- #1
BinaryMan
- 6
- 0
From general research, I have seen a certain pattern emerge that causes me to re-evaluate how I look at the universe. It's easier to see with visuals, but I will try to describe it here. I believe some of the abstractions can lead to a better understanding of the structure of the universe, or at least raise interesting questions.
Some things seem to be related on different scales. For instance, a central concentrated mass point, axis of rotation, circle of rotation, and sphere of influence occur at atomic, stellar, and galactic levels. Also, if the physical scale difference between atomic and stellar objects is N, then the difference between atomic and galactic objects is approximately N^2. This suggests a shift in dimensions.
Interestingly, although we are used to thinking of the relationship between forces and distance as proportional to D^(-2), observations of galaxy rotation indicate that the central region rotates proportional to (D^1), while outside that region rotation is proportional to (D^0), a constant velocity with respect to distance. Furthermore, it seems that objects (like one of our probes) that are far enough from the sun experience gravity toward the sun proportional to D^(-1). I believe the exponent shift of the power of gravity in all of these cases represents something more than "the presence of dark matter" as many believe. The distance where objects seem to shift in relation to the sun is the distance where the gravitational pull of the sun is equal to the speed of light divided by the apparent age of the universe (this was described in an actual article in a science magazine). If we suppress for a moment the notion that light has a constant speed, then that deceleration from gravity would be equal to the “acceleration” of the speed of light, a value so small we would not even notice it. We are so used to observations in out local reference frame (the Earth and the Sun). Perhaps space can have a density that affects the properties of other forces and objects, so a “meter” of space next to Earth might be different from a “meter” of space further out – thus gravity may only be a geometric effect of this density differential. I believe all the forces to be variations of the same structural force, but it gets more complicated.
On the sub-atomic level, forces appear to shift when a critical distance is reached. For example, between two protons, at larger distances they experience electrostatic repulsion. However, at a smaller distance the nuclear force is attractive, and then at an even smaller distance the force is repulsive again. This leads to another idea: the force balance between spatial dimensions. I believe the universe is self-similar and extends infinitely both “outward (up)” and “inward (down)” dimensions. These “bubbles” of matter and space are semi-stable. For example, gravity pulls the Earth together, yet it does not collapse into a point because at smaller distances other forces are repulsive and stronger.
There seem to be two parts to each bubble, the inner “core” area where matter and space reach equilibrium and rotate like a solid body, and the “halo” portion around the core which has different rotational characteristics. For example, a nucleus, star, or black hole at the center of a galaxy are all core elements of their particular bubbles. The electron cloud, oort cloud, or stars farther away from the center of a galaxy are halo elements.
I have also had insights from another unexpected source: the periodic table. From various sources I found that hydrogen accounts for about 90% of matter, helium for most of the rest, and less than 1% of all other atom types. Clearly, simpler structures are more common than complex ones. However, looking at the star systems in our galaxy, I see that the vast majority are single stars, a few are binary, and there are also a few globular clusters – the analogue of Uranium or a heavy element. I’m not sure about galaxies, but I would suspect that if we could see more, we would find that most galaxies are simple disk or sphere-shaped objects. It happens that our galaxy is a bit more complex. When looking at a simulated overhead view of the galaxy, its shape is similar to an atom with one or more S orbitals, one or more P orbitals, and perhaps a ring-shaped orbital. Electron clouds also have positive and negative wave regions, and when we look at the spiral arms, we see positive regions with densely packed stars, and “negative” regions with fewer stars (that may be an improper analogy).
I believe that matter and space are interchangeable. The first time this occurred to me was when I saw the famous picture of a particle exploding into many parts which curl inward and disappear. We already know that mass can be converted to energy (which I suspect occurs from the release of rotational energy outward when a “bubble” collapses). However, the notion that particles (“energy”) can spontaneously appear or dissipate doesn’t require alternate dimensions or special theories. The simplest explanation is that when an area of space is condensed, folded, or reaches some threshold density the particle is formed. The same applies in reverse. One analogy is the amplitude of sound waves. Waves that are past the threshold of human hearing can form “particles”, but smaller waves are unnoticeable noises (“space”). If matter -> energy -> space, then it might be possible to achieve faster travel if we can control a “space explosion” in a particular vector and “ride the wave” of it. Perhaps this would be the ultimate power source, but it’s a long way off.
One fundamental property of all things that “exist” is that they are in motion - orbiting another object, moving and combining into an object, or splitting from an object, but mostly orbiting. This leads to wave patterns and cycles in all things. The simplest cycle is the wave pattern from rotation. However, in different scales, when the matter or space of a bubble reaches the lower or upper bound (limit) density of that scale, the bubble tends to either expand or contract, so there is an inward-outward cycle as well as rotation. Another cycle might shown be fission/fusion in stars toward iron, the iron falling into a black whole and being converted to energy, and all of this energy from both processes being absorbed again by other galaxies or somewhere in the same galaxy.
There are relative density gradients in all bubbles (which in a way is the dynamic equilibrium between space and mass). Gravity may simply be the reaction of space to being “displaced” by mass (which is just a denser or changed form of space). All of these spaces are attempting to come to equilibrium. A mathematical analogy is a number line. All locations exist as a density between 0 and 1. A density of 1 would represent complete compression of the entire universe into a point (think big bang), and a density of 0 would represent infinite expansion where no objects interact (think second law of thermodynamics). However, the beauty of the self-similar structure of the universe is that it is separated into “bubbles” which can collapse and form on their own, but which are buffered from each other by dimensions of space and the associated physics. If true, this would mean that the universe has no beginning or end (hard to grasp as a human), an infinite amount of size, but also barriers that allow structure to form locally for a period of time.
If we are confused about quantum mechanics, perhaps it is because the tools we use to measure such scales are too large to give us a feel for that scale (like an electron being used to hit an electron). I don’t believe that all protons, neutrons, or electrons are the same. I think that the specific state of an object, if known, would show us why some objects decay “randomly”. It would also reveal that such reactions are not “uncertain”, just difficult to measure with current technology.
In a computer model, I folded a “cube” of space into a point using traditional functions for gravity (D^(-2)). However, I made a programming error, and the distance traveled was greater for some locations than the distance to the center point. I had effectively “inverted space” through a point. The result looked astonishingly liked the wave patterns of electron orbitals. I considered that it might be possible that our universe is composed of two parts: the mass and objects that we see, and the counterbalancing “space” created from the objects themselves. This might create positive and negative spaces which alternate, forming the “shell” of the bubbles.
Most of these ideas have some validity given the bigger picture, and many are based directly on real-life observations. Some are purely hypothetical or metaphysical (I think a person should have metaphysics to fill the gaps that physics leaves). If any were true, it would revolutionize our understanding of modern science, but then it would take years for mainstream science to accept it anyway. But basically my belief is:
1) The universe is composed of a recurring fractal or bubble structure
2) They are separated by spatial dimensions (“barriers”, “shells”)
3) There is a dynamic exchange of forces, between positive/negative objects/waves or some other pattern
4) Space, mass, and energy interact and have a relative density
5) Each bubble has a core and halo which act differently
6) Multiple bubbles on the same scale can combine to form more complex objects with complexity distribution (possibly) similar to atomic number distribution
7) Time creates a cyclic and perpetual effect on all things, creating a kind of separation similar to the dimensions of space
8) Several other things discussed above
Some things seem to be related on different scales. For instance, a central concentrated mass point, axis of rotation, circle of rotation, and sphere of influence occur at atomic, stellar, and galactic levels. Also, if the physical scale difference between atomic and stellar objects is N, then the difference between atomic and galactic objects is approximately N^2. This suggests a shift in dimensions.
Interestingly, although we are used to thinking of the relationship between forces and distance as proportional to D^(-2), observations of galaxy rotation indicate that the central region rotates proportional to (D^1), while outside that region rotation is proportional to (D^0), a constant velocity with respect to distance. Furthermore, it seems that objects (like one of our probes) that are far enough from the sun experience gravity toward the sun proportional to D^(-1). I believe the exponent shift of the power of gravity in all of these cases represents something more than "the presence of dark matter" as many believe. The distance where objects seem to shift in relation to the sun is the distance where the gravitational pull of the sun is equal to the speed of light divided by the apparent age of the universe (this was described in an actual article in a science magazine). If we suppress for a moment the notion that light has a constant speed, then that deceleration from gravity would be equal to the “acceleration” of the speed of light, a value so small we would not even notice it. We are so used to observations in out local reference frame (the Earth and the Sun). Perhaps space can have a density that affects the properties of other forces and objects, so a “meter” of space next to Earth might be different from a “meter” of space further out – thus gravity may only be a geometric effect of this density differential. I believe all the forces to be variations of the same structural force, but it gets more complicated.
On the sub-atomic level, forces appear to shift when a critical distance is reached. For example, between two protons, at larger distances they experience electrostatic repulsion. However, at a smaller distance the nuclear force is attractive, and then at an even smaller distance the force is repulsive again. This leads to another idea: the force balance between spatial dimensions. I believe the universe is self-similar and extends infinitely both “outward (up)” and “inward (down)” dimensions. These “bubbles” of matter and space are semi-stable. For example, gravity pulls the Earth together, yet it does not collapse into a point because at smaller distances other forces are repulsive and stronger.
There seem to be two parts to each bubble, the inner “core” area where matter and space reach equilibrium and rotate like a solid body, and the “halo” portion around the core which has different rotational characteristics. For example, a nucleus, star, or black hole at the center of a galaxy are all core elements of their particular bubbles. The electron cloud, oort cloud, or stars farther away from the center of a galaxy are halo elements.
I have also had insights from another unexpected source: the periodic table. From various sources I found that hydrogen accounts for about 90% of matter, helium for most of the rest, and less than 1% of all other atom types. Clearly, simpler structures are more common than complex ones. However, looking at the star systems in our galaxy, I see that the vast majority are single stars, a few are binary, and there are also a few globular clusters – the analogue of Uranium or a heavy element. I’m not sure about galaxies, but I would suspect that if we could see more, we would find that most galaxies are simple disk or sphere-shaped objects. It happens that our galaxy is a bit more complex. When looking at a simulated overhead view of the galaxy, its shape is similar to an atom with one or more S orbitals, one or more P orbitals, and perhaps a ring-shaped orbital. Electron clouds also have positive and negative wave regions, and when we look at the spiral arms, we see positive regions with densely packed stars, and “negative” regions with fewer stars (that may be an improper analogy).
I believe that matter and space are interchangeable. The first time this occurred to me was when I saw the famous picture of a particle exploding into many parts which curl inward and disappear. We already know that mass can be converted to energy (which I suspect occurs from the release of rotational energy outward when a “bubble” collapses). However, the notion that particles (“energy”) can spontaneously appear or dissipate doesn’t require alternate dimensions or special theories. The simplest explanation is that when an area of space is condensed, folded, or reaches some threshold density the particle is formed. The same applies in reverse. One analogy is the amplitude of sound waves. Waves that are past the threshold of human hearing can form “particles”, but smaller waves are unnoticeable noises (“space”). If matter -> energy -> space, then it might be possible to achieve faster travel if we can control a “space explosion” in a particular vector and “ride the wave” of it. Perhaps this would be the ultimate power source, but it’s a long way off.
One fundamental property of all things that “exist” is that they are in motion - orbiting another object, moving and combining into an object, or splitting from an object, but mostly orbiting. This leads to wave patterns and cycles in all things. The simplest cycle is the wave pattern from rotation. However, in different scales, when the matter or space of a bubble reaches the lower or upper bound (limit) density of that scale, the bubble tends to either expand or contract, so there is an inward-outward cycle as well as rotation. Another cycle might shown be fission/fusion in stars toward iron, the iron falling into a black whole and being converted to energy, and all of this energy from both processes being absorbed again by other galaxies or somewhere in the same galaxy.
There are relative density gradients in all bubbles (which in a way is the dynamic equilibrium between space and mass). Gravity may simply be the reaction of space to being “displaced” by mass (which is just a denser or changed form of space). All of these spaces are attempting to come to equilibrium. A mathematical analogy is a number line. All locations exist as a density between 0 and 1. A density of 1 would represent complete compression of the entire universe into a point (think big bang), and a density of 0 would represent infinite expansion where no objects interact (think second law of thermodynamics). However, the beauty of the self-similar structure of the universe is that it is separated into “bubbles” which can collapse and form on their own, but which are buffered from each other by dimensions of space and the associated physics. If true, this would mean that the universe has no beginning or end (hard to grasp as a human), an infinite amount of size, but also barriers that allow structure to form locally for a period of time.
If we are confused about quantum mechanics, perhaps it is because the tools we use to measure such scales are too large to give us a feel for that scale (like an electron being used to hit an electron). I don’t believe that all protons, neutrons, or electrons are the same. I think that the specific state of an object, if known, would show us why some objects decay “randomly”. It would also reveal that such reactions are not “uncertain”, just difficult to measure with current technology.
In a computer model, I folded a “cube” of space into a point using traditional functions for gravity (D^(-2)). However, I made a programming error, and the distance traveled was greater for some locations than the distance to the center point. I had effectively “inverted space” through a point. The result looked astonishingly liked the wave patterns of electron orbitals. I considered that it might be possible that our universe is composed of two parts: the mass and objects that we see, and the counterbalancing “space” created from the objects themselves. This might create positive and negative spaces which alternate, forming the “shell” of the bubbles.
Most of these ideas have some validity given the bigger picture, and many are based directly on real-life observations. Some are purely hypothetical or metaphysical (I think a person should have metaphysics to fill the gaps that physics leaves). If any were true, it would revolutionize our understanding of modern science, but then it would take years for mainstream science to accept it anyway. But basically my belief is:
1) The universe is composed of a recurring fractal or bubble structure
2) They are separated by spatial dimensions (“barriers”, “shells”)
3) There is a dynamic exchange of forces, between positive/negative objects/waves or some other pattern
4) Space, mass, and energy interact and have a relative density
5) Each bubble has a core and halo which act differently
6) Multiple bubbles on the same scale can combine to form more complex objects with complexity distribution (possibly) similar to atomic number distribution
7) Time creates a cyclic and perpetual effect on all things, creating a kind of separation similar to the dimensions of space
8) Several other things discussed above
