. They followed a predictable path across the sky. This path was called the Ecliptic and the constellations of stars along the ecliptic were known as the Zodiac. All planets had predictable movements, but all of the planets moved through their cycle of movement at different rates.
There was a dense band of mostly-faint stars across the sky. This band of stars became known as the Milky Way. But it wasn't at all in the same plane across the sky as the Ecliptic.
But yet no one knew exactly what the stars were. A predominant theory was that there was some kind of canopy high in the sky, with light beyond it, and the stars were holes in that canopy which let light in from beyond.
The stars were not actually static. Aside from the planets moving against the fixed stars, but at rates which differ from one another, there were unpredictable comets. Sometimes a "new star" would appear which came to be called a "nova", meaning "new". Sometimes it seemed that stars were falling to earth, which were called simply "falling stars". At predictable times of year there would be showers of such " falling stars". But when it was over the same fixed stars would still be there.
The sky was a mystery that was thousands of years old. But there was some clues as to what was really going on, starting on earth. It was easy to measure how high in the sky the sun was simply by pushing a stick into the ground. The longer the shadow it cast the lower the sun was in the sky. On any given day of the year there was a point, on a north-south line, where the sun was highest in the sky. If we went either directly north or directly south of that point the sun got progressively lower in the sky. What that seemed to indicate was that the earth was a sphere.
The next clue was that the moon goes through a cycle of phases, from new moon to full moon and back again, which lasts 29 days. The moon's position in the sky, relative to the sun, varies during this lunar cycle. What we can see is that the further the moon is from the sun in the sky the more of the moon's surface is lit. The full moon is only seen when the moon is diametrically opposite the sun in the sky. If the earth is spherical then this makes it seem like the moon is revolving around the earth, and the sun is further away.
Another clue as to what is really happening with regard to the night sky is that the stars we see from night to night do not remain completely constant. There is a different set of stars for each of the four seasons, which starts over again with the following year.
Finally a scientist named Copernicus introduced the idea that the sun, rather than the earth, was at the center and that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the earth being at the center as had previously been believed. The moon revolved around the earth, going through it's phase cycle due to the light from the more distant sun.
The movement of the planets was thus explained as the earth being one of them and all revolving around the sun, but at different rates according to their distance from the sun. Eclipses, both solar and lunar, happened periodically when the earth, moon and, sun all lined up. That doesn't happen every 29 days because the geometric planes of the earth's orbit around the sun, and of the moon's orbit around the earth, are not exactly the same.
The reason that the stars in the sky are different through the course of the year is that the earth is facing different directions in space as it revolves around the sun. But the stars close to the celestial north and south poles, known as "circumpolar", remain the same throughout the year. The planets, as well as the sun and moon, seem to adhere to a path across the sky against the background stars, known as the ecliptic, because the planets revolve around the sun in roughly the same geometric plane.
This was not an entirely new idea, having first arisen in ancient Greece along with the idea that the earth is spherical, rather than flat. The earth's seasons were thus explainable by the earth being tilted on it's axis, by 23 1/2 degrees, as it revolves around the sun.
Later it was found that the sun was just a typical star, which was part of a great structure of stars known as a galaxy. There were more stars in our galaxy than we could possibly count. Our galaxy was determined to be a barred spiral galaxy and the dense band of faint distant stars, that we refer to as the Milky Way, is looking along the plane of our galaxy. Although this galactic plane is not the same thing at all as the ecliptic.
Not only was our sun just a typical star among countless stars in our galaxy, but our vast galaxy was just one among countless galaxies throughout the universe. In fact, it was found that there are actually more galaxies in the universe than there are stars in our galaxy.
Nuclear physics explained why stars shine. Electron repulsion usually keeps adjacent atoms apart, as the electrons of both atoms are negatively-charged. But when a tremendous amount of matter is brought together by it's mutual gravity it is possible to overcome the electron repulsion and force atoms together. The new larger atom has less overall internal energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation, and that is why stars shine.
As this fusion process in the center of the star continues, with successively-heavier elements being fused together, more energy per time is released. This upsets the equilibrium between the inward pressure of gravity and the outward pressure of the energy released by fusion. This can cause the star to blast off it's outer layers, known as a nova. If that does not restore the equilibrium, by slowing down the fusion process by reducing the inward force of gravity, the entire star can explode from the center in a supernova, although this only happens in the largest stars.
When a large star explodes in a supernova it's component matter, including the heavier elements that were fused in it's core, are scattered across space. Some of the matter may fall back together again, by it's mutual gravity, to form a second-generation star. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it already contains heavier elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process, which is fusing four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and releasing the excess energy as radiation.
The heavier elements from the previous star is what forms most of the mass of the planets. The ordinary fusion process, the S-process for "slow", only goes as far as iron, which is why iron is so abundant in the inner Solar System, and is the most abundant element in the earth by mass. Elements heavier than iron are formed only during the brief time that the supernova is actually taking place, the R-process for "rapid".
This is why elements that are heavier than iron, such as gold, silver and, uranium, are exponentially less common than elements below iron. Some of these heavy elements that are forced together by the energy released in the supernova are less-than-stable and gradually release particles or radiation while trying to reach a more stable state. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
Light molecules that are abundant in the Solar System, such as water, methane and, ammonia, were put together by the energy of the one, or more, nova that preceded the supernova. A nova that preceded the supernova of the large star that preceded the sun is why elements in our atmosphere, such as oxygen and hydrogen, are found in diatomic, or molecular, form. When we use hydrogen as fuel we are releasing the energy that was originally released by the nova of the previous star.
So the mysteries of the universe, that were thousands of years old, started to fall into place with the realization that we need to get outside our own perspective. It seemed to us that the earth was flat and that everything in the sky revolved around it. But that view made it impossible to explain the universe, even though detailed measurements were made of it, and it's motions could be predicted. It was only when we found our way outside our own perspective that the universe started to fall into place for us.
Today we understand the structure of the universe but we have found more that cannot be explained. Just like back in ancient times we have science that we can predict, and take careful measurements of, but yet cannot explain.
There are the newer sciences of Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both have tenets that cannot be explained by ordinary physics, but yet can be demonstrated and proven beyond a doubt by experiments. Not only are both Relativity and Quantum Physics incompatible with ordinary science, in addition the two contradict each other. But yet the tenets of both can be clearly demonstrated by experiments.
There are two separate theories of Relativity, both by Albert Einstein. The Special Theory of Relativity, from 1905, describes how the speed of light is absolutely unchanging, and other things are variable if we travel at velocities approaching the speed of light. The General Theory of Relativity, from 1915, describes how gravity curves space. An object in orbit actually is moving in a straight line, but through curved space.
In the Special Theory of Relativity, which has been abundantly proven to be correct, the speed of light is always constant. As an object nears the speed of light it requires an ever-increasing amount of energy to accelerate it to greater velocities. At the speed of light it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to greater velocities which is, of course, impossible. It would show up as the object's mass increasing until reaching infinity at the speed of light. This means that nothing can ever move faster than the speed of light.
Not only does the mass of an object approach infinity as it approaches the speed of light, time slows down until it stops altogether at the speed of light. The length of the object shortens, until it reaches zero at the speed of light. None of this can be explained by conventional physics but yet has been abundantly proven to be correct.
Many have tried, with little success, to unite Relativity and Quantum Physics. The great dividing line between the two is the speed of light. In Quantum Physics, the speed of light is not even a factor at all. Information moves between two entangled photons instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are, with no speed of light limitation.
Furthermore, in Quantum Physics even the act of observing or measuring something affects it's outcome. In the famous double-slit experiment, if we do not observe light passing through two parallel slits we can see by the diffraction pattern that photons of light passed through both slits. But if we do observe it, the absence of a diffraction pattern shows that photons passed through only one of the two slits. This is completely alien to both classical physics and Relativity.
My cosmological theory actually has a simple explanation. A basic presumption of science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe, we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. One of the most important points of my theory is 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.
A) The universe with us.
B) The universe without us.
We know that the earth is not flat and that the astronomical bodies do not revolve around the earth. But then why do we see it that way if we know otherwise?
The flat earth with all of the astronomical bodies revolving around it is the universe with us.
The spherical earth revolving around the sun is the universe without us.
Now, let's move on to the development of Relativity and Quantum Physics. The two are not compatible with classical physics, or with each other. But considering the above example of the apparent flat earth and earth-centered universe, wouldn't it be logical that this is another case of "The universe with us" against "The universe without us"?
We know that the classical physics of the spherical earth revolving around the sun, and not vice-versa, represents "The universe without us" that displaced the flat earth with everything apparently revolving around us of "The universe with us". Given that, wouldn't it seem that the first place to look at why Relativity and Quantum Physics have such a contradiction with classical physics is that maybe those two represent "The universe with us"?
For another thing, none of these three branches is able to explain that time actually is. Relativity explains how time is affected as an object moves at speeds approaching the speed of light, but still doesn't tell us exactly what time is. Classical physics and Quantum Physics don't have much at all to say about what time is.
What about my cosmology theory? Have you ever thought that maybe what we perceive as particles of matter, such as electrons, are really strings in four-dimensional space and our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light? That is why the speed of light is so absolutely constant and everything seems to revolve around it and no one can explain what time is in terms of physics.
Relativity is "The universe with us", which is why it cannot be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us". Time is something that is within us, which is why it has never been explained by classical physics. That is why I named my cosmology theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space", because everything is really still and it is only our movements and the movement of our consciousness that is the only "new" motion in the universe.
Electrons are one-dimensional strings in space. Light is two-dimensional waves in the multi-dimensional background matrix of alternating negative and positive electric charges that comprise empty space. The only way that we can see, or measure or receive light in any way, is to have it interact with matter.
Quantum physicists describe light as having both a wave and a particle nature, which seems contradictory and alien to classical physics. But since matter interaction, including seeing, involves contact with one-dimensional electrons, that means that one dimension of the light must be left over. Since my cosmology theory has what we see as particles as really one-dimensional strings, that explains the particle nature of light and the particles that we see as photons.
A photon is light where one of the two dimensions has been absorbed by interaction with matter. That explains the mysterious double-slit experiment. The only way that we can observe or measure light is to have it interact with matter, and this means absorbing one of it's two dimensions.
The speed of light is not a factor in Quantum Physics because time is really within us, the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, and while that is a factor when we are moving, it is not a factor when we are seeing. Quantum physics is also "The universe with us", which is why it can never be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us".
Relativity and Quantum Physics both, unlike classical physics, involve our perspective.
The Special Theory of Relativity is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings that compose our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Matter is really strings in four-dimensional space but we perceive them as particles, such as electrons, in three-dimensional space because we perceive the fourth dimension of space as time.
Quantum Physics is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that light, or any electromagnetic radiation, consists of two-dimensional waves, while the electrons in orbitals around the atoms in our eyes and measuring devices are one-dimensional strings. When light interacts with matter an electron absorbs energy from the light. But it can absorb only one of the two dimensions and this leaves the one-dimensional "particles" of light that we refer to and perceive as photons. This explains the wave-particle duality of light.
What we perceive as particles are really one-dimensional strings because we perceive one of the four dimensions of space as time. This is why information can move instantaneously between two entangled photons, without being bound at all by the speed of light.
I see my cosmology theory not as another branch, but as the way to link these three branches together.
This concept of two views of the universe, one with us and one without us, means that we have to be more careful about deciding that one scientific theory is correct, while another is incorrect. it might be that one is describing the universe with us while the other is the universe without us.
If humans once could make intricate measurements of what they saw in the sky but simply couldn't explain it, at least until they found their way outside their own perspective, then what should be unusual about finding ourselves in that situation again as science advances?
No comments:
Post a Comment