a month later

It always comes to this

(Realizations about the fundamental nature of the Universe)

Stephen Mooney

"You don't need to believe in a non-existent god to obtain eternal life, because it's a given fact of existence."

To understand the Universe, you need to begin from the most fundamental rational and materialist perspective that's possible. With its over-riding commitment to mathematics and measurements and other abstractions, the physics establishment is an abstractionist paradigm that's not completely rational and materialist and doesn't begin from the most fundamental perspective. By adopting a completely rational and materialist and truly fundamental perspective, many of the theories and interpretations of the abstractionist paradigm are overthrown. This also leads to the realization of new fundamental laws and the infinite existence and reoccurring nature of everything within infinite space and time.

* *

The Universe is a self-creating process in which everything is composed of particles of matter and is a product of the process of matter, and where everything absorbs and emits as a consequence of its existence. The idea that some particles are matterless (massless) is a result of the procedures and assumptions of the abstractionist paradigm and is not evidence that they are matterless. Also, there is no such thing as anti-matter. When two particles approach each other and are destroyed, it's not a result of matter meeting anti-matter. It's a case of the emission of the particles acting as pressure on each other and causing their destruction. This involves the particles attaining their maximum absorption capacities.

Physics accepts that it's not possible to accurately measure at the extreme microscale. It has been mistakenly claimed that this "has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of our instruments to make accurate measurements." (John Gribbin, "Companion to the Cosmos", 1996) The absorption and emission of the instrument with which you measure at the extreme microscale interacts with the absorption and emission of that which is being measured and is evidence that absorption and emission occurs at the extreme microscale.

Electrostatic attraction is seen by physics as being caused by dislike charges, and repulsion by like charges. Attraction is caused by the absorption of emission, and repulsion by the bodies having equivalent emission and pushing away from each other via this emission. Like charges equates with equivalent emission, and dislike charges equates with inequivalent emission.

The attraction that underpins the nuclear and gravitational forces has the same absorption of emission mechanism or cause as electrostatic attraction. In terms of Occam's razor, "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." Or, in the words of Aristotle, "The more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation."

Given the absorption and emission process, the space between bodies is composed of the emission of bodies and is not a vacuum. The emission of a body forms a field around the body. The absorption of emission is via this field, which falls-off in density with the distance from the body. An emission field and a gravitational field are one and the same thing.

If the space between bodies is composed of emission which is composed of matter, then how is it possible for us to see through this matter? We don't see through the emission. We see with the emission. An image is impacted upon our retina and that image travels to our retina by interacting with the emission field within which we exist.

The so called missing dark matter in the Universe is the emission between the galaxies and stars and planets and is the result of the emission and the destruction of stars and planets.

As emission travels across the Universe it disperses to a point that can be called the groundstate at the ultimate microscale. If this groundstate didn't exist then emission would be subject to infinite dispersion, which is unacceptable. The groundstate entails cycles of absorption and emission, which involves the emission that is not absorbed being impacting emission.

An electron being attracted to a nucleus would move towards the nucleus when it's absorbing emission and then pushes away when its emission becomes equivalent with that of the nucleus. At its furthest point from the nucleus its emission capacity is reached and it's once again attracted to the nucleus through the absorption of emission from the nucleus. Instead of electrons orbiting the nucleus, they form a field around the nucleus. The attraction between protons and neutrons is maintained through each particle having a different absorption and emission capacity.

Isaac Newton established that gravity can be seen as proportional to the product of the masses of two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. This produced a mathematical representation of gravity as a force, but left it as a magical action-at-a-distance in that it offers no adequate explanation for the mechanism or cause of the attraction. In his Principia Mathematica of 1687, Newton states that, "...bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other."

The original torsion balance experiment to determine what physics calls the universal gravity constant, designated with a G, was conducted by Henry Cavendish and published in Philosophical Transactions of 1798. Cavendish discovered that heating one of the bodies on the balance resulted in repulsion: "... the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before moved forward". The heating of one of the bodies increased the emission of the body bringing it into an equivalence of emission with the other body. If bodies of equivalent emission are used on a torsion balance, the result will be repulsion.

The bodies used on a Cavendish torsion balance vary in their quantity of matter with different apparatus. The absorption of emission between the two bodies occurs while they are absorbing emission from their surroundings. This accounts for the relatively consistent rate of attraction between the bodies giving a relatively consistent value for the gravity constant G. The value of G is a measure of electrostatic attraction and only relates to gravity through the density of the emission (gravitational) field of Earth at the time and place the measurement is made.

Physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration but doesn't offer a viable explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission explanation, the acceleration is a product of the fact that the density of an emission field increases with the decrease in the distance to the body that is doing the attracting. As the density of the emission field increases the rate of absorption and emission of the body that is being attracted increases resulting in the acceleration of the body that is being attracted.

Bodies of different quantities of matter are seen as being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration. Once again, physics doesn't have an explanation. Bodies can absorb emission in portion to their quantity of matter from all directions, which results in them all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration.

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed an anomalous rotation in Foucault's Pendulum, in that it moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the 'Allais Effect'. When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission field of the Earth. The slight reduction in the absorption of emission by the Earth, results in a decrease the density of the emission field of the Earth and less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster.

The 'Allais Effect' demonstrates that the strength of the gravity of the Earth varies with the difference in the density of the emission field of the Earth. If you want assistance with obtaining a high or long jump record you should do it at aphelion, around the 4th of July when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, or during a solar eclipse.

For Albert Einstein, gravity was seen as caused by curved space. This idea works because curved space equates with the increase in density of the emission field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.

The occurrence of the emission from a distance galaxy or star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is a case of emission being deflect through absorption and emission with the emission field of the star. This is the same process as an electron being deflected by electromagnetic field.

As gravity is caused by the absorption of emission, it's not possible for a star to collapse under the increase in its own emission and form a blackhole. The blackhole theory is based on seeing gravity as caused by matter in-and-of-itself, with the absence of an adequate explanation for its cause.

An experiment conducted by Don Kelly demonstrated that "A special arrangement of magnets and coils fell slower in drop experiments when the special coils were energized." (New Energy News, Vol. 5, No. 7, Nov. 1997) An energized body has an increased rate of emission. The results of these experiments demonstrate that the greater the emission of a body the less the absorption capacity and the less the acceleration due to gravity. Newton's universal law of gravity doesn't reflect this reality. The universal law of attraction should state that "all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity."

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon is derived from a tidal bulge in the Earth due to its attraction of the Moon. It also claims that as the Earth tries to drag this bulge along its rotation is decreased, and that this loss of angular momentum is transferred to the Moon lifting it into a higher orbit. This could only occur if the angular momentum (rotation) of the Earth was responsible for holding the Moon in orbit. It's not. What holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and stops it from crashing into the Earth, is its absorption of emission from the Sun counter-balancing its absorption of emission from the Earth. Only by the emission of the Sun increasing and/or the emission of the Earth decreasing can we account for the Moon moving away from the Earth.

It's assumed by physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth was less in the past than it is now. In the time of the dinosaurs, gravity was less than it is now. The increasing gravity of the Earth means that the Moon moving away from the Earth is due solely to an increase in the emission of the Sun.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can be explained by the increasing density of the emission field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.

As emission travels through interaction with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It couldn't possibly have a constant speed throughout the Universe as is claimed by physics. If you measured the speed of emission at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface.

A good example of abstractionist interpretation by physics involves placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and another above the surface. The clock is called a "quantum logic clock" and is based on an electrically charged aluminium atom vibrating between two energy levels. The clock above the surface vibrated faster than the clock on the surface. Physics claimed that this proves that time, as a thing-in-itself, runs faster above the surface of the Earth than at the surface due to the clock moving faster with the rotation of the Earth than the clock on the surface. Both clocks absorb and emit, and this is connected to their vibration. The difference in the time keeping of the two clocks is due to the difference in density of the emission field in which they're located. The decreased density of the emission field above the surface of the Earth involves an increased rate of absorption and emission by the clock which is seen in it vibrating faster. Time is a measure of the duration or process of real material things. To treat time as a thing-in-itself is to commit the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, observed that the rate of atomic decay of uranium varies with the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest point from the Sun (aphelion), the rate of atomic decay is increased. This occurs because the density of the Sun's emission field impacting upon the Earth is decreased. A spacecraft travelling away from our solar system would encounter decreasing density of impacting emission and have an increasing rate of atomic decay. The rate of atomic decay on Earth was greater in the past than it is today.

Physics sees the nuclear forces as independent of the emission environment in which they occur. The nuclear forces involve the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. The planets within the solar system are subject to the increasing density of the emission of the Sun. This leads to the universal law which states that, "all matter absorbs and emits and the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission."

Our solar system presently involves the Sun and eight planets. The four inner planets can be categorized as solid matter, compared to the outer four which appear to be largely composed of gas. A fundamental difference between the solid matter and gas planets is their distance from the Sun. In terms of the law of the stability of matter, the solid matter planets have greater atomic stability due to them being subject to the greater density of emission from the Sun.

As uranium will decay back to lead within the context of the density of impacting emission within the solar system, all the elements could decay back to hydrogen within a context of the decreased density of impacting emission out-side of a solar system. This would account for the abundance of hydrogen in the Universe.

With the emission of the Sun increasing over time, its gravitational attraction increases. All the planets will eventually be destroyed by being drawn towards the Sun. The Sun will eventually explode and form a solar disc from which a Sun and planets can be constructed in an infinite cycle of construction and destruction. The solar system may have begun with more than the present number of planets.

The atmosphere of the Earth is retained through its interaction with the emission field of the Earth. It doesn't just hang there by way of magic. Equally, it's not magic that sees the density of the atmosphere decrease with the increase in its distance from the surface of the Earth is tune with the density of the Earth's emission field. As the density of the Earth's emission field increases over time, due to the increasing emission of the Sun, the density of the atmosphere would increase through more of the chemicals which make-up the atmosphere being retained for a longer period of time. This would result in the temperature of the Earth increasing through the greenhouse effect, and would occur over the history of the Earth and involve a gradual increase.

An exploding star within our region of the Milky Way galaxy would send a wave of emission towards the Earth. This would see the density of the emission field of the Earth increasing in density as the wave approached and would result in the temperature of the Earth increasing. As the wave passed the density of the emission field would gradually decrease and result in a decrease in the temperature back to level of the gradual increase due to the increasing emission of the Sun.

In 2015, it was announced that a gravity-wave had been detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. It was claimed that the wave emanated from two stars which had collapsed under their own gravity and formed black-holes and which merged to form a single black-hole. The gravity-wave was actually a wave of emission from an exploding star. If this detection represents the peak of the emission wave, then the temperature of the Earth will begin to decrease back to the level of the gradual increase due to the increasing emission of the Sun.

It was in 1929 that an astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble discovered that the emission from distant galaxies appeared as redshifted. Emission has a wavelength that goes from the short blue end of the spectrum to the long red end. Redshift is when the emission is increased in wavelength. To account for this, some physicists proposed that the redshift is due to the galaxies accelerating away from our point of observation. They equated this with the Doppler Effect, which sees sound waves increase in length as the source of the sound moves away from our point of observation. This interpretation requires that the Universe began from an extremely small and dense clump of matter that exploded, and that it's continuing to expand as a result.

In response to Edwin Hubble's observation, a Swiss Astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky proposed what he called the tired light theory. This states that the increase in the wavelength of the emission from distant galaxies is due to it decreasing in energy as it travels across the Universe. It's a simple fact that as the emission travels it fades (decreases in energy) and increases in wavelength and interacts with the emission it encounters.

There is something called Olbers paradox. This states that if the sky is full of galaxies and stars then it should be flooded with the emission from galaxies and stars. The sky is full of galaxies and stars. The reason that it's not flooded with emission is due to the fact that the galaxies and stars are at various distances from us and their emission fades and increases in wavelength as it travels towards us. The further we look out into regions that at first appear to be empty black space, the more galaxies and stars we discover in those regions.

Two astronomers named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered, by way of radio telescope, what they interpreted as background microwave radiation (BMR). It's claimed that this is left over from the big bang and is evidence that supports the big bang theory. However, the Universe involves the explosion of stars and these are the source of the BMR. The only reason that you would claim that the BMR was left over from a big bang would be if you wanted to support your expanding Universe interpretation of the red shift phenomena. The tired light theory is correct.

Although there's obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things (infinite variability) then we wouldn't observe the discrete types of things that we do observe. The Universe involves a finite number of types of things within infinite space and time.

Within the Universe, everything exists in every stage of its development or evolution in every moment of time and does so an infinite number of times. The Earth is constructed and evolves and is destroyed an infinite number of times with a finite number of histories. You don't need to believe in a non-existent god to obtain eternal life, because it's a given fact of existence. We live and die forever in every permutation of our individual and collective selves.

* *

a lot of small galaxies have dark stars

all forces get stronger as they travel - gravity gets stronger as it travels - there is not any dark matter

if gravity changes gravity will change about the same amount for small galaxies and big galaxies for some distances - it is dumb to think that a lot of small galaxies will have about 100 times dark matter and a lot of big galaxies will have about 10 times dark matter

surface around this universe creates boundary conditions that influence a lot of things like energy momentum direction of spin where a particle is when there is a measurement and when there is not a measurement

Kurt Stocklmeir

14 days later

The idea of a multiverse is not new. The idea that the other universes are rolled up might be new. If true, it gives interesting effect. Rolled up universes that leak particles would lead to a super-chemistry of possible interactions and reactions.

Hi Georgina,

Thank you for asking. I have been a Spiritualist for the last 30 years. But to be able explain consciousness and spirit life forms in a way that would be effortless for nature, it required significant bending in my way of thinking. I was forced to incorporate the existence of an "inner plane of conspicuousness". Consciousness has to project outward into the physical universe. While I can't prove it physically, I can offer an assumption that leads causes these things to fall into your lap.

It goes like this. Where did the big bang come from? We know that the universe used to be rolled up before it big banged. If you add the mass-energy of the big bang to it's negative gravitational energy, all you're left with is a low energy rolled up universe that has some additional characteristics. The idea that a rolled up universe could leak particles by tunneling just seemed so inevitable.

Scientists have been asked why our universe is Fine Tuned for life. From that fact, I have to conclude there are an enormous number of rolled up universes with different laws of physics, different physics constants, all of them are likely to give off particles.

So you have all of these particles from all of these different universes. By just sheer inevitable luck, you're going to get chemistry which leads to biology even before the big bang has occurred. You're going to get lifeforms that have mechanisms that can open rolled up universes and cause them to emit more particles. Just though evolutionary processes, you will get life forms that are strong enough to open up a rolled up universe until it reaches the point of no return. The rolled up universe has been pushed open, a state change happens that leads to a singularity and a big bang event happens.

I sincerely wish I could tell you how to detect particles beyond the Standard Model. Actually, I can tell you, but it would sound preposterous. I have to require that these rolled up universes start to unfold as line segments. Have you even unrolled a rubber raft which is packed up. It has to be unrolled before you can inflate it. The more energy you put into a rolled up universe, the more it inflates. It looks like a lightening bolt as it unfurls. The more energy you put into it, the more it unrolls. Some of the energy that you put into it will convert into particles that fly off. If you pass the energy barrier, the universe will inflate, it will big bang into existence.

I suggest that the scientific community develop machine brains. The brain is basically a bunch of line segments. A thought or experience of consciousness is basically a series of energized line segments between the neurons. When these neurons are energized, they cause one or more rolled up universes to open. This causes the experience of consciousness. A robotic brain with neurons could experience consciousness as well.

I hope this isn't too outlandish.

Jason Wolfe

Jason, I am interested in the idea of conscious thought feeding back to material reality, not via actions but the thoughts themselves. I have no model for how it could occur and would like to rule it out. I like many people have my share of experiences of unreasonable coincidences. The rational attitude, I think, is that things happen and there is no way of knowing if the same would have happened without the thoughts preceding them, so the coincidence can't be attributed to the thought. The explanatory framework I have developed has one way input from external material reality to internal model. However there is the possibility that the external material reality that is the source of the input is not itself 'ground floor' reality. Making the product a simulation of a simulation.

Any evidence of that and ideas about how to obtain it is interesting.

    Jason, if the external source reality is itself a simulation, extra dimensions need not be spatially rolled up and spatially unfurl over time, as you describe. I'm thinking of the analogy of levels in a game. Though the dimensions are encoded levels not yet unlocked are not in any way spatially distributed as dimensions. When a new level in the game is attained the dimensions of the new level are manifest in the players mental model of the simulated environment. There isn't a gradual unfurling but- now the dimensions are not accessible, to now they are accessible. As far as I know there aren't any games where things from yet unlocked levels can affect the level in play but I imagine it could theoretically be designed that way.

      HI Georgina,

      There is literally no limit to my ability to envision the mechanics of how consciousness can exist prior to the big bang, and independently of the physical universe. What I cannot do is give proof. I can suggest a set of experiments, but it would sound crazy. The "universe from nothing" is a big problem. But if all possible combinaries of universes are rolled up, like ours before the big bang, then interesting things are possible.

      Wish I could be more helpful.

      Jason

      Georgina,

      If universes unfurl as line segments, then GOD is emergent. The more a universe unfurls, the more particles will escape. It takes particles to create the material substance of a life form. I get it that the neurons store the information, and the links between the neurons simply pass along the potential, but you have to start somewhere. In my model, rolled up universes supply the building blocks, but they unroll as line segments. With enough particles, life forms are emergent. The unfurling of universes is what causes consciousness, all before the big bang. If you go this way, then a large scale "plane of consciousness " is emergent.

      Since I have kept my promise. I gave you a self consistent theory for how consciousness and life can exist before the big bang. I told you where the particles came from. Super chemistry or alchemy is emergent. Agree or disagree as you like, but I accomplished this with only the assumption that a universe unfolds as a set of line segments.

      Jason, how does one 'objectively' know if unfurling of another universe has happened? Rather than just noticing something you were previously unaware of, or are merely imagining something that was not actualized externally.

      PS This reCAPTCHA thing is stopping me from adding posts onto the one I'm replying to, and does not seem to be stopping the 'Spam' posts.

        Georgina,

        Okay, let's start with basic cosmology. There was a big bang 13.7billion years ago. From that fact, we know that the universe was once very small; some say the size of a pea, others say a singularity. I say it was rolled up as a set of line segments. The reason that we don't notice extremely high density rolled up universes is because they are not high density. The negative potential energy of gravity adds to the positive energy of the big bang. The result is not likely to be zero, but whatever minimal energy that is required to uniquely characterize it, so when it leaks particles, the particles will be identified with that universe.

        This is my thinking about where the big bang came from. Imagine a big nothingness that has existed forever. The nothingness cannot stay a perfect nothingness, but develops cracks and fissures. these cracks and fissures will appear and disappear quickly, maybe in the nanosecond time period, but without any clocks, it's hard to say. All different kinds of cracks and fissures will develop, different shapes, different kinds of universes. When these fissures form, particles will escape. In effect, they will tunnel though some energy barrier that is lowered when the crack forms. The idea of cracks led me to the idea of line segments. I had to massage the idea, and came up with this. Treat the fissures as line segments. I borrowed the idea of holes and electrons from semiconductor physics. Instead of a hole and an electron, you get a line segment of positive energy and a line segment of gravitational potential energy.

        Remember that the brain is the one thing that we know for a fact has consciousness. With all those neurons connected together, it's basically a bunch of line segments that can become energized. I'm not forgetting about neurochemicals and synaptic clefts and all that. I am testing the hypothesis that the gravitational potential of the line segments is emergent consciousness.

        When rolled up universes unfurl, they emit particles. Basically cracks and fissures in the nothingness produce particles. A large enough number of particles will eventually lead to mechanisms that can control the opening and closing of rolled up universes. Mechanisms will develop that will lead to self sustaining systems, self sustaining systems will develop into life forms: all before the big bang. God is emergent.

        Such lifeforms would grow stronger and stronger in their ability to unfurl universes to obtain whatever particles are needed. Networks would result that can open many different kinds of universes. Networks lead to brains, lead to consciousness. The idea of a large scale network made up out of mechanisms that can open universes would themselves produce emergent consciousness: a plane of consciousness. This would be in addition to the consciousness created by opening universes.

        In the extreme case, where there are huge numbers of unfurled universes (one kind of universe), it is like a giant set of cracks, fissures of energy. Eventually a state change is reached, the potential gravitational energy converts to Einsteinian gravity and a big bang occurs.

        Jason Wolfe

        An advantage to my approach is that it starts from a point of zero entropy. At

        some time in the past, before the big bang there was zero entropy in the

        nothingness. Over time, fissures would form.(increase in entropy). The

        fissures leaked particles (another increase in entropy). When there were

        enough particles from all different kinds of universes, some smaller set of the particles would engage in reactions, transmutations, chemistry, biochemistry,

        mechanism of life, life itself, and eventually consciousness.

        I said that these universes open as line segments based upon imagining fissures

        and cracks in the pre-big bang nothingness. The nature of the crack would

        determine what kind of particles are released. I gleaned the idea that a

        particular kind of rolled up universe would localize if the proper conditions

        were created. Thus it would be the job of the mechanisms that self assemble

        to be able to create these fissures to release particles that are like building

        blocks or even food to the emergent life forms. These particles exist outside of space time or somehow have their own space-time with it's own particle of that space-time's properties. Whatever life forms exist would need a supply

        of nutrients, and would get them by opening up a fissure in a certain

        particular way.