Now that many readers are back at school, there is something that I think should have a name. But I very much doubt that I am the first person who has noticed this. There is something about basic chemistry that is confusing and doesn't make sense. It concerns valence, or the exchange of electrons between atoms to form molecules.
There are two electric charges, negative and positive. But negative and positive are represented by the symbols "-" and "+". The confusion begins because these two symbols also have another meaning.
Minus, "-", means to subtract or take away. This is the same symbol that is used for negative electric charge.
Plus, "+", means to add or join to. This is the same symbol that is used for positive electric charge.
There are two types of bonds between atoms so that they form compounds or molecules. Ionic bonds are where one atom loses an electron to another so that one atom has a net negative charge and the other has a net positive charge, so that they join together by mutual opposite charge attraction. Covalent bonds, in structures such as the complex structures of carbon atoms, is where two atoms share one or more electrons.
Ionic bonds are more in inanimate matter but the molecular bonds in living things rely on covalent bonds. As you can see by your flesh, matter based on covalent bonds is often flexible while ionic bonds tend to be brittle or inflexible.
This conundrum concerns ionic bonds. Suppose that two atoms are close together and one takes an outer electron from the other. Because electrons have a negative charge, the atom that loses the electron will then have a net positive charge. The atom that gains the electron will then have a net negative charge.
Do you see how confusing this is?
An atom loses an electron which has a negative charge, as in "-", yet it now has a positive charge, as in "+", as if it has gained something because "+" also means addition.
The other atom gains the electron. To gain means to add something. Addition is symbolized by the plus sign, "+", but the atom now has a negative charge, which is symbolized by the opposite sign, "-".
The negative and positive designations given to the two opposite electric charges are entirely arbitrary. We could just as easily called negative positive and vice versa. If we said that the electron has a positive charge, while the nucleus has a negative charge, which is now what we define as antimatter, it would make more sense.
An atom that GAINED an electron would then have a POSITIVE electric charge, as in "+".
An atom that LOST an electron would then have a NEGATIVE electric charge, as in "-".
Wouldn't that make more sense and be less confusing?
THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON
We know of misnomers like "tidal waves", which are caused by undersea earthquakes and have nothing to do with tides, and "microwaves" which are near the short wavelength end of the radio spectrum but actually toward the longer end of the electromagnetic spectrum overall. Since we are on the subject of verbal conundrums in science, there is another one that we could point out.
The same side of the moon always faces toward us. We have never seen the far side of the moon except for photographs taken from spacecraft. That far side is often referred to as "The Dark Side of the Moon". It is actually "The Bright Side of the Moon".
First, the far side of the moon receives just as much sunlight as the side that faces us. The moon that we see goes through a cycle of phases, from new moon to full moon. The unseen far side has the opposite illumination. When we see a full moon, it is "new moon" on the far side and, at that point, it is indeed "The Dark Side of the Moon". But when we see a new moon, meaning that the moon is not visible at all, then the sun is shining fully on the far side so that each side overall faces the sun equally.
Second, the reason that I say the unseen far side is really "The Bright Side of the Moon" is that it receives sunlight that is more intense than the side of the moon that we see. Both sides of the moon face toward the sun in equal measures. But the far side of the moon faces the sun when it is between the earth and the sun, which is why solar eclipses occur only at new moon, this means that the far side is closer to the sun than the earth when it fully faces the sun.
In contrast, the side of the moon that we see only fully faces the sun when it is on the opposite side of the earth's orbit, when it is further from the sun than the earth is. That is why a lunar eclipse only occurs at full moon. But because it is further away from the sun than the earth when fully lit, and the far side of the moon is closer to the sun than the earth when fully lit, that means that the total sunlight that falls on the far side is more intense than the total sunlight that falls on the side of the moon that we see.
That means that "The Dark Side of the Moon", the far side that we cannot see, is really "The Bright Side of the Moon".
Saturday, September 22, 2018
Saturday, September 8, 2018
The Greatest Airshow In The World
Historians have wondered about the Nazi invasion of Crete in 1941. The attack was done by paratroopers and gliders, which had never been attempted on such a scale before. The small Greek and Commonwealth force on the island inflicted heavy casualties on the invaders, and the Nazis never attempted such an assault again.
This costly attack would not seem to have even really been necessary to the Nazis' plan of conquest. A wise general might simply have ignored Crete, and waited for the Allied garrison there to run out of supplies. At the time of the invasion, the Allies on Crete do not seem to have had any aircraft left, and there was nothing on the island to threaten the Nazis in Europe or the Mediterranean. The recent development of aircraft carriers had diminished the potential importance of Crete as a vase from which to launch air attacks. The strategy of the Allies on Crete was purely defensive in nature, awaiting a Nazi landing.
The invasion was ultimately successful when the Nazis managed to capture the airfield on the island so that reinforcements could be brought in by plane. But this might have been accomplished by the Nazis landing commandos to capture the airfield, without the mishaps and casualties of the paratrooper and glider attack.
But there was a reason that the attack on Crete was done by air. Historians have questioned the tactical wisdom of it, but we have to remember Hitler's sense of history. The aerial invasion of Crete was an important part of Hitler's grand design. It was to be the Greatest Airshow In The World.
Notice the timing of the attack on Crete. It came one month before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. We saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel" what a strong sense of history Hitler had. Historians and military strategists have been mystified by some of Hitler's actions. But these actions can be explained by the objective to have the Nazis seen as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, with Hitler as the new Charlemagne.
The Holy Roman Empire was originally put together by the pope to confront the eastern part of Christendom, which was growing increasing independent and critical of bring ruled by the pope, and would ultimately break away in the Great Schism of 1054, which we saw in "The House Of Holy Wisdom, Where The Modern World Began". So the Holy Roman Empire ultimately failed to prevent the splitting away of the east, which is today the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it lasted for a thousand years until finally brought to an end by the conquests of Napoleon.
We saw the Holy Roman Empire in the posting on this blog, "The Far-Reaching Legacy Of The Holy Roman Empire".
The Nazis referred to themselves as the "Third Reich". The First Reich having been the time of Charlemagne, the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Second Reich having been the time of the German kaisers. The Nazis wanted to demonstrate themselves as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire by gathering Europe together and then finally succeeding in reconquering the east, which was now the Soviet Union. The original Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy had by this time been secularized into a great ideological clash between National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism.
As we saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel", a way that the Nazis demonstrated themselves to be the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, which would finally succeed in it's mission, was to evoke a prominent military problem of the Holy Roman Empire. This was the fortress of Gibraltar, which was very difficult to attack by land or sea, and which was held by Britain which had never been in the Holy Roman Empire.
That was what led to the French development of balloons, the first time that humans had ever flown, although the intended aerial conquest of Gibraltar never happened. I am sure that the Nazis focused on this planned, but never fulfilled, aerial attack to demonstrate that they were the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire. This explains, as we saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel", why the Nazis mystified historians by putting so much effort into development of the V-weapons, to fire at London, and why they continuously bombed the British Mediterranean island of Malta, but never tried to capture it.
This was done primarily to get all of Europe to rally with Hitler because, if they shared his sense of history, they would recognize the Nazis as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, and Hitler as the new Charlemagne, who would finally accomplish all that the original Holy Roman Empire had set out to do.
The reason that the Nazis never attacked Gibraltar itself, which was still a British fortress, is that they still hoped to have Spain as an ally. We saw in the posting on this blog, "The War That We Really Should Understand", how the Nazis were instrumental in bringing General Francisco Franco to power in Spain.
In the spring of 1941, just before the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Nazis saw the chance to impress upon Europe, most of which they now occupied, that they were the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire and were about to accomplish what it was set up for in the first place, to bring the eastern regions back into line, and that all of Europe should join the Nazis and give them their full support.
The way that they would do this is to seize upon an unfulfilled military objective of the Holy Roman Empire, attacking Gibraltar from the air and freeing it from the control of Britain, which was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The only part of western Europe left to conquer, before beginning the war with the Soviet Union, was the island of Crete, on which there were British and Commonwealth forces supporting the Greeks.
The Nazis would fulfill history by an aerial attack on Crete, by paratroopers and gliders, that Europe would recognize as the modern fulfillment of the intended aerial attack on Gibraltar, which brought about the development of balloons in which the first human flights took place. It would be the Greatest Airshow In The World. Europe would then rally together, with Hitler as the new Charlemagne, and subdue the east, which was the original reason for being of the Holy Roman Empire.
I often write about how it is important to understand history because we tend to repeat it, often without realizing it. What I think is necessary to understand about Hitler, and a few of his strategies that didn't seem to make tactical sense, is that they were reenacting history purposely, done primarily to evoke this fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly the unfulfilled plan to launch the first aerial attack in history against the British fortress at Gibraltar, by aerially attacking other British strongholds.
After the D-Day landings the Nazis began firing more V-2 rockets at Antwerp, which the Allies were using as a port, than at London so that it would be more visible to Europe so that they would join with the Nazis, recognizing them as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire. It was all "The Greatest Airshow In The World".
The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was called "Operation Barbarossa". Barbarossa was Frederick I, one of the greatest of Holy Roman emperors, who was killed leading an army in the Crusades. The name of Barbarossa actually means "Red Beard" in Italian, a name he was given by the Italian-speaking part of the Holy Roman Empire.
The fact that the Nazis named the invasion after this emperor shows how the Nazis saw themselves as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, and were trying to impress that upon Europe so that they would join them. The original purpose of the Holy Roman Empire was to confront the east. It ended up in the Crusades to free the Holy Land from Moslem control, during which Frederick I had been killed, but had not yet brought back control over Russia, and that is what the Nazis were for.
This is the Kyffhauser Monument, in southern Germany. It includes an image of Frederick Barbarossa. The monument is made of red sandstone because the name of Barbarossa means "Red Beard". There was a legend that he was merely sleeping and would awaken when Germany needed his leadership again. The invasion of the Soviet Union, in 1941, was named for him.
This would bring about the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Holy Roman Empire, which included most of Europe, not just what is now Germany. To get Europe to rally with them, they seized upon another unfulfilled objective of the Holy Roman Empire, an aerial attack against the British fortress at Gibraltar, which was the impetus which first got humans flying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user_Monument#/media/File:Kyffhaeuserdenkmal.jpg
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4134085,11.1092549,3a,75y,271.5h,92.93t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNmXQ6SpH9cjDKuXGTJmQQSPo1nGwsvREeUam6I!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNmXQ6SpH9cjDKuXGTJmQQSPo1nGwsvREeUam6I%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9338646-ya356.5-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
This costly attack would not seem to have even really been necessary to the Nazis' plan of conquest. A wise general might simply have ignored Crete, and waited for the Allied garrison there to run out of supplies. At the time of the invasion, the Allies on Crete do not seem to have had any aircraft left, and there was nothing on the island to threaten the Nazis in Europe or the Mediterranean. The recent development of aircraft carriers had diminished the potential importance of Crete as a vase from which to launch air attacks. The strategy of the Allies on Crete was purely defensive in nature, awaiting a Nazi landing.
The invasion was ultimately successful when the Nazis managed to capture the airfield on the island so that reinforcements could be brought in by plane. But this might have been accomplished by the Nazis landing commandos to capture the airfield, without the mishaps and casualties of the paratrooper and glider attack.
But there was a reason that the attack on Crete was done by air. Historians have questioned the tactical wisdom of it, but we have to remember Hitler's sense of history. The aerial invasion of Crete was an important part of Hitler's grand design. It was to be the Greatest Airshow In The World.
Notice the timing of the attack on Crete. It came one month before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. We saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel" what a strong sense of history Hitler had. Historians and military strategists have been mystified by some of Hitler's actions. But these actions can be explained by the objective to have the Nazis seen as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, with Hitler as the new Charlemagne.
The Holy Roman Empire was originally put together by the pope to confront the eastern part of Christendom, which was growing increasing independent and critical of bring ruled by the pope, and would ultimately break away in the Great Schism of 1054, which we saw in "The House Of Holy Wisdom, Where The Modern World Began". So the Holy Roman Empire ultimately failed to prevent the splitting away of the east, which is today the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it lasted for a thousand years until finally brought to an end by the conquests of Napoleon.
We saw the Holy Roman Empire in the posting on this blog, "The Far-Reaching Legacy Of The Holy Roman Empire".
The Nazis referred to themselves as the "Third Reich". The First Reich having been the time of Charlemagne, the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Second Reich having been the time of the German kaisers. The Nazis wanted to demonstrate themselves as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire by gathering Europe together and then finally succeeding in reconquering the east, which was now the Soviet Union. The original Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy had by this time been secularized into a great ideological clash between National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism.
As we saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel", a way that the Nazis demonstrated themselves to be the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, which would finally succeed in it's mission, was to evoke a prominent military problem of the Holy Roman Empire. This was the fortress of Gibraltar, which was very difficult to attack by land or sea, and which was held by Britain which had never been in the Holy Roman Empire.
That was what led to the French development of balloons, the first time that humans had ever flown, although the intended aerial conquest of Gibraltar never happened. I am sure that the Nazis focused on this planned, but never fulfilled, aerial attack to demonstrate that they were the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire. This explains, as we saw in "The Beginning Of Flight And Space Travel", why the Nazis mystified historians by putting so much effort into development of the V-weapons, to fire at London, and why they continuously bombed the British Mediterranean island of Malta, but never tried to capture it.
This was done primarily to get all of Europe to rally with Hitler because, if they shared his sense of history, they would recognize the Nazis as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, and Hitler as the new Charlemagne, who would finally accomplish all that the original Holy Roman Empire had set out to do.
The reason that the Nazis never attacked Gibraltar itself, which was still a British fortress, is that they still hoped to have Spain as an ally. We saw in the posting on this blog, "The War That We Really Should Understand", how the Nazis were instrumental in bringing General Francisco Franco to power in Spain.
In the spring of 1941, just before the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Nazis saw the chance to impress upon Europe, most of which they now occupied, that they were the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire and were about to accomplish what it was set up for in the first place, to bring the eastern regions back into line, and that all of Europe should join the Nazis and give them their full support.
The way that they would do this is to seize upon an unfulfilled military objective of the Holy Roman Empire, attacking Gibraltar from the air and freeing it from the control of Britain, which was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The only part of western Europe left to conquer, before beginning the war with the Soviet Union, was the island of Crete, on which there were British and Commonwealth forces supporting the Greeks.
The Nazis would fulfill history by an aerial attack on Crete, by paratroopers and gliders, that Europe would recognize as the modern fulfillment of the intended aerial attack on Gibraltar, which brought about the development of balloons in which the first human flights took place. It would be the Greatest Airshow In The World. Europe would then rally together, with Hitler as the new Charlemagne, and subdue the east, which was the original reason for being of the Holy Roman Empire.
I often write about how it is important to understand history because we tend to repeat it, often without realizing it. What I think is necessary to understand about Hitler, and a few of his strategies that didn't seem to make tactical sense, is that they were reenacting history purposely, done primarily to evoke this fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly the unfulfilled plan to launch the first aerial attack in history against the British fortress at Gibraltar, by aerially attacking other British strongholds.
After the D-Day landings the Nazis began firing more V-2 rockets at Antwerp, which the Allies were using as a port, than at London so that it would be more visible to Europe so that they would join with the Nazis, recognizing them as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire. It was all "The Greatest Airshow In The World".
The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was called "Operation Barbarossa". Barbarossa was Frederick I, one of the greatest of Holy Roman emperors, who was killed leading an army in the Crusades. The name of Barbarossa actually means "Red Beard" in Italian, a name he was given by the Italian-speaking part of the Holy Roman Empire.
The fact that the Nazis named the invasion after this emperor shows how the Nazis saw themselves as the fulfillment of the Holy Roman Empire, and were trying to impress that upon Europe so that they would join them. The original purpose of the Holy Roman Empire was to confront the east. It ended up in the Crusades to free the Holy Land from Moslem control, during which Frederick I had been killed, but had not yet brought back control over Russia, and that is what the Nazis were for.
This is the Kyffhauser Monument, in southern Germany. It includes an image of Frederick Barbarossa. The monument is made of red sandstone because the name of Barbarossa means "Red Beard". There was a legend that he was merely sleeping and would awaken when Germany needed his leadership again. The invasion of the Soviet Union, in 1941, was named for him.
This would bring about the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Holy Roman Empire, which included most of Europe, not just what is now Germany. To get Europe to rally with them, they seized upon another unfulfilled objective of the Holy Roman Empire, an aerial attack against the British fortress at Gibraltar, which was the impetus which first got humans flying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user_Monument#/media/File:Kyffhaeuserdenkmal.jpg
There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4134085,11.1092549,3a,75y,271.5h,92.93t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNmXQ6SpH9cjDKuXGTJmQQSPo1nGwsvREeUam6I!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNmXQ6SpH9cjDKuXGTJmQQSPo1nGwsvREeUam6I%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.9338646-ya356.5-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Concluding The Search For Dark Matter
I have not forgotten my science readers.
The conundrum of Dark Matter is the most perplexing issue in science today. From all that we know about gravity and the laws of physics, our galaxy should fly apart as it spins by the momentum of the centrifugal force. At the rate that it is rotating, there does not appear to be anywhere near enough mass to hold it together by gravity, against the outward pull of the centrifugal force.
Yet clearly, the galaxy does not fly apart. Scientists have concluded that there must be some unseen "Dark Matter" which possesses gravitational mass. The trouble is that the search for this mysterious Dark Matter has been going on for about a century, and has thus far come up with essentially nothing to explain the discrepancy.
I have long been certain that there is no such thing as "Dark Matter", that the discrepancy in the apparent lack of enough mass in the galaxy to hold it together results instead from some error in our understanding of the laws of physics. We seem to require about eight times the gravitational mass that we can observe in the galaxy to hold it together at the rate it is rotating.
I would like to show today how this scenario also offers a simple explanation for Dark Matter. The explanation is in two steps.
One of the tenets of my cosmology theory is that there is really no such thing as the speed of light. This perception is the result of the movement of our consciousness along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains and we are really measuring the speed at which this takes place.
The conundrum of Dark Matter is the most perplexing issue in science today. From all that we know about gravity and the laws of physics, our galaxy should fly apart as it spins by the momentum of the centrifugal force. At the rate that it is rotating, there does not appear to be anywhere near enough mass to hold it together by gravity, against the outward pull of the centrifugal force.
Yet clearly, the galaxy does not fly apart. Scientists have concluded that there must be some unseen "Dark Matter" which possesses gravitational mass. The trouble is that the search for this mysterious Dark Matter has been going on for about a century, and has thus far come up with essentially nothing to explain the discrepancy.
I have long been certain that there is no such thing as "Dark Matter", that the discrepancy in the apparent lack of enough mass in the galaxy to hold it together results instead from some error in our understanding of the laws of physics. We seem to require about eight times the gravitational mass that we can observe in the galaxy to hold it together at the rate it is rotating.
I would like to show today how this scenario also offers a simple explanation for Dark Matter. The explanation is in two steps.
But if I say that there is no actual speed of light and that it is only our perception, then why does a radio signal from earth to a spacecraft take time to get to the spacecraft and then back to earth?
Remember my doctrine that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. Until a few centuries ago, it was thought that the entire universe revolved around the earth because that is what our initial observation tells us. So, why should we think that we can observe the far reaches of the universe and it will be just as our senses tell us?
With the limitations our our observations in mind, let's look at why we perceive light as traveling through space at the speed our consciousness is actually traveling along our bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains.
The same vector concept applies to when we send electromagnetic waves outward, such as a radar signal that is bounced off the moon. The signal will travel at a 45 degree angle to the moon, bounce off and our consciousness will receive when it comes back to the radar antenna at an angle of 45 degrees. Thus, the radar operators will not receive the signal back until their consciousnesses have traveled a distance equal to twice that of the distance to the moon.
Since they are unaware of this movement, unless they have read my theory, they will perceive that the signal takes time to get to the moon and back. But the time is actually the movement of their consciousness along the bundle of string composing their bodies and brains. The same goes for communication between earth and a spacecraft. Imagine throwing a ball at a wall, not straight-on but at a 45 degree angle so that it bounces off the wall at a 45 degree angle.
We never notice this 45 degree slant to all the light that we see because all the light we see is slanted at the same 45 degrees to the past. This is why we see distant objects in space as they were in the past, even though there is no actual speed of light. Two people facing each other are actually seeing each other at 45 degrees to the past, but at terrestrial distance the difference that this makes is negligible.
This right angle is twice the angle of the 45 degrees of any light that we transmit so that there is effectively two speeds of light involved in the energy released by nuclear fission, and that is why E = MC squared.
DISTANCE SCALE AND GRAVITY
When there are two parallel sides, such as the green sides of this blog, the distance between the two sides can actually be any distance above the minimum distance across, depending on the angle of the crossing. When one spacecraft appears to us to be going slower than another, it is just that the "slower" one is taking a much longer route to it's destination due to the angle at which it's bundle of strings are crossing the gap to it's destination.
We see into the past at a 45 degree angle, due to the movement of our consciousness forward, what this means to us is that our measurement of distance is actually off by a factor of 1.414. That is, we perceive the moon as being 1.414 times further from the earth than it is. The legs of a right triangle are equal and the diagonal is 1.414 times the length of either leg.
It is actually only .707, the reciprocal of 1.414, as far as it appears. Mathematics students will recognize this number as the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two equal sides and thus, two 45 degree angles. It is also the square root of 2.
When we measure the distance to the moon, we are actually measuring the distance that the light we see from the moon has traveled to get to us. When we measure the effects of gravity, we are also measuring 45 degrees into the past. As you can now see, this is further than the most direct distance to the moon by a factor of 1.414. The moon is only .707 times as far away, by the most direct route, as we perceive it.
This is why gravity is stronger in the galaxy as a whole then it seems to be to us, it is actually not acting over a distance as far as we perceive it to be. If objects in space are only .707 as far away as we perceive them to be, because we see at an angle of 45 degrees into the past, due to the vector of our looking outward while our consciousness is moving forward along the bundle of strings that is our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, that means that the force of gravity, which operates by the Inverse Square Law, must actually be twice as strong as we perceive it to be.
LIGHT, GRAVITY AND THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW
Establishing that gravity is really twice as strong as we perceive it to be, because we perceive objects as being 1.414 as distant as they really are as explained by my cosmology theory, was the first step. Now, let's move on to the second step.
Has anyone ever noticed that both light and gravity operate by the Inverse Square Law, but that the two cannot be directly compared? The Inverse Square Law simply means that, if an object is twice as far away, it will have only one-quarter of the brightness, apparent angular diameter or, gravitational force.
But yet light and gravity, with regard to the Inverse Square law, simply do not compare directly. I find that gravity is cumulative, but light is not, and that is why the two operate by different rules within the Inverse Square Law. The force of gravity links to the structure of the entire universe, while the intensity of light does not. I find that this reveals a lot about how the universe operates.
The gravitational effect of large objects are stronger than is to be expected, if we used the same logic as with the rules governing light. The larger the object, the more out of proportion is the gravity. The gravity of a massive object includes it's orbital energy and gravitational attractions to further gravitational nodes to which that object is connected, and which extend throughout the entire universe.
Consider that, from earth, the sun and moon appear as about the same angular size in the sky. The moon is 2.04 times as dense as the sun. If gravity operated in the same way as light, with regard to the Inverse Square Law, then the force of the moon's gravity on earth would be 2.04 that of the sun.
Yet, the reality is that the gravitational force of the sun on the earth is 169 times that of the moon.
Now, suppose that there was an observer on the moon. The earth would appear in the sky as having four times the angular diameter of the sun. The earth is also more dense than the sun, 3.37 times as dense. Using the same logic as with light, this should mean that the earth's gravitational effect on the moon should be 13.48 times that of the sun.
Yet, this is not the case. The sun's gravitational effect on the moon is actually 2.08 times that of the earth. The sun is 400 times as far from the moon as the earth. using the Inverse Square Law, 400 squared is 160,000. but the sun is 333,000 times the mass of the earth, and 333,000 / 160,000 = 2.08.
Very clearly, although both gravity and light operate by the same Inverse Square Law there are great differences between the two which require special explanation. The difference is that gravity is cumulative throughout the universe, while light is not.
One way that we can test these figures is by calculating the tidal effects of the moon and the sun on the earth's oceans. We see that the sun exerts a gravitational force on the earth that is 169 times that of the moon. This is because the sun has 27 million times the mass of the moon (Remember that the sun is 333,000 times the mass of the earth, while the earth is 81 times the mass of the moon). The sun and moon appear as about the same size in the sky. The sun has 400 times the diameter of the moon, but is 400 times as distant. The earth is 3.37 times the density of the sun, while the moon is .606 earth's density, lacking a heavy iron core. The tidal effect of the sun on the earth is known to be only about 40% that of the moon, we can see this figure by dividing 169/400 because being closer to the earth means that there is more difference in the moon's gravity at the top of the ocean than there is at the bottom.
Another test is that we know the earth's mass to be 81 times that of the moon. From the moon, the gravity of the sun is 2.08 that of the earth. From the earth, the sun's gravity is 169 times that of the moon. Notice that 169 / 2.08 = 81.
Here are some basic figures which might be helpful here, and which I use in the calculations:
The earth is 49 times the volume and 81 times the mass of the moon, so that it is about 1.6 times the density.
The earth is 3.37 times the density of the sun, the moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun.
The sun and moon appear from earth as about the same size in the sky, but the sun is about 400 x as far away.
The earth is about 4 times as wide as the sun, as seen from the moon.
The mass of the sun is 333,000 times that of the earth and 27 million times that of the moon).
What I have found is that the differences in gravity, with regard to the Inverse Square Law, is proportional to the cube root of the difference in mass. This is what makes the behavior of gravity different from that of light, even though both operate by the same Inverse Square Law. When the gravitational effect of a larger object is compared to that of a smaller object, as seen from a third object, the larger object will have a gravitational force out of proportion to the rules of light by an amount equal to the cube root of the masses of the larger and the smaller distant objects.
If A x A x A = B, then A is the cube root of B. Cube means three because a cube has three dimensions that are multiplied together to get it's volume. The cube root of 27 is 3 because 3 x 3 x 3 = 27.
The reason that we use the cube root of the mass difference between objects in space of different mass, rather than the direct mass difference itself, is that the massive object is more linked by it's stronger gravity to the branches of the universal gravitational structure. The mass proportional difference between the two distant objects is reduced to it's cube root because outside gravity from the galactic center acts on all three objects, diminishing the importance of the mass differences between them. The sun has a gravitational relationship with the center of the galaxy, which is in turn linked to our Local Group of galaxies, which is linked by gravity to the spurs and filaments making up the structure of the entire universe.
Let's have a look at two examples, the effect of the sun's gravity on the earth relative to that of the moon, and the effects of the sun's gravity on the moon relative to that of the earth.
The sun is 27 million times the mass of the moon. The cube root of 27 million is 300. The moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun, and the two are about the same angular size in the sky. 300 / 2.04 = 147, yet we know that the sun's gravitational force on the earth is 169 times that of the moon.
The reason that the sun's gravitational effect on earth, relative to the moon, is more than 147 is that the earth is a concentrated point as seen from the sun, while it has an angular diameter of about 2 degrees as seen from the moon. This makes the sun's gravitational pull on the earth more efficient than that of the moon, because it is less dispersed (Remember the posting "The Effective Center Of Gravity" on the physics and astronomy blog, about the gravitational attraction of a sphere on a distant point).
The sun's gravitational pull on the earth is actually greater than these figures indicate it should be, 169 x instead of 147, by a factor of 1 + 1 / 7. The earth is 49 times the volume of the moon, and the square root of 49 is 7. If we multiply this by the 147, we get the actual strength of the sun's gravitational pull on the earth relative to the moon, which is 169 times. We use the square root of 49 because the earth's volume, relative to the moon, has only been covered this far in the formula as a one-dimensional angular diameter. This is because the earth appears so different from the moon then it does from the sun. From the sun, it is a concentrated point, but from the moon it is spread over two angular degrees and this somewhat disperses the moon's gravitational effect on the earth.
Another way of expressing it is that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is 169 times that of the moon, but the moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun and 169 x 2.04 is greater than the 300 which is the cube root of the difference in mass between the moon and the sun. But this is because the earth is larger than the moon so that the gravitational pull of the moon on the earth is more dispersed, while the distant sun's gravitational pull on the earth is more concentrated. The actual figure of the difference of the sun's gravitational effect on the earth, relative to the moon, is 1/7 greater than it would be otherwise. 7 is the square root of the proportional volume difference between the earth and moon, which is 49. This is another manifestation of the principle that we saw in "The Effective Center Of Gravity", on the Physics and Astronomy blog.
But comparing the gravitational forces of the earth and sun, as seen from the moon, the opposite occurs. The sun's gravity is over 1.6 times what it would seem it should be, relative to that of the earth and applying these rules here. But that is actually due to the density of the earth, relative to the moon. The earth is about 1.6 times the density of the moon, and the sun also acts through the earth's gravity because it is within the gravitational field of the sun, and the moon is within the gravitational field of the earth. If the earth were of the same density as the moon, this would not be the case.
We must multiply by the earth's density, relative to the moon, because the density of the earth thus far in the formula has only been multiplied by the one-dimensional angular diameter of the earth, relative to the sun as seen from the moon. The volume of the sun is not a really essential factor due to it's great distance. The volume of the earth, relative to the moon, counts when the moon and the sun are compared from earth. The density of the earth, relative to the moon, counts when the earth and sun are compared from the moon.
The cumulative gravity of the entire universe is why it does not operate by the same rules as light, even though both are governed by the Inverse Square Law. This is why the sun and moon appear as about the same size in the sky, the moon is actually 2.04 times the density of the sun, yet the sun's gravitational effect on the earth is 169 times that of the moon. The sun's greater mass gives it a stronger link to outside gravity, the center of the galaxy, and this outside gravity acts through the sun. The directional alignments of the earth, sun and, moon with center of the gravity matter little. The effect of the sun's gravity is proportional to only the cube root of the mass difference because the earth, moon and sun are three objects and all are ultimately under the gravitational effects of the center of the galaxy.
Light, unlike gravity, is not cumulative and so the two operate by different rules, even though they both operate by the Inverse Square Law. Thus, the Inverse Square Law reveals how the universe operates by cumulative gravity, and that gravity goes according to the cube root.
MATHEMATICAL CHECK OF ABOVE CALCULATIONS
But if the application of the Inverse Square Law to light and gravity cannot be directly compared, then there must be some formula of the relationship between the two. The formula that I come up with is as follows:
The square root of the apparent size difference between two distant objects X the density difference between the two objects X the difference in observed gravitational force between the two objects = the square root of (the mass difference divided by the ratio of distance of the two objects)
Applying this formula to the difference between the earth and sun, as seen from the moon: the apparent size difference is 16, the earth appearing as four times as wide and four times as high as the sun, and the square root of this is 4. The density difference is the earth is 3.37 times as dense as the sun. The gravity difference is that the sun has 2.08 times the gravity of the earth, as measured from the moon. This gives us 28.04.
This is very close to the square root of the mass difference between the sun and the earth, which is 333.000, divided by the distance difference between the sun and the earth, which is 400. This gives us the square root of 832.5, which is 28.85.
28.04 is close to 28.85. We do not get an exact answer because, of course, the figures are average figures and the distance between the earth and the moon and the sun is not constant.
Notice that, to the left of the equals sign, the larger figure must come first. The first two figures are the earth relative to the sun, but the gravity ratio is the sun relative to the earth. The same holds true for the right side of the equation, both are the sun relative to the earth.
CONCLUSION
Gravity is really 2x as strong as it seems to us. The universe seems to require about 8 times the gravitational mass that we can see in order to hold together the way it does. The Inverse Square Law for gravity, in contrast to light, is cumulative and goes by the cube root of the difference in mass. The cube root of 8 is 2 because 2 x 2 x 2 = 8.
We keep looking for "Dark Matter" to explain the discrepancy, but we never find it. That is because the reason for the discrepancy is the way that we see the universe due to our nature, and my cosmological theory is the only plausible explanation for it.
If we have a model of how the universe works, but that requires some component that we have not discovered yet, so we look for a century and do not see any sign of this required component, maybe it is about time to realize that it is the model of the universe that is incorrect.
Remember my doctrine that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. Until a few centuries ago, it was thought that the entire universe revolved around the earth because that is what our initial observation tells us. So, why should we think that we can observe the far reaches of the universe and it will be just as our senses tell us?
With the limitations our our observations in mind, let's look at why we perceive light as traveling through space at the speed our consciousness is actually traveling along our bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains.
Everything, both space and matter, consists of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Matter is a concentration of like charges held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.
This is why a certain amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy, as expressed in Einstein's famous formula E = MC squared. The equivalence of mass and energy is also the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
The universe can be traced, by my cosmology theory, back to a single electric charge, whether negative or positive. The two electric charges must always balance out. The first, original, charge was an imbalance. So an opposite charge had to be induced on each side of the original charge. It had to be on both sides of the original charge because two electric charges meant there had to be two opposite directions in each dimension. But this also resulted in an odd number of charges, and thus an imbalance of electric charges. So the process of charge reproduction by mutual induction continued indefinitely, in multiple dimensions.
This is what formed all of the space in the universe. It is a multidimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges, that overall balances out to zero. The electromagnetism of electromagnetic waves comes from the wave disturbing the underlying electric charge balance.
Matter came into being when a two-dimensional sheet of alternating negative and positive charges formed within the surrounding background space. But it's alternating pattern of charges was not contiguous with that of the background space.
Since dimensions of space form right angles, this means that the two-dimensional sheet must have been aligned at something other than a right angle to the checkerboard pattern of the charges of the background space. If it would have been aligned, by the pattern of it's electric charges, either horizontally or vertically with the background space, then it wouldn't exist as a separate sheet of space.
We know that the universe always seeks the lowest information state, as well as the lowest energy state, because energy and information is really the same thing. The universe prefers an equality to an inequality because the equality is the lower information state. In everyday terms that is why high pressure and low pressure, as well as hot and cold, will seek to equalize.
So if the two-dimensional sheet cannot be aligned contiguous with the multi-dimensional background space, and the universe prefers an equality to an inequality, the only alignment that the two-dimensional sheet could have, relative to the right angled charge alignment of the background space, is to have it's charge alignment at a 45 degree angle to the background space, because 45 degrees is exactly half of a right angle.
In my cosmology theory, the matter of our universe formed when charge migration took place in the two-dimensional sheet, positive to one side and negative to the other, because it brought about a lower information state relative to the charge alignment of the background space. Not being contiguous with the pattern of charge alignment of the background space, the positive side of the two-dimensional sheet came into contact with the negative side. This brought about the matter-antimatter reaction that we perceive as the Big Bang.
One dimension of the two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrated into energy in the Big Bang. The remaining dimension had it's charges, in lines of like charges both negative and positive because charge migration had taken place in the sheet, "welded" together by the energy released in the disintegration of the other dimension.
This is what formed the one-dimensional strings of matter in the universe. We see these strings as charged particles, such as electrons, because the strings of the two-dimensional sheet were thrown out, by the Big Bang, over four dimensions of the background space, and we can only see in three of the four dimensions because we experience the other as time.
Objects appear to us to be moving when the bundle of strings comprising the object is aligned differently in space from the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains. If a string, or bundle of strings, is aligned at a right angle to our bundle of strings then it will appear to us to be moving at the speed of light. The speed of light appears to us to be the maximum possible velocity because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.
This means that the strings which form matter have a 45 degree angle to the right angled alignment of the negative and positive electric charges of the background space. We cannot sense this 45 degree angle and it usually makes no difference to us, until we do something involving electromagnetic waves.
Picture a geometric square, this represents the arrangement of electric charges in the background space. Now picture a diagonal across the square, from the lower left corner to the upper right, this represents the alignment of the strings of matter from the two-dimensional sheet because it's electric charges are aligned at a 45 degree angle to those of the background space.
Now picture a straight line from the midpoint of the left side of the square, extending across the square until it meets the diagonal.
Then picture another straight line from the midpoint of the bottom side of the square, extending upward until it meets the diagonal at the same point that the other midpoint line met the diagonal.
Both of the midpoint lines form a 45 degree angle with the diagonal. The midpoint lines represent our interaction with space with regard to electromagnetic waves.
Our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is where the speed of light comes from, it is actually within us. That is why we can measure the speed of light with precision but can find no reason why it is that speed, instead of some other speed.
It also explains what time is. I could find no plausible explanation anywhere as to what time is. This is the answer, it is within us as the speed of our consciousness moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
A basic assumption regarding science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe. But what if that is not true? In my cosmology theory 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.
With everyday life, and ordinary physics, our perspective on the universe, as well as this 45 degree angle, doesn't make much difference. But when we deal with cosmology, the nature of the universe, it does make a difference.
When we look out into the universe we are seeing at 45 degrees into our past dimension. This means back toward the Big Bang in the fourth dimension of space, the one that we perceive as time. That is why we seem to be looking backward into time when we look out into space.
When we transmit electromagnetic waves out into space we are actually sending the waves out into our future dimension, the opposite direction of the past dimension at 45 degrees. This is why, when we bounce a radar signal off the moon, it seems to take time to get to the moon and back.
What is really happening is that the signal is instantaneous but, since it went out at a 45 degree angle, it also bounces back at a 45 degree angle, and arrives back at the bundle of strings comprising the earth in our future dimension. Our consciousness is moving in that direction at what we perceive as the speed of light, when we arrive at where the signal arrived back at earth the signal appears to have only just gotten back to us while moving at the speed of light.
Now you understand, if there is really no speed of light, why we see a star that is 36 light-years distant, for example, as it was 36 years in the past. It is just that we are looking at it at a 45 degree angle and since a triangle with two 45 degree angles has two equal sides, we do not see light from the star until our consciousness has traveled along our strings a distance equal to that to the star.The same vector concept applies to when we send electromagnetic waves outward, such as a radar signal that is bounced off the moon. The signal will travel at a 45 degree angle to the moon, bounce off and our consciousness will receive when it comes back to the radar antenna at an angle of 45 degrees. Thus, the radar operators will not receive the signal back until their consciousnesses have traveled a distance equal to twice that of the distance to the moon.
Since they are unaware of this movement, unless they have read my theory, they will perceive that the signal takes time to get to the moon and back. But the time is actually the movement of their consciousness along the bundle of string composing their bodies and brains. The same goes for communication between earth and a spacecraft. Imagine throwing a ball at a wall, not straight-on but at a 45 degree angle so that it bounces off the wall at a 45 degree angle.
We never notice this 45 degree slant to all the light that we see because all the light we see is slanted at the same 45 degrees to the past. This is why we see distant objects in space as they were in the past, even though there is no actual speed of light. Two people facing each other are actually seeing each other at 45 degrees to the past, but at terrestrial distance the difference that this makes is negligible.
Once again, we have to see and transmit at 45 degrees whenever we deal with electromagnetic waves because the alignment of the strings of matter which formed from two-dimensional sheet of space was aligned at an angle of 45 degrees to the alignment of the checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in the background space.
THE DOPPLER EFFECT IN COSMOLOGY
The so-called "Doppler Effect" is the red-shifting of light from astronomical bodies that appear to be moving away from us at great velocity. Red is the end of the visible spectrum with the longest wavelengths, and the shifting of the frequency of light toward red is due to the velocity "stretching out" the wavelengths of light that are emitted from the moving object. The light would be blue-shifted, toward shorter wavelengths, if the object were moving toward us at high velocity.
A good illustration of the Doppler Effect is the whistle of a train that is moving toward the observer. The whistle will sound high-pitched as the train approaches, due to "compression" of the waves of sound by the train's forward movement, which will then drop to a low pitch as the train passes the observer, because the sound waves are now "stretched out" by the train's movement.
But the Doppler Effect on the light from distant objects that appear to be moving away from us at high velocities can be explained simply by the angle of the bundle of strings representing the object, in relation to our bundles of strings. Remembering that, in my cosmology theory, velocity is actually the angles of bundles of strings. The relative angle would function as a kind of a prism in that an angle away from us would appear to "stretch out" the wavelengths of the waves toward red and an angle toward us would appear to "compress" the wavelengths of the waves toward blue.
The so-called "Doppler Effect" is the red-shifting of light from astronomical bodies that appear to be moving away from us at great velocity. Red is the end of the visible spectrum with the longest wavelengths, and the shifting of the frequency of light toward red is due to the velocity "stretching out" the wavelengths of light that are emitted from the moving object. The light would be blue-shifted, toward shorter wavelengths, if the object were moving toward us at high velocity.
A good illustration of the Doppler Effect is the whistle of a train that is moving toward the observer. The whistle will sound high-pitched as the train approaches, due to "compression" of the waves of sound by the train's forward movement, which will then drop to a low pitch as the train passes the observer, because the sound waves are now "stretched out" by the train's movement.
But the Doppler Effect on the light from distant objects that appear to be moving away from us at high velocities can be explained simply by the angle of the bundle of strings representing the object, in relation to our bundles of strings. Remembering that, in my cosmology theory, velocity is actually the angles of bundles of strings. The relative angle would function as a kind of a prism in that an angle away from us would appear to "stretch out" the wavelengths of the waves toward red and an angle toward us would appear to "compress" the wavelengths of the waves toward blue.
THE 45 DEGREE ANGLE AND COSMOLOGY
Suppose that two people are throwing a ball back and forth between them, but one of the two is on a conveyor belt or moving sidewalk. Each would have to both throw and receive the ball at an angle, rather than straight-on. The required angle would be the vector between the rate of motion of the conveyor belt and the velocity of the ball. The same principle applies when we send or receive light from space, as well as throw or hit a ball or fire a bullet, because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
We can shine a flashlight into a mirror and get the light back because the flashlight and mirror are actually four-dimensional objects, like all other matter, of which we can only see three dimensions at once. The fourth dimension is, of course, the spatial dimension that we perceive as time. The light reflected from the mirror is actually that which reaches it from the flashlight at a 45 degree angle and the light from the mirror to the observer is also that which is at a 45 degree angle.
The result is that everything you see is in the past. The further away it is, the further in the past it is. The observable universe extends back to the Big Bang from which it began but we cannot actually see how vast the universe is today because we only see along a 45 degree visual cone extending into our past.
Seeing into the future at 45 degrees would require another 90 degree dimension. If we could see the moon's future, it would be 90 degrees in the sky from it's past. This is because the space that we inhabit is actually of four 90 degree dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, because the time dimension is the one along which the strings of matter in our universe is mostly aligned, and it is the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains which causes us to perceive time. So we can see the moon's future, but only when our consciousness gets there in the dimension that we perceive as time.
If we are indeed progressing forward in the spatial dimension that we perceive as time, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and any light or electromagnetic waves that we transmit into space is moving into our future dimension at a 45 degree angle, then we should see that light as moving outward at what we perceive as the speed of light and indeed that is exactly what we see. Because the two legs of a right triangle are equal in length, the the diagonal is at a 45 degree angle, we perceive the light as moving at the same rate as our consciousness is actually moving.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND NUCLEAR FISSION
But this brings us to a conclusion about the energy released by nuclear fission. We saw in the theory that the initial products of the fission move apart, due to the like-charge repulsion after the sudden release of the nuclear binding energy, at a direct right angle to the bundle of strings of the matter.
This is what then brings us to Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared. The formula means that energy (E) within matter is equal to the mass (M) multiplied by the constant (C) squared. The constant is the speed of light, which is absolutely invariable in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In other words, a small amount of matter contains a fantastic amount of energy.
I have pointed out previously how this reflects my cosmological theory. The right angles at which the product particles of fission move outward represents one speed of light, since matter moving at a right angle appears to us as moving at the speed of light. Our motion along the bundles of strings of which our bodies and brains are composed, at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is going on during the fission process, is the second speed of light. This is why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in E = MC squared, there are two speeds of light involved in the vector of energy that we perceive as released by nuclear fission.
Another way of looking at why the speed of light is squared in the formula involves the 45 degree angle at which we would necessarily radiate electromagnetic waves into our future spatial dimension because of the vector formed by our forward momentum in our time dimension. But the product particles of the nuclear fission move outward not at a 45 degree angle, but at a full right angle because that is the most direct route for the two suddenly released from binding energy like-charged particles to get away from one another.
Suppose that two people are throwing a ball back and forth between them, but one of the two is on a conveyor belt or moving sidewalk. Each would have to both throw and receive the ball at an angle, rather than straight-on. The required angle would be the vector between the rate of motion of the conveyor belt and the velocity of the ball. The same principle applies when we send or receive light from space, as well as throw or hit a ball or fire a bullet, because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
We can shine a flashlight into a mirror and get the light back because the flashlight and mirror are actually four-dimensional objects, like all other matter, of which we can only see three dimensions at once. The fourth dimension is, of course, the spatial dimension that we perceive as time. The light reflected from the mirror is actually that which reaches it from the flashlight at a 45 degree angle and the light from the mirror to the observer is also that which is at a 45 degree angle.
The result is that everything you see is in the past. The further away it is, the further in the past it is. The observable universe extends back to the Big Bang from which it began but we cannot actually see how vast the universe is today because we only see along a 45 degree visual cone extending into our past.
Seeing into the future at 45 degrees would require another 90 degree dimension. If we could see the moon's future, it would be 90 degrees in the sky from it's past. This is because the space that we inhabit is actually of four 90 degree dimensions, one of which we perceive as time, because the time dimension is the one along which the strings of matter in our universe is mostly aligned, and it is the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains which causes us to perceive time. So we can see the moon's future, but only when our consciousness gets there in the dimension that we perceive as time.
If we are indeed progressing forward in the spatial dimension that we perceive as time, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and any light or electromagnetic waves that we transmit into space is moving into our future dimension at a 45 degree angle, then we should see that light as moving outward at what we perceive as the speed of light and indeed that is exactly what we see. Because the two legs of a right triangle are equal in length, the the diagonal is at a 45 degree angle, we perceive the light as moving at the same rate as our consciousness is actually moving.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND NUCLEAR FISSION
But this brings us to a conclusion about the energy released by nuclear fission. We saw in the theory that the initial products of the fission move apart, due to the like-charge repulsion after the sudden release of the nuclear binding energy, at a direct right angle to the bundle of strings of the matter.
This is what then brings us to Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared. The formula means that energy (E) within matter is equal to the mass (M) multiplied by the constant (C) squared. The constant is the speed of light, which is absolutely invariable in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In other words, a small amount of matter contains a fantastic amount of energy.
I have pointed out previously how this reflects my cosmological theory. The right angles at which the product particles of fission move outward represents one speed of light, since matter moving at a right angle appears to us as moving at the speed of light. Our motion along the bundles of strings of which our bodies and brains are composed, at what we perceive as the speed of light, which is going on during the fission process, is the second speed of light. This is why the speed of light is squared, or multiplied by itself in E = MC squared, there are two speeds of light involved in the vector of energy that we perceive as released by nuclear fission.
Another way of looking at why the speed of light is squared in the formula involves the 45 degree angle at which we would necessarily radiate electromagnetic waves into our future spatial dimension because of the vector formed by our forward momentum in our time dimension. But the product particles of the nuclear fission move outward not at a 45 degree angle, but at a full right angle because that is the most direct route for the two suddenly released from binding energy like-charged particles to get away from one another.
This right angle is twice the angle of the 45 degrees of any light that we transmit so that there is effectively two speeds of light involved in the energy released by nuclear fission, and that is why E = MC squared.
DISTANCE SCALE AND GRAVITY
When there are two parallel sides, such as the green sides of this blog, the distance between the two sides can actually be any distance above the minimum distance across, depending on the angle of the crossing. When one spacecraft appears to us to be going slower than another, it is just that the "slower" one is taking a much longer route to it's destination due to the angle at which it's bundle of strings are crossing the gap to it's destination.
We see into the past at a 45 degree angle, due to the movement of our consciousness forward, what this means to us is that our measurement of distance is actually off by a factor of 1.414. That is, we perceive the moon as being 1.414 times further from the earth than it is. The legs of a right triangle are equal and the diagonal is 1.414 times the length of either leg.
It is actually only .707, the reciprocal of 1.414, as far as it appears. Mathematics students will recognize this number as the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two equal sides and thus, two 45 degree angles. It is also the square root of 2.
When we measure the distance to the moon, we are actually measuring the distance that the light we see from the moon has traveled to get to us. When we measure the effects of gravity, we are also measuring 45 degrees into the past. As you can now see, this is further than the most direct distance to the moon by a factor of 1.414. The moon is only .707 times as far away, by the most direct route, as we perceive it.
This is why gravity is stronger in the galaxy as a whole then it seems to be to us, it is actually not acting over a distance as far as we perceive it to be. If objects in space are only .707 as far away as we perceive them to be, because we see at an angle of 45 degrees into the past, due to the vector of our looking outward while our consciousness is moving forward along the bundle of strings that is our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light, that means that the force of gravity, which operates by the Inverse Square Law, must actually be twice as strong as we perceive it to be.
LIGHT, GRAVITY AND THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW
Establishing that gravity is really twice as strong as we perceive it to be, because we perceive objects as being 1.414 as distant as they really are as explained by my cosmology theory, was the first step. Now, let's move on to the second step.
Has anyone ever noticed that both light and gravity operate by the Inverse Square Law, but that the two cannot be directly compared? The Inverse Square Law simply means that, if an object is twice as far away, it will have only one-quarter of the brightness, apparent angular diameter or, gravitational force.
But yet light and gravity, with regard to the Inverse Square law, simply do not compare directly. I find that gravity is cumulative, but light is not, and that is why the two operate by different rules within the Inverse Square Law. The force of gravity links to the structure of the entire universe, while the intensity of light does not. I find that this reveals a lot about how the universe operates.
The gravitational effect of large objects are stronger than is to be expected, if we used the same logic as with the rules governing light. The larger the object, the more out of proportion is the gravity. The gravity of a massive object includes it's orbital energy and gravitational attractions to further gravitational nodes to which that object is connected, and which extend throughout the entire universe.
Consider that, from earth, the sun and moon appear as about the same angular size in the sky. The moon is 2.04 times as dense as the sun. If gravity operated in the same way as light, with regard to the Inverse Square Law, then the force of the moon's gravity on earth would be 2.04 that of the sun.
Yet, the reality is that the gravitational force of the sun on the earth is 169 times that of the moon.
Now, suppose that there was an observer on the moon. The earth would appear in the sky as having four times the angular diameter of the sun. The earth is also more dense than the sun, 3.37 times as dense. Using the same logic as with light, this should mean that the earth's gravitational effect on the moon should be 13.48 times that of the sun.
Yet, this is not the case. The sun's gravitational effect on the moon is actually 2.08 times that of the earth. The sun is 400 times as far from the moon as the earth. using the Inverse Square Law, 400 squared is 160,000. but the sun is 333,000 times the mass of the earth, and 333,000 / 160,000 = 2.08.
Very clearly, although both gravity and light operate by the same Inverse Square Law there are great differences between the two which require special explanation. The difference is that gravity is cumulative throughout the universe, while light is not.
One way that we can test these figures is by calculating the tidal effects of the moon and the sun on the earth's oceans. We see that the sun exerts a gravitational force on the earth that is 169 times that of the moon. This is because the sun has 27 million times the mass of the moon (Remember that the sun is 333,000 times the mass of the earth, while the earth is 81 times the mass of the moon). The sun and moon appear as about the same size in the sky. The sun has 400 times the diameter of the moon, but is 400 times as distant. The earth is 3.37 times the density of the sun, while the moon is .606 earth's density, lacking a heavy iron core. The tidal effect of the sun on the earth is known to be only about 40% that of the moon, we can see this figure by dividing 169/400 because being closer to the earth means that there is more difference in the moon's gravity at the top of the ocean than there is at the bottom.
Another test is that we know the earth's mass to be 81 times that of the moon. From the moon, the gravity of the sun is 2.08 that of the earth. From the earth, the sun's gravity is 169 times that of the moon. Notice that 169 / 2.08 = 81.
Here are some basic figures which might be helpful here, and which I use in the calculations:
The earth is 49 times the volume and 81 times the mass of the moon, so that it is about 1.6 times the density.
The earth is 3.37 times the density of the sun, the moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun.
The sun and moon appear from earth as about the same size in the sky, but the sun is about 400 x as far away.
The earth is about 4 times as wide as the sun, as seen from the moon.
The mass of the sun is 333,000 times that of the earth and 27 million times that of the moon).
What I have found is that the differences in gravity, with regard to the Inverse Square Law, is proportional to the cube root of the difference in mass. This is what makes the behavior of gravity different from that of light, even though both operate by the same Inverse Square Law. When the gravitational effect of a larger object is compared to that of a smaller object, as seen from a third object, the larger object will have a gravitational force out of proportion to the rules of light by an amount equal to the cube root of the masses of the larger and the smaller distant objects.
If A x A x A = B, then A is the cube root of B. Cube means three because a cube has three dimensions that are multiplied together to get it's volume. The cube root of 27 is 3 because 3 x 3 x 3 = 27.
The reason that we use the cube root of the mass difference between objects in space of different mass, rather than the direct mass difference itself, is that the massive object is more linked by it's stronger gravity to the branches of the universal gravitational structure. The mass proportional difference between the two distant objects is reduced to it's cube root because outside gravity from the galactic center acts on all three objects, diminishing the importance of the mass differences between them. The sun has a gravitational relationship with the center of the galaxy, which is in turn linked to our Local Group of galaxies, which is linked by gravity to the spurs and filaments making up the structure of the entire universe.
Let's have a look at two examples, the effect of the sun's gravity on the earth relative to that of the moon, and the effects of the sun's gravity on the moon relative to that of the earth.
The sun is 27 million times the mass of the moon. The cube root of 27 million is 300. The moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun, and the two are about the same angular size in the sky. 300 / 2.04 = 147, yet we know that the sun's gravitational force on the earth is 169 times that of the moon.
The reason that the sun's gravitational effect on earth, relative to the moon, is more than 147 is that the earth is a concentrated point as seen from the sun, while it has an angular diameter of about 2 degrees as seen from the moon. This makes the sun's gravitational pull on the earth more efficient than that of the moon, because it is less dispersed (Remember the posting "The Effective Center Of Gravity" on the physics and astronomy blog, about the gravitational attraction of a sphere on a distant point).
The sun's gravitational pull on the earth is actually greater than these figures indicate it should be, 169 x instead of 147, by a factor of 1 + 1 / 7. The earth is 49 times the volume of the moon, and the square root of 49 is 7. If we multiply this by the 147, we get the actual strength of the sun's gravitational pull on the earth relative to the moon, which is 169 times. We use the square root of 49 because the earth's volume, relative to the moon, has only been covered this far in the formula as a one-dimensional angular diameter. This is because the earth appears so different from the moon then it does from the sun. From the sun, it is a concentrated point, but from the moon it is spread over two angular degrees and this somewhat disperses the moon's gravitational effect on the earth.
Another way of expressing it is that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is 169 times that of the moon, but the moon is 2.04 times the density of the sun and 169 x 2.04 is greater than the 300 which is the cube root of the difference in mass between the moon and the sun. But this is because the earth is larger than the moon so that the gravitational pull of the moon on the earth is more dispersed, while the distant sun's gravitational pull on the earth is more concentrated. The actual figure of the difference of the sun's gravitational effect on the earth, relative to the moon, is 1/7 greater than it would be otherwise. 7 is the square root of the proportional volume difference between the earth and moon, which is 49. This is another manifestation of the principle that we saw in "The Effective Center Of Gravity", on the Physics and Astronomy blog.
But comparing the gravitational forces of the earth and sun, as seen from the moon, the opposite occurs. The sun's gravity is over 1.6 times what it would seem it should be, relative to that of the earth and applying these rules here. But that is actually due to the density of the earth, relative to the moon. The earth is about 1.6 times the density of the moon, and the sun also acts through the earth's gravity because it is within the gravitational field of the sun, and the moon is within the gravitational field of the earth. If the earth were of the same density as the moon, this would not be the case.
We must multiply by the earth's density, relative to the moon, because the density of the earth thus far in the formula has only been multiplied by the one-dimensional angular diameter of the earth, relative to the sun as seen from the moon. The volume of the sun is not a really essential factor due to it's great distance. The volume of the earth, relative to the moon, counts when the moon and the sun are compared from earth. The density of the earth, relative to the moon, counts when the earth and sun are compared from the moon.
The cumulative gravity of the entire universe is why it does not operate by the same rules as light, even though both are governed by the Inverse Square Law. This is why the sun and moon appear as about the same size in the sky, the moon is actually 2.04 times the density of the sun, yet the sun's gravitational effect on the earth is 169 times that of the moon. The sun's greater mass gives it a stronger link to outside gravity, the center of the galaxy, and this outside gravity acts through the sun. The directional alignments of the earth, sun and, moon with center of the gravity matter little. The effect of the sun's gravity is proportional to only the cube root of the mass difference because the earth, moon and sun are three objects and all are ultimately under the gravitational effects of the center of the galaxy.
Light, unlike gravity, is not cumulative and so the two operate by different rules, even though they both operate by the Inverse Square Law. Thus, the Inverse Square Law reveals how the universe operates by cumulative gravity, and that gravity goes according to the cube root.
MATHEMATICAL CHECK OF ABOVE CALCULATIONS
But if the application of the Inverse Square Law to light and gravity cannot be directly compared, then there must be some formula of the relationship between the two. The formula that I come up with is as follows:
The square root of the apparent size difference between two distant objects X the density difference between the two objects X the difference in observed gravitational force between the two objects = the square root of (the mass difference divided by the ratio of distance of the two objects)
Applying this formula to the difference between the earth and sun, as seen from the moon: the apparent size difference is 16, the earth appearing as four times as wide and four times as high as the sun, and the square root of this is 4. The density difference is the earth is 3.37 times as dense as the sun. The gravity difference is that the sun has 2.08 times the gravity of the earth, as measured from the moon. This gives us 28.04.
This is very close to the square root of the mass difference between the sun and the earth, which is 333.000, divided by the distance difference between the sun and the earth, which is 400. This gives us the square root of 832.5, which is 28.85.
28.04 is close to 28.85. We do not get an exact answer because, of course, the figures are average figures and the distance between the earth and the moon and the sun is not constant.
Notice that, to the left of the equals sign, the larger figure must come first. The first two figures are the earth relative to the sun, but the gravity ratio is the sun relative to the earth. The same holds true for the right side of the equation, both are the sun relative to the earth.
CONCLUSION
Gravity is really 2x as strong as it seems to us. The universe seems to require about 8 times the gravitational mass that we can see in order to hold together the way it does. The Inverse Square Law for gravity, in contrast to light, is cumulative and goes by the cube root of the difference in mass. The cube root of 8 is 2 because 2 x 2 x 2 = 8.
We keep looking for "Dark Matter" to explain the discrepancy, but we never find it. That is because the reason for the discrepancy is the way that we see the universe due to our nature, and my cosmological theory is the only plausible explanation for it.
If we have a model of how the universe works, but that requires some component that we have not discovered yet, so we look for a century and do not see any sign of this required component, maybe it is about time to realize that it is the model of the universe that is incorrect.