return to homepage
return to updates
The Third Wave
A Redefinition of Gravity
Do not avoid Reason
because of its disconcerting novelty.
Weigh each thing, rather, with a discerning judgment:
give in; if false, gird yourself to oppose it.
For the mind
wants to discover by
Reason what exists
in the infinity of space that lies out there,
ramparts of this world.
Now that we have many of our fundamental mechanics in place, it might be a good time to go back and analyze the genesis of these mechanics. So far I have attempted to simplify the mechanics into its most basic and transparent expressions. We have a fundamental sphere that expands at a constant rate, and this expansion creates the appearance of a gravitational field. This rate of expansion can also stand for the mass and/or energy of the particle, as well as its inertia. We have this sphere radiating much smaller sub-spheres, and the mutual bombardment created by this radiation creates the appearance of the E/M field. With only these two fields, we can create a stable orbit of one sphere by another.
Using this simplified mechanics, we have been able to explain many things that the standard model could not explain. But our new mechanics implies not only a fundamentally different genesis of most fields, it implies a fundamentally different genesis of the universe.
A simplified statement of current cosmology genesis goes something like this: All creative energy input happened at an instant, or near-instant. The Big Bang is the only moment of energy creation or input. All energy that now exists in the universe was created or entered the universe at the beginning, in a flash. Since that time, energy has not been created, only conserved. As a whole, the universe has only been cycling or swirling, changing form, clumping, dispersing, exploding or cooling. No further energy input from beyond the universe is imagined or accepted.
But the reason for choosing this instantaneous genesis is neither mechanical nor scientific. Precisely none of our experimental discoveries have led us strongly in the direction of instantaneous genesis. Rather, we have been predisposed to the idea of instantaneous genesis for centuries, and we have pushed all our experiments and observations in that direction from the beginning.
Why? It is very simple. Since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, modern science has defined itself in opposition to religion. Admittedly, in the beginning it did this not mainly to stand out, but as a defensive posture. Meaning, it was not so much that science was opposed to religion, as it was that religion was opposed to science. Science had its oppositional status thrust upon it. In the centuries since then, however, science has come to embrace this opposition, even when the opposition wasn’t always fruitful.
Most religions have taught a genesis of universe in which all things are created at the beginning. The words “creation” and “genesis” both retain strong flavors of this religious meaning. When most people hear those two words, they automatically think of a beginning. But, scientifically, there is no reason to think that the universe must have been created at the beginning. You can feed energy into a system all at once at the beginning, in a burst; but you can also feed energy into a system slowly and evenly, over any period of time you like. Neither idea is more or less scientific or more or less religious than the other idea.
However, the slow-and-even idea does beg the question of creation a bit more conspicuously. Both types of universe beg the question completely—both types of universe leave wide open the question “where does this energy come from?” But the universe that opens with a bang hides the question a little bit better. If you want to hide the question as much as possible, what do you do? You shrink the moment of creation as much as you can. You hide it in an instant, where your math can’t get at it. If you are a scientist and you have hidden a problem from your math, the problem is as good as gone.
This is why the universe created at inception has been preferred. It was already engrained in our heads from our religions. Then, when we wanted to flee from our religions, we shrunk the moment of inception down as far as we could, to hide it. Even seven days at the beginning of eternity was much too long. We put all of creation in a tiny little box (the singularity), waved a magic wand over it, and POOF!—it was no longer a big question.
Unfortunately, putting all creation at inception hasn’t really worked out for us. It hasn’t allowed us to explain any of our fields. The two oldest and most obvious fields, gravity and E/M, have never been explained mechanically. All we have been able to obtain is heuristic models. We can describe the fields mathematically, but we cannot mechanically produce them by any logical process. We can draw field lines and predict what will happen in reactions, but we are no nearer explaining the genesis of those field lines than Newton was.
My mechanics requires us to choose a constant genesis over a genesis at inception. Personally I find this choice very easy to make. It seems to me preferable both as logic and religion. Given that something was created—and I think that all religion and science gives us that—it is easier to imagine, describe, and put into equations a universe that has a constant or ongoing energy input. Why should we want to lopside history by putting all the important actions at a singularity billions of years ago? Why should we prefer a universe that is, in an important sense, just idling? We now have a universe that got one important shove 15 billion years ago and that is just experiencing 15 billion years of internal shivers or convulsions. Why should we prefer that to a universe that is experiencing a constant and consistent shove?
Scientifically, there is no reason at all to prefer the first universe. Only as a matter of opposition to religion is there any reason to prefer it, as I said. When the guy on the other side of the fence wants to call that shove “God”, we can shrink God down, put him in a singularity, surround him with difficult math, and kick him down the little drain.
I would argue that, even as a matter of religion, the constant shove—or constant God—universe, is preferable in all ways to the shove-at-inception universe. If we are trying to understand creation by giving it a name and characteristics we can relate to, why would we imagine a creator who did all his important work at an instant and then who sat around for 15 billion years doing nothing important (except, perhaps, doing small favors for guys in white robes, guys with flags he likes, or football teams with the right colors). If we allow stars and protons to exist for billions of years, performing all sorts of useful services, why do we allow our God nothing but a moment of glory? The constant-shove universe dovetails into any possible metaphysics better than the inception-shove universe, whether your metaphysics involves God, the force, the reactive mind, or just pool-ball mechanics.
If you will allow me, I will continue my creation visuals a bit longer, since they allow us to speak of this problem with much more ease than a strictly mathematical or dense-language exposition would. Let us say you are a god and you are given instructions to create a universe just like the one we have, next door to it, as a competing franchise. To do this, you are given a huge bag of marbles, a large empty space, and some empty containers. These empty containers are like sub-domains in your computer. They can morph into any size or shape you like, depending on what you put into them. They are like moveable boundaries within your universal boundary.
Your first idea is to fill all these empty containers with your bag of marbles. Your next idea is to use only exponents when talking of numbers, so that if you say 6, that means 10 to the sixth power. So you fill one container with 20 marbles, say, and another with 200 marbles. You call the first an electron and the second a proton. Because your marbles are spherical, your containers become spherical as well, no matter how small or large they are. Next you release your two new particles into your universe and see what happens. Nothing does, of course, so you push one into the other. They collide and then drift apart. They continue drifting and never meet again. Boring. You need more collisions. So you start to fill other containers with your bag of marbles. But then you do the math and see that if you want to have enough collisions to keep things going for any appreciable amount of time, you are going to have fill a lot of containers. Boring. So you finally decide to just do it all at once and then leave it. You decide to create a whole host of different-sized particles, ones that will knock eachother about in many interesting ways. To make it really interesting, you give it a massive shove in all directions just as everything gets created and filled. You blink your eyes once and everything is filled, you blink again and your fist comes down and BAM!—the little containers started knocking into eachother like crazy.
You notice that some collisions happen almost simultaneously, so that one particle is hit by two or more other particles at the same time. This gives all the particles spin. Soon all your particles are spinning. Sometimes the spin gets checked by a counterspin, and the spin slows down. Other spins are accelerated. After a time almost all the particles are spinning very fast one way or the other. They spin so fast that the photons inside begin to spill out. Shoot. You forgot that your marbles have size or energy or mass or extension (whatever you want to call it at this point) so that a spinning container must feel pressure from them. Your containers are strong but they are not infinitely strong, and at a certain speed the marbles begin to spill out. Now you have a real mess.
But wait, interesting things are caused by this mess, and you decide to be patient. You have all the time in the world after all. You discover that these spinning containers allow marbles to not just escape, but also to enter. Those little holes made by marbles escaping allow marbles with enough velocity to enter, and some containers can now exchange energy with other containers. You already have an E/M field created by all the radiated marbles, and you even have a basic form of communication between particles, from the marble exchange. Things are beginning to look promising.
Beyond this, you notice that your spins are creating other fields. Because some of your particles are spinning clockwise and some counterclockwise, you immediately achieve “charge”. The universal bombardment combined with the spin has given you some of the deflections you needed to match the universe next door.
After breakfast and a shave, you come back to check on your universe. It is doing some very photogenic things, but it isn’t really shaping into the universe you want. Even with all those containers, it is still dissipating way too fast. So you decide to start over and use a lot more particles. But the same thing keeps happening. Every morning you come in and start over with a much higher exponent, but it doesn’t seem to matter. After a few years your universe is too cool to bear studying. It is like watching a car race on an open track at slow speed. No one ever flies off the road into the stands in a fiery wreck, so what is the point?
Finally you give up in disgust and wander over to the shop next door, to see what he is up to. His universe is still buzzing along, attracting all the best customers, making money hand over fist. The parking lot is always full. You wander around to the back door, sneak into the control room, and begin to study the wiring. What you discover is that this god has hooked his bag of marbles up to his universe with an almost infinite number of tubes. Through these tubes he is slowly filling up his containers, a little at a time. Sure, he gave his containers a mighty shove a long time ago, to get them moving, but he has kept them hooked up to the bag all along.
This means that his universe was a lot smaller than yours at the beginning. It was the same general shape, with the same general contents, the same general motions, but it was many exponents smaller. At the beginning, it looked pretty pathetic next to yours. You used all your marbles at the beginning, maximized your universe size, and then let it spin out from there. Your neighbor has used all the containers, like you, and used all the space, like you, but he has started out with very tiny containers, filled with just a relative few marbles. His particles still collide, still achieve spin, still radiate marbles, and do all the things yours did. But his particles also increase in size over time. All he had to do was be sure his fill rate was greater than his radiation rate, so that his particles never emptied.
What this achieves for his universe is two things. One, it gives him a gravitational field. It makes it look like all his particles are attracting eachother. Two, it gives him a universe that doesn’t cool so quickly, since heat is being added all the time. It is actually being added in two ways. It is being added directly, since each photon is a real addition of energy to the system. But it also adds potential energy simultaneously, since his expanding spheres are gobbling up space at the same time they are being filled. It is a double effect, since what the particles gain in size, the space between them loses. Both effects make the universe hotter.
You study this god’s universe a bit longer before you rush home to steal (or borrow) his ideas. If his particles are getting bigger, then his marbles must be getting relatively smaller. How does he keep his E/M field from dropping off? All he has to do is create another particle called the photon, which he hooks up to a hose. The marbles going through the hose don't get larger, but the photon gets larger because it is being filled at the same relative rate as the proton and electron. Same thing for the speed of his radiation. A bigger spherical container has less curvature; therefore, to achieve the same escape pressure from within, with expanding photons, the sphere has to spin faster. The photons are radiated from a tangent, and the escape speed is determined by the radial speed at that tangent. And so the absolute speed of the radiation increases as the spheres expand. But the relative speed of the radiation (the speed of the photons relative to the size of the sphere) does not increase; it remains constant.
It is the same reason his galaxies and stars and planets and moons all stay the same size relative to eachother over time. All these macro-structures are constituted by his elementary particles. If his elementary particles expand at the same rate, his macro-structures must also expand at the same rate.
But if his hoses are hooked up to his electrons and protons, and these two elementary particles are a different size, then he would have to vary his fill rate, wouldn’t he? If he added marbles to both at the same rate, then the size difference between the two could not be maintained. Ah-hah, what this god has done is to create a new sub-domain called the mini. All minis are the same size and he hooks his hoses up to minis, not to protons or electrons. His electrons have 20 hoses and his protons have 10,000. This means he can let all the hoses have the same pressure.
Using this rather simple set-up, this clever god has achieved a much hotter, more active, longer-lasting universe than you did. And he did it without sacrificing consistency. In fact, his universe is just as consistent as yours was, to any sentient observer within the universe. Because all his structures are expanding at the same rate, these structures have no direct way of knowing they are expanding at all. There is no relative expansion, and that is all that these sentient beings can observe, with any natural or manufactured instruments they may have. They see no expansion, and the only hint of it they have is the field they call gravity.
Of course the gods can see the expansion, since they exist outside the created universe, but any beings made up of the expanding particles would not be expected to see the expansion, since they are part of it.
Let me finish this off by reminding my reader once more that I am not arguing for the existence of God, gods, or any religion. Those questions remain beyond the borders of this paper. But I have allowed myself to use the very vivid ideas above for the same reason any scientist or writer uses an idea—because it works. Using the creation analogies above I was able to present a much clearer picture and argument than I could have done any other way. Of course we have no idea how energy enters the universe, or where it comes from, but we are allowed to theorize where it enters and at what rate. The singularity-at-inception entry has not been a fruitful theory, mechanically, and I believe that it ultimately makes much more sense to theorize that creation is a constant process, with entry points at every inhabited locale in the universe. Wherever there is matter, there must be creation.
Go to Part IX.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.