Prof. Abian: BLOW UP THE MOON!!!
I got on the Net around 1994, and was fascinated by the Usenet Groups, especially sci.physics and sci.astro. One thing I noticed, though, were the humongus egos of the scientists who posted. But one poster was an elderly Professor of Mathematics at Iowa State University, Professor Alexander Abian.
Read about him here:
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~suh/abian/abian-homepage.html
He died several years ago, but during his lifetime he published 254 research papers and three books, and even had a mathematical theorem named after him. But he was also sort of a nutcake (in the eyes of sci.physics/astro posters) and was shouted down over and over by the other posters, with people begging other people not to answer his posts. I mean, he came up with ideas like blowing up the moon to prevent crime and altering Venus' orbit to rid the wold of desease -that sort of thing.
Read it here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Abian&Submit3=Search
At any rate, I decided I was going to play the part of a troll and suck some of these egoistic "scientists" into flaming me, and then when the troll had run it's course, announce it as a troll along with my intention of publishing the entire episode as an online book. Figured I could get some fun out of that.
I never got around to doing it because I got too busy with my IT work, but I did start composing the "Letters to Prof. Abian" I was going to post one at a time. I figured about 15 or 20 of them and the scientists' responses to them would generate all I needed for the "book", but I only got around to writing 6 of them completely, and the 7th is just comprised of notes to myself on the content of the next "letter". In any case, here they are together for the first time. You might find some interesting ideas in them.
-Pete
----------------------------------------------------
My Dear Prof. Abian-
I have followed your posts and the responses to your posts with avid
interest, as they reveal not so much the secrets of the universe but
the psychology of the scientists who respond to your posts and the
ideas they contain.
I watched first with amusement and then horrid fascination as what
seemed like well-reasoned responses and counter-responses deteriorated
into lurid, childish displays of tantrum and name-calling. Some of your
respondents have gone so far as to beg other people not to respond to
your posts in the hopes that without the encouragement of a response,
you would lose interest in participating in the Net and just go away.
It appeared to me, at least, to be desperate acts of men nearly driven
over the edge of sanity, reverting in frustration to a childhood demand
that their nightmares begone and not return...
And in some ways, you are, indeed, a nightmare to a logical man, and
to a scientist above all. But it is perhaps our nightmares that awaken
us, that make us pursue our good dreams with added vigor, and that goad
us into answering the *Why?* of things instead of just the *How?*, even
though pursuing the *How?* of things can fill one's life to overflowing
with intellectual satisfaction, also.
But I must take exception to many scientists' glib assertion that the
study of Science is only interested in the How, and the Why belongs to
Theology, for often what we *believe* is the foundation upon which we
practice the methods we use to reach an understanding of a phenomenon.
Scientists and researchers in the distant past of human civilization
were not ignorant fools. They were brilliant men, who created entire
new fields of study and methods to study them out of whole cloth. Men
like Pythagorus, who gave us the sciences of geometry, and music, yet
developed these wondrous ideas as a by-product of his pursuit of what?
Of Numerology!
I wonder how Pythagorus, the numerologist, or Coepernicus, Kepler and
Galileo, the astrologers, would be accepted by the scientific
community today? No doubt flamed on the Net... Can you imagine
messages posted all over the internet begging people not to talk to
Pythagorus, and ridiculing Galileo? I'm sorry to think, all too easily!
Mind you, Prof.Abian, I am not saying that you are the Coepernicus of
the 20th Century. I *am* saying that people should pursue their varied
interests, and if what you say holds no interest for them, then use the
Kill File...that's what it's for. The Internet is an open community of
ideas. Some ideas are trash, some are brilliant. But ideas are what
have created our civilization, and I say the more the better, for after
having winnowed the wheat from the chaff, our society and civilization
will be the richer for it!
I tried to call you at home the other day.You were not home, and the
telephone was answered by your answering machine. I heard classical
music in the background, and an elderly, refined gentleman with an
Eastern European, probably Baltic, accent. And I pictured you as a well
respected professor of the old school, with many years tenure, having
taught mathematics to possibly thousands of blockheaded, know-it-all
students over the years, some of which may yet contribute to our
overall standard of civilization due to the effort you extended to
teach them.
I could see you at home, sitting in a brocaded chair, tapping away on
a keyboard to put your message on the net. And I thought to myself:
Here is a man who was teaching math before the first electronic
calculator was invented, but willingly entered the modern world,
rather than having been dragged in kicking and screaming, and is
seeking comfort even in ideas of the future, instead of reading old
books before slipping off to sleep with a glass of brandy at night.
I could also visualize you, one evening while you were contemplating
whatever it is you contemplate late at night, having a revelation of
some sort; of having *seen* an answer to a long standing question. As
with so many revelations, however, as the moment passed you had no way
to explain what it was that was *revealed* to you. I've had many a
great notion myself, only to realize that they were orphaned, with no
anchor or direction, and I had no way to steer my way back to them in
order to explore them.
But, I believe that you found a way: if you could not fully explain
your visions yourself, you could share the results of your revelations
with other minds on the internet, in the hopes that someone could
pick up where you were lost, and explain them in an acceptable way.
Unfortunately, you ran into a wall of ridicule and childish anger,
instead of the interest you hoped would manifest.
Nonetheless, you have persisted, and I want to say that I admire your
courage in persisting in the face of the flamers, for it takes courage
to put your message out and recieve insult in return. I don't know for
sure, Prof. Abian, whether your theories will ever hold water or not.
But, in the interest of finding out, I would like to engage you in a
dialogue about them. I propose a public discussion based on the
assumption that they *are* right, to be held with good grace, humor
and respect. If your theories have any merit, perhaps that will come
to light. If not, we may finally lay them to rest. No matter what the
outcome, I believe that all of us will benefit. If you are willing to
engage in discourse with me, I will await your reply here.
With my warm regards,
-Pete Childress
------------------
Prof. Abian-
Let us assume, for the moment, that you are correct in your
surmise that space strives to remain magnetically neutral, and
that an object in motion does, indeed, encounter friction. Our
task at this point, then, would be to create a scenario of the
universe that would support that assumption.
Towards these ends, let us discuss a scenario that I will call
(with tongue firmly in cheek) The Childress Hypothesis. The
Childress Hypothesis begins with the assumption that the universe
is what it is, and if we don't completely understand what it is,
then the problem is not with our science or our mathematics, but
with our world view to which we apply our sciences and mathematics.
An example would be the new paradigm introduced by Kepler, which
superseded the Ptolemaic world view.
Ptolemy was indeed a genius for his times, and created algorithms
for an ephemeris that was reasonably accurate despite his assumption
that the earth was the center of the universe, and all planets and
stars revolved around the earth. It was a reasonable assumption for
his time, and supported by empirical observation: anyone could look
up at the sky and see the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets
revolving around the earth. There were some inaccuracies over time,
of course, when a planet would go retrograde and appear to reverse
its course in the sky. To solve this problem, Ptolemy improved his
algorithm to include epicycles, or cycles within his cycles. This
improved the accuracy of predicting planetary movements, but over time
observation showed more inaccuracies, perturbations in the epicycles.
The solution was to introduce more epicycles, and then epicycles
within epicycles, which helped things some, but did not solve the
fundamental problem. Before long, intelligent observers realized that
somewhere down the corridors of time, a completely accurate ephemeris
of planetary movements would eventually have an infinite number of
epicycles piled on top of the regular planetary cycles.
Kepler's solution was incredibly simple, if radical: All he did was
change the perspective from an earth-centered universe to a solar-
centered universe, and came up with a simple mathematical formula
that accurately predicted planetary movements well into the future.
Let us assume that we, in our present stage of scientific discovery,
are analogous to Ptolemy's time, and that we are in desperate need
of a Kepler among us to change our world view. After all, every time
we think we have things simplified, an anomaly appears; it sometimes
seems that all we have to do in order to discover a new subatomic
particle is to imagine the particle, and lo! someone finds it. Is
this *epicyclic* thinking? You tell me.
So, my dear Professor, it has fallen upon our humble shoulders to
modestly fulfill the world's need for a modern Kepler. I trust that
upon receipt of the Nobel Prize for the Abian Theory of the Nature
of the Universe, you will mention The Childress Hypothesis in passing
so that I may bask in the reflected glory that your ideas are ordained
to attain.
The Childress Hypothesis is simple:
(1) Space is expanding.
That's all. Space is expanding. But the implications contained within
this simple concept are world-shaking, and may also prove your own
statements to be factual, and true, as we shall see when we continue
our conversation at a later time.
At this point, however, we will take time out for intelligent
commentary and contributions by others who may be following this
thread of conversation.
With warm regards,
-Pete
----------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
We last ended our search for proof of your assertions that space
*must* maintain magnetic neutrality and that an object in motion
will encounter friction, with the single statement of The Childress
Hypothesis:
(1) Space is expanding.
However, before I expand that statement (pun not intended), we should
make reference to a First Cause, or the beginning of the universe. If
the universe did, indeed, begin with a Bang, and I have no argument
with that theory, should we not give a passing nod to the question of
just what it was that went Bang? If one accepts the premise that the
physical universe began with a Big Bang, then one must accept the
implication that before the Bang, whatever existed, if anything, was
non-physical. It follows, therefore, that the source of the physical
universe in which we find ourselves contemplating the nature of
existance, is the non-physical, for there was no physical universe
before its creation. Ancillary to this assumption, is that the
space/time continuum was also created by the Big Bang, for space
itself has measurable properties. As further discourse along these
lines will lead into a discussion of Theology, we will abandon it
here, but I mention it at this point because it will be referenced
later as The Childress Hypothesis unfolds.
It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. But what do
we really mean? The explanation given to school children is that the
universe exploded into being billions of years ago, and that it is
still expanding, much like a balloon expands when you blow it up.
That is, the boundary of the balloon's skin is analogous to the edge
of the physical universe, and that if stars and galaxies were dots of
ink on, and inside, the balloon, you could see that they *must* be
growing further apart. And, of course, modern observation bears this
out: the universe is expanding, and stars and galaxies, in the
general scheme of things, are indeed growing further apart.
But, there is a hidden assumption here that the only thing expanding
is the distance between the stars and galaxies. What we seem to be
missing is that obviously *space* itself is expanding. That is, what
we call the very *fabric of space/time* is expanding, but at what
consequence?
Here, Prof. Abian, is where your assertion that objects in motion
will encounter friction may begin to find its proof, as will an
explanation for both the limitation and the constant speed of light.
Additionally, we will suggest the possibility that not all of the
background radiation attributed to the Big Bang is fossil radiation,
but newly radiated as a by-product of the expansion of space itself.
As an added bonus, we will also find a possible solution to the
apparent paradox recently uncovered by observations through the
Hubble telescope, that some regions of space appear to be younger
than some stars. We will find that this phenomenon is not a paradox
after all, but consistant with a new world view that will allow
science and mathematics to explore the nature of our universe and
discover that it is far more marvelous and wondrous than anything we
have yet imagined.
If we were to look at the space/time fabric as consisting of an
infinite number of points in space, we would do well to ask ourselves
what happens when space expands? One can envision several things: a
given point expands beyond a point, into 1, 2 or 3-dimensionality;
a new point pops into being, appearing spontaneously, created "on the
fly"; or a combination of the two, whereby an expanding point, in
order to conserve its "pointedness", so to speak, will at the point
of its attaining dimensionality, "snap back" and sub-divide itself
into two or more new points.
By "expansion into physical dimensionality", I mean to say that a
point, which had no dimension, may become a line, which does have a
dimension. I suspect that, in reality, an expanding point touches
upon many dimensions, or frames of reference, including our familiar
3-dimensional reality, before dividing itself back into two or more
points. To simplify the concept, if you stretch a point beyond the
boundries of "pointedness" it is no longer a point, but a dimension.
Now, let's examine these possibilities and the subsequent results to
see where they might lead.
If one were to stretch a point in one direction, it would become a
line for a instant in time before breaking into two or more points.
However, at that instant, the line would have *two* additional
qualities not shared by the point: a front end, and a back end. The
point, in other words, at the instant it became a line, would achieve
polarity. Since there is no free lunch in physics, it would be safe
to assume that the energy that went into stretching the point into a
line would manifest itself in some manner or other, most probably
converting itself into a different form of energy.
This energy could be static, in the form of a potential, or it could
be dynamic, in the form of a charge. If it were static, perhaps it
would manifest itself as a potential magnetic field, with the front
end having a negative potential, and the back end having a positive
potential. That is, a north and a south pole. For this one instant of
being a line, before it divided itself into points, it would seek a
state of equilibrium, or stability, among all of the other points
that were expanding or dividing in its immediate vicinity. However,
while in its unstable state, it would be wiggling its little magnetic
poles in all directions before coming into a state of equilibrium,
no matter how brief, before it divided into points again and
continued the cycle of expansion and multiplication.
Now, as you know, wiggling a magnetic field produces electro-magnetic
waves, or radiation. The radiation thus produced would, of neccessity
(because the "line" would be in the order of the smallest physical
dimension possible), have the shortest possible wave form and the
highest possible frequency. In fact, it might very much resemble the
background radiation thought to have been left over from the Big Bang.
If this is the case, then the recent Hubble observations can account
for both "new" space and "old" stars, without contradiction, for the
expansion of space itself is also the ongoing creation of space, and
the creation of space results in microwave radiation.
But, there's more: could these short-lived lines also be the means of
electro-magnetic wave propagation? Picture (simplistically), if you
will, points turning into lines everywhere around you (and in you,
but that's an expansion of the subject we will take up later, dealing
with the nature of matter itself). Although you may have an infinite
number of dimensionless points between Point A and Point B, there
will be a *finite* number of lines between Point A and Point B, for
a line has dimension. Each of these lines has a magnetic north and a
magnetic south, and are seeking equilibrium before snapping apart to
become two more magnetically neutral non-dimensional points.
If you wiggle a magnetic something at Point A, the equilibrium of the
lines will be disrupted, and they will start reversing their polarity
in sequence, each in reaction to the other, as they attempt to regain
equilibrium. That is, they "flip" over one at a time, like a line of
falling dominoes. In this manner, the original energy of the moving
magnetic field at Point A is transfered in all directions as a moving
wave front of electromagnetic energy, but in discreet units, one
little line at a time. The collective period of time for one line to
flip another line, and thus propagate an electromagnetic wave gives
rise to what we call the speed of light. It can't go any faster or
slower (in a vacuum, and unaffected by a gravity field) because one
line flips at a time, so there is a time lag no matter how imper-
ceptible, and for this reason, the speed of light is constant.
And because the energy is "digitized", or sent on it's way in packets
whose size is determined by length of the line that "flips" to pass on
its energy to another line, we recognize this energy as fundamentally
propagating as "quanta", or packets of energy.
As you may have noted, my dear Prof. Abian, the concepts contained
in the previous ramblings have, if proven correct, substantiated your
claim that space wants to remain magnetically neutral. In addition,
the "space" in such a scenario would obviously result in an exchange
of energy with any object passing through it, and thus your assertion
of "friction" affecting a moving object may be possibly substantiated,
as well.
We will next explore what happens in 2 and 3 dimensional space as it
expands, the nature of gravity and its relationship with the expanding
universe, and see if we can find any reason that time may have inertia.
In future sessions, with your approval, we will discuss how expanding
space relates to, and indeed, may actually be essential to, magnetic
fields surrounding objects, and proofs that may be found from simple
and inexpensive experiments to determine whether this part of The
Childress Hypothesis is correct. In an educational aside, we will
also discuss why ice may be seen as magnetized water, and other
interesting notions. All in all, the Abian Theory on the Nature of
the Universe may turn out to be very interesting, indeed!
But first, we should pause for additional comment.
-Pete
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Dear Prof. Abian-
When last I posted to you, I promised to explore expanding 2 and 3
dimensional space, and to see if there could be found a relationship
that would affirm your assertion that time has inertia.
Supposing that the *space/time fabric* itself of the universe is
expanding, and I am to first to admit that it just a notion, and not
a claim, then that expansion will not be from merely a point into a
line, as in the examples I used before, but also as a plane of 2
dimensions *and* a volume of 3 dimensions...or perhaps even more.
The expanding *space/time fabric* in fact, is analagous to a boiling
cauldron; a froth occuring at every concievable point in space, as
the very continuum of space itself boils into existance. When seen in
this way, the universe may very well have been born in a Big Bang,
but it has continued as a steady state creation of space, fed by the
initial energy of the Bang.
Or, rather, the Big Bang is still happening, and the turbulence of
this "explosion" is the expansion of the universe. Furthermore, as
I discussed before, it is this turbulence that is detected as the
background radiation attributed to the Big Bang, and that is respon-
sible for the limitation and constant speed of light, and for the
phenomenon of magnetic fields (which will be discussed in my next
post to you).
In yet another post, I will explain how the expansion of the universe
is responsible for gravity; or rather, how gravity is actually a man-
ifestation of the inertial acceleration inherent in the expansion of
physical space.
Now then, as *space* expands from a dimensionless point into a 3
(or more) dimensional volume, it may or may not pass through 1,2 and
3 dimensional stages. That is, it may not first become a line, then a
plane, before it bursts forth into three dimensions. But then, again,
perhaps it does. That is for mathematicians and physicists to
determine. Our discussion here will assume that it does, for even if
it doesn't, that will not invalidate our conceptual argument.
So, as the *space/time fabric* expands from a dimensionless point
it (may or may not) pass into planar, or 2-dimensional existance. At
this point, it would have 4 new properties, as compared to the 2
properties of linear dimensions. If 2 of the properties from the
linear dimension, i.e., magnetic polarities, were carried over to the
planar dimension, we might expect to find that the other two new
properties, in a relationship of right angles to magnetism, would
also be polar in nature, but this time as electrical potential rather
than magnetic potential.
If this were the case, then we could expect to find that magnetism
and electricity have a relationship defined, in some way, by a 90
degree angle to each other. And we do, in real life, as electricity
generates a magnetic field at right angles to the direction of the
flow, and moving a magnetic field in the vicinity of a conductor
results, again, in the flow of electrons along the conductor at a 90
degree angle to the magnetic field.
But here, again, we have to ask "what is it, exactly, that is flowing
along the conductor?", and again, the answer appears to be -at least
according to The Childress Hypothesis- expanding space. Let me
explain this further: If expanding space, from one set of dimensions,
results in a magnetic polarity, then with the addition of another
dimension of expanding space, you will have electric polarity, and
just as a point of space expanding into a line will result in a
brief, unstable magnetic domain seeking equilibrium, a line of space
expanding into a plane will result in both a brief, unstable magnetic
domain seeking equilibrium, *and*, at an angle of 90 degrees, a brief
electrical potential seeking to remain balanced, or neutral.
The *electric* implication here, is that an electron, per se,
does not exist as an actual particle, but as an exchange of energy
potential; that is, the electric domain (one polarity) "flips" to
pass on a quanta of energy much in the same way a magnetic domain
"flips" to pass on a quanta of energy. The further implication, if
this perspective is correct, is that the source of the energy is
identical, only the manifestation is different. One is percieved
as a traveling electrical wave, or an *electron*, while the other
is percieved as a traveling magnetic wave, or a *photon*, and
neither can travel faster or slower than the speed of light, for in
each case the *medium* is, literally, the *message*!
It is the energy of the the Big Bang itself, the literal expansion
of the universe that is the source of both magnetic and electrical
energy. It tickles me to no end to imagine that it took a universe
exploding into being to allow me to nuke my cold coffee in a micro-
wave oven... Surely, if there is an intelligent mind behind the
creation of the worlds, it has one dandy sense of humor!
But now we consider space expanding into 3 or more dimensions, and
our discourse takes a more esoteric turn. A point expanding into a
line is rather simple; the only dimension a line can have is either
zero or 180 degrees. None other is possible, because a finite line
has only a front end and a back end; it can extend forward or
backward, but not to any other angle. A plane, in theory can extend
in just about any angle along the plane, but in terms of magnetic and
electrical phenomenon, we see it as extending only in two directions:
at an angle of 90 degrees.
A 3 dimensional space, on the other hand, can take shape in just about
any form from a sphere to a decadehedron (more...), and angles can
extend from the center to just about any point, and from any point to
any other point. It all depends on where you want to start, and what
frame of reference you prefer. If we use the "90 degree choice", then
our sphere/cube/other_shape will have essentially 3 - 90 degree angles
intersecting in the middle. If we assign one set to magnetism, and the
other to electricity, to what will we assign the third?
Let's call it a "time domain", just to get everyone upset. The
polarity of a time domain would be, obviously, a future and a past,
and the result of flipping a time domain would be the "now", or the
flow of time, much as flipping a magnetic domain results in the flow
of magnetism, and an electrical domain the flow of electricity. And,
again, just as with electricity and magnetism, the flow of time would
be steady. That is, the flow of time is a constant just as is the
speed of light and magnetism. And, to be sure, the source of time is
the same as the source of magnetism and electricity: expanding space.
This does not mean that time cannot be *percieved* as relative, for
after all it has a direct mathematical relationship with the speed of
electromagnetic propagation. But, in the same way light, which has a
constant speed, can be *percieved* as "slowing down" or "speeding up"
in terms of red shift, so too does time have it's own "red shift",
though not in the electromagnetic spectrum. The "red shift"
equivalent for time occurs in a spectrum of gravity. And with this
outrageous statement, we will again pause for contributing comment.
When we again return to our conversation, Prof. Abian, we will
discuss the notion that the expansion of the universe, the source of
all energy manifestations of which we are aware, is percieved by us
as gravity. That is, the expansion of the universe, the inertial
acceleration of the *space/time fabric*, is, itself, gravity. And it
will be here where we will explore your assertions that time has
inertia, and is fed by matter in order to move forward. We will, in
fact, discover that, according to The Childress Hypothesis, Time,
Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Matter and Energy are equivalent;
that is, they are different manifestations of the same energy, and
the source of that energy is the expansion of space itself!
With my warm regards,
-Pete
--------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
I promised, a couple of posts ago, to explain how expanding space is
essential to the magnetic fields surrounding objects such as magnets.
Indeed, the expanding *space/time fabric* is not only essential to a
magnetic field, it *is* the field itself! Let me explain further:
Essentially, expanding space, for an instant in time, has the property
of polarity. That is, it has a north pole and a south pole. The points
of expanding space both within and (more importantly, from our point of
view), without the magnet, having polarity, seek to align themselves
with the magnetic domains within the magnetized material in an attempt
to gain equilibrium. It is this constant alignment of the newly
emerging "lines" that give us "lines of magnetic influence" that act
on other objects across seeming empty space.
In other words, magnetic lines of force do not actually emanate from
a magnetized object, but are the concentrated, or focussed, magnetic
alignment of expanding space. Magnetic forces, by themselves, contrary
to what we believe, do *not* act over large distances, but are confined
to the extremely short distance between one adjacent expanding point
and another. That is, this "e-unit", or expanding point, exerts its
force only upon an adjacent e-unit, which in turn exerts its force upon
another adjacent e-unit, which in turn exerts its force upon yet another
e-unit, and so forth.
As each magnetic domain seeks to align itself with the next, some
energy is dissipated in random motion, as it seeks a state of
equilibrium. Because of this dissipation of energy, the magnetic field
does not continue out to infinity, but decreases by the square of the
distance, and thus is a magnetic field limited to the vicinity of the
magnetic object.
But how can we prove this? It should be simple. If a magnetized object
is moving through space, and its lines of force are integral to the
object, then the magnetic field should stay perfectly aligned with the
object. On the other hand, however, if expanding space is the actual
magnetic field, then a magnetic object moving at high speeds through
the space that is expanding will leave a "trail" of magnetism in its
wake. That is, the object and the magnetic field that surrounds it will
not be perfectly aligned, but offset to some degree. That means that
planets, too, will leave a magnetic vortex behind them; that their
magnetic field will extend further behind them than in front of them.
This also implies that magnetic fields and magnetism itself cease to
exist at the speed of light, except for a slight magnetic turbulence
in its wake.
A second experiment could be implemented using super-cooled
superconductors in the presence of a stable magnetic field. If the
superconductor and magnet are in a perfectly relative stable position
with each other, that is, neither one are moving, then one would think
that no electricity would flow along the conductor. However, if there
is an electric current flowing in the conductor, even if the conductor
and the magnet are not in relative motion, then *something* is in
motion, and that something could be expanding space erupting both in
and around both conductor and magnet.
A practical use, if this experiment holds true, would be to take a
thin filament of room temperature superconductor (when/if developed)
and configure it around a permanent magnet to create an inexhaustable
source of electric current -a permanent "battery", as it were. (Would
someone include my name on the patent, please? I need the money, too.)
A third experiment would show, if this scenario is correct, that a
stable magnetic field is not at rest, but in a state of constant
fluctuation, however slight, and this could be due to the constant
emergence of new space seeking magnetic equilibrium.
I also promised, as an interesting aside, to show how ice can be
thought of as magnetized water. Water is an amazing substance, to
say the least. There are some 18 (?) different molecular config-
urations of water, with H2O being the most common. A simple molecule
of H2O consists of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one atom of oxygen.
The Hydrogen atoms have an overall negative charge, while the Oxygen
atom has an overall positive charge.
When the atoms of Hydrogen bond to the atom of Oxygen, they tend to
do so at an angle of about 105 degrees relative to each other, which
essentially gives the H2O molecule polarity -makes it a little magnet
that would like to align with each other and the predominate magnetic
field. As the temperature of water drops, and Brownian motion slows
down, these molecules tend to align themselves with each other and
the predominate magnetic field. The freezing point occurs when
Brownian motion is slow enough that the molecules snap into alignment
with one another, and crystalize. This is also why adding sodium or
other chemicals to water may lower the freezing point: the resulting
compounds disturb the magnetic alignment of the water molecules, and
extend the Brownian motion, keeping the water in liquid state.
Because pure water molecules are aligned magnetically, by the way,
the resulting ice tends to fracture along the lines of magnetic
force, expanding in volume about 10%, and thus ice floats. Good
thing, too, or our oceans might well be eternal blocks of ice
extending to the ocean floor, otherwise.
At any rate, it is for this reason that ice may be seen as
"magnetized water". An interesting experiment would be to subject
liquid water cooled to below the freezing point to an agitated or
moving magnetic field, and see if it is possible to super cool water
and keep it in liquid form by this manner. If it is possible to
prevent water from becoming ice this way, I wonder just how cold you
could make the water? Further, if this experiment were successful, I
wonder what practical use it might have? Could frozen water pipes
become a thing of the past? Does someone want to patent a process and
share the royalties with me ?
In my next post to you, Prof. Abian, I will suggest new units of
measure in your honor, as well as demonstrate how an expanding sphere
of space may account for the transmission of all the basic forces
known to physics, as well as define all of the varied "particles" that
have proliferated over the years. In other words, Prof. Abian, The
Childress Hypothesis -"Space expands"- provides a single framework
within which disparate concepts of astrophysics may find a common
ground. Until then, my dear sir, "Non carborundum illegitimii"...
Yours faithfully,
-Pete
----------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
In earlier posts I discussed expanding space as if it were expanding
through phases of point/line/plane/volume, and I assigned relational
values to the volume view-point of Time/Space, Magnetism/Electricity,
and Mass/Energy. I deliberately chose this course because it is easy
to understand, and served as an introduction to the nature of an
expanding *space/time continuum*.
Let me now approach it from a different direction. Let us this time
assume that space expands from a point into 3 or more dimensions,
without passing through a phase shift. That is, a point in space
expands into a volume of space. Since a point is dimensionless,
and there are an infinite number of points in any given measurement
of dimension, the expansion phase is both short lived and the volume
is small.
In fact, the period of expansion from point to dimension is so short,
that it would be safe to assign that period of time as the *shortest*
period of time that is possible.
In your honor, Prof. Abian, I am going to call this tiniest possible
slice of time a "T-Abian". As a mathematician, perhaps, -once we
figure out just how tiny this time-slice is- you can calculate how
many t-abians constitute a nano-second.
Similarly, since the threshold volume of an expanding point -that is,
the threshold where an expanding point is no longer considered a
point, but a volume- is so microcosmically small, we will consider
this the smallest possible measurement of volume, and call it a
"V-Abian". The diameter of this tiny volume, of course, would be a
"D-Abian", its radius we would then call an "R-Abian", and its
circumference a "C-Abian".
We should keep in mind, though, that the volume size is uncertain,
for it is moving, that is, expanding, so depending on where you
measure the volume -where it starts, or where it ceases to be- the
abian units will differ. Therefore, we should subcategorize abian
units with a "+" or "-" to indicate largest and smallest possible
values.
For all we know, Prof. Abian, perhaps this e-unit continues to expand
forever as a ripple in the space/time continuum, or perhaps its "wave"
effect is cancelled out by adjacent expanding points... Or, perhaps
colliding "wave fronts" of expanding space constitute the mechanisms
of energy transference... Which of these possibilities do you think
is the more likely scenario? Since this is just a hypothesis, and not
a theory that must be proved, it's plenty flexible and we can adjust
it any direction that makes sense.
At any rate, since we have already suggested that both photons and
electrons can be no larger than the medium of which they are a part,
that is, the "e-units" we discussed before, then we can say that an
electron is one v-abian in size, and one d-abian in length, and that
the time it takes for one electron or one photon to traverse its own
diameter can be reasonably assumed to be one t-abian.
From these measurements, we can then deduce the rate of expansion of
the *space/time fabric* and factor that measurement into observations
of receding galaxies in order to get a better idea of the true age of
the universe.
There are some who would argue that although an electron may have
energy and mass, it does not have a dimension, for it is only a point
in real terms. I would argue, then, that a point is a mathematical
concept, and I doubt that mathematical concepts, alone, will make the
phosphors of my video terminal glow, unless they can somehow burst
into a dimensional world -in which case they take on the character-
istics of dimension, whether as line, plane or volume, or as an object
or energy field. It therefore follows that an electron has dimension
in the physical world, and that its size and period can be measured
in terms of the appropriate abians.
That aside, let us continue with our assumption that a point expands
directly into 3 dimensional reality. Here, we should also assume that
its shape is generally a sphere, -we can call it an "e-unit"- and that
it is expanding equally in all directions -in *empty* space, that is.
We'll discuss the other possibilites when we take up the nature of
matter as seen from the perspective of The Childress Hypothesis, for
if the space/time continuum is expanding, then matter as well as empty
space is expanding, and it is here that we will consider the nature of
matter itself, and the gravity that is associated with matter.
As you know, a single sphere will fit snugly inside of 12 more
spheres, resulting in 12 points of contact. If we see each of these
"contact" points as poles traversing the center of the sphere, then
we can picture 6 axes. Each axis corresponds to the "line" metaphor
we used earlier in our conversation, and each axis will have one
other axis bisecting it at a 90 degree angle. Since each axis is only
30 degrees of arc away from its adjoining neighbors, it stands to
reason that every third neighbor will be 90 degrees away, so we will
come up some three sets of angles bisected 90 degrees by other axes.
Picture, if you will, one set corresponding to electromagnetic
energy, one set to another pairing of forces, and the third set to
yet a different pairing of forces. Therefore, this expanding point
that becomes a sphere of space, can transmit any of six different
forces, whatever they may be, depending on the direction of its spin.
Here, I want to say, if it was not made clear earlier, that none of
this is to be taken literally, but as a perspective or viewpoint.
The space/time continuum may not have any properties of its own, yet
the universe may appear to operate as if it does. In other words, The
Childress Hypothesis should be considered a model, not the thing in
and of itself.
If the spin of the e-unit is in one direction, an electromagnetic
wave (photon) is transmitted; if the spin is 90 degrees away, then an
electric charge (electron) is transmitted. Likewise, other perceived
basic particles or energies are transmitted if the spin is in a
different direction.
There seem to be so many different particles in physics today, there
could even be the possibility that a given particle could be trans-
mitted at an angle of say, 37 degrees relative to a basic particle,
in which case it may share certain qualities of two or more particles
associated with any given set or sets.
This view of particle nature allows for an almost unlimited number of
particles within a single, coherent world view. But, is it "true"? The
simple answer is, damned if I know. Or, maybe.
At any rate, Prof. Abian, my next post to you will consider The
Childress Hypothesis and the nature of gravity and matter, with
suggestions for experiments to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
Until then, keep asking "Why?".
With all my best,
-Pete
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: These are just my notes for the next post.
There are at least 3 axes:
Time/Space
Magnetism/Electicity
Mass/Energy
If you move along the time axis, space is changed.
If you move along the space axis, time is changed.
If you move along the magnetic axis, electricity is changed.
If you move along the electric axis, magnetism is changed.
If you move along the mass axis, energy is changed.
If you move along the energy axis, mass is changed.
Magnetism can be converted into electricity, and vice versa.
Mass can be converted into energy, and vice versa.
Space can be converted into time, and vice versa.
To whatever degree Mass is related to Space, Energy is related to
Time. Etc.....
Magnetism can be converted into electricity and still retain a
magnetic field.
Mass can be converted into energy and still retain a gravity field.
Space can be converted into time and still retain a spacial
field...(?)
Or Time can be converted into Space and still retain a temporal
field...(?)
Read about him here:
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~suh/abian/abian-homepage.html
He died several years ago, but during his lifetime he published 254 research papers and three books, and even had a mathematical theorem named after him. But he was also sort of a nutcake (in the eyes of sci.physics/astro posters) and was shouted down over and over by the other posters, with people begging other people not to answer his posts. I mean, he came up with ideas like blowing up the moon to prevent crime and altering Venus' orbit to rid the wold of desease -that sort of thing.
Read it here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Abian&Submit3=Search
At any rate, I decided I was going to play the part of a troll and suck some of these egoistic "scientists" into flaming me, and then when the troll had run it's course, announce it as a troll along with my intention of publishing the entire episode as an online book. Figured I could get some fun out of that.
I never got around to doing it because I got too busy with my IT work, but I did start composing the "Letters to Prof. Abian" I was going to post one at a time. I figured about 15 or 20 of them and the scientists' responses to them would generate all I needed for the "book", but I only got around to writing 6 of them completely, and the 7th is just comprised of notes to myself on the content of the next "letter". In any case, here they are together for the first time. You might find some interesting ideas in them.
-Pete
----------------------------------------------------
My Dear Prof. Abian-
I have followed your posts and the responses to your posts with avid
interest, as they reveal not so much the secrets of the universe but
the psychology of the scientists who respond to your posts and the
ideas they contain.
I watched first with amusement and then horrid fascination as what
seemed like well-reasoned responses and counter-responses deteriorated
into lurid, childish displays of tantrum and name-calling. Some of your
respondents have gone so far as to beg other people not to respond to
your posts in the hopes that without the encouragement of a response,
you would lose interest in participating in the Net and just go away.
It appeared to me, at least, to be desperate acts of men nearly driven
over the edge of sanity, reverting in frustration to a childhood demand
that their nightmares begone and not return...
And in some ways, you are, indeed, a nightmare to a logical man, and
to a scientist above all. But it is perhaps our nightmares that awaken
us, that make us pursue our good dreams with added vigor, and that goad
us into answering the *Why?* of things instead of just the *How?*, even
though pursuing the *How?* of things can fill one's life to overflowing
with intellectual satisfaction, also.
But I must take exception to many scientists' glib assertion that the
study of Science is only interested in the How, and the Why belongs to
Theology, for often what we *believe* is the foundation upon which we
practice the methods we use to reach an understanding of a phenomenon.
Scientists and researchers in the distant past of human civilization
were not ignorant fools. They were brilliant men, who created entire
new fields of study and methods to study them out of whole cloth. Men
like Pythagorus, who gave us the sciences of geometry, and music, yet
developed these wondrous ideas as a by-product of his pursuit of what?
Of Numerology!
I wonder how Pythagorus, the numerologist, or Coepernicus, Kepler and
Galileo, the astrologers, would be accepted by the scientific
community today? No doubt flamed on the Net... Can you imagine
messages posted all over the internet begging people not to talk to
Pythagorus, and ridiculing Galileo? I'm sorry to think, all too easily!
Mind you, Prof.Abian, I am not saying that you are the Coepernicus of
the 20th Century. I *am* saying that people should pursue their varied
interests, and if what you say holds no interest for them, then use the
Kill File...that's what it's for. The Internet is an open community of
ideas. Some ideas are trash, some are brilliant. But ideas are what
have created our civilization, and I say the more the better, for after
having winnowed the wheat from the chaff, our society and civilization
will be the richer for it!
I tried to call you at home the other day.You were not home, and the
telephone was answered by your answering machine. I heard classical
music in the background, and an elderly, refined gentleman with an
Eastern European, probably Baltic, accent. And I pictured you as a well
respected professor of the old school, with many years tenure, having
taught mathematics to possibly thousands of blockheaded, know-it-all
students over the years, some of which may yet contribute to our
overall standard of civilization due to the effort you extended to
teach them.
I could see you at home, sitting in a brocaded chair, tapping away on
a keyboard to put your message on the net. And I thought to myself:
Here is a man who was teaching math before the first electronic
calculator was invented, but willingly entered the modern world,
rather than having been dragged in kicking and screaming, and is
seeking comfort even in ideas of the future, instead of reading old
books before slipping off to sleep with a glass of brandy at night.
I could also visualize you, one evening while you were contemplating
whatever it is you contemplate late at night, having a revelation of
some sort; of having *seen* an answer to a long standing question. As
with so many revelations, however, as the moment passed you had no way
to explain what it was that was *revealed* to you. I've had many a
great notion myself, only to realize that they were orphaned, with no
anchor or direction, and I had no way to steer my way back to them in
order to explore them.
But, I believe that you found a way: if you could not fully explain
your visions yourself, you could share the results of your revelations
with other minds on the internet, in the hopes that someone could
pick up where you were lost, and explain them in an acceptable way.
Unfortunately, you ran into a wall of ridicule and childish anger,
instead of the interest you hoped would manifest.
Nonetheless, you have persisted, and I want to say that I admire your
courage in persisting in the face of the flamers, for it takes courage
to put your message out and recieve insult in return. I don't know for
sure, Prof. Abian, whether your theories will ever hold water or not.
But, in the interest of finding out, I would like to engage you in a
dialogue about them. I propose a public discussion based on the
assumption that they *are* right, to be held with good grace, humor
and respect. If your theories have any merit, perhaps that will come
to light. If not, we may finally lay them to rest. No matter what the
outcome, I believe that all of us will benefit. If you are willing to
engage in discourse with me, I will await your reply here.
With my warm regards,
-Pete Childress
------------------
Prof. Abian-
Let us assume, for the moment, that you are correct in your
surmise that space strives to remain magnetically neutral, and
that an object in motion does, indeed, encounter friction. Our
task at this point, then, would be to create a scenario of the
universe that would support that assumption.
Towards these ends, let us discuss a scenario that I will call
(with tongue firmly in cheek) The Childress Hypothesis. The
Childress Hypothesis begins with the assumption that the universe
is what it is, and if we don't completely understand what it is,
then the problem is not with our science or our mathematics, but
with our world view to which we apply our sciences and mathematics.
An example would be the new paradigm introduced by Kepler, which
superseded the Ptolemaic world view.
Ptolemy was indeed a genius for his times, and created algorithms
for an ephemeris that was reasonably accurate despite his assumption
that the earth was the center of the universe, and all planets and
stars revolved around the earth. It was a reasonable assumption for
his time, and supported by empirical observation: anyone could look
up at the sky and see the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets
revolving around the earth. There were some inaccuracies over time,
of course, when a planet would go retrograde and appear to reverse
its course in the sky. To solve this problem, Ptolemy improved his
algorithm to include epicycles, or cycles within his cycles. This
improved the accuracy of predicting planetary movements, but over time
observation showed more inaccuracies, perturbations in the epicycles.
The solution was to introduce more epicycles, and then epicycles
within epicycles, which helped things some, but did not solve the
fundamental problem. Before long, intelligent observers realized that
somewhere down the corridors of time, a completely accurate ephemeris
of planetary movements would eventually have an infinite number of
epicycles piled on top of the regular planetary cycles.
Kepler's solution was incredibly simple, if radical: All he did was
change the perspective from an earth-centered universe to a solar-
centered universe, and came up with a simple mathematical formula
that accurately predicted planetary movements well into the future.
Let us assume that we, in our present stage of scientific discovery,
are analogous to Ptolemy's time, and that we are in desperate need
of a Kepler among us to change our world view. After all, every time
we think we have things simplified, an anomaly appears; it sometimes
seems that all we have to do in order to discover a new subatomic
particle is to imagine the particle, and lo! someone finds it. Is
this *epicyclic* thinking? You tell me.
So, my dear Professor, it has fallen upon our humble shoulders to
modestly fulfill the world's need for a modern Kepler. I trust that
upon receipt of the Nobel Prize for the Abian Theory of the Nature
of the Universe, you will mention The Childress Hypothesis in passing
so that I may bask in the reflected glory that your ideas are ordained
to attain.
The Childress Hypothesis is simple:
(1) Space is expanding.
That's all. Space is expanding. But the implications contained within
this simple concept are world-shaking, and may also prove your own
statements to be factual, and true, as we shall see when we continue
our conversation at a later time.
At this point, however, we will take time out for intelligent
commentary and contributions by others who may be following this
thread of conversation.
With warm regards,
-Pete
----------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
We last ended our search for proof of your assertions that space
*must* maintain magnetic neutrality and that an object in motion
will encounter friction, with the single statement of The Childress
Hypothesis:
(1) Space is expanding.
However, before I expand that statement (pun not intended), we should
make reference to a First Cause, or the beginning of the universe. If
the universe did, indeed, begin with a Bang, and I have no argument
with that theory, should we not give a passing nod to the question of
just what it was that went Bang? If one accepts the premise that the
physical universe began with a Big Bang, then one must accept the
implication that before the Bang, whatever existed, if anything, was
non-physical. It follows, therefore, that the source of the physical
universe in which we find ourselves contemplating the nature of
existance, is the non-physical, for there was no physical universe
before its creation. Ancillary to this assumption, is that the
space/time continuum was also created by the Big Bang, for space
itself has measurable properties. As further discourse along these
lines will lead into a discussion of Theology, we will abandon it
here, but I mention it at this point because it will be referenced
later as The Childress Hypothesis unfolds.
It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding. But what do
we really mean? The explanation given to school children is that the
universe exploded into being billions of years ago, and that it is
still expanding, much like a balloon expands when you blow it up.
That is, the boundary of the balloon's skin is analogous to the edge
of the physical universe, and that if stars and galaxies were dots of
ink on, and inside, the balloon, you could see that they *must* be
growing further apart. And, of course, modern observation bears this
out: the universe is expanding, and stars and galaxies, in the
general scheme of things, are indeed growing further apart.
But, there is a hidden assumption here that the only thing expanding
is the distance between the stars and galaxies. What we seem to be
missing is that obviously *space* itself is expanding. That is, what
we call the very *fabric of space/time* is expanding, but at what
consequence?
Here, Prof. Abian, is where your assertion that objects in motion
will encounter friction may begin to find its proof, as will an
explanation for both the limitation and the constant speed of light.
Additionally, we will suggest the possibility that not all of the
background radiation attributed to the Big Bang is fossil radiation,
but newly radiated as a by-product of the expansion of space itself.
As an added bonus, we will also find a possible solution to the
apparent paradox recently uncovered by observations through the
Hubble telescope, that some regions of space appear to be younger
than some stars. We will find that this phenomenon is not a paradox
after all, but consistant with a new world view that will allow
science and mathematics to explore the nature of our universe and
discover that it is far more marvelous and wondrous than anything we
have yet imagined.
If we were to look at the space/time fabric as consisting of an
infinite number of points in space, we would do well to ask ourselves
what happens when space expands? One can envision several things: a
given point expands beyond a point, into 1, 2 or 3-dimensionality;
a new point pops into being, appearing spontaneously, created "on the
fly"; or a combination of the two, whereby an expanding point, in
order to conserve its "pointedness", so to speak, will at the point
of its attaining dimensionality, "snap back" and sub-divide itself
into two or more new points.
By "expansion into physical dimensionality", I mean to say that a
point, which had no dimension, may become a line, which does have a
dimension. I suspect that, in reality, an expanding point touches
upon many dimensions, or frames of reference, including our familiar
3-dimensional reality, before dividing itself back into two or more
points. To simplify the concept, if you stretch a point beyond the
boundries of "pointedness" it is no longer a point, but a dimension.
Now, let's examine these possibilities and the subsequent results to
see where they might lead.
If one were to stretch a point in one direction, it would become a
line for a instant in time before breaking into two or more points.
However, at that instant, the line would have *two* additional
qualities not shared by the point: a front end, and a back end. The
point, in other words, at the instant it became a line, would achieve
polarity. Since there is no free lunch in physics, it would be safe
to assume that the energy that went into stretching the point into a
line would manifest itself in some manner or other, most probably
converting itself into a different form of energy.
This energy could be static, in the form of a potential, or it could
be dynamic, in the form of a charge. If it were static, perhaps it
would manifest itself as a potential magnetic field, with the front
end having a negative potential, and the back end having a positive
potential. That is, a north and a south pole. For this one instant of
being a line, before it divided itself into points, it would seek a
state of equilibrium, or stability, among all of the other points
that were expanding or dividing in its immediate vicinity. However,
while in its unstable state, it would be wiggling its little magnetic
poles in all directions before coming into a state of equilibrium,
no matter how brief, before it divided into points again and
continued the cycle of expansion and multiplication.
Now, as you know, wiggling a magnetic field produces electro-magnetic
waves, or radiation. The radiation thus produced would, of neccessity
(because the "line" would be in the order of the smallest physical
dimension possible), have the shortest possible wave form and the
highest possible frequency. In fact, it might very much resemble the
background radiation thought to have been left over from the Big Bang.
If this is the case, then the recent Hubble observations can account
for both "new" space and "old" stars, without contradiction, for the
expansion of space itself is also the ongoing creation of space, and
the creation of space results in microwave radiation.
But, there's more: could these short-lived lines also be the means of
electro-magnetic wave propagation? Picture (simplistically), if you
will, points turning into lines everywhere around you (and in you,
but that's an expansion of the subject we will take up later, dealing
with the nature of matter itself). Although you may have an infinite
number of dimensionless points between Point A and Point B, there
will be a *finite* number of lines between Point A and Point B, for
a line has dimension. Each of these lines has a magnetic north and a
magnetic south, and are seeking equilibrium before snapping apart to
become two more magnetically neutral non-dimensional points.
If you wiggle a magnetic something at Point A, the equilibrium of the
lines will be disrupted, and they will start reversing their polarity
in sequence, each in reaction to the other, as they attempt to regain
equilibrium. That is, they "flip" over one at a time, like a line of
falling dominoes. In this manner, the original energy of the moving
magnetic field at Point A is transfered in all directions as a moving
wave front of electromagnetic energy, but in discreet units, one
little line at a time. The collective period of time for one line to
flip another line, and thus propagate an electromagnetic wave gives
rise to what we call the speed of light. It can't go any faster or
slower (in a vacuum, and unaffected by a gravity field) because one
line flips at a time, so there is a time lag no matter how imper-
ceptible, and for this reason, the speed of light is constant.
And because the energy is "digitized", or sent on it's way in packets
whose size is determined by length of the line that "flips" to pass on
its energy to another line, we recognize this energy as fundamentally
propagating as "quanta", or packets of energy.
As you may have noted, my dear Prof. Abian, the concepts contained
in the previous ramblings have, if proven correct, substantiated your
claim that space wants to remain magnetically neutral. In addition,
the "space" in such a scenario would obviously result in an exchange
of energy with any object passing through it, and thus your assertion
of "friction" affecting a moving object may be possibly substantiated,
as well.
We will next explore what happens in 2 and 3 dimensional space as it
expands, the nature of gravity and its relationship with the expanding
universe, and see if we can find any reason that time may have inertia.
In future sessions, with your approval, we will discuss how expanding
space relates to, and indeed, may actually be essential to, magnetic
fields surrounding objects, and proofs that may be found from simple
and inexpensive experiments to determine whether this part of The
Childress Hypothesis is correct. In an educational aside, we will
also discuss why ice may be seen as magnetized water, and other
interesting notions. All in all, the Abian Theory on the Nature of
the Universe may turn out to be very interesting, indeed!
But first, we should pause for additional comment.
-Pete
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Dear Prof. Abian-
When last I posted to you, I promised to explore expanding 2 and 3
dimensional space, and to see if there could be found a relationship
that would affirm your assertion that time has inertia.
Supposing that the *space/time fabric* itself of the universe is
expanding, and I am to first to admit that it just a notion, and not
a claim, then that expansion will not be from merely a point into a
line, as in the examples I used before, but also as a plane of 2
dimensions *and* a volume of 3 dimensions...or perhaps even more.
The expanding *space/time fabric* in fact, is analagous to a boiling
cauldron; a froth occuring at every concievable point in space, as
the very continuum of space itself boils into existance. When seen in
this way, the universe may very well have been born in a Big Bang,
but it has continued as a steady state creation of space, fed by the
initial energy of the Bang.
Or, rather, the Big Bang is still happening, and the turbulence of
this "explosion" is the expansion of the universe. Furthermore, as
I discussed before, it is this turbulence that is detected as the
background radiation attributed to the Big Bang, and that is respon-
sible for the limitation and constant speed of light, and for the
phenomenon of magnetic fields (which will be discussed in my next
post to you).
In yet another post, I will explain how the expansion of the universe
is responsible for gravity; or rather, how gravity is actually a man-
ifestation of the inertial acceleration inherent in the expansion of
physical space.
Now then, as *space* expands from a dimensionless point into a 3
(or more) dimensional volume, it may or may not pass through 1,2 and
3 dimensional stages. That is, it may not first become a line, then a
plane, before it bursts forth into three dimensions. But then, again,
perhaps it does. That is for mathematicians and physicists to
determine. Our discussion here will assume that it does, for even if
it doesn't, that will not invalidate our conceptual argument.
So, as the *space/time fabric* expands from a dimensionless point
it (may or may not) pass into planar, or 2-dimensional existance. At
this point, it would have 4 new properties, as compared to the 2
properties of linear dimensions. If 2 of the properties from the
linear dimension, i.e., magnetic polarities, were carried over to the
planar dimension, we might expect to find that the other two new
properties, in a relationship of right angles to magnetism, would
also be polar in nature, but this time as electrical potential rather
than magnetic potential.
If this were the case, then we could expect to find that magnetism
and electricity have a relationship defined, in some way, by a 90
degree angle to each other. And we do, in real life, as electricity
generates a magnetic field at right angles to the direction of the
flow, and moving a magnetic field in the vicinity of a conductor
results, again, in the flow of electrons along the conductor at a 90
degree angle to the magnetic field.
But here, again, we have to ask "what is it, exactly, that is flowing
along the conductor?", and again, the answer appears to be -at least
according to The Childress Hypothesis- expanding space. Let me
explain this further: If expanding space, from one set of dimensions,
results in a magnetic polarity, then with the addition of another
dimension of expanding space, you will have electric polarity, and
just as a point of space expanding into a line will result in a
brief, unstable magnetic domain seeking equilibrium, a line of space
expanding into a plane will result in both a brief, unstable magnetic
domain seeking equilibrium, *and*, at an angle of 90 degrees, a brief
electrical potential seeking to remain balanced, or neutral.
The *electric* implication here
does not exist as an actual particle, but as an exchange of energy
potential; that is, the electric domain (one polarity) "flips" to
pass on a quanta of energy much in the same way a magnetic domain
"flips" to pass on a quanta of energy. The further implication, if
this perspective is correct, is that the source of the energy is
identical, only the manifestation is different. One is percieved
as a traveling electrical wave, or an *electron*, while the other
is percieved as a traveling magnetic wave, or a *photon*, and
neither can travel faster or slower than the speed of light, for in
each case the *medium* is, literally, the *message*!
It is the energy of the the Big Bang itself, the literal expansion
of the universe that is the source of both magnetic and electrical
energy. It tickles me to no end to imagine that it took a universe
exploding into being to allow me to nuke my cold coffee in a micro-
wave oven... Surely, if there is an intelligent mind behind the
creation of the worlds, it has one dandy sense of humor!
But now we consider space expanding into 3 or more dimensions, and
our discourse takes a more esoteric turn. A point expanding into a
line is rather simple; the only dimension a line can have is either
zero or 180 degrees. None other is possible, because a finite line
has only a front end and a back end; it can extend forward or
backward, but not to any other angle. A plane, in theory can extend
in just about any angle along the plane, but in terms of magnetic and
electrical phenomenon, we see it as extending only in two directions:
at an angle of 90 degrees.
A 3 dimensional space, on the other hand, can take shape in just about
any form from a sphere to a decadehedron (more...), and angles can
extend from the center to just about any point, and from any point to
any other point. It all depends on where you want to start, and what
frame of reference you prefer. If we use the "90 degree choice", then
our sphere/cube/other_shape will have essentially 3 - 90 degree angles
intersecting in the middle. If we assign one set to magnetism, and the
other to electricity, to what will we assign the third?
Let's call it a "time domain", just to get everyone upset. The
polarity of a time domain would be, obviously, a future and a past,
and the result of flipping a time domain would be the "now", or the
flow of time, much as flipping a magnetic domain results in the flow
of magnetism, and an electrical domain the flow of electricity. And,
again, just as with electricity and magnetism, the flow of time would
be steady. That is, the flow of time is a constant just as is the
speed of light and magnetism. And, to be sure, the source of time is
the same as the source of magnetism and electricity: expanding space.
This does not mean that time cannot be *percieved* as relative, for
after all it has a direct mathematical relationship with the speed of
electromagnetic propagation. But, in the same way light, which has a
constant speed, can be *percieved* as "slowing down" or "speeding up"
in terms of red shift, so too does time have it's own "red shift",
though not in the electromagnetic spectrum. The "red shift"
equivalent for time occurs in a spectrum of gravity. And with this
outrageous statement, we will again pause for contributing comment.
When we again return to our conversation, Prof. Abian, we will
discuss the notion that the expansion of the universe, the source of
all energy manifestations of which we are aware, is percieved by us
as gravity. That is, the expansion of the universe, the inertial
acceleration of the *space/time fabric*, is, itself, gravity. And it
will be here where we will explore your assertions that time has
inertia, and is fed by matter in order to move forward. We will, in
fact, discover that, according to The Childress Hypothesis, Time,
Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Matter and Energy are equivalent;
that is, they are different manifestations of the same energy, and
the source of that energy is the expansion of space itself!
With my warm regards,
-Pete
--------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
I promised, a couple of posts ago, to explain how expanding space is
essential to the magnetic fields surrounding objects such as magnets.
Indeed, the expanding *space/time fabric* is not only essential to a
magnetic field, it *is* the field itself! Let me explain further:
Essentially, expanding space, for an instant in time, has the property
of polarity. That is, it has a north pole and a south pole. The points
of expanding space both within and (more importantly, from our point of
view), without the magnet, having polarity, seek to align themselves
with the magnetic domains within the magnetized material in an attempt
to gain equilibrium. It is this constant alignment of the newly
emerging "lines" that give us "lines of magnetic influence" that act
on other objects across seeming empty space.
In other words, magnetic lines of force do not actually emanate from
a magnetized object, but are the concentrated, or focussed, magnetic
alignment of expanding space. Magnetic forces, by themselves, contrary
to what we believe, do *not* act over large distances, but are confined
to the extremely short distance between one adjacent expanding point
and another. That is, this "e-unit", or expanding point, exerts its
force only upon an adjacent e-unit, which in turn exerts its force upon
another adjacent e-unit, which in turn exerts its force upon yet another
e-unit, and so forth.
As each magnetic domain seeks to align itself with the next, some
energy is dissipated in random motion, as it seeks a state of
equilibrium. Because of this dissipation of energy, the magnetic field
does not continue out to infinity, but decreases by the square of the
distance, and thus is a magnetic field limited to the vicinity of the
magnetic object.
But how can we prove this? It should be simple. If a magnetized object
is moving through space, and its lines of force are integral to the
object, then the magnetic field should stay perfectly aligned with the
object. On the other hand, however, if expanding space is the actual
magnetic field, then a magnetic object moving at high speeds through
the space that is expanding will leave a "trail" of magnetism in its
wake. That is, the object and the magnetic field that surrounds it will
not be perfectly aligned, but offset to some degree. That means that
planets, too, will leave a magnetic vortex behind them; that their
magnetic field will extend further behind them than in front of them.
This also implies that magnetic fields and magnetism itself cease to
exist at the speed of light, except for a slight magnetic turbulence
in its wake.
A second experiment could be implemented using super-cooled
superconductors in the presence of a stable magnetic field. If the
superconductor and magnet are in a perfectly relative stable position
with each other, that is, neither one are moving, then one would think
that no electricity would flow along the conductor. However, if there
is an electric current flowing in the conductor, even if the conductor
and the magnet are not in relative motion, then *something* is in
motion, and that something could be expanding space erupting both in
and around both conductor and magnet.
A practical use, if this experiment holds true, would be to take a
thin filament of room temperature superconductor (when/if developed)
and configure it around a permanent magnet to create an inexhaustable
source of electric current -a permanent "battery", as it were. (Would
someone include my name on the patent, please? I need the money, too.)
A third experiment would show, if this scenario is correct, that a
stable magnetic field is not at rest, but in a state of constant
fluctuation, however slight, and this could be due to the constant
emergence of new space seeking magnetic equilibrium.
I also promised, as an interesting aside, to show how ice can be
thought of as magnetized water. Water is an amazing substance, to
say the least. There are some 18 (?) different molecular config-
urations of water, with H2O being the most common. A simple molecule
of H2O consists of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one atom of oxygen.
The Hydrogen atoms have an overall negative charge, while the Oxygen
atom has an overall positive charge.
When the atoms of Hydrogen bond to the atom of Oxygen, they tend to
do so at an angle of about 105 degrees relative to each other, which
essentially gives the H2O molecule polarity -makes it a little magnet
that would like to align with each other and the predominate magnetic
field. As the temperature of water drops, and Brownian motion slows
down, these molecules tend to align themselves with each other and
the predominate magnetic field. The freezing point occurs when
Brownian motion is slow enough that the molecules snap into alignment
with one another, and crystalize. This is also why adding sodium or
other chemicals to water may lower the freezing point: the resulting
compounds disturb the magnetic alignment of the water molecules, and
extend the Brownian motion, keeping the water in liquid state.
Because pure water molecules are aligned magnetically, by the way,
the resulting ice tends to fracture along the lines of magnetic
force, expanding in volume about 10%, and thus ice floats. Good
thing, too, or our oceans might well be eternal blocks of ice
extending to the ocean floor, otherwise.
At any rate, it is for this reason that ice may be seen as
"magnetized water". An interesting experiment would be to subject
liquid water cooled to below the freezing point to an agitated or
moving magnetic field, and see if it is possible to super cool water
and keep it in liquid form by this manner. If it is possible to
prevent water from becoming ice this way, I wonder just how cold you
could make the water? Further, if this experiment were successful, I
wonder what practical use it might have? Could frozen water pipes
become a thing of the past? Does someone want to patent a process and
share the royalties with me ?
In my next post to you, Prof. Abian, I will suggest new units of
measure in your honor, as well as demonstrate how an expanding sphere
of space may account for the transmission of all the basic forces
known to physics, as well as define all of the varied "particles" that
have proliferated over the years. In other words, Prof. Abian, The
Childress Hypothesis -"Space expands"- provides a single framework
within which disparate concepts of astrophysics may find a common
ground. Until then, my dear sir, "Non carborundum illegitimii"...
Yours faithfully,
-Pete
----------------------------------------
Prof. Abian-
In earlier posts I discussed expanding space as if it were expanding
through phases of point/line/plane/volume, and I assigned relational
values to the volume view-point of Time/Space, Magnetism/Electricity,
and Mass/Energy. I deliberately chose this course because it is easy
to understand, and served as an introduction to the nature of an
expanding *space/time continuum*.
Let me now approach it from a different direction. Let us this time
assume that space expands from a point into 3 or more dimensions,
without passing through a phase shift. That is, a point in space
expands into a volume of space. Since a point is dimensionless,
and there are an infinite number of points in any given measurement
of dimension, the expansion phase is both short lived and the volume
is small.
In fact, the period of expansion from point to dimension is so short,
that it would be safe to assign that period of time as the *shortest*
period of time that is possible.
In your honor, Prof. Abian, I am going to call this tiniest possible
slice of time a "T-Abian". As a mathematician, perhaps, -once we
figure out just how tiny this time-slice is- you can calculate how
many t-abians constitute a nano-second.
Similarly, since the threshold volume of an expanding point -that is,
the threshold where an expanding point is no longer considered a
point, but a volume- is so microcosmically small, we will consider
this the smallest possible measurement of volume, and call it a
"V-Abian". The diameter of this tiny volume, of course, would be a
"D-Abian", its radius we would then call an "R-Abian", and its
circumference a "C-Abian".
We should keep in mind, though, that the volume size is uncertain,
for it is moving, that is, expanding, so depending on where you
measure the volume -where it starts, or where it ceases to be- the
abian units will differ. Therefore, we should subcategorize abian
units with a "+" or "-" to indicate largest and smallest possible
values.
For all we know, Prof. Abian, perhaps this e-unit continues to expand
forever as a ripple in the space/time continuum, or perhaps its "wave"
effect is cancelled out by adjacent expanding points... Or, perhaps
colliding "wave fronts" of expanding space constitute the mechanisms
of energy transference... Which of these possibilities do you think
is the more likely scenario? Since this is just a hypothesis, and not
a theory that must be proved, it's plenty flexible and we can adjust
it any direction that makes sense.
At any rate, since we have already suggested that both photons and
electrons can be no larger than the medium of which they are a part,
that is, the "e-units" we discussed before, then we can say that an
electron is one v-abian in size, and one d-abian in length, and that
the time it takes for one electron or one photon to traverse its own
diameter can be reasonably assumed to be one t-abian.
From these measurements, we can then deduce the rate of expansion of
the *space/time fabric* and factor that measurement into observations
of receding galaxies in order to get a better idea of the true age of
the universe.
There are some who would argue that although an electron may have
energy and mass, it does not have a dimension, for it is only a point
in real terms. I would argue, then, that a point is a mathematical
concept, and I doubt that mathematical concepts, alone, will make the
phosphors of my video terminal glow, unless they can somehow burst
into a dimensional world -in which case they take on the character-
istics of dimension, whether as line, plane or volume, or as an object
or energy field. It therefore follows that an electron has dimension
in the physical world, and that its size and period can be measured
in terms of the appropriate abians.
That aside, let us continue with our assumption that a point expands
directly into 3 dimensional reality. Here, we should also assume that
its shape is generally a sphere, -we can call it an "e-unit"- and that
it is expanding equally in all directions -in *empty* space, that is.
We'll discuss the other possibilites when we take up the nature of
matter as seen from the perspective of The Childress Hypothesis, for
if the space/time continuum is expanding, then matter as well as empty
space is expanding, and it is here that we will consider the nature of
matter itself, and the gravity that is associated with matter.
As you know, a single sphere will fit snugly inside of 12 more
spheres, resulting in 12 points of contact. If we see each of these
"contact" points as poles traversing the center of the sphere, then
we can picture 6 axes. Each axis corresponds to the "line" metaphor
we used earlier in our conversation, and each axis will have one
other axis bisecting it at a 90 degree angle. Since each axis is only
30 degrees of arc away from its adjoining neighbors, it stands to
reason that every third neighbor will be 90 degrees away, so we will
come up some three sets of angles bisected 90 degrees by other axes.
Picture, if you will, one set corresponding to electromagnetic
energy, one set to another pairing of forces, and the third set to
yet a different pairing of forces. Therefore, this expanding point
that becomes a sphere of space, can transmit any of six different
forces, whatever they may be, depending on the direction of its spin.
Here, I want to say, if it was not made clear earlier, that none of
this is to be taken literally, but as a perspective or viewpoint.
The space/time continuum may not have any properties of its own, yet
the universe may appear to operate as if it does. In other words, The
Childress Hypothesis should be considered a model, not the thing in
and of itself.
If the spin of the e-unit is in one direction, an electromagnetic
wave (photon) is transmitted; if the spin is 90 degrees away, then an
electric charge (electron) is transmitted. Likewise, other perceived
basic particles or energies are transmitted if the spin is in a
different direction.
There seem to be so many different particles in physics today, there
could even be the possibility that a given particle could be trans-
mitted at an angle of say, 37 degrees relative to a basic particle,
in which case it may share certain qualities of two or more particles
associated with any given set or sets.
This view of particle nature allows for an almost unlimited number of
particles within a single, coherent world view. But, is it "true"? The
simple answer is, damned if I know. Or, maybe.
At any rate, Prof. Abian, my next post to you will consider The
Childress Hypothesis and the nature of gravity and matter, with
suggestions for experiments to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
Until then, keep asking "Why?".
With all my best,
-Pete
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: These are just my notes for the next post.
There are at least 3 axes:
Time/Space
Magnetism/Electicity
Mass/Energy
If you move along the time axis, space is changed.
If you move along the space axis, time is changed.
If you move along the magnetic axis, electricity is changed.
If you move along the electric axis, magnetism is changed.
If you move along the mass axis, energy is changed.
If you move along the energy axis, mass is changed.
Magnetism can be converted into electricity, and vice versa.
Mass can be converted into energy, and vice versa.
Space can be converted into time, and vice versa.
To whatever degree Mass is related to Space, Energy is related to
Time. Etc.....
Magnetism can be converted into electricity and still retain a
magnetic field.
Mass can be converted into energy and still retain a gravity field.
Space can be converted into time and still retain a spacial
field...(?)
Or Time can be converted into Space and still retain a temporal
field...(?)
posted by Uncle Petey | 12:56 PM
1 Comments:
Love to all.....
Post a Comment
<< Home