davidoblad's Blog

First | Previous | Next | LastPosts 1 - 1 out of 1

2009
Jul
25
5:11 pm

 Cosmology
 7 comment(s)




Introduction:

I have been wondering about the nature of our reality since I was about 10 years old. I have been searching for answers, forming opinions, dropping bad ideas, and learning. I was first introduced to the concept of atoms in a very early Jr. High science class. The teacher compared an atom to a solar system. The Sun at the center and Planets orbiting the center Sun as electrons. I also learned that Suns (Stars) come in many sizes. That Planets also come in many sizes. That solar systems also (logically) vary in size. So I asked my teacher if atoms varied in size. Specifically: Can one have a large hydrogen atom and a small hydrogen atom. He said, "No. All hydrogen atoms are the same size!"

That made me curious why they are all same size. What controls their size? I wondered if I could become small enough that an electron was Planet sized to me, what would I then see? Solids? Liquids? Gas? People? And what is the electron made of? Perhaps even more really tiny atoms? And could even smaller people be living on those electrons? How small can smallness go? Or, for that matter, how big can bigness get? And where did it all come from? What started it all? No one seemed to know.

I also envied Wizards. Really! Making spells, creating dragons, using crystal balls, what knowledge they must have! Growing up, I soon realized Wizards were fictional. So I became the next best thing. I became an Electronics Engineer and Computer Programmer. I found parallels between Wizardry and Magic with Engineering and Programming. This background, with all of it's logic, gives me an unusual perspective to build my understanding of our reality on. So after about 50 years of searching for answers, I now present what I've learned or deduced.

Now, some of this is text book science, some is current scientific speculation and some is largely my personal opinion. I will identify the source or reasoning behind each answer. I will keep it simple enough that most everyone that can read, should be able to follow along. Don't worry.. Very little skill in math is required here. Just an open mind and perhaps the ability to let go of some pre-conceptions.

A quick observation: Scientists are much like the Clergy. They both start with some assumptions that form a foundation upon which all observations will hopefully fit. It is easier for people to dismiss, or just refuse to accept a new observation, when it doesn't fit properly with their nice foundation. Especially if it has already been generally accepted by their peers.

That being said; I have read many questions put forth to the experts. I am not always satisfied with the answers they have given. These questions are in a sort of order, hopefully to lay down a foundation and then build upon it. Skipping a question, because one assumes to know the answer, may leave a hole in that layer of understanding some points. Also, the first couple of questions may seem dumb, but I'm always surprised by the number of folks that just don't know the difference between a galaxy and a solar system. Not their fault, it's mostly a matter of interest.

Ok.. Everything you always wanted to know about our Universe, but was afraid to ask...

Questions:

What is a Star?
What is a Planet?
What is a Moon?
What are Meteors and Comets?
What is a Solar System?
What is a Galaxy?
What is a Universe?
What is the Speed of Light?
What is a Vacuum?
What is Aether?
What is Energy?
What is Matter?
What is Gravity?
What is Dark Matter?
What is Dark Energy?
What is a Black Hole?
What is a Big Bang?
What is our Universe?
What is the 4th Dimension?
What is a God?


We begin here:

What is a Star?

Basically, it's a big ball of mostly hydrogen gas, that was gathered (condensed) from the surrounding free hydrogen gas in the area. I will explain later where that gas came from. The gas was collected, over a real long time, because of a simple accepted fact that Mass attracts Mass. (Sort of) As this ball of gas grows, it tries to compress itself because of it's own growing Gravity. Compressing this gas causes the gas to heat. At a critical point, the gas overheats and Fusion begins. This is the conversion of Hydrogen to Helium. This process produces lots of heat and the Sun lights up. It radiates heat away as radiation, such as light. The heat pushes the gas ball apart and Gravity holds it together, until a balance is achieved. That burning ball of gas is a Star. At some time in a Stars late life, it will run out of hydrogen to burn. The balance will tip and the Star may explode (goes Nova) or swells up. Depending on how much of the Star is left over, a black hole may form or a number of different small Star like objects, ranging in size, density and remaining heat. Eventually, they will cool off enough to become a really big dark rock (sort of). It should also be mentioned that most all of the other stuff, such as iron, gold and other heavy types of matter etc, were created in this solar furnace and some are released to the Universe when a Star explodes. This is roughly the stance of current science and very simplified. Our Sun is a Star just like those pretty ones in the sky at night. But it's a lot closer.

I have a minor problem with this scenario of a formation of a Star. I can't figure out why the Star spins. Try searching the Net for this answer. Everyone agrees that Stars spin but no one is explaining what made it spin in the first place. A pat answer might be that the spin was already built into the cloud of gas. Does this mean that all gas clouds are spinning? Every model of Star creation I can perceive of, just collects matter. The gas cloud surrounds the Protostar (unborn Star) and approaches from all sides. It grows of course, but it doesn't spin. Even a lumpy cloud of gas just takes turns coming at the Protostar from differing sides over time, but still no spin. It's unlikely the Protostar is even moving, compared to the surrounding gas cloud.

The only model that works for me is if two (or more) Protostars are forming at about the same time, fairly close to each other. These two non-spinning Protostars could attract each other and eventually splash into each other. If there was any other condition except a perfect head on collision, then these Protostars might capture each other in an orbital gravity dance and combine forces. This scenario would create a big flat disk of hot Protostar material around the new, now singular, Protostar. This disk of material left from the big splash, would form the core material for building planets from, after condensing, plus the gas attracted in it's future.

It would also go a long way in explaining why our Sun spins in the same direction as our planets orbit the Sun and why the planets mostly all exist in a flat alignment, like the surface of a plate (Solar Ecliptic). I wonder if when the two Protostars crashed, if enough heat and force could be created, like a brief mini Nova, to produce some heavy elements, to be added to the new planets forming. Was there really enough heavy elements in the area, from some distant exploding Star, to account for all the heavy elements of mass, in our system? I take a fairly strong position on the dual Protostars to create solar spin. The mini nova concept of creating local heavy elements, is more of a question than a stance.

To be fair, current models for the creation of our solar system include a local Super Nova (exploding Star). Maybe to account for the excess heavy matter here and perhaps to provide the right force to the cloud, to make it form a spinning system. But I would hate to be the one that had to tweak all those variables to get that model to work right.


What is a Planet?

We live on a Planet. Many of us call it Earth. Current thinking has it that while a Star is forming, that it might also be capturing local debris left over from the explosion of neighborhood Stars. Gravity from the new forming Star captures this passing material and they eventually collect into balls called Planets. The Star ignites and the radiation blows away the extra gas in the area and a Solar System is born. So most of the material in your body was, at one time, inside a Star very long ago. That makes you a Star child. How cool is that?

The closest Planet to our Sun is Mercury and the farthest is nearly three times further out than Pluto. Pluto was, for a long time, considered the farthest Planet out from our Star. Light leaving our Sun takes about 9 minutes to reach us on Earth. About 6 hours to reach Pluto and about 18 hours to reach Eris, the farthest dwarf Planet we know of so far. There are probably still many more to be discovered way the heck out there. Note: Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet, because it's orbit around the Sun is too tilted from the orbits of our inner 8 planets. So far science has detected several hundred planets orbiting other Stars. We can't see them, but they are detectible by studying their parent Stars motion and brightness.


What are Meteors and Comets?

They are space junk. Stray matter in clumps. If the junk is rocky or metallic, such as an Asteroid, it could become a Meteor if it crashes into a planet. So called Falling Stars are Meteors and burn as they enter the atmosphere of a planet. The idea that air friction is what burns them up is pure myth. Air friction would actually cool them off. Blow out a match and see what I mean. What heats up a meteor is air compression. The air can't get out of the way fast enough and becomes compressed. Compressed air becomes hot enough to burn up the meteor (hopefully). If the meteor is large enough and doesn't burn up completely, then it will likely hit the ground and shatter, sometimes making rather large craters. Pieces of the shattered meteor are called Meteorites. Comets on the other hand are mostly clumps of frozen gas. As the comet approaches our Sun, the gas boils off and leaves a trail of gas illuminated by the sunlight. Sunlight (ok, solar wind) actually blows the vapor away from the comet. The tail of a comet always points away from our Sun. For that reason you can't decide quickly, what direction the comet is going. The tail of a comet is actually in front of it, while it's moving away from the Sun.


What is a Moon?

A Moon is just another Planet. It shares a common gravitational bond with another planet. In other words, the planets form a partnership and orbit each other, and together as a pair (or group) tied together by gravity, orbit the parent star. If both planets were about the same size, then the center of their orbit would be placed somewhere between them. When one is much larger than the other, the bigger one becomes the Planet and the smaller ones are called Moons. That answer is good enough for here. The full answer gets a bit more complex on how a moon is defined. The moon Titan is larger than several other planets, so it's not the size that counts, at least not in this case. Our Moon is lopsided. It has a heavy side and a lighter side. Like a pendulum that always points to the center of our Earth, our moons heavy side always points at the Earth. This means that we only get to see one side of the moon from the earth. Our moon takes about 28 days to go around the earth. So, while the Earth never sets or rises in the moons sky, it does have a Sunrise and Sunset, with a noon to noon cycle being about 28 days. Our moons year is the same as ours, since we share the same orbit around the Sun, and it takes us both about one year to make a complete trip around the Sun.


What is a Solar System?

It is one (or more) Stars, and perhaps a collection of Planets and Moons, that all share a common gravitational bonding called a Solar System, not unlike a family.


What is a Galaxy?

It's a really, really, huge ball of gas that has condensed and given birth to many Solar Systems. Our local collection of solar systems is called the Milky Way Galaxy. There are billions of stars in this collection. You can see it on dark clear nights as a very bright band of stars that stretches across the night sky. The Milky Way Galaxy is somewhat Pie shaped (a large rather flattened disk) that spins around a common center. At the center are some large black holes, which I will also explain later, but these black holes are not massive enough to hold the galaxy together by their gravity alone. For this they have invented a term called Dark Matter. The total matter (material) in our Galaxy isn't enough to hold it together and still spin the way it does. It requires about 15 times as much material to make the Galaxy spin the way it does. Material that we can't see. So they invented Dark Matter. One of the purposes of this Blog is to explain a Galaxy's rotation without the use of Dark Matter. That is explained a bit later in the topic on Dark Matter.


What is a Universe?

A Universe is a collection of everything mentioned so far. We know we live on a Planet that circles a Star that is part of a collection of billions of Stars called a Galaxy. The Universe has many millions, if not billions, of other Galaxies. Don't know about you, but that makes me feel rather small and humble. I will show later that there are an infinite number of Universes that don't share any part of this one. But let's take this one step at a time. You may need a bit more information to see how it all adds up first.


What is the Speed of Light?

This is the fastest speed that anything can move. It is 186,000 miles per second, roughly. It can go around the planet Earth over seven times in one second! It takes light a few days to completely leave our solar system. The best answer, by current science, is that a beam of light will take over 4 years, just to reach the nearest Star from us. Light Speed has become part of the favorite tool for measuring great distances, called a Light Year. One Light Year is the Distance that light will travel in one year, so it's a distance and not time. We know that light slows down when passing though matter, such as glass. So therefore, a light year is assumed to be measured in a Vacuum (no air or gases present), where there is nothing to slow it down. Here is where I differ from the accepted definition of that distance. A Light Year as the ruler by which to measure distances is only valid if the velocity of light is a constant everywhere in the universe. I will show that this is not the case when compared to an Absolute Ruler. An Absolute Ruler doesn't obey the laws of the universe. It doesn't stretch or shrink, like a rubber band, depending on where it is used.

Imagine drawing a ruler on a sheet of rubber. It is twelve inches long and marked as such. Now pull on the rubber and notice the ruler becomes longer. By it's own markings, it's still twelve inches long. But compared to an absolute ruler (You the witness, that doesn't stretch), that rubber ruler is now much longer. If you can move on that rubber ruler at one of it's inches per second, then it will take exactly 12 seconds to cross the rubber ruler, no mater how much it is stretched. So if I walk across that rubber ruler in 12 seconds I then have a speed of 1 inch per second. If I stretch the ruler out to 10 feet, when compared against my absolute ruler, I will be traveling at 10 times over my earlier measured speed because I can cross that newly stretched 10 foot span in still just twelve seconds. So, the long and short of it, (pardon the pun) is that one can't use the speed of light as a reference for distance unless one is sure that this ruler never stretches. I suspect this ruler stretches between the galaxies and I believe that very same thing happens between the stars inside a galaxy. I hope to prove that, later in this Blog.

**********************************

At this point I'm going to skip over the subject of atoms, particles and energy as viewed by main stream science. It would double the size of this blog and not be especially useful in understanding the more important aspects of the ideas I wish to extend. I can't lay claim to many of these ideas to follow. Most have already been offered in various theories by astute Mathematicians, Physicists and Cosmologists. I am taking my pick of the litter to define a somewhat new way of viewing the properties of the universe and perhaps, pull a rabbit or two, out of my hat. ( I so much wanted to use a different word than "hat")

**********************************

What is a Vacuum?

A vacuum is the absence of all matter and energy. If I had a cube of pure vacuum in my possession, many scientists today would believe the cube is truly empty. But some will say it isn't empty and I agree. It still has an invisible structure within it. If you could somehow remove this structure, then neither mass nor energy could exist inside it. It would have some very strange properties too. For example: No bullet, or cannon ball for that matter, could penetrate it. A paper thin sheet of it would be totally indestructible. No force known to man could pass through it. You could hold it and hit it with a canon ball and not feel the faintest vibration while the canon ball smashes flat on the side opposite from you. I doesn't conduct any form of energy when that structure is absent.

Now, technically, you couldn't hold a sheet of it, because that would require friction and it has none. It also has no weight. This invisible structure in a vacuum can be compressed or stretched in the presence, or absence, of matter and energy. This is the stretchy rubbery stuff I just wrote about in the previous topic. It also makes for a really terrible ruler.


What is Aether?

This is the name I will use for the invisible structure inside a perfect vacuum just mentioned. The term was originally coined to explain the wave nature of light. That light is like sound. That sound needs air to travel through as a wave, then so must there be an Aether for Light to travel through as a wave. At the time, Aether was miss-understood and they thought it would resist the passing of mass through it. Like how a bullet slows down when passing through our thick atmosphere. When they decided it didn't slow down mass and better ideas came about for explaining the wave nature of light, the Aether was put away and almost forgotten. Einstein later proved the existence of the Aether but gave it a different label. He called it Space-Time. He figured out that it is bent in the presence of matter. They thought of an experiment that would explain why planets don't follow the orbits that should be followed, when one knows the mass, velocity and gravity factors involved. Since light has no mass, it shouldn't be affected by Gravity. This became a testable idea.

They looked at the Stars during a solar eclipse. This is when the moon blocks the light of the Sun and is the only time one can see stars during mid-day. Sure enough, the path of star light was bent traveling near our Sun. The stars did not appear in the positions they should have been. He proved the existence of Curved Space-Time. Space Time is an interesting concept because it combines the concept of time and distance as a geometry (more about that later). Without going into details, Einstein proved that the speed of light is the fastest anything can move. So while the relationship between speed and time is self consistent, it's not necessarily rigid when measured with an Absolute Ruler. An Absolute Ruler is a theoretical Ruler that never changes size, no matter where you take it in the Universe nor how fast it's moving. By using it, it's easier to understand what everything else is doing.

My view is to visualize the Aether, by imagining a fish net. It has strings tied together at knotted points. Matter and energy travel over this net (structure) like a spider on a web. Now, whether matter travels on the knots or the strings, is a bit academic. I rather think matter and energy travels as just vibrations on the strings. The key to this all is that the presence of matter has the effect of tightening up the strings, making them a bit shorter, thus bending or compressing the Aether Net. Matter and energy will usually take the shortest path, when traveling on this net. Thus; the reason massless light is bent in it's the path near a large body of mass, like our Sun, is the uneven compression, or curvature of this Aether, or Space-Time if you prefer.

A simple model of one String is to give a friend a piece of string and have him hold it snugly at both ends. Now you grab the center of the string and pull up on it. Do you see what his hands did? They moved closer together. If you pull the center up and down, the end points (Knots) pull in and out. Since the end points are not really anchored except by other strings, they will also move up and down (and in and out) a bit when the string is being pulled or vibrating. This vibration will conduct to other strings, via the knots. Now imagine many sheets of this net in layer after layer with each sheets knots being tied to it's closest neighbors knots. Now it is a 3D structure, a bit like the Aether. When you see that matter is just vibrations of these strings, you will see why matter can't exist if you remove this net like structure. Also, the name for the distance between knots is called a Planck constant in science. It is really a super short distance and can't be subdivided, the smallest of the small.


What is Energy?

Energy is a frequency, amplitude and perhaps resonance of the strings in our Aether net. Greater frequency or amplitude is seen as heat. These vibrations, let's call them musical notes, can pass from string to string. The speed it takes them to move from one string to the next mandates the speed of light. Light is made of Photons, which are considered to be a basic particle. You can think of a Photon as being a rather specific note or tone. It is not a solid thing, it is an effect on the net. In fact, there is no such thing as a true solid anywhere, only a collection of effects played out on strings. Music isn't a solid thing either, but it can move you. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one)


What is Matter?

Matter is more like an orchestra. It is a harmony of notes that work together. This harmony is produced by various instruments. Each group of instruments is subdivided into sections like winds, strings and drums. The analogy here would be what science calls quarks. There are a number of different types of quarks and the way they fit together plays a key roll in the what type of music can be played. The whole song becomes an atom or complex particle. Again, there is nothing solid about an atom, or even a collection of atoms called a molecule. This vibration, or the DANCE of atoms, has the effect of attracting other atoms, because it effectively shortens the distance between the knots of the Aether. That's hard to understand but I will explain that in just a bit. But the dance itself, is complex enough to bounce other dancers away from attempting to occupy the same floor space.

By now, some physicists are rolling in their seats. Ok, so I already stated this would be very simplistic. If anyone wants to know more about Matter and Energy, feel free to research these subjects on the net. But if anyone wants to challenge my assertion that atoms are not solid and are merely vibrations moving on an infrastructure, please be my guest.


What is Gravity?

Well, science still doesn't quite have the answer to this question. But it might be nothing more mysterious than the compression and vibration of the Aether. Assume mass tightens and shortens the distance of the knots in the Aether, and that matter, being rather lazy, will always prefer to take the easiest path offered, which is the path of least resistance. Basically, matter vibrates and is always jumping about. It will, statistically, jump more often to a shorter path than a longer path. That matter is hyperactive is already a known truth. It's jumping about is unpredictable and is largely influenced by the amount of energy is has at any given moment and how easy it is to move to a new position is based on a lot of factors and the geometry of it's dance.

To explain Gravity is not a pulling force, let's imagine if I take a giant clock, lay it down, and while standing on the second hand, drop a pebble once every tick. As I stand further out on the hand, the pebbles become greater spaced around the clock face. The total number of pebbles around the clock is always 60, for any distance I stand out from the center, on the second hand. Now square them up a bit so the distance in spacing the pebbles out from the center, is about the same as the distance between them around the face of the clock. Got it so far? The placement of the pebbles represents what mass does to the net, as if there was a heavy mass at the center of our clock.

Now take this bed of pebbles and lay it over a pond. The pebbles near the center of the pond are very close and are much greater spread out nearer the shoreline. Next, get a team of Drunks and ask them to cross the lake without falling in the water, by jumping from pebble to pebble. Send them across the edge of the pond, like from the number 1, to the number 5, as seen on the face of a clock. If they can't see the opposite shore and try to move in a straight line, then more often than not, they will take the shorter, easier jump. Before you know it, they will have all collected at the center of the lake or be in orbit around the center. Did gravity pull them there? No one was pulled there of course, it was a matter of saving energy and statistically taking the easier path.



Ok, perhaps a bit over simplified, but we know matter bends Space-Time (the Aether). Bending a linear net creates compression and stretching effects. Matter vibrates the net bringing the knots closer (sort of). This compression decreases over distance because of the springiness, dampening and amplitude loss over the net. If the net doesn't instantly restore it's shape, and a wave has passed through created by local matter, it leaves a momentary shorter distance to travel for the next wave (particle) looking for a random path to follow. In still other words: Chaotic Matter, given multiple paths to follow, will statistically lean towards taking the shorter paths. Or, for all possible directions an atom may randomly jump, the side that's more compressed offers more choices. That's a tiny bit better.

So Gravity is the effect of the random motion of matter seeking a shorter path produced by a distortion in the net that's produced by other matter. You heard of the idea that if the atomic motion of all the atoms in water were to go in one direction, then that water could leap out of the basin? Well, our planet (matter) is producing a warp in the Aether that produces the net effect that down is an easier path for the random motion of matter to statistically travel. So things fall down but they are not pulled down.

This might be provable, if one could take all the energy out of a given mass, making it ultra super cold. It would make sense, in this view, that it would get lighter. Gravity should becomes less effective on matter that has the random motion of it's atoms dampened. Of course, if it got too cold, matter would stop vibrating altogether and stop being mass as we know it. Matter can't exist with out any vibration of the net. Get it cold enough and matter should cease to exist. And with a whimper, not a bang.

I would also think that anything that could stabilize the vibrations and dampen the chaotic movement in any mass, or material, would also void conventional gravity effects. Perhaps a strong enough magnetic field, because it acts on electrons that are common to all atoms, might dampen the random motion enough to reduce it's apparent weight.

This same effect, I suspect, is also how momentum works. As to why a ball continues to move after you throw it. In a sense, it plows an easier path to follow in the direction of motion and the wake behind it deters it from changing direction. So mass, if super cooled, should lose a feature called momentum. That also is useful in understanding kinetic energy, or how mass transfers momentum from one mass to another. But all that is beyond the primary point coming in the next topic.

Also, one more thing: Gravity waves. This would be described as what would happen if one could shake the earth violently with a swing span of say, a 1000 miles. In theory, gravity waves would travel to the moon and shake it as well. That's probably true. But I should think that these waves would dampen very quickly, due to the spongy consistency of the Aether and not be detectible for any great range. If I wanted to see gravity waves, I would aim a telescope at the planet Jupiter. It's the biggest planet in our system and close enough to view nicely with a good telescope. Now, what we want to watch for, is the displacement of Star positions as star light passes near this gravitational giant. Specifically, a statistical deviation model of back ground star shift positions, as light bends around the distorted space-time (Aether) surrounding Jupiter. I would really be interested in if we can detect a gravity wake (or tail) in the space Jupiter has just vacated. We might see gravity waves there and might also get a feel for the elasticity and rebound speed of the Aether.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my personal explanation of Gravity. Albeit, a crude one at best.


What is Dark Matter?

Dark matter was invented by science to explain the rotation of our Galaxy. I don't believe it exists. Here is why the idea was invented. As you may know, the planets near the Sun travel faster than the outer planets. That's a simple documented fact. On a graph, we see that the speed of a planet falls as the distance from the star increases. It simply looks like a downward curved drawn line. This graph was pre-calculated a long time ago and mostly correct, especially after some slight adjustments that takes curved space-time into account. When we got good enough instruments to measure the rotational speed of our Galaxy, it didn't fit this graph. The galaxy spins too fast and too evenly for the mass and gravitational forces available to account for this new fact. The galaxy would need about 15 times more mass, than can be accounted for, to make the rotation and gravitational models agree. So they invented invisible Dark Matter to force things to fit.

My view point is that the Planck constant isn't exactly constant. Remember, a Planck is the distance between the knots of our Aether net. But we know that space curves near a large mass. If one accepts that curvature is another way to express compression and expansion, then the lengths of the net strings must be variable. Using light speed as a ruler to measure distance is like using two rulers that obey the same rules. Or put another way, if I build a space ship and used the speed of light to measure it's length, I would always get the same answer of it's length, anywhere in space I make the measurement. It could be measured out in deep space between the galaxies or near a black hole. It's constant. But I'm suggesting that if one could own an Absolute Ruler that didn't change size anywhere it's used, then it would show that my space ship is really tiny near a black hole (heavy gravity, compressed net) and super large out in deep space, where the net is expanded. It's still the same number of Planck's long, so it always seems to remain a constant size, when I use a space-time ruler.

How does all this fit together? Remember my clock model with the pebbles? The stones are spaced further apart, as one moves away from the center. But there are still, always, exactly 60 pebbles around, for any distance from the center. So someone traveling on the outer ring of pebbles, at one pebble per second, would take the same amount of time as someone traveling around one of the shorter inner rings. Using time and distance that way, we can say that the distance around the outer ring and any inner ring must be the same distance. See why an Absolute Ruler becomes important?

Say I were to draw a big circle around the edge of our galaxy and an inner circle at 30% closer to the center.
Now suppose I travel on both circles, which takes me through space, around the galaxy. Sometimes I may come close to a Star and the space around me becomes compressed due to gravity. But the vast majority of the trip I will be traveling in expanded space. This distance around either circle would agree with the function of PI. That circumference (distance around) is about 6 times the distance from circle's edge to center. But only if I measure it with my Absolute Ruler! Since I spend most of the time traveling in expanded space, my space-time ruler would say that both trips were nearly the same length or that both circles were nearly the same size. Thus, the discrepancy of the orbiting speeds of Stars traveling on the inner circle and the outer circle are accounted for by accepting expanded space and adding Dark Matter to the mix isn't necessary.

Conclusion: Space-Time is not growing between the galaxies.. it's THINNING out. Galaxies are not all moving away from each other. True, they each have their own relative motion but that's all. Space-Time is condensing around galaxies and solar systems. The universe thus remains a fairly constant size and is not getting any bigger. The Space-Time between galaxies will become somewhat flat but won't look that way, while viewing through the condensation surrounding us. This is also true for the gaps between stars.

So all you math wizards need to figure out the rotation of the galaxy using expanded space (thin space) instead of Dark Matter. This should tell us how much that space is actually expanded (thinned out). Then we will need to re-adjust our rulers to compensate for this new information. The distance between the stars and the size of our galaxy, will need to be rather severely adjusted and downsized. I expect this would also have a major impact on the estimated age of the universe. And so on and so on...



What is Dark Energy?

Looking at far away galaxies, we see them as all moving away from each other and us. The explanation given is that deep space is expanding or inflating. It may seem weird, but many scientists accept that the galaxies are not moving away from us, but the distance is increasing. Again, I suspect it's that lensing effect of expanded space mentioned above. But they also measured that the apparent speed of expansion is increasing. To account for this, they invented Dark Energy. A force that expands space and seems to be increasing over time. I see only one of two scenarios. Either the Planck constant is stretching and more knots are being added to our Aether Net as if the Planck length can be subdivided when it gets stretched to some limit. Then new strings are added to connect the newly formed points. This would cause light to take longer to travel the distance in between galaxies over progressive time.

Or, the knots are being continuously gathered closer to the galaxies. The latter idea at least allows normal gravity to explain the thinning of the Aether out in deep space. The expanded space may be producing a lensing effect to make galaxies appear farther away than they really are. Distance to other galaxies is measured using a number of techniques, including size and brightness. Most measurements I'm aware of, would be self consistent when looking the wrong way through a telescope or equivalent. The belief that all galaxies are moving away from each other, and us, is deduced using red shift measurements. Red shift compares to how a car horn sounds like a higher pitch moving towards you and a lower (red shift) pitch moving away from you. Of course, if the lensing effect of continuously expanding space is true, then red shifting of everything would also be the result. I suspect that information takes the same amount of time to cross between Galaxies today, as it did billions of years ago, because deep space is expanding and not filling in with more steps. Very likely, the Universe has the same number of Knots today, as the moment it started.

I tend to lean towards this latter idea because normal gravity can then be used, instead of Dark Energy. But I'm very far from being an expert on such matters. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds. But if my ideas on Dark Matter prove to be correct, then a better description for Dark Energy will also follow.



What is a Black Hole?

A Black Hole is produced when a really big Star dies in a massive explosion. The heat inside the left over burned out star drops too low to fight gravity effects and the remaining material starts to super compress. Science says the material keeps compressing until it becomes super small, smaller than a grain of sand perhaps. But the gravity remains. The gravity is so severe that nothing can escape from it, light included. Everything that gets near one will be drawn into it, even other stars. Hence the name Black Hole.

I don't have a problem with shrunk Stars, since I already believe that the Aether can be expanded and compressed. I want to take the position that all the matter is still inside there, hence the gravity. I suspect that the matter inside would form a spinning disk.

Ever play on one of those playground things that spin, and when everyone moves towards the center, it spins faster. Well, if you take something as big as a Star and most of it moves into the center, the spin would be just incredibly fast. The spin would tend to flatten the ball into a disk shape. My opinion, for what it's worth, is the disk would still be a rather large and not shrink away to zero size. It might be possibly hundreds of feet across. The super spin prevents it from shrinking down completely. If it was heavy enough, and spinning fast enough, it might even turn into a big donut shape. Now that gets more interesting because now we really get to have a real hole. In fact, there would be no gravity at the center of this hole (sort of).
If you draw a line from the center directly straight out in both directions (imagine a pencil put through a donut hole), then the gravity would stay equal on all sides of this line and give you a path in and out of a Black Hole. Of course, any object taking this path would have to be really small, smaller than an atom. Anything bigger would get ripped apart. Funny observation, the hole diameter in this donut might measure 50 feet across using an Absolute Ruler, but the Aether would be extremely stretched, so much that a tiny atom couldn't fit through it. So... just imagine material so dense that a spoonful could weight more than our moon, perfectly smooth, because any bump would be forced to flattened out, and a surface velocity approaching a decent part of light speed. Dang... I want one of those.

So, remember when I asked my teacher if a person could have two hydrogen atoms of different sizes and he said "No!"? Well, the answer is both yes and no, depending on the Ruler used. If I take a Ball that is say, a billion atoms in length across. It would still be that many atoms across, no matter where I take the ball, such as out in expanded deep space or in compressed space near a black hole. But if I measured both Ball sizes with our Absolute Ruler, one Ball might be microscopic compared to the other being moon sized. So against an Absolute Ruler, two hydrogen atoms can be of different sizes.


What was the Big Bang?

Well, that's the moment the Universe started. Science believes that it started with a tiny black hole, called a singularity. They have no idea where it came from (I do) nor what made it explode. The belief is that it exploded (because it choose to) and expanded far faster than what we would call the speed of light, today. It grew to nearly the size of the present universe in under a spit second. While expanding, it cooled off and at various temperature stages, made conditions proper for the introduction of all the simple particles and finally hydrogen atoms. The reason this model is required is to explain the drop in temperature required to produce matter and that's because the belief is that energy is never lost and only converted to another type of energy. If you take a container of hot gas and double the size of the container, the gas will cool proportionately. That's true. But the same people that hold sacred the idea then energy is never lost in a system, also believe that the universe will end up as a frigid dead void. Seems a bit contradictory to me, but then, what do I know.

That fact of the Big Bang is nearly indisputable, because some of the original heat is still hanging around and can be measured. But as pretty as the image of a singularity exploding seems, I'd like to suggest that the entire universe formed instantly and full sized. All the Aether was evenly spread out and the strings were assigned random values of energy. There would be an almost immediate sequence of events as these non-harmonic strings clashed and settled in. At the atomic scale, particles crashing into all manner of half baked partial clusters of every imaginable form of exotic matter would create quite a lot of conventional heat. The cooling process occurs when energy clashes with anti-energy (like anti-matter) but more exactly, string vibrations that are out of sync, will cancel each other on contact. Energy disappears, the universe cools, and stable matter forms. It would take much longer to cool than the expanding model, but then what's the big hurry? Don't you prefer slow cooked food over fast food? Anyway, I wouldn't bet my life on this scenario, but I like the idea of the universe starting out full sized and my logic doesn't seem too unreasonable for now.


What is our Universe?

The straight answer is that You and this Universe exist inside the solution of a complex mathematical equation.

I'll break that down for you in a moment, but first let me ask you a loaded question: Is a self aware creature, that only exists in the solution of an equation, as real as you are? Think about that for a moment.

Ok, let's get simple. Let's say I take a checker board and fill it with a bunch of different colored checkers and assign a simple set of rules about what effect each colored checker will have on another color or same color. Say the blues eat the greens and the greens eat the reds and the reds eat the blues. When a checker eats another neighbor checker, it forces it to adopt the same color as the first, but it doesn't actually leave the board.

I did this on a computer and watched all the colors shifting around the board. One thing I first noticed is that when I start the program, that if I setup the board the same way each time I run the program, it always plays out the same. The same color patterns play out and one color wins and dominates the board. If I change anything, like the initial color positions, I get a new result. So I learned the exact sequence of color moves always replays itself exactly, every time I start it with the same pattern. It turned out I couldn't create an ever lasting pattern, one color always won eventually. So I tried a bigger board with more squares. As it turned out, the system became stable and no color ever won. A population graph showed a new pattern existed. The growth and decline for each color created a perfect 3 phase wave. I didn't set a rule for that, so it must be a natural rule regarding population size and I had thus learned something else.

Watching the color patterns was very fun. So I added more rules and still bigger boards. Then I progressed to 3D boards eventually (a cube of smaller cubes). I shared this program with a friend and we both started to explore and search for stable patterns. I saw a Mickey Mouse shape in one at a specific location and depth into the sequence. I sent my friend the starting pattern and rules, plus where and when to look. Of course, he saw it too. That shape existed, by all definitions of existence, embedded in the solution of this equation (the program) and always has. If you want to see a simple example of this, check out John Conway's "Game of Life" via Google or Wikipedia. They have working versions you can see and even download to try for yourself. It's not really a game, but more of a tool to explore this branch of logical math.

Bigger versions of the board and more complex rules led to some amazing patterns and geometries that were self re-enforcing, vibrating shapes shooting out beautiful ripples. I then realized that with a big enough computer and the right rules, I could witness all the effects of a universe up to atom sized levels. I eventually realized that with an infinite number of equations to pick from and with no limit on the complexity of the rules, that a whole complete Universe could exist in the Solution. If I posed this as a question, it would sound like: For such and such rules and such and such presets, what would the answer be? There would be an exact answer for every question asked this way. And there is no limit on the complexity of these solutions (answers) because there is no limit on the complexity of the Equation (question). An absolute solution exists for every one of these potential questions. To view a whole universe would require me to have a computer bigger than this whole universe. That's not going to happen. So I guess I will never get to witness one of these bigger universes using a computer. But that limitation doesn't prevent the fact that those answers still exist, I just won't be able to see anything much bigger than a few atoms.
I also realized that the answers existed, whether I get to see them or not. The computer doesn't make them Real, just Viewable. That's a rather critical point, so you might want to dwell on that concept a few moments.
Let's suppose I did have a computer, as big as this universe. And I set up an equation with a set of rules and presets. I might find a Universe with all the complexity of our Universe. I watch as everything plays out and I see stars forming, and planets, and chemistry, and eventually life. Wow! So I zoom in on this life and find one particular creature and name him Joe. I watch as Joe gets married, pays his taxes and has kids.

I just realized that Joe has always been embedded in the solution of this complex equation. He would always be in that answer whether I observed him or not. His existence isn't dependent on my computer. Actually, Joe has always existed in that answer and that answer has always existed. I ask myself what would it be like to live there and be him? Then I take a look about myself and realize something: That I am exactly like him. I too exist in the solution of an equation. His world is as Real to him, as my world is Real to me. We are both Real in exactly the same sense.

So I ask:
Is there any limit on the complexity of the equation? No!
Is there any limit on the complexity of an answer? No!
So for every equation of this type, a solution exists. So an infinite number of universes must exist. Every universe that can exist, therefore, does exist.
Now true, a super vast number of these Universes are just colorful junk. But the number of potential good universes, ones that can produce life, is infinite, because there are no natural limits. Any percentage of infinity, is still infinity.

So, if a Universe is just a math question with an answer, how much space does that answer actually take up? The value of 10 divided by 3 (=3.3333333333....), is an infinite number. Is it crowding your living space? No of course not, it doesn't take up any of our space at all. That answer, while simple, has sequence (time?) and a starting number of 3. So it also has a beginning, internal time, and no end. Sounding familiar?

I can suggest that I might take a cube made of 1000x1000x1000 sub-cubes and define a preset with rules on how the contents of the cubes behave, and call this my Miniverse. Can you now answer some of those tricky questions about my Miniverse?

What's outside of it? Nothing! I said everything is inside 1000x1000x1000 imaginary cubes.

What existed before my Miniverse from it's viewpoint of time? Nothing! The question contained a starting point.

So what came before our Universe? Nothing of course! That question assumes that some sort of universal time may exist. The solution may have sequence and therefore, internal time, but from the point of an outside observer, the whole answer, from start to finish, exists simultaneously. A bit like holding a book about someone's life in your hand. Inside the book is sequence and internal time regarding it's story, but I can hold it in my hand, with all of it's internal time, in the space of one instant. So how does my time compare to the passage of time inside the book's story?

How many Universes are there? Ok, first.. you tell me how many questions can exist? That's your answer.

What started this Universe? Nothing! The solutions have always existed and no one is needed to ask the questions. So those nagging questions about our Universe, of what came before, and what's outside the limits and how long has it existed and what is it made of, are now answered. It's information. It has no real material, occupies no real space, didn't need to be created, and has no real time.

Does this mean that God doesn't exist? Not at all! But it does show God would have some limits too. For example, a God can't talk to any other God of any other Universe, because every other Universe shares no common Time. All other universes exist as an instant to all other universes. I'll write a bit more about God in a bit.

But first, let's learn about time and dimensions. I'll show you how time doesn't actually exist as you know it.


What is the 4Th Dimension?

You may have heard that we live in 4 dimensions. All 4 are just directions. Up-Down, Left-Right, Closer-Further and Before-After. So that's called 3D space with Time, or Space-Time. So let's start simple, with just 2D space only. Imagine a super thin canvas, so thin it has no real thickness. But it has height and width. So I cast a shadow on it of a ball. Any idea of what that shadow would look like? Everyone that say's a Circle wins the grand prize. Now imagine the shadow is of me. My shadow has height and width but no depth. Hey, It can't turn around! Because to walk, the legs would have to pass each other. Ok, so it shuffles sideways. But when it runs into another person, it can't go around them for the same reason it can't walk. So, I guess it will just have to climb over top the other person to pass each other. So let's start a conversation with this shadow guy. I tell him I can reach inside his body and grab his heart, without breaking his skin. He says that's impossible. So I walk up to the canvas, and give his heart a squeeze. I can do this because I can come at him from an angle that he can't understand. I tell him I am going to pass a ball in front of his face and push the ball through the canvas. He told me that he saw a circle, but it started out small and got bigger and bigger, then got small again and disappeared. He asked where the ball went and I said it's just a few inches from his face. But he can't reach it because it's not touching the canvas and he can't leave the surface of the canvas.

Ok, so that's two dimensions and he's flat. Not too hard to understand. Now, and I'm sorry for this, I gave him an extra dimension I shouldn't have, just for the sake of this previous example. I gave him Time. So let's take back Time and give him another dimension. I take the thin canvas and make copies of it and push them together. Now that circle he was playing with, looks like a pipe to me. Actually, a tube, but then I know it's hollow. So now he looks 3D to me but I still see no motion. When he bounces the circle up and down like a ball, I only see a tube that looks like a roller coaster. The tube goes up and down as I walk along and look at it. But it's not moving. I gave him Time as a dimension of Depth. When I added Time to his dimension, to take him from 2D to 3D, I still don't get the impression of time as we think of it. Just a long stretched out statue that, like the tube, goes back as far as I can see and forward as far as I can see, depth wise.

If that's hard to imagine then think about when a cartoon character runs through a wall and leaves a hole with his shape. Now imagine it's a very thick wall, so the hole looks more like a long tunnel. A very long tunnel. Now fill this tunnel with cement and get rid of the wall. I now have a long cast, or sort of stretched statue, in the shape of the cartoon character. If the cartoon guy was flapping his arms as he went through the wall, then imagine how this would affect the shape on the casted part of his arms. Now you may have some idea of how the flat guy looks to me, now that I have given him depth. It's not moving but I can see where the tube rises to his hands and falls to the floor, over and over, and realize he was bouncing his circle (ball) at that point in his life.

If I follow his cast all the way back to one end, I see him being born. If I walk all the way to the other end, then I see him getting buried because he died of old age. So this 3D world has time, at least as far as the flat guy is concerned, but to me the whole place has no motion. Nothing moves, it's all frozen still. Like it's all one solid piece of geometry.

We are exactly the same here in our 4D world. We have 3 dimensions of space and another dimension that is just like the other 3 but we call it Time. If a creature from one dimension higher than ours were to visit, it would have the same impression of our world. It could reach into and grab your heart, without breaking your skin, just like we could with the flat guy. It could hold a ball (hyper-sphere) two inches from your nose but you couldn't see it or reach for it. If it passed the ball through our dimensions, we would see a small ball appear in mid air, grow bigger and shrink back down to just disappear. It was passed through our dimensions. And lastly, because it's sense of time is the 5th dimension, we would all look like motionless 4D casts. Just stationary geometry.

Gives a bit more depth (pardon the pun) to the statement that time, as you know it, doesn't exist. Currently, science believes we exist in 10, possibly 11, dimensions.. at it's simplest.
If strings are connected on various levels of overlapping dimensions (nets), then adding distance between two particles in some dimensions may not add distance in shared dimensions. Science calls this feature Entanglement. It might be possible for information to travel vast distances, at greater than light speed, using this phenomenon. Mostly because information is basically taking a shortcut, within shared dimensions, and not be subject to the limitations encountered in our usual observable dimensions.
To Entangle particles, science splits one particle into two, making a sort of twin set. Both twins always behave exactly the same but opposite. Like a mirror image of each other. If the left one is black, it's twin will be white. If you mess with one twin, it's counterpart is messed with instantly, regardless of the observed distance we see between them.
I see that Science is moving up the ladder from Entangled Particles to Entangled Atoms lately. Thus making twin atoms that share a common bond, regardless of the distances that separate them. When they get to Iron atoms, I will get very excited. If I had two bars of iron, where the left bar is all made from one side of a set of twin iron atoms and the right bar is all made from the other half of the twins, then I'm curious what would happen if I exposed the left bar to a voice modulated magnetic field. I suspect the right bar would manifest the same magnetic fluctuations and they would be detectable with a simple coil. Thus, I would be transmitting my voice though Entangled Iron atoms. I then wonder how fast my message would travel between the two, when we separate them with some considerable distance? Perhaps I could even transmit power over this link? Guess I'll just have to wait and see where this all leads in the very near future.

Ok, so far most of the answers I've presented here are not very original. Actually, rather common. My only major contributions are the sections about Expanded Space, how Gravity works and what Reality is. I know the Reality part is correct. It doesn't cover all possible types of realities, but for what it does cover, it's perfect indestructible logic. I have high expectations for the Expanded Space concept and how it relates to Dark Matter, size, speed and distances of celestial objects. My explanation of Gravity being connected to the random motion of atomic objects and being very closely related to momentum and kinetic energy, is a bit out there. But I did offer some ideas on how to prove or disprove that concept. I'll keep my fingers crossed on that one.

Ok, as promised, let's explore some basics about God.


What is a God?


The first thing required is a precise definition of what a God is, that we all can agree on. Like that's ever going to happen. So, best I can do is throw my two cents into the pot. Let's start with a small God. That would be you! When you dream at night, you create characters, usually modeled on people you know. You create the scenery and pull the strings to make these puppets dance. These characters owe their existence solely to you. Ever have a lucid dream? One where you know your dreaming and go off the deep end, having everything you want? I do this quite a bit. My lucid dreams always involves Flying or Harems. Sometimes, even flying harems.
In this dream world of yours, you are all powerful, you are a God! If you want to believe we exist as characters in some super Gods dream, I won't argue. In an infinite set of possible universes, I'm positive it's happened more than once. If your existence continues after death, perhaps because your soul is a type of math we haven't modeled yet, then you just might be immortal. This universe might have been created by a super God, so that we could exist in a different framework after death of the flesh. Perhaps just to keep God company. If the mind can expand without the limitations of a fleshy neural-net (brain), you could continue to grow and learn. You might even be around long enough that the difference between Your age and Gods age is just splitting hairs, much like arguing which twin is older. And when you have lived past the burn out of this universe, all the energy is gone and it's a cold black lifeless place... then cheer up my friend, you haven't even got started on Eternity yet. I think Woody Allen said: "Eternity will seem like a very long time, especially towards the end."

But let's back up to another type of God. Someone like a computer programmer. This person has developed skills at creating small universes. Ever play Doom, or especially, Oblivion? Oblivion has so much detail, it's mind blowing. The World in that game is the size of a small continent. Rain, day-night, wind, massive forests with creatures and people all over, going about their daily lives. In that world, the programmer (ok.. team, but they were in a hurry) would be God. Perhaps someday, the computers will become powerful enough to allow the characters in their own world to become self aware. I'm sure this will happen sometime, not too long from now. Let's just hope the programmer is more mature than a mean little kid with a magnifying glass hovering over an ant nest. Maybe some new laws may have to be put into place so that anybody playing God, must take responsibility for giving his creations life and not dismiss them with a flick of an off switch. Wouldn't they also have rights, if you gave them self aware life?

Before we continue, I'll just mention that so far we have seen two types of Universes. The first being Natural Universes, like the type I describe in my Universe Chapter, which exist without a Creator. The second being an Engineered Universe that was wholly, or in part, designed by Intelligence. A God mind could design just a foundation of a universe, just to see what can evolve out of it, much like an experiment.

Ok, Let's skip ahead to a Super God. This Gods birth might be traced back to a Natural Universe or even an Engineered Universe. Or, with the right math, the God mind could be a type of Universe itself. That ones a bit tricky, because a God spawned there would have to teach itself everything from logical deduction. That might be possible in logical fields like math. But stuff like Love, Hate, Envy or Fear would be too abstract and something best learned by creating Universe Simulations and seeing what they might have to teach.

So, to close this up, if someone says their God has always existed, they would be right. Because everything that exists has always existed. Remember what we learned about time? The pitfalls come from ascribing too much to a God. Statements like: God is all Knowing, and God is all Powerful, create paradoxes. That's a statement that defeats itself. With an infinite number of Universes and an infinite number of Gods that can't communicate with each other, then none can be all Knowing. None of these Gods can touch or destroy any of the others, so they can't be all powerful. Now I can hear someone out there saying: "Yea, but my God is above all those other Gods, is older and knows everything about them all." Obviously, this blog wasn't meant for you.

I have dozens of other topics in Cosmology and other fields, but I wanted to get a few specific ideas out on the table. I started this with a very basic science course, to be sure those that missed or hated Science Classes, would have a foundation to build from. Then I covered those subjects that I find to be the most interesting to me. Specifically; the puzzles that don't quite fit together or have missing pieces. And questions I've heard answered but found the answers to be unsatisfactory. I will of course, be most interested in any feedback, positive or negative, regarding this presentation.

Have a great day folks.

Dave Oblad
Contact: doblad@fuschiagal.us







First | Previous | Next | Last
Powered by Bondware
Newspaper Software | Email Marketing Tools | E-Commerce Marketplace