The Illusion Of Distance

One of the basic presumptions that we make, with regard to science, is that we have an unbiased view of the universe. This means that we can completely rely on our measurements and observations when seeking to make discoveries about the universe.

An underlying principle of my cosmology work is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. So many discoveries not only cannot be explained by ordinary physics but actually contradict each other, particularly between Relativity and Quantum Physics. My explanation is basically that we are seeing ourselves reflected back at us.

What I want to discuss today is something else that is so basic to us, but yet might well be an illusion. That thing is distance.

When we look at a far-away object we see that there is a distance between us and the object. The object will look relatively smaller and dimmer by how far away it is, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But maybe distance is just the way we interpret it, according to our nature.

We can see that distance is actually equivalent to energy. Stars and planets form spheres because a sphere is the three-dimensional form with the lowest energy state, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. A sphere is also the form with the lowest surface-to-volume ratio. This shows that energy is equivalent to surface area, and thus distance.

Another way that we can see the equivalence between surface area, and thus distance, and energy is the waves on water. If the water is still then the water is at it's minimum surface area, and that is the lowest energy state. But if there is a wind then there is energy in the wind. That energy shows up by increasing the surface area of the water, in the form of waves.

Orbits clearly show the relationship between distance and energy. The higher the orbit the higher the orbital energy, even though the object moves more slowly in a higher orbit according to the Inverse Square Law. The orbital energy amounts to space, in other words distance, the amount of space that a line from the earth to the object covers per unit of time.

But probably the simplest way to see the relationship between energy and distance is to drop something. The greater the distance it falls the greater the energy of it's impact.

All of this is why, if we want to go to a distant place, we have to expend energy to get there. Because distance is really energy and so we have to expend energy to get there.

I question what distance really is. We see it as something being either far or near. But since distance is equivalent to energy couldn't how far away something is from us simply be a manifestation of how much energy there is between us? Objects appear smaller and dimmer at a distance because the light from the object has to go through more energy to get to us.

According to my cosmology theory empty space consists of a checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. There is energy in the bonds between opposite electric charges, and that is why it requires energy to go anywhere in space. We have to match the energy in those electric charges. It is also why objects appear smaller and dimmer at a distance, light from the object has to go through more energy to get to us.

Also according to my cosmology theory matter, as opposed to empty space, is composed of like electric charges, held together against the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy. This is why matter consists of charged particles, like electrons and protons. But this means that matter has more energy than empty space.

This is why, if we are going to an object some distance away, it requires more energy if there is a wall in our way, that we have to go through or over, or objects in our way that we have to go around.

We perceive both light and gravity across space as operating by the Inverse Square Law, an object twice as far away will have one-quarter the size, brightness and, gravity. But we know that light is a two-dimensional wave, with the two elements of amplitude and wavelength each of which requires a dimension. Because of these two dimensions of light, which forms a square, we could perceive information across space as operating by the Inverse Square Law.

A basic presumption in science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe, that we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. My view is that so much that is otherwise unexplainable falls into place when we realize that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We are part of the universe ourselves and we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

Ordinary textbook physics is the way the universe really operates. New physics, such as Relativity and Quantum Physics, which both contradict each other and are unexplainable by ordinary physics, are really elements of our own nature being reflected back at us. 

Our presumption that we have an unbiased view of the universe may work fine for other branches of science, but when we get into studying the basic nature of the universe we start seeing our own nature reflected back at us.

We know that so much of what we see all around us is optical illusions. Rainbows and the blue sky are not really there. Color itself is an optical illusion, just the way our eyes and brains handle different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that we can see.

So why shouldn't even more of basic physics, such as distance, turn out to be just our way of seeing things, because we most certainly do not have an unbiased view of the universe?