Everyday Cosmology

We think of scientists exploring how the universe operates with very specialized and expensive equipment, such as telescopes, particle accelerators and, space probes. But everything that we do is part of the universe and the way everyday tasks operate is ultimately based on the way the universe operates.

This means that we must be able to study the nature of the universe by doing our everyday tasks just as much as scientists do using their specialized equipment.

To begin with, we know that we inhabit three dimensions of space because any object has three measurable dimensions, a length, a width and, a height. We can easily see what shape dimensions are because, when we are stacking boxes or dealing with property lots, right angle forms are the only shape that fits together with no excess space. This means that spatial dimensions must be at right angles to one another.

Dimensions of space are at right angles. But if we look up at the sky we see that the sun and moon are spherical in form. Why would dimensions of space be right-angled but matter that collects by gravity in that space forms spheres?

This means that matter must involve energy and there is only a limited amount of energy in the universe. A sphere is the three-dimensional form with the lowest energy. It is also the form that requires the least information to describe and has the lowest surface area per volume.

Objects made of matter not only have length, width and, height, they also have weight. But if gravity attracts matter, and the matter goes wherever gravity takes it, there shouldn't be any such thing as weight. Everything should be weightless. The only way to explain why there is such a thing as weight is if matter was somehow blocked from going where gravity was trying to pull it and the energy involved shows up as weight.

But what could be blocking matter from going where gravity is trying to pull it? It must be something that we can't see.

This might bring us to the answer being what matter is made of. What if matter is made up of units called atoms? The heavy central part of the atom is what gravity is attracting, but the outside of the atom is somehow blocking it (electron repulsion), and this is what shows up as weight.

So the inside of atoms are attracted by gravity but their outside somehow blocks this attraction when the object comes in contact with another object, and it shows up as weight.

Another mystery is water dripping from a tap. When water leaks slowly from a tap, it doesn't just flow continuously. A certain amount of water accumulates, and then falls as a drop. Clearly there must be two forces at work. One is gravity, which causes the drop to fall, and the other is a force that can oppose gravity but only up to a point. 

This brings us back to weight, gravity with another force that can oppose gravity, and involves the weight of a water drop. We might conclude that there was something like two electric charges, that can either attract or repel each other. Water is held together by the attractive electric charge, the drop only falls when it grows large enough so that gravity can overcome this attractive charge. The weight of the object results when the outer part of it's atoms mutually repel the outer part of the atoms of the surface that it is resting on (electron repulsion).

We might come to the conclusion that atoms are made of two electric charges, which we might call negative and positive.

But how big are atoms? They must be on a scale that we cannot possibly see. One clue is heat. Heat can be logically explained as atoms having the ability to move, and heat being the energy of that movement. When a hot and a cold object are brought into contact some of the energy of the hot object is transferred by the collisions of their atoms.

When cooking we can see that aluminum foil does not retain heat. You can touch foil as soon as it is taken out of the oven. Obviously because the foil is so thin, and heat is the movement of atoms, there are not enough atoms in the thickness of the foil to retain much heat. This means that atoms are not infinitesimal, they must have a definite size.

A clue to the scale of atoms is the scale of gems that refract light. We might realize that some materials are transparent because it's atoms are lined up, so that light can pass between the atoms. We know that such gems are formed by geological processes and that the maximum size of gems that refract light as it passes through them, because their atoms are lined up, is very limited.

The conclusion becomes clear. If gems that refract light because their atoms have been lined up by geological processes then the gems must always be closer in scale to the atoms than to the earth. The maximum size of such a gem would be halfway between the scale of the earth and the scale of atoms. So if we know the scale of the earth we can infer the general scale of atoms.

As for the dripping of water from the tap, the water is held together by electrical forces (hydrogen bonding) until a certain amount of water accumulates at which point gravity overcomes the electrical forces and the water falls as a drop. This appears to be a consistent process as the drops of water seem to be of the same size.

We have already concluded that electrical forces are also responsible for the blocking of atoms from completing the journey on which gravity is trying to take them, and which shows up as weigh. But if gravity eventually overcomes the electrical forces holding water together, so that the water breaks free and falls as a drop, what would happen if enough matter should accumulate by gravity to overcome this electrical force blockage, and crunch atoms together?

We have also already concluded that there is a relationship between surface area and energy, because the sun and moon form spheres, which have the lowest surface area per volume, even though the dimensions of space are at right angles to one another.

There are other ways we can see that there is a definite relationship between surface area and energy. If we bake something in the oven, like a pie or a potato, we find that it cools faster afterward if we slice open the potato or cut the pie in half, because this increases the surface area of the pie or potato.

When there is still water and something is dropped in it, there is energy in the falling object. If the water slows down the fall of the object then that means that some of the energy must be transferred to the water. This increases the surface area of the water, in the form of waves. So there is a definite relationship between energy and surface area.

So if gravity eventually overcomes the electrical forces holding water together, and the water falls as a drop, what would happen if enough matter was pulled together by gravity in space to overcome the electrical forces holding atoms apart (electron repulsion)?

Suppose that atoms are spherical in shape, which would be logical because a sphere is the geometric form requiring the least energy and the least information. Now suppose that we get two spherical lumps of clay, and mold them together into one sphere. The one sphere will have less surface area than the two original spheres, because a larger sphere has less surface area per volume.

Remember that there is a direct relationship between energy and surface area. This means that if enough matter comes together in space so that it's mutual gravity can overcome the electrical forces holding atoms apart, and crunch atoms together into larger atoms, there is now less surface area than there was before. Since surface area is directly related to energy, this means that there is excess energy that must be released.

Plainly and simply, this is why the sun shines. The same applies to any star. It is simple geometry, when two spheres are combined together into one the new sphere has less surface area than the two original spheres, and surface area is directly related to energy. The earth and moon do not shine because they do not contain enough mass for it's mutual gravity to overcome the electrical forces holding atoms apart, crunch atoms together, and ignite as a star.

We can also see how living things fit into this. Humans are more complex than their inanimate surroundings. The more complex something is, the more there is that can go wrong. We could say that a medical textbook represents the difference in complexity between humans and our inanimate surroundings.

Unlike inanimate matter, living things manifest the peak pattern. We have optimums of food, sleep, temperature and, work and recreation. There is no corresponding peak pattern in the universe of inanimate matter. 

A peak requires two dimensions. That is why mathematics is generally less useful in describing biology than it is with "inanimate" sciences, like physics and astronomy. Numbers form a one-dimensional line but a peak is two dimensions.

The higher complexity of living things shows up immediately as what I refer to as "alphabetization". Different parts form a living thing in the same way that letters form words. A human foot, for example, would be meaningless by itself, without being part of a body. But this does not apply to a rock, which would have just as much meaning floating around in space as it would being part of a planet. Even though living things are made of the same kind of atoms as their inanimate surroundings.

The peak pattern in living things shows up as what I call "definable dimensions". A rock or a planet does not really have a definitely definable top or bottom, front or back. A planet has a rotational axis, but nothing to define which end is the top, and which the bottom. 

A plant has a definable top and bottom, but not a front and back. Living things with free will, such as humans, have both a definable front and back and a top and bottom. My conclusion is that this is because plants are more intricate, meaning more complexity per mass, than the surrounding inanimate environment, but are overall no more complex. Living things with free will, in contrast, are more complex and more intricate than the surrounding inanimate environment, and thus must have two definable dimensions.

My final conclusion, of course, is that living things could not have arisen from inanimate matter without having been created by God.

Isn't it amazing what we have discovered about the universe just by going about our daily tasks at home, without any laboratory or scientific equipment? But our daily tasks, and the way that they work, are part of the universe, and the way that they work must ultimately be based on how the universe works.