This posting has been moved to the compound posting, "The Theory Of Complexity", August 2017.
We are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, but how much more complex? This is a difficult question to answer because we cannot readily quantify, or put a number on, complexity. But if it is true that, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers, then there must somehow be a way to quantify just how complex we are with regard to our inanimate surroundings.
There are a number of possible starting points to measure this complexity that I have written about already.
We know that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. A medical textbook is basically a catalog of all that can possibly go wrong with the human body. The ailments and injuries in a medical textbook thus represent the difference in complexity between our bodies and our inanimate surroundings.
We can see how our brains must be more complex than our bodies because we can recognize each other. If our brains were no more complex than our bodies, we would be able to tell another human being but would not be able to tell one person from another.
In my complexity theory, the free will of living things only makes sense if the living thing has the capacity to be either right or wrong in it's conclusions about it's surroundings. It can only be right or wrong about it's surroundings if it is more complex than those surroundings. There is not enough information in the surroundings that are of lower complexity for everything that the being with free will can conceive of to exist. Therefore the conclusions of the being about it's surroundings can be either correct or wrong.
But that would not be the case if a living thing were not more complex than it's surroundings. Such a living thing would not be able to conceive of anything that could not exist in it's surroundings, therefore free will would be meaningless. That is why, in my complexity theory, plants do not have free will. It would make no sense because plants are no more complex than their inanimate surroundings. Plants are certainly more intricate, meaning more complexity per mass, but contain no more intrinsic information than their inanimate environment.
This greater intricacy, but not more complexity, is why plants can die but do not need to think. It also explains why plants are typically much more able to recover, and go on living, from damage than humans and other beings with free will are able to recover from injuries. The plants require more intricacy, but no more overall complexity, than the surrounding inanimate environment, while the humans and other beings require both more intricacy and more complexity. Plants thus have the advantage of lower requirements.
But this means that we, and other beings with free will, must be more complex than plants. Since we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, that means that it is continuously trying to break us down to it's level. That means that we require food to sustain us. Free will is of no use unless we can act on it with motion, but motion further requires food for energy.
One way that we can see how we are more complex than our surrounding inanimate environment, and plants more intricate although not more complex, is in the basic patterns involved, particularly the peak. The meaningful peak pattern is generally missing in the universe of inanimate matter, but is predominant in living things. Inanimate matter tends to form a slope, the more the better. There is no peak factor in a star, for example, the more matter is available the larger and more radiant the star will be. But living things operate by having a peak, or optimum, temperature, percentage of oxygen, and so on. Humans have optimums of work, sleep and, food. It is not just the simple slope, the more the better, of inanimate matter. A peak is more complex in that it involves multiple slopes.
We use plants for food, either directly or indirectly through meat. But my complexity theory also establishes that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is how we can, through technology, make our lives physically easier but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. This shows, again, that energy and information is really the same thing.
However, that apparently presents a problem for us. We require plants for food, to maintain our higher level of complexity over our inanimate surroundings, but yet those plants are themselves no more complex than our inanimate environment.
Yet that provides us with a possibly way to see numerically just how much more complex we are than our surrounding environment. The fact that plants are no more complex than the surrounding inanimate environment is why no one species of plant will provide us with the necessary nutrition for optimum health. We require a balanced diet that encompasses a number of different plants.
We could thus state that we are X times as complex as our surrounding environment with X being the number of different plants that are required, either directly or indirectly through meat, to maintain us in optimum health.
MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS AND WORDS
Everything is really numbers, ultimately expressible as mathematics. We also use words to describe the world and the universe around us. The difference between words and numbers is that numbers are how everything in the universe actually operates, while words describe how we see the universe.
To describe something with mathematics we must completely understand it's operation, such as a calendar or periodic table. But we can describe something with words without completely understanding it.
If we were of the same complexity as our surrounding inanimate environment, then there should be the same number of words as there are of mathematical symbols. In fact, there should be no difference between the two. But that is not the case, there are many more words than mathematical symbols.
With words we are seeing our own complexity reflected back at us, but with numbers and mathematics we are not. Words describe how things affect us and there must thus be more words than mathematical symbols because we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings.
In fact, just as with the number of different plants that are required for us to have a balanced diet we can put a measurement on our complexity, relative to the surrounding inanimate matter, by the ratio of words to mathematical symbols that we use.
To begin with, only about ten thousand words are in common use. Furthermore, different words can mean essentially the same thing such as "red", "rouge" and, "scarlet". But if we eliminate such redundancies then the ratio of words to mathematical symbols should be approximately equal to the number of plants required to provide a balanced diet, which should be equal to our complexity relative to our inanimate environment.
But keep in mind here that I am referring to the number of mathematical symbols in use, not the percentage of data that is expressed as numbers as opposed to words. I also believe that we can take a measurement on how we are progressing from what we know now to all that we can practically know by what percentage of our data is in the form of numbers, rather than words. The percentage of numbers in our data has greatly increased since centuries past. But there are still many more words used than numbers. This is because, to describe something with numbers we must completely understand it, but that is not the case with words. We should thus theoretically arrive at a day where everything can be expressed as numbers because we will know all that we can practically know.
I am sure that we can measure complexity, which would be a great advantage. It just requires some creative ways of measurement because it is not something that can be measured with a ruler or a scale.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
The Salt Deserts Of Iran
With Iran recently in the news, I thought of something with regard to geology.
The compound posting on the geology blog, www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com , "The Story Of Planet Earth", leaves virtually no major feature of the earth's surface unexplained, either on land or on the seafloor. There is still more to be explained but I have shown how this model of the earth's development works so that readers could see for themselves how any features that are not directly described came to be.
Following is the brief abstract that I use to introduce this theory.
Basically, the theory which reveals the explanation for so much of the major features of the earth's topography and the seafloor ridges is that the continents on earth came from two Continental Asteroids. Much debris from the second, and larger, of these two continental asteroids was hurtled back into space, where it coalesced by gravity to form the moon. The idea of the moon forming in this way is not new, the asteroid is commonly referred to as "Theia", but my theory expands on it to include the continents as well. Each of the impacts of the continental asteroids unbalanced the earth's rotation, by the addition of the new mass, so that the earth's poles and equator underwent two shifts to regain rotational balance by centering one of the poles in the new additional landmass. The land mass from each continental asteroid was eventually broken up by tectonic activity, driven by the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation. The south pole is today in Antarctica because that was the core of the Second Continental Asteroid. A similar situation is seen on Mars, where the southern hemisphere is higher in elevation and thus heavier, than the northern hemisphere. But this does not upset the rotation of Mars because the south pole is in the center of the heavier hemisphere. What this means is that there have been three polar eras on earth, with the poles and equator in different places in each era. We are in the third polar era, after the Second Continental Asteroid. The First Polar Era was before the First Continental Asteroid.
The spin of the earth causes magma, hot molten rock, to emerge from below along the equator by centrifugal force. According to the laws of fluid dynamics, this equatorial emergence must then be balanced by periodic longitudinal lines of emergence in a perpendicular direction to the equator. Each time the poles and equator shifts, to regain rotational balance after the added mass of a continental asteroid, these lines of magma emergence must also shift, but magma emergence continues along old longitudinal and equatorial lines for a long time. This scenario explains just so much about the topography of the land and seafloor, and leaves few major features of the earth unexplained.
For a more in depth review of the theory, read the introduction in "The Story Of Planet Earth", on the geology blog.
Every time I think about this theory I notice something else that is difficult to explain otherwise but can easily be explained by this theory. As an example, let's considered the salt deserts of Iran.
Iran is a mountainous country but you can see that there is a wide, roughly arrow-shaped, area in the northeast central part of the country that is flat, and extends to the southeast. This is actually a plateau, the Iranian Plateau. It encompasses two deserts, the Dasht e Kavir, in the north, and the Dasht e Lut, to the southeast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Iran#/media/File:MapOfIran.png
But a desert is a matter of climate, not of geology. What I find to be so significant is that these two deserts on the plateau are salty. Salt comes from the seas. So how could we possibly get salty deserts on a high plateau far inland in a very mountainous country? This really requires some special explanation that I cannot find anywhere.
But my geology theory, as described in "The Story Of Planet Earth", makes it very simple.
The north-south axis of the Caspian Sea is a longitudinal line of magma emergence from the present polar era, after the landing of the third, and final, Continental Asteroid. The long line of otherwise very difficult to explain mountains that extends across Turkey and Iran to central Asia and beyond is actually the Original Impact Line, the remnants of this last Continental Asteroid as it struck the earth at a relatively low angle.
This extensive range of mountains across Turkey and Iran and into central Asia and beyond being the Original Impact Line of the third, and last, Continental Asteroid resolves another great mystery of the earth's geography. The Caspian Sea is salt water but yet is completely separated, and far away from, the rest of the earth's seas. How could this possibly come to be? The clear and simple answer is that is was separated by the landing of the last Continental Asteroid, and the deposition of it's debris as this Original Impact line of mountains. This also explains why the Black Sea would also be completely separated from the rest of the earth's seas, except for the Bosporus Strait which is also a line of emergence that formed a gap in this Original Impact Line.
The north-south line of longitudinal magma emergence that then formed spread the ground below the Original Impact Line of the last Continental Asteroid apart, creating a wide gap in it. That gap extended southward, in a north-south line, from what is now the north-south axis of the Caspian Sea.
But what happened is that the Arabian Plate, the tectonic plate just to the south, was moving northward as it still is. That is why Iran is vulnerable to earthquakes. This pushed against the Original Impact Line, the extensive mountains across Turkey and Iran, and pushed the western part of it northward. We can see this in how the mountains of Turkey extend east-west but then the mountains of western Iran, to the east of Turkey, are more angled from northwest to southeast.
This pushing against the Original Impact Line, as described in my theory, of the Arabian tectonic Plate forced the seafloor of the gap that had been produced by the magma emergence along the north-south longitudinal line of emergence that ran south from the Caspian Sea upward. This seafloor forced upward is what formed the Iranian Plateau as seen on the map above. Since the sea contained salt, that explains why the two deserts on the Iranian Plateau, the Dasht e Kavir in the north and the Dasht e Lut in the southeast, are salty.
The compound posting on the geology blog, www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com , "The Story Of Planet Earth", leaves virtually no major feature of the earth's surface unexplained, either on land or on the seafloor. There is still more to be explained but I have shown how this model of the earth's development works so that readers could see for themselves how any features that are not directly described came to be.
Following is the brief abstract that I use to introduce this theory.
Basically, the theory which reveals the explanation for so much of the major features of the earth's topography and the seafloor ridges is that the continents on earth came from two Continental Asteroids. Much debris from the second, and larger, of these two continental asteroids was hurtled back into space, where it coalesced by gravity to form the moon. The idea of the moon forming in this way is not new, the asteroid is commonly referred to as "Theia", but my theory expands on it to include the continents as well. Each of the impacts of the continental asteroids unbalanced the earth's rotation, by the addition of the new mass, so that the earth's poles and equator underwent two shifts to regain rotational balance by centering one of the poles in the new additional landmass. The land mass from each continental asteroid was eventually broken up by tectonic activity, driven by the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation. The south pole is today in Antarctica because that was the core of the Second Continental Asteroid. A similar situation is seen on Mars, where the southern hemisphere is higher in elevation and thus heavier, than the northern hemisphere. But this does not upset the rotation of Mars because the south pole is in the center of the heavier hemisphere. What this means is that there have been three polar eras on earth, with the poles and equator in different places in each era. We are in the third polar era, after the Second Continental Asteroid. The First Polar Era was before the First Continental Asteroid.
The spin of the earth causes magma, hot molten rock, to emerge from below along the equator by centrifugal force. According to the laws of fluid dynamics, this equatorial emergence must then be balanced by periodic longitudinal lines of emergence in a perpendicular direction to the equator. Each time the poles and equator shifts, to regain rotational balance after the added mass of a continental asteroid, these lines of magma emergence must also shift, but magma emergence continues along old longitudinal and equatorial lines for a long time. This scenario explains just so much about the topography of the land and seafloor, and leaves few major features of the earth unexplained.
For a more in depth review of the theory, read the introduction in "The Story Of Planet Earth", on the geology blog.
Every time I think about this theory I notice something else that is difficult to explain otherwise but can easily be explained by this theory. As an example, let's considered the salt deserts of Iran.
Iran is a mountainous country but you can see that there is a wide, roughly arrow-shaped, area in the northeast central part of the country that is flat, and extends to the southeast. This is actually a plateau, the Iranian Plateau. It encompasses two deserts, the Dasht e Kavir, in the north, and the Dasht e Lut, to the southeast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Iran#/media/File:MapOfIran.png
But a desert is a matter of climate, not of geology. What I find to be so significant is that these two deserts on the plateau are salty. Salt comes from the seas. So how could we possibly get salty deserts on a high plateau far inland in a very mountainous country? This really requires some special explanation that I cannot find anywhere.
But my geology theory, as described in "The Story Of Planet Earth", makes it very simple.
The north-south axis of the Caspian Sea is a longitudinal line of magma emergence from the present polar era, after the landing of the third, and final, Continental Asteroid. The long line of otherwise very difficult to explain mountains that extends across Turkey and Iran to central Asia and beyond is actually the Original Impact Line, the remnants of this last Continental Asteroid as it struck the earth at a relatively low angle.
This extensive range of mountains across Turkey and Iran and into central Asia and beyond being the Original Impact Line of the third, and last, Continental Asteroid resolves another great mystery of the earth's geography. The Caspian Sea is salt water but yet is completely separated, and far away from, the rest of the earth's seas. How could this possibly come to be? The clear and simple answer is that is was separated by the landing of the last Continental Asteroid, and the deposition of it's debris as this Original Impact line of mountains. This also explains why the Black Sea would also be completely separated from the rest of the earth's seas, except for the Bosporus Strait which is also a line of emergence that formed a gap in this Original Impact Line.
The north-south line of longitudinal magma emergence that then formed spread the ground below the Original Impact Line of the last Continental Asteroid apart, creating a wide gap in it. That gap extended southward, in a north-south line, from what is now the north-south axis of the Caspian Sea.
But what happened is that the Arabian Plate, the tectonic plate just to the south, was moving northward as it still is. That is why Iran is vulnerable to earthquakes. This pushed against the Original Impact Line, the extensive mountains across Turkey and Iran, and pushed the western part of it northward. We can see this in how the mountains of Turkey extend east-west but then the mountains of western Iran, to the east of Turkey, are more angled from northwest to southeast.
This pushing against the Original Impact Line, as described in my theory, of the Arabian tectonic Plate forced the seafloor of the gap that had been produced by the magma emergence along the north-south longitudinal line of emergence that ran south from the Caspian Sea upward. This seafloor forced upward is what formed the Iranian Plateau as seen on the map above. Since the sea contained salt, that explains why the two deserts on the Iranian Plateau, the Dasht e Kavir in the north and the Dasht e Lut in the southeast, are salty.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
The Dove In The Bible
There is something in the Bible that I think deserves more attention.
As the waters of the great flood were receding, Noah sent out a dove from the ark. The first time, the dove could find nowhere to perch and it returned to the ark. Seven days later, Noah sent it out again and it returned with an olive leaf, so Noah knew that the flood waters must be receding. Seven days after that, Noah sent out the dove again and it did not return.
Far in the future, Jesus was being baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit suddenly appeared in the sky, in the form of a dove, and the voice of God proclaimed Jesus as His Son.
I see it as the same dove coming back. Both instances involved water and sin. The first instance was the wicked world of the antediluvians being destroyed by the flood. The second instance was the baptism of Jesus, who came to pay the price for sin, in water.
The first time, the flood, it was the sinners themselves that were drowned. The second time, the Baptism of Jesus, it was just the sin nature that was symbolically drowned by Jesus' baptism so that the sinners themselves could be saved.
The ark, made of wood, saved chosen people from the flood. The cross, on which Jesus was crucified, made of wood, opened the possibility of permanent salvation from sin.
Baptism was a new ceremony and the baptism of Jesus opened the door to a new and better era, when people could be permanently saved from sin, instead of sinners being drowned in the flood. I find it significant that John the Baptist was from a priestly family, representing the old era, while Jesus wasn't, which represented the new era.
Notice how the Temple Mount, on which the Temple had been built that stood at the time of Jesus, resembled a great ship in form. The Temple thus represented the long-ago Noah's Ark. The Temple was where sacrifices were made for sin. The religious establishment of the time resented Jesus, his criticism and his popularity, and got him crucified.
But that was all a part of God's plan and Jesus became the permanent sacrifice to pay the price for sin. The dove that had left the ark had returned to Him, with the ark now being the Temple Mount. The dove had returned to the ark the second time with an olive leaf. The Mount of Olives, where Jesus and the Apostles spent so much time, was just across the Kidron Valley from the Temple Mount.
We have visited the Temple Mount in the posting on this blog, "Esau And The Temple Mount", February 2016.
We have seen my conclusion that the metal band around the wooden stump of a tree, in the Book of Daniel, was a prophecy of the Temple Mount being preserved after the Temple would be destroyed, in the compound posting on this blog "New Insight Into Bible Prophecy" October 2016, section 2) THE TREE STUMP AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT. and the tree having been made out of wood is a link with the wooden ark.
As the waters of the great flood were receding, Noah sent out a dove from the ark. The first time, the dove could find nowhere to perch and it returned to the ark. Seven days later, Noah sent it out again and it returned with an olive leaf, so Noah knew that the flood waters must be receding. Seven days after that, Noah sent out the dove again and it did not return.
Far in the future, Jesus was being baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit suddenly appeared in the sky, in the form of a dove, and the voice of God proclaimed Jesus as His Son.
I see it as the same dove coming back. Both instances involved water and sin. The first instance was the wicked world of the antediluvians being destroyed by the flood. The second instance was the baptism of Jesus, who came to pay the price for sin, in water.
The first time, the flood, it was the sinners themselves that were drowned. The second time, the Baptism of Jesus, it was just the sin nature that was symbolically drowned by Jesus' baptism so that the sinners themselves could be saved.
The ark, made of wood, saved chosen people from the flood. The cross, on which Jesus was crucified, made of wood, opened the possibility of permanent salvation from sin.
Baptism was a new ceremony and the baptism of Jesus opened the door to a new and better era, when people could be permanently saved from sin, instead of sinners being drowned in the flood. I find it significant that John the Baptist was from a priestly family, representing the old era, while Jesus wasn't, which represented the new era.
Notice how the Temple Mount, on which the Temple had been built that stood at the time of Jesus, resembled a great ship in form. The Temple thus represented the long-ago Noah's Ark. The Temple was where sacrifices were made for sin. The religious establishment of the time resented Jesus, his criticism and his popularity, and got him crucified.
But that was all a part of God's plan and Jesus became the permanent sacrifice to pay the price for sin. The dove that had left the ark had returned to Him, with the ark now being the Temple Mount. The dove had returned to the ark the second time with an olive leaf. The Mount of Olives, where Jesus and the Apostles spent so much time, was just across the Kidron Valley from the Temple Mount.
We have visited the Temple Mount in the posting on this blog, "Esau And The Temple Mount", February 2016.
We have seen my conclusion that the metal band around the wooden stump of a tree, in the Book of Daniel, was a prophecy of the Temple Mount being preserved after the Temple would be destroyed, in the compound posting on this blog "New Insight Into Bible Prophecy" October 2016, section 2) THE TREE STUMP AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT. and the tree having been made out of wood is a link with the wooden ark.
The Failed Millenniums
This is being reposted because a lot more has been added to it.
(Note-By the way, I know that I break rules of grammar sometimes but it sounds better. The actual correct plural term for millennium is "millennia" My old English teacher would also say that sentences should not begin with "And" or "Or", but sometimes that rule is made to be broken).
We have already seen how the glorious time known as The Sixties was actually God giving humanity a chance to see if they could build the Millennium Kingdom on earth themselves, without going through the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible.
We saw my view of the Sixties as the beginning of a would-be Millennium in the two sections of the compound posting on this blog, "New Insight Into Bible Prophecy" October 2016, sections 17) CROSSING THE RED SEA and 18) THE PENTAGON PROPHECY.
Jesus foretold that when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem from the Gentiles that would begin the countdown to the Return of Jesus to set up the Millennium, when the earth would finally be the godly paradise that it was always intended to be. But, due to our sinfulness, that meant that most of civilization had to be destroyed in the Apocalypse first.
But maybe the Baby Boom generation, that would come of age during the Sixties, might be different. This would be the generation that had heard about the recent cataclysmic world war, the genocide, the new weapons that ended the war but could destroy the world at the touch of a button. Before this there had been the terrible time of the Great Depression and before that, the First World War.
Maybe the Baby Boomers, the generation born beginning just after the end of the Second World War as returning soldiers settled down and started families, would be the generation that had learned it's lesson and would be different.
I conclude that God decided to give them a chance to build the Millennium themselves. Maybe we could call Hitler the Antichrist and the Second World War the Apocalypse, and the Baby Boomers would bring about the Millennium. That is why the nation of Israel was reestablished in 1948, after nearly two thousand years, but the original city of Jerusalem itself remained under control of the Gentiles so that the prophetic countdown, Jesus return to set up His Kingdom while people were still alive who had been alive when Jerusalem was taken back from Gentile control, had not begun.
But we just couldn't do it, we were just too sinful. There was no way that the Sixties, despite the commendable idealism, was going to bring about the Millennium without going through the Apocalypse first.
Many of the Sixties generation had their hearts in the right place, there was a seeking not only for personal fulfillment but for a better world. At the Woodstock concert, in the summer of 1969, 400,000 young people got together for three days and there was not a single act of violence. There was even an effort to "levitate" the Pentagon by people surrounding it in meditation, in order to bring peace to the world starting with ending America's Vietnam War.
Most of the Sixties idealism was not focused on Christianity but there was a Christian side to it, in the Explo 72 concert of Christian music and sermons. It was held in Dallas in 1972 and was kind of the Christian version of Woodstock.
But the Millennium was not to be. It was not mainly a time of God. A famous 1966 cover of Time Magazine asked "Is God Dead"?
The year after that, 1968, a popular movie was Rosemary's Baby, involving Satanism.
The summer of 1967 was optimistically called "The Summer of Love" but drugs and crime ran rampant. Cities across America were convulsed by urban riots. Time Magazine referred to 1967, which should have been around the beginning of the new Millennium of Jesus, as "That long, strange year".
Three of the most prominent rock stars, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and, Jim Morrison died right in a row of drug-related issues.
Clearly, humans bringing about the promised Millennium by their own power just wasn't going to work. It was in June 1967 that the Six-Day War resulted in the return of the old city of Jerusalem to Jewish control, in the state of Israel. That thus began the prophetic countdown to Jesus' promised return to earth, with people who were alive at the return of Jerusalem in 1967 still being alive at Jesus' return.
That is why there was the nineteen-year delay between the reestablishment of the nation of Israel and the actual return of the original city of Jerusalem to Israel. That delay was to see if we were able to being about the Millennium ourselves, without going through the devastating Apocalypse, but it was not to be.
What I want to add today is another unsuccessful would-be Millennium before the Sixties.
There was once a glorious time in the western countries. It lasted from about 1865 to 1914. It was called by various names in different countries. In France it is known as the Belle Epoque, "The Beautiful Era". In Britain and the U.S. it was known as the Victorian Age, coinciding with the reign of Queen Victoria. In America it was also known as the Gilded Age.
There were no major conflicts during this time. It was an extended time of relative peace like the world had rarely seen.
Many of the technical developments that shape our world today came to be. Movies, radio, cars, electricity, aircraft and large ships that made travel for many people common were developed. Mass production in factories was perfected so that the masses, instead of the few, could benefit from manufactured goods.
Some people got fantastically wealthy. Great exhibitions were held in major cities that showcased the wonderful new developments. Perhaps the best symbol of this time would be the Eiffel Tower, which was built as the entrance arch to the 1889 Paris Exhibition, the centennial of the French Revolution. It was the tallest structure ever built. The Eiffel Tower was actually intended to be only temporary, to be dismantled after the exhibition was over, but was probably saved because radio had been developed and it was the ideal place for a broadcasting antenna.
There was amazing advances in science, particularly chemistry. Treatments for disease were developed continuously and life expectance increased dramatically.
Maybe the rapid development of industry during this fortunate time of peace would even allow humans to bring about the godly paradise that was promised in the Millennium themselves.
Unfortunately, there was a decline in belief in God during this apparently glorious era. The publication, in 1859, of "On The Origin Of Species", by Charles Darwin, gave many who did not want to believe in God and intellectual foundation to explain the existence of life without the need for a creation by God. Even though the book states no such thing and does not attempt to explain how living forms could have originated.
The secularism and hostility to organized religion of the French Revolution also had it's long-term effect, particularly in Europe.
The good times were not to last. It all came crashing down into the horrors of the First World War, a war like the world had never seen before. The technical developments that had contributed to the prosperity of the Victorian Age also made it possible for humans to kill each other on an industrial scale, and that is unfortunately what happened.
The war, at least on the Western Front, bogged down into the deadly stalemate of trench warfare. Neither side could break the impasse. Before this war, guns could fire only a single bullet at a time. But the new machine guns multiplied the deadliness of the war many times over. During an offense to break the deadlock, thousands of soldiers might die over a hundred meters of ground.
Hideous new weapons were developed in an attempt to break the deadly stalemate. Tanks with treads all around the body of the tank that could pass right over a trench. One way to take out an enemy trench was to sneak up to it with a flamethrower. At sea, newly-perfected submarines sank ships unexpectedly.
The most infamous development of the war was poison gas. Lethal gases, such as phosgene, mustard and, chlorine, were heavier than air. So if a shell containing the gas could be landed near an enemy trench, the gas would seep down into the trench.
Instead of creating a man-made Heavenly Millennium, humanity had turned it's attention to creating a man-made Hell. Evolutionary theory had humans as the highest form of life but there are no animals that kill each other like this in a war that was essentially over nothing.
What I have always found to be so disturbing about the First World War was that, first, the war wasn't really over anything of great significance. It is sometimes called "The war over nothing that changed everything". Remember that we saw the beginning of the First World War in the posting on the economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , "June 28, 1914, Assassination In Sarajevo" November 2014.
The second thing that is especially disturbing is that so many people, in capitals like London and Berlin, actually gathered to cheer the declaration of war. It was as if all that time of peace was getting boring. Both sides were under the delusion that the was would only last a few weeks. But the war would turn into far and away the most devastating and deadly war that the world had yet seen.
The First World War became simply known as "The War to End All Wars" although, of course, it wouldn't be.
The war eventually ended, and the good times returned. In fact, the good times were better than ever because the now-unneeded manufacturing capacity that went to supply the war effort could be turned to making consumer goods. The result was that fabulous decade known as the "Roaring Twenties". If the Eiffel Tower could be considered as the icon of the Victorian Age ( or the Belle Epoque or the Gilded Age ), then the Empire State Building could be considered as the icon of the "Roaring Twenties".
But, once again, it wasn't to last. Factories were producing, in great quantities, all kinds of goods from cars to radios. The trouble this time would be economic. While some were becoming fantastically wealthy, the workers who were actually producing the goods were not being paid enough to be able to afford to buy them. Manufactured goods were just piling up in warehouses and factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into a devastating economic crash in October 1929.
Following was the terrible time of the Great Depression. There were long lines at soup kitchens. Many who had gained, but then suddenly lost, great wealth during the 1920s were dead by suicide. Germany was now a democracy, the Weimar Republic, but had it's postwar economy devastated by this crash.
There is one sure way out of an economic depression. Unfortunately, it is to have a war. A party emerged in Germany that had the answers. They were the National Socialists, or Nazis. They absorbed unemployment by drastically increasing the size of the armed forces, and got factories back to full production by making war equipment for them.
It was simple and brilliantly effective, except that it was part of the reason that there would be another war, even more terrible than the First World War. The reason that the Second World War would be even worse than the First is that now civilians were considered as a legitimate target.
When this war finally ended, millions of soldiers returned home and began families. That is what brought about the Baby Boomers and the Sixties that we saw at the beginning of this article. I have concluded that God decided to give them the final chance at building the promised Millennial Kingdom on earth, without going through the horrors of the Apocalypse which will make the two world wars seem like minor conflicts by comparison.
But it was not to be. We will get to the Millennial Kingdom, where the world will finally be the godly paradise that it was always meant to be, but only by going through the Apocalypse first, as we saw in the posting on this blog, "The End Of The World As We Know It" June 2019.
Notice the chronological placements of newsworthy mass murders like the killings of Jack the Ripper, in 1888 London, and the Manson murders, in 1969 Los Angeles. Both happened right at the height of one of these two failed Millenniums.
Jack the Ripper was in the news in the autumn of 1888, right in the middle of the Victorian Age in London. Times were good, but people in general had been getting more and more secular since the publication of "On The Origin of Species", in 1859. The general movement was away from God.
Could it be possible that these shocking killings, which really jolted society, were allowed to happen to make people start thinking that something was wrong with society and that it needed God?
Likewise the Manson murders, actually an attempt to set off the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible as a race war beginning in the U.S., which would conclude with Charles Manson reigning over the world as Christ as described in the posting on this blog, "Jonestown, Charles Manson And The Gnostic Gospels", December 2019.
In July 1969 there was the epic even of America landing astronauts on the moon, and then getting them safely back home. The following month was the signature event of the idealism of the Sixties, the Woodstock concert in New York State. Woodstock was all about the better world that we could have if we would all live in peace. It does deserve a lot of credit that 400,000 young people got together for three days and there was not a single act of violence.
But what happened right in between those two events? The country was horrified by the Manson killings. The best-known of the victims was actress Sharon Tate. The members of the Manson "Family" wrote "PIG" on the wall in the blood of the victims. The intention being to get it blamed on black militants and thus begin the race war that would be the Apocalypse that would end with Manson ruling over the world as Christ.
Once again, could it be that these horrific killings were allowed to happen between these two great events to remind us that, despite the accomplishment of putting men on the moon and the commendable idealism of Woodstock, something was wrong with society and we needed to return to God?
THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AND THE SIXTIES
We saw the importance of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 in the posting on this blog, "The Great Revolution Of Our Time", January 2017. I see it as having an impact on the world that is comparable to the French and October Revolutions that completely changed the world. The world had been secularizing until the Iranian Revolution turned the tide of history back toward religion.
The effect has been spreading ever since, and has gone well beyond the Islamic religion.
But the Iranian Revolution actually has a close relationship to the Sixties in the west. It is a reflection of the Sixties in how the Iranians demonstrating against the U.S. were a mirror image of the U.S. protests against the Vietnam War the decade before. Bell-bottomed pants were even in style in Iran at the time. The U.S. administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were simply replaced by the unpopular government of the Shah.
The demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy compound, after the Hostage Crisis began, were the Iranian equivalent of the attempt by antiwar protesters to "levitate" the Pentagon by meditation in 1967.
So the idealism of the Sixties in America and the west was a failed attempt at creating the promised biblical Millennium ourselves, without going through the Apocalypse first. But it turned out to have been reflected in the Iranian Revolution in the following decade. The world was moving away from religion but this is what turned it back. This has affected the entire world, including the Christian nations.
We will still have to go through the Apocalypse to get to the Millennium. But the Sixties were not a complete failure as it did inadvertently end up getting the world moving back toward God.
(Note-By the way, I know that I break rules of grammar sometimes but it sounds better. The actual correct plural term for millennium is "millennia" My old English teacher would also say that sentences should not begin with "And" or "Or", but sometimes that rule is made to be broken).
We have already seen how the glorious time known as The Sixties was actually God giving humanity a chance to see if they could build the Millennium Kingdom on earth themselves, without going through the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible.
We saw my view of the Sixties as the beginning of a would-be Millennium in the two sections of the compound posting on this blog, "New Insight Into Bible Prophecy" October 2016, sections 17) CROSSING THE RED SEA and 18) THE PENTAGON PROPHECY.
Jesus foretold that when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem from the Gentiles that would begin the countdown to the Return of Jesus to set up the Millennium, when the earth would finally be the godly paradise that it was always intended to be. But, due to our sinfulness, that meant that most of civilization had to be destroyed in the Apocalypse first.
But maybe the Baby Boom generation, that would come of age during the Sixties, might be different. This would be the generation that had heard about the recent cataclysmic world war, the genocide, the new weapons that ended the war but could destroy the world at the touch of a button. Before this there had been the terrible time of the Great Depression and before that, the First World War.
Maybe the Baby Boomers, the generation born beginning just after the end of the Second World War as returning soldiers settled down and started families, would be the generation that had learned it's lesson and would be different.
I conclude that God decided to give them a chance to build the Millennium themselves. Maybe we could call Hitler the Antichrist and the Second World War the Apocalypse, and the Baby Boomers would bring about the Millennium. That is why the nation of Israel was reestablished in 1948, after nearly two thousand years, but the original city of Jerusalem itself remained under control of the Gentiles so that the prophetic countdown, Jesus return to set up His Kingdom while people were still alive who had been alive when Jerusalem was taken back from Gentile control, had not begun.
But we just couldn't do it, we were just too sinful. There was no way that the Sixties, despite the commendable idealism, was going to bring about the Millennium without going through the Apocalypse first.
Many of the Sixties generation had their hearts in the right place, there was a seeking not only for personal fulfillment but for a better world. At the Woodstock concert, in the summer of 1969, 400,000 young people got together for three days and there was not a single act of violence. There was even an effort to "levitate" the Pentagon by people surrounding it in meditation, in order to bring peace to the world starting with ending America's Vietnam War.
Most of the Sixties idealism was not focused on Christianity but there was a Christian side to it, in the Explo 72 concert of Christian music and sermons. It was held in Dallas in 1972 and was kind of the Christian version of Woodstock.
But the Millennium was not to be. It was not mainly a time of God. A famous 1966 cover of Time Magazine asked "Is God Dead"?
The year after that, 1968, a popular movie was Rosemary's Baby, involving Satanism.
The summer of 1967 was optimistically called "The Summer of Love" but drugs and crime ran rampant. Cities across America were convulsed by urban riots. Time Magazine referred to 1967, which should have been around the beginning of the new Millennium of Jesus, as "That long, strange year".
Three of the most prominent rock stars, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and, Jim Morrison died right in a row of drug-related issues.
Clearly, humans bringing about the promised Millennium by their own power just wasn't going to work. It was in June 1967 that the Six-Day War resulted in the return of the old city of Jerusalem to Jewish control, in the state of Israel. That thus began the prophetic countdown to Jesus' promised return to earth, with people who were alive at the return of Jerusalem in 1967 still being alive at Jesus' return.
That is why there was the nineteen-year delay between the reestablishment of the nation of Israel and the actual return of the original city of Jerusalem to Israel. That delay was to see if we were able to being about the Millennium ourselves, without going through the devastating Apocalypse, but it was not to be.
What I want to add today is another unsuccessful would-be Millennium before the Sixties.
There was once a glorious time in the western countries. It lasted from about 1865 to 1914. It was called by various names in different countries. In France it is known as the Belle Epoque, "The Beautiful Era". In Britain and the U.S. it was known as the Victorian Age, coinciding with the reign of Queen Victoria. In America it was also known as the Gilded Age.
There were no major conflicts during this time. It was an extended time of relative peace like the world had rarely seen.
Many of the technical developments that shape our world today came to be. Movies, radio, cars, electricity, aircraft and large ships that made travel for many people common were developed. Mass production in factories was perfected so that the masses, instead of the few, could benefit from manufactured goods.
Some people got fantastically wealthy. Great exhibitions were held in major cities that showcased the wonderful new developments. Perhaps the best symbol of this time would be the Eiffel Tower, which was built as the entrance arch to the 1889 Paris Exhibition, the centennial of the French Revolution. It was the tallest structure ever built. The Eiffel Tower was actually intended to be only temporary, to be dismantled after the exhibition was over, but was probably saved because radio had been developed and it was the ideal place for a broadcasting antenna.
There was amazing advances in science, particularly chemistry. Treatments for disease were developed continuously and life expectance increased dramatically.
Maybe the rapid development of industry during this fortunate time of peace would even allow humans to bring about the godly paradise that was promised in the Millennium themselves.
Unfortunately, there was a decline in belief in God during this apparently glorious era. The publication, in 1859, of "On The Origin Of Species", by Charles Darwin, gave many who did not want to believe in God and intellectual foundation to explain the existence of life without the need for a creation by God. Even though the book states no such thing and does not attempt to explain how living forms could have originated.
The secularism and hostility to organized religion of the French Revolution also had it's long-term effect, particularly in Europe.
The good times were not to last. It all came crashing down into the horrors of the First World War, a war like the world had never seen before. The technical developments that had contributed to the prosperity of the Victorian Age also made it possible for humans to kill each other on an industrial scale, and that is unfortunately what happened.
The war, at least on the Western Front, bogged down into the deadly stalemate of trench warfare. Neither side could break the impasse. Before this war, guns could fire only a single bullet at a time. But the new machine guns multiplied the deadliness of the war many times over. During an offense to break the deadlock, thousands of soldiers might die over a hundred meters of ground.
Hideous new weapons were developed in an attempt to break the deadly stalemate. Tanks with treads all around the body of the tank that could pass right over a trench. One way to take out an enemy trench was to sneak up to it with a flamethrower. At sea, newly-perfected submarines sank ships unexpectedly.
The most infamous development of the war was poison gas. Lethal gases, such as phosgene, mustard and, chlorine, were heavier than air. So if a shell containing the gas could be landed near an enemy trench, the gas would seep down into the trench.
Instead of creating a man-made Heavenly Millennium, humanity had turned it's attention to creating a man-made Hell. Evolutionary theory had humans as the highest form of life but there are no animals that kill each other like this in a war that was essentially over nothing.
What I have always found to be so disturbing about the First World War was that, first, the war wasn't really over anything of great significance. It is sometimes called "The war over nothing that changed everything". Remember that we saw the beginning of the First World War in the posting on the economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , "June 28, 1914, Assassination In Sarajevo" November 2014.
The second thing that is especially disturbing is that so many people, in capitals like London and Berlin, actually gathered to cheer the declaration of war. It was as if all that time of peace was getting boring. Both sides were under the delusion that the was would only last a few weeks. But the war would turn into far and away the most devastating and deadly war that the world had yet seen.
The First World War became simply known as "The War to End All Wars" although, of course, it wouldn't be.
The war eventually ended, and the good times returned. In fact, the good times were better than ever because the now-unneeded manufacturing capacity that went to supply the war effort could be turned to making consumer goods. The result was that fabulous decade known as the "Roaring Twenties". If the Eiffel Tower could be considered as the icon of the Victorian Age ( or the Belle Epoque or the Gilded Age ), then the Empire State Building could be considered as the icon of the "Roaring Twenties".
But, once again, it wasn't to last. Factories were producing, in great quantities, all kinds of goods from cars to radios. The trouble this time would be economic. While some were becoming fantastically wealthy, the workers who were actually producing the goods were not being paid enough to be able to afford to buy them. Manufactured goods were just piling up in warehouses and factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into a devastating economic crash in October 1929.
Following was the terrible time of the Great Depression. There were long lines at soup kitchens. Many who had gained, but then suddenly lost, great wealth during the 1920s were dead by suicide. Germany was now a democracy, the Weimar Republic, but had it's postwar economy devastated by this crash.
There is one sure way out of an economic depression. Unfortunately, it is to have a war. A party emerged in Germany that had the answers. They were the National Socialists, or Nazis. They absorbed unemployment by drastically increasing the size of the armed forces, and got factories back to full production by making war equipment for them.
It was simple and brilliantly effective, except that it was part of the reason that there would be another war, even more terrible than the First World War. The reason that the Second World War would be even worse than the First is that now civilians were considered as a legitimate target.
When this war finally ended, millions of soldiers returned home and began families. That is what brought about the Baby Boomers and the Sixties that we saw at the beginning of this article. I have concluded that God decided to give them the final chance at building the promised Millennial Kingdom on earth, without going through the horrors of the Apocalypse which will make the two world wars seem like minor conflicts by comparison.
But it was not to be. We will get to the Millennial Kingdom, where the world will finally be the godly paradise that it was always meant to be, but only by going through the Apocalypse first, as we saw in the posting on this blog, "The End Of The World As We Know It" June 2019.
Notice the chronological placements of newsworthy mass murders like the killings of Jack the Ripper, in 1888 London, and the Manson murders, in 1969 Los Angeles. Both happened right at the height of one of these two failed Millenniums.
Jack the Ripper was in the news in the autumn of 1888, right in the middle of the Victorian Age in London. Times were good, but people in general had been getting more and more secular since the publication of "On The Origin of Species", in 1859. The general movement was away from God.
Could it be possible that these shocking killings, which really jolted society, were allowed to happen to make people start thinking that something was wrong with society and that it needed God?
Likewise the Manson murders, actually an attempt to set off the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible as a race war beginning in the U.S., which would conclude with Charles Manson reigning over the world as Christ as described in the posting on this blog, "Jonestown, Charles Manson And The Gnostic Gospels", December 2019.
In July 1969 there was the epic even of America landing astronauts on the moon, and then getting them safely back home. The following month was the signature event of the idealism of the Sixties, the Woodstock concert in New York State. Woodstock was all about the better world that we could have if we would all live in peace. It does deserve a lot of credit that 400,000 young people got together for three days and there was not a single act of violence.
But what happened right in between those two events? The country was horrified by the Manson killings. The best-known of the victims was actress Sharon Tate. The members of the Manson "Family" wrote "PIG" on the wall in the blood of the victims. The intention being to get it blamed on black militants and thus begin the race war that would be the Apocalypse that would end with Manson ruling over the world as Christ.
Once again, could it be that these horrific killings were allowed to happen between these two great events to remind us that, despite the accomplishment of putting men on the moon and the commendable idealism of Woodstock, something was wrong with society and we needed to return to God?
THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AND THE SIXTIES
We saw the importance of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 in the posting on this blog, "The Great Revolution Of Our Time", January 2017. I see it as having an impact on the world that is comparable to the French and October Revolutions that completely changed the world. The world had been secularizing until the Iranian Revolution turned the tide of history back toward religion.
The effect has been spreading ever since, and has gone well beyond the Islamic religion.
But the Iranian Revolution actually has a close relationship to the Sixties in the west. It is a reflection of the Sixties in how the Iranians demonstrating against the U.S. were a mirror image of the U.S. protests against the Vietnam War the decade before. Bell-bottomed pants were even in style in Iran at the time. The U.S. administrations of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were simply replaced by the unpopular government of the Shah.
The demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy compound, after the Hostage Crisis began, were the Iranian equivalent of the attempt by antiwar protesters to "levitate" the Pentagon by meditation in 1967.
So the idealism of the Sixties in America and the west was a failed attempt at creating the promised biblical Millennium ourselves, without going through the Apocalypse first. But it turned out to have been reflected in the Iranian Revolution in the following decade. The world was moving away from religion but this is what turned it back. This has affected the entire world, including the Christian nations.
We will still have to go through the Apocalypse to get to the Millennium. But the Sixties were not a complete failure as it did inadvertently end up getting the world moving back toward God.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Fusion And The Speed Of Light
A star is born when a vast amount of matter comes together in space by it's mutual gravity. What elements or type of matter does not make much difference. Gravity is actually a very weak force, compared to the other fundamental forces of the universe, but it is cumulative.
The beginning of the star is when the gravity at the center of the star is enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms so that smaller atoms are forced together into larger ones, this process is referred to as fusion.
The original smaller atoms, starting with the hydrogen that is the lightest element in the universe, contain more total internal energy then the larger atom that is produced by the fusion. This energy is released and is the reason that stars shine. The current stage of the fusion process in the sun is the crunching together of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, and the release of the leftover energy.
The atoms in matter are mostly empty space. The reason that they do not simply merge together when one object is placed on top of another is the electron repulsion in the facing atoms of each object. The fact that both electrons are negatively-charged, and like charges repel, is why the floor holds you up when you stand on it. For a star to begin, the gravity at it's center must be great enough to overcome this electron repulsion and fuse the atoms together.
But the question here is why it requires just the force that it does to crunch two or more atoms together into one larger new atom, in the process known as fusion. The exact amount of force that it requires to force two or more atoms to merge together is information, and that information must come from somewhere.
FISSION AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Fission is the opposite nuclear process fission fusion. While fusion forces small atoms together into larger ones, fission splits heavy atoms into smaller ones. In both processes energy is released. Fission is usually accomplished by firing a high-speed neutron at a mass of fissile material so that it will, by chance, hit a nucleus in an atom and split it apart.
We know, by Albert Einstein's famous formula E = MC squared, that the speed of light has a relationship to fission. This formula is about the tremendous amount of energy that is contained in a relatively small amount of matter. The E is for "energy", M is for "mass" and the C means "constant". The speed of light is the constant so that the energy within mass is equal to the amount of mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
According to my cosmology theory, the speed of light is really a right angle. We perceive it as a speed because it is the innate velocity at which our consciousnesses proceed along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains. We really live in four dimensions, the fourth we perceive as time, so that what we see as the fundamental particles of matter in three dimensions of space, such as electrons, are really strings in four dimensions of space.
When a nucleus is split during fission, the like-charged protons now have nothing binding them together in a single nucleus. They move away from each other by the most direct route, due to their mutual electrical like-charge repulsion. That most direct route is straight lines in opposite directions. Since matter is really bundles of strings that are aligned mostly in the same direction in four dimensions, that direct route taken by the two halves of the now-split atom are at right angles in opposite directions away from each other.
Since my cosmology theory defines the speed of light as really such a right angle, that is why the speed of light is connected to nuclear fission in Einstein's formula E = MC squared. The second speed of light in the formula, to square this first one, is the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains while this fission is going on.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND FUSION
But if the speed of light, which in my cosmology theory is actually strings of matter bent at right angles to the primary direction in four-dimensional space that the strings of matter at rest are aligned, is a factor in the energy released in fission, then could it be possible that it might also be a factor in the opposite nuclear process as the energy required for fusion?
At zero velocity two objects in contact but at rest will have the strings that are their outermost electrons, the ones in the two objects that face each other, parallel to one another. Electron repulsion between the two objects will be at a maximum.
But if two atoms are moving directly toward each other at the speed of light, the electron repulsion between them will be zero and they will effortlessly merge together. This is just the opposite of the two nuclei in the split atom of fission moving away from each other at the speed of light, because fusion is the opposite process to fission.
But what if two atoms collide at a velocity somewhere between zero and the speed of light? If the electron repulsion that keeps the atoms separate is at a maximum at zero velocity and a minimum at the speed of light then it makes sense that if the relative velocity of the two atoms is closer to the speed of light than it is to zero velocity then they will merge. If the velocity is closer to zero then they will bounce off each other and will not merge.
In other words, it seems that if the relative velocity of two atoms coming directly toward each other in the center of a star is greater than half the speed of light, or a 45 degree angle in the strings of four dimensions than they will merge together in fusion.
There is tremendous heat in the centers of stars. Remember that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion in a material. The faster the atoms are moving, the hotter the object is. When two objects are brought into contact, some of the kinetic energy of the atoms in the hotter object is imparted to the cooler object.
Heat is not the only factor. There is also the tremendous pressure in the centers of stars from the gravity that brought the star together in the first place. This pressure is also energy so it lowers the velocity necessary to get the atoms to merge in fusion.
But basically, it seems to me that there is a definite relationship between nuclear fusion and the speed of light. If the speed of light is such an important factor in the opposite process, nuclear fission in the formula E = MC squared, then why shouldn't we expect it to be a factor also in fusion?
Large atoms that undergo fission have to first be put together by fusion and if the speed of light is such a factor in the fission, doesn't is seem necessary that it was also a factor in the fusion that put the fissile atom together in the first place?
It requires such a vast amount of heat and pressure to get atoms to fuse together but this is information as to exactly how much and this information must come from somewhere.
Put simply, if the total kinetic energy of two atoms that collide in the center of a star is equal to or greater than half the speed of light then the two atoms will fuse together into a larger atom. if it is not then the two atoms will bounce off each other, by electron repulsion, and will not fuse. The universe is really a simple place and there has to be a simple answer as to why the amount of force required for fusion is what it is.
The beginning of the star is when the gravity at the center of the star is enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms so that smaller atoms are forced together into larger ones, this process is referred to as fusion.
The original smaller atoms, starting with the hydrogen that is the lightest element in the universe, contain more total internal energy then the larger atom that is produced by the fusion. This energy is released and is the reason that stars shine. The current stage of the fusion process in the sun is the crunching together of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, and the release of the leftover energy.
The atoms in matter are mostly empty space. The reason that they do not simply merge together when one object is placed on top of another is the electron repulsion in the facing atoms of each object. The fact that both electrons are negatively-charged, and like charges repel, is why the floor holds you up when you stand on it. For a star to begin, the gravity at it's center must be great enough to overcome this electron repulsion and fuse the atoms together.
But the question here is why it requires just the force that it does to crunch two or more atoms together into one larger new atom, in the process known as fusion. The exact amount of force that it requires to force two or more atoms to merge together is information, and that information must come from somewhere.
FISSION AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Fission is the opposite nuclear process fission fusion. While fusion forces small atoms together into larger ones, fission splits heavy atoms into smaller ones. In both processes energy is released. Fission is usually accomplished by firing a high-speed neutron at a mass of fissile material so that it will, by chance, hit a nucleus in an atom and split it apart.
We know, by Albert Einstein's famous formula E = MC squared, that the speed of light has a relationship to fission. This formula is about the tremendous amount of energy that is contained in a relatively small amount of matter. The E is for "energy", M is for "mass" and the C means "constant". The speed of light is the constant so that the energy within mass is equal to the amount of mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
According to my cosmology theory, the speed of light is really a right angle. We perceive it as a speed because it is the innate velocity at which our consciousnesses proceed along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains. We really live in four dimensions, the fourth we perceive as time, so that what we see as the fundamental particles of matter in three dimensions of space, such as electrons, are really strings in four dimensions of space.
When a nucleus is split during fission, the like-charged protons now have nothing binding them together in a single nucleus. They move away from each other by the most direct route, due to their mutual electrical like-charge repulsion. That most direct route is straight lines in opposite directions. Since matter is really bundles of strings that are aligned mostly in the same direction in four dimensions, that direct route taken by the two halves of the now-split atom are at right angles in opposite directions away from each other.
Since my cosmology theory defines the speed of light as really such a right angle, that is why the speed of light is connected to nuclear fission in Einstein's formula E = MC squared. The second speed of light in the formula, to square this first one, is the movement of our consciousnesses along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains while this fission is going on.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND FUSION
But if the speed of light, which in my cosmology theory is actually strings of matter bent at right angles to the primary direction in four-dimensional space that the strings of matter at rest are aligned, is a factor in the energy released in fission, then could it be possible that it might also be a factor in the opposite nuclear process as the energy required for fusion?
At zero velocity two objects in contact but at rest will have the strings that are their outermost electrons, the ones in the two objects that face each other, parallel to one another. Electron repulsion between the two objects will be at a maximum.
But if two atoms are moving directly toward each other at the speed of light, the electron repulsion between them will be zero and they will effortlessly merge together. This is just the opposite of the two nuclei in the split atom of fission moving away from each other at the speed of light, because fusion is the opposite process to fission.
But what if two atoms collide at a velocity somewhere between zero and the speed of light? If the electron repulsion that keeps the atoms separate is at a maximum at zero velocity and a minimum at the speed of light then it makes sense that if the relative velocity of the two atoms is closer to the speed of light than it is to zero velocity then they will merge. If the velocity is closer to zero then they will bounce off each other and will not merge.
In other words, it seems that if the relative velocity of two atoms coming directly toward each other in the center of a star is greater than half the speed of light, or a 45 degree angle in the strings of four dimensions than they will merge together in fusion.
There is tremendous heat in the centers of stars. Remember that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion in a material. The faster the atoms are moving, the hotter the object is. When two objects are brought into contact, some of the kinetic energy of the atoms in the hotter object is imparted to the cooler object.
Heat is not the only factor. There is also the tremendous pressure in the centers of stars from the gravity that brought the star together in the first place. This pressure is also energy so it lowers the velocity necessary to get the atoms to merge in fusion.
But basically, it seems to me that there is a definite relationship between nuclear fusion and the speed of light. If the speed of light is such an important factor in the opposite process, nuclear fission in the formula E = MC squared, then why shouldn't we expect it to be a factor also in fusion?
Large atoms that undergo fission have to first be put together by fusion and if the speed of light is such a factor in the fission, doesn't is seem necessary that it was also a factor in the fusion that put the fissile atom together in the first place?
It requires such a vast amount of heat and pressure to get atoms to fuse together but this is information as to exactly how much and this information must come from somewhere.
Put simply, if the total kinetic energy of two atoms that collide in the center of a star is equal to or greater than half the speed of light then the two atoms will fuse together into a larger atom. if it is not then the two atoms will bounce off each other, by electron repulsion, and will not fuse. The universe is really a simple place and there has to be a simple answer as to why the amount of force required for fusion is what it is.
The Tragic Numerology Of Buffalo
The recent posting, "The Sacred Numerology Of Buffalo", was popular. There is much more numerology concerning tragic events in Buffalo's history that links to the 1983 warehouse explosion described in that posting. I would like the nearby city of Buffalo, NY to move beyond the era of chicken wings in hot sauce and promote it as the City of Numerology.
In 1901, the great Pan American Exhibition was held in Buffalo. But the exhibition became best-known for the assassination of U.S. president William McKinley that took place there. He was shot on September 6 and died in Buffalo on September 14.
On May 7, 1942, came Buffalo's famous photographed suicide. A woman checked into what was then the Genesee Hotel. She went to the women's washroom near the top of the hotel and climbed out of the window. A crowd of people gathered below. She waved to the crowd and then jumped to her death.
A news reporter happened by and got the famous photograph of the woman falling, just before she struck the ground. It became one of the best-known, and of course most tragic, photographs ever taken. The woman was first described as a "Despondent Divorcee", although that information apparently turned out to be incorrect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=genesee+hotel+1942&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=S_TLRvkrvG3E9M%253A%252CJ2Sd0_dhb4gjXM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT6JklB83hpxIaCFpcAoYRuZ48PVw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijyoCvkKznAhVjTd8KHYX1CvUQ9QEwAHoECAoQBA#imgrc=S_TLRvkrvG3E9M:&vet=1
It took place at the intersection of Pearl and Genesee Streets, which actually no longer exists.
As described in the recent posting "The Sacred Numerology Of Buffalo", December 2019, the warehouse explosion took place on December 27, 1983,. These are the three standout non-natural tragic events in Buffalo's history.
Now here is what is so interesting. We saw how the warehouse explosion links to the attacks of 9 / 11, which took place at the other end of New York State.
The assassination of William McKinley took place exactly a hundred years before 9 / 11. He was shot on September 6 and died on September 14. There was a fascination with ancient Egypt around the time of his assassination and he had just got finished viewing an exhibit about ancient Egypt when he was shot in the Temple of Music.
A great monument was raised for President McKinley in Buffalo. It would be in the form of an Egyptian obelisk and would be located right in front of Buffalo City Hall, which is famously built in the style of the Mogamma, the city government building in Cairo.
This is Buffalo City Hall.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/1.jpg
This is the Mogamma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mogamma#/media/File:Modan_Tahrir_(2005-05-343).jpg
The 9 / 11 attacks, exactly 100 years after President McKinley was dying, was led by an Egyptian, Mohamed Atta.
We have seen how the warehouse explosion in Buffalo led to 9 / 11, in "The Sacred Numerology Of Buffalo". The assassination and the suicidal fall also presages 9 / 11. President McKinley was struck by two bullets, just as the towers of the World Trade Center would be struck by two planes a hundred years later. He didn't die from the wounds of the bullets but from the gangrene that spread as a result. Just as the towers didn't collapse as a direct result of the impacts but from the fire from the burning jet fuel that melted the structural steel that was supporting the buildings. The tragic fall of the woman from the building presages the falling of people from the towers on 9 / 11.
So the McKinley Assassination took place in 1901. The famous photographed suicide too place in 1942. The explosion of the warehouse took place in 1983. It is 41 years from 1901 to 1942, and then 41 years from 1942 to 1983.
This type of numerology is familiar to readers of the Bible. The first chapter of the New Testament, Matthew 1, states that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile in Babylon, and then 14 from the exile to the time of Jesus.
This reversal of the digits in the numbers, 41 and 14, reminds us of the numerology around nearby Niagara Falls in the section "Interesting Numbers" of the section 16) THE SECOND NIAGARA PROPHECY in the compound posting on this blog, "The Aztec Prophecy", April 2018. There are many prophecies and interesting connections in that posting, I call it "The Aztec Prophecy" because that was the first one that I wrote about.
Suppose we try numerology from the exact times that the events took place. McKinley died in the very early morning of September 14. The suicidal jump took place during the day of May 7, I could not find out exactly what time. The warehouse explosion took place in the late evening of December 27.
Taking those times of day into account, the time from McKinley's death to the jump, and then the same amount of time from the jump forward, brings us not right to the warehouse explosion but to exactly, just about to the hour, one year before the warehouse explosion, the evening of December 27, 1982,.
So the days of these three events do not line up exactly, as the years do, but the difference in days and hours amounts to exactly one year. If the days had lined up then the years would not have lined up.
So we see again how Buffalo is really the City of Numerology. I wish that I could find some numerology about more pleasant events.
In 1901, the great Pan American Exhibition was held in Buffalo. But the exhibition became best-known for the assassination of U.S. president William McKinley that took place there. He was shot on September 6 and died in Buffalo on September 14.
On May 7, 1942, came Buffalo's famous photographed suicide. A woman checked into what was then the Genesee Hotel. She went to the women's washroom near the top of the hotel and climbed out of the window. A crowd of people gathered below. She waved to the crowd and then jumped to her death.
A news reporter happened by and got the famous photograph of the woman falling, just before she struck the ground. It became one of the best-known, and of course most tragic, photographs ever taken. The woman was first described as a "Despondent Divorcee", although that information apparently turned out to be incorrect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=genesee+hotel+1942&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=S_TLRvkrvG3E9M%253A%252CJ2Sd0_dhb4gjXM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT6JklB83hpxIaCFpcAoYRuZ48PVw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijyoCvkKznAhVjTd8KHYX1CvUQ9QEwAHoECAoQBA#imgrc=S_TLRvkrvG3E9M:&vet=1
It took place at the intersection of Pearl and Genesee Streets, which actually no longer exists.
As described in the recent posting "The Sacred Numerology Of Buffalo", December 2019, the warehouse explosion took place on December 27, 1983,. These are the three standout non-natural tragic events in Buffalo's history.
Now here is what is so interesting. We saw how the warehouse explosion links to the attacks of 9 / 11, which took place at the other end of New York State.
The assassination of William McKinley took place exactly a hundred years before 9 / 11. He was shot on September 6 and died on September 14. There was a fascination with ancient Egypt around the time of his assassination and he had just got finished viewing an exhibit about ancient Egypt when he was shot in the Temple of Music.
A great monument was raised for President McKinley in Buffalo. It would be in the form of an Egyptian obelisk and would be located right in front of Buffalo City Hall, which is famously built in the style of the Mogamma, the city government building in Cairo.
This is Buffalo City Hall.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/1.jpg
This is the Mogamma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mogamma#/media/File:Modan_Tahrir_(2005-05-343).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
The 9 / 11 attacks, exactly 100 years after President McKinley was dying, was led by an Egyptian, Mohamed Atta.
We have seen how the warehouse explosion in Buffalo led to 9 / 11, in "The Sacred Numerology Of Buffalo". The assassination and the suicidal fall also presages 9 / 11. President McKinley was struck by two bullets, just as the towers of the World Trade Center would be struck by two planes a hundred years later. He didn't die from the wounds of the bullets but from the gangrene that spread as a result. Just as the towers didn't collapse as a direct result of the impacts but from the fire from the burning jet fuel that melted the structural steel that was supporting the buildings. The tragic fall of the woman from the building presages the falling of people from the towers on 9 / 11.
So the McKinley Assassination took place in 1901. The famous photographed suicide too place in 1942. The explosion of the warehouse took place in 1983. It is 41 years from 1901 to 1942, and then 41 years from 1942 to 1983.
This type of numerology is familiar to readers of the Bible. The first chapter of the New Testament, Matthew 1, states that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile in Babylon, and then 14 from the exile to the time of Jesus.
This reversal of the digits in the numbers, 41 and 14, reminds us of the numerology around nearby Niagara Falls in the section "Interesting Numbers" of the section 16) THE SECOND NIAGARA PROPHECY in the compound posting on this blog, "The Aztec Prophecy", April 2018. There are many prophecies and interesting connections in that posting, I call it "The Aztec Prophecy" because that was the first one that I wrote about.
Suppose we try numerology from the exact times that the events took place. McKinley died in the very early morning of September 14. The suicidal jump took place during the day of May 7, I could not find out exactly what time. The warehouse explosion took place in the late evening of December 27.
Taking those times of day into account, the time from McKinley's death to the jump, and then the same amount of time from the jump forward, brings us not right to the warehouse explosion but to exactly, just about to the hour, one year before the warehouse explosion, the evening of December 27, 1982,.
So the days of these three events do not line up exactly, as the years do, but the difference in days and hours amounts to exactly one year. If the days had lined up then the years would not have lined up.
So we see again how Buffalo is really the City of Numerology. I wish that I could find some numerology about more pleasant events.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Nuclear Reactions In Terms Of Information
Today I would like to demonstrate just how useful and versatile is the principle of "The Lowest Information Point", December 2017, as described in the compound posting by that name on this blog. This posting has been added to it.
OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY
The first thing that is confusing about nuclear science is that there are two basic major reactions, fission and fusion. Fission means "to split the atom" and fusion means to fuse atoms together. The two are thus opposite processes. But what doesn't seem to make sense is that if one process releases energy then shouldn't the opposite process either absorb energy, or at least not release energy? That is usually the way it works in chemistry. But yet both of these nuclear processes release energy, actually tremendous amounts of energy.
Fusion, the fusing together of small atoms into larger ones usually by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, actually does require an input of energy, but only for elements that are heavier than iron. These heavier elements are formed only during the brief time that the star is actually exploding as a supernova, and the energy released makes the required fusion possible. That is why iron and elements lighter than it are exponentially more common than elements that are much heavier than iron. Many heavier elements, their component smaller atoms having been forced together by the energy of the supernova, are less-then-stable. They gradually emit particles or radiation in the seeking of a more stable state. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
At the time of this writing, all nuclear power that we use comes from fission of uranium. We can get smaller atoms to fuse together by lasers, which is fusion, but no one has yet succeeded in getting net energy from the fusion process. But so many people are trying.
In the centers of stars, smaller atoms starting with hydrogen are fused together into ever-larger and heavier atoms. Two prominent fusion processes, depending on the size of the star, are the Triple Alpha Process and the Proton-Proton Process. Sometimes light atoms, which are usually common, are broken back down by natural fission process, and this is why light elements such as lithium and beryllium are relatively rare.
INFORMATION AND ENERGY IS REALLY THE SAME THING
We have seen, in my information theory, that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way that we can see the two as really being the same thing is in technology. We can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
We can see that both of these opposite nuclear processes release energy, which is somewhat confusing. But what happens if we express the nuclear reactions as information, instead of as energy, since energy and information is really the same thing?
We have already seen how easily the speeding up of the expansion of the universe is explained if we see it in terms of information.
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION IN ATOMS
There are two sets of information within atoms. The first is the electrical repulsion relationship between the protons in the nucleus. There has to be neutrally-charged neutrons to hold the protons together, against their mutual repulsion, so that the electrical relationships between the protons vary due to the distance between them. Each proton has this electrical relationship with every other proton in the nucleus. These relationships are information.
Let's call this the Inter-Proton Relationships Information.
The second set of information in the atom is the outer surface area of the atom itself, that of the outermost electron orbital. Distance, and thus surface area, is information and energy. The size of an atom is typically about ten thousand times that of it's nucleus.
The outermost electrons, which form the surface area of the atom, have the highest orbital energy of all the electrons in the atom. We can see how higher electron orbitals have higher energy than lower ones in that radiation can sometimes shift an electron to a higher orbital, and more radiation is releases when the electron drops back down. This is the principle behind fluorescence and phosphorescence. One way to see how energy, which is also information, changes the surface area is that the energy in wind increases the surface area of water by creating waves.
Let's call this the Surface Area Information.
Simple arithmetic tells us that, when an atom is split in two by fission, the total number of protons will remain the same but the Inter-Proton Relationships will decrease. If a nucleus has 12 protons, and each has the electrical relationship with all of the others, then there are 12 x 11 = 132 interrelationships. But if we fission it into two nuclei, each with 6 protons, then there are only 6 x 5 + 6 x 5 = 60 interrelationships.
In practical terms, since heavier elements tend to have more neutrons per protons in the nucleus, this also means that several neutrons will be released. In fission, a nucleus is split initially by a high-speed neutron, and the released neutrons go onto split other nuclei. This perpetuates the process and is what is called a chain reaction, at least until enough energy is released to blast the mass of material apart.
This is a drastic decrease in the number of Inter-Proton Relationships, which is information and thus energy tat must be released. But when one atom is split in two in such a way, something else is also happening. The other set of information in the atom, the Surface Area Information, is increasing. This is because the two new smaller atoms have a greater overall surface area than the original larger atom. Surface area is also information, and thus energy.
In real terms, a 235 isotope of Uranium is typically split in such a way into an atom of krypton and barium.
But if we fuse atoms together, in the centers of stars, the opposite to this process occurs. The total surface area decreases but the number of Inter-Proton Relationships increases.
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION MUST BE EQUAL
The essence of what I have realized is that, in any ordinary atom with equal numbers of protons and electrons, these two sets of information, the Inter-Proton Relationships Information and the Surface Area Information, must be equal in terms of information.
This gives us a valuable bridge to understanding information and how it is the same thing as energy. There is no reason for the two sets of information to be not equal. The two electric charges, the positive of the protons and negative of the electrons, are opposite but equal. Having them equal means that we have two different kinds of information that we know much hold equal information simply because it is the Lowest Information Point. An equality is less information than an inequality.
The protons and electrons attract each other, because they have opposite electric charges, but it does not operate in quite the same way as a gravitational attraction. Electron orbitals in atoms are not free-ranging, like gravity, but are arranged in shells and sub-shells. Gravity is solely an attractive force but electrical repulsion is also factor in atoms as electrons in adjacent shells repel each other by like-charge repulsion.
THE ENERGY SURFACE AREA
This equivalence of the two information sets readily explains why the two opposite processes both release energy and can also give us a way to explain, in terms of information, exactly what is happening. But there is a factor that we have to take into account as to how it operates differently from gravity.
With objects in orbit around the earth, for example, the higher the orbit the higher orbital energy. If a satellite is given three times the orbital energy that is has, it will then orbit at 9x the distance but will move at only 1 / 3 the speed. This is because gravity, like electric charge attraction or repulsion, operates by the Inverse Square Law.
But inside the atom, the electrons in orbitals operate differently. As we move to the right across a row on the Periodic Table of the Elements, to successively heavier elements but with the same number of electron shells, each successive element has one more proton and one more electron (unless it is an ion) then the one before it. But instead of getting larger, with a higher surface area, as it would be with gravity, the atom contracts due to the increase in opposite charges pulling the electrons to the nucleus.
But since this means higher energy, and thus more information, we take not the literal surface area of the atom but what I will call the "Energy Surface Area". What we do to calculate the Energy Surface Area of the atom, which we know must be equal to the Inter-Proton Relationships Information, is to take the reciprocal of the difference between the radius or surface area of the given atom, subtract it from the radius or surface area of the atom in column 1 of that row on the Periodic Table, and then add it to the radius or surface area of the element in column 1 of that row.
Here is a periodic table, although it only has the symbols but not the names of the elements. A row is right-to-left, a column is up and down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#/media/File:Simple_Periodic_Table_Chart-en.svg
Take, for example, the top row of the Periodic Table. There are only two elements in this row, the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium with 1 and 2 protons each. The Wikipedia article, "Atomic Radius", under "Calculated Atomic Radii", states that a hydrogen atom has a radius of 53 picometers and a helium atom 31 picometers. Radius is proportional to surface area so that means that a hydrogen atom is considerably larger, although not heavier, than a helium atom.
But the helium atom must contain more information because it has 2 protons, while each hydrogen atom only has 1. The reason that the helium atom is smaller is the additional opposite charge pull of it's two electrons toward the two protons in the nucleus. So that we do is take the reciprocal of the relative size of the helium atom to the hydrogen atom.
31 is .5849 of 53. The reciprocal of .5849 is 1.71. 53, the radius of the hydrogen atom, x 1.71 = 90.6.
This is thus the Energy Surface Area of a helium atom, which is directly proportional to it's Energy Radius, even though it's actual radius is only 31 picometers.
WHY OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY
The reason that these two opposite nuclear processes both release energy is the simple number of atoms. The split by fission uranium or plutonium atom only splits into two secondary atoms. But the fusion of a helium atom from hydrogen involves four hydrogen atoms being crunched into only one helium atom.
There is more information, and thus energy in the Inter-Proton Relationship of the helium atom than there is in the four hydrogen atoms with only one proton each, but the Energy Surface Area of the new helium atom is so much less than that of the four original hydrogen atoms, that the excess energy is released. That is why the sun shines since the sun's stage in the fusion process is now crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.
But in either nuclear process, the results are uneven and that is why energy has to be released. The reason that the process is uneven is the neutrons that are necessary to hold together the protons in the nucleus but do not participate in the Inter-Proton Relationships Information. Heavier elements must have progressively more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Neutrons are readily formed during fusion by crunching an electron into a proton. This is known as K-capture and results in the neutron with it's neutral electric charge.
In the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, there is the increase in Inter-Proton Relationship Information but the decrease in Energy Surface Area is so much greater that a lot of energy is released, and that is why the sun shines.
Obviously, large atoms tend to undergo fission while small atoms tend to undergo fusion into larger atoms. In fission, the splitting of a large atom such as uranium, there is an increase in the Energy Surface Area, as there is now two atoms rather than one, but this increase is less than the decrease of the Inter-Proton Relationships in the nucleus, as it is split in two.
This is why fission also releases energy, even though it is the opposite process of fusion. The release of energy by fusion tends to be much greater because so many protons become neutrons, by having an electron crunched into them, and are thus eliminated from the collective Inter-Proton Relationship Information, which does not involve neutrons.
WHY THE ORDINARY FUSION PROCESS ONLY GOES AS FAR AS IRON
This model of seeing nuclear reactions in terms of information, rather than energy, and realizing that the two sets of information in atoms must be equal because that is the Lowest Information Point, also explains why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron and why the input of energy from a supernova is the only way that heavier elements can be formed.
The number of Inter-Proton Relationships decreases as lighter atoms are crunched by the successive fusion process into ever-heavier elements. This is simply because heavier elements must have more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Protons must have electrons crunched into them to form neutrons, known as K-capture, and are thus eliminated from the Inter-Proton Relationship Information. But due to the increasing number of electrons that each electron shell can accommodate, as we move outward from the nucleus, the Energy Surface Area of atoms does not increase as fast as the Inter-Proton Relationship decreases.
The point where the two cross is iron.
The last element that can thus be formed by the ordinary fusion process, which releases energy and is known as the S-process for "slow" is iron. Elements much heavier than this require the input of energy from a supernova explosion, which is known as the R-process for "rapid".
Making use of this principle that energy and information is really the same thing, and seeing the two opposite reactions as information rather than as energy, shows not only why both release energy but why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron.
OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY
The first thing that is confusing about nuclear science is that there are two basic major reactions, fission and fusion. Fission means "to split the atom" and fusion means to fuse atoms together. The two are thus opposite processes. But what doesn't seem to make sense is that if one process releases energy then shouldn't the opposite process either absorb energy, or at least not release energy? That is usually the way it works in chemistry. But yet both of these nuclear processes release energy, actually tremendous amounts of energy.
Fusion, the fusing together of small atoms into larger ones usually by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, actually does require an input of energy, but only for elements that are heavier than iron. These heavier elements are formed only during the brief time that the star is actually exploding as a supernova, and the energy released makes the required fusion possible. That is why iron and elements lighter than it are exponentially more common than elements that are much heavier than iron. Many heavier elements, their component smaller atoms having been forced together by the energy of the supernova, are less-then-stable. They gradually emit particles or radiation in the seeking of a more stable state. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
At the time of this writing, all nuclear power that we use comes from fission of uranium. We can get smaller atoms to fuse together by lasers, which is fusion, but no one has yet succeeded in getting net energy from the fusion process. But so many people are trying.
In the centers of stars, smaller atoms starting with hydrogen are fused together into ever-larger and heavier atoms. Two prominent fusion processes, depending on the size of the star, are the Triple Alpha Process and the Proton-Proton Process. Sometimes light atoms, which are usually common, are broken back down by natural fission process, and this is why light elements such as lithium and beryllium are relatively rare.
INFORMATION AND ENERGY IS REALLY THE SAME THING
We have seen, in my information theory, that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way that we can see the two as really being the same thing is in technology. We can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
We can see that both of these opposite nuclear processes release energy, which is somewhat confusing. But what happens if we express the nuclear reactions as information, instead of as energy, since energy and information is really the same thing?
We have already seen how easily the speeding up of the expansion of the universe is explained if we see it in terms of information.
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION IN ATOMS
There are two sets of information within atoms. The first is the electrical repulsion relationship between the protons in the nucleus. There has to be neutrally-charged neutrons to hold the protons together, against their mutual repulsion, so that the electrical relationships between the protons vary due to the distance between them. Each proton has this electrical relationship with every other proton in the nucleus. These relationships are information.
Let's call this the Inter-Proton Relationships Information.
The second set of information in the atom is the outer surface area of the atom itself, that of the outermost electron orbital. Distance, and thus surface area, is information and energy. The size of an atom is typically about ten thousand times that of it's nucleus.
The outermost electrons, which form the surface area of the atom, have the highest orbital energy of all the electrons in the atom. We can see how higher electron orbitals have higher energy than lower ones in that radiation can sometimes shift an electron to a higher orbital, and more radiation is releases when the electron drops back down. This is the principle behind fluorescence and phosphorescence. One way to see how energy, which is also information, changes the surface area is that the energy in wind increases the surface area of water by creating waves.
Let's call this the Surface Area Information.
Simple arithmetic tells us that, when an atom is split in two by fission, the total number of protons will remain the same but the Inter-Proton Relationships will decrease. If a nucleus has 12 protons, and each has the electrical relationship with all of the others, then there are 12 x 11 = 132 interrelationships. But if we fission it into two nuclei, each with 6 protons, then there are only 6 x 5 + 6 x 5 = 60 interrelationships.
In practical terms, since heavier elements tend to have more neutrons per protons in the nucleus, this also means that several neutrons will be released. In fission, a nucleus is split initially by a high-speed neutron, and the released neutrons go onto split other nuclei. This perpetuates the process and is what is called a chain reaction, at least until enough energy is released to blast the mass of material apart.
This is a drastic decrease in the number of Inter-Proton Relationships, which is information and thus energy tat must be released. But when one atom is split in two in such a way, something else is also happening. The other set of information in the atom, the Surface Area Information, is increasing. This is because the two new smaller atoms have a greater overall surface area than the original larger atom. Surface area is also information, and thus energy.
In real terms, a 235 isotope of Uranium is typically split in such a way into an atom of krypton and barium.
But if we fuse atoms together, in the centers of stars, the opposite to this process occurs. The total surface area decreases but the number of Inter-Proton Relationships increases.
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION MUST BE EQUAL
The essence of what I have realized is that, in any ordinary atom with equal numbers of protons and electrons, these two sets of information, the Inter-Proton Relationships Information and the Surface Area Information, must be equal in terms of information.
This gives us a valuable bridge to understanding information and how it is the same thing as energy. There is no reason for the two sets of information to be not equal. The two electric charges, the positive of the protons and negative of the electrons, are opposite but equal. Having them equal means that we have two different kinds of information that we know much hold equal information simply because it is the Lowest Information Point. An equality is less information than an inequality.
The protons and electrons attract each other, because they have opposite electric charges, but it does not operate in quite the same way as a gravitational attraction. Electron orbitals in atoms are not free-ranging, like gravity, but are arranged in shells and sub-shells. Gravity is solely an attractive force but electrical repulsion is also factor in atoms as electrons in adjacent shells repel each other by like-charge repulsion.
THE ENERGY SURFACE AREA
This equivalence of the two information sets readily explains why the two opposite processes both release energy and can also give us a way to explain, in terms of information, exactly what is happening. But there is a factor that we have to take into account as to how it operates differently from gravity.
With objects in orbit around the earth, for example, the higher the orbit the higher orbital energy. If a satellite is given three times the orbital energy that is has, it will then orbit at 9x the distance but will move at only 1 / 3 the speed. This is because gravity, like electric charge attraction or repulsion, operates by the Inverse Square Law.
But inside the atom, the electrons in orbitals operate differently. As we move to the right across a row on the Periodic Table of the Elements, to successively heavier elements but with the same number of electron shells, each successive element has one more proton and one more electron (unless it is an ion) then the one before it. But instead of getting larger, with a higher surface area, as it would be with gravity, the atom contracts due to the increase in opposite charges pulling the electrons to the nucleus.
But since this means higher energy, and thus more information, we take not the literal surface area of the atom but what I will call the "Energy Surface Area". What we do to calculate the Energy Surface Area of the atom, which we know must be equal to the Inter-Proton Relationships Information, is to take the reciprocal of the difference between the radius or surface area of the given atom, subtract it from the radius or surface area of the atom in column 1 of that row on the Periodic Table, and then add it to the radius or surface area of the element in column 1 of that row.
Here is a periodic table, although it only has the symbols but not the names of the elements. A row is right-to-left, a column is up and down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#/media/File:Simple_Periodic_Table_Chart-en.svg
Take, for example, the top row of the Periodic Table. There are only two elements in this row, the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium with 1 and 2 protons each. The Wikipedia article, "Atomic Radius", under "Calculated Atomic Radii", states that a hydrogen atom has a radius of 53 picometers and a helium atom 31 picometers. Radius is proportional to surface area so that means that a hydrogen atom is considerably larger, although not heavier, than a helium atom.
But the helium atom must contain more information because it has 2 protons, while each hydrogen atom only has 1. The reason that the helium atom is smaller is the additional opposite charge pull of it's two electrons toward the two protons in the nucleus. So that we do is take the reciprocal of the relative size of the helium atom to the hydrogen atom.
31 is .5849 of 53. The reciprocal of .5849 is 1.71. 53, the radius of the hydrogen atom, x 1.71 = 90.6.
This is thus the Energy Surface Area of a helium atom, which is directly proportional to it's Energy Radius, even though it's actual radius is only 31 picometers.
WHY OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY
The reason that these two opposite nuclear processes both release energy is the simple number of atoms. The split by fission uranium or plutonium atom only splits into two secondary atoms. But the fusion of a helium atom from hydrogen involves four hydrogen atoms being crunched into only one helium atom.
There is more information, and thus energy in the Inter-Proton Relationship of the helium atom than there is in the four hydrogen atoms with only one proton each, but the Energy Surface Area of the new helium atom is so much less than that of the four original hydrogen atoms, that the excess energy is released. That is why the sun shines since the sun's stage in the fusion process is now crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.
But in either nuclear process, the results are uneven and that is why energy has to be released. The reason that the process is uneven is the neutrons that are necessary to hold together the protons in the nucleus but do not participate in the Inter-Proton Relationships Information. Heavier elements must have progressively more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Neutrons are readily formed during fusion by crunching an electron into a proton. This is known as K-capture and results in the neutron with it's neutral electric charge.
In the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, there is the increase in Inter-Proton Relationship Information but the decrease in Energy Surface Area is so much greater that a lot of energy is released, and that is why the sun shines.
Obviously, large atoms tend to undergo fission while small atoms tend to undergo fusion into larger atoms. In fission, the splitting of a large atom such as uranium, there is an increase in the Energy Surface Area, as there is now two atoms rather than one, but this increase is less than the decrease of the Inter-Proton Relationships in the nucleus, as it is split in two.
This is why fission also releases energy, even though it is the opposite process of fusion. The release of energy by fusion tends to be much greater because so many protons become neutrons, by having an electron crunched into them, and are thus eliminated from the collective Inter-Proton Relationship Information, which does not involve neutrons.
WHY THE ORDINARY FUSION PROCESS ONLY GOES AS FAR AS IRON
This model of seeing nuclear reactions in terms of information, rather than energy, and realizing that the two sets of information in atoms must be equal because that is the Lowest Information Point, also explains why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron and why the input of energy from a supernova is the only way that heavier elements can be formed.
The number of Inter-Proton Relationships decreases as lighter atoms are crunched by the successive fusion process into ever-heavier elements. This is simply because heavier elements must have more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Protons must have electrons crunched into them to form neutrons, known as K-capture, and are thus eliminated from the Inter-Proton Relationship Information. But due to the increasing number of electrons that each electron shell can accommodate, as we move outward from the nucleus, the Energy Surface Area of atoms does not increase as fast as the Inter-Proton Relationship decreases.
The point where the two cross is iron.
The last element that can thus be formed by the ordinary fusion process, which releases energy and is known as the S-process for "slow" is iron. Elements much heavier than this require the input of energy from a supernova explosion, which is known as the R-process for "rapid".
Making use of this principle that energy and information is really the same thing, and seeing the two opposite reactions as information rather than as energy, shows not only why both release energy but why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
The Fifth Of Matter And Supernova
I am reposting this because much more has been added onto it.
This has been added to the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", section 5d).
THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND NUCLEAR FISSION
I went over a news article involving nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran when something caught my attention. ( New York Times Sept 8 2015 )
In a nuclear reaction, what is known as a chain reaction takes place. A high-velocity neutron strikes the nucleus of an atom and splits it. Two smaller atoms result but the nuclear binding energy of the two new nuclei is less than that of the one large atom. This energy is released and this is where the energy of a nuclear reaction comes from.
The two new atoms have fewer overall neutrons than the original large atom. This is because the number of neutrons per proton must increase as we move to heavier atoms. These neutrons are released, to continue at high speeds and split more nuclei so that the chain reaction continues.
Only two elements are suitable for such a fission reaction. These are plutonium and the 235 isotope of uranium. Plutonium is an entirely man-made element formed by getting uranium to absorb neutrons, creating an unstable nucleus so that a neutron transforms itself into a proton by emitting an electron, thus forming a new element. In other elements, and the usual 238 isotope of uranium, there are too many neutrons which hold the nucleus together too tightly for it to be split by a neutron.
The number 238 or 235 refers to the total number of nucleons in the nucleus, protons and neutrons. The number of neutrons emitted per fission of a nucleus varies, for uranium-235 it averages about 2.5 and for plutonium it averages about 3. These neutrons then fly off at high speeds to each split another nucleus and continue the chain reaction.
But the geometry of the mass of plutonium of uranium-235 is also a factor. The nucleus is very small in relation to the total size of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The often used model is of a strawberry in the middle of a playing field in a sports arena, where the strawberry represents the nucleus and the arena is the orbitals of the electrons in the atom.
A neutron is so-named because it has an overall neutral electric charge, meaning that it is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons and the positive charge of the nucleus in an atom. Since the space within the electron orbitals are so vast compared with that of the nucleus, the neutron nearly always misses the nucleus and passes right through the atom. Splitting atoms and continuing the chain reaction depends on neutrons eventually hitting a nucleus before reaching the edge of the fissile material.
This means that, if the mass of plutonium or uranium-235 has too few atoms, too many neutrons will leave the mass altogether before striking a nucleus, and the chain reaction will cease. The mass must be of at least a certain size because one of the high-speed neutrons may possibly pass through millions of atoms before it strikes a nucleus. That certain minimum size needed to keep a chain reaction going, although there is always an element of chance involved, is known as the "critical mass".
The mass is also shaped in the form of a sphere because it has the lowest surface area per volume over which the neutron could escape before striking a nucleus.
The critical mass is necessary due to geometry and the ratio of the scale of the entire atom to the nucleus. But the energy released from each fission of an atom is a different factor altogether. When a nuclear chain reaction begins, the energy being released will blast the mass apart well before all of the atoms in it have undergone fission. This, of course, will halt the chain reaction even though it creates the explosion.
The figure given in the article that I mentioned was 1 / 5. In the first nuclear test, which used plutonium, in New Mexico, it was determined that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms in the mass had actually undergone fission before it blasted itself apart and halted the chain reaction.
But why was it 1 / 5? That one-fifth is information, and information must come from somewhere. The fact that the figure was 1 / 5 must tell us something about nuclear physics or the nature of matter.
A mass of a metallic element is held together by what are known as "delocalized" electrons. This means that, rather than having all electrons in orbitals around their home atoms, as is usually the case with non-metals except for the covalent bonds of carbon compounds in which two atoms may share outer electrons, metal atoms share their outer electrons among a vast number of atoms. Most bonds between atoms of non-metals are ionic, in which one atom loses an electron to another so that they are bound by the fact that one has a net negative, and the other a net positive, charge.
This means that the entire metal mass is held together by the opposite charge attraction between it's negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around atoms and the positively-charged nuclei of those atoms.
When an atom of plutonium of the 235 isotope of uranium is split by a neutron during the fusion process, it releases only a few percent of the total binding energy between like-charged protons in the nucleus. Two smaller atoms are formed by the split, typically krypton and barium, but the nuclei of these two atoms has less total binding energy and also a few fewer neutrons than the original uranium or plutonium atom, and that is the energy and neutrons that get released as it is split.
To release all of the energy within the atom, including the Mass-Energy Equivalence energy, we would have to react equal amounts of matter and antimatter together. Antimatter is not much different from our familiar matter, except that the electric charges are reversed so that positively-charged positrons replace electrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
To understand why the critical mass of metal blasts apart, halting the chain reaction, after one-fifth of it's atoms have been split by the fission process, imagine the entire mass as one large atom. This is how it behaves since it is held together by electrons in orbitals around vast numbers of atoms rather than only one or two atoms. A section of metal over which the atoms share their outer electrons is referred to as a crystal.
The reason that the critical mass of metal blasts itself apart after 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split is explained in simple terms by my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", in the compound posting on this blog by that name, specifically section 5).
First remember from the theory of how information works, "The Theory Of Complexity". The complexity of a number is defined as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio. That 1 / 5 is information which must come from somewhere and it involves a complexity of fifths.
In the cosmology theory everything, both matter and space, are composed of infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is defined as a perfectly alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as a concentration of like charges, held together against the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy. Energy is thus equal to mass and this is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This is also where Einstein's famous formula for the conversion of mass and energy comes from, E = MC squared.
Section 5) of the cosmology theory stipulates that, within matter, actually only two out of every five interfaces between adjacent electric charges are between like charges. The other three out of five are between opposite charges. But the interfaces between like charges hold three times as much energy as those between opposite charges.
This factor of three explains where the information for the operation of quarks comes from. Protons and neutrons are each composed of three quarks. Up quarks have an electric charge of + 2 / 3 and down quarks have an electric charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and one down quark give us a proton with an overall charge of +1. Two down quarks and one up quark give us a neutron with an overall charge of zero.
The fact that each of the 2 / 5 of charge interfaces which are between like charges each holds three times as much energy as the interfaces between opposite charges, because it takes energy to hold like charges together against their mutual repulsion, means that 2 / 3 of the overall energy in the interfaces between electric charges within matter are in the interfaces between like charges. This is because 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That explains why, as I pointed out recently in "Relativistic Mass And Trigonometry", the relativistic mass increase for an object moving at half the speed of light, 1.155 and it's reciprocal .866, is exactly the same as the trigonometric functions, secant and cosine, as a 30 degree angle which is 1 / 3 of a right angle. If, as in my cosmology theory, velocity is really an angle with the speed of light being a 90 degree angle, then a 30 degree angle is 1 / 3 of the speed of light.
That is a reflection of 2 / 3 of the energy within matter being held in the interfaces between like electric charges. The other 1 / 3 that is held in the interfaces between opposite charges "does not count" because if the matter were not there it would be empty space. Space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, although the perfect pattern can be disturbed by the ripples of energy that we refer to as electromagnetic waves.
So, in calculating anything about the energy in matter we do not include this 1 / 3 of energy in the interfaces between opposite charges in the matter that would be there anyway if the matter were empty space.
Now remember that the critical mass described above is held together by the opposite charge attraction between the negatively-charged electrons and the positively-charged nuclei. Even though both the electrons and the protons in the nuclei are matter in that 2 / 3 of their energy in electric charge interfaces is held between like charges, that does not apply to the attraction between the two that holds the atom together and also the mass of metal because the definition of a metal is that a vast number of atoms share their outer electrons between them. The mass of metal is held together by the opposite charge attraction between those electrons and the nuclei.
Since the mass of metal, within the protons and electrons themselves and not the space between the two, 1 / 3 of the energy in that mass is held in the interfaces between opposite charges, and each atom and also the entire mass is held together by the opposite-charge attraction between electrons and protons, that means that the 2 / 3 of energy within the matter that is held in the 2 / 5 of the charge interfaces that are between like charges, that means that these 2 / 5 hold twice as much energy as that in the electron-proton attraction that holds each atom, as well as the entire mass, together. Because, again, 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That means that when 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass have been split by fission, releasing their energy, that matches the energy in the opposite-charge electrical attraction that is holding the mass of metal together. That is why in the critical mass of plutonium in the first nuclear bomb that was tested, in New Mexico, only 1 / 5 of the atoms were actually split because, at that point, the mass blasted itself apart which halted the fission process.
The total energy held in the 2 / 5 of interfaces between electric charges in matter that are between like charges was not released, remember that only a few percent of the total energy in a nucleus is released by fission. But this was the energy that would be released in the stage that was involved, that of splitting a large atom of plutonium, or the 235 isotope of uranium, into two smaller atoms, which also forces a rearrangement of the crystalline structure of the metal, held together by shared electrons. The rest of the energy in the interfaces between like charges is still held in the two smaller atoms.
But the fact that it was 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass that split before the mass blasted itself apart shows that what I have explained all along in the cosmology theory is correct.
In the initial tests of nuclear bombs, it is known that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms actually underwent fission. The bomb works by firing high-speed neutrons at a critical mass of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. A neutron has a neutral electric charge and so is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons in atoms, or the positive charge of the nucleus.
The nucleus takes up only a very small space in the center of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. But eventually, a neutron will probably strike a nucleus before exiting the mass of fissile material. This splits the nucleus into two smaller atoms, typically krypton and barium, and, since these two new atoms have fewer total neutrons than the larger original atom, these excess neutrons also fly out at high speeds and (hopefully) strike and split another nucleus before exiting the critical mass.
This thus forms that is referred to as a chain reaction. The average number of neutrons released by a split uranium-235 atom is about 2.5 and by a plutonium atom about 3. This is why most uranium atoms, isotope 238, will not work as fissile material. There are too many neutrons holding the nucleus together so that it cannot be split by the neutron.
That is why the mass undergoing fission has to be at least the critical mass in size, and spherical. If the mass is smaller than the critical mass then too many neutrons will escape before striking a nucleus because the smaller mass will have a higher surface-to-volume ratio.
My cosmology theory explains why only 1 / 5 of the atoms actually undergo fusion. The reason that the fission is never anywhere near complete is simply that the mass will blast itself apart before the chain reaction can get to all of the nuclei in every atom.
The reason that it is 1 / 5 of the atoms undergo fission is that 2 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges in atoms are between like charges, which mutually repel but are held together by energy. This energy holding like charges together is, in my cosmology theory, what forms matter, and is the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. The other 3 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges are between opposite charges, which naturally attract.
Empty space is made up of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of opposite negative and positive electric charges. Like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. There is some energy in all interfaces between charges but the ones between like charges have three times as much energy in them as the ones between opposite charges.
The bonds between like charges, held together by energy, are what hold the fundamental particles together, the electrons and quarks that make up the nucleons. But it is the attraction between opposite charges that holds the whole mass together. But since 2 / 5 of the total interfaces between electric charges are between like charges, which each have three times are much energy as the 3 / 5 between the opposite charges that hold the whole mass together, that means that the energy released when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split by fission, enough energy has been released to surpass the energy in the interfaces between opposite charges that hold the mass together, and thus the mass is blasted apart.
With that review, now let's see how this applies to a supernova and our Solar System.
We know that the sun is a so-called "second-generation star". We can tell by spectroscopy that the sun contains heavy elements that are well beyond it's current stage in the nuclear fusion process. Fission, described in the review above, is the opposite of fusion. Fusion is the crunching together of atoms by gravity. A star is born when enough matter comes together by it's mutual gravity that the electron repulsion that ordinarily holds atoms apart is overcome and small atoms are crunched together into larger ones.
Large atoms contain less energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form them. This is because the nucleus of the larger atoms must contain more neutrons per protons and an electron is crunched into a proton to create a neutron, and this is a lower energy state than the proton and electron separate. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why the sun and other stars shine.
Another way that we could look at the internal energy of atoms, the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is in terms of the surface area of the atoms. Surface area represents distance, and thus energy. The new and larger atom has less overall surface area than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. This is the solar or stellar energy that gets released as radiation.
The lightest, and by far the most abundant, element in the universe is hydrogen. The sun is presently crunching four atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium. The leftover energy is released as the sun's radiation. When the hydrogen is used up, the sun will begin crunching the helium together into successively heavier atoms. The process continues until we get to iron, element number 26. The ordinary fusion process can only go as far as iron.
This ordinary stellar fusion process, up to iron, is known as the slow or S-process. Elements heavier than iron, the heaviest naturally-occurring element is uranium, number 92 meaning that it has 92 protons in a nucleus, are formed only by the release of energy as a large star explodes as a supernova. That is why iron and elements, and elements below it, are exponentially more common than elements heavier than iron. These heavier elements require a net input of energy which is not possible without the explosion.
A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward energy of it's nuclear fusion. As the star keeps crunching smaller atoms into heavier ones, and then those into still heavier ones, the energy released per time increases because larger atoms being crunched together releases more net energy than smaller ones. This upsets the equilibrium of the star and it begins growing outward. Late in it's life, the sun is expected to reach what is known as the "red giant stage".
But if the star is large enough, meaning that more atoms are undergoing fusion in it's core, the star can actually explode and scatter it's component matter across space. That is what the Solar System is today, and why the sun is a second-generation star. A large star exploded and much of it's matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. That previous star must have been much larger than the sun because the sun is not large enough to explode as a supernova.
This previous star, before the sun, is what we saw on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com ,"The Supernova Energy Hypothesis And The Most Accessible Star", June 2009.
I define a nova as the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, due to the increased energy release of fusion in the star's core, and a supernova as the explosion of the star from the center. This is why, in my view, the outer planets of the Solar System contain a preponderance of molecules formed of light atoms, such as methane and ammonia, and comets are made of ices such as water. The previous star first blasted away the lighter atoms in it's outer reaches, which went further out into space because they had a higher starting point, before exploding from the center.
We can easily see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron, before the previous star exploded in a supernova, by how abundant iron is in the earth and the inner Solar System. Mercury has been nicknamed "The Iron Planet". The earth is 64x the volume of the moon, but has 81x it's mass, because, while both are made out of rock, the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks. This lack of an iron core shows in the fact that the moon has practically no magnetic field.
Iron is the most common element in the earth by mass and close to 1 / 3 the mass of the earth consists of iron. We know that lighter elements in the inner Solar System were forced outward by the sun's heat and the solar wind, the stream of charged particles from the sun.
Now here is my hypothesis. The mass of the earth and inner planets, up to Mars, are now close to 1 / 3 iron. But originally, before lighter elements being forced toward the outer Solar System by the heat and solar wind, the mass of the inner Solar System was about 1 / 5 iron.
This means that the supernova, the explosion of the previous star that existed before the present sun, occurred when about 1 / 5 of the mass in the core of the star was in the form of iron, and the fusion process could not go any further. A supernova is not exactly a nuclear explosion, it is a change in the previous equilibrium of the star, but it is driven by the fusion process.
This is like an inverse mirror image of the fission critical mass, described above, blasting itself apart when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split. The energy released comes from the interfaces of like charges that are held together by energy, what science calls the "Mass-Energy Equivalence". 2 / 5 of all interfaces between electric charges in matter are such interfaces between like charges. These each have three times, according to my cosmology theory, as much energy as the usual interfaces of empty space between opposite charges that naturally attract.
That is why, when 1 / 5 of the atoms undergoing fusion in the core of the star have become part of an iron atom and the process can go no further, the energy released surpasses that of the 3 / 5 of the interfaces between opposite charges that holds the star together, but each has only 1 / 3 of the energy of an interface between like charges. This is what causes the star to explode as a supernova and is why, after much matter consisting of lighter atoms has been forced outward by the heat of the sun and the solar wind, close to 1 / 3 of the matter in the inner Solar System is iron.
This has been added to the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", section 5d).
THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND NUCLEAR FISSION
I went over a news article involving nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran when something caught my attention. ( New York Times Sept 8 2015 )
In a nuclear reaction, what is known as a chain reaction takes place. A high-velocity neutron strikes the nucleus of an atom and splits it. Two smaller atoms result but the nuclear binding energy of the two new nuclei is less than that of the one large atom. This energy is released and this is where the energy of a nuclear reaction comes from.
The two new atoms have fewer overall neutrons than the original large atom. This is because the number of neutrons per proton must increase as we move to heavier atoms. These neutrons are released, to continue at high speeds and split more nuclei so that the chain reaction continues.
Only two elements are suitable for such a fission reaction. These are plutonium and the 235 isotope of uranium. Plutonium is an entirely man-made element formed by getting uranium to absorb neutrons, creating an unstable nucleus so that a neutron transforms itself into a proton by emitting an electron, thus forming a new element. In other elements, and the usual 238 isotope of uranium, there are too many neutrons which hold the nucleus together too tightly for it to be split by a neutron.
The number 238 or 235 refers to the total number of nucleons in the nucleus, protons and neutrons. The number of neutrons emitted per fission of a nucleus varies, for uranium-235 it averages about 2.5 and for plutonium it averages about 3. These neutrons then fly off at high speeds to each split another nucleus and continue the chain reaction.
But the geometry of the mass of plutonium of uranium-235 is also a factor. The nucleus is very small in relation to the total size of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The often used model is of a strawberry in the middle of a playing field in a sports arena, where the strawberry represents the nucleus and the arena is the orbitals of the electrons in the atom.
A neutron is so-named because it has an overall neutral electric charge, meaning that it is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons and the positive charge of the nucleus in an atom. Since the space within the electron orbitals are so vast compared with that of the nucleus, the neutron nearly always misses the nucleus and passes right through the atom. Splitting atoms and continuing the chain reaction depends on neutrons eventually hitting a nucleus before reaching the edge of the fissile material.
This means that, if the mass of plutonium or uranium-235 has too few atoms, too many neutrons will leave the mass altogether before striking a nucleus, and the chain reaction will cease. The mass must be of at least a certain size because one of the high-speed neutrons may possibly pass through millions of atoms before it strikes a nucleus. That certain minimum size needed to keep a chain reaction going, although there is always an element of chance involved, is known as the "critical mass".
The mass is also shaped in the form of a sphere because it has the lowest surface area per volume over which the neutron could escape before striking a nucleus.
The critical mass is necessary due to geometry and the ratio of the scale of the entire atom to the nucleus. But the energy released from each fission of an atom is a different factor altogether. When a nuclear chain reaction begins, the energy being released will blast the mass apart well before all of the atoms in it have undergone fission. This, of course, will halt the chain reaction even though it creates the explosion.
The figure given in the article that I mentioned was 1 / 5. In the first nuclear test, which used plutonium, in New Mexico, it was determined that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms in the mass had actually undergone fission before it blasted itself apart and halted the chain reaction.
But why was it 1 / 5? That one-fifth is information, and information must come from somewhere. The fact that the figure was 1 / 5 must tell us something about nuclear physics or the nature of matter.
A mass of a metallic element is held together by what are known as "delocalized" electrons. This means that, rather than having all electrons in orbitals around their home atoms, as is usually the case with non-metals except for the covalent bonds of carbon compounds in which two atoms may share outer electrons, metal atoms share their outer electrons among a vast number of atoms. Most bonds between atoms of non-metals are ionic, in which one atom loses an electron to another so that they are bound by the fact that one has a net negative, and the other a net positive, charge.
This means that the entire metal mass is held together by the opposite charge attraction between it's negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around atoms and the positively-charged nuclei of those atoms.
When an atom of plutonium of the 235 isotope of uranium is split by a neutron during the fusion process, it releases only a few percent of the total binding energy between like-charged protons in the nucleus. Two smaller atoms are formed by the split, typically krypton and barium, but the nuclei of these two atoms has less total binding energy and also a few fewer neutrons than the original uranium or plutonium atom, and that is the energy and neutrons that get released as it is split.
To release all of the energy within the atom, including the Mass-Energy Equivalence energy, we would have to react equal amounts of matter and antimatter together. Antimatter is not much different from our familiar matter, except that the electric charges are reversed so that positively-charged positrons replace electrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
To understand why the critical mass of metal blasts apart, halting the chain reaction, after one-fifth of it's atoms have been split by the fission process, imagine the entire mass as one large atom. This is how it behaves since it is held together by electrons in orbitals around vast numbers of atoms rather than only one or two atoms. A section of metal over which the atoms share their outer electrons is referred to as a crystal.
The reason that the critical mass of metal blasts itself apart after 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split is explained in simple terms by my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", in the compound posting on this blog by that name, specifically section 5).
First remember from the theory of how information works, "The Theory Of Complexity". The complexity of a number is defined as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio. That 1 / 5 is information which must come from somewhere and it involves a complexity of fifths.
In the cosmology theory everything, both matter and space, are composed of infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is defined as a perfectly alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as a concentration of like charges, held together against the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy. Energy is thus equal to mass and this is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This is also where Einstein's famous formula for the conversion of mass and energy comes from, E = MC squared.
Section 5) of the cosmology theory stipulates that, within matter, actually only two out of every five interfaces between adjacent electric charges are between like charges. The other three out of five are between opposite charges. But the interfaces between like charges hold three times as much energy as those between opposite charges.
This factor of three explains where the information for the operation of quarks comes from. Protons and neutrons are each composed of three quarks. Up quarks have an electric charge of + 2 / 3 and down quarks have an electric charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and one down quark give us a proton with an overall charge of +1. Two down quarks and one up quark give us a neutron with an overall charge of zero.
The fact that each of the 2 / 5 of charge interfaces which are between like charges each holds three times as much energy as the interfaces between opposite charges, because it takes energy to hold like charges together against their mutual repulsion, means that 2 / 3 of the overall energy in the interfaces between electric charges within matter are in the interfaces between like charges. This is because 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That explains why, as I pointed out recently in "Relativistic Mass And Trigonometry", the relativistic mass increase for an object moving at half the speed of light, 1.155 and it's reciprocal .866, is exactly the same as the trigonometric functions, secant and cosine, as a 30 degree angle which is 1 / 3 of a right angle. If, as in my cosmology theory, velocity is really an angle with the speed of light being a 90 degree angle, then a 30 degree angle is 1 / 3 of the speed of light.
That is a reflection of 2 / 3 of the energy within matter being held in the interfaces between like electric charges. The other 1 / 3 that is held in the interfaces between opposite charges "does not count" because if the matter were not there it would be empty space. Space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, although the perfect pattern can be disturbed by the ripples of energy that we refer to as electromagnetic waves.
So, in calculating anything about the energy in matter we do not include this 1 / 3 of energy in the interfaces between opposite charges in the matter that would be there anyway if the matter were empty space.
Now remember that the critical mass described above is held together by the opposite charge attraction between the negatively-charged electrons and the positively-charged nuclei. Even though both the electrons and the protons in the nuclei are matter in that 2 / 3 of their energy in electric charge interfaces is held between like charges, that does not apply to the attraction between the two that holds the atom together and also the mass of metal because the definition of a metal is that a vast number of atoms share their outer electrons between them. The mass of metal is held together by the opposite charge attraction between those electrons and the nuclei.
Since the mass of metal, within the protons and electrons themselves and not the space between the two, 1 / 3 of the energy in that mass is held in the interfaces between opposite charges, and each atom and also the entire mass is held together by the opposite-charge attraction between electrons and protons, that means that the 2 / 3 of energy within the matter that is held in the 2 / 5 of the charge interfaces that are between like charges, that means that these 2 / 5 hold twice as much energy as that in the electron-proton attraction that holds each atom, as well as the entire mass, together. Because, again, 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That means that when 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass have been split by fission, releasing their energy, that matches the energy in the opposite-charge electrical attraction that is holding the mass of metal together. That is why in the critical mass of plutonium in the first nuclear bomb that was tested, in New Mexico, only 1 / 5 of the atoms were actually split because, at that point, the mass blasted itself apart which halted the fission process.
The total energy held in the 2 / 5 of interfaces between electric charges in matter that are between like charges was not released, remember that only a few percent of the total energy in a nucleus is released by fission. But this was the energy that would be released in the stage that was involved, that of splitting a large atom of plutonium, or the 235 isotope of uranium, into two smaller atoms, which also forces a rearrangement of the crystalline structure of the metal, held together by shared electrons. The rest of the energy in the interfaces between like charges is still held in the two smaller atoms.
But the fact that it was 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass that split before the mass blasted itself apart shows that what I have explained all along in the cosmology theory is correct.
In the initial tests of nuclear bombs, it is known that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms actually underwent fission. The bomb works by firing high-speed neutrons at a critical mass of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. A neutron has a neutral electric charge and so is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons in atoms, or the positive charge of the nucleus.
The nucleus takes up only a very small space in the center of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. But eventually, a neutron will probably strike a nucleus before exiting the mass of fissile material. This splits the nucleus into two smaller atoms, typically krypton and barium, and, since these two new atoms have fewer total neutrons than the larger original atom, these excess neutrons also fly out at high speeds and (hopefully) strike and split another nucleus before exiting the critical mass.
This thus forms that is referred to as a chain reaction. The average number of neutrons released by a split uranium-235 atom is about 2.5 and by a plutonium atom about 3. This is why most uranium atoms, isotope 238, will not work as fissile material. There are too many neutrons holding the nucleus together so that it cannot be split by the neutron.
That is why the mass undergoing fission has to be at least the critical mass in size, and spherical. If the mass is smaller than the critical mass then too many neutrons will escape before striking a nucleus because the smaller mass will have a higher surface-to-volume ratio.
My cosmology theory explains why only 1 / 5 of the atoms actually undergo fusion. The reason that the fission is never anywhere near complete is simply that the mass will blast itself apart before the chain reaction can get to all of the nuclei in every atom.
The reason that it is 1 / 5 of the atoms undergo fission is that 2 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges in atoms are between like charges, which mutually repel but are held together by energy. This energy holding like charges together is, in my cosmology theory, what forms matter, and is the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. The other 3 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges are between opposite charges, which naturally attract.
Empty space is made up of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of opposite negative and positive electric charges. Like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. There is some energy in all interfaces between charges but the ones between like charges have three times as much energy in them as the ones between opposite charges.
The bonds between like charges, held together by energy, are what hold the fundamental particles together, the electrons and quarks that make up the nucleons. But it is the attraction between opposite charges that holds the whole mass together. But since 2 / 5 of the total interfaces between electric charges are between like charges, which each have three times are much energy as the 3 / 5 between the opposite charges that hold the whole mass together, that means that the energy released when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split by fission, enough energy has been released to surpass the energy in the interfaces between opposite charges that hold the mass together, and thus the mass is blasted apart.
With that review, now let's see how this applies to a supernova and our Solar System.
We know that the sun is a so-called "second-generation star". We can tell by spectroscopy that the sun contains heavy elements that are well beyond it's current stage in the nuclear fusion process. Fission, described in the review above, is the opposite of fusion. Fusion is the crunching together of atoms by gravity. A star is born when enough matter comes together by it's mutual gravity that the electron repulsion that ordinarily holds atoms apart is overcome and small atoms are crunched together into larger ones.
Large atoms contain less energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form them. This is because the nucleus of the larger atoms must contain more neutrons per protons and an electron is crunched into a proton to create a neutron, and this is a lower energy state than the proton and electron separate. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why the sun and other stars shine.
Another way that we could look at the internal energy of atoms, the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is in terms of the surface area of the atoms. Surface area represents distance, and thus energy. The new and larger atom has less overall surface area than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. This is the solar or stellar energy that gets released as radiation.
The lightest, and by far the most abundant, element in the universe is hydrogen. The sun is presently crunching four atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium. The leftover energy is released as the sun's radiation. When the hydrogen is used up, the sun will begin crunching the helium together into successively heavier atoms. The process continues until we get to iron, element number 26. The ordinary fusion process can only go as far as iron.
This ordinary stellar fusion process, up to iron, is known as the slow or S-process. Elements heavier than iron, the heaviest naturally-occurring element is uranium, number 92 meaning that it has 92 protons in a nucleus, are formed only by the release of energy as a large star explodes as a supernova. That is why iron and elements, and elements below it, are exponentially more common than elements heavier than iron. These heavier elements require a net input of energy which is not possible without the explosion.
A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward energy of it's nuclear fusion. As the star keeps crunching smaller atoms into heavier ones, and then those into still heavier ones, the energy released per time increases because larger atoms being crunched together releases more net energy than smaller ones. This upsets the equilibrium of the star and it begins growing outward. Late in it's life, the sun is expected to reach what is known as the "red giant stage".
But if the star is large enough, meaning that more atoms are undergoing fusion in it's core, the star can actually explode and scatter it's component matter across space. That is what the Solar System is today, and why the sun is a second-generation star. A large star exploded and much of it's matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. That previous star must have been much larger than the sun because the sun is not large enough to explode as a supernova.
This previous star, before the sun, is what we saw on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com ,"The Supernova Energy Hypothesis And The Most Accessible Star", June 2009.
I define a nova as the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, due to the increased energy release of fusion in the star's core, and a supernova as the explosion of the star from the center. This is why, in my view, the outer planets of the Solar System contain a preponderance of molecules formed of light atoms, such as methane and ammonia, and comets are made of ices such as water. The previous star first blasted away the lighter atoms in it's outer reaches, which went further out into space because they had a higher starting point, before exploding from the center.
We can easily see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron, before the previous star exploded in a supernova, by how abundant iron is in the earth and the inner Solar System. Mercury has been nicknamed "The Iron Planet". The earth is 64x the volume of the moon, but has 81x it's mass, because, while both are made out of rock, the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks. This lack of an iron core shows in the fact that the moon has practically no magnetic field.
Iron is the most common element in the earth by mass and close to 1 / 3 the mass of the earth consists of iron. We know that lighter elements in the inner Solar System were forced outward by the sun's heat and the solar wind, the stream of charged particles from the sun.
Now here is my hypothesis. The mass of the earth and inner planets, up to Mars, are now close to 1 / 3 iron. But originally, before lighter elements being forced toward the outer Solar System by the heat and solar wind, the mass of the inner Solar System was about 1 / 5 iron.
This means that the supernova, the explosion of the previous star that existed before the present sun, occurred when about 1 / 5 of the mass in the core of the star was in the form of iron, and the fusion process could not go any further. A supernova is not exactly a nuclear explosion, it is a change in the previous equilibrium of the star, but it is driven by the fusion process.
This is like an inverse mirror image of the fission critical mass, described above, blasting itself apart when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split. The energy released comes from the interfaces of like charges that are held together by energy, what science calls the "Mass-Energy Equivalence". 2 / 5 of all interfaces between electric charges in matter are such interfaces between like charges. These each have three times, according to my cosmology theory, as much energy as the usual interfaces of empty space between opposite charges that naturally attract.
That is why, when 1 / 5 of the atoms undergoing fusion in the core of the star have become part of an iron atom and the process can go no further, the energy released surpasses that of the 3 / 5 of the interfaces between opposite charges that holds the star together, but each has only 1 / 3 of the energy of an interface between like charges. This is what causes the star to explode as a supernova and is why, after much matter consisting of lighter atoms has been forced outward by the heat of the sun and the solar wind, close to 1 / 3 of the matter in the inner Solar System is iron.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Journey To Faith
I am a Christian and my journey to faith can be broken down into several steps consisting of various realizations and insights.
1) MY BEGINNING OF FAITH
Someone once said that Jesus got himself crucified because he had "turned everything upside down". The realization came to me one day that Jesus hadn't actually turned everything upside down. The values of the world were upside down to begin with, Jesus had turned them right-side up. But the religious authorities didn't understand that, they saw him as a threat to their authority.
Some people seemed to think that someone who lived a religious life was "old-fashioned", while someone who was secular was "modern". But I saw that this was simply not true. People have been living godless and sinful lives since ancient times.
Another realization that came to me was that intelligence and goodness have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This shows the difference between the ways of the world and the ways of God. If there is a single most important thing about understanding God, it is to understand that the ways of the world and the ways of God are polar opposites. The further we are from God, the more similar his ways seem to be to the ways of the world. God seems like just another authority figure. If someone commits a crime, someone with a worldly way of thinking might say something like "That wasn't a very smart thing to do". While that is true, a person thinking along the lines of God might see it as "sinful" rather than "not smart". The truth is that a person can be very smart and diabolically evil at the same time.
Criminals are not necessarily evil people. It's just that they do what their impulses tell them to without thinking of the consequences. A criminal "lives in the moment". A criminal will see money left unattended and take it without thinking of the consequences. A non-criminal will see the money but will not take it because of the potential consequences. But this doesn't make the non-criminal morally superior to the criminal. A moral person will see the money, know that he can get away with taking it, but not take it because it would be wrong. That is why harsh punishment, including capital punishment, does little to deter crime. To deter crime it would require a criminal to stop and think carefully about the possible consequences of his actions before he did something. But if a criminal were in the habit of thinking carefully about the possible consequences of his actions, he probably wouldn't be a criminal in the first place.
Our natural impulses are supposedly the products of our evolution. But then why is it that doing whatever our impulses tell us to do is the way to live the worst kind of life. While overcoming our natural impulses is the way to live the best kind of life. It doesn't make sense. It makes it seem as if we are here as some kind of test.
I used to think that people who did bad things were just bad people. While I still think that, now I also believe that society is a major part of the problem. The more difficult a society makes it to live by the rules, the more people there will be who don't live by the rules.
How sad that someone has to spend their life crippled in a wheelchair. But the realization came to me one day that we are all in wheelchairs. We are really spiritual beings confined down here in these human bodies as a test. We are constrained by the matter limitations and requirements of our bodies. The best athletes and the fittest people have some really awesome wheelchairs, but they are still wheelchairs.
Life is not always easy and it doesn't always make sense. But it is a test. If it was always easy and always made sense then it wouldn't be a test.
It would be nice if life was always easy. But how capable of a person would you be? When we get through something difficult, we are more capable than we were before. Life has a lot in common with exercise, difficult and challenging times are "life exercises".
Christianity is not about being good, it is about being perfect. If God is a perfect being then that means he cannot accept anything or anyone that is less than perfect. Even if you have only ever committed a minor sin, you are less than perfect. Being good is not good enough. But if Jesus pays the price for your sins then God can see you as perfect.
The Bible foretells the Apocalypse. What that means, plainly and simply, is that the world is definitely not moving in the right direction. We might be making a lot of progress in things like science and technology. But the ways of the world are moving us toward Armageddon.
I once ran into a former classmate. I knew that she was a Christian, she was later killed in an accident. Not long afterward, I had a really intense born-again experience. I realized later that she must have said a prayer for me.
The difference between the ways of the world and the ways of God often comes down to the short-term versus the long-term. An amazing thing about life is how when we get what we want it sometimes turns out to be the worst thing, and when we don't get what we want it sometimes turns out to be the best thing.
Something like unemployment seems to be a negative but can turn into a positive. Toward the end of 1999, I was unemployed for six months. But during that time I did a lot of reading and thinking and without it you wouldn't be reading this blog here on Blogspot. I had suspected that there was some kind of underlying patterns in the universe to which everything conformed. I had some things written down in a notebook but didn't have time to work further on it. I nailed it down during that time of unemployment. It was my first theory, what I called "The Theory Of Primes" at the time. It is the core of the information theory, described on this blog in "The Theory Of Complexity". I had lost the job on August 23, 1999. Later, I was astounded to find that this was the very day that BlogSpot was being founded.
The Gospels record Jesus as having performed so many miracles. But He was surrounded by people who hated Him and resented His popularity. The Jews wanted nothing more than to be rid of the occupying Romans but they were even willing to bring the Romans in to get Jesus removed and crucified. But what all of this says is how genuine His miracles must have been. To discredit Jesus, all they had to do was to prove that even one of His miracles was false. The fact that they were even willing to go to the Romans to get rid of Him makes a powerful statement that they were unable to discredit him otherwise.
There was only one thing about humans that impressed Jesus. He wasn't impressed with the grandeur of the Temple, and certainly not with the corrupt and hypocritical religious establishment. The only thing that impressed Him was faith. He marveled at the faith of both the Phoenician woman, asking for her daughter to be healed, and the Roman centurion, asking that his servant be healed. Even though both of these were pagans that the Jews would usually choose to avoid, Jesus was so impressed that he granted both of their requests. Have enough faith and God might even "bend the rules" to grant your request. Remember that god is actually not bound by any rules, He is the one who makes the rules.
In the ways of the world, the Golden Rule is that the one who has the gold is the one who makes the rules. In the ways of God, the Golden Rule is to treat others as we would like to be treated.
2) WE ARE REALLY SEEKING GOD, WE JUST DON'T REALIZE IT
We are designed to believe in God. If we do not believe in God then we will just believe in something else that seems to take His place. There is a saying that "If you really want to be a great leader then find a bunch of atheists and give them something to believe in". The Nazis are the first example that comes to mind. They took people that, for the most part, no longer believed in God and did an absolutely magnificent job of giving them something else to believe in.
A lot of loneliness isn't really loneliness. Sometimes we have a vague "something's missing" feeling. If we are single it seems like that is what it is. We are seeking a nice significant other. My experience is that after a while the "something's missing" feeling was still there and it was only after I discovered God that it didn't come back, or at least I knew what it was if it did come back.
The realization struck me as to why there are so many divorces. It is because we are really seeking God, but don't find Him. So we expect our marriage partners to fill the role that our relationship with God was supposed to be. The trouble is that we are all just mortal human beings. A marriage partner is supposed to a companion along the way, and not to provide all of the fulfillment in our lives. There are so many divorces because we expect too much from each other to begin with.
How ridiculous is it that we can get on a plane without knowing anything about the personal lives of the pilot or crew but if someone runs for office, even a relatively minor local office, their lives undergo the most intense scrutiny? It doesn't make a bit of sense unless we consider that we have somewhat fallen away from God, but still base our lives and society around the traditional religious patterns. Politicians have taken the place of religious leaders. This is especially apparent if we consider how politicians of the past, such as JFK, got away with things that would be impossible for anyone running for office today.
When I was a boy, there was a definite reverence for science. I picked up on it and have been interested in science ever since, long before I was interested in religion. I realize now that it was because we were falling away from God and science was taking His place as the new "religion".
But nothing can lastingly replace God or Heaven. If you live in a small apartment and wished that you lived in a mansion, you would be happier in the mansion than you are now, but you wouldn't be as much happier as you think you would be. You would still be the same person except that you would live in a mansion.
3) REALIZATIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE
With an understanding of God came the realization of how different were the ways of God from the ways of the world. It is really human nature that is upside-down. There was the paradox of dogs. An intelligent, capable and loyal creature emerges from the wild and becomes our companion, even being called "Man's best friend". But then can you figure out why calling someone a "dog" is universally considered as an insult and, as far as I can see, no nation has ever chosen a dog as it's national symbol. Instead, we choose vicious wild predators as our symbols. Calling someone a "lion", "tiger", "hawk", "eagle" or even a "cat" is a compliment. Of course, this paradox is not about dogs at all, it is really about human nature.
Suppose that one country has abundant natural resources and another country is poor in natural resources. Logically people in the one with resources should be better off, right? But don't forget about human nature. The government of the resource-rich land might use the wealth from those resources to keep itself in power and oppress their people. The government of the resource-poor land will be more dependent on the will of the people to stay in power, and will thus be more likely to be a democracy. The people of the resource-poor land will also have more incentive to develop their knowledge and skills to make up for the lack of resources, and will usually end up better-off. this is known as the "Resource Curse" or the "Paradox of Plenty".
Suppose that writers in one country always seem to praise their leader and their government. But writers in another country are often critical of their country and it's government. The first country must be much better-off, right? Wrong. What is probably happening is that, in the first country, writers face dire consequences for criticizing the government, while in the second country writers are free and can criticize the government.
Suppose that one older person has no regrets about their life, while another is full of regrets. It might mean that the first person has lived a better life. But it might also mean that the second person has matured, while the first hasn't. Growing and maturing almost always means having some regrets. At least it means that the second person has made progress, and opens the possibility that the first person hasn't.
Hate is not the opposite of love, both are more like flip sides of the same coin. The opposite of both love and hate is indifference. If we made lists of the most loved people and the most hated people, there would be many of the same people on both lists. Whenever someone voluntarily pays a lot of attention to you, it is a compliment. When people put a lot of effort into trying to cut you down, it is a great compliment. It is a negative compliment, but nonetheless a compliment. Whether a person loves or hates you depends not just on what you are, but also on what they are.
Our minds are like rooms full of boxes. Suppose that a potentially valuable new box comes along. We can fit the new box into our room but it will require rearranging the boxes that are already there. We might reject the new box, not because it lacks value but because it is too much trouble to rearrange the existing boxes.
4) THE WORLD IS ALIGNED AGAINST GOD
To understand God we must grasp how different are the ways of God and the ways of the world. The word "holy" doesn't actually mean "good". It means to be set aside, or separate from the world and it's ways.
We want to celebrate the holidays but so many of us are not really comfortable with the message of Christianity. So, we invent Santa Claus. Isn't it interesting how the letters in "Santa" can be respelled as "Satan". Something that is not blatantly evil but gets us away from God.
One difference between Heaven and Hell is that we can follow the crowd to Hell but cannot follow it to Heaven.
Logic would seem to dictate that it would be the most sinful people who had been enraged at His message and crucified Jesus. But it wasn't. Many of the most blatantly sinful people repented and followed Jesus. Amazingly, it was the religious establishment who felt their power threatened by Jesus' message and got Him crucified.
We tend to fall into the "ritual trap". We use rituals to help us to feel closer to God. But then we deteriorate into thinking that all we have to do is to go through the rituals in order to be right with God. This is what Jesus told the religious leaders and it enraged them and got Him crucified.
Another trap that we fall into is the innate superiority trap. A nation follows God and receives His blessings. But then they deteriorate into thinking that they have accomplished things that other people haven't because of their innate superiority.
1) MY BEGINNING OF FAITH
Someone once said that Jesus got himself crucified because he had "turned everything upside down". The realization came to me one day that Jesus hadn't actually turned everything upside down. The values of the world were upside down to begin with, Jesus had turned them right-side up. But the religious authorities didn't understand that, they saw him as a threat to their authority.
Some people seemed to think that someone who lived a religious life was "old-fashioned", while someone who was secular was "modern". But I saw that this was simply not true. People have been living godless and sinful lives since ancient times.
Another realization that came to me was that intelligence and goodness have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This shows the difference between the ways of the world and the ways of God. If there is a single most important thing about understanding God, it is to understand that the ways of the world and the ways of God are polar opposites. The further we are from God, the more similar his ways seem to be to the ways of the world. God seems like just another authority figure. If someone commits a crime, someone with a worldly way of thinking might say something like "That wasn't a very smart thing to do". While that is true, a person thinking along the lines of God might see it as "sinful" rather than "not smart". The truth is that a person can be very smart and diabolically evil at the same time.
Criminals are not necessarily evil people. It's just that they do what their impulses tell them to without thinking of the consequences. A criminal "lives in the moment". A criminal will see money left unattended and take it without thinking of the consequences. A non-criminal will see the money but will not take it because of the potential consequences. But this doesn't make the non-criminal morally superior to the criminal. A moral person will see the money, know that he can get away with taking it, but not take it because it would be wrong. That is why harsh punishment, including capital punishment, does little to deter crime. To deter crime it would require a criminal to stop and think carefully about the possible consequences of his actions before he did something. But if a criminal were in the habit of thinking carefully about the possible consequences of his actions, he probably wouldn't be a criminal in the first place.
Our natural impulses are supposedly the products of our evolution. But then why is it that doing whatever our impulses tell us to do is the way to live the worst kind of life. While overcoming our natural impulses is the way to live the best kind of life. It doesn't make sense. It makes it seem as if we are here as some kind of test.
I used to think that people who did bad things were just bad people. While I still think that, now I also believe that society is a major part of the problem. The more difficult a society makes it to live by the rules, the more people there will be who don't live by the rules.
How sad that someone has to spend their life crippled in a wheelchair. But the realization came to me one day that we are all in wheelchairs. We are really spiritual beings confined down here in these human bodies as a test. We are constrained by the matter limitations and requirements of our bodies. The best athletes and the fittest people have some really awesome wheelchairs, but they are still wheelchairs.
Life is not always easy and it doesn't always make sense. But it is a test. If it was always easy and always made sense then it wouldn't be a test.
It would be nice if life was always easy. But how capable of a person would you be? When we get through something difficult, we are more capable than we were before. Life has a lot in common with exercise, difficult and challenging times are "life exercises".
Christianity is not about being good, it is about being perfect. If God is a perfect being then that means he cannot accept anything or anyone that is less than perfect. Even if you have only ever committed a minor sin, you are less than perfect. Being good is not good enough. But if Jesus pays the price for your sins then God can see you as perfect.
The Bible foretells the Apocalypse. What that means, plainly and simply, is that the world is definitely not moving in the right direction. We might be making a lot of progress in things like science and technology. But the ways of the world are moving us toward Armageddon.
I once ran into a former classmate. I knew that she was a Christian, she was later killed in an accident. Not long afterward, I had a really intense born-again experience. I realized later that she must have said a prayer for me.
The difference between the ways of the world and the ways of God often comes down to the short-term versus the long-term. An amazing thing about life is how when we get what we want it sometimes turns out to be the worst thing, and when we don't get what we want it sometimes turns out to be the best thing.
Something like unemployment seems to be a negative but can turn into a positive. Toward the end of 1999, I was unemployed for six months. But during that time I did a lot of reading and thinking and without it you wouldn't be reading this blog here on Blogspot. I had suspected that there was some kind of underlying patterns in the universe to which everything conformed. I had some things written down in a notebook but didn't have time to work further on it. I nailed it down during that time of unemployment. It was my first theory, what I called "The Theory Of Primes" at the time. It is the core of the information theory, described on this blog in "The Theory Of Complexity". I had lost the job on August 23, 1999. Later, I was astounded to find that this was the very day that BlogSpot was being founded.
The Gospels record Jesus as having performed so many miracles. But He was surrounded by people who hated Him and resented His popularity. The Jews wanted nothing more than to be rid of the occupying Romans but they were even willing to bring the Romans in to get Jesus removed and crucified. But what all of this says is how genuine His miracles must have been. To discredit Jesus, all they had to do was to prove that even one of His miracles was false. The fact that they were even willing to go to the Romans to get rid of Him makes a powerful statement that they were unable to discredit him otherwise.
There was only one thing about humans that impressed Jesus. He wasn't impressed with the grandeur of the Temple, and certainly not with the corrupt and hypocritical religious establishment. The only thing that impressed Him was faith. He marveled at the faith of both the Phoenician woman, asking for her daughter to be healed, and the Roman centurion, asking that his servant be healed. Even though both of these were pagans that the Jews would usually choose to avoid, Jesus was so impressed that he granted both of their requests. Have enough faith and God might even "bend the rules" to grant your request. Remember that god is actually not bound by any rules, He is the one who makes the rules.
In the ways of the world, the Golden Rule is that the one who has the gold is the one who makes the rules. In the ways of God, the Golden Rule is to treat others as we would like to be treated.
2) WE ARE REALLY SEEKING GOD, WE JUST DON'T REALIZE IT
We are designed to believe in God. If we do not believe in God then we will just believe in something else that seems to take His place. There is a saying that "If you really want to be a great leader then find a bunch of atheists and give them something to believe in". The Nazis are the first example that comes to mind. They took people that, for the most part, no longer believed in God and did an absolutely magnificent job of giving them something else to believe in.
A lot of loneliness isn't really loneliness. Sometimes we have a vague "something's missing" feeling. If we are single it seems like that is what it is. We are seeking a nice significant other. My experience is that after a while the "something's missing" feeling was still there and it was only after I discovered God that it didn't come back, or at least I knew what it was if it did come back.
The realization struck me as to why there are so many divorces. It is because we are really seeking God, but don't find Him. So we expect our marriage partners to fill the role that our relationship with God was supposed to be. The trouble is that we are all just mortal human beings. A marriage partner is supposed to a companion along the way, and not to provide all of the fulfillment in our lives. There are so many divorces because we expect too much from each other to begin with.
How ridiculous is it that we can get on a plane without knowing anything about the personal lives of the pilot or crew but if someone runs for office, even a relatively minor local office, their lives undergo the most intense scrutiny? It doesn't make a bit of sense unless we consider that we have somewhat fallen away from God, but still base our lives and society around the traditional religious patterns. Politicians have taken the place of religious leaders. This is especially apparent if we consider how politicians of the past, such as JFK, got away with things that would be impossible for anyone running for office today.
When I was a boy, there was a definite reverence for science. I picked up on it and have been interested in science ever since, long before I was interested in religion. I realize now that it was because we were falling away from God and science was taking His place as the new "religion".
But nothing can lastingly replace God or Heaven. If you live in a small apartment and wished that you lived in a mansion, you would be happier in the mansion than you are now, but you wouldn't be as much happier as you think you would be. You would still be the same person except that you would live in a mansion.
3) REALIZATIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE
With an understanding of God came the realization of how different were the ways of God from the ways of the world. It is really human nature that is upside-down. There was the paradox of dogs. An intelligent, capable and loyal creature emerges from the wild and becomes our companion, even being called "Man's best friend". But then can you figure out why calling someone a "dog" is universally considered as an insult and, as far as I can see, no nation has ever chosen a dog as it's national symbol. Instead, we choose vicious wild predators as our symbols. Calling someone a "lion", "tiger", "hawk", "eagle" or even a "cat" is a compliment. Of course, this paradox is not about dogs at all, it is really about human nature.
Suppose that one country has abundant natural resources and another country is poor in natural resources. Logically people in the one with resources should be better off, right? But don't forget about human nature. The government of the resource-rich land might use the wealth from those resources to keep itself in power and oppress their people. The government of the resource-poor land will be more dependent on the will of the people to stay in power, and will thus be more likely to be a democracy. The people of the resource-poor land will also have more incentive to develop their knowledge and skills to make up for the lack of resources, and will usually end up better-off. this is known as the "Resource Curse" or the "Paradox of Plenty".
Suppose that writers in one country always seem to praise their leader and their government. But writers in another country are often critical of their country and it's government. The first country must be much better-off, right? Wrong. What is probably happening is that, in the first country, writers face dire consequences for criticizing the government, while in the second country writers are free and can criticize the government.
Suppose that one older person has no regrets about their life, while another is full of regrets. It might mean that the first person has lived a better life. But it might also mean that the second person has matured, while the first hasn't. Growing and maturing almost always means having some regrets. At least it means that the second person has made progress, and opens the possibility that the first person hasn't.
Hate is not the opposite of love, both are more like flip sides of the same coin. The opposite of both love and hate is indifference. If we made lists of the most loved people and the most hated people, there would be many of the same people on both lists. Whenever someone voluntarily pays a lot of attention to you, it is a compliment. When people put a lot of effort into trying to cut you down, it is a great compliment. It is a negative compliment, but nonetheless a compliment. Whether a person loves or hates you depends not just on what you are, but also on what they are.
Our minds are like rooms full of boxes. Suppose that a potentially valuable new box comes along. We can fit the new box into our room but it will require rearranging the boxes that are already there. We might reject the new box, not because it lacks value but because it is too much trouble to rearrange the existing boxes.
4) THE WORLD IS ALIGNED AGAINST GOD
To understand God we must grasp how different are the ways of God and the ways of the world. The word "holy" doesn't actually mean "good". It means to be set aside, or separate from the world and it's ways.
We want to celebrate the holidays but so many of us are not really comfortable with the message of Christianity. So, we invent Santa Claus. Isn't it interesting how the letters in "Santa" can be respelled as "Satan". Something that is not blatantly evil but gets us away from God.
One difference between Heaven and Hell is that we can follow the crowd to Hell but cannot follow it to Heaven.
Logic would seem to dictate that it would be the most sinful people who had been enraged at His message and crucified Jesus. But it wasn't. Many of the most blatantly sinful people repented and followed Jesus. Amazingly, it was the religious establishment who felt their power threatened by Jesus' message and got Him crucified.
We tend to fall into the "ritual trap". We use rituals to help us to feel closer to God. But then we deteriorate into thinking that all we have to do is to go through the rituals in order to be right with God. This is what Jesus told the religious leaders and it enraged them and got Him crucified.
Another trap that we fall into is the innate superiority trap. A nation follows God and receives His blessings. But then they deteriorate into thinking that they have accomplished things that other people haven't because of their innate superiority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)