II. Positive Dark Energy as the Key to a Unified Field Theory

 

By Robert D. Wilson

September 23^rd, 1999

 

THE BASIC TENANTS OF EXPULSIONARY COSMOLOGY:

For the purpose of this paper, this new understanding of the Strong Force shall be designated S (for the Greek sunisthmi sun-istemi, “to stand together” or “consist”) to distinguish it from its predecessors “Dark Energy” (W_L) and “Quintessence” (W_Q).

 

1.    The Source of our universe (either Creator or Big Bang) is an active singularity and as such is still acting as a fountain to sustain its creation.  This Force (S) or Dark Energy (L) travels outward continuously from that Source (S) as a polarized (uni-directional) field that also can also act with the properties of particles and waves.

 

2.    This positive outward flow is the chief contributing cause for the expansion of the universe.

 

3.    Gravitational collapse of the universe is impossible while S is still active.

 

4.    The universe was initially "closed" (warped by mass density so that all straight lines leading away from S eventually return to S).  This "circuit" allowed S to fill the universe from all directions.

 

5.    As a Distributed Linear Force, S touches matter from all directions thereby producing both atomic and galactic balance.

 

6.    All matter is sustained by S and, as the Strong Force, as it locally promotes structure (contained energy in predictable motion, i.e., matter), stored energy, fields, and gravitational effects. 

 

7.    S is affected by matter that it affects.  The effect is cumulative and proportional to mass encountered.  Because of this S moving outward from S is stronger than inbound S. The effect of this diminishment is gravitational and its cause, in all likelihood, is temporal in nature.

 

8.    The Weak Force, Electromagnetism, and Gravity are not separate Forces, but rather expected results or byproducts of matter interacting with S.

 

9.    Time is a function of S. The “timeframe” or rate of local temporal experience is directly proportional to the density of a mass and the mass in its environment (resistive opaqueness) or is a product of the inertial speed of that mass through S.

 

THE REALLY STRONG FORCE

 

A Still Active Singularity?  This idea, though revolutionary, is not new.  In fact, no less a noted Cosmologist than the venerable Stephen Hawking has proposed adding one (or more) new active singularities into the cosmos to explain its behavior:

 

One can think of this open universe, as a bubble in a closed, de Sitter like universe. In this way, it is similar to the single bubble inflationary universes, that have been proposed by a number of authors. The difference is, the previous models all required carefully adjusted potentials, with false vacuum local minima. But the pea instanton, will work for any reasonable potential. The price one pays for a general potential, is a singularity at the south pole [emphasis mine]. In the analytically continued Lorentzian spacetime, this singularity would be time like, and naked. One might think that this naked singularity, would mean one couldn't evaluate the action of the instanton, or of perturbations about it. This would mean that one couldn't predict the quantum fluctuations, or what would happen in the universe. However, the singularity at the south pole, the stalk of the pea, is so mild, that the actions of the instanton, and of perturbations around it, are well defined. This means one can determine the relative probabilities of the instanton, and of perturbations around it. The action of the instanton itself, is negative, but the effect of perturbations around the instanton, is to increase the action, that is, to make the action less negative. 

[Stephen Hawking , “Inflation: An Open and Shut Case”, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/open.html]

 

It appears that what Professor Hawing is saying here, is that the expansion of the universe must be energized (actually “negatively energized”) from the far end by an active second singularity (or, as he says later in the same lecture, multiple singularities) with negative drawing power.  The first singularity was the Creation Event or Big Bang.  Maybe the second one should be called the “Silent Slurp”.  In making his conclusion, the noted cosmologist has allowed that a continually active, universe-altering singularity is still in existence today.  With that I whole-heartedly agree.  The difference between us is in the kind of VW Bug we’re driving.  His new one has the engine in the front.  My old Super Beetle has the engine safely in the rear where it first started out.  I have, by the way, in my virtual garage a hybrid model with an engine at both ends.  If the universe HAS opened and the continuity of S lines has been broken, then the Mother of all Black Holes is waiting to welcome us home at the end of a very fast downhill ride.

 

Let us add to this Michael Turner’s comments about a “multiverse”:

 

Cosmological theorists are pinning their hopes on a theory known as "Inflation + Cold Dark Matter." It holds that "our universe" was created in a burst of expansion powered by "false-vacuum" energy. This burst is referred to as inflation. Because of that explosive growth spurt, all that we can and will ever be able to see originated from the tiniest bit of the pre-inflationary landscape. This explains why the universe we observe is so uniform and predicts that it is spatially flat. This burst is our big bang event, and the demise of the false-vacuum energy that caused it is the origin of the heat of the big bang and ultimately all matter. If inflation occurred once, we can be sure that it has occurred an infinite number of times in the past and will continue to occur an infinite number of times in the future. Inflation sidesteps the issue of the "beginning," changes "the big bang" to countless big bangs, and leads to a universe that is actually a multiverse comprised of countless bubble universes. [Michael S. Turner, “Limits to our arrogance?”, http://adminet.uchicago.edu/millennium/m_turner/turner_a.cfm]

 

If “countless big bangs” have and are occurring, then why not a continuous Big Bang; that is, a still active singularity emanating from the original Source?  If such a singularity still existed the need for a second singularity with negative drawing power would be greatly minimized.  This Mind Experiment continues therefore with the foundational assumption of a still active Source.

 

But this new theory goes far beyond just assigning pressure inducing ability to that ancient First Cause. It finds within that Force the continuing Cause why matter still exists!  It suggests that the Strong Force is an external universal constant that not only keeps matter together, but also is the working mechanism that runs the universe.

 

How, if an active singularity is still exerting its continuos influence on the entire universe, does this concept fit in with the conservation of mass-energy?  The illustration of three dots on an inflating balloon has been used many times as an obviously limited picture of the expansion of the cosmos.  In this illustration the material of the balloon and the air causing its expansion can readily be separated.  Just because more air enters into the balloon, this does not mean that any more of the balloon exists.  On the contrary, the same amount of balloon is simply occupying more space.  So it is with the Dark Energy Force (S): its influence does not increase either energy or mass, it simply sustains them in their expansion.  The more I study, the more strongly I have been tempted to conclude that S itself functions (in the guise of a Hubble-like field) as the fabric on which space-time rests and is held together. (But more on that in the next two papers.)

 

If S and W_L are equivalent, then it can be assumed that the “Dark Energy” is not just a stationary field (i.e., “fluid” or “ether”) but a force (functioning as waves or particles) moving (Yes, “moving”!) in straight lines in all directions at once. Emanating continuously from the Source (S) of creation – the location most of you would call the historic center of the “Big Bang” – S moves freely around the “circumference” of the expanding bubble of a closed – or formerly closed – universe (and by its passage helps to feed that expansion).  Because S moves out from S in all directions it also returns to S from all directions, in the process linearly touching all matter from every possible angle.

 

In this case it must be obvious whether the chicken or the egg came first.  As maintainer and motivator of the universe, S would have had to be the first result of the Creation event or no matter could have existed.  It is the expanding container that not only binds mass-energy to its Source but also causes that matter to bind to itself. In this sense the heavens were created first and then filled with stars.  Warped and wrapped around the tiny expulsive singularity by its reality altering mass, infant S attempted even then to complete its circuit and return to its Source.  However, the force and speed of that initial expansion was so great that it stretched out even the returning S in a cosmic Doppler shift which left an outward imbalance in the infant closed loop of the Grand Circuit.  In a real sense S not only drove the cosmos outward, it also pulled the expanding universe with itself as it expanded.  Whether that Grand Circuit is still closed today remains to be seen.  One truth can be seen now: if matter is to exist in a structure state, it must be touched by S from all sides.  The exact nature of that internal interaction will be discussed in the following two papers.

 

Bahcall and associates demonstrate that it is possible to have a closed universe that is expanding and will not recollapse under certain circumstances:

 

As the universe stretches, the curvature is diminished…  The terms “closed”, “open,” and “flat” refer, by definition, to the cases of positive, negative, and zero curvature, respectively. It has been common to use the same terms to describe whether the universe will ultimately recollapse, expand forever, or lie on the border between expansion and recollapse. This second use does not necessarily apply if there is vacuum density or quintessence, a point which often causes confusion. For example, if there is vacuum energy, it is possible to have a universe that is closed (positive curvature) but expands forever because the acceleration due to the cosmological constant overcomes the curvature effect , which would otherwise bring the expansion to a halt and then recollapse.

[Neta A. Bahcall,  Jeremiah P. Ostriker,  Saul Perlmutter,  Paul J. Steinhardt, The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe

www.sciencemag.org  SCIENCE VOL 284  1482 (May 28, 1999)]

 

Thus the existence of “negative energy” is seen as a contributing factor in maintaining a closed but indefinitely expanding universe. In the case of this Thought Experiment, the “negative energy”(WL) pulling us outward is replaced with “positive energy” (S) pushing us outward from the Source.  A closed [or formerly closed] universe would allow the Grand Circuit to be completed [at least in the past] and provide for linear S that approaches all matter from all directions.

 

As S moves out from S in straight lines it also exerts a positive outward pressure in the process. The S approaching from the opposite direction (from around the back of the universal bubble) counters this pressure to create atomic equilibrium.  It should be noted that if S only affected matter from one side (toward S) then the mass of any object would be accelerated by the outward pressure to near the speed of light as there would be no counterbalance to that one-sided pressure. Any mass so expelled would also lose cohesive structure.  Because of this need for a balancing counter-pressure, a circular or closed universe has to exist or had to exist in the past in order for the observable stability of the universe to be accounted for.

 

 

GRAVITY

 

The reason why S must be moving in straight lines is revealed in a new understanding of the cosmologists’ old undefinable nemesis, Gravity.  One of the greatest benefits of this Thought Experiment is that it finally allows Gravity to be defined and its cause revealed.  Ron Cowen was quoted earlier describing the end result of Funny Energy:

 

The funny energy manifests itself as a negative pressure. If the universe contains a large enough component of funny energy, the net effect of gravity is to exert a repulsive, rather than an attractive, force [emphasis mine].  The expansion of the universe then accelerates rather than slows down.

[Ron Cowen, “The Greatest Story Ever Told: Is cosmology solved?”, in Science News Online. http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/12_19_98/Bob1.htm ]

 

Stephen Hawking recognizes that others have seen gravity as “repulsive”:

 

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between… galaxies.

[Stephen Hawking ,“The Beginning of Time”, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/BOT.html]

 

In so saying Professor Hawking and Mr. Cowen may have come much closer to the truth than they realized, that is, to a position much closer to “repulsive” [obviously not a word I would have chosen] or Expulsionary Cosmology.

 

The easiest way to get rid of the Gravity problem is to say that in Expulsionary Cosmology there is no such thing as Gravity (that is, in the Newtonian sense).  No, wait, before you laugh me off of the face of the planet to drift helplessly out into space, listen to my explanation.  There is no such thing as Gravity in the same way that there is no such thing as “cold” or “dark”.  Cold and dark are terms we use to define the absence of something else.  You can measure “heat” with a thermometer and so determine the temperature of an object or environment, but you cannot measure cold.  Cold is the absence of “heat”.  Dark cannot be measured.  Light can.  We have “light meters” to measure degrees of brightness.  There is no such way to measure degrees of dark.  A SHADOW is created wherever the passage of light is blocked.  That shadow defines a physical location where light is not present or is diminished.  The shadow has no substance even though it can be seen, measured in size, or even changed.  To change the shadow you cannot add more dark to it; you can, however increase or decrease the amount of light that is reaching the shadowed area by increasing the intensity of the light or by altering the position or size of the obstruction. To put it another way, Dark and Cold are non-quantitative results caused by the absence of measurable energy sources.

 

In the exact same way, in spite of all we have been taught, Gravity is also the absence of something.  Gravity is a “SHADOW”, the byproduct of an external, pervasive Strong Force (S) as it interacts with matter. [“Mass” is the measurement of the amount of that interaction and “Time” is the length of that interaction as viewed from an external source]. Gravity IS NOT an attractive force mysteriously emanating from matter that draws it toward other matter as Newton thought.  Instead, it is something much closer to Einstein’s concept as expressed from two different sources:

 

“In the language of Relativity, space is a tensor field and Gravity is explained as the kinetic energy imparted onto one mass by another mass distorting space.” 

[David Barlow, “Re: Source of Gravity”, posted in the MAD Scientist Network, Feb 10, 1997, Message ID: 854849737.Ph  http://128.252.223.112/posts/archives/mar97/854849737.Ph.r.html ]

 

Einstein presents gravitation as a property of space rather than a "force" acting upon bodies. According to this view space itself curves as a result of the presence of matter. [http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/chapter7.htm]

 

Yet, this definition also is extremely lacking; gravity might be the result of the presence of matter in space, but what CAUSES it?  What is the relationship between matter/mass and space-time that generates the effect we call gravity?  How is the “kinetic energy imparted”.  Under Expulsionary Cosmology (with an external Strong Force) this relationship can easily be explained.  The “WHY?” of gravity has an answer.

 

The Pressure of S.

This paper has already set forth the concept that S is affected by the matter that it affects.  That effect is quantitative, cumulative, and has discernable results.  That effect is a cause and effect weakening of S.  Metaphorically, the Strong Force gives of itself to create order in matter much like a man donating his own blood to save another’s life.  The greater the mass S interacts with, the more of its “lifeblood” it gives away.  In this way the lines of S moving (or having moved) out from the active singularity (S) are diminished by every tiny bit of matter they touch/energize along their “straight” line course through the Grand Circuit of the universe.  This weakening or shadowing effect creates an imbalance: a slightly weaker pressure is returned from the backside of the universal loop than is felt emanating from the side closer to S.  [Remember that this shadowed pressure is not just returning from one direction, but in a closed universe would return from all directions at once.] The pressure of the Strong Force in action thus becomes Cowen’s “repulsive” wind filling the sails of the galaxies and driving them outward through an imbalanced universe.  This differential directional pressure is the main contributor to the expansion of the universe.

 

The Well of Shadows

 

Note that the term “shadowing” is used as a convention for our understanding.  Non-dark matter is not opaque to S, instead, S passes through matter relatively unscathed by its sacrifices.  The effect of that slight lessening shall be called a shadow, for want of a better term.  The concept of “filtering” might also be applied as an apt analogy.  Again, the exact nature and cause of this shadowing will be taken up in detail in later papers.

 

Just as the shadowing of S affects the universe as a whole, so individualized local S shadows affect all matter that fall under their influence.  Suppose there are two objects (A and B) relatively close to each other in space. [For the sake of this simple illustration we will not consider the myriad of other external influences that can alter the relationship between two such objects, but will consider only their effect on each other.]  As S passes through both A and B in all directions an area of diminished force, that is a shadow-zone, is created around each.  [See illustration below.]  Since mass is the measure of the interaction between S and matter, and S is affected (directionally lessened) according to the amount of mass it affects, then the greater the mass of either object, the greater would be the negative density of the S shadow between them.  All S lines passing mutually between any point in both objects would cause a profound effect on both of those objects. Something similar to the imbalance that drives the expansion of the universe would be repeated there only on a much smaller scale.

 

Between A and B there would be a lessening of S due to the masses of each.  If A were on the left and B on the right, then all S passing through A in the direction of B would be diminished or filtered according to the mass of A.  Conversely, all S passing from right to left through B would be diminished when it reached A because of its interaction with the mass of object B.

 

 

From the perspective of A, the undiminished S Force (and thus pressure) approaching from the far side of B (from the right) would be greater than the S having moved from the left through both A and B to the exact same point. (The same could be said about B’s relationship to the far side of A from the opposite direction.)  The overall effect would be an outside pressure attempting to push the two objects together in a ratio directly proportional to the sum of their masses divided by the inverse square of their distance.  As any physics student knows these exact factors are the basis for Newton’s formula for measuring the effects of gravity between objects.  An external Strong Force having affected and having been affected by the mass it touches is seen as the cause of gravity.

 

The principal may be stated in simpler terms by using an illustration.  To make this illustration work you would need a large open field, a two-foot wide rubber ball, a six-inch wide ball, a couple of hundred stout wooden stakes five or six feet in length, and all the local firemen and fire engines you could find.  First, draw a series of concentric circles on the field, each with a radius one foot larger than the preceding circle.  Then drive all of the posts into the ground around those circles – but in such a way that each stake is one foot apart, four feet tall.  Also make sure that each stake is  positioned in the circle so that it does not occupy the same ray through the center of the circle as any other stake.  Now, surround your circles of stakes with the fire trucks (back at a reasonable distance) and have the firemen take their hoses (set on narrow beam spray) and aim them at the outer point of the wooden circle closest to where they are standing (i.e., directly toward the center).

 

If only one man turned on his hose, it is possible that in shooting at the circle, some of the water would get through and douse the man standing opposite him.  The effect of the blast however would obviously be diminished by whatever wooden stakes were in the way.  This is like the shadow effect of S passing through matter.  A certain amount of water would be “filtered out” due to the obstacles in the way.

 

Now, have all of the men and women turn on all of their hoses at once.  Into this maelstrom toss first the two-foot ball and then the six-inch one.  The results of this latest action would be obvious and rather instantaneous. Because it could not fit through the gap between the poles, the larger ball would become lodged by the water pressure on the “outer surface” of the circles.  Even though plenty of water would be pushing through the circles from “behind” the ball, the unshadowed hoses closest to the ball would win the pushing battle.  The smaller ball, unrestricted by the gaps between the poles, would eventually find a place of stability in the center of the circle.

Gravity, in a universe governed by S, would behave in exactly the same way.  Instead of Gravity being an attractive force between our individual masses and the mass of the planet beneath our feet, it is actually a force pushing us down to the planet from above.  The force of S coming through the earth beneath us is slightly weaker than the unshadowed Force pushing down on us from above.  The result?  As the old saying goes, “What goes up must come down.”

Our own personal perception of “weight” or mass is determined by the combined influence of all S waves hitting us from all directions. That individual mass remains constant whether we are on the earth, jumping on the moon, or floating weightless in space.  Our personal perspective of that mass is subject to change as we feel our different weights in each circumstance.  Nevertheless, the effects of our mass remain constant.  This means that we would find, even when weightless that inertial effects would remain the same.  (If you strongly pushed yourself off of one internal surface of a free-falling spaceship, your mass would keep you moving in a straight line.  If then, you floated into a bulkhead at ten miles an hour, your “hidden” mass would drive you with quite enough force to produce a large lump on an unprotected head.  More on how S sustains inertial movement later in this paper.

 

 

The Casimir Effect: The Proof for Negative Energy Densities

Stephen Hawking has spent much effort trying to explain the how’s and why’s of virtual quantum particles.  The only certain conclusion that can be drawn from his lecture is that nothing at all can be certain.  He brings up the Casimir Effect as a proof of the existence of virtual pairs:

 

Quantum Theory allows the energy density to be negative in some places, provided it is positive in others.

The reason Quantum Theory can allow the energy density to be negative, is that it is based on the Uncertainty Principle. This says that certain quantities, like the position and speed of a particle, can't both have well defined values. The more accurately the position of a particle is defined, the greater is the uncertainty in its speed, and vice versa. The uncertainty principle also applies to fields, like the electro-magnetic field, or the gravitational field. It implies that these fields can't be exactly zeroed, even in what we think of as empty space. For if they were exactly zero, their values would have both a well-defined position at zero, and a well-defined speed, which was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. Instead, the fields would have to have a certain minimum amount of fluctuations. One can interpret these so called vacuum fluctuations, as pairs of particles and anti particles, that suddenly appear together, move apart, and then come back together again, and annihilate each other.

These particle anti particle pairs, are said to be virtual, because one can not measure them directly with a particle detector. However, one can observe their effects indirectly. One way of doing this, is by what is called the Casimir effect. One has two parallel metal plates, a short distance apart. The plates act like mirrors for the virtual particles and anti particles. This means that the region between the plates, is a bit like an organ pipe, and will only admit light waves of certain resonant frequencies. The result is that there are slightly fewer vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, between the plates, than outside them, where vacuum fluctuations can have any wavelength. The reduction in the number of virtual particles between the plates means that they don't hit the plates so often, and thus don't exert as much pressure on the plates, as the virtual particles outside. There is thus a slight force pushing the plates together. This force has been measured experimentally. So virtual particles actually exist, and produce real effects.

Because there are fewer virtual particles, or vacuum fluctuations, between the plates, they have a lower energy density, than in the region outside. But the energy density of empty space far away from the plates, must be zero. Otherwise it would warp space-time, and the universe wouldn't be nearly flat. So the energy density in the region between the plates, must be negative.

[Stephen Hawking , “Space and Time Warps”, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/warp.html ]

 

Professor Hawking would have us teach our children that there is indeed a Santa Claus: the jolly old elf must exist simply because there is no other explanation to the fact that there are presents under Christmas trees with his name on them. The above logic has to be an example of scientific method at its best.  Some observable phenomena is found that acts abnormally when compared to our scientific world view, and, since we can’t explain it in terms of that world view, we are then free to invent an unprovable cause that must be true because we can see that the observable phenomena exists. The Professor offers the above proof of particle pairs with the calm assurance that there could be no other possible explanation for the phenomena.

 

“There is thus a slight force pushing the plates together. This force has been measured experimentally. So virtual particles actually exist, and produce real effects.”  Notice if you will that the plates are pushed together from the outside and that the force can be measured. Could it be, however, that the reason the plates are pushed together is because they shield each other slightly from the external Strong Force moving at them from all directions?  As S passes through the metal on the right, it is weakened (shadowed) by the structure-energy it imparts to each atom it touches. The same thing is true of S and the metal on the left. “So the energy density in the region between the plates, must be negative.”  Of course it would be, and if someone tried they would probably find that Newton’s Laws of Gravity accurately measured the amount of “attraction” that they had to each other. [NOTE: Discrepancies in Casimir Effect results, in all probability, arise from the fact that the amount of S passing through the test objects is directly dependant on their shapes.]

 

INERTIA

 

Inertia is the predictable result of matter/mass in motion through S.  If mass is the measurement of S‘s interaction with matter and if S is moving in all directions at the speed of light (or more accurately at the speed of S), then any change in the relative motion of an object (O) through S would have to affect its mass. S‘s overall effect not only provides internal structure and stability for matter but also external stability in space-time. In a real sense, S becomes the very fabric of space-time itself.  A single atom at rest in space [sic.] is not just “floating” but actively being held in that position by the external pressure of that interactive space-time fabric.  Physicists mimic this effect when they use magnetic force fields to trap otherwise elusive particles for observation.

 

Energy must be applied to accelerate O (that is, to change its relative location or speed).  This is necessitated because O is being held in position from all directions by S.  Inertia is then the effect of overcoming the stasis imposed on matter by S.  The greater the mass-density of O, the more energy will be required to accelerate it, simply because a denser or more opaque O is interacting with more S to maintain its internal structure,

 

This resistance to change is measurable, as Einstein foresaw, in an increase in the mass of the accelerating object. One online textbook describes this as:

 

…the special limiting character of the speed of light: the assertion that no particle can travel faster than the speed of light, since as it approaches this critical velocity, its mass approaches infinity, so that it becomes harder and harder to go faster…

 

How can a moving object increase its mass? Such a notion contradicts our everyday experience. A spinning top does not visibly gain in mass while revolving. In point of fact, it does, but the increase is so infinitesimal that it may be discounted for all practical purposes. The effects of special relativity cannot be observed on the level of everyday phenomena. However, under extreme conditions, for example, at very high speeds approaching the speed of light, relativistic effects begin to come into play.

 

Einstein predicted that the mass of a moving object would increase at very high speeds. This law can be ignored when dealing with normal speeds. Nevertheless, subatomic particles move at speeds of nearly 10,000 miles per second or more, and at such speeds as these relativistic effects appear. The discoveries of quantum mechanics demonstrated the correctness of the special theory of relativity, not only qualitatively, but quantitatively. An electron gains in mass as it moves at 9/10th the speed of light; moreover, the gain in mass is 3 1/6th times, precisely as Einstein’s theory predicted. Since then, special relativity has been tested many times, and so far it has always given correct results. Electrons emerge from a powerful particle accelerator about 40,000 times heavier than when they started, the extra mass representing energy of motion. [http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/chapter7.htm]

 

Mass increases only in the direction of acceleration.  This “pressure” is felt as S pushes against [resists] the accelerating object’s attempt to change its “static” position.  Mass increases proportionally to the amount of acceleration applied.  Since mass is the measurement of the amount of interaction between S and matter, then the faster O is accelerated through S the more interaction takes place.  Think of a boat at rest on a quiet lake; without getting into the principles of buoyancy and displacement, the boat is being held up by the water that surrounds it.  If an observer in the boat were to place his hand in that surrounding water he would get wet but feel very little pressure.  If, however, that boat were a hydroplane racing across the open waters of our lake, the results of the onboard observer putting his hand into the water would be much different.  The force of the boat rushing through the water would probably be strong enough to cause massive damage to the soft tissue of that hand. 

 

Though this illustration is limited because S is not a static (stationary) fluid but a force in motion, it does serve to show some similarities between out two situations.  The extra pressure on the structure of the speeding boat is focussed on the bow – the point of contact with the resistance of the water.  It can also be seen that the wake directly behind the boat would be the results of a negative pressure caused by the hydroplane’s passage.  As stated earlier, for accelerating object O, mass increases only in the direction of acceleration.  Mass is decreased proportionally in the opposite direction.  The overall effect to an observer on O would be that location had changed, but that mass had remained constant.  Only an observer outside of O would be able to observe that its mass had been affected by acceleration.

 

ELECTRO-MAGNETISM & THE WEAK FORCE

 

The relationship of the Electro-Weak Forces to S will be covered in detail in the next paper in this series, “Higgs: the Velcro Boson”.  Suffice it to say at this juncture that the movement involved in each of those Forces is a direct result of interaction with S.  It is the Strong Force that also pushes like-charged magnets and particles away from each other.  It is the same Force which empowers  opposite charges to draw together and it also launches quantum bosons at unstable nuclei to break them apart.  Let us return for now to our new understanding of Cosmology.

 

EXPULSIONARY COSMOLOGY

 

Under the principles of a S-governed universe, the question, “Is the universe closed, flat, or open?” takes on dramatic new implications and consequences.  Under the old model, the existence of a closed universe (where the cosmos warped around itself to form a completed circle or “bubble”) implied the possibility of eventual gravitational collapse.  A flat or open universe implied safety because the threat posed by the “self-attraction of matter” [Bahcal] had been overcome.

 

In the S universe, driven outward by positive pressure from its Source, the situation is exactly the opposite.  The closed cosmos is the “safe” one, for the pressure of the Strong Force is free to flow from the Source in all directions unhindered, to eventually complete its Grand Circuit. Because the “bubble” is unbroken S (Strong Force) equilibrium is maintained on all matter from all directions.  A flat or open universe, however, would be apocalyptic, for either scenario would imply a universe where the equilibrium of that Grand Circuit had been broken.

 

Why is the universe accelerating in its expansion?

There are at least five possible reasons. The truth may lie in one or even in a combination of all of these possibilities. 

1)      Balloon Stretching (Like a cosmic surfer, the galaxies are riding an expansion of space-time driven by S.)

2)      Bottom of the Bowl (We can see past S to galaxies moving away from S in the opposite direction.)

3)      Push and Pull (Massive amounts of Dark Matter lie at the far reaches of the universe creating a gigantic shadowing or filtering of the returning S.)

4)      Time (Time itself, speeds up in inter-galactic space, therefore causing space to expand.)

5)      Apocalypse or Burst Bubble  (The Universe has become Open or Flat so that the S lines have been broken and as a result all of Creation is being expelled at ever increasing speeds toward its destruction.)

 

Possibilities One and Two have either already been explained or are self-explanatory. Number four will be explained in the paper, “Time, Hubble, & Higgs”. Three and Five require further development.

 

Push and Pull - Matter at a Distance

In the case of the universe, the fact that the microwave background has such an exactly thermal spectrum indicates that it must have been scattered many times. The universe must therefore contain enough matter, to make it opaque in every direction we look, because the microwave background is the same, in every direction we look. Moreover, this opacity must occur a long way away from us, because we can see galaxies and quasars, at great distances. Thus there must be a lot of matter at a great distance from us.  [Stephen Hawking ,“The Beginning of Time”, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/BOT.html]

 

If, as Professor Hawking points out, there is a large amount of dark matter at the most distant reaches of the universe, the cumulative mass of this matter would act as a barrier or filter to the passage of S.  This in turn would affect the amount of inbound, returning S available to sustain matter at any given point (P) closer to the Source (S), diminishing it even further than would be accounted for by interaction with observable matter.  Although it would appear to anyone at point P that everything exited in a state of equilibrium, in actuality there would be a marked difference between the amount of S holding them together from one direction as compared to the other.  Because, the speed of S is relative—i.e., approaching any given body at 146,000 MPS no matter what that body’s speed through it—therefore it would be highly unlikely that an observer at point P would be able to quantitatively measure that local differentiation.  The only true observations from P would be in comparative relationships to the speed of distant objects.  The closer matter approached to the “gravity shield” caused by the dark matter, the faster it would be sucked into its shadow.

 

Apocalypse or Burst Bubble

Many cosmologists have postulated that we no longer live in a closed universe.  It may, they say, have been closed (spherical) in the past, but their observations as to the expanding nature of the cosmos have led them to believe that this is no longer the case.  In coming to this conclusion, these scientists have breathed a collective sigh of relief, for an open expanding universe, in their thinking, is a “safe” universe that is no longer under the threat of a reversal of the “Big Bang.”  The Big Crunch won’t occur.

 

In a system of Physics where gravity remains illusively undefined and matter holds itself together by some mysterious internal force, this optimism might be warranted; however, in a S–driven system, the possibility of an open universe is cause for the greatest alarm. The predicted catastrophic results of this worse case scenario find a strange reciprocating support in the ancient apocalyptic writings of the prophets when they share with us their visions of the end of the world.  The heavens are to burn up with a great heat that dissolves even the elements themselves and the stars are to flee across the heavens like a scroll being suddenly rolled up.

 

If the universe I have described in this paper is now open, then an ever-increasing amount of S support will be vanishing in the direction of that opening.  In effect, the far end of the universe has become—for lack of a better term—a gigantic, expanding black hole.  Why a black hole?  A black hole results when trauma (and external S) forces matter to lose structure and collapse in upon itself.  When this occurs, the collapsed matter becomes super dense and virtually opaque to the external Strong Force.  In other words, S is blocked from supporting and sustaining matter in the direction of the black hole. The resulting gravity shadow allows external S to forcibly drive any matter within its reach in the direction of the anomaly.  [If you are walking down the road and encounter an open manhole, the pressure of the ground that was formally supporting you disappears and is no longer capable of sustaining your weight—you fall into the hole!]

 

In an open universe, the bubble of support would have burst and all matter will fall outward toward that ever-expanding opening.  The level of inbound support will gradually decrease as a growing number of lines of circular S force no longer reach us from that direction.  The observable result for now would be an accelerated expansion of the universe.  The eventual result would be a dispersed entropic sea of matter that is without form and void.

 

 

 

PROOFS:

 

1.      The Casimir effect.  Pressure from the outside is a proven fact.

 

2.      Non-quantitative and subjective. The same proofs that prove your theories also prove mine.  Mine removes the fudge factors of mysterious negative energies and virtual particles.

 

3.      Accepting S does not demand the creation of new formulae to define our universe.  It does finally show why those existing rules work.  Of these, the law of the Inverse Square is one of the most startling in the revelation of its simplistic cause.  Why does the inverse square of the distance play such a universal role in the forces of the universe?  It does because those forces are being carried and affected by S.  Basically, the inverse square is the rate of dissipation of S ‘s shadow effect.  The further you move one object away from another, the more unaffected S is able to pass around either object to touch the other with strength not diminished by contact.  The cone of shadow loses more and more focus as the distance increases.  Because we are dealing with S approaching from ALL directions the increase is exponential instead of simply linear.

 

4.      Parsimony – or Occam’s Razor
If a simpler way of looking at a confusing puzzle exists, then it is probably the right way.  Our current system of physics is filled with “fudge factors” and “quantum ghosts” that are made up on the spot to solve questionable results.  Ban the hypocrisy and dare to actually believe that the scientific method really works without being aided by our little tweaks to reality.  A universal perspective that uses less and solves more cannot be easily dismissed.

 

The simplest definition of Occam's Razor is "Don't make unnecessarily complicated assumptions". It can be used as a philosophical way of sorting the simple theories from the complicated ones. When scientists select theories, they don't just use the criterion of agreement or disagreement with observations. They also have aesthetic principles, and a desire for an elegant, universal theory. They use these aesthetic principles to remove the cloud of trivially competing theories that necessarily surround every theory. Occam's razor is a working rule of thumb, not the ultimate answer.

[http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/O/occams_razor.html]

 

William of Ockham, also called William Ockham (Ockham also spelled " Occam") (1285-1347/49), was a medieval monk… (a scholastic)

Ockham's razor, also spelled "Occam's razor", but also called "law of economy" or "law of parsimony", is a principle stated by William of Ockham, that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). This principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durand de Saint-Pourcain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity. Galileo did something similar by defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens, and other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles. It is called "Ockham's razor" because he mentioned the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply.
[William (of) Ockham/Occam and Ockham's Razor

http://www2.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vdmeulen/deeper/OBIG/spoilers.html]

 

5.      Source of Thought Experiment
I tell you unashamedly that the original concept that prompted this Thought Experiment was none other than the Holy Scriptures of the Book we call the Bible.  I know that to some, this resource has no authority, yet throughout the history of mankind, the words in that Book have had a profound effect on the lives of all men and women who would bother to accept them at face value.  Accepting them at face value is all that I have done and in so doing I have found that those Scriptures make certain scientific (yes, “Scientific”) assumptions and call for certain physical conditions to exist in order for the universe to behave in the way that it is therein described.  I will narrow that long list down to three principles that are germane to this discussion.

 

a) A Universe Held Together from Without

ta panta en autv sunesthken (“the all things in Him consist [are compacted or stand together]”) Colossians 1:17

 

ferwn te ta panta tw rhmati ths dunamews autou (“upholding [bearing or carrying] the all things by the word of His power,”) Hebrews 1:3

 

b) The Universal Principal of Decay (Entropy):

“For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity [emptiness as to results or purpose], not willingly, but by reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope, because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [decay] into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.” Romans 8:18-22

 

c) The Description of the end of the Universe: “Old like a garment” (full of holes?), “Rolled up as a scroll”

“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Hebrew 1:10-12

 

“And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together” Revelations 6:14

 

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”  2 Peter 3:10-12

 

6.      Can a greater pressure be measured from one side of the earth (closest to S)?  Attempt should be made, though this might not work because of the relativistic nature of S.

 

7.      Leaning weight: This experiment, if conducted with accurate enough equipment, should prove that gravity does not always attract to the center of an object’s mass, as Newton has stated.  Take a long, thin metal rod (strong enough not to bend) and weigh it’s hanging weight from the top when it is resting vertically on a solid surface. (Without contradiction it should be 0.)  If the rod is lowered 90° (so that the base of the rod is resting on a solid point but the remainder of the rod is suspended horizontally from the scale attached to its “upper-most” point) then the weight of the rod should be shared equally by both the solid base and the hanging scale.  The scale should indicate that it is bearing half of the rod’s weight.

On those two points (and only those points) should a graph of weight transference by angle agree with the Newtonian prediction [that the percentage of weight transferred times two, should exactly match the percentage of the angle at which it is measured].  I do not believe that this will be the case.  Rather, the amount of transferred weight should vary from the straight line of the Newtonian prediction in accordance with the cumulative density of the earth lying along the projected downward axis of the metal rod. 

 

QUOTES TO PONDER FROM THE FATHER OF SCIENCE:

 

“I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind… For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”

[Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/bacon.html#16]

 

The poet… saith yet excellently well: It is a pleasure, to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea; a pleasure, to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle, and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene), and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below: so always that this prospect be with pity, and not with swelling, or pride. Certainly, it is heaven upon earth, to have a man's mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.

[Sir Francis Bacon, Of Truth, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/bacon.html#16]