The Universe Made Really Simple

Progress has recently been made toward the discovery of the so-called Higgs Boson. This is the long-sought particle that supposedly imparts mass to all other matter. My theory, however, is neutral toward the Higgs Boson. It is not a requirement in my theory, nor is my theory threatened if the Higgs Boson is discovered.

Today I would like to summarize my cosmological theory, which I originally named "The Theory Of Stationary Space". Just read on and see for yourself how so many of the unexplained mysteries of the universe, from the cosmic scale right down to the quantum scale, just fall right into place if we accept this simple model of the underlying structure of the universe.

The basics of my theory is that matter consists of strings in space that are aligned in mostly the same direction, but are not quite parallel to one another. These strings of matter were thrown across four dimensions of space by the Big Bang, which began the universe. The background space consists of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges.

Thats it, the fundamentals of the theory. But watch how everything falls into place around this simple model. There is a principle in physics, known as Occam's Razor, which states that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation. Of course, you can read about the theory in much more detail on the cosmology blog, http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ . The entire blog is about this theory.

The greatest mystery of the universe concerns time. What exactly is time, from a physics point of view? I could not find an answer to that anywhere. I decided to find the answer for myself, and that is how I first thought of this model of the universe. How about the speed of light? We know what it is and can measure it with great precision. But why is the speed of light what it is, and not some other speed? That is what no one could answer.

But this model of the universe makes it nice and simple. Our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings, which compose our bodies and brains, at a rate which we perceive as the speed of light. That explains why we cannot find any physical explanation of what time is, it is within ourselves as the movement of our consciousness.

The direction in space along which the strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one of the four dimensions that we perceive as time, the other three we experience as space. This is why we perceive the fundamental building blocks of matter as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings. We can only see at right angles to the present position of our consciousness as it moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. To see more than this would be to see backwards or forwards in time.

This is also why the speed of light seems to us to be the maximum possible velocity in the universe. The inanimate matter that we see is really at rest, unless we move it. We perceive bundles of strings as objects in motion if the bundles of strings are not perfectly parallel to one another.

The next answers that unfold around this model of the structure of the universe is the why of both Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Newton's law that an action will result in an equal and opposite reaction is simply stating that the center line of the mass of strings that was thrown across the universe by the Big Bang must remain constant, and this necessitates that any action result in an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's law is that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion, until acted upon by an outside force. This is easily explained if we remember that, in my theory, matter consists of bundles of strings. If a bundle of strings is exactly parallel to the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains, then it will appear to us to be an object at rest. If it is not perfectly parallel to us, it will appear as an object in motion. Any non-accelerating object is simply a straight bundle of strings. When an object appears to us to be either accelerating or decelerating, it means that it is being bent by a force. For more details, see "Momentum And Strings" on the cosmology blog.

These strings also explain why most of the formulae of basic physics are of three parts, with the form A = BC. Examples are Force = Mass x acceleration, D = VT or distance equals velocity multiplied by time, Ohm's Law of I = E/R or electric current equals volatge divided by resistance, K = 1/2 MV squared or the kinetic energy of an object equals one half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared, and Einstein's famous E = MC squared are some examples. This is because all such formulae really involve the bending of bundles of strings that I am describing here. There are only three factors involved: The force bending the strings, the number of strings that are bent and, the angle that those strings are bent. That is why all of these formulae of basic physics have three parts.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes how all frames of reference revolve around the speed of light. My simple model of the universe explains why this is the case. The speed of light is only something that we perceive, it is the rate of movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains. This is why it appears to us as the maximum possible speed.

Einstein explained that an object would get more and more massive as it approached the speed of light, until it's mass became infinite when it reached that speed. But why on earth would the speed of an object have anything to do with it's mass? My theory has a simple explanation. An object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light, the apparently maximum possible velocity, is simply a bundle of strings that is aligned at a right angle to our bundle of strings. This means that we would experience the entire mass of the object, which is strings stretched across the universe, as concentrated at one point. If the bundle of strings of the object is parallel to us, in contrast, we would only experience the mass of one crosss-section of the bundle at any one time. Can you see how simple this is?

While on the topic of mass, we can see how my theory does not require anything like the Higgs Boson to explain why matter has mass. It has mass, while space doesn't, because matter consists of strings and when we move any string or bundle of strings, we are also moving it far into the future dimension of space that we perceive as time. But with space, this is not the case since space consists simply of alternating infinitesimal positive and negative electric charges. So, we see why matter has mass and space doesn't, even though both matter and space ultimately consist of the same negative and positive charges. There is energy in all mass, which overcame the mutual repulsion of like charges necessary to being matter into being, and this is why energy and mass are known to be equivalent.

The universe is composed of a near infinity of equal but opposite negative and positive electric charges. The rules are that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. Energy ultimately overcomes one or the other of these basic rules. If the two electric charges are equal, then the two basic rules must also be equal. This means that, if the mutual repulsion of like charges is overcome by energy more than the attraction of opposite charges, it must leave a net attractive force between matter in the universe, and this is what we perceive as gravity. If the mutual attraction of opposite charges is overcome by energy, it leaves a net repulsive force which we see as the energy carried by electromagnetic waves, which are really only the disturbances in the underlying checkerboard pattern of electric charges in empty space.

Einstein also pointed out that time would slow down as an object approached the speed of light, and would not exist at all when the object reached the speed of light. Once again, my theory explains it very simply. Time is only in our consciousness, as the movement of the consciousness along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. So, an object appearing to us as moving at the speed of light would have all of it's time dimension concentrated at one point as it crossed our bundle of strings, which is at a right angle to the object since an object moving at the speed of light is simply a bundle of strings at a right angle to our bundle as our consciousness moves past at what we perceive as the speed of light.

This also explains why, as Einstein pointed out, the length of an object shortens as it approaches the speed of light. It is a matter of simple trigonometry. An object appears at it's maximum length when it's bundle of strings is parallel to ours and shortens as the angle between the two bundles increases, which we perceive as velocity because our consciousness is moving along our bundle of strings at what we perceive as the speed of light.

What about the most famous formula of the Twentieth Century, Einstein's E = MC squared? This formula means that the energy stored in an object is equal to it's mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared. My theory has a simple explanation for this too. If an object, as a bundle of strings parallel to our bundle, would suddenly have it's component strings which we perceive as particles, suddenly fly apart, this would naturally release energy in the form of moving particles. The maximum possible angle is a right angle, but that is also what we perceive as the speed of light if a particle or bundle of strings is at a right angle to our bundle. That is why, if we got the most energy out of matter by having it's component particles (strings) come apart at the maximum possible velocity, which is really an angle, it would involve the speed of light. The speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself, in the formula because the particles are moving at what we perceive as the speed of light, and our consciousness is also moving at right angles at that speed so that there are two speeds of light involved.

This scenario provides a simple explanation for the mystery of Dark Matter. According to our measurements of the force of gravity and what we know of the mass of the galaxy, the galaxy should fly apart by the centrifugal force of it's rotation. Yet clearly, it doesn't. Scientists have been searching unsuccessfully for some unseen "dark matter", with gravitational mass, for about eighty years to explain why the galaxy does not fly apart by centrifugal force. My thought has always been that it must be due to some missing piece in our understanding of gravity, rather than the presence of unseen matter. This cosmological theory explains it simply as the velocity of our consciousnesses, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, affects our perception of gravity, causing us to perceive it as weaker than it really is. This is because the velocity of our consciousness, at what we perceive as the speed of light, causes us to perceive gravity as coming from an angle into our past direction instead of directly perpendicular.

What about memory? How, in physical terms, does a person store the fantastic volume of memories that they have in an object the size of the brain, so that the memories are readily retrievable? The answer is that they don't, it is impossible. But my theory explains it as the brain having another dimension of volume from what we can see. Remember that there are actually four dimensions across which the matter that we are familiar with was thrown across space. One of these dimensions is what we perceive as time because that is the dimension along which the strings of matter of which we are composed are primarily aligned. For more details, see "Memory And Cosmology" on the cosmology blog.

What about the Big Bang which we know began the universe? We can detect it's radiation as coming at us from all directions in space, but we cannot locate the point at which the Big Bang took place. If the universe began at one point and then exploded outward, then why can we not detect where in space that point is? My model of the universe makes it simple and clear, matter consists of strings aligned mostly in one direction in our four dimensions of space. This dimension of space is what we perceive as time, because our consciousness is moving along the strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see at right angles to our present position on these strings, which is why we can detect the radiation from the Big Bang but not the point at which it took place. That point is in our past dimension. For more detail, see "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation".

My theory also explains how the Big Bang came about, and why there appears to be an exact balance between the negative and positive charges in the universe. It is because an unbalanced charge will induce an opposite charge and the process will repeat forever. Matter can be explained as such a charge reproduction series which was out of harmony with the original series. For more detail, see "The Beginning Of The Universe".

What about the multitude of particles that physicists can detect which appear for only an instant and then vanish? There are many more dimensions of space than the three, four including time, that we inhabit. We only inhabit these four because of the throw pattern of our strings from the Big Bang. Our matter strings just happened to get thrown across four dimensions, instead of two or twenty. Entire other universes are right next to us that we cannot access because our matter strings do not extend into those dimensions. Since we can only produce force with matter, no force that we can produce can extend into outer dimensions.

Strings that appear to us as particles moving at the speed of light, such as some cosmic rays. are strings that share three of our four dimensions so that they cross our space at right angles to our strings alignment. The matter that we see all around us, the ordinary matter in our universe, is strings that share all four of our dimensions. Particles that physicists detect as appearing for the briefest instant, in one place and then vanishing, are strings that share only one of our four dimensions. Particles that exist briefly, and can move over a short range, are strings that share two of our four dimensions. Such particles can serve as physics exchange particles, or can accomplish such tasks as binding atomic nuclei together. It would only be necessary for the strings composing a nucleus to attach to such a string at some point on it's length across the universe.

Physicists sometimes notice some strange things, such as an electron appearing to jump from one electron orbital in an atom to another without going across the space in between. That is not a problem at all for my theory. Electrons really consist of strings across the universe, and these strings can sometimes break. When physicists detect such a jump in electron orbitals, it just means that, in the progress of our consciousness along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, we have come across a broken electron string with one end in one orbital and the other end in another orbital.

Speaking of electron strings breaking remember that, according to my theory, the first priority of the universe is not the lowest energy state but charge balance. Negative and positive charges must be exactly equal. So, if space consists of alternating and infinitesimal negative and positive charges, and a charged string such as an electron breaks in two or more places in close proximity to one another, charge reproduction will be set in process again as it was in the beginning of the universe. This will result in the creation of new space, but a tremendous explosion will take place when the matter and antimatter sides of this new space come into contact. This explains the fantastic gamma ray bursts, which occur on an average of about once a day across the universe. For more details see "Gamma Ray Bursts".

It is nearly universally accepted that perpetual motion is impossible. Why, then, are rotating planets and planets and moons in orbit seemingly defying this rule? According to my theory, they really aren't. Rotation and revolution of planets and moons are just bundles of strings that wrapped around each other as the universe was formed. It is our consciousness that is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, causing us to perceive such rotation and revolution which would violate the prohibition against perpetual motion. For more detail, see "Planetary Revolution And Rotation".

Why do the larger planets in our Solar System generally rotate much faster than the smaller planets? This appears to violate the basic rules of mechanics. But my theory can explain it as a bundle of strings, such as a planet grows, new strings and bundles of strings joining the mass must necessarily bend at more of an angle than the earlier strings when the mass was smaller. Thus, larger planets seem to rotate faster.

Finally, what about cryogenics, the science of extremely low temperatures? Strange things happen at such temperatures. If we take a tough and flexible sheet of rubber, and cool it to near absolute zero which is the lowest possible temperature because all molecular motion stops, it becomes extremely brittle so that it shatters like glass at the slightest impact. This cannot be explained by ordinary chemistry, but is easily explained by my version of string theory. Heat is the movement of atoms and molecules, and as they are moving they are actually strings which wrap around one another. When the rubber is cooled to near absolute zero, the strings are no longer wrapped around one another and the sheet of rubber easily shatters.

This is just a brief description of the theory, there is far more on the cosmology blog, http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ .

The Water Inlets Of The Niagara Escarpment Bulge

I have noticed that there are several inlets located at both ends of the escarpment bulge pointed out as having been created by the Niagara Escarpment during the sliding tectonic collision between what is now Africa and what is now North America, that created the long chain of ridges and mountains, known as the Appalachians..

Here is a map link: http://www.maps.google.com/ .

The escarpment bulge off the Niagara Escarpment can easily be seen on a map as the curve in the shoreline of Lake Ontario between St. Catharines and Rochester. You can see the Niagara Escarpment on the map link as a dark east-west line, if you look closely. The greatest north-south extent of the escarpment bulge is approximately at the Niagara-Orleans County line. Most of the escarpment runs parallel, and just south of, Ridge Road (Route 104).

The reason that glacial ice, drawn southward by the momentum of the earth's rotation, came from the north-northwest during the ice ages, instead of directly from the north, is the momentum of the earth's eastward rotation. Some ice collided with ice already packed up against the escarpment, and continued around it. Lake Ontario would, by this time, be emptied of water because so much of the earth's water is locked up in glaciers during the ice ages, as explained in "Sea Level During The Ice Ages".

At the eastern end of the Niagara Escarpment near Rochester, and the mass of ice packed around it, this ice continued southward. Since the stationary ice packed against the escarpment would have acted as a barrier, to route moving ice along this path, there was a heavier than usual concentration of ice that passed over the eastern extent of the stationary ice against the escarpment.

This moving ice carved away the land beneath it as it continued southward. The result is what is known today as Irondequiot Bay at Rochester, and the valley which extends southward from it.

To understand why vast sheets of ice move southward during an ice age, it is necessary to remember that an object that is large enough will be affected by the rotation of the earth. The earth, being a sphere rotating around a polar axis, is spinning faster the closer we get to the equator. This has the effect on a vast sheet of ice, that is free to move over frozen ground, of pulling it southward. There is also the eastern element due to the rotation of the earth, and the momentum that it imparts. We know that a hurricane is affected by the earth's rotation in that it is the source of the hurricane's spin. The Frisian Islands, along the North Sea coast of the Netherlands, Germany and, Denmark, are actually slowly creeping eastward due to the momentum of the earth's rotation.

When an escarpment ends, as does the Niagara Escarpment at Rochester, we should not be surprised to find a river running along it's side. Low ground near higher ground tends to collect water. The Genesee River flows from the south, where it drains the higher ground into Lake Ontario.

If we look at central New York State, with it's well-known Finger Lakes of glacial origin, we see that there is no major Finger Lake that would form a line with Irondequoit Bay. In contrast, Sodus Bay to the east appears to have been formed by the same glacial thrust that also formed Cayuga Lake to the south. This indicates that some other explanation is required for Irondequoit Bay other than a direct glacial thrust from the north.

Furthermore, Sodus Bay can be seen as aligned along more of the north-northwest to south-southeast axis that we would expect of glacial movement. This is simply because the moving ice that formed Irondequoit Bay had already had most of it's momentum broken by the collision with the ice against the escarpment. If you wonder why Sodus Bay exists, notice that it is about exactly halfway between the eastern end of the Niagara Escarpment and the Adirondack Mountains further east. These two features acted as barriers to funnel a powerful movement of glacial ice between them. This is why nothing like the Finger Lakes can be found in other areas of the earth over which glaciers moved.

Irondequoit Bay is very much a reverse of Toronto's Don Valley, on the other side of Lake Ontario. Irondequoit Bay was formed by ice moving in from the lake, while the Don Valley was formed by ice moving out into Lake Ontario.

We could say that the Genesee River is the end of the escarpment while Irondequoit Bay, somewhat to the east, marked the end of the escarpment bulge created by the ice packed up against the escarpment during the last ice age.

Irondequoit Bay, and the valley extending southward from it, would seem ideal to host a major river. While there was certainly an outflow of glacial meltwater here at the end of the last ice age, it was superseded by the Genesee River to the west. The Irondequoit Bay site had the advantage of the pre-existing inlet and valley, but the Genesee River site had not only the advantage of the nearby high ground of the escarpment channeling water to it, but also a convenient drainage route through the hills and higher ground to the south.

I find that something very interesting took place at Rochester while glacial ice was crowding into the route southward marked by Irondequoit Bay, after having deflected off of the stationary ice packed up against the Niagara Escarpment. Some of the ice then "bounced" off the ice in Irondequoit Bay, and landed on what is now the shore of the lake so that it then carved the series of ponds along this shore that we now see just to the west of downtown Rochester. These are called Long Pond, Buck Pond, Cranberry Pond and, Braddock Bay. It is very easy to see, on a map, that the directional alignment of these ponds, relative to Irondequoit Bay, fits this scenario perfectly.

There are drainage channels visible near the lake shore between Irondequoit Bay and the Genesee River. But these were formed in a way opposite from the bay and the ponds, by glacial ice melting and flowing toward the lake. There are also many drainage valleys to the south of Rochester, but these were also formed by the outflow toward the lake of water from melting glaciers to the south as the ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. To the east of Rochester, we see that the hills are aligned along with the direction of glacial movement.

As we might expect, there would be more of this "diversionary ice", as we could call it, diverted to the east of the escarpment bulge than to the west, simply because of the momentum contrinuted by the earth's eastward rotation. But the same effect can be seen at the St. Catharines end of the escarpment bulge as well.

There are three separate inlets along the Lake Ontario shore just west of St. Catharines that are actually very much like the series of ponds along the lakeshore at Rochester, and were formed in exactly the same way.

Martindale Pond, at Port Dahlousie, represents the western end of the escarpment bulge. There are two other inlets further west, Sixteen Mile Creek and Jordan Harbour. Martindale Pond is curved in it's configuration because it is actually slightly within the escarpment bulge, and the ice that carved it had to find it's way around the bulk of the pack ice against the escarpment. There is no other logical way to explain the curve.

There is no like the Genesee River at the western end of the escarpment bulge. This is because that is only the end of the escarpment bulge, and not the end of the escarpment itself, as is the eastern end. The Welland Canal is very much congruent to the Genesee River at the opposite end of the escarpment bulge but is, of course, artificially-built.