A New Look at Cosmology

1397399093612.cached

I have been looking at the electromagnetic field as vibrating space; electronic field as a rotating region within the electromagnetic field; and the nucleus as a collapsed region within the electronic field.

This is an atomic model provided by the Disturbance Theory. Now there seems to be a parallel to this model on a cosmic scale.

When we talk about dark energy, we might be looking at a vast electromagnetic field throughout the cosmic space.

When we talk about dark matter, we might be looking at rotating regions within this vast electromagnetic field of cosmic space.

And when we talk about black holes, we might be looking at collapsed regions within these vast rotating electronic  fields in cosmic space.

In short, it is quite possible that dark energy is vibrating space; dark matter is rotating space; and a black hole is collapsed space.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 2:26 PM

    What would cause such a high frequency disturbance before any matter has been formed? Energy required to generate mass shall be very large (E/c2)

    .

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM

    The Standard Model of fundamental particles is no less subjective than the Big Bang or the String theory.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 5:04 PM

    All mathematical models are subjective models.

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 5:05 PM

    Energy require to generate mass must come from another part of the universe. It seems to be a back and forth thing.

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 6:08 PM

    Mass seems to form out of condensation of energy, which seems to come from disintegration of mass elsewhere.

    Thus, mass disintegrates into energy that transmits itself through disturbance of space and then condenses elsewhere as mass. It seems to be some activity going back and forth.

    Energy required to generate mass shall be very large (E/c2). We need to consider how this energy generated from mass.

    Basically we need to determine the conditions under which mass disintegrates into energy, and the conditions under which energy condenses into mass.

    .

    • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM

      We may understand the mechanism by which mass is generated, by looking at the following example. An object moving at the speed of sound would cause extremely high frequency in front of it. This extremely high frequency may collapse into becoming a rigid sheet if air.

      Similar situation may arise with electromagnetic disturbance. Extremely high energy input into space may cause extremely high electromagnetic frequency, which may then collapse into a rigid region of space. This would essentially be mass.

      .

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2016 at 6:13 PM

    Currently science is looking at reality through the filter of mathematics. All mathematical models of reality are subjective models.

    The Standard Model of fundamental particles is no less subjective than the Big Bang model for the beginning of the universe, or the String theory.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 20, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    Actions and reactions do exist in an interminable array; though we do not know how the first action got started. Force is part and parcel of the understanding of action and reaction. We even feel it through our muscles. Thus, force is part of how we interpret reality.

    On the other hand, mathematics is simply a tool that helps us interpret reality. Mathematics cannot be substituted for reality, which, unfortunately, is happening more and more since early 20th century. Mathematics may be used in an attempt to understand the nature of the force, but force can be felt and observed without mathematics.

    Force is observed in the inertia of mass. This inertia is also there in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The higher is the frequency, the greater is this inertia. Inertia is the tendency of a phenomenon to maintain its status quo. Thus, it takes force, however slight, to make any change in status quo. It is change that informs us of an action or reaction.

    At the bottom of it all we have the concept of motion because a change appears as motion. Motion is made up of space and time. It is the disturbance of space that introduces time. This disturbance then appears as electromagnetism. Light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagating through space.

    We may, theoretically, consider space to be an open (like in open set) electromagnetic field of zero frequency, where no motion exists. It would take elemental force to bring about disturbance in space. This shows force to be a fundamental concept.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM

    Matter is created as an electromagnetic “shock wave” in space. That is what a nucleus of an atom is. It results from the collapse of very high frequency disturbance in space. Here space may be considered as a theoretical electromagnetic field of zero frequency.

    It is the disturbance of space, which appears as electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field consists of a whole spectrum of frequencies. As frequncy increases bending occurs in the electromagnetic field. At high enough frequency, rotating regions appear in the electromagnetic field. These may be called electronic fields. Electronic field is the region of electrons.

    As frequency increases in the electronic filed towards its center, the center collapses into a nucleus of mass. We now have an atom of matter. Thus, matter is created. Matter is also destroyed as the nucleus of an atom disintegrates into intense radiation.

    But there is a balance between this creation and destruction of matter. Destruction of matter at one place may result in creation of matter at some other place. It is like a back and forth, action and reaction kind of a balanced phenomenon.

    Underlying this balanced phenomenon is some cosmic influence that is yet to be investigated.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 5:01 AM

    In physics, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference.

    But the objective view of the laws of physics comes from using the whole universe as the frame of reference. When we use one part of the universe as a frame of reference to judge another part we get into subjectivity.

    The laws of physics should be defined from the universal frame of reference in the first place anyway.

    The only principle of relativity that seems to be valid is from the viewpoint of the whole universe.

    .

    • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 6:09 PM

      The only motionless frame of reference is the whole universe. Physically, this may be represented by an electromagnetic field of zero frequency. That is the space. Energy and matter comes from disturbance in space.

    • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 6:10 PM

      Just like there are principles of physics, there are principles of metaphysics too. You are more likely to find them in the eastern philosophy. One of these days I am going to isolate and present them here. But Physics and Metaphysics are not absolute and independent of each other. Physics and Metaphysics are very much consistent with each other and so are their principles.

    • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM

      Natural consciousness is of and as a universe. Humans are a subset of universe. Human consciousness is a subset of universal consciousness. Humans look at consciousness from a human-centric viewpoint. It is the same viewpoint that made the Catholic Church insist for many hundreds of years that earth is the center of the universe. Human-centric viewpoint is a narrow viewpoint.

    • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM

      To me “consciousness without self” is simply not using the filter of self. Of course, it is inclusive of self like it is inclusive of anything else in this universe. It is not primal by any means. It is very up-to-date and expansive.

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 5:15 AM

    The only motionless frame of reference is the whole universe. Physically, this may be represented by an electromagnetic field of zero frequency. That is the space. Energy and matter comes from disturbance in space.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 9:23 AM

    When an object is moving at sonic speed in the air, its velocity relative to the velocity of sound disturbance in air is zero. Also the frequency ahead of the object is infinite and the wavelength is infinitesimal.

    A material object, like earth moving in space, has a velocity relative to light of zero, and its mass/energy is of infinite frequency that has infinitesimal wavelength. Could this object be moving at a speed of light then?

    This is possible only when the speed at the surface of spinning nucleus of matter is equal to the speed of light. This implies the following:

    (1) The electromagnetic wave bends as its frequency increases, so at higher frequencies it becomes a rotating electronic field, and at still higher frequencies it becomes a spinning nucleus.

    (2) The electromagnetic wave gains inertia as its frequency increases. This inertia starts to become appreciable in electrons, but it is really felt in nucleons.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 4:47 PM

    From Wikipedia (Aether theories):

    “Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, Albert Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that this early modern notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept. Einstein however stated that this consideration was too radical and too anticipate and that his relativity still needed the presence of a medium with certain properties.”

    Length contraction was postulated by Lorentz to satisfy a mechanical view of a motionless ether. Einstein generated the same mathematics without referring to ether at all. This was because Einstein hid those mechanical attributes inside his observer.

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 5:27 PM

    From Wikipedia (Aether Theories), Einstein said:

    “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

    Space has the physical properties of permittivity and permeability. Therefore, space is attributed with physical qualities in special relativity too. But confusion arose, because Einstein was using rigid measuring-rods to measure distances in space, and he couldn’t see space to be anything but rigid. So he didn’t look at space to be the aether itself as the Disturbance theory does.

  • vinaire  On January 21, 2016 at 7:02 PM

    Per Wikipedia (Aether Theories):

    “According to the philosophical point of view of Einstein, Dirac, Bell, Polyakov, ’t Hooft, Laughlin, de Broglie, Maxwell, Newton and other theorists, there might be a medium with physical properties filling ’empty’ space, an Aether, enabling the observed physical processes.”

    The medium of electromagnetic wave was found to be non-mechanical. That is the reason aether was rejected by special relativity. But special relativity looks at space as rigid (mechanical), therefore, space cannot replace aether as the medium, and that is where we stand.

    Mechanical space cannot carry “non-mechanical” medium, in which light could propagate as a wave. Therefore, Relativity looks at light as particles (photons) rather than wave. But at other places Relativity looks at light as wave. Thus, Relativity is self-contradictory, and so is quantum mechanics, with no adequate explanation for wave-particle duality. This is an unresolved matter.

  • vinaire  On January 22, 2016 at 7:44 PM

    An existing electric or magnetic field represents space in a stressed and strained condition.

    Electric field = Stress
    Magnetic field = Strain

    The relationship between electric and magnetic fields seems to be similar to the relationship between stress and strain. Electric field seems to stress the space, and the resulting strain appears as the magnetic field.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: